Worcester Jailhouse Blues

It’s no news that the Worcester County House of Corrections is overcrowded and in need of some serious changes.

What is news is a recent report from the United States Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division that lays out in glaring detail just how bad things are (or were, until recently) for inmates at the jail.

On April 29, the division released their report to officials following a year and a half investigation of the jail. That report was released to the public Friday.

While repeatedly commending Sheriff Guy Glodis and his administration for their cooperation and addressing concerns raised by the DOJ, The 40-page document details a number of major problems, concluding that “certain conditions at the jail violate the constitutional rights” of inmates.

“The jail fails to: (1) protect…[inmates] from harm; (2) protect inmates from exposure to unsanitary and unsafe environmental conditions; and (3) provide inmates with adequate mental health care to address their serious mental health needs.”

The report details specific actions, policies and incidents

Among the highlights:

The report details “excessive use of restraint,” stating that “in a significant number of instances, jail staff inappropriately restrain inmates …” Between April 2006 and March 2007, 155 cell extractions were performed; the restraint chair/bed was used 161 times. Additionally, “jail staff used restraints after the need for restraint had passed and/or used restraints for excessive periods of time.”

The statement also discusses several specific videotaped incidents. In one taped cell extraction from Feb. 2, 2007 (the DOJ also praised the jail for videotaping incidents), the DOJ wrote that a prisoner who had refused to move to a different cell but allowed himself to be handcuffed and leg ironed, then refused to be strip searched. After being moved to the restraint area, he agreed to be strip searched, but, writes the DOJ, an officer responded that “It’s too late now; you had an opportunity.” The inmate was place in six-point restraints, and his clothes cut off, leaving him in his boxer shorts in the winter.

Almost immediately, continues the account, the inmate began convulsing and complaining about a possible anxiety attack. On tape, a nurse agreed that he could be having one, but left without helping. There was no record available to investigators of how long the inmate was restrained.

The report criticizes the jail for using restraints as a punishment; in 12 cases involving restraints during April 2007, nine inmates were restrained for four or more hours, and one for 23 hours.

Importantly, the report does note that in December 2007, the jail notified the DOJ that they had revised their policies, and self-audited the use of restraints.

“We commend [them] for promptly reviewing and changing its practices, policies, and procedures,” reads the report.

The DOJ also found that the jail does not comply with “generally accepted professional standards or its own policy” in using chemical agents, including decontaminated sprayed inmates.

Deputy Superintendent Jeff Turco says the administration “takes strong exception to many of the [DOJ’s] findings.”

On Wednesday, the administration released a public response to the DOJ, asking for several of the conclusions to be clarified to be in line with what Turco calls “factual and legal” errors.

“In essence, they’ve taken a snapshot of a couple days. They’ve come here and made snap judgments.

Other DOJ findings include:

• Inadequate incident review and investigations, including those of inmate complaints against officers: In one 2007 case, an inmate with two prosthetic legs complained about being bounced around in a non-wheelchair accessible van for four hours during transport, leaving him “bruised and ill.” Further, he wasn’t allowed to use the bathroom. “The investigator who reviewed these allegations never interviewed the inmate or looked into whether any of the claims are true,” reads the account. “Instead, he simply concluded that the allegations were unfounded.

Further, the DOJ questioned the jail’s management hierarchy, which leaves the same deputy in charge of tactical operations in charge of reviewing reports. “The very person who authorized the … activity is charged with reviewing it for any impropriety.”

Turco takes particular exception to those analyses. Despite criticizing the jail for not talking to every person involved in an incident, says Turco, the DOJ’s investigative team neglected to talk to the officers involved in some of the restraint incidents the team was criticizing.

• Inadequate staffing and inmate supervision — While citing overcrowding issues that Glodis has complained about for years, the report also notes that security posts in several areas are left unmanned, according to Roll Call documents.

• Inadequate grievance process — The DOJ details a cumbersome inmate grievance process, although noting some changes were made after an initial visit in February 2007. “The overall process is extremely prohibitive to inmates …”

Turco says that the jail doesn’t have to legally provide any process.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says a jail can’t have a cumbersome grievance process … [or] any process,” he says

• Severe problems with the jail’s physical plant, including showers covered in soap scum and mold and failure to provide clean clothing and linens during lockdowns.

• Risk of food-borne illness, and unsanitary kitchen conditions. “There has never been a food-borne illness,” replies Turco.

• Failure to provide adequate mental health care.

Overall, Turco agrees that “if money were no object, we’d all probably agree with [their findings] philosophically.”

Still, he says that the jail’s recent national accreditation shows that they are meeting national standards, and that by neglecting to mention positive third party reports, the DOJ painted a one-sided picture.

With the jail’s response being released, Turco says he hopes the DOJ “corrects many of the factual and legal errors in the report.”