A new, independent state office that investigates complaints by inmates and monitors state Department of Corrections compliance with rules regarding inmate treatment says Stafford Creek Corrections Center had the most complaints among the state’s correctional institutes in the first study done by the office.
Just why Stafford Creek had the most complaints is unclear.
“It was very surprising to me that Stafford Creek was number one,” said Joanna Carns, director of the Office of Corrections Ombuds. “I expected Washington State Penitentiary (in Walla Walla) to be higher. They have about 2,500 inmates, Stafford Creek has 2,000. Just by size alone I was surprised they popped to the top.”
Complaints are taken in writing or by a toll-free line in each facility. The lines are not monitored, so inmates are able to speak freely about their grievances.
Carns did say Stafford Creek was the first to have the complaint line installed, “but that doesn’t account for all of the difference,” she said. “We are trying to get a better understanding on why that would be.”
Department of Corrections spokesman Jeremy S. Barclay said the timing of the toll-free line roll out likely did play a factor in the larger number of complaints from Stafford Creek than other, larger institutions.
“The facility takes great pride in being the first one to have instituted the phone line so they were in full compliance with the statute,” said Barclay.
Barclay added that Carns’ office did not track the number of complaints received by phone and by writing, which could also have impacted the numbers.
“I think it’s safe to say whenever there are two different ways to report concerns or grievances (the phone line) is probably going to be more effective than just through writing,” he said.
Stafford Creek public information officer Salina Brown said the hotline pilot project started at the facility in mid January.
Complaints
Stafford Creek, with a maximum population listed at 1,936, produced more than 120 of the 563 complaints received for the study.
The second most complaints, a little more than 100, came from Monroe Correctional Complex, which holds 2,400 inmates; third was Coyote Ridge Corrections Center in Connell with 2,468 inmates and less than 80 complaints; fourth by a few complaints was the Washington State Penitentiary with 2,439 inmates; and fifth was Airway Heights Corrections Center with about 70 complaints from 2,258 inmates. Around 100 of the complaints came from the state’s other seven correctional facilities, which in total hold up to 4,526 inmates.
The nature of the complaints was broken into categories, with the top three producing around 100 complaints each: medical, staff conduct and classification.
In corrections terms, classification can refer to your level of incarceration – minimum, medium or maximum security. It can also mean institutional placement, said Carns, meaning which institution an inmate is sent to.
“We are in a state with some far-flung facilities,” said Carns. “If you have family on this side of the mountains and you are incarcerated on the other side, the chance of visits declines.”
Changes in drug test policy
The Office of Corrections Ombuds heard complaints from inmates regarding their inability to contest positive drug tests, which can impact their status within a facility.
In the cover letter to the March 11 report addressed to Steve Sinclair, Department of Corrections Secretary, Carns wrote that her office “received several complaints pertaining to DOC urinalysis procedures, particularly that inmates were testing positive for substances which they had allegedly not consumed. The positive tests resulted in significant consequences for the inmates, including transfers far from family and privilege restrictions, and the inmates did not have the opportunity to request a confirmation test by an outside laboratory.”
From the information Carns’ office was able to obtain from other states — nine did not provide testing information — Washington was one of only four that didn’t permit confirmation tests.
“The consequences can be quite severe,” she said, relating the story of one inmate who, because of the failed test, was transferred to an institution far from his pregnant fiance.
“He was supposed to go out on work release” until the failed drug test, and was transferred four hours away from his fiance. “His fiance gave birth and he missed it due to this event.”
Ombuds staff met with the Department of Corrections and, while “Corrections staff said they had confidence in their current testing process,” they “recognized that offering a confirmation test could mitigate concerns expressed by incarcerated persons and their friends, love ones and advocates.”
According to Carns, the Department of Corrections agreed to make changes by allowing inmates to request confirmation by an outside laboratory for a positive urinalysis result.
“The new policy will ensure no inmate will be wrongfully sanctioned for a false positive,” said Carns.
Barclay wasn’t sure on the policy’s effective date, but “either is or will be” part of standard practice for corrections facilities before it’s even required by rule.
Office creation
The Office of Corrections Ombuds was created in March of 2018 when the Legislature passed House Bill 1889. The office is contained with the Office of the Governor for the purpose of providing information to inmates and their families; promoting public awareness and understanding of the rights and responsibilities of inmates; identifying system issues and responses for the governor and the Legislature to act upon; and ensuring compliance with relevant statutes, rules, and policies pertaining to corrections facilities, service and treatment of inmates under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections.
The Office of Corrections Ombuds provides another layer for inmate grievance reporting. Barclay said the original 3-step process is still in place, which involves an initial filing through the inmate’s place of incarceration. If an inmate is not satisfied, there are two more appeals levels. Barclay likened the process to somebody filing a court claim; if a satisfactory solution is not achieved in a lower court, that decision can be appealed to higher courts.
“What this new office represents for incarcerated individuals is to kind of run a dual track on whatever the grievance or complaint is,” said Barclay. After filing their first Department of Corrections complaint, an inmate can now reach out directly to the independent Office of Corrections Ombuds.
