You asked us to update certain tables and charts presented in the Program Review and Investigation (PRI) Committee's 2003 staff report regarding Department of Correction (DOC) staffing levels. Carrie Vibert, PRI's staff director discussed these tables and charts at the October 1, 2008 Prison Population and Correctional Officer Safety Taskforce meeting.

SUMMARY

At the prison safety task force meeting of October 1, 2008, Carrie Vibert, PRI's staff director, presented information from a 2003 PRI report on DOC staffing levels. The report was the result of a study the PRI staff conducted beginning in June 2003. The study's objective was to determine if DOC custodial staffing levels were sufficient for the safe and efficient management of the state's prison population.

The first graphic Ms. Vibert presented showed the number of inmates at each DOC facility during March of 2003. A comparison of this data with population data from March 5, 2008 shows that the total prison population grew by a little over 7% from 18,384 in March 2003 to 19,684 on March 5, 2008. Twelve of DOC's 18 facilities showed a population increase and six showed a decrease. The biggest increases occurred at McDougal-Walker, which experienced nearly a 41% increase and at Carl Robinson which showed a 21% increase.

The second graphic was a table showing each facility's type of housing (dormitory or cell or both), population density, inmate status (sentenced or unsentenced), and security level. PRI defined a facility's population density as the number of inmates compared to the number of permanent beds that facility had. If the facility had one permanent bed for each inmate, PRI concluded it was at 100% capacity and had a density of 100. If it had 90 inmates and 100 permanent beds, the facility would be at 90% capacity and would have a density of 90.

Using this formula, PRI found that six facilities were over capacity and 12 were under capacity in March 2003. We updated this table to March 2008 and found that eight facilities were over capacity, nine were under, and one was at capacity.

The third graphic Ms. Vibert presented showed the inmate to staff ratio for each facility in March of 2003. The update of this chart showed that by March 2008, the inmate to custody staff ratio increased from 4.71 to 4.8. It also showed that this ratio increased in 10 facilities and declined in eight.

The final graphic was a chart showing the number of disciplinary reports, inmate on staff assaults, and inmate on inmate assaults per 1,000 inmates from 1994 to 2002. Because of the great disparity between the number of disciplinary reports each year and the number of assaults we determined that showing this data on one chart is not the best way to present it. We decided instead to update this data on two separate graphics and to include projected data for all of calendar 2008 based on data for the first eight months of 2008.

The first updated graphic shows the number of disciplinary reports for each 1,000 inmates has declined from the 2002 level but the rate has generally been the same from 2005 through 2008.

The second updated graphic shows that the number of assaults on staff for each 1,000 inmates has fluctuated since 2002 from a low in 2006 to a high in 2007. It also shows that the number of inmate on inmate assaults for each 1,000 inmates declined from 2002 through 2005 and flattened out since then but at levels below the levels reported in 2002, 2003, and 2004.

INMATE POPULATION

The first graphic from the 2003 report Ms. Vibert presented to the task force was Table II-1, which presented inmate population at each of DOC's 18 facilities as of March 2003. The numbers included sentenced and unsentenced individuals. Excluding the 500 inmates being housed in Virginia, the total inmate population in March 2003 was 18,384.

TABLE II-1 INMATE POPULATION BY FACILITY

(From 2003 Program Review Staff Report)

We updated this data to March 5, 2008. The following table compares prison populations for March 2003 with March 2008. The total population is listed at the bottom of the table.

Update of Table II-1 Inmate Population by Facility

March 2003 vs. March 5, 2008

This comparison shows that the total population increased by a little over 7% from 18,384 to 19,684 between March 2003 and March 5, 2008. Twelve of the facilities showed a population increase; six showed a population decrease.

The biggest increase was at McDougal-Walker which had nearly a 41% increase. Robinson was next at a 21% increase. Gates was next at 16.5%, and then Hartford with a 14% increase.

FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS AND DENSITY

The second graphic Ms. Vibert presented to the task force was Table II-2 of the 2003 PRI report. It showed each facility's type of housing, density as of March 2003, inmate status, and security status.

DOC designates the security level of each facility. It uses five security classifications:

Level 5 - maximum security,

Level 4 - high security,

Level 3 - medium security,

Level 2 - minimum security, and

Level 1 - eligible for community release.

Table II-2 CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE'S PRISONS AND JAILS (from the 2003 Program Review Report)

PRI staff calculated a facility's density by dividing the average daily number of inmates reported for March 2003 by the number of permanent beds reported for the same point in time. Using this measure, PRI staff reported that six facilities were overcapacity and 12 were under capacity in March 2003.

The following table updates Table II-2 to March 5, 2008.

Updated Table II-2 Characteristics of the State's Prisons March 2003 and March 2008

Using the same standard PRI used to determine a facility's population density we found that in March 2008, eight facilities were over capacity, nine were under capacity, and one was at capacity.

The eight facilities that were over capacity on March 5, 2008 were:

1. Bergin,

2. Brooklyn,

3. Corrigan-Radgowski,

4. Enfield,

5. Gates,

6. Hartford,

7. New Haven, and

8. Willard- Cybuslski.

The other 10 facilities were under capacity.

INMATE TO CUSTODY STAFF RATIO

The next graphic from PRI's 2003 report dealt with the inmate to staff ratio in each correctional facility in March 2003. PRI labeled this as Figure III-4. This chart shows that the ratio of inmates to guards varied from a high of nearly eight to one in Willard to a low of two to one at Northern.

Figure III-4 Inmate to Staff Ratio

(From the Program Review Report of 2003)

Al Calandro of the Office of Fiscal Analysis prepared an updated graphic that compares the inmate to custody staff ratio presented in PRI's 2003 staff report with the inmate to staff ratio in March 2008.

Updated Figure III-4 Inmate to Staff Ration in 2003 and 2008

The red bars (second one of each two bar pair) represent the ratio of inmates to custody staff in each facility in March 2003; the purple bars (first one of each two bar pair) represent the ratio of inmates to staff in each facility in March 2008.

This comparison shows that for the system as a whole, the ratio of inmate to staff increased from 4.71 inmates for each custody staff member in March 2003 to 4.8 in March 2008.

It also showed that the ratio of inmates to custody staff increased for the following 10 facilities:

1. Northern 1.97 to 2.1,

2. Hartford 4.1 to 4.3,

3. Bridgeport 3.92 to 4.3,

4. Cheshire 4.31 to 4.6,

5. McDougal-Walker 3.6 to 4.9,

6. Enfield 4.98 to 5.2,

7. Carl Robinson 5.73 to 6.0,

8. Gates 4.96 to 6.1,

9. Osborn 5.63 to 6.5, and

10. Bergin 6.45 to 7.2

The ratio decreased in the following 8 facilities:

1. Garner 3.71 to 3,

2. Manson 4.02 to 3.2,

3. New Haven 4.1 to 3.8,

4. York 4.19 to 3.9,

5. Corrigan / Radgowski 4.91 to 4.9,

6. Webster 7.43 to 6.6,

7. Brooklyn 7.21 to 6.7, and

8. Willard /Cybulski 7.9 to 7.6

MISCONDUCT PER 1,000 INMATES

Figure III-8 was the fourth graphic from PRI's 2003 report Ms. Vibert spoke about. It shows the number of disciplinary reports, inmate assaults on staff, and inmate assaults on other inmates from 1994 to 2002.

FIGURE III-8 LEVELS OF INMATE MISCONDUCT

(From 2003 Program Review Report)

Because of the great disparity between the number of disciplinary reports each year and the number of assaults we determined that showing this data on one chart is not the best way to present it. We decided instead to update this data on two separate graphics and to include projected data for all of calendar 2008 based on data for the first eight months of 2008. (We multiplied the average number per month for the first eight months by twelve.)

The first updated graphic (PRI Fig. III-8 Update A) shows the number of disciplinary reports for each 1,000 inmates has declined from the 2002 level but the rate has generally been the same from 2005 through 2008.

The second updated graphic shows that the number of assaults on staff for each 1,000 inmates has fluctuated since 2002 from a low in 2006 to a high in 2007. It also shows that the number of inmate on inmate assaults for each 1,000 inmates declined from 2002 through 2005 and flattened out since then but at levels below the levels reported in 2002, 2003, and 2004. (PRI Fig. III-8 Update B). The PRI staff prepared these two updates.

Updated Inmate Assaults on Staff, Other Inmates, and Disciplinary Reports through Calendar 2008

(Projected Based on Eight Months of Data)

GC:ts