Corrections Reporting and Documentation

The purpose of Order 613 is to establish how JSO corrections personnel document inmate activity, movement, incidents, discipline, confinement, and other events inside the Department of Corrections.

Much of this information is entered into the Jail Management System. Other information is recorded through Incident Reports, disciplinary reports, daily post logs, security-cell inspection forms, confinement reports, management-meal worksheets, and other forms.

The policy begins by requiring entries to be factual, brief, accurate, and properly completed.

Afterwards, it establishes what must be documented.

Incident Reports normally must be completed before the end of the officer's watch. Reports involving the same incident use the same CCR number so that the different records can be connected later.

The policy also requires documentation of ordinary jail activity.

This includes inmate movement, recreation, meal service, medication pass, religious services, housing changes, lockdowns, confinement, self-harm monitoring, injuries, restraint-chair use, ADA accommodations, interpreter services, cancelled programs, clothing or bedding deprivation, hunger strikes, disciplinary charges, and other events.

Supervisors are then responsible for reviewing many of these records and ensuring that missing or incorrect information is corrected.

Several outside standards are useful when reviewing this system.

The United Nations Nelson Mandela Rules require prisons and jails to maintain standardized prisoner records, protect those records against unauthorized alteration, and document matters such as discipline, injuries, complaints, and other important events. The rules also state that prisoner-record systems should be capable of producing reliable information that can be used to identify trends and support evidence-based decisions.

The Florida Model Jail Standards contain many similar documentation requirements. They require records concerning unusual incidents, confinement, supervision, recreation, medical matters, security checks, and other jail operations.

Therefore, the purpose of the records created under Order 613 is not limited to documenting one event.

The same records can also be used later to determine whether a larger pattern exists.

One of the strongest portions of Order 613 is the amount of information JSO requires employees to document.

Incident Reports normally must be completed before the end of the officer's watch.

When several reports involve the same event, the same CCR number is used.

For example, an Incident Report and a Response to Resistance Report related to the same event can be connected through that number.

This makes it easier to determine which records belong together.

The policy also requires specific information inside the Incident Report.

The report includes who discovered the incident, when it was discovered, the nature of the emergency, who responded, when rescue was called, the inmates and witnesses involved, and a chronological description of what occurred.

The policy then creates records for many events that may not otherwise result in a traditional Incident Report.

For example, cancelled recreation must be documented.

The entry must identify the affected area, the person who authorized the cancellation, the reason for the cancellation, and any attempt to reschedule the recreation.

Housing changes also require a specific reason.

The policy specifically states that entries such as “inner move,” “per sergeant or lieutenant,” or “move away from other inmate” do not contain enough information.

Because of this, the record is supposed to explain why the move actually occurred.

The same type of documentation exists for several other conditions inside the jail.

Officers record medication pass, meal service, sanitation, inmate movement, confinement, ADA accommodations, interpreter use, injuries, self-harm events, hunger strikes, clothing or bedding deprivation, management meals, and other activities.

This is useful because these records can later show whether an inmate actually received a service or whether the service was cancelled.

Supervisor review is another strength.

Area supervisors must review the location-note entries made during their shift.

They are responsible for identifying errors or omissions and ensuring they are corrected.

The supervisor must then make another entry documenting that the review occurred.

Supervisors also personally interact with inmates in confinement and document the time of the interaction, the inmate's condition, and the inmate's attitude.

The Florida Model Jail Standards contain similar requirements for confinement supervision and documentation.

The disciplinary-reporting process also contains several useful safeguards.

The officer writing the disciplinary report must identify the rules allegedly violated and provide a statement explaining what happened.

Afterwards, a supervisor reviews whether the facts contained in the report support the charges.

Another officer then conducts the investigation.

The investigating officer cannot have been involved in the incident or named in the disciplinary report.

The investigation must include the inmate's version of the event, attempts to verify the facts, witness information, camera information when applicable, and an explanation when a witness was not contacted.

At the disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer must identify the evidence relied upon and explain why requested witnesses or evidence were not allowed.

The Florida Model Jail Standards contain similar requirements concerning disciplinary investigations and hearings.

This does not remove the problems found in Order 639 regarding broad disciplinary rules.

However, Order 613 does provide more structure for determining whether the facts actually support a disciplinary charge.

The procedures for correcting some records are also useful.

White-out cannot be used on paper records. Instead, the original information remains visible and the correction is written beside it.

Inmate Notes are permanent.

When an officer discovers an error in an Inmate Note, the original entry is not simply removed. The officer must create another entry identifying the error and explaining the reason for the correction.

Finally, the policy contains several requirements involving inmates who may be medically vulnerable.

Self-harm checks are documented. Restraint-chair placement and checks are documented. Injuries and medical emergencies are documented. Hunger strikes are documented. Health Services personnel are notified in several situations.

Federal jail-reform agreements have also required documented suicide observations and regular monitoring of people at risk of self-harm.

The first weakness involves changes to electronic records.

Order 613 explains how errors in paper records should be corrected.

It also explains what happens when an officer makes an incorrect Inmate Note.

The officer creates another entry rather than deleting the original.

However, the policy does not clearly establish the same rule for every type of JMS entry.

The JMS contains housing assignments, disciplinary reports, confinement records, activity records, location notes, scheduling information, and other information.

Order 613 does not clearly state whether every change to those records preserves the original value, records who made the change, records when the change occurred, and explains why the information was changed.

The JMS software may already maintain this information.

If it does, the policy should explain that the audit history must be preserved.

If it does not, a record could be changed without the same visible correction process required for paper documents and Inmate Notes.

Another weakness involves subjective descriptions in permanent inmate records.

Order 613 begins by requiring entries to be factual and accurate.

Later, the policy allows supervisors to describe an inmate's condition or attitude using terms such as “angry,” “agitated,” “paranoid,” “confused,” and “out of touch with reality.”

The policy also requires officers to document when an inmate is “hostile” or “uncooperative.”

Some of these terms describe something the officer observed.

Others can depend heavily on the officer's interpretation.

Terms such as “paranoid” and “out of touch with reality” can also resemble a mental-health conclusion even when the person making the entry is not a mental-health professional.

This matters because the entries are permanent.

Another officer may read the entry before interacting with the inmate later.

Therefore, the way one officer describes the inmate may affect how another officer interprets the inmate's future behavior.

A more factual record would describe what the inmate actually said or did.

The health-care professional could then make the clinical assessment when one is necessary.

The reporting of restraint safety chairs creates another problem.

When a restraint safety chair is used during an incident involving a Response to Resistance, Order 613 requires an Incident Report and an RTR Report.

When JSO determines that the restraint-chair incident did not involve an RTR, only the Incident Report is required.

Because of this, the use of the restraint chair does not automatically place the incident into JSO's Response to Resistance reporting system.

This is important because the chair is still a substantial physical restraint.

Our review of Order 553 also found that international guidance treats restraint chairs as a particularly concerning method of restraint.

Therefore, someone reviewing only JSO's Response to Resistance data may not see every restraint-chair use.

The event is still documented.

The problem is that the records are separated into different reporting categories.

A similar problem occurs with confinement.

Order 613 records when an inmate is placed into confinement, why the placement occurred, applicable restrictions, supervisor observations, recreation, movement, and other information.

However, this information appears in several different records.

The Electronic Report of Confinement contains some information.

Location Notes contain other information.

Inmate Notes contain additional events.

Security-cell inspection records and activity logs contain still more information.

Because of this, determining the entire confinement history of one inmate may require several records.

The policy does not clearly require JSO to combine this information into a dataset showing how long each person remained in confinement, why the confinement occurred, what restrictions applied, how often the placement was reviewed, what services were received, and when the confinement ended.

The largest weakness involves what happens after the records are created.

Order 613 requires JSO employees to document a very large number of events.

It does not generally require JSO to compare those records afterwards.

For example, the policy does not require an annual review showing how often restraint chairs were used.

It does not require a comparison of confinement placements between housing units.

It does not require JSO to determine whether one unit cancels recreation more frequently than another.

It does not require a comparison of management meals, clothing or bedding deprivation, extended holding-cell stays, or disciplinary charges by unit, shift, supervisor, or employee.

The Nelson Mandela Rules specifically state that prisoner-record systems should be used to generate reliable information that can identify trends.

Federal PREA standards provide a more specific example.

PREA requires facilities to collect standardized information about sexual-abuse allegations. Afterwards, the agency reviews the information, identifies problem areas, takes corrective action, compares the information with previous years, and publishes an annual report.

Order 613 creates enough records to perform a similar analysis for several important jail conditions.

The policy does not require that analysis.

Finally, Order 613 does not require aggregate public reporting from the information it collects.

Some of the underlying records may be available through public-records requests.

That is different from requiring JSO to regularly publish the information in a form that can be compared over time.

For example, a person could request hundreds of confinement records and calculate confinement durations individually.

JSO already has the electronic records necessary to perform much of that calculation itself.

The first change could be to establish one correction rule for every electronic record.

When information in the JMS is changed, the system could preserve the original information, the corrected information, the employee who made the change, the date and time of the change, and the reason for the correction.

If the JMS already does this automatically, Order 613 could state that the audit history must be preserved and cannot be altered by ordinary users.

This would make the electronic records more similar to the correction process already required for paper documents and Inmate Notes.

The policy could also require more objective language in permanent inmate records.

Instead of writing that an inmate is “paranoid,” the officer could document the statements or behavior that caused concern.

Instead of simply writing that an inmate is “hostile” or “uncooperative,” the officer could explain what the inmate did or refused to do.

When the behavior indicates a possible medical or mental-health problem, the officer could document the observation and notify qualified health personnel.

The medical or mental-health conclusion could then come from the person qualified to make it.

Every restraint-chair use could also receive the same basic level of tracking.

The incident could remain classified as an RTR or non-RTR according to the applicable force policy.

However, JSO could maintain a separate standardized dataset containing every use of the restraint safety chair.

The data could include the reason for use, duration, employee authorization, checks, health-services involvement, injuries, associated force, and outcome.

Afterwards, restraint-chair use could be reviewed as a group rather than only as individual Incident Reports.

The confinement records could also be connected more directly.

JSO could maintain a record showing the beginning and ending date and time of each confinement placement, the reason, applicable restrictions, required reviews, recreation provided, services missed, health contacts, and final reason for release.

The information may already exist in different portions of JMS.

The purpose would be to make the information available in one report for review.

JSO could then establish an annual review of the information collected under Order 613.

The review could compare restraint-chair use, confinement, management meals, cancelled recreation, extended holding-cell stays, clothing or bedding deprivation, self-harm events, injuries, disciplinary charges, and other important events.

The comparison could be made by facility, housing unit, shift, employee, and supervisor when appropriate.

A higher number would not automatically mean misconduct occurred.

Instead, an unusual difference could identify an area requiring additional review.

This would follow the approach used by the Nelson Mandela Rules and PREA, where individual records are also used to identify larger patterns.

The same review could identify missing documentation.

For example, JSO could determine how often required checks were entered late, how often reports were not completed by the end of the watch, how often recreation was cancelled without being rescheduled, or how often a required medical notification was missing.

Finally, JSO could publish aggregate information from the review.

The report would not need to identify individual inmates.

It could show the number and duration of confinement placements, restraint-chair uses, recreation cancellations, management meals, serious self-harm incidents, and other important conditions over time.

This would allow the records created under Order 613 to serve both an internal management purpose and a public accountability purpose.

Order 613 requires corrections personnel to create a large amount of documentation.

This is a strength.

If recreation is cancelled, there should be a record.

If an inmate is moved, there should be a reason.

If an inmate enters confinement, there should be a record.

If a restraint chair is used, the incident should be documented.

If an inmate is injured, placed on self-harm monitoring, deprived of bedding, or placed on a management meal, there should also be documentation.

Because of this, many jail conditions that would otherwise be difficult to reconstruct can potentially be examined later.

The concern is that documentation alone does not show whether a problem is occurring repeatedly.

For example, one cancelled recreation period may have a reasonable explanation.

A record explaining that cancellation is useful.

However, if the same housing unit has recreation cancelled repeatedly, the individual records become more useful when they are examined together.

The same applies to confinement.

One confinement placement may be justified.

Several unusually long confinement placements in the same unit may require a different type of review.

The same applies to restraint chairs, management meals, disciplinary charges, self-harm incidents, and other records created under the policy.

Order 613 is very detailed about creating the individual record.

It is much less detailed about comparing one record with the next.

The permanent inmate notes create another concern.

Those records can contain descriptions of an inmate's behavior and attitude.

If the descriptions are subjective, the record can affect later interactions even when the original description was based on one employee's interpretation.

Because of this, the accuracy of the wording is important in addition to the accuracy of the date and time.

The restraint-chair reporting system also shows why the way records are categorized matters.

Every chair use may be documented somewhere.

However, not every chair use is necessarily included in Response to Resistance reporting.

Therefore, an oversight system that looks only at force reports can produce a different picture than one that looks at every restraint record.

The records created under Order 613 would allow several of these questions to be tested.

JMS audit histories could show whether electronic records are changed after entry. Restraint-chair reports could show how often the chair is used outside the RTR system. Confinement records could show duration and repeated placements. Recreation records could show how often recreation is cancelled and whether it is later provided. Management-meal records could show where and how often the restriction is used. Self-harm logs could be compared with video and staffing records after serious incidents.

Therefore, the main question raised by Order 613 is not whether JSO documents enough information.

It documents a great deal of information.

The remaining question is whether that information is preserved, compared, and used to identify problems that may not be visible from one report alone.