PREA AUDIT REPORT Interim FinalADULT PRISONS & JAILSDate of report: October 14, 2016Auditor InformationAuditor name: Matthew RustadAddress: PO Box 942883, Sacramento, CA 94832-0001Email: [email protected] number: (916) 324-0788Date of facility visit: May 24-25, 2016Facility InformationFacility name: Indiana Women's PrisonFacility physical address: 2596 Girls School Road Indianapolis IN 46214Facility mailing address: (if different from above) Click here to enter text.Facility telephone number: (317)-244-3387The facility is: Federal State County Military Municipal Private for profit Private not for profitFacility type: Prison JailName of facility’s Chief Executive Officer: Superintendent, Mr. Steve McCauleyNumber of staff assigned to the facility in the last 12 months: 162Designed facility capacity: 631Current population of facility: 616Facility security levels/inmate custody levels: MaximumAge range of the population: 18 Name of PREA Compliance Manager: Nicole WilsonTitle: Internal Affairs 3Email address: [email protected] number: (317) 244-3387Agency InformationName of agency: Indiana Department Of CorrectionsGoverning authority or parent agency: (if applicable) Click here to enter text.Physical address: 302 W. Washington St., Room E334, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204Mailing address: (if different from above) Click here to enter text.Telephone number: (317) 233-6984Agency Chief Executive OfficerName: Bruce LemmonTitle: CommissionerEmail address: [email protected] number: (317) 232-5705Agency-Wide PREA CoordinatorName: Brian PearsonTitle: Executive Director/PREA CoordinatorEmail address: [email protected] number: (317) 232-5288PREA Audit Report1

AUDIT FINDINGSNARRATIVEA certified PREA audit was conducted at the Indiana Women’s Prison located in Indianapolis, Indiana. The audit began in early May withthe delivery, of the statewide and facility documentation and the required Pre-Audit Questionnaire (PAQ) from the facility. The audit tourbegan Tuesday, May 24, 2016, and concluded Wednesday, May 25, 2016. The audit team consisted of the lead certified auditor and anadditional certified PREA team member. Following coordination, preparatory work and collaboration with management staff at theIndiana Women’s Prison, some pre-audit work was completed prior to traveling to the facility for the onsite review portion of the audit.One letter from an offender was received prior to the arrival at the facility and an additional letter after the site visit was completed.On May 24, 2016, the auditor met with the Superintendent Steve McCauley, the PREA Compliance Manager Nicole Wilson, and themanagement staff of Indiana Women’s Prison, for greetings, introductions and information sharing. The auditor was escorted to aconference room which served as a home base for audit preparation and organization during the audit process.Upon arrival at Indiana Women’s Prison, the auditor requested and received the names of the employees assigned in management andspecialized staff positions, who might be interviewed during the on-site portion of the audit. The auditor identified specialized staff to beinterviewed.Interviews of specialized staff included the following: Medical and Mental Health (Corizon contractor)Incident Review Team MembersStaff who Conduct Intake ScreeningClassification StaffCase WorkersInvestigations and Intelligence StaffSexual Assault Nurse ExaminerHuman ResourcesPerson Responsible for Contractor, Volunteer and Vendor ClearancesSegregated Housing StaffPerson Responsible for Monitoring RetaliationHigher Level SupervisorAramark ContractorGrace College VolunteersFirst RespondersTraining DirectorA list of all custody staff scheduled to work on the days of the on-site review was provided, and sorted by shift; Indiana Women’s Prison,custody staff work 12 hour shifts. The auditor explained that these rosters were required for in order to select random custody staff forinterviews. The auditor informed the PREA Compliance Manager that the auditor would compile a list of custody staff selected randomlyfor interviews. The standard advisory statement was conveyed to the staff before proceeding with the interview in a private interviewroom while documenting the staff answers. Clarification was requested, as needed to ensure the staff’s responses were clear and effectivecommunication was established.A roster of all offenders at the facility with identification numbers and assigned bed numbers was provided, and sorted by housing unit.Offenders were selected at random using this offender roster. The standard advisory statement to the offender before proceeding with theinterview of the offender in a private interview room while documenting the offender answers. Clarification was requested, as needed toensure the offender’s responses were clear and effective communication was established. A total of 16 offenders were interviewed as partof the random offender interviews and the specific categories of offenders identified for interviews based upon their relevance to specificPREA standards.The PREA Compliance Manager identified offenders in the following categories: DisabledLimited English ProficientTransgender & IntersexGay & BisexualInmates in Segregated Housing for Risk of Sexual VictimizationInmates who Reported Sexual AbusePREA Audit Report2

Inmates who Disclosed Sexual Victimization during Risk ScreeningA thorough site review of the facility was conducted; the Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, PREA Compliance Manager,management staff, and other custody staff escorted the auditor. The auditor toured all of the seven housing units, medical, mental health,the kitchen area, the warehouse, intake processing area, the laundry, maintenance shops, industries areas, education, recreation yard,chapel, etc.During the tour, PREA posters (English and Spanish versions) were visible in the front entrance (staff and visitor search area) for both staffand visitors to view. As the facility was toured, posters were present in every building accessible by offenders and in multiple locationswithin buildings where offenders, the public and staff have access. Along with the PREA posters, additional postings were observedinforming victims of sexual abuse how to gain access to emotional support services. Based upon our random discussions with staff andoffenders, it is obvious the facility has done an excellent job in educating the staff and offenders of the agency’s zero tolerance policyregarding sexual abuse and harassment as well as the various methods in which allegations may be reported.Indiana Women’s Prison uses monitoring technology within its facility; the need for additional monitoring equipment and their placementis discussed and documented in monthly facility meetings and consideration is given in identifying blind spots prior to camera placement.Cameras are positioned in a manner to cover blind spots while affording the offenders modesty where needed, while providing for thenecessary security and evidentiary needs of the facility. While conducting interviews with the Superintendent, other administrative, andsupervisory staff, it is evident that the facility has considered the use of cameras in their staffing plan and staff are vigilant in ensuringoffender and offender safety. Staff were observed touring their areas of responsibility during this on site tour.Camera placement and sufficient custody staff coverage was observed in the absence of camera coverage, log books and offender fileswere reviewed. Offenders, staff, volunteers and contractors were interviewed during this site visit. No cross gender viewing issues wereobserved; the facility was constructed in a manor to prevent cross gender viewing and ensures the privacy of offenders while showering,toileting or otherwise in a state of undress. Housing unit logs were reviewed and showed evidence of supervisory staff conductingunannounced rounds on both shifts. Both supervisory staff conducting unannounced rounds as well as opposite gender staffannouncements within the housing units were observed during the on-site tour. Staff and offenders were questioned regarding PREA andreporting/responding requirements. All answered with appropriate levels of understanding in regard to PREA and agency policy andprocedure.During the on-site tour, impromptu questions were asked of staff and offenders. In offender dayrooms, offender phones were tested todetermine the functionality of the facility’s phone system for reporting sexual abuse or harassment. Offenders were queried on theirknowledge of the PREA phone system; offenders thoroughly explained the system, its purpose, and how the phone system is accessed byreferring to the information contained on the PREA information posters. In offender work areas, staff supervision levels and cameraplacement was observed and is sufficient to ensure offender safety. Staff and offenders were queried to determine whether offenders are inlead positions over other offenders, it is evident offenders do not hold this position over other offenders. The placement of PREAinformation and support services posters were noted throughout the facility; in offender housing and work areas and the placement of thePREA audit notice provided to the facility; throughout the facility.During interviews with investigative staff; offender grievances against staff are forwarded to the grievance coordinator; Investigations andIntelligence will investigate where appropriate. Two investigators and designated staff were questioned about the process for logging andtracking cases assigned, and offender grievances received by the facility. Documentation, grievance logs, computerized tracking, andother documentation necessary to make a determination of compliance with the standard were reviewed. During these interviews, theauditor based the line of questioning on the interview protocols and recorded responses by hand.Random Staff Interviews: Random staff were selected from the shift rosters, considering a variety of work locations and various shifts.The interviews were conducted in the privacy of a conference room or other area which allowed for a private interview. The auditorintroduced himself, communicated the advisory statements to the staff, and proceeded to ask the line of questions from the interviewprotocols for random staff and recorded the answers by hand. Clarifying questions were asked where needed to ensure the responses wereclear enough to make a determination of compliance with applicable standards. A total of 17 random staff interviews were conducted.Document Reviews: Documents related to allegations of sexual abuse (including investigation files) were reviewed. Training records,personnel records, contractor and volunteer records, and the records maintained through the offender intake process were reviewed.Copies of documents were collected, as necessary.The PREA Compliance Manager provided Sexual Incident Reports for all 13 allegations received during the previous twelve-monthperiod. The list included the report number, date of report, name of the victim, name of the suspect, and the disposition or status of thecase. The auditor obtained the Sexual Incident Report and investigative reports from facility investigative staff for each allegation. Thesereports were reviewed using a PREA audit investigative records review tool to record the following information relative to eachinvestigative report:PREA Audit Report3

Case#/IDDate of AllegationDate of InvestigationStaff or Inmate on InmateSexual Abuse or Sexual Harassment?DispositionIs Disposition Justified?Investigating OfficerNotification Given to Inmate?POST-AUDIT PHASEThe auditor, as a probationary certification, has 21 days to turn the interim report in to the department of justice, which has 10 days toreview it. The probationary auditor then has 10 days to consider the department of justice’s suggestions and provide the interim report tothe facility by July 05, 2016 (total of 41 days). This information was also provided to the agencies PREA Coordinator via the probationarycertification template letter. The auditor and the PREA Compliance Manager agreed that any documents not received during the pre-auditphase or site review would be requested via email and provided by the PREA Compliance Manager.Any clarification questions, missing information, requests for additional documentation, etc. were discussed with the PREA ComplianceManager and have been provided.Audit Section of the Compliance Tool: The auditor reviewed onsite document review notes, staff and offender interview notes and sitereview notes and began the process of completing the audit section of the compliance tool. Auditors used the audit section of thecompliance tool as a guide to determine which question(s) in which interview guide(s), which onsite document review notes and/or whichfacility tour site review notes should be reviewed in order to make a determination of compliance for each standard. After checkingappropriate “yes” or “no” boxes on the compliance tool for each applicable subsection of each standard, the auditors completed the“overall determination” section at the end of the standard indicating whether or not the facility’s policies and procedures exceeds, meets ordoes not meet standard. Where the auditor found the facilities policies and procedures did not meet the standard, the auditor enteredappropriate comments explaining why the standard is not met and what specific corrective action(s) is/are needed for facility’s policies andprocedures to comply with the standard. The auditor entered this information in the designated field at the end of the standard in review.Interim Audit Report: Following completion of the compliance tool, the auditor started completing the interim report. The interim reportidentifies which policies and other documentation were reviewed, which staff and/or offender interviews were conducted and whatobservations were made during the on-site review of the facility in order to make a determination of compliance for each standardprovision. The auditor then provided an explanation of how evidence listed was used to draw a final conclusion of whether the facility’spolicies and procedures exceed, meet, or does not meet the standard. The interim report was submitted to the PREA Resource Center forreview/approval on June 11, 2016.PREA Audit Report4

DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY CHARACTERISTICSThe Indiana Women’s Prison is a maximum security facility which has the distinction of being the oldest and first adult facility for femalesin the United States. The facility was established on fifteen acres, 1.6 miles from downtown Indianapolis in 1869; the first seventeenoffenders arrived in 1873. Until November 21, 2009, the Indiana Women’s Prison continued to operate at its original site for 136 years.Indiana Women’s Prison moved from the Randolph Street location to the current site at 2596 North Girls’ School Road, the formerlocation of the Indianapolis Juvenile Correctional Facility which was named Indiana Girl’s School until 1996.The Indiana Women’s Prison is unique in many ways. It is a maximum security facility which until November 2009 was located entirelywithin an urban residential neighborhood. The facility houses all the special populations of female offenders in the state. The pregnant,sick, mentally ill, youthful, elderly, and high-profile female offenders are all housed at the Indiana Women’s Prison. The Indiana Women’sPrison offers various programs to the offender population to include but not limited to; Prenatal and parenting education, vocations,substance abuse classes, Indiana Canine Assistant, Anger Management, Mental Health Programs, Community outreach programs andmore.The challenges of managing such a diverse population are many and the methods of treatment and rehabilitation for each population ofoffenders are customized to meet the needs of that specific population.The life of this facility is to prepare our ladies to re-enter the community with more skills and confidence than when they arrived here.PREA Audit Report5

SUMMARY OF AUDIT FINDINGSThe on-site portion of the audit was a consistent paced review of all areas of the institution. Facility staff were very helpful and responsiveto the questions and concerns expressed during this portion of the audit. The efforts put forth by the Indiana Women’s Prison staff wereevident and staff are commended for their efforts. It was certainly a pleasure for the audit team to spend time with the staff of IndianaWomen’s Prison Facility and have the opportunity to assist in their PREA compliance efforts. During this close-out discussion, the facilitystaff and the PREA Coordinator were provided with an overview of what had been identified as areas of concern.Overall, it is evident that the Indiana Women’s Prison’s staff have been working towards compliance with the PREA standards. Becauseof this hard work, the facility is in compliance with a significant number of the standards.Some of the positives observed during the audit included: Interaction between staff and offenders helped establish open line of communication. It did not appear that offenders wereuncomfortable to bringing up their issues/concerns with staff. Through the use of staff posts and video surveillance, blind spots appeared to be eliminated. PREA posters were in place in all housing units, visiting and offender work/recreational areas. Supervisory and management staff have a clear understanding of the policy. Announcement of opposite gender staff entering the housing units seemed to be routine and part of everyday business. The offender population understands their rights to be free from sexual abuse and could explain to the auditors how they wouldreport an allegation. Most offenders stated they felt sexually safe at this facility. Training records reflected that mandatory staff training has been completed and that a process was in place to ensure mandatorytraining will be completed for new hires. Classification staff take ownership of the PREA intake process and are very thorough in their reviews of newly arriving offenders. The PREA Compliance Manager is very knowledgeable about all procedures and processes of the facility and clearly has theauthority to thoroughly perform his duties.Some of the areas of general concern include:Indiana Women’s Prison, initially, was not in compliance with standard §115.13(a) (5), Supervision and monitoring. During the facilitytour two locations were observed to allow offenders to isolate themselves; creating blind-spots. The facility management staff identifiedsolutions during the site visit and is working to modify the identified areas. These solutions included: removal of locking devices toremove the offender’s ability to lock the door, removal of a wall and/or closure of a restroom to limit blind spots. Upon completion of thefacility modifications, pictures of the affected areas will be forwarded to the auditor. Prior to the completion of this report, the facility hascompleted modifications to most identified areas and during the corrective action phase of the audit, the facility has completed all requiredmodifications to come into compliance with this standardIndiana Women’s Prison, initially, was not in compliance with standard §115.17(e), Hiring and Promotion Decisions. During a review ofrandom personnel files revealed, some instances where staff background records checks were not conducted at least every five years. Thisrequirement is also required by department policy. Facility management staff identified a solution during the site visit and rectified theidentified background checks prior to the completion of the site visit. A review of staff files is being conducted by the facility in order toidentify and address any non-compliance issues related to backgrounds checks. Any backg