ILS?DeparnnentofJus?ce Federal Bureau of Prisons Washington, 0.63. 20534 December 23, 2003 MEMORANDUM FOR HARLEY G. LAPPIN, DIRECTOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS If THROUGH: . ri opher rlewine ..Ass'stant Director/General Counsel FROM: John Dignam, Chief Office of Intern Affairs SUBJECT: Office of Internal Affairs Report Fiscal Year 2003 Following last year?s 17% increase in OIA case openings as reported in our Fiscal Year 2002 report, in Fiscal Year 2003 an additional 15.5% increase in case openings occurred. Once again, allegations of Classification 2 offenses accounted for the largest increase. As you review the report, you will see that many other indicators and data are also fairly consistent with Fiscal Year 2002 findings. One addition to the first section of the report is information pertinent to Patriot Act violations. As was noted in our 2002 report, that legislation impacted classification criteria for certain types of misconduct as well as requirements for reporting relevant allegations to the Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General (016). We now have sufficient information about Patriot Act allegations against Bureau of Prisons (BOP) staff to begin reporting our preliminary findings in that regard. Please share the report with other interested BOP staff. All questions about specific information contained in the report should be directed to OIA. We appreciate your continued support. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 2 of 60 Table of Contents Executive Shouisary of Findings 1 Reported Misconduct 4 Closed! Sustained Misconduct 7 BOP Employees 7 Disciplinary Action Taken 8 Gender 10 Job Discipline 13 Bargaining vs. Nonbargaining Unit 14 Security Laval 14 ContracUHalfway House Employees 15 Staff in Privatized Facilities 16 Staff in Facilities with an Intergovernmental Agreement 17 Contract Employees Working in BOP Facilities 18 PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities 19 Physical Abuse of Inmates . . . .I 20 Introduction of Contraband 22 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 25 Previous Fiscal Year Updates 34 Representative Case Summaries 41 Signi?cant Prosecutions 43 Appendix A - Types of Misconduct 45 Appendix 01A Staff and Monitoring Assignments 51 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 3 of 60 Executive Summary of Finding There was-a 15.5 percent increase in the number of cases opened in Fiscal Year 2003 as compared with Fiscal Year 2002. The reported rate of misconduct among BOP employees increased ?'om 11.3 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2002 to 13.1 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2003, or an increase of 15.9 percent. The most signi?cant increase occurred in cases categorized as Classi?cation 2 Offenses (allegations which involve violations of rules, regulations, or law that, if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution, but constitute serious niisconduct}-a 34.3 percent increase over those cases opened during Fiscal Year 2002. The most frequently reported type of misconduct in Fiscal Year 2003 was Unprofessional Conduct (particularly that which was unrelated to inmates). Abuse of Inmates and Personnel Prohibitions placed second and third, respectively. The only areas of reported misconduct which did not show an increase over Fiscal Year 2002 are Failure to Follow Policy and Investigative Violations. The most signi?cant increases occurred in the categories of Discrimination, Bribery, Introduction of Contraband, Sexual Abuse of Inm?es, and Abuse of Inmates. In Fiscal Year 2003, 37 cases of Patriot Act violation allegations were opened. As of September 30, 2003, 23 cases remained open pending investigation or awaiting disciplinary action and 14 cases were closed. In 10 of the 14 cases closed, allegations were not sustained. Ofihe remaining 4 cases, 3 allegations of Unprofessional Conduct and 1 allegation of Falsi?cation of Documents were sustained. In Fiscal Year 2002, 14 Patriot Act cases were opened. As of September 30, 2003, 7 remained open pending investigation, and 7 were closed with no sustained ?ndings. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 47 percent of the 4,443 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2003. Of the 47 percent, 43.3 percent had a sustained decision (or a rate of employees per 100 total BOP staff). As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 88.3 percent of the 3,807 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2002. Of the 88.3 percent, 50.6 percent had a sustained decision (or a rate of 5 employees per 100 total BOP staff}. The most frequently sustained area of misconduct among BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2003 was Fiscal Improprieties (49.7 percent of the sustained allegations included in this category were for Misuse of the Travel Charge Card). Unprofessional Conduct ranked second. An update of Fiscal Year 2002 revealed this same ranking. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 4 of 60 Executive Summary of Findings The sustained rate of misconduct in Fiscal Year 2003 thus far among male BOP employees (2.8 employees per 100 total male BOP staff) was higher than that among female BOP employees (2.3 employees per 100 total female BOP staff). For Fiscal Year 2002, the sustained rate of misconduct among male BOP employees was also higher than that among female BOP employees (a rate of 5.4 per 100 total male BOP staff as compared to 4.1 per 100 total female BOP staff). The most ?'equently sustained type of misconduct for male BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2003 was Fiscal Improprieties (48.2 percent of the sustained allegations in this category related to Misuse of Government Computers and 32.4 percent related to Misuse of the Travel Charge Card). The most ?'cquently sustained type of misconduct for female BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2003 was also Fiscal Irnproprieties (63.6 percent of the sustained allegations in this category related to Misuse of Govermnent Computers). The following types of misconduct were sustained with greater frequency among female BOP staff than among male BOP staff in Fiscal Year 2003: Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates, Introduction of Contraband, Sexual Abuse of Inmates, Personnel Prohibitions, Fiscal Improprieties, Investigative Violations, and Unauthorized Release of Infonnation. The highest rate of sustained misconduct occurred among Food Service staff (4.0 per 100 total Food Service stall) in Fiscal Year 2003. Twelve percent of the sustained misconduct among Food Services staff involved Unprofessional Conduct related to inmates. The remaining sustained allegations were distributed fairly evenly among a variety of other allegations. An update of Fiscal Year 2002 data revealed that Food Services staff remained as having the highest rate of sustained misconduct during that period (7.3 per 100 total Food Services staff). The rate of sustained misconduct was higher among bargaining unit employees (2.8 per 100 total bargaining unit staff) than among nonbargaining unit employees (2.3 per 100 total nonbargaining unit staff) in Fiscal Year 2003. Conversely, an update for Fiscal Year 2002 revealed that the rate of sustained misconduct was higher among nonbargaining unit employees (6.0 employees per 100 total nonbargaining unit staff) than among bargaining unit employees (4.8 employees per 100 total bargaining unit staff). The rate of sustained misconduct in Fiscal Year 2003 was highest among staff working in Administrative security institutions (3.7 per 100 staff) and lowest among staff working in high security institutions (2.3 per 100 staff). In Fiscal Year 2002, the rate of sustained misconduct was also highest among staff working in Administrative security institutions per 100 staff), but was lowest among staff working in medium security institutions (4.9 per 100 staff). -2- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 5 of 60 Executive of Finding For Fiscal Year 2003, the most ?equently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in Administrative security institutions was Failure to Follow Policy. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in High security institutions was Unprofessional Conduct (particularly that which was unrelated to inmates). For Fiscal Year 2003, the most frequently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in contracb? halfway house facilities was Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct for staff working in privatized facilities was Off-Duty Misconduct. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct for staff working in facilities with an intergovernmental agreement was Off-Duty Misconduct. An update of Fiscal Year 2002 data revealed that this remained the case for all three groups during that period. Four allegations of Physical Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2003 were sustained?2 involved minorislight injury to the inmate, 1 involved minor/no injury to the inmate, and 1 involved super?cial injury to the inmate. Two of the 4 sustained allegations involved male BOP employees working in Food Services. The remaining 2 sustained allegations involved staff working in contractfhalfway house facilities. Thirteen allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported during Fiscal Year 2003 were sustained: 12 involved the introduction of soft contraband and 1 involved the introduction of drugs (by a contract employee working in a BOP facility). Twelve allegations of Sexual Abuse of Inmates reported during Fiscal Year 2003 were sustained--3 involved female BOP employees, 4 involved male BOP employees, 2 involved employees at contractlhalfvvay house facilities, 2 involved employees at privatized facilities, and 1 involved an employee at a facility with an IGA. Two of the employees with sustained allegations were convicted of criminal violations. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 6 of 60 \All allegations of misconduct received by the Of?ce of Internal Affairs (01A) are referred to the Department of Justice, Of?ce of the Inspector General (01G), for review and classi?cation. The OIG determines which matters they will accept for investigation and possible criminal prosecution and defers other matters to 01A for investigation. 01A coordinates with the 016 andfor the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) when investigations may lead to criminal prosecution or when there are allegations involving the abuse of an individual?s Constitutional rights under Color of Law. For those matters deferred for investigation, OIA determines, after consulting with BOP management of?cials, whether an on?site investigation is warranted or if the matter can be investigated at the local institution level. Allegations categorized as Classi?cation 3 offenses are referred to the OIG via a computer extract on a basis. Reported Misconduct NOTES The number of subjects exceeds the number of cases throughout this report as some cases have multiple subjects. Also, some subjects may be changed with multiple types of misconduct in a single case, causing the number of allegations to be higher. Finally, individual employees may be subjects in more than one case. Due to the dynamic nature of the CIA database, ?gures in this report are subject to change. During the course of an investigation, evidence may indicate circumstances other than those initially reported, causing data to be added, deleted. andfor changed. Allegations referred to as ?lnnute Related? included some type of inmate involvement, while allegations referred to as "Non Inmate Related" occurred in the workplace but did not include inmate involvement. For a complete list of the types of unscenduct included in each category, please reference the Appendices section of this report. During Fiscal Year 2003, OIA opened 4,193 cases involved 4,443 BOP employees, 14 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 6? Public Health Service employees working in BOP facilities, 299 contractfhalfway house employees, 166 employees working in facilities with an IGA, and 291 employees working in privatized facilities. These 4,193 cases represent a 15.5 percent increase from the 3,629 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2002. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees increased ?'om 11.3 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2002 to 13.1 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2003, or an increase of 15.9 percent. Cases opened in 01A are grouped into three classi?cations based on the nature of the alleged offense. Classification 1 cases are de?ned as allegations which, if substantiated, would constitute a prosecutable offense (other than offenses such as misdemeanor arrests and uaf?c citations]. Classi?cation 2 cases are de?ned as allegations which involve violations of rules, regulations, or law that, if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution, but constitute serious misconduct. Classi?cation 3 cases are de?ned as allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 7 of 60 Reported Misconduct The 4,193 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2003 were classi?ed as follows: Classi?cation 1 788 Classi?cation 2 1,287 Classi?cation 3 2,118 The largest increase occurred in cases categorized as Classi?cation 2 Offenses-e 34.3 percent increase over those cases opened during Fiscal Year 2002. Classi?cation 1 Offenses and Classi?cation 3 Offenses showed increases of 21 .8 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively. Table (on the following page) provides a breakdown of those types of misconduct reported during Fiscal Year 2003. The only categories of reported misconduct which did not show an increase over Fiscal Year 2002 are Failure to Follow Policy (a 14.7 percent decrease) and hivestigative Violations (a 1.3 percent decrease). The most signi?cant increases occurred in the categories of Discrimination (a 581.8 percent increase), Bribery (a 111.] percent increase), Introduction of Contraband (a 57.3 percent increase), Sexual Abuse of Inmates (a 41.1 percent increase), and Abuse of Inmates (a 33.5 percent increase). Note that such increases are for number of allegations made. Rates of sustained misconduct in those areas established thus far do not appear to reflect the same dramatic increases, although ?nal dispositions in all cases have not been determined. In the USA Patriot Act, Congress expressed concern about the potential abuse of individual civil rights and liberties by employees in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the Patriot Act mandated that the 01G widely advertise that it receives and investigates allegations of such abuses. Patriot Act violations include violence, discrimination, or threats on the part of a employee, particularly when such acts are directed toward individuals or groups associated in the public perception with acts of terrorism because of their religious beliefs, place of birth, or appearance. Patriot Act violation allegations which typically come to our attention are alleged mistreatment or unprofessional behavior by BOP staff toward! around certain inmates, their visitors, or other members of the public. Due to the sensitivity of these allegations, they are automatically classi?ed as Classi?cation 2 or higher offenses; they should be forwarded immediately to 01A. All Patriot Act violation allegations are then referred to a Special Operations Unit at 016 headquarters devoted to reviewing and investigating such misconduct. In Fiscal Year 2003, 37 cases of Patriot Act violation allegations were opened. As of September 30, 2003, 23 cases remained open pending investigation or awaiting disciplinary action and 14 cases were closed. In 10 of the 14 cases closed, allegations were not sustained. 0f the remaining 4 cases, 3 allegations of Unprofessional Conduct and 1 allegation of Falsi?cation of Documents were sustained. In Fiscal Year 2002, 14 Patriot Act cases were opened. As of September 30, 2003, 7 cases remained open pending investigation and 7 cases were closed with no sustained ?ndings. -5- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 8 of 60 Reported Misconduct NOTE Information on reported misconduct in the table below as Well as all subsequent information regarding closedfsustained misconduct inchide Patriot Act case data. Table 1: Types of Reported Misconduct - FY 2003 Number of Reported Allegations - 1 Type of Misconduct 11:11:: Off-Duty TOTAL Other Uri-Duty Misconduct2 298 572 3'30 Unprofessional Conduct 340 464 804 Abuse of Inmates 666 666 Personnel Prohibitions 570 35 605 Off-Duty Misconduct 590 590 Fiscal Improprieties 66 515 531 Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates 513 513 to Duty 216 255 471 Failure to Follow Policy 191 179 370 Introduction of Contraband 272 30 302 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 271 271 Breach of Security 96 160 256 Bribery 92 3 .. 95 Investigative Violations 77 Discrimination 66 9 T5 Unauthorized Release of Infonnation 3? 32 -- 69 'Please refer to Appendix A for a complete listing of the speci?c types of misconduct which fall into each broad category. 2Other Oil?Duty Misconduct refers to various behaviors which do not ?t into the other broad categories. Those speci?c behaviors are identi?ed in Appendix A. -5- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 9 of 60 Closed/Sustained Misconduct As of September 30, 2003, a decision had . NOTE been made in 2:133 (50:9 percent) 0f the All ?gures in this section relate to cases which were 4,193 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2003. opened during the speci?ed Fiscal Year, which were The remaining 2,060 cases (49.1 percent) closed as of September 30. 2003. Figures are subject were still open and being investigated. Of the '0 Change ?3 additional ?5?35 cm Chad- 2,133 cases closed, the majority (1,924, or 90.2 percent) were investigated at the institution level with authorization and monitoring provided by 01A. Of the 2,133 cases closed, 154 were 01A on?site investigations (7.2 percent). The remaining 55 cases (2.6 percent) were investigated by the following entities: Of?ce of the Inspector General 52 (2.4 percent) Federal Bureau of Investigation 1 (.05 percent) Department of Labor (.05 percent) Local Law Enforcement (.05 percent) Of the 2,133 cases closed, 995 (46.6 percent) were sustained. These sustained cases involved 913 BOP employees, 4 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 13 PHS employees working in BOP facilities, 62 contractfhalfway house employees, 64 employees working in a facility with an IGA, and 94 employees working in a privatized facility. BOP Employees There were 4,443 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2003. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 47 percent of those 4,443 employees. Of the 47 percent (or 2,086 employees), 43.8 percent (913) had a sustained decision (a rate of2.7 employees per 100 total BOP staff). Table 2 (on the following page) re?ects the types of sustained allegations for BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2003. The most frequently sustained area of misconduct was Fiscal Improprieties (49.7 percent of the sustained allegations included in this category were for Misuse of the Travel Charge Card). BOP FOIA 2016-0171610 of 60 Closedeustaincd Misconduct Table 2: Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2003 Number of Sustained Allegations es of Misconduct so 111%; Off-Duty TOTAL Fiscal 6 141 14']r Unprofessional Conduct 39 97 136 Other Clo-Duty Misconduct 25 10 135 Personnel Prohibitions 123 6 129 Failure to Follow Policy 49 66 115 Off-Duty Misconduct 110 10 Inattention to Duty 29 56 BS Breach of Secmity 25 51 as lnappropn'ate Relationship with Inmates 46 46 Investigative Violations 16 16 Introduction of Contraband 5 6 1 Abuse of Inmates 9 9 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 7 7 Unauthorized Release of Infomiation 0 2 2 Discrimination 0 0 0 Bribery 0 - Disciplinary Action Taken Once a subject is investigated and the allegations are sustained, the type of disciplinary action taken is left to the deciding of?cial, who is generally the Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO). The following disciplinaiy action was taken against those BOP employees with a sustained decision in Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003: BOP FOIA 2016-01716110f60 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Fiscal Year 2002 Fiscal Year 2003 (with 88.3% closed) (with 46.9% closed Oral Reprimand 242 135 Written Reprimand 337 266 3 1 Suspension 461 204 Demotion l4 6 Retirement 14 1 Resignation 122 63 Termination 67 21 Combined with Action in Another 01A Matter 15 6 Other Settlement Agreement) 22 10 No Action Taken 404 190 The types of misconduct most frequently sustained against those individuals for whom no disciplinary action was taken in Fiscal Year 2003 were Unprofessional Conduct (13.2 percent), Absent Without Leave percent), and Failure to Follow Policy (10.2 percent). Each case is unique, and there are varying degrees of seriousness within each type of misconduct. Also, a single suhj set may be charged with more than one type of misconduct. Therefore, the Douglas Factors must be considered when deciding the appropriate penalty to impose on employees for misconduct. The Douglas Factors are an accumulation of historic Civil Service practices and procedures in cases involved civil servant nnsconduct, created by the Merit? Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in the Douglas case. In Douglas, the MSPB announced a nonexhaustive list of 12 factors which the BOP, like all federal agencies, must consider in determining appropriate penalties to impose in employee misconduct. The Douglas Factors are as follows: 1. the nature and seriousness of the offense; 2. the employee?s job level and type of employment; 3. the employee?s disciplinary record; BOP FOIA 2016-0171612 of 60 ClosedISustained Misconduct 4. the employee?s past work record, including length of service and duty performance; 5. the effect of the offense on the employee?s ability to perform and its effect on the supervisor?s con?dence in such ability; 6. the consistency of the penalty with penalties imposed upon others for like or similar misconduct; 7. the consistency of the penalty with the BOP 5 table of penalties (Program Statement 3420. 09, Standards of Employee Conduct); . . . 8. the notoriety of the offense or its impact on the reputation; 9. the clarity with which the employee was on notice of any mics violated or warned about the conduct in question; 10. the employee?s potential for rehabilitation; 11. any and all mitigation circumstances surrounding the offense job stressftension, personality problems, mental impairment, harassment or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of others involved); 12. the adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions. The CEO is required to consider only those Douglas Factors which are relevant to any individual case and need not consider all the Douglas Factors in every case. In many cases, some of the Douglas Factors may suggest one penalty while others suggest another penaltychoose the appropriate penalty. Gender NOTE There were 3,418 male BOP employees thhe 4,443 BOP employees for whom a case was identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Opmd in Fiscal Year 2003, 99 were unidenti?ed. Year 2003. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 47.6 percent of those 3,418 male employees. Of the 47.6 percent (or 1,623 male employees), 42.7 percent (695) had a sustained decision (a rate of 2.8 employees per 100 total male BOP staff). Table 3 (on the following page) reflects the types of sustained allegations for male BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2003. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct for male staff was Fiscal Irnproprieties (48.1 percent of the sustained -10- BOP FOIA 2016-0171613 of 60 ClosedJSustained Misconduct allegations in this category related to Misuse of Government Computers and 32.4 percent related to Misuse of the Travel Charge Card), followed by Unprofessional Conduct, and Other On-Duty Misconduct. Table 3: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Male BOP Employees - FY 2003 Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct -- - 111$: Off?Duty TOTAL Fiscal Improprieties 3 103 111 Unprofessional Conduct - 33 72 105 one Orr-Duty Misconduct 15 39 1114 Personnel Prohibitions 91 5 96 Failure to Follow Policy 41 55 96 Off-Duty Misconduct 84 84 Inattention to Duty 26 46 72 Breach of Security,r 21 . 39 60 Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates 29 29 Investigative Violations 9 9 Abuse of Inmates 8 8 Introduction of Contraband 3 2 5 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 4 4 Discrimination 0 0 0 Bribery 0 0 0 Unauthorized Release of Informtion 0 0 0 There were 926 female BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2003. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 45.2 percent of those 926 female employees. 0f the 45.2 percent (or 419 female employees), 52 percent (218) had a sustained decision (a rate of 2.3 employees per 100 total female BOP staff). Table 4 (on the following page) re?ects the types of sustained allegations for female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2003. The most ?-equently sustained -11- BOP FOIA 2016-0171614 of 60 'h Closed/Sustained Misconduct type of misconduct for female staff was iscai Irnproprieties (63.6 percent of the sustained allegations in this category related to Misuse of Government Computers), followed by Personnel Prohibitions, and Unprofessional Conduct. Table 4: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Female BOP Employees - FY 2003 Number of Sustained Allegations of Misconduct 1:32;: Off?Duty TOTAL Fiscal '33 36 Personnel Prohibitions 32 1 33 Unprofessional 6 25 31 Other (In-Duty Misconduct 10 21 31 Off-Duty Misconduct 26 26 Failure to Follow P'olicy 8 ll 19 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates l? Breach of Securityr 4 12 16 Inattention to Duty 3 10 I3 Investigative Violations 7 7 Introduction of Contraband 2 4 6 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 3 . 3 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 2 2 Abuse of Inmates 1 Discrimination 0 ll 0 Bribery 0 . The following types of misconduct were sustained with greater ?'equency among female staff than among male staff: Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates (7.1 percent of all misconduct by female staff as compared to 3.7 percent of all misconduct by male stall], Introduction of Contraband (2.5 percent as compared to .6 percent), Sexual Abuse of Inmates (1.2 percent as compared to .5 percent), Personnel Prohibitions (13.7 percent as compared to 12.3 percent), Fiscal Improprieties (14.9 percent as compared to 14.2 percent), Investigative Violations (2.9 percent as compared to 1.1 percent), and Unauthorized Release of Inmates (.8 percent as compared to 0 percent). All other types of misconduct occurred with greater frequency among male staff. -12- BOP FOIA 2016-0171615 0f 60 Closed/Sustained Misconduct - Job Discipline As of September 30, 2003, 913 employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2003 had a sustained decision. The rate among Food Services staff (4.0 per 100 total Food Services staff) was higher than that among other job disciplines, followed by Recreation (3 .8 per 100 total Recreation staff) and Religious Services (3.5 per 100 total Religious Services staff) . Table 5 (below) provides a breakdown of BOP employees with sustained misconduct by discipline. BOP FOIA 2016-0171616 of 60 Table 5: Discipline for BOP Employees with Sustained Misconduct - FY 2003 Number of Discipline Enig?z?eggith Total Employees Percentage Misconduct Food Service 59 1,470 4.0 Recreation 23 609 3.8 Religious Sewices 9 259 3.5 Correctional Services 453 13,867 3.3 Unithase Management 85 3,123 2.7 Services 23 351 2.7 Staff Training CenterstIC 5 179 2. 8 Records?nmate Systems 32 1,215 2.6 Heal?iI?Safety 57 2,331 2.4 Business Of?ce 43 1343 2.3 Facilities 51 2,296 2.2 EdocationNocational Training 19 939 2.0 UNICOR 26 1,402 1.9 Computer Services 3 204 1.5 Communityr Corrections 3 231 1.3 Human Resources 7 1'62 .9 Of?ce and Staff 9 976 .9 Central Of?ce 6 1411 .4 -13- Closed/Sustained Misconduct Twelve percent of the sustained misconduct among Food Services staff involved Unprofessional Conduct related to inmates. The remaining sustained allegations for Food Services staff were distributed fairly evenly among a variety of other allegations. - Bargaining vs. Noubargaiuing Unit There were 3,370 BOP employees in the bargaining NOTE unit identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 0mm 34,022 tum! BOP 611313103? es! 31.8 2003. AS Of sept?mb?l' 30, 2003, 3. (166151011 had been pment ?I'm identi?ed 33 members (if the made for 48 percent of those 3,3 70 bargaining unit bargaining unit and 18.2 percent were employees. Of the 43'percen?t (or 1,619 bargaining identi?ed as mbafsai?ins unit unit employees), 47 .6 percent had a sustained decision mloyees' (a rate of 2.8 employees per 100 total bargaining unit sta?). There were 965 BOP employees in the nonbargaining unit identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2003. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 44.4 percent of those 965 employees. Of the 44.4 percent (or 428 nonbargaining unit employees), 33.2 percent had a sustained decision (a rate of 2.3 employees per 100 total nonbargaining unit stafi). - Security Level I As of September 30, 2003, 913 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2003 had a sustained decision. The rate among those employees working in Admilistrativc security institutions was higher than that among other security level institutions per 100 total stafi). The Rate of Staff with Sustained rate of sustained misconduct was lowest Misconduct by Security Level . FY 2003 among those working in High security institutions (2.3 per 100 total staff). 3 7 4 . The most frequently sustained type of 3-5 3?1 2.3 misconduct among those working in 3 2'5 13 . Administrative security institutions was 2-5 Failure to Follow Policy, which made up 2 18.3 percent of all misconduct among staff in that group. Unprofessional Conduct and Breach of Security occurred with the . . . secondhi est uenc ,each maltm I i gh ?'eq 3? ADM MIN LOW MED HIGH 12.8 percent of all misconduct among staff in Administrative security institutions. ?l4- BOP FOIA 2016-0171617 of 60 Closed/Sustained Misconduct The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among those working in Minimum security institutions was Unprofessional Conduct (particularly that which was unrelated to inmates). Unprofessional Conduct made up 31.8 percent of all misconduct among staff working in Minimum security institutions. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among those working in Low security institutions was Other Oil-Duty Misconduct (particularly that which was unrelated to inmates). Other Orr-Duty Misconduct made up 22.3 percent of all misconduct among staff working in Low security institutions. Fiscal Improprieties occurred with the second highest frequency, making up 17.5 percent of all misconduct in that group. The most ?equently sustained type of misconduct among those working in Medium security institutions was Fiscal Improprieties (15.8 percent of all misconduct among sta?? working in that group). Personnel Prohibitions occurred with the second highest frequency, making up 13 percent of all misconduct among staff working in Medium security institutions. The most ?'equently sustained type of misconduct among those working in High security institutions was Unprofessional Conduct (particularly that which was unrelated to imnates). Unprofessional Conduct made up 17.7 percent of all misconduct among that group. Fiscal hnpropn'eties occurred with the second highest frequency, making up 15.6 percent of all misconduct among staff working in High security institutions. Contract/Halfway House Employees There were 299 contractihalfway house employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2003. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 72.6 percent of those 299 employees. Of the 72.6 percent (or 217 employees), 28.6 percent (62) had a sustained decision. It is signi?cant that an administrative disposition was recorded for 50.7 percent of those employees for whom a decision had been made, indicating the employee either resigned or was terminated prior to an investigation being conducted. Thus, the 28.6 percent sustained rate is likely an extremely conservative ?gure. Table 6 (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against contractfhalfway house employees. hiappropriate Relationships with Inmates made up 21.4 percent of all misconduct among this group. -15- BOP FOIA 2016-0171618 of 60 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 6: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Contraetf?alfway House Employees Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct ?1,313: Ng??m Off-Duty TOTAL Inappropriate Relationship mm Inmates I 15 Unprofessional Conduct 13 Other (in-Duty Misconduct 9 Off-Duty,r Misconduct 7 Failure to Follow Policy 7 Personnel Prohibitions 4 Investigative Violations 4 Abuse of Inmates 3 Bribery 2 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 2 Inattention to Duty 2 Fiscal Irnpropiieties 1 Breach of Security 1 Introduction of Contraband Discrimination t} Unauthorized Release of Infomiation 0 Staff in Privatized Facilities There were 291 employees working at privatized facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2003. Those privatized facilities are identi?ed as: California City Correctional Institution, Cibola County Correctional Facility, Eloy Detention Center, McRae CorrectiOnal Facility, Rivers Correctional Institution, and Taft Correctional Institution. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 61.9 percent of those 291 employees. Of the 61.9 percent (or 180 employees), 52.2 percent (94) had a sustained decision. Table 7 (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against employees working in privatized facilities. O?ZDuty Misconduct made up 27.4 percent of all misconduct among this group (particularly Traf?c Citations and -16- BOP FOIA 2016-0171619 of 60 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 7: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Privatined Facilities Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct 1111:: Oil?Duty TOTAL Off-Duty Misconduct 26 26 Unprofcssional Conduct 7 9 16 Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates 16 16 Failure to Follow Policy 9 1 l0 lnattention to Duty 1 7 8 Other Orr-Duty Misconduct 3 4 7 I Personnel Prohibitions 6 6 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 2 2 Breach of Security 2 0 2 Abuse of Inmates 1 1 Investigative Violations 1 1 Introduction of Contraband I) 0 Discrimination . l] 9 Fiscal lnmroprieties 0 0 Bribery 0 . Unauthorized Release of Infonna?on {i If} . Staff in Facilities with an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) There were 166 employees working at facilities 1with an IGA identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2003. Those facilities are identi?ed as: Big Spring Correctional Center, Eden Detention Center, Fluvarina Correctional Center, Giles Dolby Correctional Center, Greensville Correctional Center, and Reeves County Detention Center. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 74.7 percent of those 166 employees. Of the 74.7 percent (or 124 employees), 51.6 percent (64) had a sustained decision. Table 8 (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against employees working in facilities with an IGA. Other Oil-Duty Misconduct made up 22.1 percent of all misconduct among this group (particular Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates). -17- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 20 of 60 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 8: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Facilities with an IGA Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct 12:: Ni: ?11.13? TOTAL Other On-Duty Misc onduct 1 4 15 Misconduct 1 11 Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates 9 9 Inat?tention to Duty 3 5 3 Failure to Follow Policy 2 4 5 Unprofessional Conduct 1 5 6 Breach of Security 1 2 3 Fiscal hnproprieties 2 3 Investigative Violations 2 2 Sexual Abuse of Inimtes 1 Introduction of Contraband 0 1 Unauthorized Release of Information 1 0 1 Abuse of Inmates 1 Personnel Prohibitiom I) 1 Discrimination 0 Bribery 0 0 Contract Employees Working in BOP Facilities There were 14 contract sta?' working in BOP facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fisea Year 2003. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 42.9 percent of those 14 contract employees. of the 42.9 percent (or 6 contract employees), 66.7 percent (4) had a sustained decision -13- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 210f60 =ClosedISustain=ed Misconduct PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities Of the 654 PHS staff working in BOP facilities, 6? were identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2003 (or 10.2 per 100 PHS employees). As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 32.8 percent of those 67 PHS employees. Of the 32.8 percent (Or 22 PHS employees), 59.1 percent (13) had a sustained decision, for a sustained rate of 2.0 per 100 PHS employees. Table 9 provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against PHS employees working in BOP facilities in Fiscal Year 2003. Table 9: Types of Sustained Misconduct for PBS Employees Working in BOP Facilities Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct 11:33:: :3 :23: Off-Duty TOTAL Other Misconduct 0 4 4 Unprofessional Conduct 1 2 Inaucntion to Duty 0 1 Off-Duty Miscoth i Breach of Security a 1 1 Abuse of Initiates 0 0 Sexual Abuse of inmates 0 0 Introduction of Contraband 0 0 0 Discrimination 0 0 0 Fiscal Improprieties 0 4 0 Bribery 0 0 0 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 0 0 Investigative Violations 0 0 Personnel Prohibitions 0 0 0 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 0 0 Failure to Follow Policy 0 0 0 . -1 9- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 22 of 60 Physical Abuse of Inmates Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 13 - Civil Rights ?241 Conspiracy against rights Iftwo or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same; or Iftwo or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -- They shall be ?ned not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life. ?242 Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or life. Statistics - Fiscal Year 2003 There were 371 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates reported to 01A during Fiscal Year 2003. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made on 52.3 percent (or 196) of those allegations. Physical Abuse allegations are tracked by the degree of injury sustained by the imnate(s) invoived--life threatening injury, serious injury, minorislight injury, minor/no injury (harassment), and super?cial injury (injuries associated with the normal use of restraints). Four allegations of Physical Abuse were sustained: 2 involved minor/slight injury to the inmate, 1 involved minorfno injury to the inmate, and 1 involved super?cial injury to the inmate. Two of the 4 sustained allegations involved male BOP employees working in Food Services. One incident occurred at a Low security institution, and incident occurred at a High security institution. The remaining 2 sustained allegations involved staff working in contract?halfway -20.. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 23 of 60 Physical Abuse of Inmates house facilities. None of the employees with a sustained allegation were convicted of criminal violations. One hundred seventy ?ve reported allegations were pending investigation. The majority of these pending matters are being investigated at the local institution level or by 01A. - Fiscal Year 2002 There were 375 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates reported to 01A during Fiscal Year 2002. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made on 85.1 percent (or 319) of those allegations. Twelve allegations of Physical Abuse were sustained: 4 involved minorl'slight injury to the intnate, 7 involved minorfno injury to the inmate, and 1 involved super?cial injury to the inmate. Eleven of the 12 sustained allegations involved male BOP employees-9 Correctional Services employees, 1 Food Service employees, and 1 Unit Management employee. Eight of the 11 sustained allegations involved BOP employees occurred at High security institutions, 1 occurred at a Medium security institution, 1 occurred at an Administrative security institution, and 1 occurred at a Low security institution. The remaining sustained allegation involved an employee working at a facility with an EA None of the employees with a sustained allegation were convicted of criminal violations. Fifty six reported allegations were pending investigation. The majority of these pending matters are being investigated by the DIG, FBI, or CRT. When comparing sustained allegations for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003, keep in mind that Fiscal Year 2003 ?gures are lower because a higher number of allegations are pending investigation. -21- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 24 of 60 Introduction of Contrabant Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 87 - Prisons ?1791 Providing or possessing contraband in prison Offense-Whoever- (1) In violation of a statute or a rule or order issued under a statute, provides to an inmate of a prison a prohibin object, or attempts to do so; or (2) being an inmate of a prison, makes, possesses, or obtains, or attempts to make or obtain, a prohibited object; shall be punished as provided in subsection of this section. Punishment-The punishment for an offense under this section is a ?ne under this title or- 1) imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; (2) iniprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; (3) imprisonment for no more than 5 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; imprisonment for no more than one year, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection or of this section; and (5) imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section. (0) Any punishment imposed under subsection for a violation of this section an inmate of a prison shall be consecutive to the sentence being served by such inmate at the time the inmate commits such violation. De?nitions-As used in this section- (1) the term ?prohibited object? means- (A) a ?rearm or destructive device; (B) ammunition, a weapon (other than a ?rearm or destructive de?es), or an object that is designed or intended to be used as a weapon or to facilitate escape from a prison; (C) a narcotic drug, iysergic acid diethylamide, or (D) a controlled substance {other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subsection) or an alcoholic beverage; -22- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 25 of 60 Introduction of=Contraband (E) any United States or foreign currency; and (F) any other object that threatens the order, discipline, or security of a prison, or the life, health, or safety of an individual; (2) the terms ?ammunition," ??rearm,? and ?destructive device? have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 921 of this title; the terms ?controlled substance? and ?btarcotic drug? have, reapectively, the meanings given these terms in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); and (4) the term ?prison? means a Federal correctional, detention, or penal facility. Statistics - Fiscal Year 2003 There were 302 allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported to OIA during Fiscal Year 2003. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made on 26.2 percent (or 79) of those allegations. Thirteen allegations of Introduction of Contraband were sustained: 12 involved the introduction of soft contraband and 1 involved the introduction of drugs (by a contract employee working in a BOP facility). It is signi?cant to note that of the 12 sustained allegations of soft contraband introduction, 5 involved staff bringing their personal cellular telephones into the secure perimeter of the institution. A total of 13 individuals were involved in the Introduction of Contraband. Of the 13 individuals, 6 were female BOP employees (2 Unit Management employees, 1 employee in the of?ce, 1 Correctional Services employee, 1 Food Service employee, and 1 Health Sentices.? Safety employee), 5 were male BOP employees (1 UNICOR employee, 1 Unit Management employee, 1 Recreation employee, 1 Business Of?ce employee, and 1 Health ServiceslSafety employee), 1 was a contract employee working at a BOP facility, and 1 was an employee at a facility with an IGA. None of the employees with a sustained allegation were convicted of criminal violations. Two hundred twenty three reported allegations are pending investigation. The majority of these pending matters are being investigated by the DIS. Fiscal Year 2002 There were 192 allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported to 01A during Fiscal Year 2003. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made on 78.6 percent (or 151) of those allegations. Thirty-eight allegations of Introduction of Contraband were sustained: 22 involved -23- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 26 of 60 Introduction of Contrabanr the introduction of soft contraband, 10 involved the introduction of drugs, 1 involved the introduction of alcoholic beverages, and 1 involved the introduction of a weapon (a multi~tool). A total of 36 individuals were involved in the Introduction of Contraband (1 employee had 3 sustained allegations of introduction of contraband, 2 for drugs and 1 for alcoholic beverages). Of the 36 individuals, 18 were male BOP employees (10 Correctional Services employees, 2 Education and Vocational Training employees, 2 Facilities employees, 1 UNICOR employee, 1 Recreation employee, 1 Food Service employee, and 1 Health ServicesfSafety employee], 7 we: female BOP employees (2 Correctional Services employees, and 1 employee each from Unit Management, Education and Vocational Training, Religious Services, Facilities, and Health Senricest?Safety), 2 were contract employees working in a BOP facility, 4 were connacuhal?vay house employees, 3 were employees working at a privatized facility, and 2 were employees working at a facility with an IGA. Ten of the staff involved in the Introduction of Contraband were convicted of criminal violation (6 male BOP employees, 1 female BOP employee, 2 employees working at privatized facilities, and 1 employee working at a facility with an IGA). Forty one reported allegations are pending investigation. The majority of these pending matters are being investigated by the GIG. When comparing sustained allegations for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003, keep in mind that Fiscal Year 2003 ?gures are lower because a higher number of allegations are pending investigation. -24- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 2? of 60 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 109A - Sexual Abuse ?2241 Aggravated Sexual Abuse (3) By force or threat. Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act - (1) by using force against that other person, or (2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempts to do so, shall be lined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. By other means. - Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly - renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or (2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby - (A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and (B) engages in a sexual act with that other person; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. ?2242 Sexual Abuse Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly - causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or (2.) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is - (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; -25- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 28 of 60 Sexual Abuse of Inmates or attempts to do so shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. ?2243 Sexual Abuse of a Ward (in) Of a ward - Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who is (1) in of?cial detention; and (2) under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so engaging; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both. ?2244 Abusive Sexual Contact Sexual contact in circumstances where sexual acts are punished by this chapter. - Whoever in a Federal prison, lmOWiIlgly engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so to do would violate - (1) section 224] of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; (2) section 2242 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than three years, or both; (4) subsection of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both. In Other Circumstances. - Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without that other person?s permission shall be ?ned not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than six months, or both. 2246 De?nitions (1) the term ?prison" means a correctional, detention, or penal facility; (2) the term ?sexual act" means - (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for the purposes of this subparagrapb, contact involved the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus; or -26- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 29 of 60 Statistics SexualtAbuse of; Inmates (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening by another by a hand or ?nger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; and (3) the term ?sexual contact? means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (4) the term ?serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious dis?gurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. the term ?of?cial detention" means - (A) detention by a Federal of?cer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal of?cer or employee, following arrest for an offense; following surrender in lieu of an arrest for an offense; following a charge or conviction of an offense, or an allegation or ?nding of juvenile delinquency: following commitment as a material witness; following civil commitment in lieu of criminal proceedings or pending resumption of criminal proceedings that are being held in abeyance, or pending extradition, deportation, or exclusion; or (B) custody by a Federal of?cer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal Of?cer or employee, for purposes incident to any detention described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, including transportation, medical diagnosis or treatment, court appearance, work, and recreation; but does not include supervision or under control (other than custody during speci?ed hours or days) after release on bail, probation, or parole, or after release following a juvenile delinquency. Fiscal Year 2003 During Fiscal Year 2003, 277 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to 01A or detected during the course of an investigation Following is a breakdown of these allegations by region, These ?gures include allegations against staff working in contractfhalfway house -27- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 30 of 60 Sexual Abuse= of Inmate: facilities, privatized facilities, and facilities with an IGA. Absolute numbers are used due to an inability to get per capita rates. Mid-Atlantic Region 31 North Central Region 38 Northeast Region 24 South Central Region 64 Southeast Region . 7'4 Western Region 46 Five or more allegations were reported at the following facilities: CI Marianna 16 FCI Tallahassee 12 USP Lee 10 USP Atlanta 9 FMC Carswell 9 USP Coleman 3 FDC Seatac 6 USP TBITB Haute 6 MDC Brooklyn 5 ADMAX Florence FCI Petersburg (Low) 5 Reeves Count)r Detention Center 5 One hundred ninety four of these 277 allegations involved BOP employees, 1 involved a PHS employee, 3 involved contract staff working in BOP facilities, 55 involved staff working at contractfhalfway house facilities, 12 involved staff working in privatized facilities, and 12 involved staff working at a facility with an IGA. The types of allegations most frequently reported involved Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward between female staff and male inmates (60 reported allegations), Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward between male staff and female inmates (41 reported allegations) and Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and male inmates (36 reported allegations). As of September 30, 2003, 12 allegations of Sexual Abuse had been sustained. Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Unit Management employee at FMC Fort Worth and a male imnate at a halfway house. The subject admitted having a sexual 5.28.. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 31 of 60 LSexual Abuse of Inmates relationship with a former FMC Fort Worth inmate after his transfer to a halfway house- Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her employment (2003-02327). Sexual Abuse of 3. Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at USP Atwater. During an 016 investigation, the subject invoked her right to an attorney, and the criminal interview was terminated. She was compelled administratively and admitted having a sexual relationship with an inmate and introducing contraband into the institution for him. The subject resigned her employment (2003-03090). Sexual Abuse of a was between a female employee at the Seal Beach Jail and a male inmate. The subject admitted she engaged in sexual intercourse with an inmate. The AUSA declined prosecution; however, the Seal Beach District Attorney?s Of?ce accepted the case for prosecution. The subject pled guilty to 289.6 of the California Penal Code and was sentenced to three-years probation. ?ned $100, and ordered to completed ten days of community service. Her employment was terminated (2003-01133). Sexual Abuse of :1 Ward between a female employee at Dismas House in El Paso, Texas, and a male inmate. The subject admitted having sexual relations with an inmate whom she believed to be the father of her child. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned (2003?00337). Abusive Sexual Contact between a male UNICOR employee and a female inmate at FCC Coleman (Medium). The staff member pled guilty to one count of 18 USC, 2244(a)(4) in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, and was ?ned $500. The subject resigned (2003-01221). Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Unit Management employee and a male inmate at USP Lompoc. The staff member entered an inmate restroom and told an inmate, "Hold this for me," as he was urinating. The subject received an oral reprimand (2003-00602). Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at FCI Butner. The subject admitted writing "love letters" to an inmate. She resigned her employment (2003-0125 9). Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee at MDC San Diego and a female inmate. During an 01G investigation, the subject admitted to flirting with various female inmates and being alone in a staff restroom with a female inmate. The subject resigned his employment (2003-02475). -29- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 32 of 60 Sexual Abuse of Inmate: Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee at FDC Houston and a female inmate. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted having a personal relationship with the inmate and admitted kissing her prior to her release (2003?01229). Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male staff member and a male inmate at Cibola Correctional Facility. The subject admitted he jokingly made sexual comments to an inmate. He was suspended for three days (2003-00016). Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female staff member and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The subject admitted spending time with and kissing the inmate in isolated areas of the facility. She denied having sexual relation with the inmate, as did the inmate. The subj ect?s employment was terminated (2003- 021 3 1). Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female staff member and a male inmate at the Cibola County Correctional Facility. The subject admitted engaging in conversations of a sexual nature with the inmate and kissing him. A 15-day suspension was proposed by the contractor, but the subject?s employment was ultimately terminated after she was prohibited from having contact with federal offenders (2003-01282). One hundred forty ?ve of the 277 reported allegations are pending investigation. The majority 0 these pending matters are being investigated by the 01G. Fiscal Year 2002 During Fiscal Year 2002, 195 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. Following is a breakdown of these allegations by Mid?Atlantic Region 23 North Central Region 25 Northeast Region 27 South Central Region 45 Southeast Region 35 Western Region 40 Five or more allegations were reported at the following facilities: FMC Carswell 13 FCI Danbury . 12 -30- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 33 of 60 Sexy_al Abuse Inmates FCI Dublin 9 USP Terre Haute 7 Reeves County Detention Center 6 FCI Tallahassee 5 California City Correctional Institution 5 It is signi?cant to note that 13 of the 18 allegations at FMC Carswell resulted ?om a civil suit ?led by an inmate and are all included in the same case. These allegations were not sustained. One hundred nventy six of these 195 allegations involved BOP employees, 4 involved contract staff working in BOP facilities, 49 involved sta?' working in contracta'hal?ivay house facilities, 9 involved staff working in privatized facilities, and 8 involved staff working at a facility with an IGA. One allegation involved an employee of the Texas National Guard, who allegedly engaged in sexual relations with an inmate from FPC Bryan on a janitorial work detail. The types of allegations most frequently reported involved Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and female inmates (37 reported allegations), Sexual AbuseJSexual Abuse of a Ward between female staff and male inmates (33 reported allegations, and Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward between male staff and female inmates (30 reported allegations). As of September 30, 2003, 16 allegations of Sexual Abuse had been sustained. Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female contract employee and a male inmate at FCI Waseca. The subject admitted she had sexual relations with an inmate. The AUSA declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated (2002?02158). Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at MCC San Diego. The subject pled guilty to Sexual Abuse of a Ward and was placed on one year of supervised probation. The subject resigned his position (2002? 02345}. Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and several female inmates at FMC Carswell. During an OIG investigation, the subject initially admitted having a sexual relationship with one inmate. He was re-interviewed and admitted having sexual intercourse with an additional ?ve inmates. The subject was sentenced to 24 months incarceration, 24-months probation, and ?ned $1,000. He resigned his employment (2002-02816). - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Facilities employee at FMC Devens and a male inmate. The subject admitted having sexual relations with an inmate and providing the inmate with a cellular telephone. Due to the subject?s status as a single parent, the -31- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 34 of 60 .. Sexual Abuse of Inmatt United States Attorney?s Of?ce declined to prosecute her for Sexual Abuse of a Ward conviction on such a charge could have subjected the subject to a designation as a sex offender and generated unintended parental custody consequences). Rather, she pled guilty to Smuggling Contraband and was sentenced to 6?months probation, a $500 ?ne, and mandatory mental health counseling (2002-02264). Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Religious Services employee and a male inmate at FMC Rochester. The subject admitted having sexual intercourse with the inmate and engaging in oral sex with him. The 01G did not contemplate prosecution. The subject resigned her position (2002-03333). Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Business Of?ce employee and a male inmatn at FCI Three Rivers. The subject pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward a was sentenced to time served and one-year supervised release. She was also ordered to register as a sex offender. The subject resigned her position. (2002-03583). Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member at Dismas House and a male inmate. The subject admitted she was involved in sexual relationships with two inmate The OIG did not contemplate prosecution. The subject resigned her position (2002- 00152). Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member at the Reeves County Detentio Center and a male inmate. The subject admitted she was sexually involved with the inmate and entered into a pretrial diversion program which she successfully completed on December 2, 2002. The charges against her have since been dismissed. The subject employment was terminated (2002-00673). Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male sta?? member and a female imnate at Voluntee of America in Baltimore, Maryland. The subject admitted he had sexual relations with inmate, which he claimed was consensual. The Baltimore County Police Department investigated the allegations and declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated (2002-00795). Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member and a male inmate at Voluntee of America in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The subject admitted she had sexual relations with an imnate. Both federal and state authorities declined prosecution. The subject resigned her position (2002??01204). Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member and a male inmate at Troy HOL in Durham, North Carolina. The OIG did not contemplate prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated (2002-02212). -32- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 35 of 60 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male staff member and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The subject pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and was sentenced to 24-months probation, to include 4 months home con?nement. The subject was also ordered to pay a $1,000 ?ne. The subject's employment was terminated. (2002?02411). Abusive Sexual Contact between a female staff member and a male inmate at FCC Coleman (Low). The staff member admitted she hugged and kissed the inmate and engaged in ?heavy petting? with him in the staff bathroom. The staff member admitted they fondled each other?s genitals, but she denied they engaged in oral sex or intercourse. The AUSA declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment (2002-02504). Abusive Sexual Contact between a female staff member and a male inmate at FPC Yankton. The subject admitted she hugged and kissed the inmate, and they caressed each others? buttocks. She also admitted she met the inmate at a bus station when he was furlough transferred ?om FPC Yankton. The subject resigned her position (2002-02794). Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female staff member at FCI Sheridan and a male inmate. An inmate?s personal property was searched. Concealed in the property were three notes written by the inmate to the subject, and one note written by the subject to the inmate in which she expressed her love for him. The subject resigned her position (2002-00124). Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female contract employee and a male inmate at FCI Big Spring. The staff member admitted she kissed the inmate. Her contract with the BOP was terminated and she was banned from entering instinition grounds (2002-03079). Wenty-?ve of the 195 reported allegations are pending investigation. The majority of these pending investigations are being conducted by the GIG, FBI, or CRT. -33- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 36 of 60 BOP Employees Previous Fiscal Year Update As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 88.3 percent of the 3,807 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2002. Of the 33.3 percent (or 3,36t employees), 506 percent (1,701) had a sustained decision (a rate of 5 employees per 100 total BOP staff). Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2002 Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct 11.33:, ?$1333? Off-Duty TOTAL Fiscal Improprieties 10 275 28 Unprofessional Conduct 45 209 25 Off-Duty Misconduct 238 23 Fa?ure to Follow Policy 38 139 22 Personnel Prohibitions 211 13 22 Other On-Duty Misconduct 37 13? 22 lnattention to Duty 63 160 22 Breach of Seemity 30 80 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 93 9 Investigative Violations 3 8 3 Introduction of Contraband 20 7 2 Abuse of Inmates 20 I 2 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 3 Unauthorized Release of mformation 5 2 Bribery 3 0 - Discrimination 0 - Gender As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 88.5 percent of the 2,937 male BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2002. Of the 88.5 percent (01' 2,59! -34- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 3? of 60 Previous Fiscal Year Updates male employees), 50.5 percent (1,312) had a sustained decision (a rate of 5.4 per 100 total male BOP staff). As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 89.0 percent of the 800 female BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2002. Of the 89.0 percent (or 712 female employees, 54.5 percent (3 88) had a sustained decision (a rate of 4.1 per 100 total female BOP staff). In one instance misconduct was sustained against an unknown subject. Although no subject could be identi?ed, it was determined a breach of security had occurred. - Job Discipline As of September 30, 2003, 1,701 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2002 had a sustained decision. The rate among Food Services staff (7.3 per 100 total Food Services staff) was higher than that among other job disciplines, followed by Religious Services (6.9 per 100 total Religious Services staff) and Recreation (6.6 per 100 total Recreation staff). Please see the following page for a table showing the rate of sustained misconduct among other job disciplines. - Bargaining vs. Nonbargainiug Unit There were 2,874 BOP employees in the bargaining unit identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2002. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 88.7 percent of those 2,8 74 bargaining unit employees. Of the 88.7 percent (or 2,549 bargaining unit employees), 52.3 percent had a sustained decision (a rate of 4.8 employees per 100 total bargaining unit staff). There were 862 uouhargaining unit BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2002. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 88.3 percent of those 862 nonbargaining unit employees. Of the 88.3 percent (or 761 nonbargaining unit employees), 48.2 percent had a sustained decision (a rate of 6.0 employees per 100 total nonbargaining unit staff). Security Level As of September 30, 2003, 1,701 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2002 had a sustained decision. The rate among those working in Administrative security institutions was higher than that among other security level institutions (5.7 per 100 total staff). the rate among staff working in Minimum security institution was 5.5 per 100 total staff, and the rate among staff in Low security institutions, High security institutions, and Medium security -35- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 38 of 60 Previous Fiscal Year Ugdates institutions was 5.5 per 100 total staff, 5.1 per 100 total staff, and 4.9 per 100 total staff, respectively. Discipline for BOP Employees with Sustained Misconduct - FY 2002 Number of Discipline Total Employees Percentage Misconduct Food Service 108 1,420 7.3 Religious Services 18 260 6.9 Recreation 40 603 6.6 Healti?szety 142 2,313 6.1 Correctional Services 309 13,603 6.1 Community Corrections 13 233 5 .6 System 62 1,214 5.1 Services 35 846 4.2 UnivCase Management 129 3,033 4.2 Facilities 94 2,279 4. 1 UNICOR 57 1,429 4.0 EducationNocational Training 34 927 Business Of?ce 59 1,706 3.5 Computer Services 6 192 3.1 CEO's Of?ce and Staff 30 995 3.0 Inmate Services 5 129 2.8 Staff Training CentereMC 5 13?9 2.8 Human Resources 13 T75 2.3 Central Office 6 141 1 .4 -36- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 39 of 60 Previous Fiscal Year Updates ContractfHalfway House Employees There were 279 contractfhalfway house employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2002. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 99.6 percent of those 279 employees. Of the 99.6 percent (or 273 employees), 28.] percent (78) had a sustained decision. It is signi?cant that an administrative disposition was recorded for 45 percent of those employees for whom a decision had been made, indicating the employee either resigned or was terminated prior to an investigation being conducted. Types of Sustained Misconduct l'or ContractIHalfway House Employees - FY 2002 Number of Sustained Allegations of Misconduct to $2133 ?2:12:23? Off-Duty TOTAL Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 23 23 Other On?Duty Misconduct 6 6 12 Unprofessional Conduct 1 1 1 1 Off-Duty Misconduct 1 1 1 Personnel Prohibitions - 6 4 10 lnattention to Duty 2 2 4 Introduction of Contraband 3 1 4 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 4 4 Failure to Follow Policy 3 0 3 Fiscal Improprieties 3 3 Investigative Violations . 2 - 2 Bribery 2 2 Breach of Security 1 0 1 Abuse of Inmates 0 - 0 Discrimination 0 0 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 0 . -37- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 40 of 60 Previous Fiscal Year Updates Staff in Privatized Facilities There were 188 employees working in privatized facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2002. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 98.9 percent of those 188 employees. Of the 98.9 percent (or 186 employees), 45.? percent (85) had a sustained decision. Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Privatized Facilities - FY 2002 I - Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct if; Nam? Off-Duty TOTAL Off-Duty Misconduct 19 19 Inappropriate with Inmates 16 16 Failure to Follour Policy 8 6 14 Personnel Ptohibitious 9 2 11 Breach of Security 0 Inattention to Duty 0 7 7 Unprofessional Conduct 4 2 6 Other On-Duty Misconduct 5 5 Investigative Violations 3 3 Introduction of Contraband 3 0 3 Unauthorized Release of Infonnation 2 0 2 Abuse of Inmates 1 1 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 0 Discrimination 0 0 0 Fiscal lnqiroprie?es 0 0 Bribery 0 0 Staff in Facilities with an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) There were 163 employees working at facilities with an IGA identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2002. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 98.8 percent -33- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 41 of 60 Proving; Fiscal year Updates of those 163 employees. 0f the 98.8 percent (or 161 employees), 49.7 percent (80) had a sustained decision. Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Facilities with an IGA - FY 1002 Number of Sustained Allegations of Misconduct 311 111$; Off-Duty TOTAL Off-Duty Misconduct 23 23 Other On-Duty Misconduct 1 1 1 12 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 12 12 Unprofessional Conduct 2 7 9 Personnel Prohibitions 7 0 7 Breach of Security 0 4 4 Inattention to Duty 0 3 3 Failure to Follow Policy 3 3 3 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 2 2 . Investigative Violations 2 2 Abuse of Inmates 2 2 Introduction of Contraband 2 0 2 Discrimination 0 0 Fiscal Improprieties 0 0 Bribery 0 0 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 0 0 Contract Employees Working in BOP Facilities There were 15 contract staff working in BOP facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2002. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 100 percent of those 15 contract employees. Of the 100 percent, 60 percent (9) had a sustained decision. -39- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 42 of 60 Previous Fiscal Year Updates Employees Working in BOP Facilities Of the PHS staff working in BOP facilities in Fiscal Year 20023, 53 were identi?ed as misconduct subjects during that period. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made for 86.8 percent of those 53 PHS employees. Of that 86.8 percent (or 46 employees), 60.9 percent (28 staff) had a sustained decision. The following table provides more speci?c information. Types ol? Sustained Misconduct for PHS Employees - FY 2002 Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct . Inmate Non Inmate Related Related TOTAL Fiscal hrmropricties Failure to Follow Policy Inattention ho Duty Breach of Scemity Misconduct U3 Unprofessional Conduct lg.) Other Clo-Duty Misconduct Unauthorized Release of Information Abuse of inmates Sexual Abuse of Inmates Introduction of Connaband Discrimination Bribery Inappropriate Relationships with lnrnatea icecc??ocw Investigative Violations Personnel Prohibitions 3The total complement of PHS employees in BOP facilities in Fiscal Year 2002 was not available; thus, rates per 100 PHS staff could not be provided. -40- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 43 of 60 Representative Case Summaries Misuse of Government Computers A Computer Services Manager was reviewing the GroupWise account of a Correctional Services employee when she discovered the Correctional Services employee had received pornographic images via e-mail from an employee at another facility and saved these images to the hard drive of hisr'her government computer. Outcome: The Correctional Services employee received a letter of reprimand. Disciplinary action was also taken against two staff members from the other facility. Breach of Computer Security An Inmate Systems employee allowed a Correctional Services employee to use his/her password to log onto a govemment computer so that she (the Recordsr'himate Systems employee] could run a transaction in NCIC. The Systems employee was not certi?ed as an NCIC terminal operator. Outcome: The Recordsr'lnmate Systems employee received a letter of reprimand. No disciplinary action was taken against the Correctional Services employee. Misuse of Travel Charge Card A Unit Management employee used hisfher government-issued travel charge card to make ATM withdrawals totaling $1,200 while on of?cial travel. The withdrawals were in excess of that allowed by policy. Outcome: The Unit Management employee received an oral reprimand. A Services employee used hisfher government-issued travel charge card to make purchases at a department store, a liquor store, a sporting goods store, and an insurance company. Outcome: The Services employee was suspended for three days. Endangering the Safety of an Inmate Two inmates alleged in separate correspondence that prompt medical attention was not delivered to another inmate, who subsequently died. Both claimed that a Unit Management employee failed to contact Health Services in a timely manner following a medical emergency on the unit. Outcome: An investigation revealed that neither of the inmate complainants were present during the medical emergency in question. Moreover, available evidence indicated that the employee who was alleged to have not reacted quickly enough to the emergency had, in fact, performed his duties as required and as had other staff responsible for responding to the situation. No action was taken as the allegation was determined to be unfounded. 41- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 44 of 60 Remsentative Case Summaries Unprofessional Conduct An inmate asked a Food Service employee if the meat being served was beef or pork. The Food Service employee replied, ?That was a stupid ass question, you dumb Outcome: The Food Service employee received a letter of reprimand. A ood Service employee and an inmate were horse playing by hitting each other in the stomach. Outcome: The Food Service employee received a letter of reprimand. Inattention to Duty An Inmate Services employee left the laundry to attend a meeting, leaving an inmate locked in the laundry. The inmate was found in the laundry approximately 35 minutes later sitting at the foreman?s desk next to a telephone with an outside line. Outcome: The Inmate Services employee was suspended for three days. Inappropriate Relationship with an Inmate While assisting mail room staff at a BOP facility, a Legal Instruments Examiner intercepted a letter addressed to an inmate. The contents of the letter appeared to indicate the writer was employed at a local contractfhal?vay house facility. The CCM Of?ce was contacted and veri?ed the writer was, in fact, employed at the contracb?halfway house facility. Further review of the inmate?s records revealed he was previously housed at the facility as a prohationer. Outcome: The individual admitted corresponding with the inmate. Hisfher employment was terminated. Failure to Properly Supervise of Security A staff member at a facility with an IGA left his post without being properly relieved. She left inmates unsupervised and the sallyport doors to the pods unsecured. Outcome: The employee was susyended for one day. Introduction of Contraband An inmate complainant alleged a Correctional Services employee brought a cellular telephone into the institution and allowed another inmate to use it. The inrnate complainant ?trther alleged the second Correctional Services employee gave an inmate an item she brought into the institution in a large duffel bag. Outcome: The inmate complainant failed to identify any targets from a photographic lineup display. All inmates in the unit were strip searched, and no contraband was found. Additionally, K-9 drug detection dogs were deployed in the unit, and no contraband was detected. A query was conducted of all sta?? telephone numbers to detennine whether inmates were calling the numbers. The query proved negative. Finally, imnate unit orderlies were drug tested with negative results. The allegations in this case were found to be without merit. ~42? BOP FOIA 2016-01716 45 of 60 Significant Prosecutions Following are brief summaries of some of the signi?cant or noteworthy prosecutions which were completed during Fiscal Year 2003. The individuals referenced are no longer employed by the BOP or any BOP contractor. A Correctional Of?cer allowed an inmate to have unsupervised visits with his wife and girlfriend. The Correctional Of?cer brought alcohol and food into the institution for the inmate and accepted $1,900 in Western Union money orders from the inmate?s wife and girl?iend. The Correctional Of?cer pled guilty to Gratuity to a Public Of?cial and was sentenced to 90?days incarceration, one-year supervised release, and a $2,5 00 ?ne. A male reportedly entered a gas station wearing dark clothing, a bulletproof vest, and carrying two sidearms. He identi?ed himself as a Correctional Of?cer with the BOP and stated he was under pressure at work and other things were going on in his life. The gas station attendant called the police. When the police arrived, the Correctional Of?cer ?red shots at them. One police of?cer was shot three times in the chest, and the other was shot once in the arm. The Correctional Of?cer was shot twice. The Correctional Of?cer was convicted of two counts of Attempted Murder of a Law Enforcement Of?cer. He was sentenced to between 31 and 47 months in prison. The Court recommended treatment and placed him in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Corrections. A Cook Supervisor introduced creatine, hydrocut, and marijuana into the institution and gave it to an inmate to sell to other inmates. The Cook Supervisor pled guilty to Conspiracy to Possess Contraband and was sentenced to three-months incarceration and three?years probation. In addition, the Cook Supervisor was ordered to pay a $100 special assessment fee. An OIG undercover agent met with a Correctional Of?cer and delivered nine ounces of cocaine, along with a payment of $900. After taking possession of and agreeing to introduce the cocaine into a facility with an IGA, the Correctional Of?cer was arrested. He was charged with and pled guilty to Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine and Providing or Possessing Contraband in Prison. He was sentenced to 57?months incarceration and three-years supervised release. In addition, the Correctional Officer was ordered to pay a $200 special assessment fee. Truce inmates alleged a Correctional Of?cer was delivery marijuana to an inmate in exchange for cash. An DIG undercover agent provided the Correctional Officer with $1,000 and one pound of marijuana. The Correctional Of?cer then drove to a BOP facility and proceeded inside. He was arrested as he approached the Control Center. The Correctional Officer pled guilty to one count of Introduction of Contraband and was sentenced to 6-months incarceration and a $2,500 ?ne. In addition, the Correctional Of?cer was ordered to pay a $100 special assessment fee. -43- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 46 of 60 Signi?cant Prosecutions A Correctional Of?cer admitted to introducing contraband into the institution for an inmate in exchange for payments ranging from $20 to $250. The Correctional Of?cer was convicted of Bribery and sentenced to eight months of electronically-monitored home con?nement and two-years supervised release. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 4? of 60 Appendix A Types of Misconduct BOP FOIA 2016-01716 48 of 60 Type of Misconduct Abuse of Inmates Physical Abuse of Inmates Excessive Use of Force Threatening an Inmate?Verbal Abuse Use of Profanity Sexual Abuse of Inmates Aggravated Sexual Abuse - ?2241 Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward - {522432243 Abusive Sexual Contact - ?2244 Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature Introduction of Contraband So? Item Introduction Weapons Introduction Escape Paraphernalia Introduction Moneyr Introduction Marijuana Introduction Heroin Derivatives Introduction Cocaine Introduction Other Unspeci?ed Drugs Introduction Alcoholic Beverages Introduction Unauthorized Electronic Devise Introduction CreatinefWeightli?ing Supplement Introduction -46- Category lor2 1or2 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 49 of 60 of Misconduct Discrimination Discrimination Fiscal Improprieties Time and Attendance Irregular-Mes Voucher Falsi?cation Thefthisuse of Govemment Funds ($100) Theib?Misuse of Property Misuse of Government Computers Improper Procurement Procedures Failure to Pay Government Charge Card Misuse of Travel Charge Card ($1,000) Misuse of Purchase Charge Card ($1,000) ?I?he?Misuse of Employee Club Funds The?I?Misuse of Funds Theft of Inmate Funds The?lDestruction of Inmate Property T?he?fMisuse of Contractor Funds The?fMisuse of Contractor Property Failure to Account for Inmate Bribery Bribery In appropriate Relationship with Inmates Soliciting/Accepting Anything of Value Offerinngiving Anything of Value Improper Contact with an Inmate?nmate?s Family -47- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 50 of 60 Categog lor2 Ior2 lor2 Zor3 201?3 lor2 lor2 Type of Misconduct Category Appearance of an Inappropriate Relationship 2 Misuse of Inmate Labor 2 Preferential Treatment of Inmates 2 Investigative Violations Coneealing a Material Fact 1 or 2 Refusing to Cooperate 1 or 2 Lying During an Investigation 1 or 2 Providing a False Statement 1 or 2 Alteringmestroying Evideneel?Doeuments Re?ising to Submit to a Search 1 or 2 Interfering withiItnpeding an Investigation 1 or 2 Advising Someone to Violate Policy 1 or 2 i Conducting an Unauthorized hivestigation 1 Personnel Prohibitions Threatening/Intimidating Employees 1 or 2 Failure to Report Violation of Ruleszegnlations 1 or 2 Falsi?cation of Employment Records . 2 Misuse of Of?cial PositionfBadge 2 . Inappropriate Sup ewisor?ubordinate Relationship 2 IL Engaging in Prohibited Personnel Practices 2 Ir UsefAbuse of Illegal DrugsJAlcohol 2 or 3 Absent Without Leave (AWOL) 3 ?48- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 51 of 60 Type of Misconduct Unauthorized Release of Infonnation Unauthorized Release of Infonnation Violation of POI/Privacy Acts Other Oil-Duty Misconduct Use of Profanity Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature Inattention to Dirty? Failure to Respond to an Emergenc}r Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates Breach of Security? Breach of Computer Security Falsi?cation of Documents Unprofessional Conduct? Failure to Follow Policy? Gamblinngromotion of Gambling Endangering the Safety of an Inmate Endangering the Safety of Others Providing False Information Other Than During an Of?cial Investigation hisubordination Accidental Discharge of a Firearm Soliciting/Sale of Goods on Property ob Favoritism Workplace Violence Failure to Meet Performance Standards Failure to Follow Supervisor?s Instructions -49- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 52 of 60 Categogg lor2 lor2 1or2 Tyre of Misconduct Catego? Off-Duty Misconduct Arrest and Conviction 2 or 3 Failure to Report Arrest 3 Failure to Pay Just Debts Failure to Obtain Outside Employment Approval DWIIDUI Domestic Violence Traf?c Citation Carrying an UnregisteredfConcealed Firearm Discreditable Behavior Falsi?cation of Records/Documents Other Citation (Hunting, etc.) Con?ict of Interest Due to the high number of allegations in these categories, they are listed separately throughout this report Category classi?cations are offered as a guideline for misconduct by bargaining unit employees at the 63-13 or below level. Any misconduct involving nonbargaining unit employees at the [33-13 or above level will, at a minimum, be classified as Category 2 allegations. Also, circumstances in any individual case may indicate that its classi?cation should be elevated. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 53 of 60 Appendix 01A Staff and Monitoring Assignments BOP FOIA 2016-01716 54 of 60 "7c? 19' ll 3 weu 5.119;? Buxaau ;0 99940 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 55 0f 60 Of?ce of Internal Affairs Institution Monitoring Assignments Mid-Atlantic Region FPC Alderson, WV FCI Ashland, KY FCI Beokley, WV FCI Big Sandy, KY FCI Bnmer, NC LSCI Butner, NC FMC Butner, NC FCI Cumberland, MD FCI Gilmer, WV USP Lee, VA FMC Lexington, KY FCI Manchester, KY USP McCreary, KY FCI Memphis, TN FCI Morgantown, WV FCI Petersburg, VA (Low) FCI Petersburg, VA fMed.) FPC Seymour Johnson, NC North Central Region MCC Chicago, IL FPC Duluth, MN FCI Englewood, CO FCI Florence, C0 USP Florence, CO -53- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 56 of 60 ADMAX Florence, CO FCI Grocnville, IL USP Leavenworth, KS USP Marion, IL FCI Milan, MI FCI Oxford, WI FCI Pekin, IL FMC Rochester, MN FCI Sandstone, MN Spring?eld, MO USP Terre Haute, IN FCI Wasoca, MN FPC Yankton, SD Northeast Region FPC Allenwood, PA LSCI Allonwood, PA FCI Allonwood, PA USP Allenwood, PA Ih?3C3BnookbogPTY FCI Danbury, CT FMC Devens, MA FCI Elkton, 0H FCI Fajrton, NJ FCI Fort Dix, NJ FCI Loretto, PA -54- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 5? of 60 FCI McKean, PA MCC New York, NY FCI Otisville, NY FDC Philadelphia, PA FCI Ray Brook, NY FCI Schuylkill, PA South Central Region FCI Bastrop, TX FCC Beaumont, TX (Ade FCC Beaumont, TX (Low) FCC Beaumont, TX (Med) FCC Beaumont, TX (High) FCI Big Spring, TX FPC Bryan, TX FMC Carswell, TX FSL La Tuna, TX (El Paso) FCI El Reno, 0K FCI Forrest City, AR FMC Fort Worth, TX FDC Houston, TX FCI La Tuna, TX FCI Oakdalc, LA FDC Oakdale, LA FTC Oklahoma City, OK USP Pollock, LA FCI Seagoville, TX -55- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 58 of 60 FCI Texarkana, TX FCI Three Rivers, TX Southeast Region USP Atlanta, GA FCC Coleman, FL (MedJ FCC Coleman, FL (Low) FCC Coleman, FL(Admi11-) FCC Coleman, FL (High) FCI Edge?eld, SC FPC Eglin, FL FCI Estill, SC MDC Guaynabo, PR CI I esup, GA FCI Marianna, FL FPC Montgomery, AL FDC Miami, FL FCI Miami, FL FPC Pensacola, FL FCI Talladega, AL FCI Tallahassee, FL FCI Yazoo City, MS Western Region USP Atwater, CA FCI Dublin, CA FDC Honolulu, HI CI Lompoc, CA ~56- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 59 0f 60 USP Lompoc, CA MDC Los Angeles, CA FPC Nellis AFB, NV FCI Phoenix, AZ FCI Sa?'ord, AZ MCC San Diego, CA FDC Seams, WA FCI Sheridan 0R FCI Terminal Island, CA FCI Tucson, AZ FCI Victonrille, CA -57- BOP FOIA 2016-01716 60 of 60 Ail?J 4-. US. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons Washington, DC. Of?ce of Internal Affairs Report for Fiscal Year 2004 BOP FOIA 2016-0171610f69 . Executive Summag of Findings - There was a 4.6 percent decrease in the number of cases opened in Fiscal Year 2004 as compai'ed with Fiscal Year 2003. The reported rate of misconduct among BOP employees decreased from 13.3 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2003 to 12.5 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2004, or a decrease of 6 percent. 0 The most signi?cant decrease occurred in cases categorized as Category 3 Offenses (allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations)? a 6.9 percent decrease over those cases opened in Fiscal Year 2003. - The most frequently reported type of misconduct in Fiscal Year 2004 was Other Orr-Duty Misconduct (particularly that which was unrelated to inmates]. Unprofessional Conduct and Abuse of Inmates placed second and third, respectively. - The areas of reported misconduct which showed an increase over Fiscal Year 2003 are Unauthorized Release of Information, Introduction of Contraband, Sexual Abuse of Inmates, Other Orr-Duty Misconduct, and Abuse of Inmates. - During Fiscal Year 2004, 13 cases of Patriot Act violation allegations were opened. As of September 30, 2004, 8 cases remained open pending investigation or awaiting disciplinary action, and 5 cases were closed. No allegations were sustained in the 5 closed cases. - As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 41.9 percent of the 4,275 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2004. Of the 41.9 percent, 46.2 percent had a sustained decision (or a rate of 2.4 employees per 100 total BOP staf?. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 84.6 percent of the 4,519 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2003. Of the 84.6 percent, 49.6 percent had a sustained decision (a rate of 5.6 employees per 100 total BOP staft]. The most ?equently sustained area of misconduct among BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2004, Was Off-Duty Misconduct. Other On-Duty Misconduct ranked second. An update of Fiscal Year 2003 revealed Other On?Duty Misconduct was sustained with the greatest frequency, and Unprofessional Conduct ranked second. - The sustained rate of misconduct thus far in Fiscal Year 2004 among male BOP employees (2.6 employees per 100 total male BOP staff) was higher than that among female BOP employees (2.1 employees per 100 total female BOP staff). For Fiscal Year 2003, the sustained rate of misconduct among male BOP employees was also higher than BOP FOIA 2016-01716 2 of 69 Executive Summag of Findings that among female BOP employees (a rate of 5.9 per 100 total male BOP staff as compared to 4.6 per 100 total female BOP staff). - The most frequently sustained type of misconduct for both male and female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2004, was Off-Duty Misconduct. - For those subjects with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2004, the following categories of misconduct were sustained with greater frequency among female staff than among male staff: Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates, Off-Duty Misconduct, Introduction of Contraband, and Sexual Abuse of Inmates. - For those subjects with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2004, the rate was highest among Food Service staff (3.1 per 100 total Food Service staff). The most frequently sustained types of misconduct were Inattention to Duty and Absent Without Leave (14.5 percent each of the total sustained misconduct among this group). An update of Fiscal Year 2003 data revealed that Food Service staff remained as having the highest rate of sustained misconduct during that period (8 per 100 total Food Service staff). - For those subjects with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2004, the rate was higher among bargaining unit employees (2.5 per 100 total bargaining unit staff) than among non-bargaining unit employees (2.2 per 100 total non?bargaining unit staff). An update of Fiscal Year 2003 data revealed the rate of sustained misconduct was relatively equal among bargaining unit employees and non-bargaining unit employees (5 .6 employees per 100 total bargaining unit staff as compared to 5.5 employees per 100 total non-bargaining unit staff)- - For those subjects with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2004, the rate was highest among staff working in Medium security institutions (3.1 per 100 total staff) and lowest among staff working in Minimum security institutions (1 per 100 total staff). In Fiscal Year 2003, the rate of sustained misconduct was highest among staff in Administrative security institutions (6.6 per 100 total staff) and lowest among staff working in High security institutions (5.4 per 100 total staff). - For those subjects with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2004, the most frequently sustained type of misconduct among those working in Medium security institutions was On-Duty Misconduct (particularly that which was not related to inmates). Sustained misconduct among staff working in Minimum security institutions was evenly divided among a variety of different behaviors. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 3 of 69 Executive Summag of Findings For those subjects with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2004, the most frequently sustained type of misconduct among sta?? working in conn'actthal?vay house facilities was Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct for staff working in facilities with an Intergovernmental Agreement was also Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates. The most ?equently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in privatized facilities was Other On-Duty Misconduct. An update of Fiscal Year 2003 data revealed Relationships with Inmates was the most frequently sustained type of misconduct among contr'acb'halfway house employees, while Other On?Duty Misconduct was the most ?'equently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in both facilities with an IGA and privatized facilities. Five allegations of Physical Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2004 have been sustained to date--1 involved minorlsh'ght injury to the inmate, and 4 involved minorfno injury to the inmate. Two of the 5 sustained allegations involved male BOP employees working in Conectional Services. One of the 5 sustained allegations involved a female BOP employee working in Correctional Services. The remaining 2 sustained allegations involved staff working in contracta'halfway house facilities. None of the employees with a Sustained allegation were convicted of criminal violations. Twenty-nine allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported during Fiscal Year 2004 have been sustained to date: 16 involved the introduction of soft contraband, 3 involved the introduction of marijuana, 1 involved the introduction of heroin, 1 involved the introduction of other, unspeci?c drugs, 2 involved the introduction of alcoholic beverages, 3 involved the introduction of unauthorized electronic devices, and 3 involved the introduction of Creatiner?weightlifting supplements. Five individuals (1 BOP employee, 2 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 1 employee at a privatized facility, and 1 employee at an IGA) were convicted of criminal violations. Eleven allegations of Sexual Abuse of inmates reported during Fiscal Year 2004 have been sustained to date-2 involved female BOP employees, 1 involved a male BOP employee, 1 involved a contract sta?? member working in a BOP facility, 5 involved staff working in privatized facilities, and 2 involved staff working in facilities with an IGA. Two individuals (both female BOP employees) were convicted of criminal violations. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 4 of 69 Reporting Incidents of Staff Misconduct Staff Reporting In accordance with the Bureau?s Standards of Employee Conduct, staff who become aware of any violation or alleged violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct must report them to the Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO), the Of?ce of Internal Affairs (01A), or to the Department of Justice (DOD Of?ce of the Inspector General (01G). The OIG has established a toll-free hotline (1-800-869-4499) which is available to anyone wishing to report DOJ employees? misconduct, as well as fraud, waste, or abuse in government. All Bureau staff are encooraged to use the 016 hotline if they wish to remain anonymous or fear retaliation or reprisal. To report violations directly to the OIA Central Of?ce call (202-307-3286) or fax {202-514- 8625). To report violations directly to the 01A Denver Field Of?ce call (303?365-4400) or fax (303-365-4445). Referrals from the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and Southeast Regions should be sent to the OIA Central Of?ce. Referrals from the North Central, South Central, and Western Regions should be sent to the CIA Denver Field Of?ce. CEO Reporting. Upon becoming aware of any possible violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct (either through a report ?'onl staff or through personal loiowledge), the CEO at the institution, Regional Of?ce, or Central Of?ce Division, or his or her designee, is to report the violation to the OLA in accordance with the following time frames. Classi?cation 1 cases are de?ned as allegations which, if substantiated, would constitute a prosecutable offense (other than offenses such as misdemeanor arrests and traf?c citations). Classi?cation 2 cases are de?ned as allegations which involve violation of rules, regulations, or law that, if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution, but constitute serious misconduct. Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases must be reported telephonically to OIA immediately. 01A is to be noti?ed of Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases, including: the identity of the complainant(s), subject(s), witness(es), and victim(s); - the details of the allegation(s); and - any corroborating evidence. Written noti?cation to OLA will be made within 24 hours (not to include weekends and holidays) of the time management learns of the matter. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 5 of 69 Reporting Incidents of Staff Misconduct Classi?cation 3 cases are de?ned as allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations. Ordinarily, CEOs can proceed with local investigations on category 3 misconduct allegations for staff occupying bargaining unit or GS-12 and below non-bargaining unit positions without ?rst obtaining 01A approval. CEOs are, however, required to prepare a report of all category 3 allegation investigations they have initiated for the month. The report must include the subject(s)? name and title, the type of misconduct (cg, Use of Profanity), and a brief summary of the allegation. The ?ll names and titles of other staff involved and the full names and register numbers of all inmates involved should also be included in the summary. The report should be forwarded to the GroupWise mailbox ?BOP~DIR/Internal Affairs~? by the ?fth day of each month October reports are due in OM by November 5, 2004) so monitoring of these cases may begin. Negative reports are required. When a Classi?cation 3 case is complex and would result in severe disciplinary or adverse action, the procedures for reporting Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases should be followed. Referral to the FBIl'Other Law Enforcement Agencies. When it is suspected that criminal conduct has occurred, the CEO may refer the matter directly to 01A and to the local simultaneously. Initial Information. An 01A Referral of Incident fonn for contract employees use form is used to organize the information to be provided in thetelephonic reporting of cases listed in subsection 13.0) of this section. The subject of the allegation or complaint must not be questioned or interviewed prior to OIG clearance and approval. This is to ensure against procedural error and safeguard the rights of the subject. Supporting Documentation. Supporting documentation, such as victim or witness statements, medical reports, photos, and related memoranda, must be transmitted via facsimile to OLA, Central Of?ce at (202-514-8625) or 01A, Denver Field Of?ce, at [303-365-4445] or by e?mail via the om resource mailbox (BOP-DIRfInternal Affairs~) and a copy should be forwarded to the case agent immediately, but not later than 24 hours after the telephonic report. If an inmate alleges physical or sexual abuse by a staff member and has not received a medical examination, the CEO must arrange an immediate, con?dential medical examination and forward a copy of the results to 01A as soon as possible. CEOs must notify OIA before initiating investigations involving any misconduct alleged against management staff occupying or above positions. 01A will coordinate further action with DIG. The CIA referral of incident form must be completed on all management staff in positions and above. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 6 of 69 Regorting Incidents of Staff Misconduct Unless the CEO and the Chief of 01A agree to a different method, ordinarily, investigations involving Classi?cation 3 cases are to be conducted using local resources. Contact 01A immediately, ifthere is an}r question as to the classi?cation of the misconduct. It is important to note that while case classi?cations are man}r times based on limited information, as an investigation unfolds, the severity of misconduct may increase or decrease, thereby moving it into another classi?cation. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 7 of 69 Reported Misconduct All allegations of misconduct received by the Office of Internal Affairs (OLA) are referred to the Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General (DIG), for review and classi?cation. The DIG determines which matters they will accept for investigation and possible criminal prosecution and defers other matters to 01A for investigations. OIA coordinates with the OIG andz?or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) when investigations may lead to criminal prosecution or when there are allegations involving the abuse of an mdividual?s Constitutional rights under Color of Law. For those matters deferred for investigation, 01A determines, after consulting with BOP management of?cials, whether an on-site investigation is warranted or if the matter can be investigated at the local institution level. Allegations categorized as Classi?cation 3 offenses are referred to the OIG via a comPuter extract on a basis. NOTES The number of subjects exceeds the number of cases throughout this report as some cases have multiple subjects. Also, some subjects may be charged with multiple types of misconduct in a single case, causing the number of allegations to be higher. Finally, individual employees may be subjects in more than one case. Due to the dynamic nature of the OM database, ?gures in this report are subject to change. During the course of an investigation, evidence may indicate circumstances other than those initially reported, causing data to be added, deleted, andfor changed. Allegations referred to as ?Inmate Related" included some type of inmate involvement, while allegations referred to as ?Non Inmate Related" occurred in the workplace but did not include inmate involvement. For a complete list of the types of misconduct included in each category, please refers-nee the Appendices section of this report. During Fiscal Year 2004, OLA opened 3,973 cases involving 4,275 BOP employees, 31 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 48 Public Health Service employees working in BOP facilities, 6 volunteers working in BOP facilities, 27? contractfhal?vay house employees, 64 employees working in facilities with an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), and 178 employees working in privatized facilities. These 3,973 cases represent a 4.6 percent decrease from the 4,164 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2003. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees decreased from 13.3 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2003 to 12.5 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2004, or a decrease of 6 percent. Cases opened in 01A are grouped into three classi?cations based on the nature of the alleged offense. Classi?cation 1 cases are de?ned as allegations which, if substantiated, would constitute a prosecutable offense (other than offenses such as misdemeanor arrests and traf?c citations). Classi?cation 2 cases are de?ned as allegations which involve violation of rules, regulations, or law that, if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution, but constitute serious misconduct. Classi?cation 3 cases are de?ned as allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 8 of 69 Reported Misconduct The 3,903 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2004 were classi?ed as follows: Classi?cation 1 779 Classi?cation 2 1,237 Classi?cation 3 1,957 The largest decrease occurred in cases categorized as Classi?cation 3 Offenses-a 6.9 percent decrease over those cases opened during Fiscal Year 2003. Classi?cation I Offenses and Classi?cation 2 Offenses showed decreases of .6 percent and 3.1 percent, respectively. Table 1 [on the following page) provides a breakdown of those types of misconduct reported during Fiscal Year 2004. The following categories of reported misconduct showed an increase over Fiscal Year 2003: Unauthorized Release of Information (a 31.9 percent increase), Introduction of Contraband (a 10.4 percent increase), Sexual Abuse of Inmates (a 3.6 percent increase), On?Duty Misconduct (a 2.1 percent increase), and Abuse of Inmates (a .2 percent increase). The most signi?cant decreases occurred in the categories of Discrimination (a 48.7 percent decrease), Breach of Security (a 45.1 percent decrease), Investigative Violations (a 20.3 percent decrease), and Fiscal Improprieties (a 13.2 percent decrease). USA Patriot Act In the USA Patriot Act, Congress expressed concern about the potential abuse of individual civil rights and liberties by D01 employees in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the Patriot Act mandated that the 01G widely advertise that it receives and investigates allegations of such abuses. Patriot Act violations include violence, discrimination, or threats on the part of a DOJ employee, particularly when such acts are directed toward individuals or groups associated in the public perception with acts of terrorism because of their religious beliefs, place of birth, or appearance. Patriot Act violation ailegations which typically come to our attention are alleged mistreatment or unprofessional behavior of BOP staff towardiaround certain inmates, their visitors, or members of the public. Due to the sensitivity of these allegations, they are automatically classi?ed as Classi?cation 2 or higher offenses; they should be forwarded immediately to 01A. All Patriot Act violation allegations are then referred to a Special Operations Unit at DIG Headquarters devoted to reviewing and investigating such misconduct. During Fiscal Year 2004, 13 cases of Patriot Act violation allegations were opened. As of September 30, 2004, 8 cases remained open pending investigation or awaiting disciplinary action, and 5 cases were closed. No allegations were sustained in the 5 closed cases. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 9 of 69 Reported Misconduct Table 1: Types of Reported Misconduct - FY 2004 Number of Reported Allegations Type of Misconduet' Inmate Non Inmate 0T AL Change Related Related from FY Other Oil-Duty MisconducF 242 396 i. 21c Unprofessional Conduct 318 760 43.7 Abuse of Inmates 661 .2 Personnel Prohibitions 600 4.6 Off-Duty Misconduct 575 4.2 Fiscal 506 -13 .2 Inappropriate Relationships with Iowans 474 -11.9 Inattention to Duty 462 6.3 Failure to Follow Policy 405 Introduction of Contraband 329 Sexual Abuse of inroates 234 fill-f: l. Breach of Security' 145 Bribery Unauthorized Release of Information Investigative Violations Discrimination 39 48.7 lPlease refer to Appendix A for a complete listing of the speci?c types of misconduct which fall into each broad category. 2Other Oil-Duty Misconduct refers to various behaviors which do not ?t into the other broad categories. Those speci?c behaviors are identi?ed in Appendix A. 9 BOP FOIA 2016-0171610 of 69 Closed/Sustained Misconduct As of September 30, 2004, a decision had NOTE been made on L319 (45 '3 percent) ?'me All ?gures in this section relate to cases which were 3,973 cases Opened during Fiscal Year 2004. opened during the speci?ed Fiscal Year, which were The remaining 2,154 cases (54.2 percent) closed as of September 30, 2004. Figures are subject were still open and being investigated. Of the *0 Change 35 additional ?5'35 3? 61?56?1- l,819 cases closed, the majority (1,572, or 86.4 percent) were investigated at the institution level with authorization and monitoring provided by 01A. Of the 1,819 cases closed, 171 were 01A on-site investigations (9.4 percent). The remaining 76 cases (4.2 percent) were investigated by the following entities: Of?ce of the Inspector General 74 Federal Bureau of Investigation 1 Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 1 0f the 1,819 cases closed, 895 (49.2 percent) were sustained. Misconduct was sustained against 327 BOP employees, 8 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 7 PHS employees working in BOP facilities, I volunteer working in a BOP facility, 46 contractfhalfway house employees, 13 employees working in a facility with an 161% and 70 employees working in privatized facilities. BOP Employees There were 4,275 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2004. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 41.9 percent of those 4,275 employees. Of the 41.9 percent (or 1,290 employees), 46.2 percent (827) had a sustained decision (a rate of 2.4 employees per 100 total BOP staff). Table 2 (on the following page) re?ects the types of sustained allegations for BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2004. The mo st frequently sustained area of misconduct was Off-Duty Misconduct. 10 BOP FOIA 2016-01716110f69 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 2 - Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2004 Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct i233: ?Elli?? ?We TOTAL O?'rDuty Misconduct 161 161 Other Orr-Duty Misconduct 12 133 - 145 Personnel Prohibitions - 123 4 132 Unprofessional Conduct 22 100 122 Fiscal Improprieties 4 9D 94 Inattention to Dirt}r 38 56 94 Failure to Follow Policy 45 48 93 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 42 . 42 Breach of Security 11 26 - 37 Investigative Violations 16 1 6 Introduction of Contraband 11 2 13 Abuse of Inmates re 10 Unauthorized Release of Information 3 - 1 4 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 4 -- . 4 Bribery 1 1 Discrimination 0 [l 0 0 Disciplinary Action Taken Once a subject is investigated and the allegations are sustained, the type of disciplinary action taken is left to the deciding of?cial, who is generally the Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO). Each case is unique, and there are varying degrees of seriousness within each type of misconduct. Also, a single subject ma}r be charged with more than one type of misconduct. Therefore, the Douglas Factors must be considered when deciding the appropriate penalty to impose on employees for misconduct. The Douglas Factors are an accumulation of historic Civil Service practices and procedures in cases involving civil servant misconduct, created by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) 11 BOP FOIA 2016-0171612 of 69 Closed/Sustained Misconduct in the Douglas case. In Douglas, the MSPB announced a nonexhaustive list of 12 factors which the BOP, like all federal agencies, must consider in determining appropriate penalties to impose in employee miscooduct. The Douglas Factors are as follows: I. 2. 10. ll. 12. the nature and seriousness of the offense; the employee's job level and type of employment. the employee?s disciplinary record; the employee?s past work record, including length of service and duty performance; the effect of the offense on the employee?s ability to perform and its effect on the supervisor?s confidence in such ability; the consistency of the penalty with penalties imposed upon others for like or similar misconduct; the consistency of the penalty with the BOP's table of penalties (Program Statement 3420.09, Standards of Employee Conduct); the notoriety of the offense or its impact on the reputation; the clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules violated or warned about the conduct in question; the employee?s potential for rehabilitation; any and all mitigation circumstances surrounding the offense job personality problems, mental impairment, harassment or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of others involved); the adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions. The CEO is required to consider only those Dcuglas Factors which are relevant to any individual case and need not consider all the Douglas Factors in every case. In many cases, some of the Douglas Factors may suggest one penalty while others suggest another penaltychoose the appropriate penalty. 12 BOP FOIA 2016-0171613 of 69 Closed/Sustained Misconduct The following actions were taken against (or by) those BOP employees with a sustained decision in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004: Fiscal Year 2003 Fiscal Year 2004 (with 84.6 ?in closed) (with 41.9% closed) Oral Reprirnaud 226 99 Written Reprimand 471 190 Reassigmnent 1 Suspension 513 19? Demotion 23 5 Retirement 33 5 Resignation 157 6? Termination 65 3 1 Combined with Action in Another OLA Matter 27 17 Other Settlement Agreement) 21 it No Action Taken 354 204 The types of misconduct most frequently sustained against those individuals for whom no disciplinary action was taken in Fiscal Year 2004 were Traf?c Citations (23.8 percent), Absent Without Leave (11.9 percent), and Unprofessional Conduct (9.4 percent). 0 Gender NOTE There were 3,220 male BOP employees Of the 4,275 BOP employees for whom a case was identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2004. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 42.7 percent of those 3,220 male employees. Of the 42.7 percent (or 1,374 male employees), 45.3 percent (629) had a sustained decision (a rate of 2.6 employees per 100 total male BOP staff). opened in Fiscal Year 2003, 12! were unidenti?ed. Table 3 (on the following page) re?ects the types of sustained allegations for male BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2004. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct for male staff was Off-Duty Misconduct. 13 BOP FOIA 2016-0171614 of 69 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 3: Types of Sustained Misconduct {or Male BOP Employees - FY 2004 Type of Misconduct Number of Sustained Allegations on: ?site? err-Duty mm Off?Bum Misconduct 115 115 Other Orr-Duty Misconduct 10 102 [12 Personnel Prohibitions 100 - Unprofessional Conduct 95 Fiscal Improprieties 81 Failure to Follow Policy 75 Inattention to Duty 71 Breach of Security 31 Relationships with Inmates 21 Investigative Violations 13 Abuse of Inmates 3 Introduction of Contraband 7 Unauthorized Release of Information 3 I Sexual Abuse of Inmates 2 Emitter}.r 1 Discrimination 0 There were 934 female BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2004. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 40.7 percent of those 934 female employees. Of the 40.7 percent (or 380 female employees), 52.1 percent (198) had a sustained decision (a rate of 2.1 employees per 100 total female BOP staff). Table 4 (on the following page) re?ects the types of sustained allegations for female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 20-04- The most ?'equently sustained type of misconduct for female staff was Off-Duty Misconduct. l4 BOP FOIA 2016-0171615 of 69 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 4: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Female BOP Employees - FY 2004 Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct 11:33:: err-om TOTAL (BE-Duty Misconduct . 46 46 Other DIP-Dilly Misconduct 2 31 33 Personnel Prohibitions 32 32 Unprofessional Conduct 6 21 27 Inattention to Duty 3 15 23 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 21 21 Failure to Follow Policy 7 11 I 18 Fiscal Irnproprieties 12 13 Introduction of Contraband 5 1 6 Breach of Security 2 4 6 Investigative Violations 3 3 Abuse of Inmates 2 . 2 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 2 2 Unauthorized Release of Information I I) Discrimination Bribery 0 0 0 . The following categories of misconduct were sustained with greater frequency among female staff than among male staff: Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates (9 percent of all misconduct by female staff as compared to 2.9 percent of all misconduct by male staff), Off-Duty Misconduct (19.7 percent of all misconduct by female staff as compared to 15.6 percent of all misconduct by male staff], Introduction of Contraband (2.6 percent of all misconduct by female staff as compared to 1 percent of all misconduct by male staff), and Sexual Abuse of Irnnates (.9 percent of all misconduct by female staff as compared to .3 percent of all misconduct by male staff). Inattention to Duty, Personnel Prohibitions, and Unauthorized Release of Information occurred with approximately the same frequency among both groups. All other categories of misconduct occurred with greater frequency among male staff. 15 BOP FOIA 2016-0171616 of 69 Closed/Sustained Misconduct 0 lion Discipline As of September 30, 2004, 827 employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2004 had a sustained decision. The rate among Food Service staff (3.1 per 100 total Food Services staff) and Correctional Services staff (3.1 per 100 total Correctional Services sta?) was higher than that among other job disciplines. The rate among Religious Services staff was 3.0 per 100 total Religious Services staff. Table 5: Discipline for BOP Employees with Sustained Misconduct - FY 211114 Number of Discipline Emgigg?ezith Total Employees Misconduct Food Service 46 1,491 3.1 Correctional Services 433 14,129 Religious Services 8 271 3.0 Education and Vocational Training 25 95 7 2.6 Facilities 61 2,325 2.6 Records?lnmate Systems 28 1,234 2.3 Health 54 2,331 2.3 Unit Management 69 3,161 2.2 Recreation 13 627 2. UNICOF. 21 1,293 1.6 Services 11 378 1.3 Sta?' Training CenthsINIC 2 171 1.2 Of?ce and Staff 9 957 .9 Human Resources 5 223 .7 Business Of?ce 33 1,359 .2 Central Of?ce 8 1.233 .6 Community Corrections 1 209 .5 16 BOP FOIA 2016-0171617 of 69 Closed/Sustained Misconduct The most frequently sustained types of misconduct among Food Service staff were Inattention to Duty and Absent Without Of?cial Leave (14.5 percent each of the total sustained misconduct among this group). The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among Correctional Services staff was Unprofessional Conduct (14.4 percent of all sustained misconduct by Correctional Services staff, 80 percent of which was not related to inmates). 9 Bargaining vs. Non-Bargaining Unit There were 3,211 employees in the NOTE bargaining 1denti?ed as misconduct Ofihe 34,236 total BOP employees, 311 percent subjects in Flscal Year 2004. As of were identi?ed as members of the bargaining unit and September 30, 2004, a decision had been 17-9 mm! W: identi?ed as non-bargaining unit made for 42.9 percent of those 3,211 ??1310sz- bargaining unit employees. 0f the 42.9 percent (or 1,3 78 bargaining unit employees), 50.] percent had a sustained decision (a rate of 2.5 employees per 100 total bargaining unit staff). There were 943 non-bargaining unit employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2004. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 39.9 percent of those 943 employees. Of the 39.9 percent (or 376 non-bargaining unit employees), 36.2 percent had a sustained decision (a rate of 2.2 employees per 100 total non-bargaining unit staff). 0 Security Level As of September so, 2004, 327 BOP Rm ?f ?"th summed employees identi?ed as misconduct Misconduct by Security - FY 2004 subjects during Fiscal Year 2004 had a sustained decision. The rate among /l those employees working in Medium 3'5 3 1 security institutions was higher than 3 2'6 2'3 that among other security level 2-5 2 institutions (3.1 per 100 total staff). 2 - The rate of sustained misconduct was 1.5 1 .. - lowest among those working in 1 - Minimum security institutions (1.0 0.5 2 per 100 total staffThe most frequently sustained type of MED LOW ADM HIGH MIN misconduct among those working in 17 BOP FOIA 2016-0171618 of 69 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Medium security institutions was On-Duty Misconduct (particularly that which was not related to inmates), which made up 47.6 percent of all misconduct among staff in that group. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in Low security institutions was Absent Without Of?cial Leave, which made up 13.7 percent of all misconduct among staff in that group. Inattention to Duty (particularly that which was not related to inmates) and Failure to Follow Policy (evenly divided between inmate and non-inmate related) occurred with the second highest ?equency, each making up 12.2 percent of all misconduct among staff in Low security institutions. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in Administrative security institutions was Unprofessional Conduct (particularly that which was not related to inmates), which made up 13 percent of all misconduct among staff in that group. Inattention to Duty (particularly that which was not related to itnnates} occurred with the second highest frequency, making up 12 percent of all misconduct among staff in Administrative security institutions. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in High security institutions was Unptofessional Conduct (particularly that which was not related to inmates), which made up 20.4 percent of all misconduct among staff in that group. Failure to Follow Policy (evenly divided between inmate and non-inmate related) and Absent Without Of?cial have occurred with the second highest ?'equency, each making up 9.2 percent of all misconduct among staff in Low security institutions. Sustained misconduct among staff working in Minimum security institutions was evenly divided among a variety of different behaviors. ContractlHalfway House Employees There were 277 contrac?halfway house employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2004. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 56.3 percent of those 227 employees. Of the 56.3 percent (or 156 employees), 29.5 percent (46) had a sustained decision. It is signi?cant to note that an administrative disposition was recorded for 37.8 percent of those employees for whom a decision had been made, indicating the employee either resigned or was terminated prior to an investigation being conducted. Thus, the 29.5 percent sustained rate is likely an extremely conservative ?gure. Table 6 (below) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against contract/halfway house employees. Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates made up 50 percent of all misconduct among this group. 18 BOP FOIA 2016-0171619 of 69 Closed/Sustained Misconduct ,Iable 6: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Contractl'i-Ialfway House Employees Number of Sustained Allegations of Misconduct We ?$133? arr?Duty TOTAL Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 21 . 21 Personnel Prohibitions 4 0 4 Failure to Follow Policy 3 0 3 Off-Duty Misconduct 3 3 Unprofessional Conduct 0 3 3 Inauenuon to Duty 0 3 3 Bribery 2 0 2 Breach of Security 1 1 Other Oil-Duty Misconduct 0 1 Investigative Violations 1 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 0 ll Introduction of Contraband {l Discrimination 0 0 Fiscal Improprieties 0 0 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 0 Staff in Privatized Facilities There were 178 employees working in privatized facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2004. Those privatized facilities are identi?ed as: California Cityr Correctional Institution, Cibola County Correctional Facility, Eloy Detention Center, McRac Correctional Facility, Rivers Correctional Institution, and Taft Correctional Institution. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 65.7 percent of those 178 employees. Of the 65.7 percent (or 117 employees), 59.8 percent (70) had a sustained decision. Table 7 (below) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against employees working in privatized facilities. Other On-Duty Misconduct made up 17.9 percent of all misconduct among this group (particular Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature - Staff on Staff and Falsi?cation of Documents). 19 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 20 of 69 ClosedISustained Misconduct Table 7: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Privatized Facilities Number of Sustained Allegations of Misconduct ?11333 ?Elli?? 0am mm, Other On?Dut}r Misconduct 4 11 15 O?-Dunr Misconduct - i 1 1 Failure to Follow Policy 4 6 10 Unprofessional Conduct 7 3 10 Introduction of Contraband 3 8 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 8 I 8 Personnel Prohibitions lnattention to Duty 1 5 6 Sexual Abuse of Innate: 5 5 Investigative Violations 2 2 Fiscal [nunroprieties I 1 1 Abuse of Inmates 1 1 Discrimination 0 0 0 Bribery 0 0 0 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 0 0 Breach of Security 0 {l Staff in Facilities with an Intergovernmental Agreement There were 64 employees working at facilities with an IGA identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2004. Those facilities are identi?ed as: Big Spring Correctional Center, Eden Detention Center, Giles Dalby Correctional Center, and Reeves County Detention Center. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for ?1'5 percent of those 64 employees. Of the 75 percent (or 48 employees), 27.1 percent (13) had a sustained decision. Table 8 (below) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against employees working in facilities with an IGA. Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates made up 35.7 percent of all misconduct among this group. 20 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 21 of 69 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 8: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Facilities with an Number of Sustained Allegations pe of Misconduct Ty 11:12:: err-Duty TOTAL Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 5 5 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 2 2 Fiscal Improprieties 0 2 - 2 Introduction of Contraband 0 1 Personnel Prohibitions . - 1 (lift-lilac?r Misconduct 1 1 Other Orr-Duty Misconduct 1 Unprofessional Conduct 0 1 Abuse of Inmates 0 t} Discrimination 0 0 0 Bribery 0 0 Investigative Violations 0 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 t] lnatteution to Duty 0 0 Breach of Security 0 0 Failure to Follow Policy 0 0 0 Contract Employees and Volunteers Working in BOP Facilities There were 31 contract staff working in BOP facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2004. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 51.6 percent of those 3] contract employees. Of the 51.6 percent (or 16 contract employees), 50 percent (8) had a sustained decision. Introduction of Contraband made up 46.7 percent of all misconduct among this group, and Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates made up 33.3 percent of all misconduct among this group. In addition, Inappropriate Relationships with an Inmate was sustained against I volunteer working in a BOP facility. 21 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 22 of 69 Closed/Sustained Misconduct PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities Of the 670 PHS staff working in BOP facilities, 48 were identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2004 (or 7.2 per 100 PHS employees). As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 29.2 percent of those 48 PHS employees. Of the 29.2 percent (or 14 PHS employees), 50 percent (7) had a sustained decision, for a sustained rate of per 100 PHS employees. Table 9 (below) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against PHS employees working in BOP facilities in Fiscal Year 2004. Table 9: Types of Sustained Misconduct for PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Mlsconduct $1122: :18 Off?Duty TOTAL Unprofessional Conduct 0 3 3 Off-Duty Misconduct 2 2 Fiscal Inmroprieties 0 1 luattention to Duty.r 0 I 1 Breach of Security 0 I 1 Abuse of inmates 0 0 I Sexual Abuse of Inmate 0 Introduction of Contraband 0 I) 0 Discrimination 0 0 t] Bribery l) 0 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 0 I investigative Violations l} . 0 Personnel Prohibitions 0 0 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 0 0 Other Oil-Duty Misconduct 0 0 Failure to Follow Policy 0 0 22 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 23 of 69 Physical Abuse of Inmates Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 13 - Civil Rights ?241 Conspiracy against rights If We or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -- They shall be ?ned not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life. ?242 Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or life. Statistics 0 Fiscal Year 2004 There were 349 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates reported to 01A during Fiscal Year 2004. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made on 36.7 percent (or 128) of those allegations. Physical Abuse allegations are tracked by the degree of injury sustained by the inmate(s) involved-Flife threatening injury, serious injury, minorlslight injury, minorfno injury (harassment), and super?cial injury (injuries associated with the normal use of restraints). Five allegations of Physical Abuse were sustained: 1 involved minorfslight injury to the inmate, and 4 involved minorfno injury to the inmate. Two of the 5 sustained allegations involved male BOP employees working in Correctional Services. One of those 2 incidents occurred at a High security institution, and the other occurred at a Medium security institution. One of the 5 sustained allegations involved a female BOP employee working in Correctional Services. This 23 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 24 of 69 Physical Abuse of Inmates incident occurred in a High security institution. The remaining 2 sustained allegations involved staff working in contracta?halfway house facilities. None of the employees with a sustained allegation were convicted of criminal violations. Two hundred twenty one reported allegations were pending investigation. The majority of these pending matters are being investigated at the local institution level or by 01A. 0 Fiscal Year 2003 There were 368 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates reported to 01A during Fiscal Year 2003. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made on 83.2 percent (or 306) of these allegations. Eight allegations of Physical Abuse were sustained: 5 involved minorfslight injury to the inmate, 2 involved mirrorfno injuryto the inmate, and 1 involved super?cial injuries to the inmate. Five of the 8 sustained allegations involved male BOP employees-2 working in Correctional Services, 2 working in Food Service, and 1 working in Recreation. Three of those 5 incidents occurred at High security institutions, 1 occurred at a Medium security institution, and 1 occurred at a Low security institution. One of the 8 sustained allegations involved a female BOP employee working in Unit Management. This incident occurred in a Low security institution. The remaining 2 allegations involved staff working at a contractfhalfway house facility. None of the employees with a sustained allegation were convicted of criminal violations. Sixty-two reported allegations were pending investigation. The majority of these pending matters are being investigated at the local institution level or by OIA. 9 Fiscal Year 2002 There were 375 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates reported to OIA during Fiscal Year 2002. As of September 30, 2003, a decision had been made on 92.5 percent (or 347) of those allegations. Twelve allegations of Physical Abuse were sustained: 4 involved minon?slight injury to the inmate, 7 involved minor/no injury to the inmate, and 1 involved super?cial injury to the inmate. Eleven of the 12 sustained allegations involved male BOP employees--9 Correctional Services employees, 1 Food Service employees, and 1 Unit Management employee. Eight of those 11 sustained allegations involved BOP employees occurred at High security institutions, 1 occurred at a Medium security institution, 1 occurred at an Administrative security institution, and 1 occurred at a Low security institution. The remaining sustained allegation involved an employee working at a facility with an IGA. None of the employees with a sustained allegation were convicted of criminal violations. 24 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 25 of 69 thsieal Abuse of Inmates Twenty-eight reported allegations were pending investigation. The majority of these pending matters are being investigated by the 01G. When competing sustained allegations for Fiscal Years 2002, 2003, and 2004, keep in mind that Fiscal Year 2004 ?gures are lower because a higher number of allegations are pending investigation. 25 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 26 of 69 Introduction of Contraband Title .18, United States Code, Chapter 87 - Prisons ?1791 Providing or possessing contraband in prison Offense-Whoever- (1) In violation of a statute or a rule or order issued under a statute, provides to an inmate of a prison aprohibited object, or attempts to do so; or (2) being an inmate of a prison, makes, possesses, or obtains, or attempts to make or obtain, a prohibited object; shall be punished as provided in subsection of this section. Punishment-The punishment for an offense under this section is a ?ne under this title or- (1) imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; (2) imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; (3) imprisonment for no more than 5 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; (4) imprisonment for no more than one year, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection or of this section; and (5) inipiisonment for not more than six months, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section. Any punishment imposed under subsection for a violation of this section by an inmate of a prison shall be consecutive to the sentence being served by such inmate at the time the irnnate commits such violation. De?nitions-As used in this section- the term ?prohibited object? means- a ?rearm or destructive device; (B) ammunition, a weapon (other than a ?rearm or destructive device), or an object that is designed or intended to be used as a weapon or to facilitate escape from a prison; (C) a narcotic ding, lysergic acid diethylamide, or (D) a controlled substance (other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph of this subsection) or an alcoholic beverage; 26 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 2? of 69 Introduction of Contraband (E) any United States or foreign currency; and (F) any other object that threatens the order, discipline, or security ofa prison, or the life, health, or safety of an individual; (2) the terms ?anununition,? ??rearm,? and ?destructive device? have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 921 of this title; (3) the terms ?controlled substance" and ?narcotic drug? have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); and (4) the term ?prison" means a Federal correctional, detention, or penal facility. Statistics 0 Fiscal Year 2004 There were 335 allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported or detected during Fiscal Year 2004. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made on 33.7 percent (or 113) of those allegations. Twenty-nine allegations of Introduction of Contraband have been sustained to date: 16 involved the introduction of soft contraband, 3 involved the introduction of marijuana, 1 involved the introduction of heroin, 1 involved the introduction of other, unspeci?ed drugs, 2 involved the introduction of alcoholic beverages, 3 involved the introduction of unauthorized electronic devices, and 3 involved the introduction of Creatinefweightli?ing supplements. A total of 24 individuals were involved in the sustained cases of Introduction of Contraband to date. The 24 individuals, 6 were female BOP employees (2 Unit Management employees, 1 Correctional Services employee, 1 UNICOR employee, 1 Recreation employee, and 1 Food Service employee), 6 were male BOP employees (4 Correctional Services employees, 1 Services employee, and 1 Systems employee}, 5 were contract employees in BOP facilities, 6 were employees at privatized facilities, and 1 was an employee at an IGA. Five individuals (1 BOP employee, 2 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 1 employee at a privatized facility, and 1 employee at an IGA) were convicted of criminal violations. Two hundred Meaty-two reported allegations were still under investigation as of September 30, 2004. The majority of these investigations (49.1 percent) are being investigated by the OIG. 4. Fiscal Year 2003 There were 315 allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported or detected during Fiscal Year 2003. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made on 76.5 percent (or 241) of those 27 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 28 of 69 Introduction of Contraband allegations. Fifty-eight allegations of Introduction of Contraband have been sustained to date: 35 involved the introduction of soft contraband, 6 involved the introduction of marij uana, 2 involved the introduction of heroin, 4 involved the introduction of cocaine, 4 involved the introduction of other, unspeci?ed drugs, 4 involved the introduction of unauthorised electronic devices, and 3 involved the introduction of Creatinefweightlifting supplements. A total of 52 individuals were involved in the sustained cases of Introduction of Contraband to date. Of the 52 individuals, 31 were male BOP employees (15 Correctional Services employees, 4 Recreation employees, 2 Unit Management employees, 2 Health ServicesfSafety employees, 2 UNICOR employees, 2 Facilities employees, 1 Religious Services employee, 1 Business Of?ce employee, 1 Food Service employee, and 1 Services employee), 13 were female BOP employees (5 Correctional Services employees, 3 Food Service employees, 2 Health ServicesfSafety employees, 2 Unit Management employees, and 1 employee in the CEO's office), 1 was a PHS employee working in a BOP facility, 1 was a contract employee working in a BOP facility, 2 were employees at privatized facilities, and 4 were employees at facilities with an IGA. Six individuals were convicted of criminal violations {5 male BOP employees and 1 employee at a facility with an IGA). Seventy-four allegations were still under investigation as of September 30, 2004. The majority of these allegations (54.1 percent) are being investigated by the OIG. 0 Fiscal Year 2002 There were 198 allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported or detected during Fiscal Year 2002. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made on 88 percent (or 174) of these allegations. orty??ve allegations of Introduction of Contraband have been sustained to date: 24 involved the introduction of soft contraband, involved the introduction of a weapon (a multi- tool), 4 involved the introduction of marijuana, 1 involved the introduction of herein, 2 involved the introduction of cocaine, 6 involved the introduction of other, unspecified drugs, 5 involved the introduction of alcoholic beverages, and 2 involved the introduction of unauthorized electronic devices. A total of 43 individuals were involved in the sustained cases of Introduction of Contraband to date. Of the 43 individuals, 23 were male BOP employees (12 Correctional Services employees, 3 Facilities employees, 2 Education and Vocational Training employees, 2 Recreation employees, 1 Food Service employee, 1 Unit Management employee, 1 Health ServiceSISafety employee, and UNICOR employee), 9 were female BOP employees (3 Correctional Services employees, 2 Health Services! Safety employees, 1 Religious Services employee, 1 Education and Vocational 28 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 29 of 69 Training employee, 1 Facilities employee, and 1 Unit Management employee), 4 were employees at contract! halfway house facilities, 3 were employees at privatized facilities, 2 were contract employees working in BOP facilities, and 2 were employees at facilities with an IGA. Twelve individuals were convicted of criminal violations (7 male BOP employees, 2 female BOP employees, 2 employees at privatized facilities, and 2 employees at facilities with an IGA). Twenty-four allegations were still under investigation as of September 30, 2004. The majority of these allegations (71 percent) are being investigated by the BIG. The remaining 29 percent are being investigated by the FBI. 29 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 30 of 69 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 109A - Sexual Abuse ?2241 Aggravated Sexual Abuse By force or threat. - Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act - (1) by using force against that other person, or (2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. By other means. - Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or (2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby (A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and (B) engages in a sexual act with that other person; Or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. ?2242 Sexual Abuse Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear [other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or (2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is - (A) mcapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; 30 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 31 of 69 Sexual Abuse of Inmates or attempts to do so shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 ?years, or both. ?2243 Sexual Abuse of a Ward (13) Of a ward - Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who is - (1) in of?cial detention; and (2) under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person 80 engaging; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both. ?2244 Abusive Sexual Contact Sexual contact in circumstances where sexual acts are punished by this chapter. - Whoever in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so to do would violate - (1) section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; (2) section 2242 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than three years, or both; (4) subsection of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both. In Other Circumstances. - Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without that other person?s permission shall be ?ned not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than six months, or both. 2246 De?nitions (1) the term ?prison? means a correctional, detention, or penal facility; (2) the term ?sexual ac means - (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for the purposes of this subparagraph, contact involved the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; 31 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 32 of 69 Sexual Abuse of Inmates (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus; or (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening by another by a hand or ?nger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; and the term ?sexual contact? means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (4) the term ?serious bodily injury? means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious dis?gurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. (5) the term ?of?cial detention? means - (A) detention by a Federal of?cer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal of?cer or employee, following arrest for an offense; following surrender in lieu of an arrest for an offense; following a charge or conviction of an offense, or an allegation or ?nding of juvenile delinquency; following commitment as a material witness; following civil commitment in lieu of criminal proceedings or pending resumption of criminal proceedings that are being held in abeyance, or pending extradition, deportation, or exclusion; or (B) custody by a Federal of?cer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal Of?cer or employee, for purposes incident to any detention described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, including transportation, medical diagnosis or treatment, court appearance, work, and recreation; but does not include supervision or under control (other than custody during speci?ed hours or days) after release on bail, probation, or parole, or after release following a juvenile delinquency. Statistics 9 Fiscal Year 2004 During Fiscal Year 2004, 286 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to OLA or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 286 allegations, 2l3 involved BOP 32 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 33 of 69 Sexual Abuse of Inmates employees, 8 involved contract staff working in BOP facilities, 43 involved staff working in contrac?halfway house facilities, 14 involved staff working in privatized facilities, and 8 involved staff working in a facility with an Intergovemmental Agreement (IGA). The types of allegations reported with the most ?'equency involved Sexual AbuseJSexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242/2243] between female staff and male inmates (56 reported allegations) and Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and male inmates (48 reported allegations). Following is a breakdown of all sexual abuse allegations by region. These ?gures include allegations against staff working in contractfhalfway house facilities, privatized facilities, and facilities with an IGA. Absolute numbers are used due to an inability to get per capita rates. Southeast Region 76 South Central Region 57 Northeast Region 50 Western Region 45 North Central Region 30 Mid-Atlantic Region 28 Five or more allegations were reported at the following facilities: FCI Tallahassee 15 USP Atlanta 10 MDC Brooklyn 8 FMC Carswell 7 USP Coleman 6 USP Beaumont 5 MCC Chicago 5 FCI Estill 5 FCI Forrest City 5 FCI Greenville 5 MDC Guaynabo 5 USP Lee County 5 FDC Philadelphia 5 As of September 30, 2004, 11 allegations of sexual abuse had been sustained (3 involved BOP employees, 1 involved a contract staff member working in a BOP facility, 5 involved staff working in privatized facilities, and 2 involved staff working in facilities with an IGA). 33 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 34 of 69 Sexual Abuse of Inmates - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Health ServicesiSafety employee and a male hmatFat USP Florence. The subject confessed to engaging in both oral and coital sexual contact with the inmate on four occasions. The subject resigned. She received a six? deferred jail term and six-months unsupervised probation. (2004-00041). Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female UNICOR employee and a male inmate at FCI La Tuna. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted engaging in a sexual relationship with an inmate. The subject resigned. She pled guilty to one count of 13 USC, 2243, Sexual Abuse of a Ward, and was sentenced to one-year probation. (2004- 01343). - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between three female employees and male inmates at the Taft Correctional Institution. All three subjects resigned. Subject I admitted she engaged in sexual intercourse with an imnate and acted as a lookout for Subject 3 during her with inmates. Subject 2 admitted she allowed an inmate to perform oral sex on her. The AUSA declined prosecution in these matters due to a lack of corroboration by the inmate victims. Subject 3 admitted engaging in sexual intercomse with two inmates. She also admitted introducing two water bottles containing vodka and a cellular telephone into the facility for one of the inmates. She was convicted of smuggling a prohibited item into a federal institution and was sentenced to three-years probation. (2004-01568 - Three subjects) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee and a male imnate at the Cibola County Correctiooal Facility. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted hugging and kissing the inmate and fondling his penis through his clothing. A Department of Justice, Civil Rights Attorney, declined prosecution, citing lack of jurisdiction. The subject resigned. (2004?00131) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female contract employee and a male inmate at USP Beaumont. The subject admitted kissing and touching the inmate, but she denied masturbating him. The AUSA declined prosecution after the inmate admitted embellishing upon his initial allegations. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2004-01236) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at the Cibola County Correctional Facility. During the investigation, the subject admitted hugging and kissing the inmate and exchanging correspondence with him. She also admitting introducing contraband items for him. The subject resigned. (2004- 01656). 34 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 35 of 69 Sexual Abuse of Inmates - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. During the investigation, the subject admitted discussing personal issues with the inmate, delivering notes to him, engaging in three-way telephone calls with him, and kissing him. The subject's employment was terminated. (2004-02427) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. During the investigation, the subject admitting hugging and kissing the inmate. The subject resigned. (2004r02926) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Health ServiceSJSafety employee and a female inmate at FCI Danbtu'y. The subject admitted he developed emotional feelings for the inmate and told her he loved her. He denied engaging in sexual activity with the inmate, but he admitted kissing her on the check. The subject retired before disciplinary action was taken. (2004-03185) 0? Fiscal Year 2003 During Fiscal Year 2003, 281 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 281 allegations, 195 involved BOP employees, 2 involved contract staff working in BOP facilities, 1 involved a Public Health Service (PHS) employee working in a BOP facility, 56 involved staff working in contractf?halfway house facilities, 14 involved staff working in privatized facilities, and 13 involved staff working in a facility with an IGA. The types of allegations reported with the most ?equency involved Sexual Abuser?Sexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242f2243} between female staff and male inmates (61 reported allegations} and Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward between male staff and female inmates (42 reported allegations). Following is a breakdown of all sexual abuse allegations by region. These ?gures include allegations against staff working in coutractihalfway house facilities, privatized facilities, and facilities with an IGA. Absolute numbers are used due to an inability to get per capita rates. Southeast Region 72 South Central Region 68 Western Region 50 North Central Region 38 Mid-Atlantic Region 29 Northeast Region 24 35 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 36 of 69 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Five or more allegations were reported at the following facilities: FCI Marianna 16 FCI Tallahassee . . l2 FMC Carswell ll USP Atlanta 9 USP Lee 9 USP Coleman 7 FDC Seatac 6 USP Terre Haute . 6 MDC Brooklyn 5 ADMAX Florence 5 FCI Petersburg (Low) 5 Cl Victorville 5 California City Correctional Institution 5 Reeves County Detention Center 5 To date, 30 allegations of Sexual Abuse have been sustained (17 involved BOP employees, 1 involved a PHS employee working in a BOP facility, 4 involved staff working in contractfhal?way house facilities, 3 involved staff working in privatized facilities, and 5 involved staff working in facilities with an IGA). Sexual Abuse of 3 Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FCI Tallahassee. The subject resigned. An DIG investigation resulted in a 3 count information being ?led in the US. District Court, Northern Florida, for violations of 18 USC, 2243, Sexual Abuse of 11 Ward. The subject pled guilty and was sentenced to 3 years probation, 3 months home con?nement, and a $2,500 ?ne. (2003-00381). Sexual Abuse of :1 Ward between a male Health Services employee and two female inmates at FMC Carswell. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted he engaged in sexual intercourse with two female inmates and a female staff member. He resigned his employment and pled guilty to two counts of a three count indictment charging him with violations of 18 USC, 2243, Sexual Abuse of a Ward, and was sentenced to 14- months incarceration and one?year supervised release and ordered to pay a $50 special assessment. The subject was also ordered to register as a sex offender with state and local law enforcement. (2003-01693) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FCI Dublin. The subject resigned. He pled guilty to Sexual Abuse of a Ward, 36 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 3? of 69 Sexual Abuse of Inmates and was sentenced to 3-years probation, 6-months home con?nement, a $500 ?ne, and was required to register as a sex offender. (2003?01766) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Facilities employee and a female inmate at FCI Victorville. This matter was presented to the U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce for a violation of 13 USC, 2243Cb), Sexual Abuse ofa Ward. The AUSA declined prosecution. The subject resigned. (2003?02210) Sexual Abuse of 3. Ward between a female employee at Dismas House in El Paso, Texas, and a male imnate. The subject admitted having sexual relations with an inmate whom she believed to be the father of her child. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned. (2003-00337) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Health Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Waseca. The subject admitted having sexual intercourse with an inmate in the X?ray room in the medical department. The AUSA declined prosecution. The subject resigned. (2003-01006) Sexual Abuse of 3 Ward between a female employee at the Seal Beach Jail and a male inmate. The subject admitted she engaged in sexual intercourse with an inmate. The AUSA declined prosecution; however, the Seal Beach District Attorney?s Of?ce accepted the case for prosecution. The subject's employment was terminated. She subject pled guilty to 289.6 of the California Penal Code and was sentenced to three?years probation, ?ned $100, and ordered to complete ten days of community service. (2003-01 138) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. The subject?s employment was terminated. She pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, 2243(b). She was sentenced to 2-years probation and ordered to pay a $500 ?ne. (2003-02480) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Unit Management employee at FMC Fort Worth and a male inmate at a halfway house. The subject admitted having a sexual relationship with a former FMC Fort Worth inmate after his transfer to a halfway house. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her employment. (2003-02327) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at USP Atwater. During an 01G investigation, the subject invoked her right to an attorney, and the criminal interview was terminated. She was compelled administratively and admitted having a sexual relationship with an inmate and introducing contraband into the institution for him. The subject resigned her employment. (2003-03090) 3? BOP FOIA 2016-01716 38 of 69 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Health Servicesr? Safety employee and a male inmate at USP Atwater. The subject resigned. She pled guilty to a violation of 13 USC, 2243 and was sentenced to IZ-months supervised probation and 50 hours of community service, and was required to undergo mental health treatment. (2003?03582) Sexual Abuse of an Inmate and Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at the Giles Dalby Correctional Center. The subject admitted kissing an inmate and allowing him to rub her breasts. The AUSA declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2003-03 763 - two allegations) Abusive Sexual Contact between a male employee at the Mid-Valley House and a female inmate. The employee admitted rubbing his unexposed penis on the inmate's arm and rubbing her breasts through her clothing. The AUSA declined prosecution. The subj ect?s employment was terminated. (2003-00002) Abusive Sexual Contact between a male UNICOR employee and a female inmate at FCC Coleman (Medium). The staff member resigned. He pled guilty to one count of 18 USC, 2244(a)(4), in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, and was ?ned $500. (2003-01221) . Abusive Sexual Contact between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FMC Carswell. The subject admitted kissing the inmate and rubbing her breasts against his hand. The AUSA declined prosecution. The subject resigned. (2003- 03846) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted caressing an inmate?s penis through his clothing and bringing a compact disk into the facility for him. The subject resigned. The case facts were presented to the Grand Jury and the subject was indicted for abusive sexual contact and possessing contraband in prison. The charges were later dismissed when it was determined the Reeves County Detention Center did not meet the statutory de?nition of ?federal prison.? (2003-01342) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Food Service employee and a female inmate at FCI Coleman. The subject slapped the inmate on her buttocks while she was working the food line in the kitchen. The subject was suspended for ?ve days. (2003-01 160) 38 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 39 of 69 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Health Services! Safety employee and a female inmate at FPC Bryan. The subject admitted telling an inmate another inmate wanted him to perform oral sex on her. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject was suspended for four days. (2003- 02901) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee at FDC Houston and a female inmate. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted having a personal relationship with the inmate and admitted kissing her prior to her release. The DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject resigned. (2003-01229) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Facilities employee and a female inmate at FCI Tallahassee. The subject admitted kissing the victim on three occasions. He resigned his employment. (2003-01713) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee at MDC San Diego and a female inmate. During an 01G investigation, the subject admitted to ?irting with various female irnnates and being alone in a staff restroom with a female inmate. The subject resigned his employment. (2003-02475) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male staff member and a male inmate at the Cibola County Correctional Facility. The subject admitted he jokingly made sexual comments to an inmate. He was suSpended for three days. (2003-00016) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Unit Management employee and a male inmate at USP Lompoc. The staff member entered an inmate restroom and told an inmate, "Hold this for me," as he was urinating. The subject received an oral reprimand. (2003-00602) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Public Health Service employee and male inmates at FCI Texarkana. The subject admitted he made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to staff and inmates and used profanity. The subject? employment was tenninated. (2003 -027 1 8] Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Mid- Vailey House and a female inmate. Three staff reportedly witnessed the two laying on a bed together kissing and hugging. The AUSA declined prosecution. The subj ect?s employment was terminated. (2003-00002) 39 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 40 of 69 Sexual Abuse of Inmates - ?Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female UNICOR employee and a male inmate at FCI Butner. The subject admitted writing "love letters" to an inmate. She resigned her employment. (2003-01259) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female staff member and a male inmate at the Cibola County Correctional Facility. The subject admitted engaging in conversations of a sexual nature with the inmate and kissing him. A 15?day suspension was proposed by the contractor, but the subject?s employment was ultimately terminated after she was prohibited from having contact with federal offenders. (2003-01282) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female staff member and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The subject admitted spending time with and kissing the inmate in isolated areas of the facility. She denied having sexual relations with the inmate, as did the inmate. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2003- 02131) - Unpro fessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the California City Correctional Institution and a male imnate. The subject admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with the inmate following his release from custody. She denied having sexual intercourse with the inmate during his incarceration, but admitted to kissing him once. The subject resigned her employment. (2003?04120) Fiscal Year 2002 During Fiscal Year 2002, 196 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to OLA or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 196 allegations, 127 involved BOP employees, 4 involved contract staff in BOP facilities, 49 involved staff working in contractlhalfway house facilities, 9 involved statl' working in privatized facilities, and 6 involved staff working in facilities with an IGA. In addition, there was 1 allegation which involved an employee of the Texas National Guard, who allegedly engaged in sexual relations with an inmate from FPC Bryan on a janitorial work detail. The types of allegations reported with the most ?equency involved Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and female inmates (37 reported allegations) and Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242f2243) between female staff and male inmates (34 reported allegations]. Following is a breakdown of all sexual abuse allegations by region. These ?gures include allegations against staff working in contractihalfway house facilities, privatized facilities, and facilities with an IGA. Absolute numbers are used due to an inability to get per capita rates. 40 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 41 of 69 Sexual Abuse of Inmates South Central Region 45 Western Region 40 Southeast Region 35 Northeast Region 28 North Central Region 25 Mid-Atlantic Region 23 Five or more allegations were reported at the following facilities: FMC Carswell 18 FCI Danbury 12 FCI Dublin 9 USP Terre Haute 7 Reeves County Detention Center 6 FCI Tallahassee 5 California City Correctional Institution 5 It is signi?cant to note that 13 of the 18 allegations at FMC Carswell resulted li'om a civil suit ?led by an inmate and are all included in the same case. These allegations were not sustained. To date, 23 allegations of Sexual Abuse have been sustained (14 involved BOP employees, 2 involved contract staff working in BOP facilities, 4 involved staff working in contract?halfway house facilities, and 3 involved staff working in facilities with an IGA. - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male staff member and a female inmate at Volunteers of America in Baltimore, Maryland. The subject admitted he had sexual relations with an inmate, which he claimed was consensual. The Baltimore County Police Department investigated the allegations and indicated they were not going to pursue the charges. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2002-00795) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at MDC Brooklyn. The subject resigned. He pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward, 18 USC, 2242(1), and one count of Providing False Statements, 13 USC, He was sentenced to 151-months incarceration and 3-years supervised release; He currently is incarcerated at FCI Waseca. (2002-00794) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FCI Dublin. The subject resigned. He was convicted of two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and one count of Providing a False Statement. He was sentenced to six- months incarceration and three-years supervised release. In addition, the subject will 41 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 42 of 69 Sexual Abuse of Inmates serve three months in home detention with electronic monitoring and was ordered to register as a sex offender and provide a DNA sample. (2002-01428) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at MCC San Diego. The subject resigned. He pled guilty to Sexual Abuse of a Ward and was placed on one year of supervised probation. (2002-02345) Sexual Abuse of :1 Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and several female inmates at FMC Carswell. During an OIG investigation, the subject initially admitted having a sexual relationship with one inmate. He was re-interviewed and admitted having sexual intercourse with an additional ?ve inmates. The subject resigned- He was sentenced to 24-months incarceration, 24-months probation, and ?ned $1,000. (2002-02816) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at CI Tallahassee. The subject resigned. He was convicted of Engaging in Sexual Acts with a Federal Offender and was sentenced to 24?months probation. (2002?03416) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male staff member and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The subject?s employment was terminated. He pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and was sentenced to 24-months probation, to include 4-months home con?nement. The subject was also ordered to pay a $1,000 ?ne. (2002-02411) . Sexual Abuse of 3 Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a male imnate at FCI Florence. The subject and the inmate admitted to a sexual relationship which included acts of mutual masturbation, fondling of genitalia, and fellatio. The subject resigned. He pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of 3 Ward and was sentenced to one-year probation. (2002-02392) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female sta?" member at Dismas House and a male inmate. The subject admitted she was involved in sexual relationships with two inmates. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her position. (2002-00152) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. The subject?s employment was terminated. The subject admitted she was sexually involved with the inmate and entered into a pro-trial diversion program which she successfully completed on December 2, 2002. The charges against her have since been dismissed. (2002-00673) 42 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 43 of 69 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of a Ward beaveen a female staff member and a male inmate at Volunteers of America in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The subject admitted she had sexual relations with an inmate. Both federal and state authorities declined prosecution. The subject resigned her position. (2002-01204) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female contract employee and a male inmate at FCI Waseca. The subject admitted she had sexual relations with an inmate. The AUSA declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2002-02158) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member and a male inmate at Troy House in Durham, North Carolina. The subject admitted entering into a sexual relationship with an inmate on supervised release. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject's employment was terminated. (2002-02212) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Facilities employee at FMC Devens and a male inmate. The subject admitted having sexual relations with an inmate and providing the inmate with a cellular telephone. The subject resigned. Due to the subject?s status as a single parent, the United States Attorney?s Of?ce declined to prosecute her for Sexual Abuse of a Ward (a conviction on such a charge could have subjected the subject to a designation as a sex offender and generated unintended parental custody consequences). Rather, she pled guilty to Smuggling Contraband and was sentenced to 6-months probation, a $500 ?ne, and mandatory mental health counseling. (2002-02264) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. During an DIG investigation, the subject admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with an inmate. Her employment was terminated. She entered into and success?illy completed a pretrial diversion agreement, and the charge against her was dismissed.. (2002-03 066) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Religious Services employee and a male inmate at FMC Rochester. The subject admitted having sexual intercourse with the inmate and engaging in oral sex with him. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her position. (2002-03333) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Business Of?ce employee and a male inmate at CI Three Rivers. The subject resigned her position. She pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and was sentenced to time served and one-year supervised release. She was also ordered to register as a sex offender. (2002-03533) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female Health Services employee and a male inmate at FMC Rochester. The subject resigned her position. She was convicted of Engaging in 43 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 44 of 69 0 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Contact with a Ward and was sentenced to one?year probation. In addition, she must attend counseling. (2002?00846) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female staff member and a male inmate at FCC Coleman (low). The staff member admitted she hugged and kissed the inmate and engaged in ?heavy petting? with him in the staff bathroom. The staff member admitted they fondled each other?s genitals, but she denied they engaged in oral sex or intercourse. The subject resigned her employment. The AUSA declined prosecution. (2002-02504) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female staff member and a male inmate at FPC Yankton. The subject admitted she hugged and kissed the inmate, and they caressed each others? buttocks. She also admitted she met the inmate at a bus station when he was furlough transferred from FPC Yankton. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her position. (2002-02794) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female staff member at FCI Sheridan and a male inmate. An inmate?s personal property was searched. Concealed in the property were three notes written by the inmate to the subject, and one note written by the subject to the inmate in which she expressed her love for him. The subject resigned her position. (2002-00124) Unprefessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee at MCC New York and a male inmate. The subject made a sexually vulgar comment to the inmate?s visitor. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2002- 02223) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female contract employee and a male inmate at FCI Big Spring. The staff member admitted she kissed the inmate. Her contract with the BOP was terminated, and she was harmed ?om entering institution grounds. (2002-0308) Fiscal Year 2001 During Fiscal Year 2001, 150 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 150 allegations, 110 involved BOP employees, 1 involved a contract employee working in a BOP facility, 1 involved a PHS employee working in a BOP facility, 34 involved staff in contractthalfway house facilities, and 4 involved staff in privatized facilities. 44 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 45 of 69 Sexual Abuse of Inmates The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242f2243) betwaen female staff and male inmates (32 reported allegations) and Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and female inmates (24 reported allegations). Following is a breakdown of all sexual abuse allegations by region. These ?gures include allegations against staff working in contractfhal?vay house facilities, privatized facilities, and facilities with an IGA. Absolute numbers are used due to an inability to get per capita rates. Northeast Region 36 Southeast Region 35 South Central Region 23 Western Region 26 North Central Region l4 Mid?Atlantic Region 11 Five or more allegations were reported at the following facilities: FCIDanbury 16 s01 Dublin 5 FCI Fort Dix ..5 FCI Phoenix 5 To date, 23 allegations of Sexual Abuse have been sustained (13 involved BOP employees, 1 involved a contract employee working in a BOP facility, 8 involved staff working in eontractr?hal?way house facilities, and 1 involved staff working in a privatized facility. Aggravated Sexual Abuse between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FPC Bryan. The subject was sentenced to three-years probation, ?ned $2,500, required to register as a sex offender with the state of Texas and the federal government, and required to attend counseling. (2001-00852) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FDC Houston. The subject was sentenced to six-months imprisonment and required to register as a sex offender in any state in which he resides after his release from prison. He was also ?ned $1,000. (2001-00137) Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a male employee at the Buffalo Halfway House and a female imnate. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2001-00295) 45 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 46 of 69 . Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Food Service employee and a female inmate at FCC Coleman (Medium). The subject was sentenced to ?ve-years probation. Further, the subject was ordered to participate in the Home Detention program for a period of six months, ordered to register with the state of Florida?s sexual offender agency, and ordered to participate in a mental health program specializing in the treatment of sexual offenders. (2001-003 00) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male employee at Cornell Corrections and a female imnate. The subject admitted he engaged in oral sex with inmates. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2001-03201) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Recreation employee and a female inmate at FCI Phoenix. The subject admitted having a one time sexual encounter with an inmate. The AUSA declined prosecution. The subject resigned. (2001?01982) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female contract staff member and a male inmate at FCC Beaumont. The subject entered into a plea agreement and was sentenced to two- years probation, a $1,000 ?ne, and a $10 special assessment. (2001-00022) Sexual Abuse of a Ward'between a female Food Service employee and a male inmate at FCC Beaumont. The subject was sentenced to 120-days home con?nement, three?years probation, and a $25 special assessment. (2001-00181) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Battier. The subject pled guilty and was sentenced to one-year supervised probation, lZO-days home detention, ?ned $2,500, and registered in the North Carolina Sex Offender Registration Program. (2001-00234) Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female employee at the Oklahoma Halfway House and a male inmate. The subject?s employment was terminated. The subject was granted pretrial diversion by the AUSA after she admitted she had sex with an inmate. According to the diversion agreement, the charges against the subject will be dismissed after six months if she completes the conditions of the agreement. (2001?00962) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Education and Vocational Training employee and a male inmate at FCI Elkton. The subject was sentenced to two-years probation and ordered to participate in a mental health program. (2001-01420) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The staff member admitted she had intercourse with an inmate 46 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 4? of 69 Sexual Abuse of Inmates on six occasions and orally copulated the inmate twice. She also admitted she brought the inmate money, alcohol, cologne, and jewelry. The subject?s employment was terminated. She pled guilty to introduction or possession of contraband in a prison and was placed on probation for one year. The inmate to whom the subject gave the money pled guilty to possession of contraband in prison and was sentenced to an additional six months in custody. (2001-01762) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The staff member admitted she had intercourse with and orally copulated an inmate. She also admitted she gave the inmate jewelry and cigarettes. The subject resigned. She pled guilty to introduction or possession of contraband in prison and was placed on probation for one year. (2001-01762) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female member of the Of?ce and Staff and a male inmate at USP Florence. The subject resigned. She was convicted of two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and sentenced to four-months home con?nement, ?ve-years probation, and a $3,000 ?ne. (2001-02221) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Food Service employee and a male inmate at CI Elkton. The investigation revealed the staff member had both intercourse and oral sex with the inmate on at least 20 occasions in the ?hot room? and ?cooler? of the Food Service warehouse. The staff member pled guilty to Engaging in Sexual Acts with an Inmate and was sentenced to one year of inactive probation and a $50 special assessment. (2001-02348) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Cibola County Correctional Facility and a male irunate. The subject admitted to having sexual intercourse with an inmate on two occasions. The AUSA declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2 00 1 -03204) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Unit Management employee and a male inmate at USP Florence. An OIG investigation sustained Sexual Abuse of a Ward, Introduction of Contraband, and Preferential Treatment of Inmate(s). The subject was sentenced to four-years probation, 100 hours community service, and a $2,400 fine, and was required to register as a sex offender. (2004-01748) Abusive Sexual Contact between a male employee at the Big Spring Correctional Center and a male inmate. The subject pled guilty to one count of Abusive Sexual Contact of a Ward. He was sentenced to ?ve-years probation, ordered to register as a sex offender, 47 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 48 of 69 Sexual Abuse of Inmates and prohibited from seeking employment in corrections for a ?ve-year period. (2001- 00221) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee at the Big Spring Correctional Center and a male inmate. The subject admitted she fondled an inmate?s penis. The US. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. The subject's employment was terminated. (2001?00329) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. The subject admitted she allowed an inmate to kiss her breasts and fondle her pubic area while she fondled his penis. The US. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2001-02090) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Allenwood. The US. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned from the BOP. (2001-02720) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Food Service employee and a male inmate at CI esup. The subject made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to the inmate. The subject received a written reprimand. (2001-00935) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Business Of?ce employee and a male inmate at FCI La Tuna. The subject engaged in conversations of a sexual nature with the inmate. The subject resigned. (2001-02313) 43 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 49 of 69 Previous Fiscal Year Ugdates BOP Employees As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 34.6 percent of the 4,519 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2003. Of the 84.6 percent (or 3,824 employees), 49.6 percent (1,896) had a sustained decision (a rate of 5.6 employees per 100 total BOP staff. Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2003 Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct 1:33;: Ngg?te Off?Duty TOTAL Other On-Duty Misconduct 48 254 302 Unprofessional Conduct 7? 199 276 Personnel Prohibitions 250 17 26'? Off-Duty Misconduct 252 252 Fiscal Improprieties 12 232 244 Failure to Follow Policy - 111 131 242 Inattention to Duty '19 126 205 Inappropriate Relationships with 142 142 Breach of Security 47 82 129 Investigative Violations 52 52 Introduction of Contraband 38 11 49 Abuse of Inmates 13 . 13 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 17 1? Unauthorized Release of Information 9 6 . 15 13:09er 11 0 11 Discrimination 0 0 0 . 0 Gender As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 85 percent of the 3,484 male BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2003. Of the 85 percent (or 2,962 49 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 50 of 69 Previous Fiscal Year Updates male employees), 49.] percent (1,454) had a sustained decision (a rate of 5.9 per 100 total male BOP staff.) As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 85.1 percent of the 942 female BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2003. Of the 85.1 percent (or 802 female employees), 55.1 percent (442) had a sustained decision (a rate of 4.6 per 100 total female BOP staff). Discipline As of September 30, 2004, 1,896 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2003 had a sustained decision. The rate among Food Service staff (8.0 per 100 total Food Service staff) was higher than that among other job disciplines, followed by Recreation (7.1 per 100 total Recreation sta?) and Correctional Services (6.7 per 100 total Correctional Services staff). Please see the following page for a table showing the rate of sustained misconduct among other job disciplines. 0 Bargaining vs. Nonbargaining Unit There were 3,444 BOP employees in the bargaining unit identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2003. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 85.5 percent of those 3,444 bargaining unit employees. Of the 85.5 percent (or 2,945 bargaining unit employees), 52.9 percent had a sustained decision (a rate of 5.6 employees per 100 total bargaining unit staff). There were 982 nonbargainiug unit BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2003. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 83.4 percent of those 982 nonbargaining unit employees. Of the 83.4 percent (or 819 nonbargaining unit employees), 41.4 percent had a sustained decision [a rate of 5.5 employees per 100 total nonbargaining unit sta?). 4. Security Level As of September 30, 2004, 1,896 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2003 had a sustained decision. The rate among those working in Administrative security institutions was higher than that among other security level institutions (6.6 per 100 total staff). The rate among staff working in Minimum security institutions was 6.1 per 100 total staff, and the rate among staff in Low security institutions, Medium security institutions, and High security institutions were 5.9 per 100 total staff, 5.6 per 100 total staff, and 5.4 per 100 total staff, respectively. 50 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 51 of 69 Previous Fiscal Year Ugdates Discipline [or 1-10]? Employees with Sustained Misconduct FY 2003 Number of Discipline Total Employees Percentage Employees Food Service 118 147'0 8.0 Recrcation 43 609 7.1 Correctional Services 935 13 367 Health 13'? 2331 5.9 Religious Services 15 259 5.3 Unit Management 178 3123 5.7 Systems 1215 5.5 Services 44 851 5.2 Education and Voca?onal Training 44 939 4.7 UNICOR 64 1402 4.6 Computer Services 9 204 I 4.4 Business Of?ce 79 1348 4.3 Facilities 96 2296 - 4.2 Staff Training CenternMC 179 2.8 Of?ce and Staff 25 976 2.5 Connmmity Corrections 5 231 2.2 Central Of?ce 21 1411 1.5 Hmnan Resources 11 762 1.4 5 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 52 of 69 . Previous Fiscal Year Updates Contrae?ga?way House Employees There were 308 contracti?halfway house employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2003. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 98.4 percent of those 308 employees. 0f the 98.4 percent (or 303 employees), 28.1 percent (85) had a sustained decision. It is signi?cant that an administrative diaposition was recorded for 45.2 percent of those employees for whom a decision had been made, indicating the employee either resigned or was terminated prior to an investigation being conducted. Types of Sustained Misconduct for Contrac?Halfway House Employees - FY 2003 Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct 11117:: ?$333? Off-Duty TOTAL Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 25 I. I 25 Unprofessional Conduct 10 ?14 Misconduct 9 Other On?Duty Misconduct 9 Failure to Follow Policy 7 Inattention to Duty 6 Investigative Violations 6 Sexual Abuse of [unrated 4 Personnel Prohibitions 4 Abuse of Inmates 3 Bribery Fiscal Improprieties 2 Breach of Security 1 Introductioo of Contraband 0 Discrimination Unauthorized Release of Information 0 52 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 53 of 69 Previous Fiscal Year Updates Staff in Privatized Facilities There were 2.91 employees working in privatized facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2003. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 97.6 percent of those 291 employees. 0f the 97.6 percent (or 284 employees), 55.6 percent (153) had a sustained decision. Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Privatized Facilities - FY 2003 Number of Sustained Allegations Ty of Misconduct in: ?sin? err-m mm Other OnvDuty Misconth 4 11 15 I Off-Duty Misconduct 11 1 1 Failure to Follow Policy 4 6 10 Unprofessional Conduct '1 3 10 Introduction of Contraband 8 0 8 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 3 3 Personnel Prohibitions 7 0 7 lnattention to Duty 1 5 6 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 5 5 Investigative Violations 2 2 Fiscal [rrqoroprictics 0 1 1 Abuse of Iinnates 1 5. 1 Discrindnation i] 0 Bribery t} 0 0 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 0 0 Breach of Security 0 0 0 . 53 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 54 of 69 Previous Fiscal Year Ugdates Staff Facilities with an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) There were 17] employees working at facilities with an IGA identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2003. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 94.2 percent of those 171 employees. Of the 94.2 percent (or 161 employees}, 50.9 percent (32) had a sustained decision. Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Facilities with an - FY 2003 Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct as: Tom Other Oil-Duty Misconduct 11 . 1'7 O?l?uty Misconduct l4 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 10 Inattention to Duty 8 Failure to Follow Policy 6 I Breach of Security 6 Unprofessional Conduct .5 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 5 Introduction of Contraband 4 Fiscal Irnproprieties 4 Abuse of Inmates 2 Bribery 2 Investigative Violations 2 Unauthorized Release of Information 1 Personnel Prohibitions 1 Discrimination 0 s4 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 55 of 69 Previous Fiscal Year Updates Contract Employees Working in BOP Facilities There were 15 contract staff working in BOP facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2003. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 66.7 percent of those 15 contract employees. Of the 66.7 percent (or 10 employees), 70 percent (7) had a sustained decision. PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities 0f the PHS employees working in BOP facilities in Fiscal Year 2003, 65 were identi?ed as misconduct subjects during that period. As of September 30, 2004, a decision had been made for 87.7 percent of those 65 PHS employees. Of that 37.7 percent (or 57 employees), 66.? percent (38 stafi) had a sustained decision (a rate of 5.8 per 100 total PHS employees]. Types of Sustained Misconduct for PHS Employees - FY 2063 Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct Ex: Piggy? Off-Duty TOTAL [nattention to lint)r - 4 5 9 Other {in-Duty Misconduct 3 6 9 Fiscal Improprieties 1 5 6 Personnel Prohibitions 2 2 4 (DH-Duty Misconduct . 4 4 Unprofessional Conduct 1 3 4 Failure to Follow Policy 3 0 3 Investigative Violations . 2 2 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 2 2 Breach of Security 1 1 . 2 Introduction of Contraband i] 1 Sexual Abuse of Inmates I . 1 Abuse of inmates I I 0 Discrimination 0 0 Bribery 0 0 0 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 0 0 55 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 56 of 69 Representative Case Summaries Failure to Follow Supervisor?s Instructions An Inmate Systems Of?cer was instructed by hisfher supervisor to accept and process an inmate?s legal mail. The employee re?rsed to accept the mail or deliver it to the post office- Outcome: The employee received a letter of reprimand. The Security Background Investigation section was attempting to process a Senior Of?cer's ?ve?year background reinvestigation. The employee failed to provide complete information in response to interrogatories about hisfher just debts despite repeated instructions from hisfher supervisor to do so. Outcome: The employee received a letter of reprimand. Misuse of Government Computers A Computer Services Manager was conducting a routine scan of institution computers when sfhe discovered 11 pictures in a Unit Management employee?s GroupWise mailbox. Outcome: The employee admitting receiving and forwarding inappropriate e?rnails using a government computer. The employee received a letter of reprimand. Inattention to Duty At approximately 7:45 an inmate was discovered locked in the Welding Shop. The inmate had been in the Welding Shop since approximately 3:00 pm. Further, the tool room was left unsecured. Outcome: A local investigation revealed staff cleared the count without accounting. for all inmates. A bed book count was conducted, and the control room of?cer accepted the count without verifying which inmates were not in the housing unit. lnattention to Duty was sustained against two Correctional Services staff members, two Facilities staff members, and a Food Service staff member. The Food Service employee and one of the Facilities employees received letters of reprimand. The other Facilities employee was suspended for one day. No action was taken against the Correctional Services staff members. Unprofessional Cunduct A Senior Of?cer Specialist and a Lieutenant were discussing roster assignments. The Senior Of?cer Specialist became angry and told the Lieutenant to ?stick it up [his] Outcome: The employee was suspended for one day. A Unit Secretary overheard a Senior Of?cer arguing with an inmate. The Senior Of?cer stated, ?Just get your hairy out of my damn face." The Secretary stated she informed the Senior Of?cer it was inappropriate for hinu'her to speak to an inmate in that manner, and sfhe could hear 56 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 5? of 69 Representative Case Summaries himrher ?-om hisfher of?ce. The Senior Of?cer told the Secretary, ?Go tell them that," referring to the inmateTOutcome: The employee was suspended for three days. Misuse of Travel Charge Card A Cook Supervisor used hisfher government-issued travel charge card to purchase gasoline for hisfher privately-owned vehicle. Outcome: The employee was suspended for two days. Absent Without Of?cial Leave A Cook Supervisor repeatedly reported for work late over a three-month period, even after being counseled by hisiher supervisor to report for duty on time. Outcome: The employee was suspended for one day. Inappropriate Relationship with an Inmate A staff member at a contractx?halfway house shared hisfher salad with an inmate. the was informed that this was a violation of policy and that she should not do it again. Later that same afternoon, she was again seen sharing a salad with the same inmate. Outcome: The employee received a written reprimand and hisfher probationary period was extended by 90 days. A staff member at a facility with an IGA was observed passing a note from one inmate to another in the Special Housing Unit. Szhe instructed the inmate to read the note, sign it. and return it to himl'her. The note indicated the inmate could only return to the general population if he abided by the rules and respected staff and inmates. The note also said if the inmate chose not to do this, he would either have to request protective custody or suffer the consequences of an assault. Outcome: The subject?s employment was terminated. Conduct of a Sexual Nature A staff member at a privatized facility asked another staff member what type of underwear she was wearing. The question was asked in the presence of an inmate. Outcome: The subject was suspended for five days. 5'7 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 58 of 69 Signi?cant Prosecutions Following are brief summaries of some of the signi?cant or noteworthy prosecutions which were completed during Fiscal Year 2004. The individuals referenced are no longer employed by the BOP or any BOP contractor. 0 An inmate alleged a Gardener Supervisor repeatedly supplied inmates with narcotics, alcohol, and jewelry. The inmate ?nther claimed the employee asked him for a source with whom he could traf?c up to 10 pounds of methamphetamine per month. The Gardener Supervisor pled guilty to Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine (more than 50 grams). He was sentenced to 60 months incarceration and four years supervised release. 0 During an OIG investigation, a Commissary Clerk admitted she smuggled a cellular telephone into the institution for an inmate. The Commissary Clerk was charged with one count of Smuggling a Prohibited Item into a Federal Institution. She was sentenced to three years probation. A Correctional Of?cer bribed three inmates? ?ancees or spouses by telling them he could access and alter data related to the length of the inmates' sentences in return for money and sexual relations with them. During a joint investigation by the OIG and the FBI, one of the victims recorded a meeting with the Correctional Of?cer in which she paid him $1,000, and he outlined his plan to access the institution?s computer system and reduce the inmate?s sentence. The Correctional Of?cer pled guilty to Public Of?cial Accepting a Bribe. He was sentenced to one year and one day of incarceration. An inmate alleged a Correctional O?icer planned to receive drugs and money from an inmate?s family member and introduce the drugs into the facility. The Correctional Of?cer was arrested by the 016 after he accepted money and narcotics from an undercover agent. He was charged with Knowingly and Corruptly Receiving a Bribe, Knowingly Attempting to Provide an Inmate with a Prohibited Object, and Possession with Intent to Distribute a Mixture or Substance Containing a Detectable Amount of Heroin. The Correctional Of?cer was convicted of Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin and Aiding and Abetting. He was sentenced to 30-months incarceration. 0 An inmate alleged a Correctional Of?cer introduced cellular telephones and weightlifting supplements into the institution. During a sting operation conducted by the OIG, the Correctional Of?cer accepted a bribe for introducing a cellular telephone into the institution. She entered into a plea agreement on the charge of Bribery and was sentenced to five-years probation and six-months home con?nement. 58 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 59 of 69 Signi?cant Prosecutions A Senior Of?cer allegedly called the histitution and made threats against a Lieutenant. The Lieutenant contacted local police and ?led charges against the Senior Of?cer for Terroristic Threats. The Seni0r Of?cer was charged with three counts of Terroristic Threats and sentenced to no less than 15 days and no more than 1 year of incarceration. The Senior Of?cer was also charged with Harassment by Communication and sentenced to 1-year probation. 0 An Attorney contacted the U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce and alleged his client had paid a Case Manager at a facility with an IGA $3,000 to arrange a transfer to a community corrections facility. The Case Manager was charged with Bribery and sentenced to 6-months court- appointed guardianship and one-year probation. In addition, he was ordered to pay $4,000 in restitution. 59 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 60 of 69 Appendix A Types of Misconduct BOP FOIA 2016-01716 610f69 Typ? Misconduct Category Abuse of Inmates Physical Abuse of Inmates Life Threatening Serious Injury Minor! Slight Injmy MinorfNo Injury.r - Harassment Super?cial Excessive Us: of Force Restraint Related 1 Threatening an InmateNerbal Abuse 2 Use of Profanity 3 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Aggmvated Sexual Abuse - ?2241 ?2241 - Male Inmate ?2241 - Male Sm?YMale Inmate ?2241 - Female Staf?'Female Inmate ?2241 - Female Stai?'Male [Innate ?2241 - Unknown Staf??Female Inmate {52241 4 Unknown Staf?lliale Inmate Sexual AbmefSexua] Abuse of a Ward - ?2242f2243 ?2242f2243 - Male Stafleemale Inmate ?2242f2243 - Male StafE?Male Inmate ?2242l2243 - Female Staf??Female Inmate ?224232243 - Female Stai?'Male Inmate ?2242f2243 - Unknown StafEr?FemaIe Inmate ?2242f2243 - Unknown Sta?tMale Inmate Abusive Sexual Contact - ?2244 ?2244 Male Inmate 61 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 62 of 69 Type of Misconduct Category ??2244 - Male Staf?Male Inmate ?2234 - Female Stuf?'Female Inmate ?2244 - Female Staf?'Male Inmate ?2244 - Unknown Staf?Fentale inmate ?2244 - Unlmown Sta?'Male Inmate Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature UCSN - Male Staf?'Female Inmate UCSN - Male Sta??fMale Inmate MNN UCSN - Female Staf?'Fetnale Inmate UCSN - Female Sta?IMale Inmate UCSN - Unknown Sta?I'chale Inmate UCSN - Unknown Staf?Male Inmate Introduction of Contraband Soft Item Introduction Ior2 Weapons Introduction Escape Paraphernalia Introduction Money Introduction Marijuana Introduction Heroin 8.: Derivatives Introduction Cocaine Introduction Other Unspeci?ed Drugs Introduction Alcoholic Beverages Introduction lor2 Unauthorized Electronic Device Introduction lorZ Creatinea'Weightli?ing Supplement Introduction Discrimination Discrimination IorZ Fiscal Improprieties Time and Attendance Irregt?a?ties 62 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 63 of 69 Category Type Voucher Falsi?cation 1 The?fMisuse of Government Funds ($100] 1 or 2 The?fMisuse of Govermnent Property 1 or 2 Misuse of Government Computers 2 Improper Procurement Procedures 2 Failure to Pay Government Charge Card 3 Misuse of Travel Charge Card ($1,000) 2 or 3 Misuse of Purchase Charge Card ($1,000) 2 or 3 ?I?he?fMisuse of Employee Club Funds 2 The??JMisuse of AFGEfUnion Funds 2 Theft of Inmate Funds 1 The?fDestr-uetion of Inmate Property 2 The?fMisuse of Contractor Funds 1 or 2 The?t?Misuse of Contractor Property 1 or 2 Failure to Account for Inmate 2 Theft of Employee 1 or 2 Bribery Bribery 1 Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates Soiicitinngeoepting Anything of Value 2 Offe?ny?iving Anyming of Value 2 Improper Contact with an Inmate?mnate Family 2 Appearance of an Inappropriate Relationship 2 Misuse of [Innate Labor 2 Preferential Treatment of Inmates 2 63 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 64 of 69 Category Type of Miseonduet_ Investigative Violations Coneealing a Material Fact 1 or 2 Refusing to Cooperate or 2 Lying During an Investigation or 2 Providing :1 False Statement 1 or 2 AlteringiDesttoying E?dence?joeuments Refusing to Submit to a Search 1 or 2 Interfering an InVestigation or 2 Advising Someone to Violate Policy 1 or 2 Conducting an Unauthorized Investigation 1 Lack of Condor or 2 Personnel Prohibitions Employees 1 or 2 Failure to Report Violation of Ridee?Regulations or 2 Falsi?ealion of Employment Records 2 Misuse of Of?cial Poei?om?Badge 2 Swer?so?Subordinate Relationship 2 Engaging in Prohibited Personnel Practices 2 UsefAbuse of Illegal 2 or 3 Absent Without Leave (AWOL) 3 Retaliation 2 Unauthorized Release of Information Unauthorized Release of InfomIation 1 or 2 Violation of FOWBW Acts 1 or 2 Other (in-Duty Misconduct Use of Profanity 3 Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature 1, 2, or 3 Inattention to Duty 3 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 65 of 69 Type of Misco_n=duct Failure to Respond to an Emergency 3 Failure to Property Supervise Initiates 3 Breach of Security 2 or 3 Breach of Computer Security 2 or 3 Falsi?cation of Documents 1 Unprofessional Conduct 3 Failure to Follow Policy 3 Gamblingfi?romotion of Gambling 2 Endangering the Safety of an Inmate 2 Endangering the Safety of Others 2 Providing False Information Other Than Dating 3 an Of?cial Investigation Insubordination 3 Accidental Discharge of a Firearm 3 Soliciting/Sale of Goods on Government Property 3 I ob Favoritism 3 Workplace Violence 1 or 2 Failure to Meet Performance Standards 2 Failure to Follow Supervisor?s Instructions 3 Fraudulent Workers? Compensation Claims 1 Off-Duty Misconduct Arrest and Conviction 2 or 3 Failure to Report Arrest 3 Failure to Fa}r lust Debts 3 Failure to Obtain Outside Employment Approval 3 DWUDUI 3 Domestic Violence 2 Traf?c Citation 3 65 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 66 of 69 Category Type of Misconduct ?Carrying an Fixeami 2 Discreditablc Behavior 3 Falsi?calinn of Recordstocuments 3 Other Citation (Hunting, etc.) 3 Con?ict of Interest 3 66 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 6? of 69 Appendix OIA Organizational Chart BOP FOIA 2016-01716 68 of 69 L.- U. Mia 03$ .325?? BOP FOIA 2016-01716 69 0f 69 US. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons Washington, D.C. Of?ce of Internal Affairs Report for Fiscal Year 2005 BOP FOIA 2016-01716101?77 - . 21?? 3.4. . a Table of Contents Executive? Summary of Findings 1 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct 4 Reported Misconduct . 7 Closed! Sustained Misconduct 10 Physical Abuse of Inmates 24 introduction of Contraband 27 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 31 Representative Case Summaries 56 Signi?cant Prosecutions 59 Previous Fiscal Year Update 61 Appendix A - 69 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 2 of 77 Executive Summag of Findings . There was a 6.2 percent increase in the number of cases opened in Fiscal Year 2005 as compared with Fiscal Year 2004. The reported rate among BOP employees increased from 12.6 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2004 to 14.0 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2005, or an increase of 9.4 percent. - The largest increase occurred in cases categorized as Classi?cation 1 offenses [allegations which, if substantiated, would constitute a prosecutable offense (other than offenses such as misdemeanor arrests and traf?c 18.9 percent increase over those cases opened in Fiscal Year 2004. - The most frequently reported type of misconduct in Fiscal Year 2005 was Other On-Duty Misconduct (particularly that which was unrelated to inmates). Unprofessional Conduct and Abuse of Inmates placed second and third, respectively. 0 The most signi?cant increases in reported misconduct occurred in the categories of Bribery, Breach of Security, Introduction of Contraband, and Unprofessional Conduct. The only categories of misconduct which showed a decrease from Fiscal Year 2004 were Discrimination, Unauthorized Release of Information, Sexual Abuse of Inmates. and lnattention to Duty. During Fiscal Year 2005, 17 cases involving Patriot Act Violations were opened. As of September 30, 2005, 10 cases remained open pending investigation or awaiting disciplinary action, and 7 cases were closed. No allegations were sustained in the 7 closed cases. - As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made on 37.6 percent of the 4,826 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2005. Of the 37.6 percent, 44.4 percent had a sustained decision. or a rate of 2.3 employees per 100 total BOP staff. - The most frequently sustained area of misconduct among BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2005, was Other On-Duty Misconduct. Off-Duty Misconduct ranked second. - The sustained rate of misconduct thus far in Fiscal Year 2005 among male BOP employees (2.4 employees per 100 total male BOP staff) was higher than that among female BOP employees (2.2 employees per 100 total female BOP staff). - The most frequently sustained type of misconduct for male BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2005, was Off-Duty Misconduct. The most ?-equently sustained type of misconduct for female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2005, was Personnel Prohibitions. 1 BOP 2016-01716 3 of 77 Executive Summary of Findings - For those subjects with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2005, the following categories of misconduct were sustained with greater frequency among male BOP staff than among female BOP staff: Off?Duty Misconduct, Inattention to Duty, Failure to Follow Policy, Unauthorized Release of Information, and Bribery. All other categories of misconduct occurred with greater frequency among female staff, with the most signi?cant differences being in the areas of Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates and Introduction of Contraband. For those subjects with a sustainedldecision as of September 30, 2005, the rate was highest among staff working at the Staff Training CenterstIC (6.9 per 100 total Staff Training Centers/MC staff). The most frequently sustained types of misconduct were Misuse of Government Computers and lnattention to Duty. - For those subjects with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2005, the rate was relatively equal among non-bargaining unit employees and bargaining unit employees (2.4 employees per 100 total non-bargaining unit staff as compared to 2.3 employees per 100 total bargaining unit staff). - For those subjects with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2005, the rate was highest among staff working in Administrative security institutions (3 per 100 total staff) and lowest among staff working in High security institutions (1.9 per 100 total staff). The most frequently sustained types of misconduct for staff working in Administrative security institutions were Inattention to Duty and Failure to Follow Policy. - For those subjects with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2005, the most frequently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in contract/halfway house facilities and facilities with an IGA was Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct for staff working in privatized facilities was Unprofessional Conduct (particularly that which was related to inmates). - Eight allegations of Physical Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2005 have been sustained to date"? involved minorfno injury to the inmate (harassment), and 1 involved SUper?cial injury to the inmate. Two of the 3 sustained allegations involved male BOP employees working in Correctional Services. One involved a male BOP employee working in Food Service, 1 involved a female BOP employee working in Food Service, and 1 involved a male BOP employee working in Health Services/Safety. The remaining 3 sustained allegations involved staff working in privatized facilities. None of the employees with a sustained allegation were convicted of criminal violations. BOP 2016-01716 4 of 77 Executive Summary of Findings Thirty-one allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported during Fiscal Year 2005 have been sustained to date: 16 involved the introduction of soft contraband, 9 involved the introduction of unauthorized electronic devices, 2 involved the introduction of weapons, 1 involved the introduction of alcoholic beverages, 1 involved the introduction of marijuana, 1 involved the introduction of other, unspeci?ed drugs, and 1 involved the introduction of Creatine/weightli?ing supplements. None of the 30 individuals involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband were convicted of criminal violations. Ten allegations of Sexual Abuse of Inmates reported during Fiscal Year 2005 have been sustained to date-Q involved male BOP employees, 1 involved a female BOP employee, 3 involved staff working in privatized facilities, 2 involved staff working in facilities with an IGA, 1 involved a contract employee working in a BOP facility, and 1 involved a contract/hal?vay house employee. BOP FOIA 2016?01316 5_o_f 77 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct meanness In accordance with the Bureau?s Standards of Employee Conduct, staff who become aware of any violation or alleged violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct must report them to the Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO), the Of?ce of Internal Affairs (01A), or to the Department of Justice Of?ce of the Inapector General (GIG). The OIG has established a toll-free hotline (1?300-869-4499) which is available to anyone wishing to report DOJ employees? misconduct, as well as fraud, waste, or abuse in government. All Bureau staff are encouraged to use the OIG hotline if they wish to remain anonymous or fear retaliation or reprisal. To report violations directly to the OLA Central Of?ce call (202-307?3286) or fax (202-514- 8625) CEO Reporting Upon becoming aware of any possible violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct (either through a report from staff or through personal knowledge), the CEO at the institution, Regional Of?ce, or Central Of?ce Division, or his or her designee, is to report the violation to the 01A in accordance with the following time frames. Classi?cation 1 cases are de?ned as allegations which, if substantiated, would constitute a prosecutable offense (other than offenses such as misdemeanor arrests and traf?c citations). Classi?cation 2 cases are de?ned as allegations which involve violation of rules, regulations, or law that, if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution, but constitute serious misconduct. Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases must be reported telephonically to 01A immediately. 01A is to be noti?ed of Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases, including: the identity of the complainant(s), subject(s), witness(es), and victim(s); . the details of the allegation(s); and . any corroborating evidence. Written noti?cation to OLA will be made within 24 hours (not to include weekends and holidays) of the time management learns of the matter. Classi?cation 3 cases are de?ned as allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations. Ordinarily, CEOs can proceed with local investigations on category 3 misconduct allegations for staff occupying bargaining unit or 65?] 2 and below non-bargaining unit positions without ?rst obtaining 01A approval. CEOs are, however, required to prepare a 4 BOP 2016-01716 6 0f 77 Regorting Incidents of Misconduct report of all category 3 allegation investigations they have initiated for the month. The report must include the subject(s)? name and title, the type of misconduct Use of Profanity), and a brief summary of the allegation. The full names and titles of other staff involved and the full names and register numbers of all inmates involved should also be included in the summary. The report should be forwarded to the GroupWise mailbox ?BOP-DIR/Internal Affairs~? by the fifth day of each month October reports are due in OLA by November 5, 2004) so monitoring of these cases may begin. Negative reports are required. When a Classi?cation 3 case is complex and would result in severe disciplinary or adverse action, the procedures for reporting Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases should be followed. Referral to the BIIOther Law Enforcement Agencies. When it is suspected that criminal conduct has occurred, the CEO may refer the matter directly to 01A and to the local simultaneously. Initial Information. An 01A Referral of Incident form (BF-5715.012) is used to organize the information to be provided in the telephonic reporting of cases listed in subsection of this section for contract employees use form The subject of the allegation or complaint must not be questioned or interviewed prior to OIG clearance and OlA's approval. This is to ensure against procedural error and safeguard the rights of the subject. Supporting Documentation. Supporting documentation, such as victim or witness statements, medical reports, photos, and related memoranda, must be transmitted via facsimile to 01A, Central Of?ce at (202-514-8625) or OLA, Denver Field Office, at (303-365-4445) or by e-mail via the CIA resource mailbox (BOP-DIR/lntemal Affairs?~) and a copy should be forwarded to the case agent immediately, but not later than 24 hours after the telephonic report. If an inmate alleges physical or sexual abuse by a staff member and has not received a medical examination, the CEO must arrange an immediate, con?dential medical examination and forward a copy of the results to OLA as soon as possible. CEOs must notify 01A before initiating investigations involving any misconduct alleged against management staff occupying 65-13 or above positions. 01A will coordinate ?irther action with 016. The CIA referral of incident form must be completed on all management staff in positions GS-13 and above. Unless the CEO and the Chief of 01A agree to a different method, ordinarily, investigations involving Classi?cation 3 cases are to be conducted using local resources. BOP 2016-01716 7 of 77 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct Contact 01A immediately, if there is any question as to the classi?cation of the misconduct. It is important to note that while case classi?cations are many times based on limited information, as an investigation unfolds, the severity of misconduct may increase or decrease, thereby moving it into another classi?cation. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 8 of 77 Reported Misconduct All allegations of misconduct received by the Of?ce of internal Affairs (OLA) are referred to the Department of Justice, Of?ce of the Inspector General (016), for review and classi?cation. The 01G determines which matters they will accept for investigation and possible criminal prosecution and defers other matters to the 01A for investigation. 01A coordinates with the OIG and/or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) when investigations may lead to criminal prosecution or when there are allegations involving the abuse of an individual?s Constitutional rights under Color of Law. For those matters deferred for investigation, 01A determines, after consulting with BOP management of?cials, whether an on-site investigation is warranted or if the matter can be investigated at the local institution level. Allegations categorized as Classi?cation 3 offenses are referred to the OIG via computer extract on a basis. NOTES The number of subjects exceeds the number of cases throughout this report as some cases have multiple subjects. Also, some subjects may be charged with multiple types of misconduct in a single case, causing the number of allegations to be higher. Finally, individual employees may be subjects in more than 0116 case. Due to the dynamic nature of the CIA database, ?gures in this report are subject to change. During the course of an investigation, evidence may indicate circumstances other than those initially reported, causing data to be added, deleted, andfor changed. Allegations referred to as ?Inmate Related" included some type of inmate involvement, while allegations referred to as wNon inmate Related" occurred in the workplace but did not include inmate involvement. For a complete list of the types of misconduct included in each category, please reference the Appendices scction of this report. During Fiscal Year 2005, OLA opened 4,215 cases involving 4,826 BOP employees, 26 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 53 Public Health Service (PHS) employees working in BOP facilities, I volunteer working in a BOP facility, 274 contractl'halfway house employees, 46 employees working in facilities with an intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), and 113 employees working in privatized facilities. These 4,215 cases represent a 6.2 percent increase over the 3,970 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2004. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees increased from 12.6 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2004 to 14.0 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2005, an increase of 9.4 percent. The 4,211 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2005 were classi?ed as follows: Classi?cation I Classi?cation 2 Classi?cation 3 926 1,379 1 ,910 The largest increase occurred in cases categorized as Classi?cation 1 offenses?an 13.9 percent increase over those cases opened in Fiscal Year 2004. Classi?cation 2 offenses showed an increase of 12.2 percent, and Classification 3 offenses showed a decrease of percent. BOP 2016-01716 9 of 77 Reported Misconduct Table (on the following page) provides a breakdown of those types of misconduct reported during Fiscal Year 2005. The only categories of reported misconduct which showed a decrease from Fiscal Year 2004 were Discrimination (a 13.5 percent decrease), Unauthorized Release of Information (an 11.7 percent decrease), Sexual Abuse of Inmates (a 1.8 percent decrease), and Inattention to Duty (a 0.4 percent decrease). The most signi?cant increases occurred in the categories of Bribery (a 36.7 percent increase), Breach of Security (a 23.1 percent increase), Introduction of Contraband (a 23.0 percent increase), and Unprofessional Conduct (a 21.2 percent increase). Patriot Agt In the USA Patriot Act, Congress expressed concern about the potential abuse of individual civil rights and liberties by 00] employees in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the Patriot Act mandated that the OIG widely advertise that it receives and investigates allegations of such abuses. Patriot Act violations include violence, discrimination, or threats on the part of a employee, particularly when such cases are directed toward individuals or groups associated in the public perception with acts of terrorism because of their religious beliefs, place of birth, or appearance. Patriot Act allegations which typically come to our attention are alleged mistreatment or unprofessional behavior of BOP staff towardfaround certain inmates, their visitors, or members of the public. Due to the sensitivity of these allegations, they are automatically classi?ed as Classi?cation 2 or higher offenses; they should be forwarded immediately to the 01A. All Patriot Act violation allegations are then referred to a Special Operations Unit at 016 Headquarters devoted to reviewing and investigating such misconduct. During Fiscal Year 2005, 17 cases involving Patriot Act Violations were opened. As of September 30, 2005, 10 cases remained open pending investigation or awaiting disciplinary action, and 7 cases-were closed. No allegations were sustained in the 7 closed cases. BOP 2016-0171610 01?77 Regorted Misconduct Table 1: Types of Reported Misconduct - FY 2_005 Number of Reported Allegations am: om or Other On?Duty Misconduct 253 1035 if; Unprofessionai Conduct 416 949 Abuseoflnmates v74 774 it. Personnel Prohibitions tort: 601 54 555 Off-Duty Misconduct fog-3:31:29 "i ??rf?t?ftit?t 603 608 Fiscal Improprieties 76 519 II Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 502 i A. 502 .5 Inattention to Duty 177 4?6 -O.4 Failure to Follow Policy 219 450 Introduction ofContraband 354 . 412 ii . Sexual Abuse oflnmates 277 rgn?tfnn .. 277 4.3 Brooch ofSecurity Bribery 129 5 23 134 Investigative Violations - 96 i; I 96 v" - Unauthorized Release oflnfom'tation 43 4o 33 -11.7 Discrimination 22 to 32 43.5 BOP FOIA 2016-017161_1 01?7? Closed/Sustained Misconduct As of September 30, 2005, adecision had been NOTE made on 1,736 (41.2 percent) of the 4,211 cases All ?gures in this section relate to cases which opened during Fiscal Year 2005. The remaining were opened during the speci?ed Fiscal Year, 2,475 cases (58.8 percent) were still open and being Which wars closed as of 339. 2005- investigated. Of the 1,736 cases closed, the 13?1?? '0 Change as addm?ml cases are closed. majority (1,561, or 89.9 percent) were investigated at the institution level with authorization and monitoring provided by the CIA. Of the 1,736 cases closed, 112 were 01A on-site investigations (6.5 percent). The remaining 63 cases (3.6 percent) were investigated by the 010. Of the 1,736 cases closed, 826 (47.6 percent) were sustained. Misconduct was sustained against 805 BOP employees, 5 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 12 PHS employees working in PHS facilities, 58 contractfhal?vay house employees, 11 employees working in a facility with an IGA, and 35 employees working in privatized facilities. BOP Employees There were 4,826 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2005. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 37.6 percent of those 4,826 employees. Of the 37.6 percent (or 1,314 employees), 44.4 percent (805) had a sustained decision (a rate of 2.3 employees per 100 total BOP staff). Table 2 (on the following page) re?ects the types of sustained allegations for BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2005. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct was Other On?Duty Misconduct. 10 BOP 2016-0171612 01?77 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 2: Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2005 with 3?.6 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Miscondu? Inmate Non-Inmate TOTAL Related Related Other OneDuty Misconduct 13 133 146 Off-Duty Misconduct 0 0 144 144 Personnel Prohibitions 113 10 123 to Duty 38 I 111 Unprofessional Conduct 26 104 Fiscal Improprieties 7 10] Failure to Follow Policy 33 91 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 37 Miss A 3:1 Breach of Security 4 i "i 25 Introduction of Contraband [2 25 Investigative Violations 1?1 i 22 Abuse of Inmates 9 "@111? . 9 Unauthorized Release of Information 2 4 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 3 i 3 Bribery 1 Discrimination ii i I Disciplinary Action Taken Once a subject is investigated and the allegations are sustained, the type of disciplinary action taken is left to the deciding of?cial, who is generally the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Each case is unique, and there are varying degrees of seriousness within each type of misconduct. Also, a single subject may be charged with more than one type of misconduct. Therefore, the Douglas Factors must be considered when deciding the appropriate penalty to impose on employees for misconduct. 11 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 13 0f 77 Closed/Sustained Misconduct The Douglas Factors are an accumulation of historic Civil Service practices and procedures in cases involving civil servant misconduct, created by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in the Douglas case. In Douglas, the MSPB announced a nonexhaustive list of 12 factors which the BOP, like all federal agencies, must consider in determining appropriate penalties to impose in employee misconduct. The Douglas Factors are as follows: 1. 2. 10. ll. 12. the nature and seriousness of the offense; the employee?s job level and type of employment. the employee?s disciplinary record; the employee?s past work record, including length of service and duty performance; the effect of the offense on the employee's ability to perform and its effect on the supervisor's con?dence in such ability; the consistency of the penalty with penalties imposed upon others for like or similar misconduct; the consistency of the penalty with the table of penalties (Program Statement 3420.09, Standards of Employee Conduct); the notoriety of the offense or its impact on the reputation; the clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules violated or warned about the conduct in question; the employee?s potential for rehabilitation; any and all mitigation circumstances surrounding the offense job stress/tension, personality problems, mental impairment, harassment or bad faith. malice or provocation on the part of others involved); the adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions. The CEO is required to consider only those Douglas Factors which are relevant to any individual case and need not consider all the Douglas Factors in every case. In many cases, some of the Douglas Factors may suggest one penalty while others suggest another penaltychoose the appropriate penalty. 12 BOP 2016-0171614 0f 77 Closed/Sustained Misconduct The following actions were taken against (or by) those BOP employees with a sustained decision in Fiscal Year 2005: Oral Reprimand 96 Written Reprimand 206 Suspension 184 Demotion 6 Retirement 1 1 Resignation 69 Termination 34 Combined with Action in Another 01A Matter 10 Other Settlement Agreement) 14 No Action Taken 175 The types of misconduct most ??equently sustained against those individuals for whom no disciplinary action was taken were Traf?c Citations (20.7 percent), Inattention to Duty (15.4 percent), and Failure to Follow Policy (12.0 percent). Gender There were 3,716 male BOP employees . . . . . . NOTE identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year mm: 4,826 BOP employees for whom a ca? 2005. As of September 30, 2005, a was opened in Fiscal Year 2005, 121 were had been made for 37.2 percent of those 3,716 unidenti?ed. male employees. 0f the 37.2 percent (or 1,383 male employees), 43.3 percent (599) had a sustained decision (a rate of 2.4 employees per 100 total male BOP staff). Table 3 (on the following page) re?ects the types of sustained allegations for male BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2005. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct for male staff was Off-Duty Misconduct . 13 BOP__FO_1a_2o1e?o171e 15 of 77 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 3: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Male BOP Employees - FY 2005 with 37.2 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct Inmate Non Inmate TOTAL Related Related Off-Duty Misconduct 120 Other On?Duty Misconduct 9 39 90 93 Inatlention to Dutyr 32 59 :3 91 Personnel Prohibitions . I I 35 Fiscal Improprieties 74 Unprofessional Conduct 73 Failure to Follow Policy,r 5?9 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 20 Breach of Security "5 Investigative Violations 15 introduction of Contraband 13 Abuse of Inmates 7 Unauthorized Release of Information 4 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 2 Bribery Discrimination 0 There were 989 female BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2005. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 40.0 percent of those 989 female employees. Of the 40.0 percent (or 396 female employees), 52.0 percent (206) had a sustained decision (a rate of 2.2 employees per 100 total female BOP staft). Table 4 (on the following page) re?ects the types of sustained allegations for female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2005. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct for female staff was Personnel Prohibitions. l4 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 16 0f 77 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 4: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Female BOP Employees FY 2005 with 40 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct $33 Off-Duty TOTAL Personnel Prohibitions gt5riiju??n 36 38 Other Girl-[Zlotyr Misconduct 4 31 35 Unprofessional Conduct 10 Fiscal Improprieties 0 Off-Duty Misconduct Satire/e I Failure to Follow Policy 9 Inattention to Duty 6 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates Introduction of Contraband 7 Breach of Security 2 Investigative Violations a Abuse of Inmates 2' Am . Sexual Abuse of inmates ?T?flf?d??iif?? 1 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 3 Discrimination 0 0 0 Bribery 0 0 0 The following categories of misconduct were sustained with greater frequency among male staff than among female staff: Off-Duty Misconduct (17.4 percent of all misconduct by male staff as compared to 9.8 percent of all misconduct by female staff), Inattention to Duty (13.2 percent of all misconduct by male staff as compared to 8.2 percent of all misconduct by female staff), Failure to Follow Policy (10 percent of all misconduct by male staff as compared to 9 percent of all misconduct by female staff), Unauthorized Release of Information (.6 percent of all misconduct by male staff as compared to 0 percent of all misconduct by female staff), and Bribery (.3 percent of all misconduct by male staff as compared to 0 percent of all misconduct by female staff). All other categories of misconduct occurred with greater frequency among female 15 BOP 2016-0171617 91?77 staff, with the most signi?cant differences being in the areas of Inappropriate Relationships with Closed/Sustained Misconduct Inmates (6.9 percent of all misconduct by female staff as compared to 2.9 percent of all misconduct by male staff) and Introduction of Contraband (4.9 percent of all misconduct by female staff as compared to 1.9 percent of all misconduct by male staff). I Job Discipline As of September 30, 2005, 805 employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2005 had a sustained decision. The rate among staff working in Staff Training Centerstational Institute of Corrections (6.9 per 100 total Staff Training Centers/MC staff) was higher than that among otherjob disciplines. The rate among Food Services staff was 3.4 per 100 total Food Services staff. Table 5: Discipline of BOP Employees with Sustained Misconduct - FY 2005 Number of Discipline Total Employees E?lbgges Misconduct Staff Training CentersiNIC 10 144 6.9 Food Services 52 1523 3.4 Religious Services 3 278 2.9 Correctional Services 408 14657 2.3 Recreation 13 657 2.7 Education and Vocational Training 25 973 2.6 Systems 29 1114 2.6 Health ServicesfSafety 55 2236 2.4 Business Of?ce 38 1631 2.3 Human Resources 11 529 Unit Management 59 3118 1.9 Facilities 39 2372 1.6 CEO's Office and Staff IS 939 1.6 UNICOR. 13 1258 1.4 Services 10 890 1.1 Computer Services 2 230 .9 Central Of?ce 1203 .7 I 6 BOP FOIA 2016-0171618 of 77 Closed/Sustained Misconduct The most frequently sustained types of misconduct among staff working in the Staff Training were Misuse of Government Computers and Inattention to Duty (28.6 percent each of the total sustained misconduct among this group). The most frequently sustained types of misconduct among Food Services staff were Inattention to Duty, Unprofessional Conduct, and Failure to Follow Policy (14.5 percent each of the sustained misconduct among this group). I Bargaining vs. Non-Bargaining Unit There were 3,619 employees in the bargaining unit identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2005. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 37.9 percent of those 3,619 bargaining unit employees. Of the 37.9 percent (or 1,372 bargaining unit employees), 48.5 percent (or 666 bargaining unit employees) had a sustained decision (a rate of 2.3 employees per 100 total bargaining unit employees). There were 1,086 non-bargaining unit employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2005. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 37.7 percent of those 1,086 employees. 0f the 37.7 percent (or 409 non- Rate of Start with Sustained bargaining unit employees), 34 percent had a Misconduct by Security Level - FY 2005 sustained decision (a rate of 2.4 employees per 100 total non-bargaining unit employees). I Security Level As of September 30, 2005, 805 employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2005 had a sustained decision. The rate among those working in Administrative security institutions was higher than that among ADM MIN LOW MED other security level institutions (3.0 per 100 total staff). The rate of misconduct was lowest among those working in High security institutions (1.9 per 100 total staff). The most frequently sustained types of misconduct among staff working in Administrative security institutions were Inattention to Duty (particularly that which was not related to inmates) and Failure to Follow Policy. Each of these types of misconduct made up 13.4 percent of all misconduct among staff in that group. Unprofessional Conduct (particularly that which was not related to inmates) occurred with the second highest frequency, making up 11.4 percent of all misconduct among staff in Administrative security institutions. 17 BOP FOIA 2016-0171619 of 77 Closed/Sustained Misconduct The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in Minimum security institutions was Unprofessional Conduct, which made up 23.5 percent of all misconduct among this group. hiattention to Duty (particularly that which was related to inmates) occurred with the second highest frequency, making up 20.6 percent of all misconduct among staff working in Minimum security institutions. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in Medium security institutions was Inattention to Duty (particularly that which was not related to inmates), which made up 14.5 percent of all misconduct among this group. Unprofessional Conduct (particularly that which was not related to inmate) occurred with the second highest frequency, making up 9.7 percent of all misconduct among staff working in Medium security institutions. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in Low security institutions was Absent Without Leave, which made up 12-9 percent of all misconduct among this group. Unprofessional Conduct (particularly that which was not related to inmates) occurred with the second highest frequency, making up 11.4 percent of all misconduct among staff working in Low security institutions. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in High security institutions was Unprofessional Conduct (particularly that which was related to inmates), which made up I 1.7 percent of all misconduct among this group. Absent Without Leave occurred with the second highest frequency, making up 10.2 percent of all misconduct among staff working in High security institutions. Contr alfwa House Em lo ees There were 274 contractfhalfway house employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2005. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 68.2 percent of those 274 employees. 0f the 68.2 percent (or 187 employees), 31 percent (5 8) had a sustained decision. It is signi?cant to note that an administrative disposition was recorded for 44.4 percent of those employees for whom a decision had been made, indicating the employee either resigned or was terminated prior to an investigation being conducted. Thus, the 31 percent sustained rate is likely an extremely conservative ?gure. Table 6 (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against connect/hal?vay house employees. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct was Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates, which made up 26.1 percent of all misconduct among this group. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 20 0177 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 6: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Contraetf?alfway House Employees - FY 2005 with 68.2 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Miseond uct Inmate Non Inmate Related Related 0mm"? TOTAL it: '3'1 ??hxrl? {4 ?l we?: He 3 sweetness 18 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 4 Personnel Prohibitions . Failure to Follow Policy Off-Duty Misconduct 4 Other On-Duty Misconduct Investigative Violations i? in?? 2" i luattention to Duty LnUtG?iChm?J Unprofessional Conduct Sexual Abuse of inmates I?n Abuse of Inmates Bribery Breach of Security Introduction of Contraband Discrimination Fiscal Improprieties Unauthorized Release of Information Staff in Privatized Facilities There were 1 18 employees working in privatized facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2005. Those privatized facilities are identi?ed as: California City Correctional Institution, Cibola County Correctional Center, Eloy Detention Center, McRae Correctional Facility, Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, Rivers Correctional Institution, and Tail Correctional Institution. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 63.6 percent of those 113 employees. Of the 63.6 percent (or 75 employees). 46.7 percent (35) had a sustained decision. 19 BOP 2016-01716 21 of 77 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 7 provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against employees working in privatized facilities. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct was Unprofessional Conduct, which made up 26.3 percent of all misconduct among staff in this group. Table 7: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Privatized Facilities - FY 2005 with 63.6 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct Inmate Non Inmate Related Related TOTAL Unprofessional Conduct 9 10 9" X. 3" 5% Kiri 4 .95 Personnel Prohibitions my . Abuse of Inmates Other Orr-Duty Misconduct Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates Off-Duty Misconduct haven?t-?hm Sexual Abuse of inmates Introduction of Contraband investigative Violations Failure to Follow Policy lnattention to Duty Fiscal lmproprieties Discrimination Bribery Unauthorized Release of Information Breach of Security Staff in Facilities with an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) There were 46 employees working at facilities with an IGA identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2005. These facilities are identi?ed as: Big Spring Correctional Center, Eden Detention Center, Giles Dalby Correctional Center, and Reeves County Detention Center. As of 20 BOP 2016-01716 22 of 77' Closed/Sustained Misconduct September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 71.7 percent of those 46 employees. Of the 71.7 percent (or 33 employees), 33.3 percent (11) had a sustained decision. Table 3 provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against employees working in facilities with an IGA. Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates made up 41.2 percent of all misconduct among staff in this group. Table 3: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Facilities with an - FY 2005 with 71.7 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct :1:ng Non Inmate 011'.an TOTAL mappropriate Relationships with Inmates 7 Introduction of Contraband 4 Other Oil-Duty Misconduct {ii-g. 2 Sexual Abuse of Inmates ?e 2 Investigative Violations is Unauthorized Release of information 0 1 ??d?mfkf? 1 Fiscal Improprieties I: it?? 0 Personnel Prohibitions . Off-Duty Misconduct 5 0 Unprofessional Conduct 0 0 Abuse of Inmates 0 Discrimination 0 Bribery 0 Inattention to Duty 0 0 Breach ofSecm?ity 0 0 Failure to Follow Policy 0 BOP 2016-01716 23 of 77 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Contract Employees Working in BOP Facilities There were 26 contract staff working in BOP facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2005. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 34.6 percent of those 26 contract employees. Of the 34.6 percent (or 9 contract employees), 55.6 percent (5) had a sustained decision. One allegation of each of the following types of misconduct were sustained: Sexual Abuse of an Inmate, Inappropriate Relationship with an Inmate, Introduction of Contraband (Non Inmate Related), Fiscal Improprieties, Investigative Violations, and On-Duty Misconduct (Non Inmate Related). Employees Working in BOP Facilities Of the 635 PHS staff working in BOP facilities, 53 were identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2005 (or 8.3 per 100 PHS employees). As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 37.7 percent of those 53 PHS employees. Of the 37.7 percent (or 20 PHS employees), 60 percent (12) had a sustained decision, for a sustained rate of 1.9 per 100 PHS employees. Table 9 (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against PHS employees working in BOP facilities. 22 BOP 2016-01716 24 of 77 Closed/Sustained Misconduct . Table 9: Types of Sustained Misconduct for PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities - FY 2005 with 37.7 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct ?1313. Off-Duty TOTAL Unproi?essional Conduct 3 2 5 Fiscal Impropricties 3 .2. :j 3 Other On-Duty Misconduct 0 2 A - Le 2 Inattention to Duty 0 1 ., 1 Personnel Prohibitions ii ?i?igi??a 0 Off?Duty Misconduct aiw . 1 1 Breach of Security 0 . 0 Abuse of Inmates 0 I I . 0 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 0 Edi 0 introduction of Contraband 0 0 .. f. . 0 Discrimination 0 Bribery 0 0 0 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 0 ?3 'r 0 Investigative Violations 0 ti Unauthorized Release of Information 0 0 I, 0 Failure to Follow Policy 0 if 23 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 25 0f 77 Physical Abuse of Inmates Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 13 - Civil Rights ?241 Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure. Oppress, threaten. or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -- They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life. ?242 Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of' any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or life. Statistics 0 Fiscal Year 2005 During Fiscal Year 2005, 447 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to OLA or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 38.5 percent (or 172) of those allegations. Physical Abuse allegations are tracked by the degree of injury sustained by the inmate(s) involvedulit'e threatening injury, serious injury, minor/slight injury, minor/no and super?cial injury (injuries associated with the normal use of restraints). Eight allegations of Physical Abuse were sustained: 7 involved minor/no injury (harassment) to the inmate, and 1 involved soper?cial injury to the inmate (injuries associated with the normal use of restraints). Two of the 8 sustained allegations involved male BOP employees working in Correctional Services. One involved a male BOP employee working in Food Service, 1 involved a female BOP employee working in Food 24 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 26 of 77 Physical Abuse of Inmates Service, and 1 involved a male BOP employee working in Health ServicesXSafety. Of the 5 sustained allegations involving BOP employees, 2 occurred at Low security institutions, 2 occurred at Medium security institutions, and 1 occurred at a High security institution. The remaining 3 sustained allegations involved staff working in privatized facilities. None of the employees with a sustained allegation were convicted of criminal violations. Two hundred seventy- five reported allegations were pending investigation. The majority of these pending matters are being investigated at the local institution level or by OIA. 0 Fiscal Year 2004 During Fiscal Year 2004, 352 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 77 percent (or 271) of those allegations. Ten allegations of Physical Abuse were sustained: 3 involved minor/no injury (harassment) to the inmate, and 2 involved minorfslight injury to the inmate. Six of the ID sustained allegations involved male BOP employees working in Correctional Services, 1 involved a female BOP employee working in Correctional Services, and 1 involved a male BOP employee working in Food Service. Of the 8 sustained allegations involving BOP employees, 3 occurred at High security institutions, 3 occurred at Medium security institutions, 1 occurred at a Low security institution, and 1 occurred at an Administrative security institution. The remaining 2 sustained allegations involved stat? working in contract/halfway house facilities. None of the employees with a sustained allegation were convicted of criminal violations. Eighty- one reported allegations were pending investigation. The majority of these pending matters are being investigated at the local institution level or by OLA. 9 Fiscal Year 2003 During Fiscal Year 2003, 375 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to OLA or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 88.9 percent (or 337) of those allegations. Nine allegations of Physical Abuse were sustained: 6 involved minor/slight injury to the inmate, 2 involved minorfno injury (harassment) to the inmate, and 1 involved super?cial injury to the inmate (injuries associated with the normal use of restraints). Three of the 9 sustained allegations involved male BOP employees working in Correctional Services, 2 involved male BOP employees working in Food Service, 1 involved a male BOP employee working in Recreation, and 1 involved a female Unit Management employee. Of the 7 sustained allegations involving BOP employees, 4 occurred at High security institutions, 2 occurred at Low security institutions, and 1 occurred at a Medium security institution. The remaining 2 allegations involved staff working in contract/hal?vay 25 BOP 2016-01716 2? 0f 77 Physical Abuse of Inmates house facilities. None of the employees with a sustained allegation were convicted of criminal violations. Thirty-eight reported allegations were pending investigation. The majority of these pending matters are being investigated at the local institution level or by the DIG. 0 Fiscal Year 2002 During Fiscal Year 2002, 375 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 94.9 percent (or 356) of those allegations. Twelve allegations of Physical abuse were sustained: 4 involved minon?slight injury to the inmate, 7 involved minorfno injury to the inmate, and 1 involved super?cial injury to the inmate. Eleven of the 12 sustained allegations involved male BOP employees??9 Correctional Services employees, 1 Food Service employee, and 1 Unit Management employee. Eight of those ll sustained allegations involving BOP employees occurred at High security institutions, 1 occurred at a Medium security institution, 1 occurred at a Low security institution, and 1 occurred at an Administrative security institution. The remaining sustained allegation involved an employee working at a facility with an IGA. None of the employees with a sustained allegation were convicted of criminal violations. Nineteen reported allegations were pending investigation. The majority of these pending matters are being investigated by the GIG. - When comparing sustained allegations for Fiscal Years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, keep in mind that Fiscal Year 2005 ?gures are lower because a higher number of allegations are pending investigation. 26 BOP 2016-01716 28 of 77 Introduction of Contraband Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 87 - Prisons ?l79l Providing or possessing contraband in prison Offense-Whoever- (1) In violation of a statute or a rule or order issued under a statute, provides to an inmate of a prison a prohibited object, or attempts to do so; or (2) being an inmate of a prison, makes, possesses, or obtains, or attempts to make or obtain, a prohibited object; shall be punished as provided in subsection of this section. Punishment.-The punishment for an offense under this section is a fine under this title or- (1) imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; (2) imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; (3) imprisonment for no more than 5 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; (4) imprisonment for no more than one year, or both, if the object is specified in subsection or of this section; and (5) imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section. Any punishment imposed under subsection for a violation of this section by an inmate of a prison shall be consecutive to the sentence being served by such inmate at the time the inmate commits such violation. Definitions-As used in this section- I) the term ?prohibited object? means? (A) a ?rearm or destructive device; (B) ammunition, a weapon (other than a firearm or destructive device), or an object that is designed or intended to be used as a weapon or to facilitate escape from a prison; (C) a narcotic drug, lysergic acid diethylamide, or (D) a controlled substance (other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph of this subsection) or an alcoholic beverage; 27 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 29 0177 Introduction of Contraband (E) any United States or foreign currency; and (F) any other object that threatens the order, discipline, or security of a prison, or the life, health, or safety of an individual; (2) the terms ?ammunition," ??rearm," and ?destructive device? have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 921 of this title; (3) the terms ?controlled substance? and ?narcotic drug" have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); and (4) the term ?prison? means a Federal correctional, detention, or penal facility. Statistics 0 Fiscal Year 2005 During Fiscal Year 2005, 422 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made on 24.2 percent (or 102) of those allegations. Thirty-one allegations of Introduction of Contraband have been sustained to date: 16 involved the introduction of soft contraband, 9 involved the introduction of unauthorized electronic devices, 2 involved the introduction of weapons, 1 involved the introduction of alcoholic beverages, 1 involved the introduction of marijuana, 1 involved the introduction of other, unspeci?ed drugs, and 1 involved the introduction of Creatinefweightli?ing supplements. A total of 30 individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Thirteen of the individuals were male BOP employees (9 Correctional Services employees, 1 Unit Management employee, 1 EducationNocational Training employee, 1 Human Resources employee, and 1 Food Service employee), 12 were female BOP employees (5 Correctional Services employees, 2 Educatioanocational Training employees, 2 Food Service employees, 1 member of the of?ce and staff, 1 UNICOR employee, and 1 Health Services! Safety employee), 3 were employees at an IGA, was an employee at a privatized facility, and I was a contract employee working at a BOP facility. None of these individuals were convicted of criminal violations. Three hundred twenty reported allegations were still under investigation as of September 30, 2005. The majority of these allegations (55.9 percent) are being investigated by the OIG. 23 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 30 01?77 Introduction of Contraband 0 Fiscal Year 2004 During Fiscal Year 2004, 345 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made on 76.5 percent (or 264) of those allegations. Seventy-seven allegations of Introduction of Contraband have been sustained to date: 41 involved the introduction of soft contraband, 10 involved the introduction of unauthorized electronic devices, 9 involved the introduction of marijuana, 5 involved the introduction of Creatine?weightlifting supplements, 4 involved the introduction of weapons, 4 involved the introduction of alcoholic beverages,2 involved the introduction of heroin and derivatives, and 2 involved the introduction of other, unapeci?ed drugs. A total of 67 individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Thirty-six of the individuals were male BOP employees (20 Currectional Services employees, 3 Unit Management employees, 2 employees each from UNICOR, Facilities, Education and Vocational Training, and Food Services, and 1 employee each ?'om Recreation, Services, Records/Inmate Systems, Computer Services. and Health Services/Safety), 12 were female BOP employees (5 Correctional Services employees, 3 Unit Management employees, and 1 employee each from UNICOR, Recreation, Food Service, and Facilities), 10 were employees at a privatized facility, 6 were contract employees working at BOP facilities, 2 were employees at a facility with an IGA, and 1 was a PHS employee working at a BOP facility. Ten individuals were convicted of criminal violations (6 BOP employees, 2 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 1 employee at a facility with an 10A, and 1 employee at a privatized facility). Eighty-one allegations were still under investigation as of September 30, 2005. The maj orin of these pending investigations (53.1 percent) are being investigated by the 01G. Fiscal Year 2003 During Fiscal Year 2003, 317 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made on 38.6 percent (or 281) of those allegations. Seventy allegations of Introduction of Contraband have been sustained to date: 45 involved the introduction of soft contraband, 6 involved the introduction of marijuana, 5 involved the introduction of other, unspeci?ed drugs, 4 involved the instruction of cocaine, 4 involved the introduction of unauthorized electronic devices, 3 involved the introduction of Creatinefweightlifting supplements, 2 involved the introduction of heroin, and 1 involved the introduction of alcoholic beverages. 29 BOP FOIA 2016-0131533} pf]? Introduction of Contraband A total of 65 individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Forty of the individuals were male BOP employees (1 7 Correctional Services employees, 5 Recreation employees, 4 Facilities employees, 3 employees each item Unit Management, and Health Services/Safety, and 1 employee each from the Business Of?ce, Services, Records/Inmate Systems, Food Service, and Religious Services), 14 were female BOP employees (6 Correctional Services employees, 3 Food Service employees, 2 employees each from Unit Management and Health Services/Safety, and 1 employee from the of?ce and staff), 4 employees Working at facilities with an IGA, 3 employees from privatized facilities, 2 PHS employees working in BOP facilities, and 2 contract employees working in BOP facilities. Eight individuals were convicted of criminal violations (6 male BOP employees, 1 female BOP employee, and 1 employee working at a facility with an IGA). Thirty~six allegations were still under investigation as of September 30, 2005. The majority of these allegations (63.9 percent) are being investigated by the OIG. 0 Fiscal Year 2002 During Fiscal Year 2002, 199 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made on 92.5 percent (or 134) of those allegations. Forty-eight allegations of Introduction of Contraband have been sustained to date: 25 involved the introduction of soft contraband, 6 involved the introduction of other, unspecified drugs, 5 involved the introduction of alcoholic beverages, 4 inVolved the introduction of marijuana, 2 involved the introduction of heroin, 2 involved the introduction of cocaine, 2 involved the introduction of unauthorized electronics devices, 1 involved the introduction of Creatinefweightli?ing supplements, 1 involved the introduction of a weapon. A total of 46 individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Of the 46 individuals, 26 were male BOP employees (13 Correctional Services employees, 4 Facilities employees, 3 Recreation employees, 2 Education/Vocational Training employees, and 1 employee each from UNICOR, Health Services/Safety, Food Service, and Unit Management), 9 female BOP employees (3 Correctional Services employees, 2 Health ServicesfSafety employees, and 1 employee each from EducationNocational Training, Unit Management, Facilities, and Religious Services), 4 contractfhalfway house employees, 3 employees at privatized facilities, 2 contract employees working in BOP facilities, and 2 employees working in a facility with an IGA. Twelve individuals were convicted of criminal violations (8 male BOP employees, 2 female BOP employees, 1 employee at a facility with an IGA, and 1 employee at a privatized facility). Fifteen allegations were still under investigation as of September 30, 2005. The majority of these investigations are being conducted at the local institution level. 30 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 32 of 77' Sexual Abuse of Inmates Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 109A - Sexual Abuse ?224l Aggravated Sexual Abuse By force or threat. - Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act - by using force against that other person, or (2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. By other means. - Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly - renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or (2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby - (A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and (B) engages in a sexual act with that other person; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. ?2242 Sexual Abuse Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly - (1) causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or (2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; or attempts to do so shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. 31 BOP FOIA 2016?91316 33 of 77 Sexual Abuse of Inmates ?2243 Sexual Abuse of a Ward Of a ward - Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who is - in of?cial detention; and (2) under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so engaging; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both. ?2244 Abusive Sexual Contact Sexual contact in circumstances where sexual acts are punished by this chapter. - Whoever in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so to do would violate - (1) section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; (2) section 2242 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than three years, or both; (4) subsection of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both. In Other Circumstances. - Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in sexual contaCt with another person without that other person?s permission shall be ?ned not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than six months, or both. 2246 De?nitions (1) the term ?prison" means a correctional, detention, or penal facility; (2) the term "sexual act" means - (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for the purposes of this subparagraph, contact involved the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; (3) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the arms; or (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening by another by a hand or ?nger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, 32 BOP 2016-01716 34 of 77 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Statistics Fiscal Year 2005 humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; and (3) the term ?sexual contact? means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (4) the term ?serious bodily injury? means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious dis?gurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function ofa bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. (5) the term ?of?cial detention" means - (A) detention by a Federal of?cer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal officer or employee, following arrest for an offense; following surrender in lieu of an arrest for an offense; following a charge or conviction of an offense, or an allegation or ?nding of juvenile delinquency; following commitment as a material witness; following civil commitment in lieu of criminal proceedings or pending resumption of criminal proceedings that are being held in abeyance, or pending extradition, deportation, or exclusion; or (B) custody by a Federal of?cer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal Of?cer or employee, for purposes incident to any detention described in subparag'aph (A) of this paragraph, including transportation, medical diagnosis or treatment, court appearance, work, and recreation; but does not include supervision or under control (other than custody during speci?ed hours or days) after release on bail, probation, or parole, or after release following a juvenile delinquency. During Fiscal Year 2005, 277 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. 0f the 277 allegations, 205 involved BOP employees, 45 involved contract/halfway house employees, 18 involved staff working in a facility with an IGA, 5 involved contract staff working in BOP facilities, and 4 involved staff working in privatized facilities. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Sexual Abusez?Sexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242/2243) between female staff and male 33 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 35 of 77 Sexual Abuse of Inmates inmates (66 reported allegations) and Abusive Sexual Contact between male staff and male inmates (38 reported allegations). Following is a breakdown of Sexual Abuse allegations against BOP staff by region. Region Number of Staff with Total Staff Rate For 100 Reported Allegations Total Staff Mid-Atlantic 33 5,483 .6 North Central 36 5,595 .6 Northeast 29 5,794 .5 South Central 3? 5,510 .7 Southeast 50 5,49? .9 Western 21 4,372 .5 Five or more allegations were reported at the following BOP facilities: FMC Lexington 8 Tallahassee 8 FDC Philadelphia 7 FMC Rochester 7 USP Atlanta 6 FCC Coleman (Low) 6 FPC Bryan 5 MCC Chicago 5 FMC Carswell 5 USP McCreary 5 DC Miami 5 As of September 30, 2005, 10 allegations of Sexual Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2005 had been sustained (3 involving BOP employees, 3 involving employees at privatized facilities, 2 involving employees at a facility with an IGA, 1 involving a contract employee working at BOP facility, and 1 involving a contractr?hal?vay house employee). 6 Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female contract employee and a male inmate at CI Seagoville. During an 01G investigation, the subject stated she attempted to have sexual intercourse with the inmate in a locked restroom. Due to the constricting size of the restroom, however, the inmate performed oral sex on her. The US. Attorney?s Of?ce for 34 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 36 of 77 Sexual Abuse of Inmates I. Q- the Northern District of Texas declined prosecution. The subj ect's employment was terminated. (2005-00012) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Business Of?ce employee and a female inmates at FDC Philadelphia. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted having sexual relations with four inmates. He pled guilty to two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and one count of Sexual Contact with a Ward. He was sentenced to 4-months incarceration, 3-years supervised release, and 200 hours of service, and fined $1,500. (2005-001 18) Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation, the subject admitted she performed oral sex on the inmate several times. She also admitted introducing contraband into the institution for the inmate. The subject resigned her employment. (2005-01344) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at a privatized facility and a male imnate. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted she engaged in repeated acts of sexual intercourse and oral sex with the inmate. She also admitted there were three occasions when she brought small amounts of marijuana into the institution for the inmate. The Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, declined prosecution in this matter, stating there was no indication the sexual acts were coerced. (2005-01348) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and female inmates at FMC Carswell. During an 016 investigation, the subject admitted engaging in sexual acts with at least four inmates. He also admitted he smuggled contraband into the institution for inmates and lied to investigators. The subject entered into a agreement, was convicted of Sexual Abuse of a Ward, and sentenced to 12-months incarceration and lZ-months supervised probation and ?ned $3,000. (2005-01427) -Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a male employee at a contract/halfway house facility and a female inmate. The 016 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation, the subject admitted he was involved in a sexual relationship with the inmate. He also reported the Facility Director was aware of the relationship. The Facility Director admitted he was aware of the relationship and failed to report the matter or take appropriate action. Both staff resigned their employment. The DIG declined prosecution, stating they do not have statutory authority to investigate misdemeanor sexual offenses in non-BOP facilities. (2005-01785) Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female employee at a privatized facility and male inmates. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During 35 FOIA 2016-01716 37 of 77' Sexual Abuse of Inmates the investigation, the subject admitted she performed oral sex on two inmates. Her employment was terminated. (2005-02119) 0 Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at a privatized facility and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation, the subject admitted she ?tapped" an inmate on the buttocks with her ?ngertips. She stated she did this in an effort to get him to move so she could walk past. (2005-02048) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at a facility with an IGA and a male inmate. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The STA at the facility observed the staff member engage in a conversation with the inmate, then kiss him. Further, letters from We inmates were found in the staff member?s possessions. The staff member resigned her employment prior to being interviewed. (2005-02366) 0 Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at a facility with an IGA and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. Staff witnessed the staff member with the inmate during the early morning hours in an area where the inmate should not have been. Further, a supervisory correctional of?cer saw the staff member kiss the inmate. The staff member resigned her employment immediately when confronted with the allegations, and she was not interviewed. (2005-02693) Fiscal Year 2004 During Fiscal Year 2004, 285 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. 0f the 285 allegations, 212 involved BOP employees, 43 involved staff working at contractfhalfway house facilities, 14 involved staff working at privatized facilities, 8 involved staff working at facilities with an and 8 involved contract staff working at BOP facilities. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Sexual Abuser/Sex ual Abuse of 3. Ward between female staff and male inmates (54 reported allegations) and Unpro fessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and male inmates (48 reported allegations). Following is a breakdown of Sexual Abuse allegations against BOP staff by region. 36 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 38 of 77' Sexual Abuse of Inmates Region Number of Staff with Total Staff Rate Per 1110 Reported Allegations Total Staff Mid-Atlantic 25 5,490 .5 North Central 23 5,662 5 Northeast 39 5,832 7 South Central 33 5,728 .6 Southeast 59 5,027 1.2 Western 28 4,278 .7 Five or more allegations were reported at the following BOP facilities: Tallahassee 15 USP Atlanta 10 MDC Brooklyn 8 FMC Carswell USP Coleman 6 Cl Tucson 6 USP Beaumont . 5 MCC Chicago FCI Estill 5 Forrest City FCI Greenville 5 MDC Guaynabo 5 USP Lee 5 FCI Manchester 5 FDC Philadelphia 5 As of September 30, 2005, 25 allegations of Sexual Abuse had been sustained (15 involving BOP employees, 6 involving staff working at privatized facilities, 3 involving staff working at facilities with an IGA, and 1 involving a contractfhal?vay house employee). Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FMC Lexington. Following an investigation by the OIG, the subject was tried and convicted by a jury for violations of 18, USC, 2243(b), Sexual Abuse of 21 Ward (8 counts), 18 USC, 1001, False Statements (1 count), and 18 USC, 2242(1), Sexual Abuse of a Ward by Force or Fear (1 count). The subject was sentenced to 108 months incarceration, 2 years supervised probation, and a $400 fine. (2004-00001) 37 BOP 2016-01716 39 of 77 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FMC Lexington. Following an DIG investigation, the subject received a ?ve count indictment for violations of 18 USC, 2243(b), Sexual Abuse of a Ward. The subject pled no contest to one count of the indictment, and he was sentenced to 4 months home con?nement and 2 years probation. (2004-00009) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a Female Health Services/Safety employee and a male inmate at USP Florence. The subject confessed to engaging in both oral and coital sexual contact with the inmate on four occasions. She received a six-month deferred jail term and six-months unsuperviSed probation. (2004-00041) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Education and Vocational Training employee and a male inmate at FCI Allenwood. During an 01G investigation, the subject admitted she engaged in sexual intercourse with the inmate once and on a separate occasion had oral sex with him. The subject entered into a pre-trial diversion program, and she was informed prosecution will be delayed for 12 months. If the subject ful?lls the conditions of the program, she will not be prosecuted. (2004?01240) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female UNICOR employee and a male inmate at FCI La Tuna. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted engaging in a sexual relationship with an inmate. She pled guilty to one count of 18 USC, 2243, Sexual Abuse of a Ward, and was sentenced to one-year probation. (2004?01843). Sexual Abuse of a Ward between three female employees and male inmates at the Taft Correctional Institution. All three subjects resigned. Subject I admitted she engaged in sexual intercourse with an inmate and acted as a lookout for Subject 3 during her with inmates. Subject 2 admitted she allowed an inmate to perform oral sex on her. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution in these matters due to a lack of corroboration by the inmate victims. Subject 3 admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with two inmates. She also admitted introducing two water bottles containing vodka and a cellular telephone into the facility for one of the inmates. She was convicted of smuggling a prohibited item into a federal institution and was sentenced to three-years probation. (2004*01558 - Three subjects) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FCI Dublin. During an 016 investigation, three inmates claimed to have been approached by the subject and asked to engage in oral sex with him. One inmate claimed she engaged in oral sex with the subject. Two other inmates claim they were told of the sexual encounter betWeen the subject and this inmate. Prosecution was declined in this matter as the subject did not make any admissions. The subject resigned his employment. (2004?02304) 38 BOP 2016-01716 40 of 77 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 'b Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Recreation employee and a female inmate at FMC Lexington. An 01G investigation led to a one count indictment for violation of 18 USC, 2243(b), Sexual Abuse of a Ward. The subject pled guilty and was sentenced to 12-months probation and a $500 fine. (2004-02574) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at USP Allenwood. Following an 01G investigation, the subject pled guilty to Sexual Abuse of a Ward and Providing Contraband to an Inmate. She was sentenced to 2-years probation with the ?rst six months served in home con?nement. The subject was also ordered to perform 50 hours of community service and pay a $35 special assessment fee. (2004?03177) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Waseca. During an 016 investigation, the subject admitted having a sexual relationship with the inmate. She also admitted she gave the inmate?s mother $100. The U.S. Attomey?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2004-03636) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FMC Carswell. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted the inmate performed multiple oral sexual acts on him, and he fondled her multiple times. The subject was charged with and pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, 2243(b), Sexual Abuse of a Ward. The subject was sentenced to 6-months incarceration and 12-months supervised released and ordered to pay a $25 special assessment. (2004-03798) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee and a male inmate at the Cibola County Correctional Facility. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted hugging and kissing the inmate and fondling his penis through his clothing. A Department of Justice, Civil Rights Attorney, declined prosecution, citing lack of urisdiction. The subject resigned. (2004-0013 1) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature benveen a female contract employee and a male inmate at USP Beaumont. The subject admitted kissing and touching the inmate, but she denied masturbating him. The U.S. Attomey?s Of?ce declined prosecution after the inmate admitted embellishing upon his initial allegations. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2004-01236) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at MDC Los Angeles. The subject ?led a police report in which she claimed the inmate was blackmai ling her in order to conceal from her 39 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 41 of 77 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 0' .- 9 <0 '0 employer the fact that he had several revealing photographs of her. She stated she paid him over $20,000. During an 016 investigation, the subject denied having a sexual relationship with the imnate, and only admitted giving him $6,658. She also admitted the statement she provided to police was inaccurate. The US. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution when the inmate re?Jsed to assist in the investigation. The subject resigned her employment. (2004-01552) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at the Cibola County Correctional Facility. The DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation, the subject admitted hugging and kissing the imnate and exchanging correspondence with him. She also admitting introducing contraband items for him. The subject resigned. (2004-01656). Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation, the subject admitted discussing personal issues with the inmate, delivering notes to him, engaging in three-way telephone calls with him, and kissing him. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2004- 02427) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Facilities employee and a female inmate at FCI Victorville. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted he kissed the inmate in front of two wimesses. He indicated this was the only time he engaged in any type of inappropriate contact with the inmate. This was con?rmed by the inmate. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned his employment. (2004-02576) Unprofessiona] Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The 016 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation, the subject admitting hugging and kissing the inmate. The subject resigned her employment. (2004-02926) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Health ServicesfSafety employee and a female inmate at FCI Danbury. The 016 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted he developed emotional feelings for the inmate and told her he loved her. He denied engaging in sexual activity with the inmate, but he admitted kissing her on the check. The subject retired before disciplinary action was taken. (2004?03185) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nanue between a male Facilities employee and a male inmate at FCI Milan. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative 40 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 42 of 77 Sexual Abuse of Inmates resolution. During an investigation, the subject admitted making a comment about the inmate?s initials standing for ?cum catcher." The subject received a letter of reprimand. (2004?03198) 0 Unprofessiona] Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at CI Terminal Island. The 016 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. An investigation revealed the subject provided the inmate with money, provided her phone number to him, received numerous calls from him, and wrote numerous letters promising and describing sexual activity between them upon his release. The subject resigned her employment. (2004-03623) 0 Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. During an 01G investigation, the subject admitted she kissed the inmate and brought food items into the institution for him. She also admitted she received a call from the inmate on her cellular telephone. The subject resigned her employment. (2 004-03671) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at Correctional Facility. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During an investigation, the subject admitted kissing the inmate and bringing him a cellular telephone. The subject resigned her employment. (2004-03 793) Fiscal Year 2003 During Fiscal Year 2003, 283 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. 0f the 283 allegations, 196 involved BOP employees, 56 involved staff working at contractfhalfway house facilities, IS involved staff working at privatized facilities, 13 involved staff working at facilities with an IGA, 2 involved contract staff working at BOP facilities, and 1 involved a PBS employee working at a BOP facility. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242/2243) between female staff and male inmates (60 reported allegations) and Sexual Abusez?Sexual Abuse of a Ward between male staff and female inmates (41 reported allegations). 0n the following page is a breakdown of Sexual Abuse allegations against BOP staff by region. 41 BOP 2016-01716 43 0f 77 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Region Number of Staff with Total Staff Rate Per 10!] Reported Allegations Total Staff Mid-Atlantic 24 5,073 .5 North Central 31 5,790 .5 Northeast 21 5,953 .4 South Central 32 5,741 .6 Southeast 62 4,977 .2 Western 26 4, 5 .6 Five or more allegations were reported at the following BOP facilities: FCI Marianna 16 FCI Tallahassee 12 FMC Carswell 11 USP Lee USP Atlanta 9 USP Coleman 7 FDC Seatae 6 FCC Terre Haute 6 MDC Brooklyn 5 ADX Florence 5 FCC Petersburg (Low) 5 FCI Victorville 5 To date, 34 allegations of Sexual Abuse have been sustained (19 involved BOP employees, 6 involved staff working in facilities with an IGA, 4 involved staff working at contractfhalfway house facilities, 3 involved staff working at privatized facilities, 1 involved a contract employee working at a BOP facility, and 1 involved a PHS employee working at a BOP facility). 0 Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at CI Tallahassee. The subject resigned. An investigation resulted in a 3 count information being ?led in the US District Court, Northern Florida, for violations of 18 USC, 2243, Sexual Abuse of a Ward. The subject pled guilty and was sentenced to 3 years probation, 3 months home con?nement, and a $2,500 ?ne. (2003-00381). 9 Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Food Service employee and a male inmate at USP Atlanta. The US. Marshals Service conducted the investigation into these 42 BOP 2016-01716 44 of 77_ Sexual Abuse of Inmates allegations after it was learned the subject may have been involved in the inmate?s escape. The subject resigned. She was found guilty of Assisting with an Escape, and she was sentenced to 6 months home con?nement and 3 years probation. The subject also admitted to having sexual intercourse with the inmate and conceiving a child with him while she was employed at USP Atlanta. Further, she admitted the inmate had been living at her residence since his escape. (2003-00860) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female contract employee and a male inmate at FDC Philadelphia. The subject?s employment was terminated after she admitted having sexual contact with an inmate on at least 17 occasions. She also stated she smuggled soft contraband into the institution for the inmate on at least 10 occasions. The subject was indicted on two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Ward, one count of Sexual Contact With a Ward, and one count of Introduction of Contraband into a federal institution. At the end of a three-day jury trial, the subject was acquitted on all four counts. (2003-01072) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Health Services employee and two female inmates at FMC Carswell. During an GIG investigation, the subject admitted he engaged in sexual intercourse with two female inmates and a female staff member. He resigned his employment and pled guilty to two counts of a three count indictment charging him with violations of 18 USC, 2243, Sexual Abuse of a Ward, and was sentenced to 14- months incarceration and one-year supervised release and ordered to pay a $50 special assessment. The subject was also ordered to register as a sex offender with state and local law enforcement. (2003-01693) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at CI Dublin. The subject resigned. l-le pled guilty to Sexual Abuse of 3 Ward, and was sentenced to 3-years probation, 6-months home con?nement, a $500 fine, and was required to register as a sex offender. (2003?01766) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Facilities employee and a female inmate at FCI Victorville. This matter was presented to the US. Attorney?s Of?ce for a violation of 18 USC, 2243(b), Sexual Abuse of 3 Ward. The AUSA declined prosecution. The subject resigned. (2003-02210) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at Dismas House in El Paso, Texas, and a male inmate. The subject admitted having sexual relations with an inmate whom she believed to be the father of her child. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned. (2003-00337) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Health Services employee and a male inmate at Waseca. The subject admitted having sexual intercourse with an inmate in the 43 BOP 2016-01716 45 of 77 Sexual Abuse of Inmates X-ray room in the medical department. The US. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned. (2003-01006) 0 Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Seal Beach Jail and a male inmate. The subject admitted she engaged in sexual intercourse with an inmate. The US. Attorney's Of?ce declined prosecution; however, the Seal Beach District Attorney?s Of?ce accepted the case for prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. She subject pled guilty to 289.6 of the California Penal Code and was sentenced to three?years probation, ?ned $100, and ordered to complete ten days of community service. (2003- 01138) 0 Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. The subject's employment was terminated. She pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, 2243(b). She was sentenced to Zayears probation and ordered to pay a $500 fine. (2003-02480) 0 Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Unit Management employee at FMC Fort Worth and a male inmate at a halfway house. The subject admitted having a sexual relationship with a former FMC Fort Worth inmate after his transfer to a halfway house. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her employment. (2003?02827) 9 Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at USP Atwater. During an 016 investigation, the subject invoked her right to an attorney, and the criminal interview was terminated. She was compelled administratively and admitted having a sexual relationship with an inmate and introducing contraband into the institution for him. The subject resigned her employment. (2003-03090) 0 Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Health Services! Safety employee and a male inmate at USP Atwater. The subject resigned. She pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, 2243 and was sentenced to lZ-months supervised probation and 50 hours of community service, and was required to undergo mental health treatment. (2003-03582) 9 Sexual Abuse of an hunate and Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at the Giles Dalby Correctional Center. The subject admitted kissing an inmate and allowing him to rub her breasts. The US. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2003?03763 - two allegations} Abusive Sexual Contact between a male employee at the Mid-Valley House and a female inmate. The employee admitted rubbing his unexposed penis on the inmate's arm and 44 BOP 2016-01716 46 onT' Sexual Abuse of Inmates rubbing her breasts through her clothing. The US. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2003 -00002) Abusive Sexual Contact between a male UNICOR employee and a female inmate at FCC Coleman (Medium). The staff member resigned. He pled guilty to one count of 18 USC. 2244(a)(4), in the US. District Court, Middle District of Florida, and was ?ned $500. (2003-01221) Abusive Sexual Contact between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FMC Carswell. The subject admitted kissing the inmate and rubbing her breasts against his hand. The US. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. The subject resigned. (2003-03846) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted caressing an inmate?s penis through his clothing and bringing a compact disk into the facility for him. . The subject resigned. The case facts were presented to the Grand Jury and the subject was indicted for abusive sexual contact and possessing contraband in prison. The charges were later dismissed when it was determined the Reeves County Detention Center did not meet the statutory definition of ?federal prison." (2003-01342) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Food Service employee and a female inmate at FCI Coleman. The subject slapped the inmate on her buttocks while she was working the food line in the kitchen. The subject was suspended for ?ve days. This matter was investigated by the DIG. (2003-01160) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Health ServicesfSafety employee and a female inmate at FPC Bryan. The subject admitted telling an inmate another inmate wanted him to perform oral sex on her. The 016 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject was suspended for four days. (2003- 02901) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee at FDC Houston and a female inmate. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted having a personal relationship with the inmate and admitted kissing her prior to her release. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject resigned. (2003-01229) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Facilities employee and a female inmate at FCI Tallahassee. The subject admitted kissing the victim on three 45 BOP 2016-01716 4? of 77 Sexual Abuse of Inmates occasions. He resigned his employment. This matter was investigated by the OIG. (2003-01718) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee at MDC San Diego and a female inmate. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted to ?irting with various female inmates and being alone in a staff restroom with a female inmate. The subject resigned his employment. (2003-02475) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male staff member and a male inmate at the Cibola County Correctional Facility. The subject admitted he jokingly made sexual comments to an inmate. The OIG deferred to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject was suspended for three days. (2003-00016) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Unit Management employee and a male inmate at USP Lompoc. The staff member entered an inmate restroom and told an inmate, "Hold this for me," as he was urinating. The 016 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject received an oral reprimand. (2003- 00602) Unpro fessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature behveen a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate. The subject resigned. He admitted to kissing an inmate, writing her letters of a sexual nature, allowing her to view a photo of his penis with a penis ring, and giving her a rose. This matter was investigated by the 016. (2003-00973) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Public Health Service employee and male inmates at FCI Texarkana. The subject admitted he made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to staff and inmates and used profanity. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2003-02718) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Mid- Valley House and a female inmate. Three staff reportedly witnessed the two laying on a bed together kissing and hugging. The US. Attomey?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2003?00002) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female UNICOR employee and a male inmate at FCI Butner. The subject admitted writing "love letters" to an inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject resigned her employment. (2003 -01 259) 46 BOP 2016-01716 48 0177 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Unpro fessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female staff member and a male inmate at the Cibola County Correctional Facility. The subject admitted engaging in conversations of a sexual nature with the inmate and kissing him. The 016 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. A 15-day suspension was preposed by the contractor, but the subject?s employment was ultimately terminated after she was prohibited from having contact with federal offenders. (2003-01282) 0 Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female staff member and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The subject admitted spending time with and kissing the inmate in isolated areas of the facility. She denied having sexual relations with the inmate, as did the inmate. The GIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2003-02131) 6 Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee working at a facility with an IGA and a male inmate. The subject resigned. She initially provided a sworn statement to the OIG in which she denied any type of inappropriate involvement with an inmate. She later provided a statement in which she admitted engaging in approximately ten acts of hugging and kissing the inmate. The subject pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, 1001, False Statements, and was sentenced to three years probation. (2003?04073) 9 Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the California City Correctional Institution and a male inmate. The subject admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with the inmate following his release from custody. She denied having sexual intercourse with the inmate during his incarceration, but admitted to kissing him once. The subject resigned her employment. This matter was investigated by the OIG. (2003- 04170) Fiscal Year 2002 During Fiscal Year 2002, 197 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 197 allegations, 128 involved BOP employees, 49 involved staff working in contract/halfway house facilities, 9 involved staff working in privatized facilities, 6 involved staff working in facilities with an and 4 involved contract staff working in BOP facilities. In addition, there was 1 allegation which involved an employee of the Texas National Guard, who allegedly engaged in sexual relations with an inmate from FPC Bryan on a janitorial work detail. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and female inmates (37 reported allegations}, and Sexual Abuse/Sexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242/2243) between female staff and male imnates (34 reported allegations). 47 BOP 2016-01716 49 0f 77 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Following is a breakdown of Sexual Abuse allegations against BOP staff by region. Region Number of Staff with Total Staff Rate Per 1011 Reported Allegations Total Staff Mid?Atlantic 5 4,597 .3 North Central 14 5,791 .2 Northeast 24 6.005 .4 South Central 31 5,?12 .5 Southeast 21 5,094 .4 Western 23 4.191 .5 Five or more allegations were reported at the following BOP facilities: FMC Carswell 19 FCI Danbury 12 Dublin 9 USP Terre Haute 7 FCI Tallahassee 5 It is signi?th to note that 13 of the 19 allegations at FMC Carswell resulted from a civil suit ?led by an inmate and are all included in the same case. These allegations were not sustained. To date, 24 allegations of Sexual Abuse have been sustained (15 involved BOP employees, 4 involved staff working at contractfhalfway house facilities, 3 involved staff working at facilities with an ISA. and 2 involved contract staff Working in BOP facilities). 9 Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Food Service employee at FMC Carswell and a female inmate. An 01G investigation revealed the subject 1) had sexual contact with several inmates; and 2) made false statements to the 010 in an af?davit in which he denied the sexual contact with these inmates. The subject resigned. He pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, 1001, Providing False Statements. No criminal charges were pursued with regard to the sexual abuse allegations. (2002-00418) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male staff member and a female inmate at Volunteers of America in Baltimore, Maryland. The subject admitted he had sexual relations with an inmate, which he claimed was consensual. The Baltimore County Police Department investigated the allegations and indicated they were not going to pursue the charges. The subject?s employment was terminated. (22002?00795) 48 BOP 2016-01716 50 of 77 9 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at MDC Brooklyn. The subject resigned. He pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward, 18 USC, 2242(1), and one count of Providing False Statements, 18 USC, 1001 He was sentenced to 15 l-months incarceration and 3-years supervised release. He currently is incarcerated at FCI Waseca. (2002-00794) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FCI Dublin. The subject resigned. He was convicted of two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and one count of Providing a False Statement. He was sentenced to six- months incarceration and three-years supervised release. In addition, the subject will serve three months in home detention with electronic monitoring and was ordered to register as a sex offender and provide a DNA sample. (2002-01428) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at MCC San Diego. The subject resigned. He pled guilty to Sexual Abuse of a Ward and was placed on one year of supervised probation. (2002?02345) Sexual Abuse of 3 Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and several female inmates at FMC Carswell. During an OIG investigation, the subject initially admitted having a sexual relationship with one inmate. He was re-interviewed and admitted having sexual intercourse with an additional ?ve inmates. The subject resigned. He was sentenced to 24-months incarceration, 24?months probation, and ?ned $1 ,000. (2002-02816) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FCI Tallahassee. The subject resigned. He was convicted of Engaging in Sexual Acts with a Federal Offender and was sentenced to 24-months probation. (2002-03416) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male staff member and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The subject?s employment was terminated. He pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and was sentenced to 24-months probation, to include 4-months home con?nement. The subject was also ordered to pay a $1,000 ?ne. (2002-0241 1) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Florence. The subject and the inmate admitted to a sexual relationship which included acts of mutual masturbation, fondling of genitalia, and fellatio. The subject resigned. He pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of 21 Ward and was sentenced to one-year probation. (2002-02892) 49 BOP 2016-01716 51 01?77 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 9 Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member at Dismas House and a male inmate. The subject admitted she was involved in sexual relationships with two inmates. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her position. (2002-00152) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. The subject?s employment was terminated. The subject admitted she was sexually involved with the inmate and entered into a pre-trial diversion program which she successfully completed on December 2, 2002. The charges against her have since been dismissed. (2002-00673) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member and a male inmate at Volunteers of America in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The subject admitted she had sexual relations with an inmate. Both federal and state authorities declined prosecution. The subject resigned her position. (2002-01204) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female contract employee and a male inmate at PC I Waseca. The subject admitted she had sexual relations with an inmate. The US. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2002-02158) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member and a male inmate at Troy House in Durham, North Carolina. The subject admitted entering into a sexual relationship with an inmate on supervised release. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2002-02212) Sexual Abuse of ,a Ward between a female Facilities employee at FMC Devens and a male inmate. The subject admitted having sexual relations with an inmate and providing the inmate with a cellular telephone. The subject resigned. Due to the subject's status as a single parent, the United States Attomey?s Of?ce declined to prosecute her for Sexual Abuse of a Ward (a conviction on such a charge could have subjected the subject to a designation as a sex offender and generated unintended parental custody consequences). Rather, she pled guilty to Smuggling Contraband and was sentenced to 6-months probation, a $500 ?ne, and mandatory mental health counseling. (2002-02264) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. During an DIG investigation, the subject admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with an inmate. Her employment was terminated. She entered into and successfully completed a pretrial diversion agreement, and the charge against her was dismissed. (2002-03066) BOP 2016-01716 52 of 77' Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Religious Services employee and a male inmate at FMC Rochester. The subject admitted having sexual intercourse with the inmate and engaging in oral sex with him. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her position. (2002-03333) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Business Of?ce employee and a male inmate at Three Rivers. The subject resigned her position. She pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and was sentenced to time served and one-year supervised release. She was also ordered to register as a sex offender. (2002-03583) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female Health Services employee and a male inmate at FMC Rochester. The subject resigned her position. She was convicted of Engaging in Sexual Contact with a Ward and was sentenced to one-year probation. In addition, she must attend counseling. (2002-00846) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female staff member and a male inmate at FCC Coleman (Low). The staff member admitted she hugged and kissed the inmate and engaged in ?heavy petting" with him in the staff bathroom. The staff member admitted they fondled each other?s genitals, but she denied they engaged in oral sex or intercourse. The subject resigned her employment. The US. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. (2002-02504) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female staff member and a male inmate at FPC Yankton. The subject admitted she hugged and kissed the inmate, and they caressed each others? buttocks. She also admitted she met the inmate at a bus station when he was furlough transferred from FPC Yankton. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her position. (2002?02794) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female staff member at FCI Sheridan and a male inmate. An inmate?s personal property was searched. Concealed in the property were three notes written by the inmate to the subject, and one note written by the subject to the inmate in which she expressed her love for him. The subject resigned her position. (2002-00124) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee at MCC New York and a male inmate. The subject made a sexually vulgar comment to the inmate's visitor. The subject's employment was terminated. (2002- 02223) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female contract employee and a male inmate at FCI Big Spring. The staff member admitted she kissed the inmate. Her 51 BOP FOIA 2016-01316 53 of 77 Sexual Abuse of Inmates contract with the BOP was terminated, and she was banned from entering institution grounds. (2002-03079) Fiscal Year 2001 During Fiscal Year 2001, 151 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 151 allegations, 111 involved BOP employees, 34 involved staff working in contracb?hal?vvay house facilities, 4 involved staff working in privatized facilities, 1 involved contract staff working in a BOP facility, and 1 involved a PHS employee working in a BOP facility. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Sexual Abuse/Sexual Abuse of 3 Ward (?2242/2243) between female staff and male inmates (33 reported allegations) and Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and female inmates (24 reported allegations). Following is a breakdown of Sexual Abuse allegations against BOP staff by region. Region Number of Staff with Total Staff Rate Per 100 Reported Allegations Total Staff Mid-Atlantic 9 4,039 .2 Northeast 7 6,055 .1 North Central 31 5,858 .5 Southeast 16 5,310 .3 South Central 27 5,826 .5 Western 21 4,012 .5 Five or more allegations were reported at the following BOP facilities: FCI Danbury 16 FCI Dublin 5 FCI Fort Dix 5 Phoenix 5 To date, 23 allegations of Sexual Abuse have been sustained (13 involved BOP employees, 1 involved a contract employee working in a BOP facility, 8 involved staff working in contract/"halfway house facilities, and 1 involved staff working in a privatized facility). 0 Aggravated Sexual Abuse between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FPC Bryan. The subject was sentenced to three-years probation, fined $2,500, 52 BOP 2016-01716 54 of 77 Sexual Abuse of Inmates required to register as a sex offender with the state of Texas and the federal government, and required to attend counseling. (2001-00852) inmate at FDC Houston. The subject was sentenced to sot?months imprisonment and required to register as a sex offender in any state in which he resides after his release from Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male employee at Cornell Corrections and a female inmate. The subject admitted he engaged in oral sex with inmates. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2001-03201) FCI Phoenix. The subject admitted having a one time sexual encounter with an inmate. The US. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned. (2001-01982) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female contract staff member and a male inmate at FCC Beaumont. The subject entered into a plea agreement and was sentenced to two- years probation, a 1,000 ?ne, and a $10 special assessment. (2001-00022) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Butner. The subject pled guilty and was sentenced to one-year supervised probation, lZO-days home detention, ?ned $2,500, and registered in the North Carolina Sex Offender Registration Program. (2001-00734) 53 BOP 2016-01716 55 of 77 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female employee at the Oklahoma Halfway House and a male inmate. The subject's employment was terminated. The subject was granted pretrial diversion by the AUSA after she admitted she had sex with an inmate. According to the diversion agreement, the charges against the subject will be dismissed alter six months if she completes the conditions of the agreement. (2001?00962) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Education and Vocational Training employee and a male inmate at FCI Elkton. The subject was sentenced to taro-years probation and ordered to participate in a mental health program. (2001?01420) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The staff member admitted she had intercourse with an inmate on six occasions and orally copulated the inmate twice. She also admitted she brought the inmate money. alcohol, cologne, and jewelry. The subject's employment was terminated. She pled guilty to introduction or possession of contraband in a prison and was placed on probation for one year. The inmate to whom the subject gave the money pled guilty to possession of contraband in prison and was sentenced to an additional six months in custody. (2001-01762) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The staff member admitted she had intercourse with and orally copulated an inmate. She also admitted she gave the inmate jewelry and cigarettes. The subject resigned. She pled guilty to introduction or possessmn of contraband in prison and was placed on probation for one year. (2001-01762) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female member of the Of?ce and Staff and a male inmate at USP Florence. The subject resigned. She was convicted of two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and sentenced to four-months home con?nement, ?ve-years probation, and a $3,000 fine. (2001-02221) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Food Service employee and a male inmate at Elkton. The investigation revealed the staff member had both intercourse and oral sex with the inmate on at least 20 occasions in the ?hot room? and ?cooler" of the Food Service warehouse. The staff member pled guilty to Engaging in Sexual Acts with an Inmate and was sentenced to one year of inactive probation and a $50 special assessment. (2001-02348) Sexual Abuse of 3. Ward between a female employee at the Cibola County Correctional Facility and a male inmate. The subject admitted to having sexual intercourse with an inmate on two occasions. The US. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2 001?03204) S4 BOP 2016-01716 56 0177 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 0 Sexual Abuse of 3. Ward between a female Unit Management employee and a male inmate at USP Florence. An 01G investigation sustained Sexual Abuse of a Ward, Introduction of Contraband, and Preferential Treatment of Inmate(s). The subject was sentenced to four-years probation, 100 hours community service, and a $2,400 ?ne, and was required to register as a sex offender. (2004-01748) and a male inmate. The subject pled guilty to one count of Abusive Sexual Contact of 3. Ward. He was sentenced to ?ve-years probation, ordered to register as a sex offender, and prohibited from seeking employment in corrections for a ?ve-year period. (2001- 00221) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee at the Big Spring Correctional Center and a male inmate. The subject admitted she fondled an inmate?s penis. The US. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2001 -00329) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at CI Allenwood. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned from the BOP. (2001~02720) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Food Service employee and a male inmate at FCI esup. The subject made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to the inmate. The subject received a written reprimand. (2001-00935) 9 Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Business Of?ce employee and a male inmate at FCI La Tuna. The subject engaged in conversations of a sexual nature with the inmate. The subject resigned. (2001~02313) 55 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 57 0f 77 Representative Case Summaries Absent Without Leave A Correctional Services? employee?s assigned duty hours were 8:00 am. to 4:00 pm. the was asked to relieve the message center of?cer at 2:50 and was relieved from that post at 3:15 pm. when the oncoming message center of?cer arrived. The staff member left the institution without returning to his/her regularly assigned post. Outcome: The subject was suspended for one day. (2004-001 10) Usea?Abuse of Illegal Drugs! Alcohol A Correctional Services employee reported that a strong odor of alcohol was emanating from a Lieutenant. A breathalyzer test was administered with a positive reading of 0.55. A second test had a positive reading of 0.47. The Lieutenant was relieved of hisr'her duties. Outcome: The subject was demoted. (2004?00590) A Correctional Services? employee provided a urine sample during routine drug testing. The sample tested positive for the use of cocaine. The staff member stated sfhe attended a party where sfhe smoked some cigarettes that may have contained cocaine. Outcome: The subj ect's employment was terminated. (2004-03534) Failure to Follow a Supervisor?s Instructions A Teacher was counseled several times with regard to his/her interactions with Native American inmates. Hist-ler supervisor instructed him/her not to spend extra time with these inmates. The Teacher admitted sfhe came in on Saturdays and worked late with the Native American inmates. These actions led staff to believe sfhe was having an inappropriate relationship with the inmates. Outcome: The subject was suspended for one day. (2004?00862) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature A Landscape Foreman patted a female staff member on the buttocks as she walked past. Outcome: The subject was suspended for twenty days. (2004-01695) Misuse of Government Computera?Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature A Maintenance Worker Supervisor experienced problems with his computer and delivered it to the CSM for analysis. An inspection of the hard drive revealed several programs had been installed without authorization. Additionally, several pictures of topless and nude women were stored in the user?s pro?le where he had accessed inappropriate Internet sites. Staff were able to 56 BOP 2016-01716 58 01?77 Representative Case Summaries con?rm Internet pornography sites visited by the Maintenance Worker Supervisor while he was logged onto the computer. Outcome: The subject was suspended for three days. (2004-02964) During a routine search of computer home directories, a Computer Specialist discovered photographs depicting nudity and obscene gestures in the home directories of several Correctional Services staff. In addition, one of the employees had an unauthorized game saved in his home directory. Outcome: Several employees received letters of reprimand. The employee who had the unauthorized game saving in his home directory was snapended for one day. (2005?0065} Failure to Follow Policyz?lnattention to Duty A Cook Supervisor released four inmates to deliver food carts to the Special Housing Unit without searching the inmates or the carts. The Compound Of?cer noticed bulges in the inmates? clothing. They were found to be in possession of nine blocks of cheese weighing 2-1/2 pounds each and a container of drink mix. Outcome: The Cook Supervisor was issued a written reprimand. (2005-00723) A Correctional Of?cer at a privatized facility put toothpaste and shampoo in an inmate?s hat and emptied a tube of toothpaste onto his bed. She then made the bed so the toothpaste would not be detected. The Correctional Of?cer claimed it was a practical joke. Outcome: The Correctional Of?cer?s employment was terminated. (2005-00044) 57 BOP 2016-01716 59 0f 77 Representative Case Summaries Inappropriate Relationship with an Inmate During a pat search of an inmate at a facility with an IGA a handwritten letter was con?scated. The contents of the letter suggested it was written to a staff member. A review of recorded telephone conversations revealed the inmate had three telephone conversations with a Correctional Of?cer. Outcome: The Correctional Of?cer?s employment was terminated. (2005? 00014) Accepting Anything of Value from an In mate After receiving an incident report, an inmate alleged he brought an employee at a contractr?halfway house facility a steak and lobster dinner. When interviewed, the staff member stated the inmate had food delivered to the facility. When the food arrived, there was an extra meal which included six fried shrimp. The inmate offered the food to the staff member, and she told him she could not take it. He left the food at the monitor station, and the staff member eventually ate it. Outcome: The staff member was issued a letter of reprimand and provided with additional integrity training. (2005-00314) 53 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 60 0f 77 Si ni?cant Prosecutions Staff and inmates alleged the physical abuse of twenty-three inmates by twenty-?ve Correctional Services employees and one Health Services employee. The allegations were merged into a single investigation known as "The Cowboys" case for prosecutorial purposes. On February 6, 2001, seven staff were charged with violating 18 USC, 241, A SHU Unit Of?cer informed the Operations Lieutenant that an inmate was bleeding from the right side of his mouth, and his right jaw appeared swollen. The inmate initially trouser leg, and employee grabbed the inmate, forcing his face into the grill. During an 010 investigation, the Correctional Of?cer admitted he provided false statements in a Two inmates alleged a Correctional Services employee brought them cigars and marijuana in exchange for $1,000. 011 July 29, 2004, the Correctional Services employee accepted $9,000 from an undercover OIG agent and agreed to introduce three pounds of marijuana into the institution. The Correctional Services employee pled guilty to Providing or Possessing Contraband in a Federal Prison, and he was sentenced to 5- months incarceration and 36-months supervised release. (2004-03225) $2,000. A joint investigation revealed the Correctional Services employee smuggled marijuana concealed in a saltine cracker box into the institution on three separate occasions in exchange for $3,000. On March 22, 2005, the Correctional Services employee pled guilty to Intent to Manufacture, Distribute, or Dispense of a Controlled Substance. He was sentenced to (?S-months incarceration and 6-months home confinement, and was fined $3,000. (2003-03460) 59 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 61 9f]? Significant Prosecutions 0 An OIG investigation revealed a Correctional Services employee smuggled her personal cellular telephone into the institution for inmates to use. In exchange, the inmates' family members paid the employee via money orders. On March 11, 2005, the Correctional Services employee pled guilty to Providing Contraband to a Federal Prisoner. She was sentenced to Iii?months probation and ordered to pay a $500 ?ne. As part of a plea agreement, the subject agreed not to seek employment as a correctional of?cer or in any other law enforcement position. (2003-02471) During a joint PB [1016 investigation, a meeting was arranged between a Facilities employee and an undercover FBI agent during which the Facilities employee would receive three ounces of heroin and $3,000 cash to smuggle the heroin into the institution. The subject was charged with Bribery of a Public Of?cial and Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance. These charges were dropped in exchange for the employee?s guilty plea to Attempted Introduction of Contraband (Heroin) into a Federal Penal Facility. The Facilities employee was sentenced to 57-months incarceration and 3- years supervised probation. (2002?02946) An inmate ?led a Tort Claim in which he alleged the US. Marshals Service gave an Inmate Systems employee a $500 money order when the inmate was placed in BOP custody. The money was not posted to the inmate?s account. An OIG investigation revealed the Inmate Systems employee stole that and another 31,3 00 in money orders. She pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, 654, Converting Property of Another. She was sentenced to 5-months incarceration, 5-months home confinement, and 2-years probation, and was ?ned $3,530. (2003-00209) During an audit of narcotics tracking sheets, in excess of 1300 Percocet tablets could not be accounted for. Most of the discrepancies occurred when a particular Health Services employee was on duty. An 01G investigation revealed the Health Services employee stole the Percocet for her own use and altered documents to cover the theft. On May 24, 2004, she pled guilty to one count of 21 USC, 844, Simple Possession. She was sentenced to three-years probation. (2004-00621) 60 _i30P FOIA 2016-01716 62 0f?? Previous Fiscal Year date BOP Emploxees As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 82.2 percent of the 4,339 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2004. Of the 82.2 percent (or 3,565 employees), 50.7 percent (1,808) had a sustained decision (a rate of 5.3 employees per 100 total BOP staff). NOTE Of the 4,339 BOP employees for whom a case was opened in Fiscal Year 2004, 105 were unidenti?ed. with 82.2 Closed Types of Sustained Misconduct l'ur BOP Employees - FY 2004 Number of Sustained Allegations BOP FOIA 2016-01716 63 0f 77 Ty of Misconduct an: ?ans Tom Off-Duty Misconduct 333 Other (Du-Duty Misconduct 44 286 330 Personnel Prohibitions 237 305 Unprofessional Conduct 58 201 259 Failure to Follow Policy 119 133 252 Inattention to Duty 102 135 23'? Fiscal Improprieties 12 EL. 221 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 106 if, 106 Breach of Security 21 i 64 Introduction of Contraband 40 55 Investigative Violations 53 Abuse of Inmates 24 24 Unauthorized Release of Information 12 19 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 16 16 Bribery 5 5 Discrimination 0 61 Previous Fiscal Year Update I Gender As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 82.4 percent of the 3,288 male BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2004. Of the 82.4 percent (or 2,710 male employees), 50.1 percent (1,358) had a sustained decision (a rate of 5.5 per 100 total male BOP staff. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 83 percent of the 946 female BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2004. Of the 83 percent (or 7 85 female employees), 57.3 percent (450) had a sustained decision (a rate of 4.7 per 100 total female BOP staff). I Discipline As of September 30, 2005, 1,808 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2004 had a sustained decision. The rate among Food Service staff per 100 total Food Service staff) was higher than that among other job disciplines, followed by Religious Services. (6.3 per 100 total Religious Services staff) and Correctional Services (6.3 per 100 total Correctional Services sta?). Please see the following page for a table showing the rate of sustained misconduct among other job disciplines. I Bargaining vs. Nonbargaining Unit There were 3,270 BOP employees in the bargaining unit identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2004. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 82.1r percent of those 3,270 bargaining unit employees. Of the 82.7 percent (or 2,705 bargaining unit employees), 54.2 percent (1,465) had a sustained decision (a rate of 5.2 employees per 100 total bargaining unit staff). There were 964 nonbargaining unit BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2004. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 82 percent of those 964 nonbargaining unit employees. Of the 82 percent (or 790 nonbargaining unit employees), 43.4 percent (343) had a sustained decision (a rate of 5.6 employees per 100 total nonbargaining unit staff). I Security Level As of September 30, 2004, 1,808 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2004 had a sustained decision. The rate among those working in Administrative security institutions and Medium security institutions was higher than that among other security level 62 BOP 2016-01716 64 0177' Previous Fiscal Year date institutions per 100 total staff). The rate among staff working in Low security institutions was 5.6 per 100 total staff, the rate among staff working in High security institutions was 5.3 per 100 total staff, and the rate among staff working in Minimum security institutions was 4.1 per 100 total staff. Discipline of BOP Employees with Sustained Misconduct - FY 2004 Number of Discipline Emslliligfafiiseg?h Total Employees ?13132? Misconduct Food Services 115 1,491 Religious Services 271 6.3 Correctional Services 896 14,129 6.3 Education and Vocational Training 58 957 6.1 Community Corrections 12 209 5 .7 Unit Management 174 3,161 5.5 Health ServicesfSai?ety 123 2.331 5.3 Facilities 120 2,325 5.2 Systems 55 1,234 4.5 Recreation 2? 627 4.3 Business Of?ce 65 1,677 3.9 Inmate Services 7' 182 3.8 UNICOR 1,293 3.6 Services 27 878 3.1 Office and Staff 27 957 2.8 Human Resources 18 723 2.5 Central Office 17 1,288 1.3 Computer Services Previous Fiscal Year Update Contract/Halfway House Employees There were 280 contract/halfway house employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2004. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 96.8 percent of those 280 employees. Of the 96.8 percent (or 271 employees), 27.7 percent (75) had a sustained decision. It is signi?cant that an administrative disposition was recorded for 35.4 percent of those? employees for whom a decision had been made, indicating the employee either resigned or was terminated prior to an investigation being conducted. Types of Sustained Misconduct for ContracUHalfway House Employees - FY 2004 with 96.8 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type oi' Misconduct .313?th "Elli?" Off-?us TOTAL Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 39 Off?Duty Misconduct 7 Personnel Prohibitions 7 Abuse of Inmates Investigative Violations r3 5 lnattention to Duty 1 4 .t . $53? 5 Failure to Follow Policy 3 4 Unprofessional Conduct 1 -- 4 Other Oil-Duty Misconduct 2 Bribery 3 3 Unauthorized Release of Information 2 Breach of Security 1 1 Fiscal lmproprieties 0 1 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 0 0 Introduction of Contraband 0 Discrimination 0 64 BOP FOIA of 77 Previous Fiscal Year Update Staff in Privatized Facilities There were 201 employees working in privatized facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2004. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 99.5 percent of those 201 employees. Of the 99.5 percent (or 200 employees), 59.5 percent (1 19) had a sustained decision. Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Privatized Facilities - FY 2004 with 99.5 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct [tilt-1:: TOTAL Other Un-Duty Misconduct 4] Unprofessional Conduct 16 Off-Duty Misconduct ii i I i 15 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 12 Introduction of Contraband 12 Failure to Follow Policy 11 Inattention Duty 1 7 gifte- 3 Personnel Prohibitions I i I 7 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 6 Investigative Violations 5 Fiscal Improprieties 1 Bribery 1 Abuse of Inmates Discrimination 0 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 Breach of Security 0 65 BOP 2016-01716 6? _0f_77 Previous Fiscal Year date Staff in Facilities with an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) There were 65 employees working at facilities with an IGA identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2004. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 98.5 of those 65 employees. 01? the 98.5 percent (or 64 employees), 34.4 percent (22) had a sustained decision. Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Facilities with an - FY 2004 with 98.5 Percent Closed Number of Susrained Allegations of Misconduct YP gm: ?Egg? ctr-Duty TOTAL Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 9 {uh 9 Fiscal Improprieties . 0 4 II I 4 Off?Duty Misconduct Sexual Abuse of Inmates 3 Personnel Prohibitions ?gigg?wg Other Clo-Duty Misconduct 0 Introduction of Contraband Unprofessional Conduct Investigative Violations Eff; 3. Unauthorized Release of Information Abuse of inmates Discrimination inattention to Duty Breach of Security 0 0 Bribery 0 0 0 Failure to Follow Policy 66 BOP 68 0f 77 Previous Fiscal Year Update Contract Employees Working in BOP Facilities There were 32 contract staff working in BOP facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2004. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 75 percent of those 32 contract employees. of the 75 percent (or 24 employees), 58.3 percent (14) had a sustained decision. PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities Of the 667 PHS employees working in BOP facilities in Fiscal Year 2004, 49 were identi?ed as misconduct subjects during that period. As of September 30, 2005, a decision had been made for 75.5 percent of those 49 PHS employees. Of that 75.5 percent (or 37 empIOyees), 70.3 percent (26 staff) had a sustained decision (a rate of 3.9 per 100 total PHS employees). 67 BQP means-01716 69_gw__ Previous Fiscal Year Update Types of Sustained Misconduct for PBS Employees Working in BOP Facilities - FY 2004 (75.5 Percent Closed) Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct an: an Fiscal Improprieties 7 7 Other Orr-Duty Misconduct 2 3 5 Failure to Follow Policy 3 2 5 Unprofessional Conduct 0 5 83?: f: :1 5 Off-Duty Misconduct Breach of Security Personnel Prohibitions lnattention to Duty Introduction of Contraband Unauthorized Release of Information Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of Inmates Discrimination Bribery Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates Investigative Violations 68 2016-01716 70 of 77 Appendix A Types of Misconduct BOP FOIA 2016?01716 7101?77 Type of Misconduct Category Abuse of Inmates Physical Abuse of Inmates Life Threatening Serious Injury Miner/Slight Injury Minort'No Injury - Harassment Super?cial Excessive Use nt'Ferce Restraint Related 1 Threatening an InmateNerbal Abuse 2 Use of Profanity 3 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Aggravated Sexual Abuse - ?224l ?2241 - Male Staf??'Female Inmate ?224l - Male Staf?Male Inmate ?224l - Female Staf??Female Inmate ?224l - Female Stat??Male Inmate ?224l - Unknown Staf?'Female Inmate ?2241 - Unknown Sta?IMale Inmate Sexual Abusea'Sexual Abuse efa Ward - ?2242f2243 - Male Staff/Female Inmate - Male Staf?Male Inmate ?2242f2243 - Female StafIVFemale Inmate ?2242f2243 - Female StafftMale Inmate ?2242f2243 - Unknown StafB?Female Inmate ?224212243 - Unknown Sta??Male Inmate 70 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 72 of 77 Type of Misconduct Category Abusive Sexual Contact - ?2244 ?2244 Male Staf?'Female Inmate ?2244 - Male Staff/Male Inmate ?2244 - Female Staf??Female Inmate ?2244 - Female Staf?'Male Inmate ?2244 - Unknown StaflJ?Female Inmate ?2244 - Unknown Staf?Male Inmate Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature UCSN - Male Staffi?Female Inmate UCSN - Male Staf'?Male Inmate UCSN - Female Staf??Female Inmate UCSN - Female Staf?'Male Inmate UCSN - Unknown Inmate UCSN - Unknown Sufi/Male Inmate Introduction of Contraband So? Item Introduction lor2 Weapons Introduction Escape Paraphernalia Introduction Money Introduction Marijuana Introduction Heroin Derivatives Introduction Cocaine Introduction Other Unspeci?ed Drugs Introduction Alcoholic Beverages Introduction lorZ Unauthorized Electronic Device Introduction lorZ Creatinea?Weightli?ing Supplement Introduction Cigaretteszobacco 71 BOP 2016-01716 73 0f 77 Category Type of Misconduct Discrimination Discrimination I or 2 Fiscal Improprieties Time and Attendance lrregularities 2 Abuse of Sick Leave 3 Voucher Faisi?cation 1 The?fMisuse of Government Funds ($100] I or 2 Theft! Misuse of Government Property 1 or 2 Misuse of Government Computers 2 Improper Procurement Procedures 2 Failure to Pay Government Charge Card 3 Misuse of Travel Charge Card ($1,000) 2 or 3 Misuse of Purchase Charge Card ($1.000) 2 or 3 'I'hefu'Ivlisuse of Employee Club Funds 2 TheIUMisuse of Funds 2 Theft of Inmate Funds 1 Theft/Destruction of Inmate Property 2 The?x?Misuse of Contractor uncls 1 or 2 Theftr?Misuse of Contractor Property or 2 ailurc to Account for Inmate Funds/Pmperry 2 Theft of Employee I or 2 Misuse of UNICOR Resources 1 or Zoia Bribery Bribery I ConsPiracy to (30th Bribery Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates Anything of Value 2 72 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 74 of 77 Category Type of Misconduct Offering/Giving Anything of Value 2 Improper Contact with an lmnatellnmate?s Family 2 Appearance of an Inappropriate Relationship 2 Misuse of Inmate Labor 2 Preferential Treatment of Inmates 2 investigative Violations Coneealing a Material Fact 1 or 2 Refusing to Cooperate I or 2 Lying During an Investigation 1 or 2 Providing 21 False Statement 1 or 2 Altering/Destroying Evidencet?Documents 1 Re?ising to Submit to a Search 1 or 2 interfering witl'b?lmpeding an Investigation 1 or 2 Advising Someone to Violate Policy or 2 Conducting an Unauthorized Investigation 1 Lack of Candor or 2 Personnel Prohibitions 'I?hreateningo?lntimidating Employees 1 or 2 Failure to Report Violation of Ruleszegulations or 2 alsi?cation of Employment Records 2 Misuse of Of?cial Position/Badge 2 inappropriate Supervisor! Subordinate Relationship 2 Engaging in Prohibited Personnel Practices 2 Usembuse of Illegal Drugsf?tlcohol 2 or 3 Absent Without Leave 3 Retaliation 2 73 BOP 2016-01716 75 0f 77 Type of Misconduct Category Unauthorized Release of Information Unauthorized Release of Information I or 2 Violation of FOUPrivacy Acts 1 or 2 Other On-Duty Misconduct Use of Profanity 3 Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature 1, 2, or 3 lnattention to Duty 3 Failure to Respond to an Emergency 3 Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates 3 Breach of Security 2 or 3 Breach of Computer Security 2 or 3 Falsi?cation of Documents 1 Unprofessional Conduct 3 Failure to Follow Policy 3 GamblingiPr-ornotion ot' Gambling 2 Endangering the Safety of an Inmate 2 Endangering the Safety of Others 2 Providing False Information Other Than During 3 an Of?cial Investigation Insu?oordination 3 Accidental Discharge of a Firearm 3 Solicitinngale of Goods on Government Property 3 Job Favoritism 3 Workplace Violence 1 or 2 Failure to Meet Performance Standards 2 Failure to Follow Supervisor?s Instructions 3 Fraudulent Workers? Compensation Claims 7'4 FOIA 2016-01716 76 0f 77 Type of Misconduct Category Conduct Unbecoming a Management Of?cial 2 Off-Duty Misconduct Arrest and Conviction 2 01' 3 Failure to Report Arrest 3 Failure to Pay Just Debts 3 Failure to Obtain Outside Employment Approval 3 DWUDUI 3 Domestic Violence 2 Traf?c Citation 3 Carrying an UnregisteredfConcealed Firearm 2 Discreditable Behavior 3 Falsi?cation of Recordstocuments Other Citation (Hunting, etc.) 3 Conflict of Interest 3 75 BOP F015 ofj?? US. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons Washington, DC. Office of Internal Affairs Report for Fiscal Year 2006 BOP FOIA 2016-0171610f70 Table of Contents Executive Summary of Findings 1 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct . 4 Reported Misconduct 7 ClosedISustained Misconduct 1 Physical Abuse of Inmates 25 Introduction of Contraband 26 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 28 Representative Case Summaries 58 Significant Prosecutions 6 I Appendix A 63 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 2 of 70 Executive Summer; of Findings There was a 2.5 percent increase in the number of cases opened in Fiscal Year 2006 as compared with Fiscal Year 2005. The reported rate among BOP employees increased from 14.3 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2005 to 14.8 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2006, or an increase of 3.4 percent. - There was a 14.5 percent increase in cases categorized as Classi?cation 1 offenses [allegations which, if substantiated, would constitute a prosecutable offense (other than offenses such as misdemeanor arrests and traffic citations)]. Cases categorized as Classification 2 and Classification 3 offenses both showed minor decreases (1 percent and .5 percent respectively). - The most frequently reported type of misconduct in Fiscal Year 2006 was Other On-Duty Misconduct (particularly that which was unrelated to inmates). Unprofessional Conduct and Abuse of Inmates placed second and third respectively. - The most signi?cant increases in reported misconduct occurred in the categories of Breach of Security, Unauthorized Release of Information, Introduction of Contraband, and Discrimination. The only categories of reported misconduct which showed decreases were Inattention to Duty, Investigative Violations, Unprofessionai Conduct, Off-Duty Misconduct, Personnel Prohibitions, and Failure to Follow Policy. - As of September 30, 2006, a decision had been made for 32.1 percent of the 5,197 BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2006. Of the 32.1 percent, 37.1 percent had a sustained decision, or a rate of employees per 100 total BOP staff. - The most frequently sustained area of misconduct among BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2006-, was Off-Duty Misconduct, followed by Other On-Duty Misconduct. - Thus far in Fiscal Year 2006, the sustained rate of misconduct was higher among male BOP employees (1.8 employees per 100 total male BOP staff} than among female BOP employees (1.5 employees per 100 total female BOP staff). The most frequently sustained type of misconduct for both male and female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2006, was Off-Duty Misconduct. The following categories of misconduct were sustained with greater frequency among female BOP staff than among male BOP staff: Fiscal Improprieties, Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates, and Sexual Abuse of Inmates. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 3 of 70 Executive Summary of Findings - For those subjects with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2006, the rate was highest among mate Systems employees (2.9 per 100 total Recordst'Inmate Systems employees}. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among those in this group was Failure to Follow Policy. 0 For those subjects with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2006, the rate was higher among bargaining unit employees than among non-bargaining unit employees (1.8 employees per 100 total bargaining unit employees as compared to 1.3 per 100 total non? bargaining unit employees). - For those subjects with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2006, the rate was highest among those werking in Administrative security and High security institutions (2.3 per ?00 total staff}. The most frequently sustained type of miscoaduct among those working in Administrative security institutions was Failure to Follow Policy, while the most frequently sustained type of misconduct among those working in High security institutions was Traffic Citations. - As of September 30, 2006, a decision had been made for 36.9 percent of the 65 PHS employees working in BOP facilities identified as misconduct subjects. 41.6 percent had a sustained decision. - For those subjects with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2006, the most frequently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in contractfhalfway house facilities and staff in privatized facilities was Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct for staff working in facilities with an IGA was Introduction of Contraband. Two allegations of Physical Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2006 were sustained as of September 30, 2006-1 involved minor/slight injury to the inmate, and involved minorlno injury (harassment) to the inmate. One allegation involved a BOP employee working in Correctional Services, and the other involved a BOP employee working in Systems. Neither of the subjects with a sustained allegation were convicted of criminal violations. Thirty~seven allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported during Fiscal year 2006 were sustained as of September 30, 2006: 18 involved the introduction of unauthorized electronic devices (in 9 instances staff brought unauthorized electronic devices into the facility for their personal use), 9 involved the introduction of soft contraband, 6 involved the introduction of tobacco, 1 involved the introduction of a weapon (pocket knife), 1 involved the introduction of money, 1 involved the introduction of marijuana, and BOP FOIA 2016-01716 4 of 70 Executive Summary of Findings involved the introduction of Creatinefweightlifting supplements. Three of the 31 individuals involved were convicted of criminal violations (1 contract/halfway house employee and 2 employees working at a facility with an IGA). - Fourteen allegations of Sexual Abuse of Inmates reported during Fiscal Year 2006 were sustained as of September 30, 2006: 6 involved BOP employees, 4 involved staff in facilities with an IGA, 2 involved staff in privatized facilities, 1 involved contract staff working in a BOP facility, and 1 involved contractfhalfway house staff. Three of the 14 staff involved were convicted of criminal violations (1 male BOP employee, 1 female BOP employee, and 1 employee at a contracti'halfway house). BOP FOIA 2016-01716 5 of 70 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct Staff Reporting In accordance with the Bureau's Standards of Employee Conduct, staff who become aware of any violation or alleged violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct must report them to the Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO), the Office of Internal Affairs (01A), or to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of the Inspector General (DIG). The 016 has established a toll-free hotline (1-800?869-4499) which is available to anyone wishing to report DOJ employees? misconduct, as well as fraud, waste, or abuse in government. All Bureau staff are encouraged to use the OIG hotline if they wish to remain anonymous or fear retaliation or reprisal. To report violations directly to the OLA Central Office call (202-30743286) or fax (202-514- 8625). CEO Reporting Upon becoming aware of any possible violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct (either through a report from staff or through personal knowledge), the CEO at the institution, Regional Of?ce, or Central Of?ce Division, or his or her designee, is to report the violation to the OIA in accordance with the following time frames. Classification 1 cases are defined as allegations which, if substantiated, would constitute a prosecutable offense (other than offenses such as misdemeanor arrests and traf?c citations). Classification 2 cases are defined as allegations which involve violation of rules, regulations, or law that, if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution, but constitute serious misconduct. Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases must be reported telephonically to 01A immediately. OIA is to be notified of Classification 1 and 2 cases, including: . the identity of the complainant(s), subject(s), witness(es), and the details of the allegation(s); and - any corroborating evidence. Written notification to OIA will be made within 24 hours (not to include weekends and holidays) of the time management learns of the matter. Classification 3 cases are defined as allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations. Ordinarily, Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) can proceed with local investigations on category 3 misconduct allegations for staff occupying bargaining unit or (33-12 and below non?bargainin unit positions without first obtaining OLA approval. CEOs are, 4 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 6 of 70 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct however, required to prepare a report of all category 3 allegation investigations they have initiated for the month. The report must include the subject(s)? name and title, the type of misconduct Use of Profanity), and a brief summary of the allegation. The full names and titles of other staff involved and the full names and register numbers of all inmates involved should also be included in the summary. The report should be forwarded to the GroupWise mailbox Affairs~? by the fifth day of each month October reports are due in OLA by November 5, 2004) so monitoring of these cases may begin. Negative reports are required. When a Classification 3 case is complex and would result in severe disciplinary or ad verse action, the procedures for reporting Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases should be followed. Referral to the FBUOther Law Enforcement Agencies. When it is suspected that criminal conduct has occurred, the CEO may refer the matter directly to 01A and to the local simultaneously. Initial Information. An 01A Referral of Incident form is used to organize the information to be provided in the telephonic reporting of cases listed in subsection of this section (for contract employees use form The subject of the allegation or complaint must not be questioned or interviewed prior to OIG clearance and approval. This is to ensure against procedural error and safeguard the rights of the subject. Supporting Documentation. Supporting documentation, such as victim or witness statements. medical reports, photos, and related memoranda, must be transmitted via facsimile to OIA, Central Office at (202-514~8625) or OIA, Denver Field Office, at (303-365-4445) or by e-mail via the BIA resource mailbox (BOP-DIRfIntemal Affairs~) and a copy should be forwarded to the case agent immediately, but not later than 24 hours after the telephonic report. If an inmate alleges physical or sexual abuse by a staff member and has not received a medical examination, the CEO must arrange an immediate, con?dential medical examination and forward a copy of the results to 01A as soon as possible. CEOs must notify OIA before initiating investigations involving any misconduct alleged against management staff occupying or above positions. 01A will coordinate further action with OIG. The CIA referral of incident form must be completed on all management staff in positions 68-13 and above. Unless the CEO and the Chief of OIA agree to a different method, ordinarily, investigations involving Classification 3 cases are to be conducted using local resources. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 7 of 70 Regorting Incidents of Misconduct Contact 01A immediately, if there is any question as to the classification of the misconduct. It is important to note that while case classifications are many times based on limited information, as an investigation unfolds, the severity of misconduct may increase or decrease, thereby moving it into another classification. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 8 of 70 Reported Misconduct All allegations of misconduct received by the Office of Internal Affairs (01A) are referred to the Department of Justice, Of?ce of the Inspector General (OIG), for review and classification. The OIG determines which matters they will accept for investigation and possible criminal prosecution and defers other matters to the 01A for investigation. OIA coordinates with the 016 andfor the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) when investigations may lead to criminal prosecution or when there are allegations involving the abuse of an individual's Constitutional rights under Color of Law. For those matters deferred for investigation, 01A determines, after consulting with BOP management officials, whether an on-site investigation is warranted or if the matter can be investigated at the local institution level. Allegations categorized as Classification 3 offenses are referred to the GIG via a computer extract on a basis. NOTES The number of subjects exceeds the number of cases throughout this report as some cases have multiple subjects. Also, some subjects may be charged with multiple types of misconduct in a single case, causing the number of allegations to be higher. Finally, individual employees may be subjects in more than one case. Due to the dynamic nature of the OIA database, ?gures in this report are subject to change. During the course of an investigation, evidence may indicate circumstances other than those initially reported, causing data to be added, deleted, andfor changed. Allegations referred to as ?Inmate Related" included some type of inmate involvement, while allegations referred to as "Non Inmate Related? occurred in the workplace but did not include inmate involvement. For a complete list of the types of misconduct included in each category, please reference the Appendices section of this report. During Fiscal Year 2006, OIA opened 4,307cases involving 5,197 BOP employees, 36 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 65 Public Health Service (PHS) employees working in BOP facilities, 261 contractr?halfway house employees, 49 employees in facilities with an Intergovernmental Agreement (ISA), 108 employees working in privatized facilities, and 2 volunteers. These 4,307 cases represent a 2.5 percent increase from the 4,198 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2005. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees increased from 14.3 subjects were 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2005 to 14.8 subjects per [00 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2006, or an increase of 3.4 percent. The 4,307 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2006 were classified as follows: Classification 1 Classification 2 Classification 3 1,061 1,361 1,885 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 9 of 70 Reported Misconduct An increase of 14.5 percent over those cases opened in Fiscal Year 2005 occurred in cases classified as Classification 1 offenses. Cases classified as Classification 2 and Classi?cation 3 offenses both showed minor decreases (1 percent and .5 percent reSpectively). Table (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct reported during Fiscal Year 2006. The only categories of reported misconduct which showed a decrease from Fiscal Year 2005 were lnattention to Duty (a 20.5 percent decrease), Investigative Violations (a l5.6 percent decrease), Unprofessional Conduct (a 9.5 percent decrease), Off-Duty.r Misconduct (an 7.5 percent decrease), Personnel Prohibitions (a 3.8 percent decrease), and Failure to Follow Polio)r {a 3.1 percent decrease). The most signi?cant increases occurred in the categories of Breach of Security (a 52.4 percent increase), Unauthorized Release of Information (a 36 percent increase), Introduction of Contraband (a 30 percent increase), and Discrimination (a 28.1 percent increase). BOP FOIA 2016-0171610 of 70 Reported Misconduct Table 1: Types of Reported Misconduct - FY 2006 Number of Reported Allegations Type of Misconduct Inmate Non-Inmate Change Related Related Off-Duty TOTAL from FY 2005 Other On~Duty Misconduct 402 864 1266 11.? Unprot?essional Conduct 426 434 910 -9.5 Abuse of Inmates 8311 871 8.0 Fiscal Improprieties 10'? 624 ?31 15.8 Personnel Prohibitions 610 62 6W. -3.8 Off-Duty Misconduct 598 598 35 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 581 581 6.2 Introduction of Contraband 52} 46 567 30.0 Failure to Follow Policy 366 160 526 ?3.1 Inattention to Duty 319 95 4l4 -20.5 Breach of Security 249 100 349 52.4 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 341 341 20.4 Bribery 150 4 154 12.4 Investigative Violations 129 129 45.6 Unauthorized Release of Information 73 44 1 36.0 Discrimination I4 41 28.1 USA Patriot Act In the USA Patriot Act, Congress expressed concern about the potential abuse of individual civil rights and liberties by employees in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Asserdingly, the Patriot Act mandated that the OIG widely advertise that it receives and investigates allegations of such abuses. Patriot Act violations include violence. discrimination, or threats on the part of a employee, particularly when such cases are directed toward individuals or groups associated in the public perception with acts of terrorism because of their religious beliefs, place of birth, or appearance. Patriot Act allegations which typically come to our attention are alleged mistreatment or unprofessional behavior of BOP staff towardfaround certain inmates, their visitors, or members of the public. Due to the sensitivity of these allegations, they are 9 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 11 of 70 Regorted Misconduct automatically classified as Classi?cation 2 or higher offenses; they should be forwarded immediately to the OIA. All Patriot Act violation allegations are then referred to a Special Operations Unit at 010 Headquarters devoted to reviewing and investigating such misconduct. During Fiscal Year 2006, 12 cases involving Patriot Act Violations were Opened. As of September 30, 2006, 7 cases remained open pending investigation or awaiting disciplinary action, and 4 cases were closed. No allegations were sustained in the 4 closed cases. 10 BOP FOIA 2016-0171612 of 70 Closed/Sustained Misconduct As of September 30, 2006, a decision had NOTE baan made? on 1:95 (37 percent) Of the 4?30? All ?gures in this section relate to cases which were cases opened dunng Fiscal Year 2006. The opened during the speci?ed Fiscal year, which were remaining 2,712 cases (62.9 percent) were closed at: of September 30, 2006. Figures are 3 Still open and being investigated. Of the subject to change as additional cases are closed. 1,595 cases closed, the majority (1,428, or 89.5 percent) were investigated at the institution level with authorization and monitoring provided by the CIA. Of the 1,595 cases closed, 104 {6.5 percent) were OLA on-site investigations. The remaining 63 cases (3.9 percent) were investigated by DIG. 0f the 1,595 cases closed, 645 (40.4 percent) were sustained. Misconduct was sustained against 620 BOP employees, 3 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 10 PHS employees working in BOP facilities, 52 contractfhalfway house employees, 28 employees working in privatized facilities, 15 employees working in facilities with an IGA, and I volunteer. BOP Employees There were 5,197 BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2006. As of September 30, 2006, a decision had been made for 32.1 percent of those 5,197 employees. Of the 32.1 percent (or 1,669 employees), 37.1 percent (620) had a sustained decision (a rate 1.7 employees per 100 total BOP staff). Table 2 (on the following page) reflects the types of sustained allegations for BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2006. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct was OffeDuty Misconduct. 11 BOP FOIA 2016-0171613 of 70 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 2: Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2006 with 32.1% Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type Of Misconduct Inmate Non-Inmate Off-Duty TOTAL Related Related Off-Duty Misconduct 143 143 Other {Lin-Duty Misconduct [9 83 102 Fiscal lmproprieties 5 87 92 Failure to Follow Policy 49 36 85 Personnel Prohibitions 69 7 T6 Unprofessional Conduct 22 44 66 I nattention to Duty 24 20 44 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 33 38 Breach of Security 13 12 25 introduction of Contraband 10 12 22 Abuse of Inmates 8 8 Investigative Violations 8 8 Sexual Abuse 6 6 Unauthorized Release of InformatiOn 3 3 6 Bribery 2 0 2 Discrimination 0 0 9 Disciplinary Action Taken Once a subject is investigated and the allegations are sustained, the type of disciplinary action taken is left to the deciding official, who is generally the CEO. Each case is unique, and there are varying degrees of seriousness within each type of misconduct. Also, a single subject may be charged with more than one type of misconduct. Therefore, the Douglas Factors must be considered when deciding the appropriate penalty to impose on employees for misconduct. The Douglas Factors are an accumulate of historic Civil Service practices and procedures in cases involving civil servant misconduct, created by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) 12 BOP FOIA 2016-0171614 of 70 ClosedJSustained Misconduct in the Douglas case. In Douglas, the MSPB announced a nonexhaustive list of 12 factors which the BOP, like all federal agencies, must consider in determining appropriate penalties to impose in employee misconduct. The Douglas Factors are as follows: 1. 2. 10. ll. 12. the nature and seriousness of the offense; the employee's job level and type of employment; the employee's disciplinary record; the employee's past work record, including length of service and duty performance; the effect of the offense on the employee's ability to perform and its effect on the supervisor's con?dence in such ability; the consistency of the penalty with penalties imposed upon others for like or similar misconduct; the consistency of the penalty with the BOP's table of penalties (Program Statement 3420.09, Standards of Employee Conduct); the notoriety of the offense or its impact on the BOP's reputation; the clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules violated or warned about the conduct in question; the employee's potential for rehabilitation; any and all mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense job stress/tension, personality problems, mental impairment, harassment or bad faith, malice or provocatiOn on the part of other involved); the adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions. The CEO is required to consider only those Douglas Factors which are relevant to any individual case and need not consider all the Douglas Factors in every case. In many cases, some of the Douglas Factors may suggest on penalty while others suggest another penaltychoose the ate penalty. 13 BOP FOIA 2016-0171615 of 70 Closed/Sustained Misconduct The following actions were taken against (or by) the BOP employees with a susmined decision in a case opened during Fiscal Year 2006 and closed as of September 30, 2006: Oral Repri mand 39 Written Reprimand 166 Suspension 13S Retirement ll Resignation 74 Termination 11 Combined with Action in Another 01A Matter 3 Other Settlement Agreement) 5 No Action Taken 171 The types of misconduct most frequently sustained against those individuals for whom no disciplinary action was taken were Traffic Citations (27.8 percent), Failure to Follow Policy (12.7 percent), and Absent Without Loave (8 percent). 9 Gender :I?here were 4,067 male BOP?empl?oyees NOTE 7% Identified as misconduct subjects to Fiscal Of the 51197 BOP employees for whom a case was a Year 2006. As of Scptember 30. 2006. a opened in Fiscal Year zoos, 133 were unidenti?ed. decision had been made for 31,6 percent of Unauthorized Release of Information was sustained those 4,007 male employees. or the 31.6 against 1 subset s, percent {or 1,268 male employees), 36.7 percent (466) had a sustained decision (a rate of 1.8 employees per 100 total male BOP staff). Table 3 (on the following page} reflects the types of sustained allegations for male BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2006. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct for male staff was Off-Duty Misconduct. 14 BOP FOIA 2016-0171616 of 70 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 3: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Male BOP Employees - FY 2006 with 31.6% Closed Number of Reported Allegations Type of Misconduct $13323 ?$33533? Off-0"? TOW- Off-Duty Misconduct 102 [02 Failure to Follow Policy 42 28 70 Discrimination 0 68 68 Personnel Prohibitions 52 6 58 Unprofessional Conduct 1? 32 49' lnatlention to Duty 21 16 3? Other On-Duty Misconduct 16 7 23 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 22 22 Breach of Security 10 8 18 Introduction of Contraband 4 9 13 Abuse of Inmates 7 7 Investigative Violations 4 4 Fiscal Improprieties 4 0 4 Briberyr 2 0 2 Unauthorized Release of Information 2 0 2 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 1 There were 1,052 female BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2006. As of September 30, 2006, a decision has been made for 35.1 percent of those 1,052 female employees. Of the 35.1 percent (or 370 female employees), 41.3 percent (153) had a sustained decision (a rate of 1.5 employees per 100 total female BOP staff). Table 4 (on the following page) reflects the types of sustained allegations for female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2006. he most frequently sustained type of misconduct for female staff was Off-Duty Misconduct. IS BOP FOIA 2016-0171617 of 70 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 4: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Female BOP Employees - FY 2006 with 35.1 Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct 222 2:2: Off-Duty Misconduct 41 41 Fiscal 19 20 Personnel Prohibitions I 13 Unprofessional Conduct 5 12 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 16 16 Failure to Follow Policy 7? 3 15 Other [in-Duty Misconduct 3 12 IS Introduction of Contraband 6 3 9 Inattention to Duty 3 4 7 Breach of Security 3 4 7 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 5 Investigative Violations 3 3 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 2 2 Abuse of Inmates I 1 Discrimination 0 Bribery 0 CI 0 The following categories of misconduct were sustained with greater frequency among female staff than among male staff: Fiscal Improprieties (11.3 percent of all misconduct by female staff as compared to .8 percent of all misconduct by male staff), Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates (9 percent of all misconduct by female staff as compared to 4.5 percent of all misconduct by male staff), and Sexual Abuse of Inmates {2.3 percent of all misconduct by female staff as compared .2 percent of all misconduct by male staff). 16 BOP FOIA 2016-0171618 of 70 Closed/Sustained Misconduct 4. Job Discipline As of September 30, 2006, 620 employees identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2006 had a sustained decision. The rate among staff working in Recordsilnmate Systems (2.9 per 100 total Systems staff) was higher than that among other job disciplines. The rate among Recreation staff was 2.3 per 100 total Recreation staff, and the rate among Correctional Services staff was 2.1 per 100 total Correctional Services staff. Table 5: Discipline of BOP Employees with Sustained Misconduct - FY 2006 with 37.1 Closed Number of Discipline 13111533115123??! Total Employees Misconduct Records?nmate Systems 29 936 2.9 Recreation 16 673 2.3 Correctional Services 325 15324 2.1 Education 8: Vocational Training 20 969 2.0 Inmate Services 4 192 2.0 Facilities 45 2328 1.9 Health ServicesISafety 44 2322 1.3 Religious Services 5 290 1.7 Food Services 26 1560 1.6 Services 12 903 1.3 Unit Management 42 3042 1.3 Business Of?ce 21 1647 1.2 Community Corrections 2 163 1.1 Human Resources 5 43'? 1.1 UNICOR 1 131 .3 CEO's Office 3: Staff 5 948 .5 Of?ce 5 1 194 .4 17 BOP FOIA 2016-0171619 of 70 ClosedlSustained Misconduct The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among ate Systems staff was Failure to Follow Policy (24.1 percent of the total sustained misconduct among those in this group). The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among Recreation staff was Failure to Pay Just Debts (16.6 percent of the total sustained misconduct among those in this group). The most frequently sustained type of misconduct for Correctional Services staff was also Failure to Follow Policy (13 percent of the total sustained misconduct among those in this group). Bargaining vs. Non-Bargaining Unit There were 4,008 employees in the bargaining unit identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2006. As of September 30, 2006, a decision had been made for 32.4 percent of those 4,008 bargaining unit employees. Of the 32.4 percent (or 1,300 bargaining unit employees), 41.5 percent (or 540 bargaining unit employees) had a sustained decision (a Tale of 133 P6r 10? Rate of Staff with Sustained bargaining unit employees). . ?i Misconduct by Security Level . FY 2005 i; There were 1.051 non-bargaining unit employees identified as misconduct ?ll. subjects in Fiscal Year 2006. As of ii September 30, 2006, a decision had 1.7 - 1.6 7. i :3 been made for 32.1 percent of those /7 if 1,051 employees. Of the 32.1 percent - 1 ii (or 338 non?bargaining unit . employees), 23.3 percent had a. . . sustained decision (a rate of 1.3 - Ill employees per 100 total non?bargaining I i [it employees? ADM HIGH MED Low MIN . . 0 Security Level As of September 30, 2006, 620 employees identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2006 had a sustained decision. The rate among those working in Administrative security institutions and High security institutions was higher than that among other security level institutions (2.3 per 100 total staff). The rate of misconduct was lowest among those working in Minimum security institutions (1 per 100 total staff). The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in Administrative security institutions was Failure to Follow Policy (19 percent of all misconduct among those in 18 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 20 of 70 ClosedlSustained Misconduct that group). Traffic Citations occurred with the second most frequency, making up 12.9 percent of all miscooduct among staff in Administrative security institutions. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct amoog staff working in High security institutions was Traffic Citations (16.6 percent of all misconduct among those in that group). Driving Under the In?uence of Alcohol occurred with the second most frequency, making up 9.8 percent of all misconduct among staff in High security institutions. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in Medium security institutions was Unprofessional Conduct (9.9 percent of all misconduct among those in that group). Misuse of Government Computers occurred with the sec0nd most frequency, making up 7.2 percent of all misconduct among staff in Medium security institutions. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in Low security institutions was Failure to Follow Policy (17.1 percent of all misconduct among those in that group). Inattention to Duty occurred with the second most frequency, making up 10.8 percent of all misconduct among staff in Low security institutions. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in Minimum security institutions was Failure to Follow Policy (33.3 percent of all misconduct among those in that group). Unprofessional Conduct occurred with the second most frequency, making up 22.2 percent of all misconduct among staff in Minimum security institutions. Contract/Halfway House Employees There were 261 contractfhalfway house employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2006. As of September 30, 2006, a decision had been made for 58.2 percent of those 261 employees. Of the 58.2 percent (or 152 employees), 34.2 percent (52) had a sustained decision. It is significant to note that an administrative disposition was recorded for 40.7 percent of those employees for whom a decision had been made, indicating the employee either resigned or was terminated prior to an investigation being conducted. Thus, the 34.2 percent sustained rate is likely an extremely conservative ?gure. Table 6 (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against contractfhalfway house employees. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct was Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates, which made up 36.5 percent of all misconduct among this group. 19 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 21 of 70 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 6: Types of Sustained Misconduct for House Employees - FY 2006 with 58.2% Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct . ?2003 Misfit-Ti? Off-Dust TOTAL Inappropriate Relationships with inmates 23 23 Personnel Prohibitions 8 I 9 Other On-Duty Misconduct 6 I 7 Unprofessional Conduct 4 2 6 Off-Duty Misconduct 4 4 Failure to Follow Policy 3 0 3 Investigative Violations 3 3 Fiscal Improprieties 2 Bribery 2 0 2 Inattention to Duty 1 2 Introduction of Contraband 0 1 Sex Abuse of Inmates 1 Abuse of Inmates 0 Discrimination 0 0 0 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 0 0 Breach of Security 0 0 '3 Staff in Privatized Facilities There were 108 employees working in privatized facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2006. Those privatized facilities are identi?ed as: California City Correctional Institution, Cibola County Correctional Center, Eloy Detention Center, McRae Correctional Facility, Moshannon Valley Correctional Institution, Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, Rivers Correctional Institution, and Taft Correctional Institution. As of September 30, 2006, a decision had been made for 55.5 percent of those 108 employees. Of the 55.5 percent (or 60 employees), 46.6 percent (28) had a sustained decision. 20 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 22 of 70 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 8 provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against employees working in privatized employees. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct was Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates, which made up 272 percent of all misconduct among staff in this group. Table 7: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Privatized Facilities - FY 2006 with 55.5% Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct $222 Niili?i?e Off-Duty TOTAL Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 12 12 Other On-Duty Misconduct 0 7 7" Introduction of Contraband 6 0 I5 Investigative Violations 4 4 Failure to Follow Policy 3 0 3 lnattention to Duty 3 0 3 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 2 2 Unprofessional Conduct 2 2 Personnel Prohibitions 2 0 2 Abuse of Inmates 1 Fiscal 1 0 Bribery I Discrimination 0 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 0 0 Breach of Security 0 CI 0 Off-Duty Misconduct 0 0 Staff in Facilities with an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) There were 49 employees working at facilities with an IGA identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2006. Those facilities are identified as: Big Spring Correctional Center, Eden Detention Center, Giles Dalby Correctional Center, and Reeves County Detention Center. As of 21 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 23 of 70 Closed/Sustained Misconduct September 30, 2006, a decision had been made for 48.9 percent of those 49 employees. Of the 48.9 percent {or 24 employees), 62.5 percent (15) had a sustained decision. Table 8 provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against employees working in facilities with an IGA. Introduction of Contraband made up 34.7 percent of all misconduct among staff in this group, and Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates made up 30.4 percent of all misconduct among staff in this group. Table 8: Types of Misconduct for Staff in Facilities with an - FY 2006 with 48.9% Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct . Introduction of Contraband 8 0 8 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 7' 7 Sexual of Inmates 4 4 Bribery 3 0 3 Abuse of Inmates 1 Discrimination 0 Fiscal Improprieties 0 Investigative Violations 0 Personnel Prohibitions 0 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 Other On-Duty Misconduct 0 lnattention to Duty 0 0 Breach of Security 0 0 0 Unprofessional Conduct 0 0 Failure to Follow Policy 0 Off-Duty Misconduct 0 0 22 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 24 of 70 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Contract Employees and Volunteers Working in BOP Facilities There were 36 contract staff and 2 volunteers working in BOP facilities identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2006. As of September 30, 2006, a decision had been made for 19.4 percent of the 36 contract staff. Of the 19.4 percent (or 7 contract employees), 42.8 percent (3) had a sustained decision. One allegation of Sexual Abuse of an Inmate was sustained, and 4 allegations of Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates. A decision has been made for of the 2 volunteers, against whom Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates was sustained. PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities Of the 63?? PHS employees working in BOP facilities, 65 were identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2006 (a rate of 10.2 per 100 PHS employees). As of September 30,2006, a decision had been made for 36.9 percent of those 65 PHS employees. Of the 36.9 percent (or 24 PHS employees), 41.6 percent (10) had a sustained decision, for a sustained rate of 1.5 per 100 PHS employees. Table 9 (on the foiiowing page) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against PHS employees working in BOP facilities. Table 9 provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against PHS employees working in BOP facilities. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 25 of 70 ClosedlSustained Misconduct Table 9: Types of Sustained Misconduct for PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities - 2006 with 36.9% Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct 115;?: Off-Duty TOTAL Other Oil-Duty Misconduct 4 4 Off-Duty Misconduct 3 3 Fiscal lmproprieties 2 2 Breach of Securityr 0 2 2 Inattention to Duty 1 0 1 Personnel Prohibitions 0 1 Abuse of Inmates 0 0 Sexual Abuse of Inmates '3 Introduction of Contraband 0 Discrimination 0 {l Bribery,I 0 Inappropriate Relationships with inmates 0 Investigative Violations Unauthorized Release of Information 0 CI 0 Unprofessional Conduct 0 0 Failure to Follow Policy 0 24 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 26 of 70 Physical Abuse of Inmates Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 13 - Civil Rights ?24l Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State. Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secored to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life. ?242 Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be lined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or life. Statistics During Fiscal Year 2006, 55? allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2006, a decision had been made for 36 percent (or 201) of those allegations. Physical Abuse allegatiOns are tracked by the degree of injury sustained by the inmate(s) involved?life threatening injury, serious injury, minorfslight injury, minorfno injury (harassment), and super?cial injury (injury associated with the normal use of restraints). Two allegations of Physical Abuse were sustained: 1 involved minori'slight injury to the inmate, and 1 involved minorlno injury (harassment) to the inmate. One allegation involved a BOP employee working in Correctional Services, and the other involved an BOP eranOyee working in Systems. Neither of the subjects with a sustained allegation were convicted of criminal violations. Three hundred ?fty-six reported allegations were pending investigation. 25 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 2? of 70 Introduction of Contraband Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 87 - Prisons ?1791 Providing or possessing contraband in prison Offense-Whoever- (1) In violation of a statute or a rule or order issued under a statute, provides to an inmate of a prison a prohibited object, or attempts to do so; or (2) being an inmate of a prison, makes, possesses, or obtains, or attempts to make or obtain, a prohibited object; shall be punished as provided in subsection of this section. Punishment-The punishment for an offense under this section is a ?ne under this title or- imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; (2) irnprisooment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section; (3) imprisonment for no more than 5 years, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section; (4) imprisonment for no more than one year, or both, if the object is specified in subsection or of this section; and (S) imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section. Any punishment imposed under subsection for a violation of this section by an inmate of a prison shall be consecutive to the sentence being served by such inmate at the time the inmate commits such violation. Definitions-As used in this sectiOn? the term ?prohibited object? means- (A) a firearm or destructive device; (B) ammunition, a weapon [other than a firearm or destructive device), or an object that is designed or intended to be used as a weapon or to facilitate escape frOm a prison; (C) a narcotic drug, acid diethylamide, or (D) a controlled substance (other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph of this subsection) or an alcoholic beverage; 26 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 28 of 70 Introduction of Contraband (E) any United States or foreign currency; and (F) any other object that threatens the order, discipline, or security of a prison, or the life, health, or safety of an individual; (2) the terms ?ammunition," ?firearm," and ?destructive device" have, respectively, the meanings given these terms in section 921 of this title; (3) the terms ?controlled substance? and ?narcotic drug? have, respectively, the meanings given these terms in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 302); and (4) the term ?prison" means a Federal correctional, detention, or penal facility. Statistics During Fiscal Year 2006, 565 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2006, a decisiOn had been made on 21 percent (or 119) of these allegations. Thirty-seven of those allegations were sustained: 18 involved the introduction of unauthorized electronic devices (in 9 instances staff brought unauthorized electronic devices into the facility for their personal use), 9 involved the introduction of soft contraband, 6 involved the introduction of tobacco, 1 involved the introduction of a weapon (pocket knife), 1 involved the introduction of money, 1 involved the introduction of marijuana, and 1 involved the introduction of Creatinelweightlifting supplements. A total of 31 individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Thirteen of the individuals were male BOP employees (3 Correctional Services employees, 2 Food Service employees, 1 Systems employee, 1 Health ServicesfSafety employee, and 1 Facilities employee), 7 were female BOP employees (2 Correctional Services employees, 2 Health Servicesf?o?afety employees, 1 Food Service employee, 1 Unit Management employee, and 1 Facilities employee), 6 were employees at a facility with an IGA, 4 were employees at privatized facilities, and was a contractihalfway house employee. Three of the 31 individuals were convicted of criminal violations (1 contractfhalfway house employee and 2 employees working at a facility with an IGA). Four hundred forty-six reported allegations were still under investigation as of September 30, 2006. The majority of these allegations (60.7 percent) are being investigated by the OIG. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 29 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 109A - Sexual Abuse ?224l Aggravated Sexual Abuse By force or threat. Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act - by using force against that other person, or by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. By other means. Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly - renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or (2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby - (A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and (B) engages in a sexual act with that other person; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. ?2242 Sexual Abuse Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly - (1) causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or (2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is - (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; 28 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 30 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates or attempts to do so shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. ?2243 Sexual Abuse of a Ward Of a ward Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who is in official detention; and (2) under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so engaging; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both. ?2244 Abusive Sexual Contact Sexual contact in circumstances where sexual acts are punished by this chapter. - Whoever in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so to do would violate - (1) section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, impris0ned not more than ten years, or both; (2) section 2242 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than three years, or both; (4) subsection of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both. In Other Circumstances. - Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another pers0n without that other person?s permission shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than six months, or both. 2246 Definitions (1) the term ?prison? means a correctional, detention, or penal facility; (2) the term ?sexual act? means (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the an us, and for the purposes of this subparagraph, contact involved the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; 29 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 310f70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus; or (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening by another by a hand or ?nger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; and (3) the term ?sexual contact? means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (4) the term ?serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. (5) the term ?of?cial detention" means - (A) detention by a Federal officer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal officer or employee, following arrest for an offense; following surrender in lieu of an arrest for an offense; following a charge or conviction of an offense, or an allegation or finding of juvenile delinquency; following commitment as a material witness; following civil commitment in lieu of criminal proceedings or pending resumption of criminal proceedings that are being held in abeyance, or pending extradition, deportation, or exclusion; or (B) custody by a Federal officer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal Officer or employee, for purposes incident to any detention described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, including transportation, medical diagnosis or treatment, court appearance, work, and recreation; but does not include supervision or under control (other than custody during specified hours or days) after release on bail, probation, or parole, or after release following a juvenile delinquency. Statistics Fiscal Year 2006 During the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006, 339 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to 01A or detected during the course of an investigation, These 339 30 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 32 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates allegations involved 248 BOP employees, 61 contractfhalfway house employees, 12 staff working in a facility with an IGA, 9 staff working in privatized facilities, 7 contract staff working in BOP facilities, and 2 PHS staff working in BOP facilities. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242!2243) between female staff and male inmates (81 reported allegations) and Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and male inmates [60 reported allegations). As of September 30, 2006, 14 allegations of Sexual Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2006 had been sustained (6 involving BOP employees, 4 involving staff in facilities with an IGA, 2 involving staff in privatized facilities, 1 involving contract staff working in a BOP facility, and 1 involving contract/halfway house staff). Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a male Mechanical Services employee and a female inmate at FCI Dublin. During an DIG investigation, the subject admitted he engaged in sexual contact with the inmate on numerous occasions and gave her contraband such as cigarettes, thong underwear, candy, and letters. The subject pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, Section 2243(b), Sexual Abuse of a Ward, and was sentenced to 1-year probation and a $10,000 ?ne. The subject resigned his employment. (2006?00922) - Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a male subcontractor and a female inmate at FCC Coleman (Medium). During an OIG investigation, the inmate admitted having sexual intercourse with the subcontractor on at least one occasion. In addition, telephone records and monitored telephone calls revealed the inmate called the subcontractor on his cellular telephone on 85 different occasions. During some of their conversations, they discussed the possibility she had been impregnated by him and the option of her aborting the pregnancy. Further, the subcontractor sent money to the inmate so she could call him and to help pay for an abortion. The US. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution in this matter, partly because the subject was not a Department of Justice employee. The subcontractor is no longer allowed to work on FCC Coleman property. (2006-01195) - Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a male employee at a contractfhalfway house and a female inmate. The subject admitted he engaged in sexual intercourse with a female inmate housed at the facility. He pled guilty to first degree custodial misconduct and was sentenced to Iii?months incarceration and 12-months supervision. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2006-01388) - Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female Education Vocational Training employee and a male inmate at FCC Florence. An DIG investigation developed information that the subject engaged in sexual intercourse with the inmate and was impregnated by him. She pled guilty to 1 count of Sexual Abuse of an Inmate. She was sentenced to 2-months 31 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 33 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates home con?nement and ?it-months probation, and she was ordered the pay the costs associated with the home con?nement. The subject resigned her employment with the BOP. (2006-00413) Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female Education Vocational Training employee and a male inmate at FCC Butner. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During an OIA investigation. the subject admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with the inmate on two separate occasions. The subject resigned her employment. (200600954) - Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female Unit Management employee and a male inmate at Seagoville. During an 01G investigation, the subject admitted she developed a personal relationship with the inmate while he was incarcerated at FCI Seagoville. She stated they did not engage in sexual relations until the inmate was transferred to a community corrections facility. The US. Attorney's Office declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2006.01231) - Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female Education Vocational Training employee and two male inmates at FCI Fort Dix. During an 010 investigation, the subject admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with two inmates. The U.S. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2006-01541) - Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female employee at a privatized facility and a male inmate. The 016 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted bringing contraband into the institution for the inmate and engaging in sexual intercourse and oral sex with him. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2006-03746) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female Unit Management employee and a male inmate at FCI Gilmer. The 016 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation. the subject initially admitted contacting the inmate?s family, but she denied having sexual contact with the inmate. The Subject subsequently admitted that on at least 30 occasions she hugged and kissed the inmate and touched his penis through his clothing. She also admitted the inmate touched her breasts and vagina through her clothing. The subject resigned her employment. (200600901) - Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee at a facility with an and a male inmate. During an 016? investigation. the subject admitted introducing contraband into the facility for the inmate and fondling him through his clothing. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2006-02045) 32 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 34 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates - Unprofessional Contact of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at a facility with an ISA and a male inmate. The 016 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted hugging and kissing the inmate in a Food Service freezer. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2006-00461) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at a facility with an ISA and a male inmate. During an 016 investigation, the subject admitted kissing the inmate. As there was no evidence of criminal behavior, the matter was not presented for prosecutorial consideration. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2006?00982) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at a facility with an IGA and a male inmate. The 016 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted kissing the inmate and developing a romantic relationship with him. The subject resigned her employment. (2006-02444) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at a privatized facility and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP fer administrative resolution. The subject admitted she met with the inmate in her office, kissed him, and professed her love. She also admitted having a similar relationship with another inmate. The subject resigned her employment. (2006?02540) As of September 30, 2006. 213 allegations of those allegations reported during Fiscal Year 2006 will still being investigated. Fiscal Year 2005 During Fiscal Year 2005, 286 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to OIA or detected during the course of an investigatiOn. Of the 286 allegations, 214 involved BOP employees, 46 involved common/halfway house employees, 18 involved staff working in a facility with an IGA, 4 involved contract staff working in BOP facilities, and 4 involved staff working in privatized facilities. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Sexual AbuselSexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242!2243) between female staff and male inmates (69 reported allegations) and Abusive Sexual Contact between male staff and male inmates (38 reported allegations). As of September 30, 2006. 25 allegations of Sexual Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2005 had been sustained (18 involving BOP employees, 3 involving employees at privatized facilities, 2 involving employees at a facility with an IGA, 1 involving a contract employee working at BOP facility, and 1 involving a contractr'halfway house employee). 33 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 35 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates - Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female contract employee and a male inmate at FCI Seagovilie. During an 016 investigation, the subject stated she attempted to have sexual intercourse with the inmate in a locked restroom. Due to the constricting size of the restroom, however, the inmate performed oral sex on her. The U.S. Attorney?s Office for the Northern District of Texas declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2005-00012) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Business Office employee and four female inmates at FDC Philadelphia. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted having sexual relations with four inmates. The subject resigned. He pied guilty to two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and one count of Sexual Contact with a Ward. He was sentenced to 4-months incarceration, 3?years supervised release, and 200 hours of community service, and fined $1,500. (2005-00118) - Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Oxford. During an 016 investigation, the subject admitted having a sexual relationship with the inmate and introducing food and body building supplements into the institution for him. The subject pled guilty to Sexual Abuse of an Ward and was sentenced to ?Si-months incarceration, 1-year of supervised release, and a $2,000 fine. She was also required to register as a sex offender with the state of Wisconsin and to repay the court for the cost of her court?appointed attorney. The Subject?s employment was terminated. (2005-01328) Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at MSG New York. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation, the subject admitted she performed oral sex on the inmate several times. She also admitted introducing contraband into the institution for the inmate. The subject resigned her employment. (2005-01344) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at a privatized facility and a male inmate. During an 016 investigation, the subject admitted she engaged in repeated acts of sexual intercourse and oral sex with the inmate. She also admitted there were three occasions when she brought small amounts of marijuana into the institution fer the inmate. The Department of usrice, Civil Rights DivisiOn, declined prosecution in this matter, stating there was no indication the sexual acts were coerced. (2005?01348) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and female inmates at FMC Carsweli. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted engaging in 34 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 36 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates sexual acts with at least four inmates. He also admitted he smuggled contraband into the institution for inmates and lied to investigators. The subject entered into a agreement, was convicted of Sexual Abuse of a Ward, and sentenced to 12-months incarceration and 12-months supervised probation and ?ned $3,000. (2005-01427) Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at La Tuna. During an DIG investigation, the subject initially denied having sexual relations with the inmate. After being confronted with telephoae records, she admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with the inmate in a staff bathroom in a housing unit. She stated the inmate did not wear a condom, and he could be the father of her unborn child. The staff member also admitted she continued to have sexual contact with the inmate following his release. The subject pled guilty to Sexual Abuse of a Ward and False Statements. She was sentenced to 1-year probation for the Sexual Abuse and 4_ years probation for the False Statements. The subject resigned her employment. (2005- 01737) - Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a male employee at a contractt?halfway house facility and a female inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation, the subject admitted he was involved in a sexual relationship with the inmate. He also reported the Facility Director was aware of the relationship. The Facility Director admitted he was aware of the relationship and failed to report the matter or take appropriate action. Both staff resigned their employment. The. 01G declined prosecution, stating they do not have statutory authority to investigate misdemeanor sexual offenses in non-BOP facilities. (2005-01785) Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female employee at a privatized facility and male inmates. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation, the subject admitted she performed oral sex on two inmates. Her employment was terminated. (2005-02119) Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female Unit Management employee and a male inmate at FCC Coleman. During an OIG investigation, the subject initially denied have a sexual relationship with the inmate. She later admitted engaging in sexual contact with him for several months and introducing contraband into the facility for him. The subject pled guilty to Knowingly and Intentionally Providing Contraband to a Federal Prisoner. She entered into a plea agreement which details that she admitted having an inappropriate relationship with an inmate. The subject was sentenced to 3?years probation and 150- hours of community service. She resigned her employment. (2005-03251) - Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a male Correctional Services employee and two female inmates at FDC Miami. An OIG investigation found the subject engaged in 35 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 3? of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates sexual contact with an inmate approximately 12 times during her incarceration. The subject was arrested by the FBI pursuant to an indictment for violation of 18 USC 2243(b), Sexual Abuse of a Ward, involving another female inmate. The 016 did not participate in that investigation. The subject pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward, and the government agreed not to file charges for the additional counts. The subject has not yet been sentenced. (2005-03344) Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female Business Office employee and a male inmate at FCI Otisville. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with the inmate. The US. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2005~03608) Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female UNICOR employee and a male inmate at FCI Oxford. An OIG investigation developed sufficient information that the subject had a sexual relationship with the inmate and accepted money in exchange for introducing contraband into the facility for him. The US. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2005-03619) - Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at USP Beaumont. Two inmates alleged the subject was having a sexual relationship with an inmate, and the (HO accepted the matter for investigation. Prior to the conclusion of the OIG investigation, BOP staff learned the subject would be meeting the inmate. The DIG informed the BOP they could not participate in a sting operation at that time. BOP staff went to the alleged meeting place and found the subject and victim in a locked mop closet. The subject admitted performing oral sex on the inmate on four occasions and receiving oral sex from him on two occasions. The subject also admitted she introduced food items into the institution for the inmate and calls his mother once. The U.S. Attorney's Office declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2005-03795) - Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female Health Services employee and a male inmate at FMC Devens. During an 016 investigation, the subject admitted having sexual relations with the inmate. The US. Attorney?s Office for the District of Massachusetts declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (200503760) - Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Waseca. During an 016 investigation the subject admitted kissing and touching the inmate on at least ten occasions. The subject stated the inmate placed his finger in her vagina a few times, and she touched his penis. The US. Attorney's Office, 36 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 38 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates District of Minnesota, declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2005-03765) - Abusive Sexual Contact between a male Facilities employee and two female inmates at FCI Phoenix. The DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. Two inmates provided sworn affidavits stating the subject placed their hands on his penis. They also submitted to polygraph examinations, the results of which indicated they were not deceptive. The subject declined to take a polygraph examination and denied the allegations. Labor/Management Relations staff did net support any disciplinary action being taken in this matter. {2005-00174} 0 Unprofessiona] Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FMC Lexington. The 010 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The staff member admitted drawing two circles on a piece of paper, with one circle larger than the other. The staff member then told the inmate, ?This is your asshole before entering prison, and this is your asshole when you leave prison." The subject was suspended for two days. (2005-00392) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Health ServiceslSafety employee and a male inmate at FCC Victorville. The 010 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject instructed the inmate to remove his pants and submit to a rectal exam because the inmate was experiencing rectal bleeding. The Staff member told the inmate, ?Don?t worry, yen will like it.? The staff member then told the inmate he would not like it. because he is not gay. The subject received a written reprimand. (2005-01903) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at a pri vatized facility and a male inmate. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation, the subject admitted she ?tapped? an inmate on the buttocks with her fingertips. She stated she did this in an effort to get him to move so she could walk past. The subject resigned her employment. (2005?02048) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at a facility with an IGA and a male inmate. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The SIA at the facility observed the staff member engage in a conversation with the inmate. then kiss him. Further, letters from two inmates were found in the staff member?s possession. The staff member resigned her employment prior to being interviewed. (2005-02366) BOP FOIA 2016-01716 39 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at a facility with an IGA and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP fer administrative resolution. Staff witnessed the staff member with the inmate during the early morning hours in an area where the inmate should not have been. Further, a supervisory correctional of?cer saw the staff member kiss the inmate. The staff member resigned her employment immediately when confronted with the allegations, and she was not interviewed. (2005?02693) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Cumberland. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted being the author of documents and correspondence of a personal nature provided by the inmate. The subject also admitted kissing the inmate twice. but she denied having sexual intercourse with him. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her employment. (2005-03447) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Waseca. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted becoming emotionally involved with the inmate and providing him with pomegraphic magazines. The subject resigned her employment. (2005-03923) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Business Office employee and female inmates at FCC Coleman. The DIS deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted viewing a sexually-explicit picture with the inmates and engaging in inappropriate conversations with them. The subject was suspended for?t days. (2005-04228) As of September 30, 2006, 54 of these allegations reported during Fiscal Year 2005 were still be investigated. Fiscal Year 2004 During Fiscal Year 2004, 290 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to OIA or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 290 allegations, 216 involved BOP employees, 43 involved staff working at contract/halfway house facilities, 15 involved staff working at privatized facilities, 8 involved staff working at facilities with an IGA, and 8 involved contract staff working at BOP facilities. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242f2243) between female staff and male inmates (56 reported allegations) and Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and male inmates (48 reported allegations). 38 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 40 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates As of September 30, 2006, 29 allegations of Sexual Abuse had been sustained {19 involving BOP employees, 6 involving staff working at privatized facilities, 3 involving staff working at facilities with an IGA, and 1 involving a contract employee working at a BOP facility). Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FMC Lexington. Following an investigation by the DIG, the subject was tried and convicted by a jury for violations of 18, USC, 2243(b), Sexual Abuse of a Ward (8 counts), 18 USC, 1001, False Statements (1 count), and 18 USC, 2242(1), Sexual Abuse of a Ward by Force or Fear (1 count). The subject was sentenced to 108 months incarceration, 2 years supervised probation, and a $400 fine. (2004-00001) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FMC Lexington. Following an DIG investigation, the subject received a five count indictment for violations of 18 USC, 2243(b), Sexual Abuse of a Ward. The subject pied no contest to one count of the indictment, and he was sentenced to 4 months home confinement and 2 years probation. (2004-00009) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Health ServicesfSafety employee and a male inmate at USP Florence. The subject confessed to engaging in both oral and coital sexual contact with the inmate on four occasions. She received a six-month deferred jail term and six-months unsupervised probation. (2004-00041) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at MDC Guaynabo. During an 01G investigation, the subject admitted having sexual intercourse with the victim both during and after her incarcerati on. The US. Attomey?s office declined prosecution. The subject resigned his employment. (2004-00688) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Education and Vocational Training employee and a male inmate at FCI Allenwood. During an DIG investigation, the subject admitted she engaged in sexual intercourse with the inmate once and on a separate occasion had oral sex with him. The subject entered into a pre-trial diversion program, and she was informed prosecution will be delayed for 12 months. If the subject fulfills the conditions of the program, she will not be prosecuted. (2004-01240) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female UNICOR employee and a male inmate at FCI La Tuna. During an 01G investigation, the subject admitted engaging in a sexual relationship with an inmate. She pled guilty to one count of 18 USC, 2243, Sexual Abuse of a Ward, and was sentenced to one-year probation. (2004-01843). 39 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 41 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between three female employees and male inmates at the Taft Correctional Institution. All three subjects resigned. Subject I admitted she engaged in sexual intercourse with an inmate and acted as a lookout for Subject 3 during her with inmates. Subject 2 admitted she allowed an inmate to perform oral sex on her. The U.S. Attomey?s Office declined prosecution in these matters due to a lack of corroboration by the inmate victims. Subject 3 admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with two inmates. She also admitted introducing two water bottles containing vodka and a cellular telephone into the facility for one of the inmates. She was convicted of smuggling a prohibited item into a federal institution and was sentenced to three-years probation. (2004-01568 - Three subjects) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FCI Dublin. During an DIG investigation, three inmates claimed to have been approached by the subject and asked to engage in oral sex with him. One inmate claimed she engaged in oral sex with the subject. Two other inmates claim they were told of the sexual encounter between the subject and this inmate. Prosecution was declined in this matter as the subject did not make any admissions. The subject resigned his employment. (2004-02304) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Fairton. Following an 010 investigation, the subject pled guilty in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, to a criminal information charging her with Sexual Abuse of a Ward in violation of 18, USC, ?2243. She was sentenced to 3-months incarceration and 1-year supervised released. She was also ordered to pay a $1,000 fine and a $25 special assessment. The subject also admitted introducing contraband for the inmate. She resigned her employment. (2004-02503) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Recreation employee and a female inmate at FMC Lexington. An OIG investigation led to a one count indictment for violation of 18 USC, Sexual Abuse of a Ward. The subject pled guilty and was sentenced to l'2?months probation and a $500 fine. (2004-02574) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at USP Allenwood. Following an DIG investigation, the subject pled guilty to Sexual Abuse of 3 Ward and Providing Contraband to an Inmate. She was sentenced to 2-years probation with the first six months served in home confinement. The subject was also ordered to perform 50 hours of community service and pay a $35 special assessment fee. (2004-03177) 40 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 42 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Unit Management employee and a male inmate at FCI Big Spring. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted having a sexual relationship with an inmate. She further admitted that once the inmate had been transferred to a contracu?halfway house. she sent him letters and money orders using a different name. The subject entered into a pretrial diversion agreement. The agreement states that for a period of 12 months, the subject will 1) continue to reside in the same judicial district; 2) inform the supervising officer of any changes in her address. telephone number, or employment; 3) submit to the supervising officer a complete and truthful report; 4) have no contact, either directly or indirectly, with the inmate; 5) inform her employer of the allegations as deemed necessary by the supervising officer; and 6) perform 96 hours of unpaid community service at a rate of 8 hours per month. The subject resigned her employment. (2004-03287) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FDC Seatac. An GIG investigation sustained allegations of Sexual Abuse of a Ward, Introduction of Contraband, and Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates against the subject. Prosecution was declined because the subject did not confess. The subject resigned his employment. (2004?03627) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Waseca. During an 01G investigation, the subject admitted having a sexual relationship with the inmate. She also admitted she gave the inmate?s mother $100. The US. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2004433636) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FMC Carswell. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted the inmate performed multiple oral sexual acts on him, and he fondled her multiple times. The subject was charged with and pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, 2243(b), Sexual Abuse of a Ward. The subject was sentenced to 6?months incarceration and 12?months supervised released and ordered to pay a $25 special assessment. (2004?03798) - Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee and a male inmate at the Ci bola County Correctional Facility. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted hugging and kissing the inmate and fondling his penis through his clothing. A Department of Justice, Civil Rights Attorney, declined prosecution, citing lack of jurisdiction. The subject resigned. (2004?00131) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female contract employee and a male inmate at USP Beaumont. The subject admitted kissing and touching the inmate, 41 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 43 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates but she denied masturbating him. The US. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecutioa after the inmate admitted embellishing upon his initial allegations. The subject's employment was terminated. (200401236) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at MDC Los Angeles. The subject filed a police report in which she claimed the inmate was blackmailing her in order to conceal from her employer the fact that he had several revealing photographs of her. She stated she paid him over $20,000. During an 01G investigation, the subject denied having a sexual relationship with the inmate, and only admitted giving him $6,658. She also admitted the statement she provided to police was inaccurate. The U.S. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution when the inmate refused to assist in the investigation. The subject resigned her employment. (2004-01552) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at the Cibola County Correctional Facility. The 016 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation, the subject admitted hugging and kissing the inmate and exchanging correspondence with him. She also admitting introducing contraband items for him. The subject resigned. (2004?01656). Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation, the subject admitted discussing personal issues with the inmate, delivering notes to him, engaging in three-way telephone calls with him, and kissing him. The subject?s employment was terminated. {2004? 0242'?) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Facilities employee and a female inmate at FCI Victorville. During an DIG investigation, the subject admitted he kissed the inmate in front of two witnesses. He indicated this was the only time he engaged in any type of inappropriate contact with the inmate. This was continued by the inmate. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned his employment. (2004412576) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The 010 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation, the subject admitting hugging and kissing the inmate. The subject resigned her employment. (2004-02926) 42 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 44 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Health ServicesfSafety employee and a female inmate at FCI Danbury. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted he developed emotional feelings for the inmate and told her he loved her. He denied engaging in sexual activity with the inmate, but he admitted kissing her on the cheek. The subject retired before disciplinary action was taken. (2004-03185) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Facilities employee and a male inmate at FCI Milan. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During an investigation, the subject admitted making a comment about the inmate?s initials standing for ?cum catcher." The subject. received a letter of reprimand. (2004-03198) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Terminal Island. The DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. An investigation revealed the subject provided the inmate with money, provided her phone number to him, received numerous calls from him, and wrote numerous letters promising and describing sexual activity between them upon his release. The subject resigned her employment. (200403623) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. During an 010 investigation, the subject admitted she kissed the inmate and brought food items into the institution for him. She also admitted she received a call from the inmate on her cellular telephone. The subject resigned her employment. (2004-03671) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at McRae Correctional Facility. The OIG defen'ed this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During an investigation, the subject admitted kissing the inmate and bringing him a cellular telephone. The subject resigned her employment. (2004?03793) As of September 30, 2006, 33 allegations reported during Fiscal Year 2004 were still being investigated. Fiscal Year 2003 During Fiscal Year 2003, 284 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 284 allegations, 197 involved BOP employees, 56 involved staff working at contractfhalfway house facilities, 15 involved staff 43 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 45 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates working at privatized facilities, 13 involved staff working at facilities with an IGA, 2 involved contract staff working at BOP facilities, and 1 involved a PHS employee working at a BOP facility. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Sexual AbuseISexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242f2243) between female staff and male inmates (59 reported allegations) and Sexual AbuseISexual Abuse of a Ward between male staff and female inmates {41 reported allegations). As of September 30, 2006, 37 allegations of Sexual Abuse had been sustained (22 involved BOP employees, 6 involved staff working in facilities with an IGA, 4 involved staff working at contractt?halfway house facilities, 3 involved staff working at privatized facilities, 1 involved a contract employee working at a BOP facility, and 1 involved a PHS employee working at a BOP facility. Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FCI Tallahassee. The subject resigned. An 01G investigation resulted in a 3 count information being filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern Florida, for violations of 18 USC, 2243, Sexual Abuse of a Ward. The subject pled guilty and was sentenced to 3 years probation, 3 months home cenfinement, and a $2,500 fine. (2003-00381). - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Food Service employee and a male inmate at USP Atlanta. The US. Marshals Service conducted the investigation into these allegations after it was learned the subject may have been involved in the inmate?s escape. The subject resigned. She was found guilty of Assisting with an Escape, and she was sentenced to 6 months home con?nement and 3 years probation. The subject also admitted to having sexual intercourse with the inmate and conceiving a child with him while she was employed at USP Atlanta. Further, she admitted the inmate had been living at her residence since his escape. (2003-00860) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female contract employee and a male inmate at FDC Philadelphia. The subject?s employment was terminated after she admitted having sexual contact with an inmate on at least 17 occasions. She also stated she smuggled soft comraband into the institution for the inmate on at least it) occasions. The subject was indicted on two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Ward, one count of Sexual Contact With a Ward, and one count of Introduction of Contraband into a federal institution. At the end of a three-day jury trial, the subject was acquitted on all four counts. (2003-01072) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Health Services employee and two female inmates at FMC Carswell. During an 01G investigation, the subject admitted he engaged in sexual intercourse with two female inmates and a female staff member. He resigned his employment and pled guilty to two counts of a three count indictment charging him 44 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 46 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates with violations of 18 USC, 2243, Sexual Abuse of a Ward, and was sentenced to 14- months incarceration and one-year supervised release and ordered to pay a 550 special assessment. The subject was also ordered to register as a sex offender with state and local law enforcement. (2003-01693) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FCI Dublin. The subject resigned. He pled guilty to Sexual Abuse of a Ward, and was sentenced to 3-years probation, 6-months home confinement, a $500 fine, and was required to register as a sex offender. (200301766) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Facilities employee and a female inmate at FCI Victorville. This matter was presented to the 1.1.3. Attomey?s Of?ce for a violation of 18 USC, 2243(b), Sexual Abuse of 3. Ward. The AUSA declined prosecution. The subject resigned. (2003?02210) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at Dismas House in El Paso, Texas, and a male inmate. The subject admitted having sexual relations with an inmate whom she believed to be the father of her child. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned. (200360337) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Health Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Waseca. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted having sexual intercourse with an inmate in the X-ray room in the medical department. The U.S. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. The Subject resigned. (2003-01006) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Seal Beach Jail and a male inmate. The subject admitted she engaged in sexual intercourse with an inmate. The US. Attorney's Office declined prosecution; however, the Seal Beach District Attorney?s Of?ce accepted the case fer prosecution. The subject?s employment was laminated. She subject pled guiltyr to 289.6 of the California Penal Code and was sentenced to three-years probation, fined $100, and ordered to complete ten days of community service. (200% 01138) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. The subject?s employment was terminated. She pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, 2243(b). She was sentenced to 2-years probation and ordered to pay a $500 fine. (2003-02480) 45 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 4? of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Unit Management employee at FMC Fort Worth and a male inmate at a halfway house. The subject admitted having a sexual relationship with a former FMC Fort Worth inmate after his transfer to a halfway house. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her employment. (2003-02827) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at USP Atwater. During an GIG investigation, the subject invoked her right to an attorney, and the comma] interview was terminated. She was compelled administratively and admitted having a sexual relationship with an inmate and introducing contraband into the institution for him. The subject resigned her employment. (2003-03090) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Health Services/ Safety employee and a male inmate at USP Atwater. The subject resigned. She pled guilty to a violation of 13 USC, 2243(b), and was sentenced to 12-months supervised probation and 50 hours of community service, and was required to undergo mental health treatment. (2003-03582) Sexual Abuse of an Inmate and Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at the Giles Dalby Correctional Center. The subject admitted kissing an inmate and allowing him to rub her breasts. The U.S. Attorney's Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2003-03763 two allegations) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Three Rivers. The inmate alleged that while he was cleaning a staff restroom, the subject entered with his erect penis exposed and forced the inmate to orally copulate him. Following an 018 investigation, the subject was arrested and charged with violations of 18, USC, ?1001, False Statements, and 18, USC, ?2243, Sexual Abuse of a Ward. As a result of a negotiated plea agreement. the subject pled guilty to a violation of 18, USC, ?1001. He was sentenced to 6-months incarceration and 3-years supervised release and ordered to pay a $2,000 fine and $100 Special assessment fee. The subject?s employment was terminated. (200304181) Abusive Sexual Contact between a male employee at the Mid-Valley House and a female inmate. The employee admitted rubbing his unexposed penis on the inmate?s arm and rubbing her breasts through her clothing. The U.S. Attomey?s Office declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2003-00002) Abusive Sexual Contact between a male UNICOR employee and a female inmate at FCC Coleman (Medium). The staff member resigned. He pled guilty to one count of 18 USC, 46 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 48 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 2244(a)(4), in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, and was fined $500. (2003-01221) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female Health Services employee and a male inmate at Springfield. During an 016 investigation, the subject admitting allowing the inmate to touch her breast, putting her hand on the inmate's penis, and kissing the inmate. The US. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Missouri declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2003-03835) Abusive Sexual Contact between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FMC Carswell. The subject admitted kissing the inmate and rubbing her breasts against his hand. The U.S. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. The subject resigned. (2003-03846) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted caressing an inmate?s penis through his clothing and bringing a compact disk into the facility for him. The subject resigned. The case facts were presented to the Grand Jury and the subject was indicted for abusive sexual contact and possessing contraband in prison. The charges were later dismissed when it was determined the Reeves County Detention Center did not meet the statutory de?nition of ?federal prison.? (2003-01342) Unprofessiona] Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Food Service employee and a female inmate at FCI Coleman. The subject slapped the inmate on her buttocks while she was working the food line in the kitchen. The subject was suspended for five days. This matter was investigated by the (2003?01160) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Health ServiceslSafety employee and a female inmate at FPC Bryan. The subject admitted telling an inmate another inmate wanted him to perform oral sex on her. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject was suspended for four days. (2003- 02901) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee at FDC Houston and a female inmate. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted having a personal relationship with the inmate and admitted kissing her prior to her release. The DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject resigned. (2003-01229) 47' BOP FOIA 2016-01716 49 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Facilities employee and a female inmate at FCI Tallahassee. The subject admitted kissing the victim on three occasions. He resigned his employment. This matter was investigated by the DIG. (2003-01718) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee at MDC San Diego and a female inmate. During an DIG investigation, the subject admitted to flirting with various female inmates and being alone in a staff restroom with a female inmate. The subject resigned his employment. (2003-02475) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male staff member and a male inmate at the Cibola County Correctional Facility. The subject admitted he jokingly made sexual comments to an inmate. The DIS deferred to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject was suspended for three days. (2003-00016) Unprofessiona] Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Unit Management employee and a male inmate at USP Lompoe. The staff member entered an inmate restroom and told an inmate, "Hold this for me," as he was urinating. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject received an oral reprimand. (2003- 00602) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate. The subject resigned. He admitted to kissing an inmate, writing her letters ofa sexual nature. allowing her to view a photo of his penis with a penis ring, and giving her a rose. This matter was investigated by the OIG. The US. Attorney's Office declined prosecution. (2003-00973) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Public Health Service employee and male inmates at FCI Texarkana. The subject admitted he made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to staff and inmates and used profanity. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2003-02718) Un professional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Mid- Valley House and a female inmate. Three staff reportedly witnessed the two laying on a bed together kissing and hugging. The US. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2003-00002) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female UNICOR employee and a male inmate at FCI Butner. The subject admitted writing "love letters" to an inmate. The 48 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 50 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject resigned her employment. (2003-01259) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female staff member and a male inmate at the Cibola County Correctional Facility. The subject admitted engaging in conversations of a sexual nature with the inmate and kissing him. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. A 15-day suspension was proposed by the contractor, but the subject?s employment was ultimately terminated after she was prohibited from having contact with federal offenders. (2003-01282) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female staff member and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The subject admitted spending time with and kissing the inmate in isolated areas of the facility. She denied having sexual relations with the inmate, as did the inmate. The 010 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2003?02131) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Food Service employee and a male inmate at FCI Victorville. The subject discussed a sexual encounter she had with a male employee with and in the presence of the inmate. Prosecution was not contemplated. No disciplinary action was taken. (2003-02989) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee working at a facility with an and a male inmate. The subject resigned. She initially provided a sworn statement to the GIG in which she denied any type of inappropriate involvement with an inmate. She later provided a statement in which she admitted engaging in approximately ten acts of hugging and kissing the inmate. The subject pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, 1001, False Statements, and was sentenced to three years probation. (2003-04073) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the California City Correctional Institution and a male inmate. The subject admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with the inmate following his release from custody. She denied having sexual intercourse with the inmate during his incarceration, but admitted to kissing him once. The subject resigned her employment. This matter was investigated by the DIG. The US. Attorney's Of?ce declined prosecution. (2003-04170) As of September 30, 2006, 7 allegations reported during Fiscal Year 2003 were still being investigated. 49 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 51 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Fiscal Year 2002 During Fiscal Year 2002, 197 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to OIA or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 197 allegations, 128 involved BOP employees, 49 involved staff working in contractlhalfway house facilities, 9 involved staff working in privatized facilities, 6 involved staff working in facilities with an IGA, and 4 involved contract staff working in BOP facilities. In addition, there was 1 allegation which involved an employee of the Texas National Guard, who allegedly engaged in sexual relations with an inmate from FPC Bryan on a janitorial work detail. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and female inmates (37 reported allegations), and Sexual Abuser?Sexual Abuse of a Ward between female staff and male inmates (34 reported allegations). As of September 30, 2006, 24 allegations of Sexual Abuse had been sustained (15 involved BOP employees, 4 involved staff working at contractihalfway house facilities, 3 involved staff working at facilities with an IGA, and 2 involved centract staff working in BOP facilities). - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Food Service employee at FMC Carswell and a female inmate. An DIG investigation revealed the subject 1) had sexual contact with several inmates; and 2) made false statements to the OIG in an affidavit in which he denied the sexual contact with these inmates. The subject resigned. He pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, 1001, Providing False Statements. No criminal charges were pursued with regard to the sexual abuse allegations. (2002-00418) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male staff member and a female inmate at Volunteers of America in Baltimore, Maryland. The subject admitted he had sexual relations with an inmate, which he claimed was consensual. The Baltimore County Police Department investigated the allegations and indicated they were not going to pursue the charges. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2002-00795) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at MDC Brooklyn. The subject resigned. He pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward, 18 USC, 2242(1), and one count of Providing False Statements, 18 USC, He was sentenced to ISL?months incarceration and 3-years supervised release. He currently is incarcerated at FCI Waseca. (2002-00794) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at Dublin. The Subject resigned. He was convicted of two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and one count of Providing a False Statement. He was sentenced to six! months incarceration and three-years supervised release. In addition, the subject will 50 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 52 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates serve three months in home detention with electronic monitoring and was ordered to register as a sex offender and provide a DNA sample. (2002?01428) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at MCC San Diego. The subject resigned. He pled guilty to Sexual Abuse of a Ward and was placed on one year of supervised probation. (2002-02345) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and several female inmates at FMC Carsweil. During an OIG investigation, the subject initially admitted having a sexual relationship with one inmate. He was re-interviewed and admitted having sexual intercourse with an additional five inmates. The subject resigned. He was sentenced to 24-months incarceration, 24?months probation, and fined $1,000. (200202816) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FCI Tallahassee. The subject resigned. He was convicted of Engaging in Sexual Acts with a Federal Offender and was sentenced to 24-months probation. (2002-03416) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male staff member and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The subject?s employment was terminated. He pled guilty to One coont of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and was sentenced to 24-months probation, to include 4-months home confinement. The subject was also ordered to pay a $1,000 fine. (2002?02411) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Florence. The subject and the inmate admitted to a sexual relationship which included acts of mutual masturbation, fondling of genitalia, and fellatio. The subject resigned. He pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of 21 Ward and was sentenced to one?year probation. (2002-02892) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member at Dismas House and a male inmate. The subject admitted she was involved in sexual relationships with two inmates. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her position. (2002?00152) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. The Subject?s employment was terminated. The subject admitted she was sexually involved with the inmate and entered into a pre-trial diversion program which she successfully completed on December 2, 2002. The charges against her have since been dismissed. (2002?00673) 51 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 53 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member and a male inmate at Volunteers of America in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The subject admitted she had sexual relations with an inmate. Both federal and state authorities declined prosecution. The subject resigned her position. (2002-01204) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female contract employee and a male inmate at FCI Waseca. The subject admitted she had sexual relations with an inmate. The US. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2002-02158) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member and a male inmate at Troy House in Durham, North Carolina. The subject admitted entering into a sexual relationship with an inmate on supervised release. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2002-02212) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Facilities employee at FMC Devens and a male inmate. The subject admitted having sexual relations with an inmate and providing the inmate with a cellular telephone. The subjeCt resigned. Due to the subject?s status as a single parent, the United States Attorney's Office declined to prosecute her for Sexual Abuse of a Ward (a conviction on such a charge could have subjected the subject to a designation as a sex offender and generated unintended parental custody consequences). Rather, she pled guilty to Smuggling Contraband and was sentenced to 6-months probation, a $500 ?ne, and mandatory mental health counseling. (2002-02264) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. During an 016 investigation, the subject admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with an inmate. Her employment was terminated. She entered into and successfully completed a pretrial diversion agreement, and the charge against her was dismissed. (2002-03066) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Religious Services employee and a male inmate at FMC Rochester. The subject admitted having sexual intercourse with the inmate and engaging in oral sex with him. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her position. (2002-03333) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Business Office employee and a male inmate at FCI Three Rivers. The subject resigned her position. She pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and was sentenced to time served and one?year supervised release. She was also ordered to register as a sex offender. (2002-03583) 52 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 54 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates - Abusive Sexual Contact between a female Health Services employee and a male inmate at FMC Rochester. The subject resigned her position. She was convicted of Engaging in Sexual Contact with a Ward and was sentenced to one-year probation. In addition, she must attend counseling. (2002-00846) - Abusive Sexual Contact between a female staff member and a male inmate at FCC Coleman (Low). The staff member admitted she hugged and kissed the inmate and engaged in ?heavy petting? with him in the staff bathroom. The staff member admitted they fondled each other's genitals, but she denied they engaged in oral sex or intercourse. The subject resigned her employment. The U.S. Attorney's Office declined prosecution. (2002-02504) - Abusive Sexual Contact between a female staff member and a male inmate at FPC Yankton. The subject admitted she hugged and kissed the inmate, and they caressed each others? buttocks. She also admitted she met the inmate at a bus station when he was furlough transferred from FPC Yankton. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her position. (2002?02794) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female staff member at FCI Sheridan and a male inmate. An inmate?s personal property was searched. Concealed in the property were three notes written by the inmate to the subject, and one note written by the subject to the inmate in which she expressed her love for him. The subject resigned her position. (2002-00124) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee at MCC New York and a male inmate. The subject made a sexually vulgar comment to the inmate?s visitor. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2002- 02223) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female contract employee and a male inmate at FCI Big Spring. The staff member admitted she kissed the inmate. Her contract with the BOP was terminated, and she was banned from entering institution grounds. (2002-03079) As of September 30, 2006, 3 allegations reported during Fiscal year 2002 were still being investigated. 53 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 55 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Fiscal Year 2001 During Fiscal Year 2001, 152 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to 01A er detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 152 allegations, involved BOP employees, 35 involved staff working in contractfhalfway house facilities, 4 involved staff working in privatized facilities, 1 invoived contract staff working in a BOP facility, and 1 involved a PHS employee working in a BOP facility. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward {?2242r?2243) between female staff and male inmates (33 reported allegations) and Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and female inmates (25 reported allegations). As of September 30, 2006, 23 allegations of Sexual Abuse had been sustained (13 involved BOP employees, 1 involved a contract employee working in a BOP facility, 8 involved staff working in contract/halfway house facilities, and 1 involved staff working in a privatized facility. - Aggravated Sexual Abuse between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FPC Bryan. The subject was sentenced to three-years probation, fined $2,500, required to register as a sex offender with the state of Texas and the federal government, and required to attend counseling. (2001-00852) - Sexual Abuse of 3 Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FDC Houston. The subject was sentenced to six-months imprisonment and required to register as a sex offender in any state in which he resides after his release from prison. He was also fined $1,000. (2001-00137) - Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a male employee at the Buffalo Halfway House and a female inmate. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2001-00295) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Food Service employee and a female inmate at FCC Coleman (Medium). The subject was sentenced to five-years probation. Further, the subject was ordered to participate in the Home Detention program for a period of six months, ordered to register with the state of Florida?s sexual offender agency, and ordered to participate in a mental health pregram specializing in the treatment of sexual offenders. (200100300) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male employee at Cornell Corrections and a female inmate. The subject admitted he engaged in oral sex with inmates. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2001-03201) 54 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 56 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Recreation employee and a female inmate at FCI Phoenix. The subject admitted having a one time sexual encounter with an inmate. The US. Attomey?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned. (2001-01982) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female contract staff member and a male inmate at FCC Beaumont. The subject entered into a plea agreement and was sentenced to two- years probation, a $1,000 fine, and a $10 special assessment. (200100022) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Food Service employee and a male inmate at FCC Beaumont. The subject was sentenced to lZO?days home con?nement, three-years probation, and a $25 special assessment. (2001-00181) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Butner. The subject pled guilty and was sentenced to one-year supervised probation, 120-days home detention, fined $2,500, and registered in the North Carolina Sex Offender Registration Program. (2001-00734) Sexual Abuse of an Inmate between a female employee at the Oklahoma Halfway House and a male inmate. The subject?s employment was terminated. The subject was granted pretrial diversion by the AUSA after she admitted she had sex with an inmate. According to the diversion agreement, the charges against the subject will be dismissed after six months if she completes the conditions of the agreement. (2001-00962) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Education and Vocational Training employee and a male inmate at FCI Elkton. The subject was sentenced to two-years probation and ordered to participate in a mental health program. (2001-01420) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The staff member admitted she had intercourse with an inmate en six occasions and orally copulated the inmate twice. She also admitted she brought the inmate money, alcohol, cologne, and jewelry. The subject?s employment was terminated. She pled guilty to introduction or possession of contraband in a prison and was placed on probation for one year. The inmate to whom the subject gave the money pled guilty to possession of contraband in prison and was sentenced to an additional six months in custody- (200101762) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The staff member admitted she had intercourse with and orally copulated an inmate. She also admitted she gave the inmate jewelry and cigarettes. The subject resigned. She pled guilty to introduction or possession of contraband in prison and was placed on probation for one year. (2001-01762) 55 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 5? of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female member of the Office and Staff and a male inmate at USP Florence. The subject resigned. She was convicted of two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and sentenced to four-months home confinement, five?years probation, and a $3,000 fine. (2001?02221) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Food Service employee and a male inmate at FCI Elkton. The investigation revealed the staff member had both intercourse and oral sex with the inmate on at least 20 occasions in the ?hot room? and ?cooler" of the Food Service warehouse. The staff member pled guilty to Engaging in Sexual Acts with an Inmate and was sentenced to one year of inactive probation and a $50 special assessment. (2001-02348) Sexual Abuse of 3 Ward between a female employee at the Cibola County Correctional Facility and a male inmate. The subject admitted to having sexual intercourse with an inmate on two occasions. The US. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2001-03204) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Unit Management employee and a male inmate at USP Florence. An 01G investigation sustained Sexual Abuse of a Ward, Introduction of Contraband, and Preferential Treatment of Inmatefs). The subject was sentenced to four?years probation, 100 hours community service, and a $2,400 fine, and was required to register as a sex offender. (2004-01748) Abusive Sexual Contact between a male employee at the Big Spring Correctional Center and a male inmate. The subject pled guilty to one count of Abusive Sexual Contact of a Ward. He was sentenced to five-years probation, ordered to register as a sex offender. and prohibited from seeking employment in corrections for a five-year period. (2001- 00221) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee at the Big Spring Correctional Center and a male inmate. The subject admitted she fondled an inmate's penis. The US. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2001?00329) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. The subject admitted she allowed an inmate to kiss her breasts and fondle her pubic area while she fondled his penis. The US. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. The subject's employment was terminated. (2001432090) 56 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 58 of 70 Sexual Abuse of Inmates - Abusive Sexual Contact between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Allenwood. The U.S. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. The subject resigned from the BOP. (2001-02720) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Food Service employee and a male inmate at FCI Jesup. The subject made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to the inmate. The subject received a written reprimand. (2001-00935) Unprofessiona] Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Business Office employee and a male inmate at FCI La Tuna. The subject engaged in conversations of a sexual nature with the inmate. The subject resigned. (2001-02313) As of September 30, 2006, 3 allegations reported during Fiscal Year 2001 were still being investigated. 57 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 59 of 70 Representative Case Summaries Failure to Follow Policy A Correctional Services employee allowed a local police officer to enter the institution?s visiting room with a firearm, ammunition, a stun gun, ammunition, and a cellular teiephone. The staff member stated sfhe failed to notice the equipment on the officer's person, and she failed to ask the officer if he had any such equipment on his person. Outcome: Failure to Follow Policy was sustained. The staff member was suspended for two days. (2006-03586) Inappropriate Relationship with an Inmate A Correctional Services employee was seen in the visiting room shaking hands with an inmate and his family members. The Correctional Services employee also hugged the inmate's father and spoke to him in the visiting room for ten to fifteen minutes. Outcome: Improper Contact with an lnmateflnmate?s Family was sustained. The staff member was suspended for one day. (2006-00997) Two Correctional Officers at a privatized facility reportedly developed a friendship with an inmate's sister during her visits to the facility. The inmates sister offered to bring the Correctional Officers food and gifts. The Correctional Officers shared personal information with the inmate?s sister and agreed to "party? with her following one of her visits. Outcome: InapprOpi-iate Contact with an Inmateflnmate's Family was sustained. The staff members' employment was terminated. (2006-01058) During a DHO Hearing for an inmate charged with Assaulting Any Person, the inmate stated a Facilities employee was "playing with him, and he was playing with the employee." The staff member admitted chasing the inmate in the kitchen area with icing from a cake and playfully kicking the inmate with hisfher foot. Outcome: Inappropriate Relationship with an Inmate was sustained. The staff member's employment was terminated during hisfher probationary period. (2006?02286) Giving Anything of Value to an Inmate A Health Services employee gave hisfher personal Bible to an inmate and suggested he read it. Outcome: Giving Anything of Value to an Inmate was sustained. The staff member was suspended for one day. (2006-01393) Accepting Anything of Value from an Inmate An employee at a contractfhalfway house facility hired an inmate to install tinting on the windows at hisfher residence. While the employee paid the inmate for the services provided, it is 58 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 60 of 70 Representative Case Summaries inappropriate for a staff member to engage in a business relationship with an inmate. Outcome: Accepting Anything of Value from an Inmate was sustained. The employee was snapended and provided additional ethics training. (2006-01236) Misuse of a Government ComputerfUnprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature A Computer Services employee received an e-mail from a Correctional Services employee which included sexually?explicit photographs of women. The Correctional Services employee also forwarded the e?mail to ten other staff. Two of these employees (Correctional Services employees) forwarded to e-mail to others. Outcome: Misuse of a Government Computer and Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature were sustained against all three staff. One was suspended for four days, and the other two were suspended for one day. (2006-00776) Unprofessioual Conduct A Correctional Services employee wrote notes such as, "Go to gun store," "Go to confession." "See ?Put sight in weapons," and "Go to work." on various dates on a desktop calendar, then posted the calendar on a unit bulletin board. The staff member stated he intended it as a joke. Outcome: Unprofessional Conduct was sustained. The staff member was suspended for five days. (2006-00144) A Food Services employee called another staff member a "f**king jerk off." Outcome: Unprofessiona] Conduct was sustained. The staff member received a written reprimand. Inattention to DutyfFailure to Properly Supervise Inmates While conducting rounds, a Lieutenant found the door to the Food Service dry storage area unlocked, and two inmates were inside. A Food Service employee stated sihe was conducting a trash run and retrieving "hot trash" from the dry storage and freezer areas. The inmate crew exited the area, and the Food Service employee locked the freezer but forgot to lock the dry storage area. Outcome: Inattention to Duty and Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates was sustained. The employee was suspended for one day. (2006?01070) AWOLfProviding False Information A PHS employee was deployed to Eglin, Florida, to assist following Hurricane Katrina. The employee contacted hislher immediate supervisor and reported sfhe was in Mississippi, and hisfher deployment would likely be extended. The employee was supposed to return to hisfher regular work assignment on September 17, 2006, but did not return until September 23. 2006.. PHS staff in the Central Office advised that the employee had left Mississippi on September 17, 59 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 61 of 70 ReEresentative Case Summaries 2006, and hisfher whereabouts until September 23, 2006, were unknown. Outcome: AWOL and Providing False Information were sustained. The employee received a written reprimand. (2006? 00580) 60 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 62 of 70 Significant Prosecutions Following are brief summaries of some of the significant or noteworthy prosecutions which were completed during Fiscal Year 2006. The individuals referenced are no longer employed by the BOP. During an 016 investigation, a Correctional Services employee admitted she accepted $1,000 from an inmate's family member in exchange for delivering marijuana to the inmate. The staff member was convicted of Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Marijuana, Possession of Marijuana, Conspiracy to Provide Contraband in Prison, and Providing Contraband in Prison. She was sentenced to 72-months incarceration and 3?years supervised release. (2003-03847) - An inmate alleged a Correctional Services employee introduced marijuana, cellular telephones, and eight to ten bottles of alcohol into the institution fer inmates. Following an OIG investigation, the staff member was found guilty of Bribery and sentenced to months and 1?day incarceration, 3-years supervised release, and a $15,000 fine. (2004- 00230) - An inmate was found in possession of a cellular telephone. He stated he had developed a personal relationship with a Correctional Services employee, and she had been communicating with him via the cellular telephone for approximately eight months. The staff member was convicted of Providing or Possessing Contraband in Prison and sentenced to 46-months incarceration, 3~years supervised release, and a $100 fine. (2005- 00832) - An inmate alleged a Correctional Services employee accepted a $500 payment in exchange for bringing food and clothing items into the institution for the inmate. A second inmate alleged the staff member brought marijuana into the institution for an inmate. Following a joint OIG and FBI investigation the staff member and his spouse were convicted of Conspiracy to Bribe a Public Official. The staff member was sentenced to five-years probation with the condition that he participate in a home confinement program for six menths. (2001-00045) - A Facilities employee made a "dummy" procurement for approximately $30,000 worth of metal camera brackets for a camera installation project at the institution. The items were allegedly purchased from a company owned by a close friend of the employee. The brackets never arrived at the institution and were believed to have been lost in shipment. Replacement brackets were manufactured by inmates for a fraction of the original cost. Following an OIG investigation, the employee was convicted of Embezzlement and sentenced to one-year incarceration and $93,730 in restitution. (2003-03241) 61 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 63 of 70 Significant Prosecutions - A Facilities employee was susoected of introducing tobacco into the institution. When he arrived at the institution, he was escorted to the SIS office and his lunch box was searched. Twelve pouches of Bulger tobacco were recovered. The employee stated and inmate?s brother paid him $100 for each bag of tobacco he introduced. The employee was convicted of Providing or Possessing Contraband in Prison. He was sentenced to one- year unsupervised probation and a $1,000 fine. (2004-01954) - A con?dential informant advised an FBI agent that a Recreation employee was introducing narcotics into the institution. An undercover FBI agent delivered one pound of marijuana and three ounces of crack cocaine to the employee. The employee pled guilty to one count of Bribery of a Public Official. He was sentenced to four-months home confinement, one-year probation, and a $5,000 fine. (2005-01043) - An OIG audit revealed that on five occasions a Unit Management employee received reimbursement from both the and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) for union-related travel. The employee fraudulently certified on these five vouchers that payment or credit was not received, and she was subsequently reimbursed $4,341.25 by the DOJ. During the course of the OlG's investigation, they learned of an ongoing investigation by the US. Department of Labor concerning the employees use of AFGE funds for personal expenses. The ensuing joint investigation revealed evidence the employee used approximately $29,700 in AFGE funds for personal expenses. The subject was convicted of Making a Material False Statement. She was sentenced to two-years incarceration and three-years supervised release. In addition, she was ordered to pay $4,341.25 in restitution to the BOP and $22,866.81 restitution to the AFGE. (2005-01174) An Employee's Club President reported that the Employee's Club lost an estimated $15,000 on vending operations during a period when a Business Office employee collected money from the machines. An Accountant reviewed records and found a significant increase in the number of purchases from the vending machines and a signi?cant decrease in profits. The review also showed that deposits were lower during the months the Business Of?ce employee was responsible for collecting and depositing money. The employee was convicted of one count of Embezzlernent. She was sentenced to 36-months probation, $3,000 restitution, and a $500 fine. (2005-04290) 62 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 64 of 70 Type of Misconduct Category.r1 Abuse of Inmates Physical Abuse of Inmates Life Threatening Serious Inj ury MinorISlight Injury MinorfNo Injury - Harassment uper?elal Excessive Use of Force Restraint Related Threatening an InmateNet-bal Abuse 2 Use of Profanity 3 Retaliation 2 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Aggravated Sexual Abuse - ?224l ?224l - Male Stal??Female Inmate I - Male StaffiMale Inmate - Female Staffi'Female Inmate I ?224l Female StaffiMale Inmate I ?2241 - Unknown StaffiFemale Inmate I ?2241 Unknown StaffiMale Inmate 1 Sexual Ab useJSex ual Abuse of :1 Ward 1 ?2242f2243 - Male Staffz?FemaIe Inmate 1 - Male Inmate I - Female Smf?'Female Inmate I ?2242i2243 Female Staf?'Male Inmate 1 ?224212243 Unknown StaffiFemale Inmate I ?2242i2243 Unknown Inmate 1 Abusive Sexual Contact - ?2244 63 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 65 of 70 {Tanager},Fl Type of Misconduct ?2244 - Male Sta?IFemalc Inmate 1 {$2244 - Male Staf?rl?Maie Inmate ?2244 - Female Inmate ?2244 - Female Inmate I ?2244 - Unknown Inmate I ?2244 - Unknown Inmate I Unprofcssional Conduct of a Sexual Nature 2 UCSN Male StafftFemale Inmate 2 UCSN - Male Inmate 2 UCSN - Female Inmate 2 UCSN - Female Staf??Male Inmate 2 UCSN Unknown Inmate 2 UCSN - Unknown StaffiMaie Inmate 2 Introduction of Contraband Soft Item Introduction I or 2 Weapons Introducri on 1 Escape Paraphernalia Introduction 1 Money Introduction 1 Marijuana Introduction 1 Heroin 8.: Derivatives Introduction I Cocaine Introduction 1 Other Unspeci?ed Drugs Introduction 1 Alcoholic Beverages Introduction I or 2 Unauthorized Electronic Device Introduction I or 2 CreatinefWeightlifting Supplement Introduction Cigarettesi'l?obacco 64 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 66 of 70 Categtzujt1 Type of Misconduct Discrimination Discrimination or 2 Fiscal Improprieties Time and Attendance Irregularities 2 Abuse of Sick Leave 3 Voocher Falsi?cation Thefthisuse of Government Funds ($100) 1 or 2 Thefu?Misuse of Government Property 1 or 2 Misuse ofGovernment Computers 2 Improper Procurement Procedures 2 Failure to Pay Government Charge Card 3 Misuse of Travel Charge Card ($1,000) 2 or 3 Misuse of Purchase Charge Card ($1,000) 2 or 3 Thefthisuse of Employee Club Funds 2 Thefv'Misuse ot?AFGEfUnion Funds 2 Theft of Inmate Funds 1 TherDestruction of Inmate Property 2 Thefthisuse of Contractor Funds 1 or 2 Theftr?Misuse of Contractor Property or 2 Failure to Account for Inmate FundsJ'Property 2 Theft of Employee Fundsr?Property or 2 Misuse of UNICOR Resources 1 or Zoia Bribery ribery Conspiracy to Commit Bribery 65 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 6? of 70 Type of Misconduct Categoryl Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates Solicitingl'Accepting Anything of 1v?alue 2 Offerinngiving Anything of Value 2 Improper Contact with an lnmateflnmate's Family 2 Appearance of an Inappropriate Relationship 2 Misuse of Inmate Labor 2 Preferential Treatment of Inmates 2 Investigative Violations Concealing a Material Fact 1 or 2 Refusing to Cooperate or 2 Lying During an Investigation 1 or 2 Providing a False Statement 1 or 2 Altering/Destroying EvidenoefDoouments Refusing to Submit to a Search 1 or 2 Interfering withz?lmpeding an Investigation 1 or 2 Advising Someone to Violate Policy or 2 Conducting an Unauthorized Investigation 1 Lack of Candor or 2 Personnel Prohibitions Employees 1 0r 2 Failure to Report Violation of Rules/Regulations or 2 Falsi?eation of Employment Records 2 Misuse of Of?cial PositionfBadge 2 Inappropriate Supervison'Subordinate Relationship 2 Engaging in Prohibited Personnel Practices 2 User?Ahuse 2 or 3 Absent Without Leave 3 Retaliation 2 66 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 68 of 70 Type of Misconduct Category? Unauthorized Release of Iniormation Unauthorized Release of lnfonnation or 2 Violation of FOUPrivacy Acts 1 or 2 Other On-Dnty Misconduct Use of Profanity 3 Unprofessiona] Conduct ofa Sexual Nature 1, 2, or 3 lnattention to Duty 3 Failure to Respond to an Emergency 3 Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates 3 Breach of Security 2 or 3 Breach of Computer Security 2 or 3 Falsification of Documents 1 Unprofessional Conduct 3 Failure to Follow Policy 3 of Gambling 2 Endangering the Safety of an Inmate 2 Endangering the Safety of Others 2 Providing False Information Other Than During 3 an Of?cial Investigation lnsubot?dination 3 Accidental Discharge of a Firearm 3 Solicitingz?Sale of Goods on Government Property 3 Job Favoritism 3 Workplace Violence 1 or 2 Failure to Meet Performance Standards 2 Failure to Follow Supervisor?s Instructions 3 Fraudulent Workers? Compensation Claims 1 Conduct Unbecoming a Management Of?cial 2 67 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 69 of 70 Type of Misconduct Category" Off-Dutyr Misconduct Arrest and Conviction 2 or 3 Failure to Report Arrest 3 Failure to Pay Just Debts 3 Failure to Obtain Outside Employment Approval 3 DWUDUI 3 Domestic Violence 2 Traf?c Citation 3 Carrying an UnregisteredfConoealed Firearm 2 Disereditable Behavior 3 Falsi?cation of Recordstocuments 3 Other Citation (Hunting, etc.) 3 Con?ict of Interest 3 l. The category provided is a guideline- Any allegation may be elevated to a different category. 68 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 70 of 70 US. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons Washington, DC. Of?ce of Internal Affairs Report for Fiscal Year 2007 SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed BOP FOIA 2016-0171610f86 Table of Contents Executive Summary of Findings 1 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct 3 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations 5 Reported Misconduct. 7 Closed/Sustained Misconduct. 10 Physical Abuse of Inmates. 21 Introduction of Contraband 25 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 33 Representative Case Summaries 71 Signi?cant Prosecutions 7?4 Appendices 76 SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed BOP FOIA 2016-01716 2 of 86 Executive Summary of Findings - There was an 8 percent increase in the number of cases opened in Fiscal Year 2007 as compared with Fiscal Year 200 6. There was no signi?cant change in the rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees between Fiscal Year 2006 and Fiscal Year 2007. - The largest increase occurred in cases categorized as Classi?cation 3 offenses (allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations)--a 13.3 percent increase over those cases opened in Fiscal Year 2006. - The most frequently reported type of misconduct in Fiscal Year 2006 was Other On-Duty Misconduct (particularly that which was unrelated to inmates). Unprofessional Conduct and Abuse of Inmates placed second and third, respectively. . The only categories of reported misconduct which showed an increase from Fiscal Year 2006 were Bribery, Introduction of Contraband, Breach of Security, Inattention to Duty, and Unprofessional Conduct. The most signi?cant decreases occurred in the categories of Discrimination, Investigative Violations, and Fiscal Improprieties. - During Fiscal Year 2007, 9 cases involving Patriot Act Violations were opened. As of September 30, 2007, 7 cases remained open pending investigation or awaiting disciplinary action, and 2 cases were closed. No misconduct was sustained in either of the closed cases. - As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 24.5 percent of the 5,344 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2007. Of the 24.5 percent, 26.7 percent had a sustained decision, a rate of .9 employees per 100 total BOP staff. - The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2007, was Off-Duty Misconduct, followed closely by Personnel Prohibitions and Fiscal Improprieties. . The sustained rate of misconduct thus far in Fiscal Year 2007 among female BOP employees (1 employee per 100 total female BOP staff) was higher than that among male BOP employees (.9 employees per 100 total male BOP staff). - The most frequently sustained category of misconduct for female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2007, was Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates, while the most frequently sustained category of misconduct for male BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2007, was Off?Duty Misconduct. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 1 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 3 0f 86 Executive Summa of Findin 5 For those BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2007, the rate was equal among non?bargaining unit employees and bargaining unit employees (.9 employees per 100 total staff in that group). - For those subjects with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2007, the most frequently sustained category of misconduct for staff working in privatized facilities was Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates. . Three allegations of Physical Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2007 have been sustained to date?-1 resulted in minor/slight injury to the inmate, and 2 resulted in minor/ no injury (harassment) to the inmate. The allegation resulting in - Fourteen allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported during Fiscal Year 20 0? have been sustained to date: 4 involved the introduction of soft contraband, 5 involved the introduction of unauthorized electronics devices, and 5 involved the introduction of tobacco. None of the fourteen individuals involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband were convicted of SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 2 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 4 0f 86 Re ortin Incidents of Misconduct Staff Reporting In accordance with the Bureau?s Standards of Employee Conduct, staff who become aware of any violation or alleged violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct must report them to the Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO), the Of?ce of Internal Affairs (OLA), or to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Of?ce of the Inspector General (01G). The OIG has established a toll?free hotline (1-800-869?4499) which is available to anyone wishing to report DOJ employees? misconduct, as well as fraud, waste, or abuse in government. All Bureau staff are encouraged to use the OIG hotline if they wish to remain anonymous or fear retaliation or reprisal. To report violations directly to the OLA Central Of?ce call [202) 307?3286) or fax (202) 514?8625). CEO Reporting Upon becoming aware of any possible violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct (either through a report from staff or through personal knowledge], the CEO at the Regional Of?ce, or Central Of?ce Division, or his or her designee, is to report the violation to the OIA in accordance with the following time frames. rules, regulations, or law that, if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution, but constitute serious misconduct. Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases must be reperted telephonically to the OIA immediately. Include: - the identity of the complainant(s), subjectis], witness and victim(s); . the details of the allegation(s); and - any corroborating evidence. Written noti?cation to the 01A will be made within 24 hours [not to include weekends and holidays) of the time management learns of the matter. Referral to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FED/Other Law Enforcement Agencies. When it is suSpected that criminal conduct has occurred, the CEO may refer the matter directly to the OIA and to the local simultaneously. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 3 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 5 of 86 Re ortin Incidents of Misconduct Initial Information. A Referral of Incident form (BF-3715.012) is used to organize the information to be provided in the telephonic reporting of cases listed in subsection of this section [for contract employees use form The subject of the allegation or complaint must not be questioned or interviewed prior to the OIG clearance and the approval. This is to ensure against procedural error and safeguard the rights of the subject. Supporting Documentation. A Referral of Incident form (BP-S715.ola) and all supporting documentation, such as victim or witness statements, medical reports, photos, and related memoranda, must be transmitted via facsimile to the CIA at {202) 514-8625 immediately, but not later than 24 hours, after the telephonic report. If an inmate alleges physical or sexual abuse by a staff member and has not received a medical examination, the CEO must arrange an immediate, con?dential medical examination and forward a copy of the results to the CIA as soon as possible. CEOs must notify the CIA before initiating investigations involving any misconduct alleged against management staff occupying or above positions. The CIA will coordinate further action with the DIG. Unless the CEO and the Chief of the CIA agree to a different method, ordinarily, investigations involving Classi?cation 3 cases are to be conducted using local resources. Classi?cation 3 cases are de?ned as allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations. Ordinarily, Chief Executive Of?cers (CEOs) can proceed with local investigations on classi?cation 3 misconduct allegations for staff occupying bargaining unit or (is?12 and below non-bargaining unit positions without ?rst obtaining 01A approval. When a Classi?cation 3 investigation is initiated, facilities will immediately complete a Referral of Incident form (BF-3713012) and forward it, in WordPerfect format, to the CIA resource box Internal Affairs~. The subject of the e?mail should state Classi?cation 3 Referral and the facility mnemonic (cg, Classi?cation 3 Referral - BUX). Only the Referral of Incident form (BP-8715.012J should be forwarded [no predicating information should be forwarded at that time). A signed copy of the Referral of Incident form (BP-8715.ola) and the predicating information should be retained in the local investigative ?le. When a Classi?cation 3 case is complex and would result in severe disciplinary or adverse action, the procedures for reporting Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases should be followed. Contact the CIA immediately if there is any question as to the classi?cation of the misconduct. It is important to note that while case classifications are many times based on limited information, as an investigation unfolds, the severity of misconduct may increase or decrease, thereby moving it into another classi?cation. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 4 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 6 of 86 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations For all local staff misconduct investigations completed on or after January 1, 200 7, the investigator must forward the complete investigative packet directly to the 01A for approval prior to forwarding it to the CEO for action. These procedures apply to all local staff misconduct investigations in which BOP employees are the subject (Classi?cation 1, 2, and 3 allegations), regardless of whether any misconduct will be sustained. ?Where to Send Local Investigative Packets Local investigative packets should be sent via e-mail to the 01A GroupWise mailbox Internal Affairs-Local Investigative Packets~" [not to be confused with main resource mailbox, Internal To ensure local investigative packets are reviewed by the 01A in a timely manner, they should not be sent to any individual 01A staff member or to any OLit ?eld of?ce. The subject of your e?mail message should include the BIA case number and the facility mnemonic code 2007-00001-BUX). Format for Local Investigative Packets and What to Send Local investigative packets should include the investigative report [signed by the investigator) and all supporting documentation (af?davits, memorandums, video ?les, etc). Complete investigative packets must be forwarded; the Summary of Investigation for Classi?cation 3 Cases form (BF-8716.012) is no longer applicable and should not be used. Documents must be scanned in .pdf format (Adobe Acrobat). Do not send documents in other formats .tif ?les, .wpd ?les). Each document should be scanned as a separate document and named by ?rst identifying the document and than providing the name of the individual to whom it relates. Photo images and graphic images may be forwarded in .jpg or .gif format. For example: Report.pdf Af?davit-Fred ones.pdf Af?daidt-Jessica ohnsonpdf Pictures-Freddy Inmatejpg Af?davit ?les should include the Warning and Assurance to Employee Required to Provide Information (BF-194), if applicable, and the signed Oath for each individual. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 5 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 7 of 86 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations The investigative packet should not include national policy or any documents not speci?cally related to the investigation staff rosters, inmate SENTRY information, etc). Time Guidelines For Classi?cation 1 or 2 allegations, local investigations should be completed and the investigative packet forwarded to the 01A within 120 calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the 01A. For classi?cation 3 allegations, local investigations should be completed and the investigative packet forwarded to the UTA prior to any disciplinary action being taken and within 120 calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the CEO. Once received, the CIA will complete their review of the local investigative packet within ten business days. The investigator will be advised to whether the investigative packet is approved or if additional information is needed. This information will be sent via e?mail to the investigator with a copy to the CEO. If additional information is needed, the investigator should forward the additional information to the OLA within 30 calendar days, who will again notify the investigator and the CEO if the packet is approved. Once approved, the investigator should forward the investigative packet to the CEO for appropriate action with all Review of Local Investigative Packet forms applicable to that packet attached. No disciplinary proceedings or other noti?cations to subjects should occur prior to the approval of the investigative packet. Reports from 01A The 01A will no longer send the CEO a quarterly report of all open local staff misconduct investigations. Rather, we will send a report of all local staff misconduct investigations which have extended past established time frames. should continue to work with the monitoring agent assigned to their facility for guidance and to provide updates on outstanding matters. Statistics Since implementation of this program on January 1, 2007, the 01A has reviewed over 3,000 local staff misconduct investigations. Over 1,000 of these investigations were found to be de?cient at least once and returned for further investigation. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 6 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 8 0f 86 Reported Misconduct NOTES The number of subjects exceeds the number of cases throughout this report as some cases have multiple subjects. Also, some subjects may be charged with multiple types of misconduct in a single case, causing the number of allegations to be higher. Finally, individual employees may be subjects in more than one case. Due to the dynamic nature of the CIA database, figures in this report are subject to change. During the course of an investigation, evidence may indicate circumstances other than those initially reported, causing data to be added, deleted, andfor changes. There is no nexus between reported and sustained allegations. Allegations referred to as "Inmate Related? included some type of inmate involvement, while allegations referred to as "Non Inmate Related? occurred in. the workplace but did not include inmate involvement. For a complete list of the types of misconduct included in each category, please reference the Appendices section of this report. All allegations of misconduct received by the OLA are referred to the OIG for review and classi?cation. The OIG determines which matters they will accept for investigation and possible criminal prosecution and defers other matters to the 01A for investigation. 01A coordinates with the 01G and ,f or the FBI when investigations may lead to criminal prosecution or when there are allegations involving the abuse of an individual?s Constitutional rights under Color of Law. For those matters deferred for investigation, the OLA determines, after consulting with BOP management of?cials, whether an on-site investigation is warranted or if the matter can be investigated at the local institution level. Allegations categorized as Classi?cation 3 offenses are referred to the OIG via computer extract on a basis. During Fiscal Year 2007, the 01A opened 4,640 cases involving 5,344 BOP employees, 30 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 51 Public Health Service (PHS) employees working in BOP facilities, 254 contract/halfway house employees, and 187 employees working in privatized facilities. These 4,640 cases represent an 8 percent increase over the 4,293 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2006. There was no signi?cant change in the rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees between Fiscal Year 2006 and Fiscal Year 2007 {15 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2006 and 14.9 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2007, a decrease of .6 percent]. The 4,640 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2007 were classi?ed as follows: Classi?cation 1,184 Ciassi?cation 1,337 Classi?cation 3 2,119 SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 3" BOP FOIA 2016-01716 9 of 86 Reported Misconduct The largest increase occurred in cases categorized as Classi?cation 3 offenses--a 13.3 percent increase over those cases opened in Fiscal Year 2006. Classi?cation 1 cases showed an increase-of 11.4 percent, and Classi?cation 2 cases showed a decrease of 1.7 percent. Table 1 provides a breakdown of those types of misconduct reported during Fiscal Year 2007. The onl).r categories of reported misconduct which showed an increase from Fiscal Year 2006 were Bribery {a 39.3 percent increase), Introduction of Contraband (a 16.6 percent increase), Breach of Security {a 10.4 percent increase), Inattention to Duty 6.4 percent increase), and Unprofessional Conduct (a .5 percent increase). The most signi?cant decreases occurred in the categories of Discrimination (a 41.4 percent decrease), Investigative Violations (a 37.6 percent decrease), and Fiscal Improptieties (a 12.6 percent decrease). Table 1: Types of Reported Misconduct - FY2007 Number of Reported Allegations Type of Misconduct inmate on 96 Change Related ate TOTAL from Related FY 2006 Other tin-Duty Misconduct 416 783 1204 -7.3 Unprofessional Conduct 451 483 934 .5 Abuse of Inmates B22 822 ?7.7 Introduction of Contraband 600 80 630 16.6 Personnel Prohibitions 624 56 680 -2.3 Fistnl lmproprieties 63 593 656 ?12.l5 Off-Duty Misconduct 580 530 -5.8 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 577 577 -3.5 Failure to Follow Policy 337 189 526 "7.6 lnattention to Duty 308 155 463 6.4 Breach of t?wetnirit}r 297 95 392 10.4 Sexual Aimee of Inmates 319 :3 19 ?5.3 Bribery 222 1 223 39.3 Unauthorized Release of Information 31 30 111 -7.5 Investigative Violations 10 1 101 -37.6 Discrimination 19 5 24 -41.4 SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 8 BOP FOIA 2016-0171610 0f 86 Reported Misconduct USA Patriot Act In the USA Patriot Act, Congress expressed concern about the potential abuse of individual civil rights and liberties by DOJ employees in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the Patriot Act mandated that the OIG widely advertise that it receives and investigates allegations of such abuses. Patriot Act violations include violence, discrimination, or threats on the part of a DOJ employee, particularly when such cases are directed toward individuals or groups associated in the public perception with acts of terrorism because of their religious beliefs, place of birth, or appearance. Patriot Act allegations which typically come to our attention are alleged mistreatment or unprofessional behavior of BOP staff toward/ around certain inmates, their visitors, or members of the public. Due to the sensitivity of these allegations, they are automatically classi?ed as Classi?cation 2 or higher offenses; they should be forwarded immediately to the 01A. All Patriot Act violation allegations are then referred to a Special Operations Unit at DIG Headquarters devoted to reviewing and investigating such misconduct. During Fiscal Year 2007, 9 cases involving Patriot Act violations were opened. As of September 30, 2007, 7 cases remained open pending investigation or awaiting disciplinary action, and 2 cases were closed. No misconduct was sustained in either of the closed cases. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 9 BOP FOIA 2016-01716110f86 Misconduct NOTES All ?gures in this section relate to cases which were opened during the speci?ed Fiscal Year, which were closed as of September 30, 2007. Figures are subject to change as additional cases are closed. Please refer to the appendices section of this report for the types of misconduct sustained against BOP employees as of September so, 2007, for Fiscal Year 2006. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made on 1,264 (27.2 percent) of the 4,640 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2007. The remaining 3,376 cases (72.7 percent) were still open and being investigated. Of the 1,264 cases closed, the majority (1,131 or 89.4 percent) were investigated at the institution level with authorization and monitoring provided by the OLA. 0f the 1,264 cases closed, 61 were 01A on?site investigations (4.8 percent), 71 were investigated by the 01G (5.6 percent), and 1 was investigated by the FBI (.08 percent). Of the 1,264 cases closed, 417 (32.9 percent) were sustained. Misconduct was sustained against 352 BOP employees, 3 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 4 PHS employees working in BOP facilities, 40 contract/ halfway house employees, and 49 employees working in privatized facilities. BOP Employees There were 5,344 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2007. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 24.5 percent of those employees. 0f the 24.5 percent (or 1,314 employees) 26.7 percent (352) had a sustained decision (a rate of .9 employees per 100 total BOP staff). 0f the 5,344 BOP employees for whom a case was opened in Fiscal Year 2007, 194 were unidenti?ed. Table 2 (on the following page) re?ects the categories of sustained allegations for BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2007. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Off-Duty Misconduct, followed closely by Personnel Prohibitions and Fiscal Improprieties. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 10 BOP FOIA 2016-0171612 0f 86 ClosedKSustained Misconduct Table 2: Types Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY son? with 24.5 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct light: ?Elli?? C?s-Due mm Off?Duty Misconduct 63 63 Personnel Prohibitions 59 3 6 2 Fiscal Improprielies 2 59 61 Other [Jo-Duty Misconduct 4 49 53 Unprofessional Conduct 5 30 35 Inappropriatekelationships with Inmates so 30 Breach of Security 26 4 30 Inattention to Duty 13 16 29 Failure to Follow Policy.r 13 10 Abuse of Inmates 9 9 Introduction of Contraband 6 3 9 Investigative Violations 6 6 Bribery 2 2 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 2 2 Unauthorized Release of Information 1 1 2 Discrimination - Disciplinary Action Taken Once a subject is investigated and the allegations are sustained, the type of disciplinary action taken is left to the deciding of?cial, who is generally the Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO). Each case is unique, and there are varying degrees of seriousness within each type of misconduct. Also, a single subject may be charged with multiple types of misconduct. The Douglas Factors must he considered when deciding the appropriate penalty to impose on employees for misconduct. The Douglas Factors are an accumulation of historic Civil Service practices and procedures in cases involving civil servant misconduct, created by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in the seminal Douglas case. In Douglas, the MSPB announced a non?exhaustive list of 12 factors which the BOP, like all federal agencies, SBU - Sensitive But Unclassified 11 BOP FOIA 2016-0171613 of 86 Closed:Sustained Misconduct must consider in determining appropriate penalties to impose in employee misconduct. The Douglas Factors are as follows: 1. the nature and seriousness of the offense; 2. the employee?s job level and type of employment; 3. the employee?s disciplinary record; 4. the employee?s past work record, including length of service and duty performance; 5. the effect of the offense on the employee?s ability to perform and its effect on the supervisor?s con?dence in such ability; 6. the consistency of the penalty with penalties imposed upon others for like or similar misconduct; 7. the consistency of the penalty with the table of penalties (Program Statement 3240.09, Standards of Employee Conduct]; 8. the notoriety of the offense or its impact on the reputation; 9. the clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules violated or warned about the conduct in question; to. the employee?s potential for rehabilitation; 11. any and all mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense job stress tension, personality problems, mental impairment, harassment or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of others involved); 12. The adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions. The CEO is required to consider only those Douglas Factors which are relevant to any individual case and need not consider all the Douglas Factors in every case. In many cases, some of the Douglas Factors may suggest one penalty while others suggest another penaltychose the appropriate penalty. The following actions were taken against (or by) those BOP employees with a sustained decision. Oral Reprimand 15 Written Reprimand 100 SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 12 BOP FOIA 2016-0171614 of 86 ClosedZSustainc-d Misconduct Suspension 68 Reassignment 3 Retirement. 6 Resignation 51 Termination. 18 Combined with Action in Another OLA Matter 4 Other Signi?cant Log Entry) 1 No Action Taken 86 The types of misconduct most frequently sustained against those individuals for whom no disciplinary action was taken were Traf?c Citations (29.2 percent), Unprofessional Conduct (12.1 percent), Misuse of Travel Charge Card (8 percent), and Failure to Follow Policy (8 percent]. - Gender There were 4,049 male BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2007. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 24.2 percent of those 4,049 male employees. Of the 24.2 percent (or 983 mt?e employees), 25.3 percent (249) had a sustained decision (a rate of .9 employees per 100 total male BOP staff). There were 1,101 female BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2007. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 25.7 percent of those 1,101 female employees. Of the 25.7 percent (or 284 female employees), 36.2 percent (103) had a sustained decision (a rate of 1 employee per 100 total female BOP staff). Tables 3 and 4 (on the following pages) reflect the categories of sustained allegations for male and female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2007. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct for male staff was Off-Duty Misconduct (16.8 percent of all sustained misconduct by male staff), while. the most frequently sustained category of misconduct for female staff was Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates (13.4 percent of all sustained misconduct by female staff). SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 13 BOP FOIA 2016-0171615 0f 86 ClosedZSustained Misconduct Table 3: 'I?ypes of Sustained Misconductfor Male BOP Employees - FY 2007 with 34.2 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type 11123113: ?Em? Off-Duty TOTAL 95 of'l?otal' Off?Duty Misconduct so so 16.8 Fiscal 47 4? 15.8 Personnel Prohibitions 44 3 47 15.8 Other {Jo?Duty Misconduct 3 36 39 13-1 Breach of Security 20 4 24 8.0 Unprofessional Conduct 3 18 21 no lnatten?on to Duty 6 13 19 6.3 Failure to Follow Policy 10 3 13 6.0 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 14 14 Introduction of Contraband 5 2 2-3 Abuse of Inmates 4 4 Investigative Violations 4 4 1.3 Bribery 2 2 .6 Unauthorized Release of Information 1 1 '3 Sexual Abuse oflnmutes CI 0 ID Discrimination 1These items highlighted in red occurred with greater frequency among male staff than among female staff. SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 14 BOP FOIA 2016-0171616 of 86 Closed: Sustained Misconduct Table 4: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Female BOP Employees - FY 2007 with 25.7 Percent Closed umber of Sustained Allegations we ?immondud 11111133 N?h?m D?-Duty TOTAL 15 ofTotaP Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 16 16 13.4 Personnel Prohibitions 15 15 12.6 Other Oil-Duty Misconduct 1 13 14 11.7 Unprofessional Conduct 2 12 14 11.7 Pineal Improprieties 2 12 14 11.7 Off?Duty Misconduct 13 13 10.9 Inattention to Duty 5' 3 10 8.4 Breach of Security 6 IIS 5.0 Abuse of Inmates 5 5 4.2 Failure to Follow Policy 3 2 5 4.2 Investigative Violations 2 2 1.15 Sexual Abuse of inmates 2 2 1.6 introduction of Contraband 1 1 2 Unauthorized Release of Infomation 1 1 Discrimination Briberyr 1Those items highlighted in red occurred with greater frequencyr among female staff than among male staff. SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 15 BOP FOIA 2016-0171617 of 86 ClosedZSustained Misconduct - Job Discipline As of September 30, 2006, 352 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2007 had a sustained decision. Table 5 re?ects the rate of misconduct among the various job disciplines. Table 5: Discipline of BOP Employees with Sustained Misconduct - FY 2007 with 24.5 Percent Closed Number of Discipline Em??igt?e?fth Total Employees To?f?g?e?w Misconduct Religious Services 5 304 1.6 Health ServicesfSafety 32 2,402 1.3 5 Recreation 9 693 1.2 . Human Resources 5 433 1.1 Food Services 18 1,535 1.1 UNICOR 15 1.353 1.1 Correctional Services 183 15.366 1.1 Education and Vocational Training 9 934 .9 Unit Management 25 3,060 .3 Business O?ce 14 1,6157.r .8 CED's Of?ce and Staff 7' 92'? -7 Mechanical Services 18 2,3573 .7 Community Corrections 1 165 .6 Staff Training CenterstIC 1 143 .6 Inmate Services 1 193 .5 Remrds?nmate Systems 4 988 .4 Services 3 931 ?3 Central O?ee 2 1,224 .1 Computer Services The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among staff working in Religious Services was Improper Contact With an Inmate Inmate?s Family (28.5 percent of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group). Other types of sustained misconduct were Unauthorized Release of Information, Breach of Security, Failure to Follow Policy, Failure to Follow Supervisor?s Instructions, and Traf?c Citation (14.2 percent each of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group). The most 16 SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed BOP FOIA 2016-0171618 0f 86 Closed?Sustained Misconduct frequently sustained types of misconduct among Health Services Safety staff were Unprofessional Conduct, Misuse of Travel Charge Card, and Absent Without Leave (15.1 percent each of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group). Other types of sustained misconduct included Failure to Follow Supervisor?s Instructions (12.1 percent of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group) and Breach of Security (9 percent of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group). . Bargaining vs. Non-Bargaining Unit Staff There were 4,036 employees in the bargaining unit identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal year 2007. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 24.4 percent of those 4,036 bargaining unit employees. Of the 24.4 percent (or 988 bargaining unit employees), 30 percent (or 297 bargaining unit employees) had a sustained decision (a rate of .9 employees per 100 total bargaining unit employees). There were 1,114 non-bargaining unit employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2007. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 25 percent of those 1,114 non?bargaining unit employees. Of the 25 percent (or 279 non-bargaining unit employees), 19.7 percent [or 55 non?bargaining unit employees) had a sustained decision [a rate of .9 employees per 100 total non-bargaining unit employees). Contract/ Halfway House Employees There were 254 contract /halfway house employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2007. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 52.7 percent of those 254 employees. of the 52.7 percent (or 134 employees), 29.8 percent [40) had a sustained decision. It is signi?cant to note that an administrative disposition was recorded for 51.4 percent of those employees for whom a decision had been made, indicating the employee either resigned or was terminated prior to an investigation being conducted. Thus, the 29.8 percent sustained rate is likely an extremely conservative ?gure. Table 6 (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against contract/hal?vay house employees. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct was InapprOpriate Relationships With Inmates, which made up 55 percent of all sustained misconduct among this group. SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed BOP FOIA 2016-0171619 of 86 ClosedZSustained Misconduct Table 6: Type: of Sustained Misconduct for Contractf?elfway House Employees - FY 2006 with 52.7 Percent (nosed Number of Sustained Allegations Type ofMisoonduct Inmate Nun Inmate Off-Duty TOTAL Related Related Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 22 22 Briberj,r 4 4 Personnel Prohibitions 3 1 Other Gun-Duty Misconduct 1 2 3 Off-Duty Misconduct 3 3 Violations 2 2 Fiscal Improprieties 1 I Introduction ofContraband 0 1 Abuse of Inmates 0 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Discrimination Unauthorized Release of Information 0 lnattention to Duty 0 Breach of Security 0 Unprofessional Conduct 0 0 Failure to Follow Policy Staff in Privatized Facilities There were 187 employees working in privatized facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2007. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 49.7 percent of those 187 employees. 0f the 49.7 percent (or 93 employees), 52.6 percent (49] had a sustained decision. Table 7 (on the following page) provides a breakdoum of the types of misconduct sustained against employees working in privatized facilities. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct was Relationships With Inmates, which made up 28.7 percent of all sustained misconduct among staff in this group. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 18 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 20 of 86 Closed?Sustained Misconduct Table 7: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Priva?zed Facilities FY 2110'? with 49.7 Percent [dosed Number of Sustained Allegati one Time ofMiscondnet Inmate Non Inmate Related Related Dal?Duty TOTAL Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 21 21 Personnel Prohibitions 10 in Other Dir?Duly Misconduct 3 6 Investigative Violations 5 6 Abuse of Inmates 6- 6 Unprofessional Conduct 2 4 6 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 5 5 to Duty 3 1 4 Introduction of Contraband 1 1 2 Failure to Follow Policy 1 1 2 Unauthorised Release of Information 1 1 Fiscal Improprieties 1 1 Discrimination Bribery Breach of Security 0 0 0 Off-Duty Misconduct Contract Employees Working in BOP Facilities There were 30 contract staff working in BOP facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2007. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 33.3 percent of those 30 contract employees. Of the 33.3 percent (or 10 contract employees], 30 percent (3) had a sustained decision. Two allegations of Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates were sustained, and one allegation each of Introduction of Contraband and On-Duty Misconduct were sustained. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 19 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 21 0f 86 ClosedZSustained Misconduct PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities Of the 646 PHS staff working in BOP facilities, 51 were identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2007 {or 7.8 per 100 PHS employees]. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 33.3 percent of those 51 PHS employees. Of the 33.3 percent (or 17 PHS employees), 23.5 percent (4) had a sustained decision, for a sustained rate of .6 per 100 PHS employees. Table 8: Types of Sustained Misconduct for PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities FY 2007 with 33.3 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type Of Misconduct Inmate Non Inmate Related Related TOTAL OH- D1113.I Misconduct 1 1 Introduction of Contraband 1 1 Unproiessionai Conduct 0 1 1 Breach of Security 1 '1 Other On-Duty Misconduct 0 1 1 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 1 1 Personnel Prohibitions 1 0 1 Abuse of Inmates 0 0 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 0 0 Discrimination 0 Fiscal Improprietiea 0 0 on Bribery 0 Investigative Violations 0 0 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 0 Inattention to Duty 0 0 0 Failure to Follow Folio}r SBU - Sensitive Bur Unclassi?ed 20 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 22 0f 86 Physical Abuse of Inmates Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 13 - Civil Rights ?241 Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in dnguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured They shall be ?ned not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life. ?242 Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or life. . Fiscal Year 2007 During Fiscal year 2007, 473 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 36.9 percent (or 175) of those allegations. Physical Abuse allegations are tracked by the degree of injury sustained by the inmate(s) -?life threatening injury, serious injury, minor/ slight injury, minor/no injury (harassment), and super?cial injury (injuries associated with the normal use of restraints). Three allegations of Physical Abuse were sustained: 1 resulted in minor/ slight injury to the inmate, and 2 resulted in minor/no injury (harassment) to the inmate. The allegation resulting in minorf slight injury to the inmate involved an employee at a privatized facility. The two allegations resulting in minor/no injury (harassment) to the SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 21 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 23 0f 86 Physical Abuse of Inmates inmates involved female BOP employees. None of these individuals were convicted of criminal violations. . Fiscal Year 2006 During Fiscal Year 2006, 573 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to the OLA or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 73.6 percent (or 422) of those allegations. Twenty-?ve allegations of Physical Abuse were sustained: 1 resulted in serious injury to the inmate (?rst degree burns), 8 resulted in minor/ slight injury to the inmate, and 16 resulted in minor] no injury (harassment) to the inmate. The allegation resulting in serious injury to the inmate involved a male BOP employee. Six of the 8 allegations resulting in minor/ slight injury to the inmate involved male BOP employees, and 2 involved employees at privatized facilities. Fifteen of the 16 allegations resulting in minor /no injury (harassment) to the inmate involved male BOP employees and, 1 involved an employee at a privatized facility. None of these individuals were convicted of criminal violations. Fiscal Year 2005 During Fiscal Year 2005, 464 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 87.7 percent (or 407) of those allegations. 'IWenty?three allegations of Physical Abuse were sustained: 3 resulted in minor/ slight injury to the inmate, 19 resulted in minor/no injury (harassment) to the inmate, and 1 resulted in super?cial injury to the inmate. The 3 allegations resulting in minor/ slight injury to the inmate involved male BOP employees. Twelve of the 19 allegations resulting in minor/ no injury (harassment) to the inmate involved male BOP employees, 3 involved female BOP employees, and 4 involved employees at privatized facilities. The allegation resulting in super?cial injury to the inmate involved a male BOP employee. None of these individuals were convicted of criminal violations. - Fiscal Year 2004 During Fiscal Year 2004, 363 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to the OLA or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 95.8 percent (or 348) of those allegations. Twentyuseven allegations of Physical Abuse were sustained: 7 resulted in minor/ slight injury to the inmate, 19 resulted in minor/ no injury (harassment) to the inmate, and 1 resulted in super?cial injury to the inmate. Six of the 7 allegations resulting in SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 22 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 24 0f 86 Physical Abuse of Inmates minor/ slight injury to the inmate involved male BOP employees, and 1 involved a female BOP employee. Sixteen of the 19 allegations resulting in minor/ no injury (harassment) to the inmate involved male BOP employees, 1 involved a female BOP employee, and 2 involved staff in contract/halfway house facilities. The allegation resulting in super?cial injury to the inmate involved a male BOP employee. None of these individuals were convicted of criminal violations. - Fiscal Year 2003 During Fiscal Year 2003, 379 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to the OIA or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 93.6 percent (or 355) of those allegations. Thirteen allegations of Physical Abuse were sustained: 1 resulted in serious injury to the inmate, 8 resulted in minor/ slight injury to the inmate, 3 resulted in minor/no injury (harassment) to the inmate, and 1 resulted in super?cial injury to the inmate. The allegation resulting in serious injury to the inmate involved a male BOP employee. Six of the 8 allegations resulting in minor/slight injury to the inmate involved male BOP employees, and 2 involved contract/ halfway house employees. Two of the 3 allegations resulting in minor,? no injury (harassment) to the inmate involved male BOP employees, and 1 involved a female BOP employee. The allegation resulting in super?cial injury to the inmate involved a male BOP employee. None of these individuals were convicted of criminal violations. - Fiscal Year 2002 During Fiscal Year 2002, 374 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 99.7 percent (or 373) of those allegations. Thirteen allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were sustained: 5 resulted in minor/slight injury to the inmate, 7 resulted in minor/ no injury (harassment) to the inmate, and 1 resulted in super?cial injury to the inmate. Four of the 5 allegations which resulted in minor/slight injury to the inmate involved male BOP employees, and 1 involved a female BOP employee. Six of the 7 allegations resulting in minor/ no injury (harassment) to the inmate involved male BOP employees, and 1 involved an employee at a privatized facility. The allegation resulting in super?cial injury to the inmate involved a male BOP employee. None of these individuals were convicted of criminal violations. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassified 23 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 25 of 86 Pthical Abuse of Inmates - Fiscal Year 2001 During Fiscal Year 20 01, 347 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. A decision has been made for all of those allegations. Sixteen allegations of Physical Abuse were sustained: 8 resulted in minor/ slight injury to the inmate, and 8 resulted in minor/no injury (harassment) to the inmate. of these matters involved male BOP employees. None of these individuals were convicted of criminal violations. SBU Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 24 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 26 of 86 Introduction of Contraband Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 87 - Prisons ?1791 Providing or possessing contraband in prison Offense. -Whoever- (1) In violation of a statute or a rule or order issued under a statute, provides to an inmate of a prison a prohibited object, or attempts to do so; or (2) being an inmate of a prison, makes, possesses, or obtains, or attempts to make or obtain, a prohibited object; shall be punished as provided in subsection of this section. Punishment-The punishment for an offense under this section is a ?ne under this title or- imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; (2) imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; (3) imprisonment for no more than 5 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; (4) imprisonment for no more than one year, or both, if the object is Speci?ed in subsection or of this section; and (5) imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section. Any punishment imposed under subsection for a violation of this section by an inmate of a prison shall be consecutive to the sentence being served by such inmate at the time the inmate commits such violation. De?nitions-As used in this section- 1) the term ?prohibited object? means- (A) a ?rearm or destructive device; (B) ammunition, a weapon (other than a ?rearm or destructive device), or an object that is designed or intended to be used as a weapon or to facilitate escape from a prison; a narcotic drug, lysergic acid diethylamide, or (D) a controlled substance (other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph of this subsection) or an alcoholic beverage; SBU .. Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 25 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 2? of 86 Introduction of Contraband (E) any United States or foreign currency; and (F) any other obj eet that threatens the order, discipline, or security of a prison, or the life, health, or safety of an individual; (2) the terms ?ammunition, ??rearm,? and ?destructive device? have, respectively, the meanings given these terms in section 921 of this title; the terms ?controlled substance? and ?narcotic drug? have, respectively, the meanings given these terms in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act [21 U.S.C. 802); and (4) the term ?prison? means a Federal correctional, detention, or penal facility. 3? . Fiscal Year 2007 During Fiscal Year 2007, 679 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 22.5 percent (or 153) of these allegations. Fourteen allegations of Introduction of Contraband have been sustained to date: Type of Contraband Jnmate Related 52:33? Soft Item 3 1 Unauthorized Electronics Device 1 4 Tabasco 5 0 Fourteen individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Seven of these individuals were male BOP employees, 2 were female BOP employees, 2 were employees working in privatized facilities, 1 was a PBS employee working in a BOP facility, 1 was a contract employee working in a BOP facility, and 1 was a contract/hal?vay house employee. None of these individuals were convicted of criminal violations. - Fiscal Year 2006 During Fiscal Year 2006, 586 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 53.5 percent (or 314) of these allegations. inety~?ve allegations of Introduction of Contraband have been sustained to date: SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 26 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 28 0f 86 Introduction of Contraband Type of Contraband Inmate Related h?tgl??ggte Soft Item 23 Weapons 1 Money 1 0 Marijuana 5 Heroin 8; Derivatives 2 Other Unspeci?ed Drugs 3 0 Alcoholic Beverages 1 1 Unauthorized Electronics MOE 16 Creatine?veightli?ing Supplements 3 0 Tobacco 18 Seventy?one individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Thirty-?ve of these individuals were male BOP employees, 16 were female BOP employees, 9 were employees working at facilities with an IGA, 6 were employees working in privatized facilities, 3 were contract employees working in BOP facilities, 1 was a PHS employee working in a BOP facility, and 1 was a contract/halfway house employee. Fourteen individuals involved in the Introduction of Contraband were convicted of criminal violations: 4 male BOP employees, 3 female BOP employees, 3 employees working at facilities with an IGA, 2 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 1 employee working at a privatized facility, and 1 contract/hal?vay house employee. - Fiscal Year 2005 During Fiscal Year 2005, 446 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 82.5 percent (or 368) of those allegations. One hundred four allegations of Introduction of Contraband have been sustained to date: SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed BOP FOIA 2016-01716 29 of 86 Introduction of Contraband "Hype of Contraband Inmate Related Nl?i?re Soft Item 50 3 Weapons 1 5 Money 1 Marijuana 6 Heroin Derivatives 2 Cocaine 1 0 Other Unspeci?ed Drugs 3 1 Alcoholic Beverages 2 Unauthorized Electronics Device 7 13 CreatinefWeigh?ift-ing Supplements 5 0 Tobacco 2 Eighty?eight individuals were involved in' the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Fifty-three of these individuals were male BOP employees, 25 were female BOP employees, 4 were employees working at facilities with an IGA, 3 were employees working at privatized facilities, and 3 were contract employees working in BOP facilities. Eleven individuals involved in the Introduction of Contraband were convicted of criminal violations: 6 male BOP employees and 5 female BOP employees. 0 Fiscal Year 2004 During Fiscal Year 2004, 352 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 93.7 percent (or 33 0) of these allegations. Ninety allegations of Introduction of Contraband have been sustained to date: SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 28 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 30 0f 86 Introduction of Contraband r? Type of Contraband Inmate Related N?g?te Soft Item 39 7 Weapons 4 2 Money 1 0 Marijuana 10 1 Heroin E: De?wnws 1 Other Unspeci?ed Drugs 2 Alooholie Beverages 4 1 Unauthorized Elech?onies Device 3 5 CreatinefWeigh?if?ng Supplements 5 0 reported or detected dunng the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made for 97.5 percent {or 312) of those allegations. Seventy-six allegations of Introduction of Contraband were sustained to date: SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 29 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 31 of 86 Introduction of Contraband Type of Contraband Inmate Related Nigell?zlgte Soft Item 36 11 Marijuana 6 Heroin 3r. Derivatives 2 Cocaine 5 Other Unspeci?ed Drugs 5 Alcoholic Beverages 0 1 Unauthorized Electronics Device 4 (kea?ne?veightlif?ng Supplements Seventy-one individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Forty-two of these individuals were male BOP employees, 16 were female BOP employees, 5 were employees working at privatized facilities, 4 were employees working at facilities with an IGA, 2 were PHS employees working at BOP facilities, and 2 were contract employees working at BOP facilities. Ten individuals involved in the Introduction of Contraband were convicted of criminal violations: 6 male BOP employees, 2 female BOP employees, 1 employee working at a privatized facility, and 1 employee working at a facility with an IGA. - Fiscal Year 2002 During Fiscal Year 2002, 199 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported to the OLA or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made 100 percent of those allegations. Forty? nine allegations of Introduction of Contraband were sustained: SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 30 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 32 of 86 Introduction of Contraband Type of Contraband Inmate Related ??18133? Soft Item 13 Weapon 1 Marijuana 4 Heroin E: Derivatives 2 Cocaine 2 Other Unspeci?ed Drugs 6 Alcoholic Beverages 4 1 Unauthorized Electronics Device 3 CreatinefWeiglJ?ifting Supplements orty?six individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Twenty?six of these individuals were male BOP employees, 9 were female BOP employees, 4 were contract/halfway house employees, 3 were employees working at facilities with privatized facilities, 2 were employees working at facilities with an IGA, and 2 were contract employees working in BOP facilities. Twelve individuals involved in the Introduction of Contraband were convicted of criminal violations: 7 male BOP employees, 2 female BOP employees, 2 employees working at privatized facilities, and 1 employee working at a facility with an IGA. - Fiscal Year 2001 During Fiscal Year 2001, 196 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2007, a decision had been made 97*.4 percent (or 191) of these allegations. Fifty allegations of Introduction of Contraband were sustained: SBU - Sensitive But Unclassified 31 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 33 of 86 Introduction of Contraband of Contraband Inmate Related N?lal?gte Su? Item 22 Weapon 1 Money 2 Marijuana 7 Heroin 81 Derivatives 1 Cocaine 4 Other Unspeci?ed Drugs 2 Alcoholic Beverages Forty-eight individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Twenty-nine of these individuals were male BOP employees, 8 were employees working in a facility with an IGA, 7 were female BOP employees, 3 were employees working at privatized facilities, and 1 was a contract employee working at a BOP facility. Rm? SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 32 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 34 of 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 109A - Sexual Abuse ?2241 Aggravated Sexual Abuse By force or threat. - Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act - (1) by using force against that other person, or (2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. By other means. Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or (2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby (A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and (B) engages in a sexual act with that other person; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. ?2242 Sexual Abuse Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly - (1) causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping}; or (2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is - (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 33 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 35 of 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates or attempts to do so shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. ?2243 Sexual Abuse of a Ward Of a ward - Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who is - in of?cial detention; and under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so engaging; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both. ?2244 Abusive Sexual Contact Sexual contact in circumstances where sexual acts are punished by this chapter. Whoever in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so to do would violate section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; section 2242 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than three years, or both; (4) subsection of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both. In Other Circumstances. - Whoever, in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without that other person?s permission shall be ?ned not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than six months, or both. 2246 De?nitions (1) the term ?prison? means a correctional, detention, or penal facility; (2) the term ?sexual act? means - SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 34 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 36 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for the purposes of this subparagraph, contact involved the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus; or (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening by another by a hand or ?nger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; and (3) the term ?sexual contact? means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (4) the term ?serious bodily injury? means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious dis?gurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. (5) the term ?official detention? means - (A) detention by a Federal of?cer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal of?cer or employee, following arrest for an offense; following surrender in lieu of an arrest for an offense; following a charge or conviction of an offense, or an allegation or ?nding of juvenile delinquency; following commitment as a material witness; following civil commitment in lieu of criminal proceedings or pending resumption of criminal proceedings that are being held in abcyance, or pending extradition, deportation, or exclusion; or (B) custody by a Federal of?cer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal Of?cer or employee, for purposes incident to any detention described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, including transportation, medical diagnosis or treatment, court appearance, work, and recreation; but does not include supervision or under control (other than custody during speci?ed hours or days) after release on bail, probation, or parole, or after release following a juvenile delinquency. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 35 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 3? of 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates - Fiscal Year 2007 During the period October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007, 316 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. These 316 allegations involved 229 BOP employees, 51 contract/halfway house employees, 25 staff working in privatized facilities, 8 contract staff working in BOP facilities, and 3 PHS staff working in BOP facilities. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Sexual Abuse/ Sexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242f2243) between female staff and male inmates (68 reported allegations} and Unprofessionai Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and male inmates (58 reported allegations). As of September 30, 2007, 7 allegations of Sexual Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2007 had been sustained (2 involving BOP employees and 5 involving staff working in privatized facilities]. . Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and - Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee at the McRae Correctional Facility and a male inmate. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The investigation concluded the subject allowed the inmate to kiss her and to grab her buttocks. She also admitted giving the inmate her personal cell phone number and accepting calls from him. The subject resigned her employment. (2007-00608) . Abusive Sexual Contact between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at USP Hazelton. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted she allowed the inmate to fondle her buttocks on three occasions. She also admitted providing the inmate with her personal cell phone number, writing him personal letters, and giving him a watch. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce in the Northern District of West Virginia declined prosecution in this matter. The subject resigned her employment. (2007?00853) SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 36 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 38 of 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates - Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee at the Big Spring Correctional Center and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During video surveillance of a staff of?ce, the subject was shown to be spending an inordinate amount of time with the inmate. She also allowed him to hug and kiss her and fondle her breasts. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2007-0 252 6) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Cibola County Correctional Center and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject provided a handwritten statement in which she admitted allowing the inmate to kiss her. The subject resigned her employment. (2007-00500) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Giles W. Darby Correctional Facility and a male inmate. An inmate alleged the subject introduced marijuana into the institution. During an OIG investigation the subject denied introducing any type of contraband into the facility. She did, however, admit kissing an inmate and accepting telephone calls from him. The subject resigned her employment. [2007-00651] - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Cibola County Correctional Center and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted she allowed the inmate to poke her in the crotch with the rod from a foosball table. She stated she ?jokes with the inmates all the time.? The subject was suspended for ?ve days. (2007-01621) As of September 30, 2007, 202 allegations reported or detected during Fiscal Year 2007 were still under investigation. . Fiscal Year 2006 During the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006, 339 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to the OIA or detected during the course of an investigation. These 339 allegations involved 248 BOP employees, 61 contract/halfway house employees, 12 staff working in a facility with an IGA, 9 staff working in privatized facilities, 7' contract staff working in BOP facilities, and 2 PHS staff working in BOP facilities. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Sexual Abuse/ Sexual Abuse Of a Ward [?2242/2243) between female staff and male inmates (84 reported allegations) and Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and male inmates (60 reported allegations). SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 37 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 39 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates As of September 30, 2006, 22 allegations of Sexual Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2006 had been sustained (10 involving BOP employees, 5 involving staff in facilities with an IGA, 2 involving staff in privatized facilities, 3 involving contract staff working in a BOP facility, and 2 involving contract /halfway house staff). The type of allegation sustained with the most frequency was Sexual Abus Sexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242/2243] between female staff and male inmates (11 sustained allegations]. Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Facilities employee and a female inmate at FCI Dublin. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted having sexual intercourse with the inmate on numerous occasions. He also admitted providing her with contraband such as cigarettes, thong underwear, candy, and letters. Pursuant to an information ?led in the Northern District of California, the subject pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, ?2243(b), Sexual Abuse of a Ward. He was sentenced to one year of probation and ordered to pay a $10,000 ?ne. The subject resigned his employment. (2006?00922) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male contract employee (subcontractor) and a female inmate at FCC Coleman. During an 01G investigation the inmate admitted having sexual intercourse with the subject. Telephone records and monitored calls revealed the inmate contacted the subject on his cell phone on 85 different occasions. During some of these calls they discussed her possibly being pregnant and options for aborting the pregnancy. In addition, the subject placed monies in the inmate?s account on at least four occasions. The US. Attorney? Office declined prosecution in this matter, partly because the subject was not a DOJ employee. The subject?s employer was noti?ed he would no longer be allowed to work on FCC Coleman property. (2006?01195) Sexual Abuse of 3 Ward between a male employee at a contract/ halfway house and a female inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The allegations were referred to the Spokane County Sheriff?s Department, who initiated an investigation. The subject admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with the inmate. He pled guilty to First Degree Custodial Misconduct and was sentenced to six-months incarceration and twelve-months supervision. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2006?01388) Sexual Abuse of 3. Ward between a female Unit Management employee and a male inmate at FCI esup. The OIG was able to capture a recorded telephone call between the subject and the inmate which established that a sexual relationship existed between them. In addition, the inmate provided pictures of himself with the subject at the airport on the day of his release. The U.S. Attorney? 5 Of?ce SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 38 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 40 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates declined prosecution in this matter. The subject resigned her employment. [2006-oo389) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Education 8: Vocational Training employee and a male inmate at FCC Florence. During an DIG investigation the subject admitted having sexual relations with the inmate on ten occasions and being impregnated by him. Additional evidence was developed which indicated the subject used the SENTRY database on several occasions to further her relationship with the inmate. The subject pled guilty in the US. District Court in Denver, Colorado, to one count of Sexual Abuse of an Inmate. She was sentenced to two-months home con?nement, four~months probation, and ordered to pay costs associated with the home confinement. The subject resigned her employment. (aoo??oo413) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Education Vocational Training employee and a male inmate at FCC Butner. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted having sexual intercourse with the inmate on two occasions. She resigned her employment. (2006-00954) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Unit Management employee and a male inmate at CI Seagoville. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted developing a personal relationship with the inmate while he was incarcerated at FCI Seagoville. She also admitted having sexual intercourse with him on several occasions following his release to a halfway house. The subject also admitted providing a radio to another inmate. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce for the Northern District of Texas declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2006-01231) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Education 82: Vocational Training employee and two male inmates at FCI Fort Dix. During an DIG investigation the subject admitting having sexual intercourse with the inmates. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce for the District of New Jersey declined prosecution, stating the matter lacked substantial jury appeal. The subject resigned her employment. (2006-01541) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. During an DIG investigation the subject admitted she engaged in sexual intercourse with the inmate. She also admitted accepting money from the inmate?s family and purchasing CDs and food for the inmate. The subject was convicted of Sexual Abuse of a Ward (18 USC, ?2243] SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 39 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 41 of 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates and was sentenced to fiveuyears probation. She resigned her employment. (2006-02053) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female contract Teacher and a male inmate at FCI Fairton. During an DIG investigation the subject admitted she engaged in a three-year relationship with the inmate in which he provided her with sex in exchange for contraband (sunglasses, pornographic magazines, cigarettes, etc). The US. Attorney?s Of?ce for District of New Jersey declined prosecution because there was insuf?cient evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. The subjects employment was terminated. [2006~02109) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Manchester. During an 01G investigation the inmate victim stated he and the subject had ?unprotected sex in several forms,? and she provided him with a cellular telephone so they could talk regularly when she was not working. The subject refused to be interviewed. The US Attorney?s Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky declined prosecution in this matter. The subject resigned her employment. (2006-02261) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a contract X-Ray Technician and a male inmate at FCC Florence. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted having sexual relations with the inmate on at least ?ve occasions. The subject also admitted introducing several packs of cigarettes for the inmate. The subject was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for Sexual Abuse of an Inmate. She pled guilty to misdemeanor introduction of contraband and was sentenced to four-months unsupervised probation and ordered to pay a $500 ?ne. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2006?03415) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the McRae Correctional Facility and a male inmate. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitting have sexual relations with the inmate and introducing contraband items (cellular telephones, radios, and food) for him in exchange for cash payments totaling $1,000. The subject?s employment was terminated. [2006-03748] Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Unit Management employee and a male inmate at FCC Petersburg. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted having sexual intercourse with the inmate on at least ten occasions. She also admitted introducing various food items into the institution for the inmate. The subject was indicted by a Grand Jury in the Eastern District of Virginia and charged with one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward (18 USC, ?2243(b)). The SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 4o BOP FOIA 2016-01716 42 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates subject pled guilty and was sentenced to two?years probation and ?ned $2,000. The subject resigned her employment. (2006?03956) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female Unit Management employee and a male inmate at FCI Gilmer. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted rubbing the inmate?s penis through his clothing and allowing him to touch her breasts and vagina through her clothing. The subject resigned her employment. (2006-00901) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted she sexually fondled the inmate through his clothing. The subject also admitted introducing a cellular telephone, a CD player, and sundry items into the facility for him. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution in this matter because Reeves County Detention Center staff obtained a compelled statement from the subject (permission to interview the subject was given by the The subject resigned her employment. (2006-02045) Abusive Sexual Contact between a male Food Services employee and a female inmate at FMC Carswell. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted he digitally penetrated the subject?s vagina during her incarceration and planned to engage in sexual intercourse with her upon her release. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce for the Northern District of Texas declined prosecution in this matter. The subject resigned his employment. (2006-02876) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Eden Detention Center and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. Another staff member saw the inmate with his arms around the subject and kissing her in a freezer. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2006-00461) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female contract/halfway house employee and a male inmate. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted hugging and kissing the inmate and providing him with cigarettes. The subject also admitted engaging in sexual relations with the inmate following his release from the halfway house. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce for the District of Connecticut declined prosecution in this matter. The subject?s employment was terminated. {2006?00853} Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Big Spring Correctional Center and a male inmate. During an 01G investigation the SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 41 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 43 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates subject admitted she allowed the inmate to kiss her. The subject and inmate both denied having any sexual contact. Since there was no evidence of criminal behavior, this matter was not presented for prosecutorial consideration. The subject's employment was terminated. (2006-00982) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Big Spring Correctional Center and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted she kissed the inmate. The subject resigned her employment. (2006-02444) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center and two male inmates. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted she kissed one inmate and professed her love for him. She also admitted having a similar relationship with another inmate. The subject resigned her employment. (2006?02540) As of September 30, 20 07, 87 allegations reported or detected during Fiscal Year 2o06 were still under investigation. - Fiscal Year- 2005 During Fiscal Year 2005, 285 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to the OLA or detected during the course of an investigation. 0f the 285 allegations, 214 involved BOP employees, 45 involved contract halfway house employees, 18 involved staff working in a facility with an IGA, 4 involved contract staff working in BOP facilities, and 4 involved staff working in privatized facilities. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Sexual Abuse)f Sexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242/ 2243) between female staff and male inmates (70 reported allegations) and Abusive Sexual Contact between male staff and male inmates (38 reported allegations). As of September 30, 2007, 30 allegations of Sexual Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2005 had been sustained (2o involving BOP employees, 3 involving contract/halfway house employees, 3 involving employees at privatized facilities, 2 involving employees at facilities with an IGA, and 2 involving contract employees working at BOP facilities). The type of allegation sustained with the most frequency involved Sexual Abuse/ Sexual Abuse of 2 Ward (?2242/2243) between female staff and male inmates (13 sustained allegations). - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Business Of?ce employee and four female inmates at FDC Philadelphia. During an OIG investigation the subject SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 42 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 44 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates admitted having sexual relations with four inmates. The subject resigned. He pled guilty to two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and one count of Sexual Contact with a Ward. He was sentenced to 4?months incarceration, 3-years supervised release, and 200 hours of community service, and ?ned $1,500. (2005?00118) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and female inmates at FMC During an GIG investigation, the subject admitted engaging in sexual acts with at least four inmates. He also admitted he smuggled contraband into the institution for inmates and lied to investigators. The subject entered into a agreement, was convicted of Sexual Abuse of a Ward, and sentenced to 12-months incarceration and 12-months supervised probation and ?ned $3,000. (2005-01427) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male employee at a contract/ halfway house facility and a female inmate. The DIS deferred this matter to the BOP for administran've resolution. During the investigation the subject admitted he was involved in a sexual relationship with the inmate. He also reported the Facility Director was aware of the relationship. The Facility Director admitted he was aware of the relationship and failed to report the matter or take appropriate action. Both staff resigned their employment. (2005-01785) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male employee at a contract/halfway house facility and a female inmate. During an OIG investigation the subject initially denied having sexual contact with the inmate. When confronted with DNA evidence, however, the subject admitted engaging in ?consensua sex with the inmate. He was convicted of Providing a False Statement and sentenced to ?ve? years probation, 18o?days home con?nement, and 100 hours of community service. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2005-02359) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male employee at a contract! halfway house facility and a female inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The victim was not a federal offender. The subject pled guilty to one count of Institutional Sexual Abuse, a felony in the state of The subject was sentenced to five-years probation. His employment was terminated. (2005-02954) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and two female inmates at FDC Miami. An OIG investigation found the subject engaged in sexual contact with an inmate approximately 12 times during her incarceration. The subject was arrested by the FBI pursuant to an indictment for violation of 18 SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 43 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 45 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates USC 2243(b), Sexual Abuse of a Ward, involving another female inmate. The 01G did not participate in that investigation. The subject pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward, and the government agreed not to ?le charges for the additional counts. He was sentenced to 364?days incarceration. (2005-03344) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Facilities employee and a female inmate at FPC Alderson. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted having sexual intercourse with the inmate on two separate occasions. In a subsequent criminal information ?led in the US. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, the subject was charged with a one count violation of 18 USC, ?2243(b). The subject was sentenced to six-months incarceration and one year of supervised release. The subject resigned his employment. (2005-03979) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male contract X?Ray Technician and two male inmates at FCI Fairton. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted having sexual relations with the inmates. The sUbject was found guilty of two counts Sexual Acts With a Ward and sentenced to 10-months incarceration. The subject?s contract was terminated. (2005?01040) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female contract employee and a male inmate at FCI Seagoville. During an OIG investigation the subject stated she attempted to have sexual intercourse with the inmate in a locked restroom. However, due to the constricting size of the restroom, the inmate orally copulated her. The US. Attorney? 5 Of?ce for the Northern District of Texas declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2005-00012) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Oxford. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted having a sexual relationship with the inmate and introducing food and body building supplements into the institution for him. The subject pled guilty to Sexual Abuse of an Ward and was sentenced to g-months incarceration, 1-year of supervised release, and a $2,000 ?ne. She was also required to register as a sex offender with the state of Wisconsin and to repay the court for the cost of her court?appointed attorney. The subject?s employment was terminated. [2005- 01328) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at MCC New York. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation the subject admitted she orally copulatcd the inmate on several occasions. She also admitted introducing SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 44 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 46 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates contraband into the institution for him. The subject resigned her employment. (2005-01344) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the McRae Correctional Facility and a male inmate. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted she engaged in repeated acts of sexual intercourse and oral sex with the inmate. She also admitted there were three occasions when she brought small amounts of marijuana into the institution for him. The Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, declined prosecution in this matter, stating there was no indication the sexual acts were coerced. (2005-01348) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI La Tuna. During an OIG investigation the subject initially denied having sexual relations with the inmate. After being confronted with telephone records, she admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with the inmate in a staff bathroom in a housing unit. She stated the inmate did not wear a condom, and he could be the father of her unborn child. The staff member also admitted she continued to have sexual contact with the inmate following his release. The subject pled guilty to Sexual Abuse of a Ward and False Statements. She was sentenced to one-year probation for the Sexual Abuse and four-years probation for the False Statements. The subject resigned her employment. (2005-01737) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the McRae Correctional Facility and male inmates. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation the subject admitted she performed oral sex on two inmates. Her employment was terminated. {2005- 02119) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Unit Management employee and a male inmate at FCC Coleman. During an OIG investigation the subject initially denied have a sexual relationship with the inmate. She later admitted engaging in sexual contact with him for several months and introducing contraband into the facility for him. The subject pled guilty to Knowingly and Intentionally Providing Contraband to a Federal Prisoner. She entered into a plea agreement which details that she admitted having an inappropriate relationship with an inmate. The subject was sentenced to three-years probation and 15o-hours of community service. She resigned her employment. (2005-03251) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Business Of?ce employee and a male inmate at FCI Otisville. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 45 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 4? of 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates engaging in sexual intercourse with the inmate. The US. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2005-03608) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female UNICOR employee and a male inmate at FCI Oxford. An OIG investigation developed suf?cient information that the subject had a sexual relationship with the inmate and accepted money in exchange for introducing contraband into the facility for him. The US. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2005-03619) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Health Services employee and a male inmate at FMC Devens. During an OI investigation the subject admitted having sexual relations with the inmate. The U.S. Attorney? Of?ce for the District of Massachusetts declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. [2005-037'6o] Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Waseca. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted kissing and touching the inmate on at least ten occasions. The subject stated the inmate placed his ?nger in her vagina a few times, and she touched his penis. The US Attorney?s Of?ce, District of Minnesota, declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2005-03765) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at USP Beaumont. Two inmates alleged the subject was having a sexual relationship with an inmate, and the GIG accepted the matter for investigation. Prior to the conclusion of the OIG investigation, BOP staff learned the subject would be meeting the inmate. The OIG informed the BOP they could not participate in a sting operation at that time. BOP staff went to the alleged meeting place and found the subject and victim in a locked mop closet. The subject admitted performing oral sex on the inmate on four occasions and receiving oral sex from him on two occasions. The subject also admitted she introduced food items into the institution for the inmate and called his mother once. The US. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2005-03795) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Unit Management employee and a male inmate at FCC Coleman. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted having an emotional and sexual relationship with the inmate. She stated she and the inmate had oral sex and sexual intercourse in a conference room on four occasions during the evenings and weekends when no other staff were around. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassified 46 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 48 of 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates The subject also admitted introducing weightlifting supplements, alcohol, and jewelry for the inmate. The subject pled guilty to one count of Knowingly and Intentionally Providing an Inmate a Prohibited Item. She was sentenced to three-years probation, 150 hours of community service, and a $1,000 ?ne. The subject resigned her employment. (2005-03838) Abusive Sexual Contact between a male Facilities employee and taro female inmates at FCI Phoenix. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. Two inmates provided sworn af?davits stating the subject placed their hands on his penis. They also submitted to polygraph examinations, the results of which indicated they were not deceptive. The subj ect declined to take a polygraph examination and denied the allegations. Labor/ Management Relations staff did not support any disciplinary action being taken in this matter. (2005?00174) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Business Of?ce employee and female inmates at FCC Coleman. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted viewing a sexually- explicit picture with the inmates and engaging in inappropriate conversations with them. The subject was suspended for 4 days. (2005-04228) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FMC Lexington. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The staff member admitted drawing two circles on a piece of paper, with one circle larger than the other. The staff member then told the inmate, ?This is your asshole before entering prison, and this is your asshole when you leave prison.? The subject was suspended for two days. (2005-00392) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Health Services Safety employee and a male inmate at FCC Victorville. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject instructed the inmate to remove his pants and submit to a rectal exam because the inmate was experiencing rectal bleeding. The staff member told the inmate, ?Don?t worry, you will like it.? The staff member then told the inmate he would not like it, because he is not gay. The subject received a written reprimand. (2005?01903) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the California City Correctional Center and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation the SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 47 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 49 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates subject admitted she ?tapped? an inmate on the buttocks with her ?ngertips. She stated she did this in an effort to get him to move so she could walk past. The subj ect resigned her employment. (2005?02048) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The SIA at the facility observed the staff member engage in a conversation with the inmate, then kiss him. Further, letters from two inmates were found in the staff member?s possession. The staff member resigned her employment prior to being interviewed. (2005-02366) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. Staff witnessed the staff member with the inmate during the early morning hours in an area where the inmate should not have been. Further, a supervisory correctional of?cer saw the staff member kiss the inmate. The staff member resigned her employment immediately when confronted with the allegations. She was not interviewed. (eons-02693) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Cumberland. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted being the author of documents and correspondence of a personal nature provided by the inmate. The subject also admitted kissing the inmate twice, but she denied having sexual intercourse with him. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her employment. (2005-03447) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Waseca. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted becoming emotionally involved with the inmate and providing him with pornographic magazines. The subject resigned her employment. (2005?03923) As of September 30, 2007, 27 allegations reported or detected during Fiscal Year 2005 were still under investigation. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 48 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 50 of 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates - Fiscal Year 2004 During Fiscal Year 2004, 290 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to the OLA or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 290 allegations, 216 involved BOP employees, 43 involved staff working at contract/ halfway house facilities, 15 involved staff working at privatized facilities, 8 involved staff working at facilities with an ISA, and 8 involved contract staff working at BOP facilities. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Sexual Abuse Sexual Abuse of a Ward @2242 2243) between female staff and male inmates {56 reported allegations] and Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and male inmates (48 reported allegations). As of September 30, 2007, 35 allegations of Sexual Abuse had been sustained (23 involving BOP employees, 8 involving staff working at privatized facilities, 3 involving staff working at facilities with an IGA, and 1 involving a contract employee working at a BOP facility). The type of allegation sustained with the most frequency involved Sexual Abuse/ Sexual Abuse of a Ward [?2242/2243) between female staff and male inmates (12 sustained allegations). - Sexual Abuse between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FMC lexington. Following an investigation by the 01G, the subject was tried and convicted by a jury for violations of 18, USC, 2243(b), Sexual Abuse of a Ward (8 counts), 18 USC, 1001, False Statements (1 count), and 18 USC, 2242(1), Sexual Abuse of a Ward by Force or Fear [1 count). The subject was sentenced to 108 months incarceration, two-years supervised probation, and a $400 ?ne. (2004430001) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Recreation employee and a female inmate at MC Lexington. Following an 01G investigation the subject pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward. The subject was sentenced to six-months probation and a $500 fine. The subject resigned his employment. (2004-00002) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FMC Lexington. Following an OIG investigation, the subject received a ?ve count indictment for violations of 18 USC, 2243(b), Sexual Abuse of a Ward. The subject pled no contest to one count of the indictment, and he was sentenced to four-months home con?nement and two-years probation. (2004-00009) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at MDC Guaynabo. During an OIG investigation, the subject SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 49 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 51 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates admitted having sexual intercourse with the victim both during and after her incarceration. The US. Attomey?s of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned his employment. (2004-00688) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FCI Dublin. During an 01G investigation, three inmates claimed to have been approached by the subject and asked to engage in oral sex with him. One inmate claimed she engaged in oral sex with the subject. Two other inmates claimed they were told of the sexual encounter between the subject and this inmate. Prosecution was declined in this matter as the subject did not make any admissions. The subject resigned his employment. (2004-02304) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Recreation employee and a female inmate at FMC Lexington. An OIG investigation led to a one count indictment for violation of 18 USC, 2243(b), Sexual Abuse of 3. Ward. The subject pled guilty and was sentenced to 12-months probation and a $500 ?ne. (2004,02574) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between two male Correctional Services employees and female inmates at CI Tallahassee. During an OIG investigation one of the subjects admitted he had sexual intercourse with an inmate on one occasion. The subject pled guilty to one count of Engaging in a Sexual Act With a Federal Prisoner. The subject was sentenced to three-years probation and 200 hours of community service. The subject resigned his employment. An inmate provided a sworn af?davit stating the second subject ejaculated in his hand and on her t- shirt after she orally copulated him. The subject provided a saliva sample which matched the DNA in the semen sample provided by the inmate. The subject pled guilty to one count of Engaging in a Sexual Act With a Federal Prisoner. He was sentenced to three?years probation, six-months home con?nement, and a $10,000 ?ne. The subject resigned his employment. (2004-02627 two subjects) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FDC Seatac. An 01G investigation sustained allegations of Sexual Abuse of a Ward, Introduction of Contraband, and Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates against the subject. Prosecution was declined because the subject did not confess. The subject resigned his employment. [2004?03 627) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FMC Carswell. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted the inmate performed multiple oral sexual acts on him, and he fondled her multiple times. The subject was charged with and pled guilty to a violation of SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 50 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 52 of 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 18 US C, 2243(b), Sexual Abuse of a Ward. The subject was sentenced to six- months incarceration and twelve-months supervised released and ordered to pay a $25 special assessment. He resigned his employment. (2004-03798) Sexual Abuse of a 1Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FDC Philadelphia. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted having sexual contact with the inmate and that he brought her money and cards. The subject pled guilty to a one count criminal indictment for Engaging in a Sexual Act With 3 Ward. He was sentenced to three-years sopervised release and a $2,000 ?ne. The subject resigned his employment. (2004-03843) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Health Services 1? Safety employee and a male inmate at USP Florence. The subject confessed to engaging in both oral and coital sexual contact with the inmate on four occasions. She received a six?month deferred jail term and six-months unsupervised probation. (2004-00041) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between two female employees at the Rivers Correctional Institution and a male inmate. During an OIG investigation the subjects admitted conspiring with an inmate to plant a shank in another inmate?s cell. During the investigation both subjects admitted they were sexually involved with their inmate conspirator. Both subjects pled guilty to Conspiracy to Falsify an Of?cial Report to In?uence a Federal Investigation. One subject was sentenced to twelve-months incarceration and three?years supervised release. The other subject was sentenced to nine-months incarceration and three-years supervised release. Both subjects are in BOP custody. Both subjects? employment was terminated. (20 04-0 0404 - two subjects) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Education and Vocational Training employee and a male inmate at FCI Allenwood. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted she engaged in sexual intercourse with the inmate once and on a separate occasion had oral sex with him. The subject entered into a pre?trial diversion program, and she was informed prosecution will be delayed for twelve months. If the subject ful?lls the conditions of the program, she will not be prosecuted. (2004-01240) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between three female employees at the Taft Correctional Institution and male inmates. During an OIG investigation one subject admitted she engaged in sexual intercourse with an inmate and acted as a lookout for another subject during her with inmates. A second subject admitted she allowed an inmate to perform oral sex on her. The U.S. Attorney's Of?ce declined SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 51 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 53 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates prosecution in these matters due to a lack of corroboration by the inmate victims. A third subject admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with two inmates. She also admitted introducing two water bottles containing vodka and a cellular telephone into the facility for one of the inmates. She was convicted of smuggling a prohibited item into a federal institution and was sentenced to three-years probation. All three subjects resigned their employment. (2004-01568 - Three subjects) Sexual Abuse of 3 Ward between a female UNICOR employee and a male inmate at FCI La Tuna. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted engaging in a sexual relationship with an inmate. She pled guilty to one count of 18 USC, ?2243, Sexual Abuse of a Ward, and was sentenced to one?year probation. (2004- 01843) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Fairton. Following an OIG investigation the subject pled guilty in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, to a criminal information charging her with Sexual Abuse of a Ward in violation of 18 USC, ?2243. She was sentenced to three?months incarceration, one-year supervised released, and a $1,000 ?ne. The subject also admitted introducing contraband for the inmate. She resigned her employment. (2004-02503) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at USP Allenwood. Following an 01G investigation the subject pled guilty to Sexual Abuse of a Ward and Providing Contraband to an Inmate. She was sentenced to two-years probation with the ?rst six months served in home confinement. The subject was also ordered to perform 50 hours of community service. The subject resigned her employment. (2004-03177) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Unit Management employee and a male inmate at FCI Big Spring. During an DIG investigation, the subject admitted having a sexual relationship with an inmate. She further admitted that once the inmate had been transferred to a contract/ halfway house, she sent him letters and money orders using a different name. The subject entered into a pretrial diversion agreement. The agreement states that for a period of twelve months, the subject will 1} continue to reside in the same judicial district; 2) inform the supervising of?cer of any changes in her address, telephone number, or employment; 3] submit to the supervising of?cer a complete and truthful report; 4) have no contact, either directly or indirectly, with the inmate; 5] inform her employer of the allegations as deemed necessary by the supervising SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 52 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 54 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates officer; and 6) perform 96 hours of unpaid community service at a rate of 8 hours per month. The subject resigned her employment. (2004-03287) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Waseca. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted having a sexual relationship with the inmate. She also admitted she gave the inmate?s mother $100. The US. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2004-0363 6) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee at the Cibola County Correctional Center and a male inmate. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted hugging and kissing the inmate and fondling his penis through his clothing. A Department of Justice, Civil Rights Attorney, declined prosecution, citing lack of jurisdiction. The subject resigned. (2004-00131) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Facilities employee and a female inmate at FCI Victorville. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted he kissed the inmate in front of two witnesses. He indicated this was the only time he engaged in any type of inappropriate contact with the inmate. This was con?rmed by the inmate. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned his employment. (2004-02576) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Health Services/ Safety employee and a female inmate at FCI Danbury. The DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted he developed emotional feelings for the inmate and told her he loved her. He denied engaging in sexual activity with the inmate, but he admitted kissing her on the check. The subject retired before disciplinary action was taken. (2004?03185) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Facilities employee and a male inmate at FCI Milan. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During an investigation the subject admitted making a comment about the inmate?s initials standing for ?cum catcher.? The subject received a letter of reprimand. (2004?03198) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female contract employee and a male inmate at USP Beaumont. The subject admitted kissing and touching the inmate, but she denied masturbating him. The U.S. AttorneYS Of?ce declined prosecution after the inmate admitted embellishing upon his initial allegations. The subject?s employment was terminated. [2004-0123 6) SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 53 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 55 of 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at MDC Los Angeles. The subject ?led a police report in which she claimed the inmate was blackmailing her in order to conceal from her employer the fact that he had several revealing photographs of her. She stated she paid him over $20,000. During an DIG investigation the subject denied having a sexual relationship with the inmate and only admitted giving him $6,658. She also admitted the statement she provided to police was inaccurate. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution when the inmate refused to assist in the investigation. The subject resigned her employment. (2004?01552) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Cibola County Correctional Center and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation the subject admitted hugging and kissing the inmate and exchanging correspondence with him. She also admitting introducing contraband items for him. The subject resigned her employment. (2004?01656). Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation the subject admitted discussing personal issues with the inmate, delivering notes to him, engaging in three?way telephone calls with him, and kissing him. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2004-02427) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. The GIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation the subject admitted hugging and kissing the inmate. The subject resigned her employment. (2004-02926) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Terminal Island. The DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. An investigation revealed the subject provided the inmate with money, provided her phone number to him, received numerous calls from him, and wrote numerous letters promising and describing sexual activity between them upon his release. The subject resigned her employment. [2004-03623] Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. During an OIG investigation SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 54 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 56 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates the subject admitted she kissed the inmate and brought food items into the institution for him. She also admitted she received a call from the inmate on her cellular telephone. The subject resigned her employment. (2004-03 671) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the MeRae Correctional Facility and a male inmate. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During an investigation the subject admitted kissing the inmate and bringing him a cellular telephone. The subject resigned her employment. (2004- 0379 3) As of September 30, 2007, 19 allegations reported or detected during Fiscal Year 2004 were still under investigation. - Fiscal Year 2003 During Fiscal Year 2003, 283 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to the OLA 0r detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 283 allegations, 197 involved BOP employees, 56 involved staff working at contract/halfway house facilities, 15 involved staff working at privatized facilities, 12 involved staff working at facilities with an IGA, 2 involved contract staff working at BOP facilities, and 1 involved a PHS employee working at a BOP facility. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Sexual Abuse/ Sexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242/ 2243) between female staff and male inmates (60 reported allegations) and Sexual Abuse/ Sexual Abuse of a Ward between male staff and female inmates [41 reported allegations). As of September 30, 2007, 37 allegations of Sexual Abuse had been sustained (23 involved BOP employees, 5 involved staff working in facilities with an IGA, 4 involved staff working at contract/ halfway house facilities, 3 involved staff working at privatized facilities, 1 involved a contract employee working at a BOP facility, and 1 involved a PHS employee working at a BOP facility. The type of allegation sustained with the most frequency involved Sexual Abuse] Sexual Abuse of a Ward {?2242/2243) between female staff and male inmates (11 sustained allegations). - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FCI Tallahassee. An OIG investigation resulted in a three count information being ?led in the U.S. District Court, Northern Florida, for violations of 18 USC, ?2243, Sexual Abuse of a Ward. The subject pled guilty and was sentenced to three-years probation, three-months home con?nement, and a $2,5oo ?ne. The subject resigned his employment. (2003?00381). SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 55 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 5? 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Health Services employee and two female inmates at FMC Carswell. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted he engaged in sexual intercourse with two female inmates and a female staff member. He resigned his employment and pled guilty to two counts of a three count indictment charging him with violations of 18 USC, ?2243, Sexual Abuse of a Ward, and was sentenced to 14wmonths incarceration and one-year supervised release. The subject was also ordered to register as a sex offender with state and local law enforcement. The subject resigned his employment. [2003-01693] Sexual Abuse of 3 Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FCI Dublin. Following an 01G investigation the subject pled guilty to Sexual Abuse of a Ward and was sentenced to three-years probation, six- months home confinement, a $500 ?ne, and was required to register as a sex offender. The subject resigned his employment. [2003?01766] Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Facilities employee and a female inmate at FCI Victoivilie. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted having oral sex with the inmate in a vocational training classroom. The US. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned his employment. (2 003?02210) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Three Rivers. The inmate alleged that while he was cleaning a staff restroom, the subject entered with his erect penis exposed and forced the inmate to orally copulate him. Following an OIG investigation, the subject was arrested and charged with violations of 18 USC, ?1001, False Statements, and 18 USC, ?2243, Sexual Abuse of a Ward. As a result of a negotiated plea agreement, the subject pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, ?1001. He was sentenced to six- months incarceration and three-years supervised release and ordered to pay a $2,000 ?ne. The subject?s employment was terminated. [2003-04181] Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at a contract/ halfway house facility and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted having sexual relations with an inmate whom she believed to be the father of her child. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her employment. (2003-00337) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Food Service employee and a male inmate at USP Atlanta. The US. Marshals Service conducted the investigation into these allegations after it was learned the subject may have been involved in the inmate?s escape. The subject was found guilty of Assisting with an Escape, and she was sentenced to six-months home con?nement and three?years SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 56 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 58 of 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates probation. The subject also admitted to having sexual intercourse with the inmate and conceiving a child with him while she was employed at USP Atlanta. Further, she admitted the inmate had been living at her residence since his escape. The subject resigned her employment. (2003-00860) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Health Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Waseca. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted having sexual intercourse with an inmate in the X-ray room in the medical department. The subject resigned her employment. (2003?01006) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female contract employee and a male inmate at FDC Philadelphia. The subject?s employment was terminated after she admitted having sexual contact with an inmate on at least 17 occasions. She also stated she smuggled soft contraband into the institution for the inmate on at least 10 occasions. The subject was indicted on two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Ward, one count of Sexual Contact With a Ward, and one count of Introduction of Contraband into a federal institution. At the end of a three-day jury trial, the subject was acquitted on all four counts. (2003?01072) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Seal Beach Jail and a male inmate. The subject admitted she engaged in sexual intercourse with an inmate. The US Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution; however, the Seal Beach District Attorney?s Of?ce accepted the case for prosecution. The subject pled guilty to 289.6 of the California Penal Code and was sentenced to three~years probation, ?ned $100, and ordered to complete ten days of community service. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2003?01138) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Big Spring Correctional Center and a male inmate. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted having sexual intercourse with the inmate. She pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, ?2243(b) and was sentenced to two-years probation and ordered to pay a $500 ?ne. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2003-02480) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Health Services/Safety employee and a male inmate at FCI El Reno. An 01G investigation determined the subject engaged in a sexual relationship with the inmate. During the investigation the subject initially denied introducing drugs for the inmate; however, she later admitted introducing three pounds of marijuana for him. The subject was convicted of Falsifying Statements and sentenced to ?ve?months incarceration, SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 57 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 59 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates ?ve-months home con?nement, and two-years supervised release. The subject resigned her employment. (2003-0272?19) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Unit Management employee at FMC Fort Worth and a male inmate at a halfwayhouse. During an GIG investigation the subject admitted having a sexual relationship with a former FMC Fort Worth inmate after his transfer to a halfway house. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her employment. (2003?02827) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at USP Atwater. During an 01G investigation, the subject invoked her right to an attorney, and the criminal interview was terminated. She was compelled administratively and admitted having a sexual relationship with an inmate and introducing contraband into the institution for him. The subject resigned her employment. (song-o3ogo) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Health Services/ Safety employee and a male inmate at USP Atwater. Following an DIG investigation the subject pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, ?2243[b), and was sentenced to twelve-months supervised probation and ?fty hours of community service, and was required to undergo mental health treatment. The subject resigned her employment. (2003- 03582) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Giles Dalby Correctional Center and a male. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted kissing an inmate and allowing him to rub her breasts. The U.S. Attorney's Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2003-03763) Abusive Sexual Contact between a male employee at a contract] halfway house and a female inmate. During an GIG investigation the subject admitted rubbing his unexposed penis on the inmate?s arm and rubbing her breasts through her clothing. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2003-00002) Abusive Sexual Contact between a male UNICOR employee and a female inmate at FCC Coleman. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted having sexual contact with the inmate and introducing contraband into the institution for her. The subject pled guilty to one count of 18 USC, ?2244(a](4) and was ?ned $500. The subject resigned his employment. (2003-01221) SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 58 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 60 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Abusive Sexual Contact between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FMC Carswell. During an DIG investigation the subject admitted kissing the inmate and rubbing her breasts against his hand. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned his employment. (2003-03846) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted caressing an inmate?s penis through his clothing and bringing a compact disk into the facility for him. The case facts were presented to a Grand Jury and the subject was indicted for abusive sexual contact and possessing contraband in prison. The charges were later dismissed when it was determined the Reeves County Detention Center did not meet the statutory de?nition of ?federal prison.? The subject resigned her employment. [2003-01342] Abusive Sexual Contact between a female Health Services employee and a male inmate at Spring?eld. During an 01G investigation the subject admitting allowing the inmate to touch her breast, putting her hand on the inmate's penis, and kissing the inmate. The U.S. Attorney's Of?ce for the Western District of Missouri declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2003433835) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate. During an OIG investigation the ect admitted kissing an inmate, writing her letters of a sexual nature, allowing her to view a photo of his penis with a penis ring, and giving her a rose. The U.S. Attorney's Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned his employment. (2003- 00973) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FDC Houston. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted having a personal relationship with the inmate and admitted kissing her prior to her release. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned his employment. (2003-01229) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Facilities employee and a female inmate at FCI Tallahassee. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted kissing the victim on three occasions. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned his employment. (2003-01718) SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 59 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 610f86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates I Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at MDC San Diego. During an DIG investigation the subject admitted flirting with various female inmates and being alone in a staff restroom with a female inmate. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned his employment. (2003?02475) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Health Services Safety employee and a female inmate at FPC Bryan. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted telling an inmate another inmate wanted him to perform oral sex on her. The subject was suspended for four days. (2003-02901) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male employee at the Cibola County Correctional Center and a male inmate. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted he jokingly made sexual comments to an inmate. The subject was suspended for three days. (2003?00016) Unprofessienal Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Unit Management employee and a male inmate at USP Lompoc. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The staff member entered an inmate restroom and told an inmate, "Hold this for me," as he was urinating. The subject received an oral reprimand. (2003?00602) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Public Health Service employee and male inmates at FCI Texarkana. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted he made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to staff and inmates and used profanity. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2003-02718) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at a contractf halfway house and a female inmate. During an OIG investigation three staff reported witnessing the two laying on a bed together kissing and hugging. The US. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2003-00002) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Food Service employee and a female inmate at FCI Coleman. An 01G investigation determined the subject slapped the inmate on her buttocks while she was working in the kitchen. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject was suspended for ?ve days. (2003?01160) SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 60 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 62 of 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female UNICOR employee and a male inmate at CI Butner. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted 1writing "love letters? to an inmate. The subject resigned her employment. (2003-01259) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Cibola County Correctional Center and a male inmate. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted engaging in conversations of a sexual nature with the inmate and kissing him. A 15?day suspension was proposed by the contractor, but the subject?s employment was ultimately terminated after she was prohibited from having contact with federal offenders. (2003-01282) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. The 010 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted spending time with and kissing the inmate in isolated areas of the facility. She denied having sexual relations with the inmate, as did the inmate. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2003-02131) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Food Service employee and a male inmate at FCI Victorville. An OIG investigation determined the subject discussed a sexual encounter she had with a male employee with and in the presence of an inmate. Prosecution was not contemplated. No disciplinary action was taken. (2003-02989) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. The subj eet initially provided a sworn statement to the DIG in which she denied any type of inappropriate involvement with an inmate. She later provided a statement in which she admitted engaging in approximately ten acts of hugging and kissing the inmate. The subject pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, 1001, False Statements, and was sentenced to three-years probation. Her employment was terminated. (2003-04073) Unptofe-ssional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the California City Correctional Institution and a male inmate. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with the inmate following his release from custody. She denied having sexual intercourse with the inmate during his incarceration, but admitted to kissing him once. The U.S. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 61 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 63 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Attorney's Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. [2003?04170] As of September 30, 2007, 5 allegations reported or detected during Fiscal Year 2003 were still under investigation. . Fiscal Year 2002 During Fiscal Year 2002, 196 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to the OIA or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 196 allegations, 128 involved BOP employees, 49 involved staff working in contract fhalfway house facilities, 9 involved staff working in privatized facilities, 6 involved staff working in facilities with an IGA, and 3 involved contract staff working in BOP facilities. In addition, there was 1 allegation which involved an employee of the Texas National Guard, who allegedly engaged in sexual relations with an inmate from FPC Bryan on a janitorial work detail. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and female inmates (37 reported allegations) and Sexual Abuse/ Sexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242/ 2243) between female staff and male inmates (35 reported allegations). As of September 30, 2007, 24 allegations of Sexual Abuse had been sustained 15 involved BOP employees, 4 involved staff working at contract/ halfway house facilities, 3 involved staff working at facilities with an IGA, and 2 involved contract staff working in BOP facilities). The type of allegation sustained with the most frequency involved Sexual Abuse/ Sexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242 2243) between female staff and male inmates (10 sustained allegations). - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Food Service employee and a female inmate at FMC Carswell. An 01G investigation revealed the subject 1) had sexual contact with several inmates; and 2) made false statements to the OIG in an af?davit in which he denied the sexual contact with these inmates. The subject pled guilty to a violation of 18 USC, ?1001, Providing False Statements. No criminal charges were pursued with regard to the sexual abuse allegations. The subject resigned his employment. (2002-00418) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at MDC Brooklyn. Following an FBI investigation the subject pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward, 18 USC, ?2242(1), and one count of Providing False Statements, 18 USC, He was sentenced to 151- months incarceration and three-years supervised release. He currently is incarcerated at FCI Waseca. (2002~00794) SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 62 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 64 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male staff member and a female inmate at a contract/hal?vay house facility. The DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted he had sexual relations with an inmate, which he claimed was consensual. The Baltimore County, Maryland, Police Department investigated the allegations and indicated they were not going to pursue prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. [2002?00795] Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FCI Dublin. Following an 01G investigation the subject was convicted of two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and one count of Providing a False Statement. He was sentenced to six?months incarceration and three-years supervised release. In addition, the subject was ordered to serve three months in home detention with electronic monitoring and was ordered to register as a sex offender and provide a DNA sample. The subject resigned his employment. (2002-01428) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at MCC San Diego. Following an 01G investigation the subject pled guilty to Sexual Abuse of a Ward and was placed on one year of supervised probation. He resigned his employment. (2002-02345) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and several female inmates at FMC Carswell. During an 01G investigation the subject initially admitted having a sexual relationship with one inmate. He was re- interviewed and admitted having sexual intercourse with an additional ?ve inmates. The subject was convicted of False Statements, Entries or Concealing or Covering Up a Material Fact. He was sentenced to 24-months incarceration, 24-months probation, and ?ned $1,000. The subject resigned his employment. (2002-02816) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FCI Tallahassee. Following an FBI investigation the subject was convicted of Engaging in Sexual Acts with a Federal Offender and was sentenced to 24?months probation. The subject resigned his employment. (2002?03416) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted he orally copulated an inmate four times and smuggled tattoo ink into the facility for him. The subject pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and was sentenced to 24-months probation, to include four-months home SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 63 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 65 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates con?nement. The subject was also ordered to pay a $1,000 ?ne. The subject?s employment was terminated. [200202411] Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Florence. During an 01G investigation the subject and the inmate admitted to a sexual relationship which included acts of mutual masturbation, fondling of genitalia, and fellatio. The subject pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and was sentenced to one?year probation. He resigned his employment. (2002-02892) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at a contract/hal?vay house facility and a male inmate. The DIS deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted she was involved in sexual relationships with two inmates. She resigned her employment. (2002-00152) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted she was sexually involved with the inmate. She entered into a pre-trial diversion program which she successfully completed The charges against her have since been dismissed. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2002- 00673} Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Health Services employee and a male inmate at FMC Rochester. An OIG investigation concluded the subject had sexual intercourse with the inmate on numerous occasions and introduced a cellular telephone into the institution for him. She was convicted of Engaging in Sexual Contact with a Ward and was sentenced to one-year probation. In addition, she must attend counseling. The subject resigned her employment. (2002-00846) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at a contract/halfway house facility and a male inmate. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted she had sexual relations with an inmate. Both federal and state authorities declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. (2002-01204) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female contract Education employee and a male inmate at FCI Waseca. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted she had sexual relations with an inmate. The U.S. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2002?02158) SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 64 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 66 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at a contract/ halfway house employee and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted entering into a sexual relationship with an inmate on supervised release. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2002-02212) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Facilities employee at FMC Devens and a male inmate. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted having sexual relations with an inmate and providing the inmate with a cellular telephone. Due to the subject?s status as a single parent, the United States Attorney? 3 Of?ce declined to prosecute her for Sexual Abuse of a Ward [a conviction on such a charge could have subjected the subject to a designation as a sex offender and generated unintended parental custody consequences]. Rather, she pled guilty to Smuggling Contraband and was sentenced to six-months probation, a $5 00 ?ne, and mandatory mental health counseling. The subject resigned her employment. (2002-02264) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with an inmate. She entered into and successfully completed a pretrial diversion agreement, and the charge against her was dismissed. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2002?03066) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Religious Services employee and a male inmate at FMC Rochester. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted having sexual intercourse with the inmate and engaging in oral sex with him. The subject resigned her employment. (2002-03333) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Business Office employee and a male inmate at FCI Three Rivers. During an DIG investigation the submit admitted having a sexual relationship with the inmate. She pled guilty to one count of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and was sentenced to time served and one-year supervised release. She was also ordered to register as a sex offender. The subject resigned her employment. (2002-03583) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCC Coleman. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The staff member admitted she hugged and kissed the inmate and engaged in ?heavy petting? with him in the staff bathroom. The staff SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 65 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 6? 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates member admitted they fondled each other?s genitals, but she denied they engaged in oral sex or intercourse. The subject resigned her employment. (2002?02504) - Abusive Sexual Contact between a female Health ServicesfSafety employee and a male inmate at FPC Yankton. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted she hugged and kissed the inmate, and they caressed each others? buttocks. She also admitted she met the inmate at a bus station when he was furlough transferred from FPC Yankton. The subject resigned her position. (2002-02794) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee at MCC New York and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject made a sexually vulgar comment to an inmate?s visitor. The subjects employment was terminated. {2002-o2223) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Education and Vocational Training employee FCI Sheridan and a male inmate. The DIS deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. An inmate?s personal property was searched. Concealed in the property were three notes written by the inmate to the subject and one note written by the subject to the inmate in which she expressed her love for him. The subject resigned her position. (secs-oo124) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female contract instructor and a male inmate at FCI Big Spring. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted she kissed the inmate. Her contract with the BOP was terminated, and she was banned from entering institution grounds. 2002?03079) As of September 30, 2007, 2 allegations reported or detected during Fiscal Year 2002 were still under investigation. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 66 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 68 of 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates . Fiscal Year 2001 During Fiscal Year 2001, 152 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to The 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 152 allegations, 111 involved BOP employees, 35 involved staff working in contract/ halfway house facilities, 4 involved staff working in privatized facilities, 1 involved contract staff working in a BOP facility, and 1 involved a PHS employee working in a BOP facility. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency involved Sexual Abuse/ Sexual Abuse of a Ward [?2242/ 2243) between female staff and male inmates (33 reported allegations) and Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and female inmates (2 5 reported allegations). As of September 30, 2007, 23 allegations of Sexual Abuse had been sustained [13 involved BOP employees, 1 involved a contract employee working in a BOP facility, 8 involved staff working in contract halfway house facilities, and 1 involved staff working in a privatized facility. The type of allegation sustained with the most frequency involved Sexual Abuse/ Sexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242/2243) between female staff and male inmates (11 sustained allegations). - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at FPC Bryan. The subject was sentenced to three-years probation, ?ned $2,500, required to register as a sex offender with the state of Texas and the federal government, and required to attend counseling. (2001-00852) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee and a female inmate at DC Houston. The subject was sentenced to six?months imprisonment and required to register as a sex offender in any state in which he resides after his release from prison. He was also ?ned $1,000. (2001?00137) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male employee at the Buffalo Halfway House and a female inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject?s employment was terminated. {2 001-0029 5) - Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Food Service employee and a female inmate at FCC Coleman (Medium). The subject was sentenced to ?ve-years probation. Further, the subject was ordered to participate in the Home Detention program for a period of six months, ordered to register with the state of Florida?s sexual offender agency, and ordered to participate in a mental health program specializing in the treatment of sexual offenders. (2 001-00300) SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 67 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 69 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male employee at Cornell Corrections and a female inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted he engaged in oral sex with inmates. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2001-03201) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Recreation employee and a female inmate at FCI Phoenix. During an DIG investigation the subject admitted having a one time sexual encounter with an inmate. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned. (2001-01982) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female contract staff member and a male inmate at FCC Beaumont. The subject entered into a plea agreement and was sentenced to two?years probation, a $1,000 fine, and a $10 special assessment. [2001-00022] Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Food Service employee and a male inmate at FCC Beaumont. The subject was sentenced to 12o-days home con?nement, three?years probation, and a $25 Special assessment. (2001-00181) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Services employee and a male inmate at CI Butner. The subject pled guilty and was sentenced to one- year supervised probation, 120-days home detention, ?ned $2,500, and registered in the North Carolina Sex Offender Registration Program. (2001- 00734) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Oklahoma Halfway House and a male inmate. The subject?s employment was terminated. The subject was granted pretrial diversion by the AUSA after she admitted she had sex with an inmate. According to the diversion agreement, the charges against the subject will be dismissed after six months if she completes the conditions of the agreement. (2001-00962) Sexual Abuse of a Ward hehveen a female Education and Vocational Training employee and a male inmate at CI Elkton. The subject was sentenced to two- years probation and ordered to participate in a mental health program. (2001? 01420] Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The staff member admitted she had intercourse with an inmate on six occasions and orally copulated the inmate twice. She also SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 68 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 70 0f 86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates admitted she brought the inmate money, alcohol, cologne, and jewelry. The subject?s employment was terminated. She pled guilty to introduction or possession of contraband in a prison and was placed on probation for one year. The inmate to whom the subject gave the money pled guilty to possession of contraband in prison and was sentenced to an additional six months in custody. (2001-013762) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female staff member and a male inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center. The staff member admitted she had intercourse with and orally copulated an inmate. She also admitted she gave the inmate jewelry and cigarettes. The subject resigned. She pled guilty to introduction or possession of contraband in prison and was placed on probation for one year. (2001?01762) Sexual Abuse of 3 Ward between a female member of the Of?ce and Staff and a male inmate at USP Florence. The subject resigned. She was convicted of two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and sentenced to four-months home con?nement, ?ve-years probation, and a $3,000 ?ne. (2001-02221) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Food Service employee and a male inmate at FCI Elkton. The investigation revealed the staff member had both intercourse and oral sex with the inmate on at least 20 occasions in the ?hot room? and ?cooler" of the Food Service warehouse. The staff member pled guilty to Engaging in Sexual Acts with an Inmate and was sentenced to one year of inactive probation and a $50 special assessment. (2001-02348) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Cibola County Correctional Facility and a male inmate. The subject admitted to having sexual intercourse with an inmate on two occasions. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2001w03204) Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Unit Management employee and a male inmate at USP Florence. An 01G investigation sustained Sexual Abuse of a Ward, Introduction of Contraband, and Preferential Treatment of InmateEs). The subject was sentenced to four-years probation, 100 hours community service, and a $2,4o0 ?ne, and was required to register as a sex offender. (2004?01748) Abusive Sexual Contact between a male employee at the Big Spring Correctional Center and a male inmate. The subject pled guilty to one count of Abusive Sexual Contact of a Ward. He was sentenced to five-years probation, ordered to register SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 69 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 710f86 Sexual Abuse of Inmates as a sex offender, and prohibited from seeking employment in corrections for a five?year period. (2001-00221) - Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee at the Big Spring Correctional Center and a male inmate. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted she fondled an inmate?s penis. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2001?00329) - Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee at the Reeves County Detention Center and a male inmate. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted she allowed an inmate to kiss her breasts and fondle her pubic area while she fondled his penis. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2001-02090) - Abusive Sexual Contact between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Allenwood. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned from the BOP. (2001-02720) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Food Service employee and a male inmate at FCI esup. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to the inmate. The subject received a written reprimand. (2001- 00935) - Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Business Office employee and a male inmate at FCI La Tuna. An OIG investigation determined the subject engaged in conversations of a sexual nature with the inmate. The subject resigned. (2001-02313) As of September 30, 2007, 3 allegations reported or detected during Fiscal Year 2001 were still under investigation. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 7O BOP FOIA 2016-01716 72 0f 86 Representative Case Summaries Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature; Breach of Computer Security An employee reported receiving an e-mail from a Facilities employee which stated, love your buttocks.? The Facilities employee stated s/he allowed a second Facilities employee to use his /her computer while s/ he was logged on. The second Facilities employee admitted sending the inappropriate e-mail. Outcome: Both employees received written reprimands. (2007-00343) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature A Food Service employee spread rumors to other staff about an employee engaging in illicit sexual acts. Outcome: The Food Service employee was suspended for ?ve days. (2007-01379) Inattention to Duty; Failure to Follow Policy A Correctional Services employee hit a rail while driving a perimeter patrol vehicle. S/he failed to report the damage to the vehicle at the end of his ,1 her shift, in accordance with policy. Outcome: The Correctional Services employee was suspended for one day. (2007-00359) [nattention to Duty; Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates; Failure to Follow Policy; Falsi?eation of Documents Two Correctional Services employees failed to properly conduct an inmate count. The officers walked by the cells and shone their ?ashlights into the cells without counting the inmates. The employees noted in the 10 book that they conducted the count. The employees also failed to check on the inmates? welfare during their shift. Outcome: Both employees were suspended for 25 days. Unprofessional Conduct A Health Services Safety employee could not be located within Health Services. When the employee returned to Health Services, hisfher supervisor asked where s/he had been, and s/hc stated she was in Services. The supervisor asked the employee if the visit was job related. The employee became upset and shouted, work for the Department of Justice, not for you. You are not the one who provides my pay, it is the Department of Justice.? The employee then exited into the hallway, screaming and shouting. Outcome: The Health Services Safety employee resigned his her employment prior to any disciplinary action being taken. (2007?00068) SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 71 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 73 of 86 Representative Case Summaries A Recreation employee placed a drawing of a person standing over a bomb on a dry erase board. A caption was written beneath the drawing which stated, am the Rec Supervisor. You have to listen to me. You are a bunch of slackers.? The employee stated 5/ he drew the picture as a joke following a meeting with his/her supervisor. Outcome: The Recreation employee received a written reprimand. (2007-00368) A Business Of?ce employee placed a sign on the commissary window telling the inmates commissary items were out of stock. The note instructed the inmates to dial 1-800-279? 2229 to ?nd out when items would be back in stock. Outcome: The Business Of?ce employee received a written reprimand. (2007-00484) Misuse of a Government Computer During routine scanning of user home directories, several ?les containing nude photographs were found in a Food Service employee?s directory. Outcome: The Food Service employee was suspended for one day. (2007-01303) Misuse of Travel Charge Card A Business Office employee used his her travel charge card to make ATM withdrawals in excess of that which was authorized. In addition, the employee charged items which were not business related. Outcome: The Business Of?ce employee was suspended for 2 days. (2007-00001) A Health Services Safety employee allowed a family member to use his/ her travel charge card to make inappropriate purchases. Outcome: The Health Services/ Safety employee was suSpended for three days. (2007-00687) Endangering the Safety of an Inmate; Inattention to Duty A Correctional Of?cer at a privatized facility was assigned to provide constant supervision to an inmate who was on suicide watch. The employee vacated his/ her post, leaving his /her radio unattended. Outcome: The Correctional Of?cer?s employment was terminated. Unauthorized Release of Information; Inappropriate Relationship With an Inmate SIS staff intercepted a letter from a Religious Services employee to an inmate. In the letter, the Religious Services employee acknowledged receiving correspondence from the inmate previously. The Religious Services employee also provided the inmate with the SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 72 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 74 of 86 Representative Case Summaries locations of three co?defendants with terrorist ties. The Religious Services employee also wrote to another inmate saying 5 he planned to visit him at a local jail later that month. The Religious Services employee stated sf he was ?extending pastoral care? to the inmates and didnit realize the signi?cance of the information s/he provided. Outcome: The Religious Services employee received a written reprimand. [2007- 00289) Inappropriate Relationship With an Inmate; Inattention to Duty A contract/ halfway house employee was reportedly behind closed doors with an inmate for extended periods in both the inmate?s room and in staff of?ces. The employee admitted Spending time in the inmate?s room playing video games and watching television. The employee also allowed a male inmate and a female inmate to visit one another. Outcome: The contract halfway house employee?s employment was terminated. (2007-02527) Use of Profanity A PHS employee became upset during a telephone conversation with another employee. The PHS employee raised his /her voice and used profanity. Outcome: The PHS employee received a written reprimand. (2007?0 1031) SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 73 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 75 of 86 Signi?cant Prosecutions Following are brief summaries of some of the signi?cant or noteworthy prosecutions which were completed during Fiscal Year 2007. The individuals referenced are no longer employed by the BOP or any BOP contractor: - A11 01G investigation found a Correctional Services employee introduced tobacco and cellular telephones into an institution in exchange for payment from an inmate?s family. The Correctional Services employee was sentenced to three- months incarceration, threewrnonths home con?nement, 24-months supervised release, and restitution of $4,283 to cover the cost of an undercover investigation. (2006-02480) - During an OIG investigation a Correctional Services employee admitted he accepted $1,200 from an inmate in exchange for bringing a cellular telephone into the institution for him. The Correctional Services employee also admitted introducing tobacco into the institution for bribes of approximately $5,000. The Correctional Services employee pled guilty to Bribery and Providing Contraband in Prison. He was sentenced to six-months incarceration, two?months home con?nement, and one year of supervised release. (2006-01413) - Through monitored telephone conversations, 818 staff learned a Correctional Services employee was introducing contraband into the institution for inmates. An FBI agent followed an inmate visitor to a local restaurant. The Correctional Services employee was seen entering the visitor?s vehicle and exiting with a bag. The FBI agent confronted the Correctional Services employee and searched the bag, which contained two electric clippers, six doo rags, and a wet wipe containing approximately two ounces of marijuana. The Correctional Services employee admitted bringing contraband, including cigarettes and chewing tobacco, into the institution on three occasions. He stated he received $1,600 in payment. The Correctional Services employee was convicted of Providing Contraband to Inmates and sentenced to six-months incarceration and two-years supervised release. (2006~03157) . A large quantity of marijuana was discovered in an inmate?s cell. During an FBI investigation, the inmate alleged he received the marijuana from a Correctional Services employee. The Correctional Services employee admitted introducing marijuana into the institution for the inmate, and he pleaded guilty to Introduction of Contraband to a Federal Inmate. The subject was sentenced to ?ve-months incarceration, three-years supervised release, and a $1,000 ?ne. (2005-01591) SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 74 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 76 0f 86 Si ni?cant Prosecutions - A Correctional Services employee met with an undercover OIG agent and accepted ?ve ounces of black tar heroin, an iPod, a satellite radio, and $7,500 in cash. The Correctional Services employee pled guilty to Bribery and was sentenced to 30-months incarceration and taro?years supervised release. A second Correctional Of?cer was interviewed, and he admitted introducing items such as iPods, tennis shoes, nutritional supplements, sunglasses, leather gloves, and a satellite radio in exchange for $5,000. The Correctional Services employee pled guilty to Bribery and was sentenced to 18-months incarceration and two? years supervised release. (2006-02355) SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed '75 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 7? of 86 APPENDIX A Types of Sustained Misconduct - FY 2006 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 78 of 86 Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - Fiscal Year 2006 with 711.2 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type Of Misconduct Inmate Non Inmate 0&1 Duty OT Related Related Other On-Dury Mismnduct 68 278 346 Off-Duty Mismnduct 269 269 Fisaal Impropricties 13 223 241 Failure to Follow Policy 136 94 230 Personal Prohibitions 193 17 210 Unpmfessiunal Conduct 51 140 191 Inattentiun tn Duty 102 56 153 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 97 97 Breach of Security 67 19 86 Introduction of Contraband 45 21 66 Investigative Violations 4? 47 Abuse of Inmates 36 36 Unauthorized Rel-use of Information 10 6 16 Bribery 11 11 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 1n Discrim?nation SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 76 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 79 of 86 APPENDIX Types of Misconduct BOP FOIA 2016-01716 80 of 86 Twpe of Misconduct Category1 Abuse of Inmates Physical Abuse of Inmates Life Threatening Serious Injury Minor/ Slight Injury Minor/No Injury? Harassment Super?cial Excessive Use of Force Restraint Related Threatening an Inmate/Verbal Abuse Use of Profanity Retaliation Sexual Abuse of Inmates Aggravated Sexual Abuse - ?2241 ?2241 - Male Female Inmate ?2241 - Male Staff/Male Inmate ?2241 - Female Staff/ Female Inmate ?2241 - Female Staff/Male Inmate ?2241 Unknown Staff/ Female Inmate ?2241 - Unknown Staff/Male Inmate Sexual Abuse/Sexual Abuse of a Ward a ?2242f2243 ?2242/2243 - Male Staff/ Female Inmate ?2242/2243 - Male Staff/Male Inmate ?2242/ 2 243 Female Staff/ Female Inmate SBU - Sensitive But UncIassi?ed 77 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 81 of 86 Type of Misconduct Category1 ?2242/ 2243 - Female Staff/Male Inmate ?2242/2243 Unknown Staff/Female Inmate ?2242j 2 243 - Unknown Staff/Male Inmate Abusive Sexual Contact - ?2244 ?2244 Male Staff/ Female Inmate ?2244 - Male Staff/ Male Inmate ?2244 - Female Staff/ Female Inmate ?2244 Female Staff/ ale Inmate ?2244 Unknown Staff Female Inmate ?2244 Unknown Staff/Male Inmate Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature 2 UCSN - Male Staff/Female Inmate 2 UCSN Male Staff/ Male Inmate 2 UCSN Female Staff/ Female Inmate 2 UCSN Female Staff/ Male Inmate 2 UCSN - Unknown Staff/ Female Inmate 2 UCSN Unknown Staff/M ale Inmate 2 Introduction of Contraband Soft Item Introduction 1 or 2 Weapons Introduction Escape Paraphernalia Introduction Money Introduction Marijuana Introduction Heroin 8: Derivatives Introduction SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 78 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 82 of 86 Type of Misconduct Category? Cocaine Introduction 1 Other Unspeci?ed Drugs Introduction 1 Alcoholic Beverages Introduction 1 or 2 Unauthorized Electronic Device Introduction 1 or 2 Creatine Weightlifting Supplement Introduction 1 Cigarettes Tobacco 1 Discrimination Discrimination 1 or 2 Fiscal Improprieties Time and Attendance Irregularities 2 Abuse of Sick Leave 3 Voucher Falsi?cation 1 Theft/ Misuse of Government Funds ($100) 1 or 2 Theft/ Misuse of Government Property 1 or 2 Misuse of Government Computers 2 Improper Procurement Procedures 2 Failure to Pay Government Charge Card 3 Misuse of Travel Charge Card ($1,000) 2 or 3 Misuse of Purchase Charge Card ($1,000) 2 or 3 Theft/ Misuse of Employee Club Funds 2 Theft/ Misuse of AF GE Union Funds 2 Theft of Inmate Funds 1 Theft /Destruction of Inmate Pr0perty 2 Theft {Misuse of Contractor Funds 1 or 2 SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 79 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 83 0f 86 Category? Type of Misconduct The?f Misuse of Contractor Preperty 1 or 2 Failure to Account for Inmate Funds/ Property 2 Theft of Employee Funds ,1 Property 1 or 2 Misuse of UNICOR Resources 1 or 2oia Bribery Bribery 1 Conspiracy to Commit Briberyr 1 Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates Soliciting/?Accepting Anything of Value 2 Offering/Giving Anything of Value 2 Improper Contact with an Inmate/Inmate?s Family 2 Appearance of an Inappropriate Relationship 2 Misuse of Inmate Labor 2 Preferential Treatment of Inmates 2 Investigative Violations Concealing a Material Fact 1 or 2 Refusing to Cooperate 1 or 2 Lying During an Investigation 1 or 2 Providing a False Statement 1 or 2 Altering/Destroying Evidence Documents 1 Refusing to Submit to a Search 1 0r 2 Interfering withg? Impeding an Investigation 1 or 2 Advising Someone to Violate Policy 1 or 2 Conducting an Unauthorized Investigation SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 80 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 84 of 86 Category," Type of Misconduct Lack of Candor 1 or 2 Personnel Prohibitions Threatening Intimidating Employees 1 or 2 Failure to Report Violation of Rules Regulations 1 or 2 Falsi?cation of Employment Records 2 Misuse of Of?cial Position/Badge 2 Inappropriate SupervisorfSubordinate Relationship 2 Engaging in Prohibited Personnel Practices 2 Use Abuse of Illegal Drugs/Alcohol 2 or 3 Absent Without Leave (AWOL) 3 Retaliation 2 Unauthorized Release of Information Unauthorized Release of Information 1 or 2 Violation of Privacy Acts 1 or 2 Other On-Duty Misconduct Use of Profanity 3 Unprofcssional Conduct of a Sexual Nature 1, 2, or 3 Inattention to Duty 3 Failure to Respond to an Emergency 3 Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates 3 Breach of Security 2 or 3 Breach of Computer Security 2 01" 3 Falsi?cation of Documents 1 Unprofessional Conduct 3 SBU Smtsitive But Unclassi?ed 81 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 85 of 86 Category? Type of Misconduct Failure to Follow Policy 3 Gambling/ Promotion of Gambling 2 Endangering the Safety of an Inmate 2 Endangering the Safety of Others 2 Providing False Information Other Than During 3 an Of?cial Investigation Insubordination 3 Accidental Discharge of a Firearm 3 Soliciting/ Sale of Goods on Government Property 3 Job Favoritism 3 Workplace Violence 1 or 2 Failure to Meet Performance Standards 2 Failure to Follow Supervisor?s Instructions 3 Fraudulent Workers? Compensation Claims 1 Conduct Unbecoming a Management Of?cial 2 Off-Duty Misconduct Arrest and Conviction 2 or 3 Failure to Report Arrest 3 Failure to Pay Just Debts 3 Failure to Obtain Outside Employment Approval 3 3 Domestic Violence 2 Traf?c Citation 3 Carrying an Unregistered/Concealed Firearm 2 SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 82 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 86 of 86 US. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons Washin ton, D.C. Of?ce of Internal Affairs Report for Fiscal Year 2008 SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed BOP FOIA 2016-0171610f47 Table of Contents Executive Summary of Findings 1 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct 3 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations 5 Reported Misconduct. '7 Closed/ Sustained Misconduct. 10 Physical Abuse of Inmates. 21 Introduction of Contraband 23 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 26 Representative Case Summaries. 32 Signi?cant Prosecutions 35 Appendices 38 SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed BOP FOIA 2016-01716 2 of 47 Executive Summary of Findings - There was a 4.3 percent decrease in the number of cases opened in Fiscal Year 2008 as compared with Fiscal Year 200 7. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees decreased 7.2 percent in Fiscal Year 2008 as compared with Fiscal Year 2007. - The largest decrease occurred in cases categorized as Classi?cation 1 offenses (allegations which, if substantiated, would constitute a prosecutable offense [other than offenses such as misdemeanor arrests and traf?c 3.5 percent decrease from those cases opened in Fiscal Year 2007. - The most frequently reported type of misconduct in Fiscal year 2008 was Other On~Duty Misconduct (particularly that which was unrelated to inmates}. Unprofessional Conduct and Abuse of Inmates placed second and third, respectively. 1- The only categories of reported misconduct which showed an increase from Fiscal Year 2007 were Failure to Follow Policy, Unauthorized Release of Information, Discrimination, Breach of Security, and Other On-Duty Misconduct. The most signi?cant decreases occurred in the categories of Inattention to Duty, Investigative Violations, Fiscal Improprieties, Introduction of Contraband, and Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates. - During Fiscal Year 2008, 15 cases involving Patriot Act Violations were opened. As of September 30, 200 8, 7 cases remained open pending investigation or awaiting disciplinary action, and 8 cases were closed. No misconduct was sustained in any of the closed cases. - As of September 30, 2008, a decision had been made for 24 percent of the 5,098 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2008. Of the 24 percent, 21.2 percent had a sustained decision, a rate of .7 employees per 100 total BOP staff. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2008, was Personnel Prohibitions, followed by Other On-Duty Misconduct and Off-Duty Misconduct. - The sustained rate of misconduct for those BOP employees for whom a decision had been made as of September 30, 2008, was higher among female employees (.8 per 100 total female BOP staff) than among male employees (.7 per 100 total male BOP staff). - The most frequently sustained category of misconduct for female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2008, was Other On-Duty Misconduct, while the most frequently sustained category of misconduct for male SBU Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 1 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 3 of 47 Executive Summag of Findings BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2008, was Personnel Prohibitions. - For those BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2008, the rate was highest among Food Services staff (1.1 per 100 total Food Services staff). The most frequently sustained categories of misconduct among Food Services staff were Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates and Off?Duty Misconduct. - For those BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2008, the rate was higher among non?bargaining unit employees (.9 employees per 100 total non-bargaining unit employees) than among bargaining unit employees employees per 100 total bargaining unit employees). - For those contract/ halfway house employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2008, the most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates. The same was true for those staff working in privatized facilities. - As of September 30, 2008, 3 allegations of Physical Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 20 08 were sustained?-onc resulted in minor/ slight injury to the inmate, and two resulted in minor/no injury (harassment) to the inmate. All three sustained allegations involved staff working in privatized facilities. None of the 3 individuals involved in the sustained allegations of Physical Abuse were convicted of criminal violations. - As of September 30, 2008, 20 allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported during Fiscal Year 2008 were sustained: 5 involved the introduction of soft contraband, 2 involved the introduction of weapons, 1 involved the introduction of drugs, 1 involved the introduction of alcoholic beverages, 5 involved the introduction of unauthorized electronic devices, 1 involved the introduction of weightlifting supplements, and 5 involved the introduction of cigarettes/ tobacco. Two of the 15 individuals involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband were convicted of criminal violations, both male BOP employees. - As of September 30, 2008, 13 allegations of Sexual Abuse of Inmates reported during Fiscal Year 2008 were sustained: 6 involving BOP employees, 4 involving contract/halfway house employees, and 3 involving staff working in privatized facilities. None of the 13 individuals involved in the sustained allegations of Sexual Abuse of Inmates were convicted of criminal violations. SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 2 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 4 0f 47 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct Staff Reporting In accordance with the Bureau?s Standards of Employee Conduct, staff who become aware of any violation or alleged violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct must report them to the Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO), the Of?ce of Internal Affairs (01A), or to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Of?ce of the Inapector Genera] (01G). The 016 has established a toll-free hotline (1-800?8 69?4499) which is available to anyone wishing to report DOJ employees? misconduct, as well as fraud, waste, or abuse in government. All Bureau staff are encouraged to use the OIG hotline if they wish to remain anonymous or fear retaliation or reprise]. To report violations directly to the 01A Central Of?ce call (202) 30'2-3286) or fax (202) 514-8625). CEO Reporting Upon becoming aware of any possible violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct [either through a report from staff or through personal knowledge), the CEO at the institution, Regional Office, or Central Of?ce Division, or his or her designee, is to report the violation to the CIA in accordance with the following time frames. Classi?cation 1 cases are de?ned as allegations which, if substantiated, would constitute a prosecutable offense [other than offenses such as misdemeanor arrests and traffic citations]. Classi?cation 2 cases are de?ned as allegations which involve violation of rules, regulations, or law that, if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution, but constitute serious misconduct. Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases must be reported telephonically to the 01A immediately. Include: the identity of the complainantfs], subject(s), witness(es), and victim(s); - the details of the allegation(s); and . any corroborating evidence. Written noti?cation to the CIA will be made within 24 hours [not to include weekends and holidays) of the time management learns of the matter. Referral to the DOJ, 01G, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Other Law Enforcement Agencies. When it is suspected that criminal conduct has occurred, the CEO may refer the matter directly to the OLA and to the local FBI simultaneously. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 3 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 5 of 47 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct Initial Information. A Referral of Incident form is used to organize the information to be provided in the telephonic reporting of cases listed in subsection of this section (for contract employees use form The subject of the allegation or cemplaint must not be questioned or interviewed prior to the OIG clearance and the approval. This is to ensure against procedural error and safeguard the rights of the subject. Supporting Documentation. A Referral of Incident form and all supporting documentation, such as victim or witness statements, medical reports, photos, and related memoranda, must be transmitted via facsimile to the 01A at [20 2) 514-8625 immediately, but not later than 24 hours, after the telephonic report. If an inmate alleges physical or sexual abuse by a staff member and has not received a medical examination, the CEO must arrange an immediate, con?dential medical examination and forward a copy of the results to the CIA as soon as possible. CEOs must notify the OIA before initiating investigations involving any misconduct alleged against management staff occupying'GS-l'g, or above positions. The CIA will coordinate further action with the 01G. Unless the CEO and the Chief of the CIA agree to a different method, ordinarily, investigations involving Classi?cation 3 cases are to be conducted using local resources. Classi?cation 3 cases are de?ned as allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations. Ordinarily, Chief Executive Officers can proceed with local investigations on classi?cation 3 misconduct allegations for staff occupying bargaining unit or (35?12 and below non-bargaining unit positions without ?rst obtaining OLA approval. When a Classi?cation 3 investigation is initiated, facilities will immediately complete a Referral of Incident form and forward it, in WordPerfect format, to the OLA resource box BOP-DIR/Internai Affairs~. The subject of the e-mail should state Classi?cation 3 Referral and the facility mnemonic Classi?cation 3 Referral - BUX). Only the Referral of Incident form (BF-3715.012) should be forwarded {no predicating information should be forwarded at that time). A signed copy of the Referral of Incident form and the predicating information should be retained in the local investigative ?le. When a Classi?cation 3 case is complex and would result in severe disciplinary or adverse action, the procedures for reporting Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases should be followed. Contact the CIA immediately if there is any question as to the classi?cation of the misconduct. It is important to note that while case classi?cations are many times based on limited information, as an investigation unfolds, the severity of misconduct may increase or decrease, thereby moving it into another classi?cation. SBU- Sensitive But Unclassified 4 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 6 of 47 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations For all local staff misconduct investigations completed on or after January 1, 2007, the investigator must forward the complete investigative packet directly to the 01A for approval prior to fomarding it to the CEO for action. These procedures apply to all local staff misconduct investigations in which BOP employees are the subject (Classi?cation 1, 2, and 3 allegations), regardless of whether any misconduct will be sustained. Where to Send Local Investigative Packets Local investigative packets should be sent via c-mail to the CIA GroupWise mailbox Internal Affairs-Local Investigative Packets~" (not to be confused with OIA's main resource mailbox, Internal To ensure local investigative packets are reviewed by the 01A in a timely manner, they should not be sent to any individual 01A staff member or to any 01A ?eld office. The subject of your e?mail message should inciude the CIA case number and the facility mnemonic code Format for Local Investigative Packets and What to Send Local investigative packets should include the investigative report (signed by the investigator) and all supporting documentation (af?davits, memorandums, video ?les, etc). Complete investigative packets must be forwarded; the Summary of Investigation for Classi?cation 3 Cases form (BF-8716.012) is no longer applicable and should not be used. Documents must be scanned in .pdf format (Adobe Acrobat]. Do not send documents in other formats .tif ?les, .wpd ?les). Each document should be scanned as a separate document and named by ?rst identifying the document and then providing the name of the individual to whom it relates. Photo images and graphic images may be forwarded in .jpg or .gif format. For example: Report. Af?davit-Fred ones.pdf Af?davit?Jessica Johnsonpdf Pictures-Freddy Inmatejpg Af?davit ?les should include the Warning and Assurance to Employee Required to Provide Information (BF-194), if applicable, and the signed Oath for each individual. SBU - Sensitive But Uncfassi?ed 5 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 7 of 47 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations The investigative packet should not include national policy or any documents not speci?cally related to the investigation staff rosters, inmate SENTRY information, etc). Time Guidelines For Classi?cation 1 or 2 allegations, local investigations should be completed and the investigative packet forwarded to the BIA within 120 calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the OLA. For classi?cation 3 allegations, local investigations should be completed and the investigative packet forwarded to the CIA prior to any disciplinary action being taken and within 1213) calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the CEO. Once received, the OLA will complete their review of the local investigative packet within ten business days. The investigator will be advised to whether the investigative packet is approved or if additional information is needed. This information will be sent via e-mail to the investigator with a copy to the CEO. If additional information is needed, the investigator should forward the additional information to the CIA within 30 calendar days, who will again notify the investigator and the CEO if the packet is approved. Once approved, the investigator should forward the investigative packet to the CEO for appropriate action with all Review of Local Investigative Packet forms applicable to that packet attached. No disciplinary proceedings or other noti?cations to subjects should occur prior to the OIA's approval of the investigative packet. Reports from 01A The CIA sends the CEO a report of all local staff misconduct investigations which have extended past established time frames. should continue to work with the monitoring agent assigned to their facility for guidance and to provide updates on outstanding matters. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 6 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 8 of 47 Reported Misconduct NOTES The number of subjects exceeds the number of cases throughout this report as some cases have multiple subjects. Also, some subjects may be charged with multiple types of misconduct in a single case, causing the number of allegations to be higher. Finally, individual employees may be subjects in more than one case. Due to the dynamic nature ofthe 01a database, ?gures in this report are subject to change. During the course of an investigation, evidence may indicate circumstances other than those initially reported, causing data to be added, deleted, and/or changes. There is no nexus between reported and sustained allegations. Allegations referred to as ?Inmate Related? included some type of inmate invoivem ent, while allegations referred to as ?Non Inmate Related? occurred in the workplace but did not include inmate involvement. For a complete list of the types ofmisconduct included in each category, please reference the Appendices section of this report. All allegations of misconduct received by the (HA are referred to the BIG for review and classi?cation. The OIG determines which matters they will accept for investigation and possible criminal prosecution and defers other matters to the 01A for investigation. 01A coordinates with the DIG and/ or the FBI when investigations may lead to criminal prosecution or when there are allegations involving the abuse of an individual?s Constitutional rights under Color of Law. For those matters deferred for investigation, the 01s determines, after consulting with BOP management of?cials, whether an on-site investigation is warranted or if the matter can be investigated at the local institution level. Allegations categorized as Classi?cation 3 offenses are referred to the OIG via computer extract on a basis. During Fiscal Year 2008, the CIA opened 4,412 cases involving 5,098 BOP employees, 26 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 52 Public Health Service employees working in BOP facilities, 3 volunteers working in BOP facilities, 247 contract/halfway house employees, 191 employees working in privatized facilities, and 1 volunteer working in a privatized facility. These 4,412 cases represent a 4.3 percent decrease from the 4,611 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2007. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees also decreased between Fiscal Year 2007 and Fiscal Year 2008 (15.3 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2007 and 14.2 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2008, a decrease of 7.2 percent). The 4,412 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2008 were classi?ed as follows: Classification 1 1,138 Classification 2 1,226 Classi?cation 3 2,048 SBU - Sensitive But Unclassified 7 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 9 0f 47 Reported Misconduct The largest decrease occurred in cases categorized as Classi?cation 1 offenses--a 3.5 percent decrease from those cases opened in Fiscal Year 2007. Classi?cation 2 cases showed a decrease of 7.6 percent, and Classi?cation 3 cases showed a decrease of 2.7 percent. Table - Types of Reported Misconduct - FY 20113 Number of Reported Allegations Type of Misconduct N011 i132: [11:35; ?Mus To? {$332337 Other Orr-Duty Misconduct S66 T13 1279 .16 Unprofessional Conduct 4114 496 971) ?3.6 Abuse oflnmates T32 732 -5.3 Failure to Follow Policy 4'14 212 636 14 Personnel Prohibitions 583 52 635 40.? Off-Duty Misconduct 556 556 -8.4 Introduction ofContrahand 476 56 532 -23 .2 Inappropriate Relationships with Inniatcs 484 484 ?20.8 Fiscal lmproprieties 55 404 459 -33.5 Breach of Security 289 119 408 1.2 Inattention to Duty 233 94 32? ?3 6.4 Sexual Abuse oflninates 304 304 -5.9 Bribery 207 0 20? 42.3 Unauthorized Release of Information 3?2 61 133 13.7 Investigative Violations 97 ?33.6 Discrimination 14 12 26 8.3 Table 1 provides abreakdown of those types of misconduct reported during Fiscal Year 2008. The only categories of reported misconduct which showed an increase from Fiscal Year 2007 were Failure to Follow Policy [a 14 percent increase), Unauthorized Release of Information (a 13.? percent increase), Discrimination (an 8.3 percent increase), Breach of Security [a 1.2 percent increase), and Other On?Duty Misconduct [a .16 percent increase). The most significant decreases occurred in the categories of Inattention to Duty [a 36.4 percent decrease), Investigative Violations [a 33.6 percent SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 8 BOP FOIA 2016-0171610 of 47 Reported Misconduct decrease), Fiscal ImprOpricties [a 33.5 percent decrease), Introduction of Contraband (a 23.2 percent decrease), and Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates (a 20.8 percent decrease). USA Patriot Act In the USA Patriot Act, Congress expressed concern about the potential abuse of individual civil rights and liberties by DOJ employees in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the Patriot Act mandated that the OIG widely advertise that it receives and investigates allegations of such abuses. Patriot Act violations include violence, discrimination, or threats on the part of a DOJ employee, particularly when such cases are directed toward individuals or groups associated in the public perception with acts of terrorism because of their religious beliefs, place of birth, or appearance. Patriot Act allegations which typically come to our attention are alleged mistreatment or unprofessional behavior of BOP staff toward,? around certain inmates, their visitors, or members of the public. Due to the sensitivity of these allegations, they are automatically classi?ed as Classi?cation 2 or higher offenses; they should be forwarded immediately to the (HA. All Patriot Act violation allegations are then referred to a Special Operations Unit at OIG Headquarters devoted to reviewing and investigating such misconduct. Of the 4,412 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2008, 15 cases involved Patriot Act violations. As of September 30, 2008, 7 cases remained open pending investigation or awaiting disciplinary action, and 8 cases were closed. No allegations of misconduct were sustained in any of the closed cases. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 9 BOP FOIA 2016-01716110f47 ClosedZSustained Misconduct NOTES All ?gures in this section relate to cases which were opened during the specified Fiscal Year, which were closed as of September 30, 2008. Figures are subject to change as additional cases are closed. Please refer to the appendices section of this report for the types of misconduct sustained against BOP employees as ofSeptember 30, 2008, for cases opened during Fiscal Year 2007. As of September 30, 2008, a decision had been made on 1,244 (28.2 percent) of the 4,412 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2008. The remaining 3,168 cases (71.8 percent) were still open and being investigated. Of the 1,244 cases closed, the majority (1,138, or 91.5 percent) were investigated at the institution level with authorization and monitoring provided by the 01A. Of the 1,244 cases closed, 52 were OLA on-site investigations (4.2 percent), and 54 were investigated by the OIG (4.3 percent) . Of the 1,244 cases closed, 342 (27.5 percent) were sustained. Misconduct was sustained against 259 BOP employees, 2 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 4 PHS employees working in BOP facilities, 44 contract/halfway house employees, 60 employees working in privatized facilities, and 1 volunteer working in a privatized facility. BOP Employees There were 5,098 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2008. As of September 30, 2008, a decision had been made for 24 percent of those employees. Of the 24 percent (or 1,221 employees), 21.2 percent (259) had a sustained decision (a rate of .7 employees per 100 total BOP staff). Of the 5,098 BOP employees for whom a case was opened in Fiscal Year 2008, 204 were unidenti?ed. Table 2 (on the following page) re?ects the categories of sustained allegations for BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2008. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Personnel Prohibitions, followed by Other On? Duty Misconduct and Off-Duty Misconduct. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 10 BOP FOIA 2016-0171612 of 47 ClosedZSustained Misconduct Table 2: Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY with 24 Percent Closed Type of Misconduct Number of Sustained Allegations Inmate Non Inmate Related Related Off-D uty TOTAL Personnel Prohibitions 46 4 50 Other Orr-Duty Misconduct 4 35 39 Off-Duty Misconduct 38 38 Failure to Follow Policy 17 20 Fiscal Impropricties 2 2E 30 Unprofessional Conduct 4 22 26 Inattention to Dutyr 14 ll 25 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 19 19 Breach ofSeourity ll 6 Introduction ofContra'oand 3 5 l4 Investigative Violations 3 8 Sexual AbuSe of Inmates ti 6 Abuse of Inmates 4 4 Unauthorized Release of Information 1 2 Bribery.r 1 l] I Discrimination - Disciplinary Action Taken Once a subject is investigated and the allegations are sustained, the type of disciplinary action taken is left to the deciding of?cial, who is generally the Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO). Each case is unique, and there are varying degrees of seriousness within each type of misconduct. Also, a single subject may be charged with multiple types of misconduct. The Douglas Factors must be considered when deciding the appropriate penalty to impose on employees for misconduct. The Douglas Factors are an accumulation of historic Civil Service practices and procedures in cases involving civil servant misconduct, created by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in the seminal Douglas case. In Douglas, the MSPB SBU - Sensitive But Unclassified 11 BOP FOIA 2016-0171613 of 47 ClosedKSustained Misconduct announced a non-exhaustive list of 12 factors which the BOP, like all federal agencies, must consider in determining appropriate penalties to impose in employee misconduct. The Douglas Factors are as follows: 1! 2. 10. 11. 12. the nature and seriousness of the offense; the employee?s job level and type of employment; the employee?s disciplinary record; the employee?s past work record, including length of service and duty performance; the effect of the offense on the employee?s ability to perform and its effect on the supervisor?s con?dence in such ability; the consistency of the penalty with penalties imposed upon others for like or similar misconduct; the consistent? of the penalty with the table of penalties [Program Statement 3240.09, Standards of Employee Conduct); the notoriety of the offense or its impact on the reputation; the clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules violated or warned about the conduct in question; the employee?s potential for rehabilitation; any and all mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense job stress/tension, personality problems, mental impairment, harassment or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of others involved); The adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions. The CEO is required to consider only those Douglas Factors which are relevant to any individual case and need not consider all the Douglas Factors in every case. In many cases, some of the Douglas Factors may suggest one penalty while others suggest another penaltychose the appropriate penalty. The following actions were taken against (or by) those BOP employees with a sustained decision. Oral Reprimand 5 SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 12 BOP FOIA 2016-0171614 of 47 ClosedZSustained Misconduct Written Reprimand 65 Suspension 42 Demotion. 2 Retirement. 7 Resignation 62 Termination. 11 Combined with Action in Another OIA Matter 4 Other Signi?cant Log Entry) 3 No Action Taken 58 The types of misconduct most frequently sustained against those individuals for whom no disciplinary action was taken were Traf?c Citations (15. 5 percent), Failure to Follow Policy (14.1 percent), and Absent Without Leave (12.7 percent). NOTE: Effective September 12, 2008, the requirement that instances of traf?c citations /violations on the part of employees (regardless of the dollar amount of any ?nes received or paid) be reported to the 01A or otherwise result in the opening of a staff misconduct investigation was eliminated. Accordingly and to avoid the unnecessary use of staff resources, any matters involving traf?c citations pending as of September 12, 20 08, were closed administratively. Gender There were 3,865 male BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2008. As of September 30, 2008, a decision had been made for 23.2 percent of those 3,865 male employees. Of the 23.2 percent [or 896 male employees), 19.8 percent (177) had a sustained decision (a rate of .7 employees per 100 total male BOP staff). There were 1,029 female BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2008. As of September 30, 2008, a decision had been made for 26.9 percent of those female employees. 0f the 26.9 percent (or 277 female employees), 29.2 percent (81) had a sustained decision (a rate of .8 employees per 100 total female BOP staff). Tables 3 and 4 (on the following pages) re?ect the categories of sustained allegations for male and female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2008. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among male staff was Personnel Prohibitions (16.2 percent of all sustained misconduct by male staff), while the most frequently sustained categories of misconduct among female staff were Other On-Duty Misconduct and Personnel Prohibitions (14.1 percent each of all sustained misconduct by female staff). SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 13 BOP FOIA 2016-0171615 0f 47 Closed: Sustained Misconduct Table 3: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Male BOP Employees - FY 2008 with 23.2 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Trim of Misconduct 111:3: ?$333? Off-Duty TOTAL nrrutai? Personnel Prohibitions 33 2 35 [6.2 Off-Duty Misconduct 29 29 13.4 Failure to Follow Policy I5 12 2? 12.5 Other On?Duty Misconduct 3 22 25 I 1.6 Fiscal Improprieties 2 22 24 11.1 Unprofessional Conduct 1 18 8.3 Inattention to Duty 5 10 IS 6.9 Introduction of Contraband 5 12 5.6 Breach of Security 7' 4 ll Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 8 3 3.7 Investigative Violations 5 5 2.3 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 3 3 1.4 Abuse oflumates 2 2 .9 Bribery I 0 .5 Unauthorized Release of Information .5 Discrimination 0 0 lThose items highlighted in red occurred with greater frequency among male staff than among female staff. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 14 BOP FOIA 2016-0171616 of 47 Closed?Sustajned Misconduct Table 4: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Female BOP Employees - FY 2008 with 26.9 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations 0* Mimndm 11:11:23 orr?nuty TOTAL n. oantal' Other 0n?Duty Misconduct 1 13 14 14.] Personnel Prohibitions 12 14 14.] Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 1] ll 11.] Inattention to Duty 9 10 10.] Failure to Follow Policy 2 8 10 10.! Misconduct 9 9.1 Unprofessional Conduct 3 5 3 3.1 Fiscal lmpropricties l] 6 6 6.1 Breach of Security 4 2 6 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 3 3 3.0 Investigative Violations 3 3 Abuse ofinmates 2 2 2.0 Introduction of Contraband 2 2.0 Unauthorized Release ofinformation I 1.0 Discrimination Briberyr 1These items highlighted in red occurred with greater frequency among female staff than among male staff. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed BOP FOIA 2016-0171617 of 47 15 Closed: Sustained Misconduct . Job Discipline As of September 30, 2008, 259 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2008 had a sustained decision. Table 5 re?ects the rate of misconduct among the various job disciplines. 16 SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed BOP FOIA 2016-0171618 of 47 Table 5: Discipline of BOP Employees with Sustained Misconduct - FY zoos Number of Discipli no Emg?llgmeeifetgith Total Employees $1332? Misconduct Food Sendoes 13 1584 1.1 Health ServicesfSafeq: 26 2453 1.1 Inmate Services 2 190 1.1 Computer Sendees 2 230 .9 Correctional Sal-ideas 135 15938 .E StaffTraining CenterstIC 1 133 .8 Unit Management 21 3031 .7 Business Of?ce 11 1643 .7 Mechanicai Scr?oea 13 2349 .6 Community Corrections 1 15B .6 Religious Services 2 309 -5 UNICOR 135? -5 Recreation 3 69? -4 Central Of?ce 5 1204 .4 Systems 4 won .4 (SETS Of?ce and Staff 3 92? -3 Education and Vocational Training 3 933 -3 Parchology Services 1 9:52 .1 Human Resources 1 431 .0 Closed?Sustained Misconduct The most frequently sustained categories of misconduct among staff working in Food Services were Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates and Off-Duty Misconduct (13 percent each of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group). The most frequently sustained categories of misconduct among Health Serviccsf Safety staff were Personnel Prohibitions and Off-Duty Misconduct [12.5 percent each of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group). Misconduct among Inmate Services staff was equally divided behveen Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates, Failure to Follow Policy, Personnel Prohibitions, and Off-Duty Misconduct (25 percent each of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group). - Bargaining vs. Non?Bargaining Unit Staff There were 3,832 employees in the bargaining unit identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2008. As of September 30, 200 8, a decision had been made for 23.4 percent of those 3,832 bargaining unit employees. Of the 23.4 percent (or 896 bargaining unit employees), 23.2 percent (or 208 bargaining unit employees) had a sustained decision [a rate of .7 employees per 100 total bargaining unit employees). There were 1,062 non?bargaining unit employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2008. As of September 30, 2008, a decision had been made for 26.2 percent of those 1,062 non-bargaining unit employees. Of the 26.2 percent (or 278 non- bargaining unit employees), 18.3 percent {or 51 non?bargaining unit employees) had a sustained decision [a rate of .9 employees per 100 total non?bargaining unit employees). Contract/ Halfway House Employees There were 247 contract/ halfway house employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2008. As of September 30, 2008, a decision had been made for 55.9 percent of those 247 employees. 0f the 55.9 percent (or 138 employees), 31.9 percent (44) had a sustained decision. It is signi?cant to note that an administrative disposition was recorded for 44.9 percent of those employees for whom a decision had been made, indicating the employee either resigned or was terminated prior to an investigation being conducted. Thus, the 31.9 percent sustained rate is likely an extremely conservative ?gure. Table 6 (on the following page] provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against contract/halfway house employees. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct was Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates, which made up 31.6 percent of all sustained misconduct among this group. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassified BOP FOIA 2016-0171619 0f 47 ClosedZSustaine-d Misconduct with 55.9 Percent Closed Table 6: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Contraetfl-Iall?way House Employees - FY 2008 Staff in Privatized Facilities There were 191 employees and 1 volunteer working in privatized facilities identi?ed as Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct ?13123 mm. Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 13 18 Unprofessional Conduct 4 3 7 Other Dn-Duly Misconduct 3 3 IS Personnel Prohibitions 2 3 5 to Hut}:I 4 1 5 Failure to Follow Policy 3 I 4 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 4 4 Off?Duly Misconduct 3 3 Abuse of lnrnates Investigative Violations 1 Bribery 1 Fiscal lmproprieties Breach of Security 1 1 Introduction ofContraband 0 Discrimination 0 0 Unauthorized Release of Information misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2008. As of September 30, 2008, a decision had been made for 65.1 percent of those 192 subjects. Of the 65.1 percent (or 125 subjects), 48.8 percent [61) had a sustained decision. Table 7 (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against employees and volunteers working in privatized facilities. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct was Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates, which made up 22.9 percent of all sustained misconduct among persons in this group. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 13 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 20 of 47 ClosedZSustained Misconduct Table Types ?Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Privatized Facilities- FY 2008 with 65.1 Percent Closed Type of Misconduct Number of Sustained Allegations Inmate Related Non Inmate Related Off-Duty TOTAL Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 16 Unpro fession a1 Conduct 9 4 Failure to Follow Policy 9 Other Clo-Duty Misconduct 3 7 Personnel Prohibitions 6 Abuse of Inmates 4 4 Sexual Abuse oflnmates 3 3 Introduction of Contraband 2 3 Unauthorized Release oflnl'ormation 2 2 Investigative Violations 2 2 Breach of Security 2 Off-Duty Misconduct Bribery Discrimination I) Fiscal [l 0 Inaltention to Duty Contract Employees and Volunteers Working in BOP Facilities There were 26 contract staff and 3 volunteers working in BOP facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2008. As of September 30, 2008, a decision had been made for 23.1 percent of the 26 contract employees. Of the 23.1 percent (or 6 contract employees], 33.3 percent (2) had a sustained decision. Three allegations of Introduction of Contraband were sustained. As of September 30, 200 8, the cases involving the 3 volunteers were still open and under investigation. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 19 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 21 of 47 Closed?Sustained Misconduct PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities 0f the approximately 685 PHS staff working in BOP facilities, 52 were identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2008 (or 7.6 per 100 PHS employees). As of September 30, 2008, a decision had been made for 30.8 percent of those52 PHS employees. Of the 30.8 percent (or 16 PHS employees), 25 percent had a sustained decision, for a sustained rate of .6 per 100 PHS employees. Two allegations of Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates were sustained, and one allegation each of Other Oil-Duty Misconduct, Breach of Security, Unprofessional Conduct, and Failure to Follow Policy were sustained. SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 20 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 22 0f 47 Physical Abuse of Inmates Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 13 - Civil Rights ?241 Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -- They shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. ?242 Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or humanities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section ir if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or ?re, shall be ?ned under this title er imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be ?ned under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or may be sentenced to death. i Statistics During Fiscal Year 2008, 504 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2008, a decision had been made for 37.3 percent [or 188) of those allegations. Physical Abuse allegations are tracked by the degree of injury sustained by the SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 21 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 23 0f 47 thsical Abuse of Inmates threatening injury, serious injury, minorf slight injury, minor/ no injury (harassment), and super?cial injury (injuries associated with the normal use of restraints). Three allegations of Physical Abuse have been sustained to date: 1 resulted in minor/ slight injur}r to the inmate, and 2 resulted in minor/ no injury [harassment] to the inmate. All three sustained allegations involved staff working in privatized facilities. SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 22 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 24 of 47 Introduction of Contraband Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 87 - Prisons ?1791 Providing or possessing contraband in prison Offense?Whoever- (1) In violation of a statute or a rule or order issued under a statute, provides to an inmate of a prison a prohibited object, or attempts to do so; or being an inmate of a prison, makes, possesses, or obtains, or attempts to make or obtain, a prohibited object; shall be punished as provided in subsection of this section. Punishment-The punishment for an offense under this section is a ?ne under this title or- (1) imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the object is Speci?ed in subsection of this section; (2) imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; imprisonment for no more than 5 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; imprisonment for no more than one year, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection or of this section; and (5) imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section. Any punishment imposed under subsection for a violation of this section by an inmate of a prison shall be consecutive to the sentence being served by such inmate at the time the inmate commits such violation. De?nitions?As used in this section- (1) the term ?prohibited obj ect? means- (A) a ?rearm or destructive device or a controlled substance in Section I or II, other than marijuana or a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subsection; (B) marijuana or a controlled substance in schedule 111, other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subjection, ammunition, a weapon (other than a ?rearm or destructive device), or an object that is designed or intended to be used as a weapon or to facility escape from a prison; SBU - Sensitive But Unclasm?ed 23 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 25 of 47 Introduction of Contraband (C) a narcotic drug, methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers, lysergic acid diethylamide, or (D) a controlled substance (other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of this subsection) or an alcoholic beverage; (E) any United States or foreign currency; and (F) any other object that threatens the order, discipline, or security of a prison, or the life, health, or safety of an individual; (2) the terms ?ammunition,? ?firearm,? and ?destructive device? have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 921 of this title; (3) the terms ?controlled substance? and ?narcotic drug? have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); and the term ?prison? means a Federal correctional, detention, or penal facility or any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General. 0 Statistics During Fiscal Year 2008, 530 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2008, a decision had been made for 28.3 percent (or 150) of these allegations. Twenty allegations of Introduction of Contraband have been sustained to date: Type of Contraband Inmate Related Nun Inmate Related Soft Item 5 Cr Weapons 0 Unspeci?ed Drugs 1 Alcoholic Beverages 0 1 Unauthorized Electronic Device 4 Creatinel?v?vr eighllifting Supplements 1 Cigarettes?ohacco Fifteen individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Nine of these individuals were male BOP employees, 2 were female BOP SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 24 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 26 of 47 Introduction of Contraband employees, 1 contract employee working in a BOP facility, and 3 employees working at privatized facilities. Two individuals involved in the Introduction of Contraband were convicted of criminal violations, both male BOP employees. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 25 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 2? of 47 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 109A - Sexual Abuse ?2241 Aggravated Sexual Abuse By force or threat. - Whoever, in the Special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act - by using force against that other person, or by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. By other means. Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly (1) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or (2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby (A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and (B) engages in a sexual act with that other person; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. ?2242 Sexual Abuse Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly - (1) causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear [other than by threatening or SBU Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 26 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 28 of 47 Sexual Abuse of Inmates placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or (2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person 15 - (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; or attempts to do so shall be ?ned under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. ?2243 Sexual Abuse of a Ward Of a ward Whoever, in the Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facilityin which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who is (1) in of?cial detention; and (2) under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so engaging; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both. ?2244 Abusive Sexual Contact Sexual contact in circumstances where sexual acts are punished by this chapter. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so to do would Violate (1) subsection or of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; (2) section 2242 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than three years, or both; (3) subsection of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both; SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed BOP FOIA 2016-01716 29 of 47 Sexual Abuse of Imnates (4) subsection of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (5) subsection of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. In Other Circumstances. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without that other person?s permission shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned no more than two years, or both. 2246 De?nitions (1) the term ?prison? means a correctional, detention, or penal facility; (2) the term ?sexual act? means - (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for the purposes of this subparagraph, contact involved the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the arms; or (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening by another by a hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; 04 the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another person who has not attained the age of 16 years with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (3) the term ?sexual contact? means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; the term ?serious bodily injury? means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious dis?gurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 28 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 30 of 47 Sexual Abuse of Inmates the term ?of?cial detention? means (A) detention by a Federal of?cer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal of?cer or employee, following arrest for an offense; following surrender in lieu of an arrest for an offense; following a charge or conviction of an offense, or an allegation or ?nding of juvenile delinquency; following commitment as a material witness; following civil commitment in lieu of criminal proceedings or pending resumption of criminal proceedings that are being held in abeyance, or pending extradition, deportation, or exclusion; or (B) custody by a Federal of?cer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal Of?cer or employee, for purposes incident to any detention described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, including transportation, medical diagnosis or treatment, court appearance, work, and recreation; but does not include supervision or under control (other than custody during speci?ed hours or days) after release on bail, probation, or parole, or after release following a juvenile delinquency. Statistics During Fiscal Year 2008, 304 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. These 304 allegations involved 232 BOP employees, 48 contract/halfway house employees, 21 staff working in privatized facilities, and 3 contract staff working in BOP facilities. As of September 30, 2008, 13 allegations of Sexual Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2008 had been sustained (6 involving BOP employees, 4 involving contract/halfway house employees, and 3 involving staff working in privatized facilities). Sexual Abuse/Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee and a male inmate at FCC Tucson. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation the subject admitted having sexual intercourse with the inmate in a staff restroom in a housing unit. The subject resigned her employment. {2008-0 10 24) Sexual Abuse Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee and a male inmate at the Big Spring Correctional Center. The inmate provided a sworn af?davit in which he admitted having a sexual relationship with the subject. The subject denied the allegations but was found to be deceptive when administered a polygraph examination. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject's employment was terminated (2008-01386) SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 29 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 31 0f 47 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse/ Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee and a male inmate at the McRae Correctional Facility. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation the subject admitted having an ?affair? with the inmate and allowing him to place his hand in her pants. The subject resigned her employment. (2008?01874) Sexual Abuse Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Facilities employee and a female inmate at FCC Victorville. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation the subject admitted having sexual intercourse with the inmate in his truck at a local bus stop while the inmate was awaiting transportation for transfer to another institution. The subject resigned his employment. (2008?02771) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male employee and a male inmate at the Taft Correctional Institution. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The investigation revealed the subject made inappropriate comments and gestures with sexual connotations toward the inmate in an effort to embarrass and humiliate him. The subject received a written reprimand. (2008?00229) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Religious Services employee and a male inmate at USP Atlanta. During an OIG investigation, the subject admitted watching the inmate masturbate on four occasions. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution in this matter. The subject resigned his employment. (2008-00293) Unprofessiona] Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Business Of?ce employee and a male inmate at FCC Coleman. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation the subject admitted kissing the inmate. The subject resigned her employment. {2008- 00588) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Food Services employee and a male inmate at FCI Herlong. During an 01G investigation the subject admitted kissing the inmate. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her employment. (2008~o1126) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at a contract facility. The DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The inmate ejaculated semen into latex gloves on ten occasions and sent it to the subject. She used the semen to arti?cially inseminate herself. The subject became pregnant, and she sent 34,500 to the inmate?s account. The subject resigned her employment prior to the matter being referred for investigation. (2008-01164) SB Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 3o BOP FOIA 2016-01716 32 of 47 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male employee and a female inmate at a contract/ halfway house facility. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject sent an e?mail to a State inmate in which he indicated he had developed personal feelings for her and would like a relationship with her. The subject resigned his employment. (aooB-o2343) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male employee and a female inmate at a contract/halfway house facility. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During the investigation several inmates provided af?davits in which they stated the subject made inappropriate comments and gestures with sexual connotations toward them. The subject was banned from working with federal offenders. (2008-0265?) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Records/ Inmate Systems employee and a female inmate at FCI Hazelton. During an OIG investigation the subject admitted kissing, hugging, and engaging in inappropriate intimate relations with the inmate on several occasions in the mail room and receiving and discharge area. In the subject?s affidavit he states they ?made out sexually with clothes on several times.? He admits kissing the inmate?s stomach on one occasion. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned his employment. (2 008-02999) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee and a male inmate at a contract/halfway house facility. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. An inmate mailed a package to the facility which included a video and photographs of the subject and the inmate meeting in a parking lot and kissing. The subject resigned her employment. (2008-03950) SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 31 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 33 of 47 Representative Case Summaries Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature A UNICOR employee entered another employee?s of?ce and told her he was thankful for their working relationship. The subject then walked behind the victim?s desk, placed his hand on her shoulder, bent down, and kissed her on the lips. When the victim protested, the subject stated, ?Won?t nobody see,? and that he ?didn?t mean nothing by it.? The subject also told another staff member that the victim would lift her shirt and show him her breasts if he asked. Finally, the subject sent the victim inappropriate emails. Outcome: The subject was demoted. (2008?01193) Misuse of Government Computer During a routine search of user computer home directories, a non work-related video ?le was found in a Health Services Safety employee?s home directory. Outcome: The subject was suspended for one day (2008?00124) A Computer Services employee sent semially?explicit e?mails to a private citizen using his government computer. Outcome: The subject was suspended for ?ve days. (2008-01403) Misuse of Inmate Labor A Food Services employee lent an electric skillet to another staff member. When the staff member returned the skillet, it was dirty. The Food Services employee instructed an inmate to clean the skillet. Outcome: The subject received a written reprimand. (2008-01839) Failure to Follow Policy While escorting an inmate to his assigned cell, a Correctional Services employee Opened the cell door without restraining the other inmates occupying the cell. Outcome: The subject was suspended for one day. (2008-00976) A Unit Management employee submitted a Request for Withdrawal of Inmate Funds without verifying the identity of the inmate making the request. As a result, an inmate withdrew funds from another inmate?s account. Outcome: The subject received a written reprimand. [2008-00802) Misuse of Purchase Charge Card; Lack of Candor A Recreation employee used his purchase charge card to purchase a Playstation 3 and several computer games. The subject initially stated the items were purchased for use by inmates, but later admitted they were for his personal use. The subject also purchased a SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 32 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 34 of 47 Representative Case Summaries personal membership and rentals for a sports team he coached. Outcome: The subject was demoted from a GS-11 to a GL?og. (2008-00534) Failure to Follow Supervisor?s Instructions A Business Of?ce employee?s supervisor informed him that he was required to work mandatory overtime in the commissary. The subject did not believe the overtime was necessary, and he refused. Outcome: The subject received a written reprimand. (2008?00181) Giving Anything of Value to an Inmate A Facilities employee entered the visiting room with a cart of sodas to ?ll the visiting room soda machine. Four inmates were present. When the subject Opened the soda machine, one of the inmates asked if he could have a soda The subject gave each of the four inmates a soda. Immediately thereafter ten more inmates arrived, and the subject gave each of them a soda. Outcome: The subject was suSpended for one day. {2008? 00136) ?Workplace Violence; Lack of Gender A Records Inmate Systems employee became upset with another employee and swung a three-ring binder near his head. The subject then threw the binder on the ?oor, breaking it, and stood behind the victim with his hands clenched in ?sts as though he was going to strike him. During the investigation, the subject denied any knowledge of the incident. Outcome: The subject was suspended for two days. (2008-00145) ImproPer Contact With an Inmate/Inmate?s Family An employee at a contract halfway house facility communicated with a former inmate via the Internet. Copies of his communications were forwarded to the facility anonymously. Outcome: The subject?s employment was terminated. (2008-01917) An employee at a privatized facility allowed inmates assigned to her work details to congregate in her of?ce, creating an impression of over-familiarity. The subject also showed the inmates? pictures of herself and her family. Outcome: The subject received a written reprimand. (2 008?00583) Inattention to Duty; Failure to Follow Policy An employee at a contractfhal?vay house facility failed to call home confinement or pass inmates as required by policy. Further, the subject failed to conduct unscheduled rounds, thereby providing inmates the opportunity to leave the facility or congregate in SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 33 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 35 0f 47 Representative Case Summaries unauthorized areas. Outcome: The subject?s employment was terminated. (2008-00741) Falsi?cation of Documents An employee at a privatized facility falsi?ed documents related to CIM clearance forms. The employee signed a Unit Manager?s name to packets to ensure they were ready for an upcoming audit. Outcome: The subject received a written reprimand. [2008?00734] Breach of Security A Public Health Service employee lost her institution-issued key ring, including a Folger Adams key. The key ring was found by an inmate lying on the ?oor leading from the mail room. Six of sixteen affect locks had to be replaced. Outcome: The subject received a written reprimand. (2008-00524) SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 34 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 36 0f 47 Significant Prosecutions Following are brief summaries of some of the signi?cant or noteworthy prosecutions which were completed during Fiscal Year 2008. The individuals referenced are no longer employed by the BOP or any BOP contractor: During an OIG investigation, a Business Of?ce employee admitted introducing clothing, sunglasses, suntan lotion, a gold chain, an MP-3 player, and weightlifting supplements for an inmate. The subject was paid between $1,500 and $2,000 in cash for the contraband. The subject was indicted by a Grand Jury and pled guilty to one count of Introduction of Contraband and one count of Bribery. The Introduction to Contraband charge was dropped as a result of the subject?s guilty plea to the Bribery charge. The subject was sentenced to 20- months incarceration and 24-months supervised release. (2003-02386) Outside law enforcement agencies reported two inmates were using cellular telephones inside the institution. Information received from informants indicated the cellular telephones were introduced by a Correctional Services employee. Following an 01G investigation, the subject was convicted of Bribing a Public Official and Possession of Contraband in Prison. The subject was sentenced to ten-months incarceration and two-years supervised release. (2003- 02401) A U.S. Probation Of?cer reported that an employee at a contract halfway house facility accepted gratuities (up to $60 per day] from two inmates for allowing them to leave the facility at will. Following an 01G investigation the subject was indicted for Perjury and Obstruction of usticc. The charges resulted from the subject?s denial to a Grand Jury that he ever had telephonic contact with an inmate. A review of the subj ect?s telephone records revealed he had numerous telephonic contacts with inmates. The subject pled guilty to one count of Obstruction of Justice was sentenced to ?ve-months incarceration and three? years supervised release. He was also ?ned $3,000. (2005-00257) During an 01G investigation, a Correctional Services employee admitted he accepted money from an inmate?s brother in exchange for introducing pornographic magazines into the institution. The subject pled guilty to Receiving a Bribe and was sentenced to ?ve-months incarceration. (2005-00517) During an OIG investigation, a Business Of?ce employee accepted sham heroin and a $4,000 payment to smuggle the purported heroin into the institution. The subject pled guilty to one count of Bribery of a Public Of?cial. He was sentenced to 30-months incarceration and 36-months supervised release. (2005-00936) An OIG investigation determined a Correctional Services employee solicited inmates whose family members would pay him to introduce cigarettes and cellular telephones into the institution. Evidence supports that the subject SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 35 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 3? 0f 47 Signi?cant Prosecutions brought cigarettes into the institution. The subject pled guilty to Bribery and was sentenced to 18-months incarceration. (2006-00834). - During an 01G undercover operation, a Correctional Services employee agreed to introduce a cellular telephone and cocaine for an inmate informant. The subject brought an inoperable cellular telephone and three plastic bags of sham cocaine into the institution. When he entered the facility he was searched and the contraband was found. During an interview, the subject admitted bringing cigarettes into the institution for the inmate on at least six occasions. He was paid between $200 and $300 per carton. The subject also admitted he received a $600 cash payment for introducing a cellular telephone. Finally, the subject admitted introducing jewelry, sunglasses, MP-3 players, and other nuisance contraband. The subject pled guilty to Bribery and Providing Contraband in Prison. He was sentenced to incarceration and two-years supervised release. (2006-02901) - During an 01G investigation a Correctional Services employee admitted introducing Creatine and tattoo ink into the institution in exchange for a $300 cash payment. The subject was convicted of Bribery of a Public Of?cial and sentenced to ten-months incarceration and one?year supervised release. [2006- 03845) A joint FBI investigation determined a Correctional Services employee smuggled several bags containing loose tobacco into the institution in exchange for $1,000 in cash and a $1,000 wire transfer. The subject pled guilty to Providing Contraband in Prison (Tobacco), and he was sentenced to six-months incarceration and a $250 ?ne. (2007?00089) - An OIG investigation determined a Correctional Services employee, who was the treasurer for the institution?s employees? club, used a credit card belonging to the employees? club to make personal purchases. In addition, the subject used the employees? club?s checking account to make personal purchases and to pay for the credit card charges. The subject falsi?ed several quarterly reports to conceal the thefts. The subject pled guilty to Larceny and was sentenced to 14-m0nths incarceration and three-years supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to make restitution in the amount of $46,056.78. (2007-01473) During an OIG investigation an Education and Vocational Training employee admitted entering into an agreement with an inmate to smuggle cigarettes into the institution. The inmate sold the cigarettes to other inmates 0n the compound. The subject received in excess of $10,000 from the scheme. The subject was convicted of Bribery and sentenced to one-year plus one?day incarceration and two -years supervised release. (2007-01563) SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 36 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 38 01?47 Signi?cant Prosecutions During an DIG investigation a Correctional Services employee admitted introducing cigarettes into the institution in exchange for $1,000. The subject was convicted of Bribery and sentenced to 25-months incarceration and two? years supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $1,500 ?ne. (2007-02616) During an DIG investigation a Correctional Services employee met with undercover law enforcement of?cers and took possession of six ounces of marijuana, $1,000 intended for an inmate, and $400 for himself. He was convicted of Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States and Bribery. He was sentenced to ten?months incarceration and tvvo-years supervised release. (2008-00254) During an DIG investigation an employee at a contractfhal?vay house facility admitted he accepted $200 from an inmate in exchange for allowing his unauthorized absence from the facility. The subject also admitted soliciting $60 from different inmates after he found them in possession of unauthorized cellular telephones. The subject was convicted of Solicitation and Receiving of Bribes by a Public Of?cial. He was sentenced to 12-months plus one-day incarceration and two?years supervised release. (2 008-00703) During an OIG investigation a Human Resources employee admitted accessing the time and attendance database and making overtime payments totaling $65,155.20 to herself over a two-year period. The subject pled guilty to a 58? count indictment for Theft of Government Money. She was sentenced to 90?days home con?nement and ?ve-years supervised release. In addition, she was ordered to pay $65,155.20 in restitution. [2008~01771) SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 3? BOP FOIA 2016-01716 39 0f 47 APPENDIX A Types of Sustained Misconduct - FY 2007 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 40 of 47 Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2005? with 'i'l.5 Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct $33 ?2133:" ?ff-Duty TOTAL Other Ora?Duty Misconduct 45 217 262 Fiscal Impropriotics 21 I 222 Personnel Prohibitions 214 8 222 Off?Duty Misconduct 220 220 Unprofessional Conduct 43 1:17' 190 Failure to Follow Policy 91 79 [1'0 Tnattention to Duty 7? 66 143 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 91 91 Breach of Security 72 15 introduction ofCootrabanel 26 24 5t] Investigative Violations 42 42 Abuse of Inmates 28 23 Briberyr 13 ID 18 Unauthorized Release of Information 3 5 13 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 11 ll Discrimination {l SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 39 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 41 of 47 1 Type of Misconduct Category Abuse of Inmates Physical Abuse of Inmates 1 Life Threatening 1 Serious Injury 1 Minor/Slight Injury 1 MinoriNo Injury - Harassment 1 Super?cial 1 Excessive Use of oree 1 Restraint Related 1 Threatening an InmateNerbal Abuse 2 Use of Profanity 3 Retaliation 2 Sean 3] Abuse of Inmates Aggravated Sexual Abuse - ?2241 1 ?224l - Male [Innate ?224l Male Staff} Male Inmate 1 ?2241 Female Staf?'Female Inmate 1 ?2241 - Female Staffi?Male Inmate 1 ?224l - Unknown Staf??Female Inmate ?2241 Unknown Staf??Male Inmate I Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward - ?224212243 ?2242f2243 - Male Steffi/Female Inmate 1 {222423243 Male Staff?Male Inmate ?2242f2243 - Female Sta?J?Female Inmate ?2242f2243 - Female Staf??Male Inmate SBU- Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 41 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 42 of 47 Type of Misconduct Category' ?2242f2243 - Unknown Staf??Female Inmate ?2242f2243 - Unknown Staf??Male Inmate Abusive Sexual Contact - ?2244 ?2244 - Male Sta?IFemale Inmate ?2244 - Male Staf?Male Inmate ?2244 - Female Staf??Female Inmate ?2244 - Female Sta?J?Male Inmate ?2244 - Unknown Staf??FemaIe Inmate ?2244 - Unknown Staff/Male Inmate Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature 2 UCSN Male Staf?Female Inmate 2 UCSN - Male Stef?/Male Imnate 2 UCSN - Female Staf?Female Inmate 2 UCSN - Female Staf??Male 2 UCSN Unknown Staff/ Female Inmate 2 UCSN - Unknown Staf?Male Inmate 2 introduction of Contraband Soft Item Introduction I or 2 Weapons Introduction Escape ParaphemaIia Introduction Money Introduction Marijuana Introduction Heroin Derivatives Introduction Cocaine Introduction Other Unspeci?ed Drugs Introduction SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 42 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 43 of 47 {CategoryI Type of Misconduct Alcoholic Beverages Introduction 1 or 2 Unauthorized Electronic Device Introduction 1 or 2 Creatincheightlif?ting Supplement Introduction 1 Ci garetteszobacco 1 Discrimination Discrimination 1 or 2 Fiscal Time and Attendance Irregularities 2 Abuse of Sick Leave 3 Voucher Falsi?cation 1 Theft/Misuse of Goverrnnent Funds ($100) 1 or 2 hei?o? Misuse of Government Property 1 or 2 Misuse of Government Computers 2 Improper Procurement Procedures 2 Failure to Pay Government Charge Card 3 Misuse ofTravei Charge Card ($1,000) 2 or 3 Misuse of Purchase Charge Card ($1,000) 2 or 3 Thefo?Misuse of Employee Club Funds 2 Theft/Misuse of Funds 2 Theft of Inmate Funds 1 of Inmate Property 2 Thefthisuse of Contractor Funds or 2 Thefthisuse of Contractor Property 1 or 2 Failure to Account for Inmate 2 The? ot?b'rnploycc Fundsr'Property 1 or 2 SB - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 43 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 44 of 47 CategoryI Type of Misconduct Misuse of UN Resources 1 or 2oia Bribery Bribery ConSpiraey to Commit Briberyr Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates Anything of Value 2 Offering/Giving Anything of Value 2 Improper Contact with an Inmate?nmate?s amin 2 Appearance of an Inappropriate Relationship 2 Misuse of Inmate Labor 2 Preferential Treatment of Inmates 2 Investigative Violations Concealing a Material Fact 1 or 2 Refusing to Cooperate 1 or 2 Lying During an Investigation 1 or 2 Providing a False Statement 1 or 2 Alteringr?D estroying EvideneefDoeuments 1 Refusing to Submit to a Search I or 2 Interfering an Investigation 1 or 2 Advising Someone to Violate Policy 1 or 2 Conducting an Unauthorized Investigation 1 Lack of Condor or 2 Personnel Prohibitions Threatening/Intimidating Employees 1 or 2 Failure to Report Violation of Ruleszegulations 1 or 2 SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 44 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 45 of 47 Category Type of Misconduct Falsi?cation of Employment Records 2 Misuse of Of?cial Position;l Badge 2 Inappropriate Supervisor! Subordinate Relationship 2 Engaging in Prohibited Personnel Practices 2 UsefAbuse of Illegal Drugs/Alcohol 2 or 3 Absent Without Leave (AWOL) 3 Retaliation 2 Unauthorized Release of Information Unauthorized Release of Information 1 or 2 Violation of O?P?vaey Acts 1 or 2 Other On-Duty Misconduct Use of Profanity 3 Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature 1, 2, or 3 Inattention to Duty 3 Failure to Respond to an Emergency 3 Failure to Property Supervise Inmates 3 Breach of Security 2 or 3 Breach of Computer Security 2 or 3 Falsi?cation of Documents 1 Unprofessional Conduct 3 Failure to Follow Policy 3 Gambling/Promotion of Gambling 2 Endangering the Safety of an Inmate 2 Endangering the Safety of Others 2 SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 45 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 46 of 47 Type of Misconduct Category? Providing False Information Other Than During 3 an Official Investigation lnsubordination 3 Accidental Discharge of a Firearm 3 Soliciting! Sale of Goods on Government Property 3 Job Favoritism 3 Workplace Violence 1 or 2 Failure to Meet Performance Standards 2 Failure to Follow Supervisor?s 3 Fraudulent Workers? Compensation Claims 1 Conduct Unbeecming a Management Of?cial 2 Off?Duty Misconduct Arrest and Conviction 2 or 3 Failure to Report Arrest 3 Failure to Pay Just Debts 3 Failure to Obtain Outside Employment Approval 3 3 Domestic Violence 2 Traffic Citation 3 Carrying an UnregisteredfConcealed Firearm 2 Discreditablc Behavior 3 alsi?cation of Records? Documents 3 Other Citation (Hunting, etc.) 3 Con?ict of Interest 3 The category provided is a guideline. Any allegation may be elevated to a different category depending on the circumstances. SBU - Sensitive But Unclassi?ed 46 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 4? of 47 U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons Washington, DC Of?ce of Internal Affairs Report for Fiscal Year 2009 BOP FOIA 2016-0171631 0f51 Table of Contents Executive Summary of Findings. 1 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct 4 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations 7 Reported Misconduct. 9 Closed/ Sustained Misconduct 12 Physical Abuse of Inmates. 23 Introduction of Contraband 25 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 28 Representative Case Summaries. 35 Significant Prosecutions 38 Appendices 41 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 2 0f51 Executive Summary of Findings There was a .7 percent increase in the number of cases opened in Fiscal Year 2009 as compared with Fiscal Year 2008. Conversely, the rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees decreased 1.4 percent in Fiscal Year 2009 as compared with Fiscal Year 2008. The largest increase occurred in cases categorized as Classi?cation 2 offenses (allegations which involve violations of rules, regulations, or law that, if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution, but constitute serious misconduct)??a 6.2 percent increase over those cases opened in Fiscal Year 2008. The most frequently reported type of misconduct in Fiscal Year 2009 was Other On-Duty Misconduct. Unprofessional Conduct and Abuse of Inmates placed second and third, respectively. The only categories of reported misconduct which showed an increase from Fiscal Year 2008 were Fiscal Improprieties, Breach of Security, Abuse of Inmates, Sexual Abuse of Inmates, Introduction of Contraband, and Inattention to Duty. The most signi?cant decreases occurred in the categories of Investigative Violations, Discrimination, Failure to Follow Policy, Bribery, and Off-Duty Misconduct. During Fiscal Year 2009, 14 cases involving Patriot Act Violations were opened. As of September 30, 2009, four cases remained open pending investigation, and ten cases were closed. No allegations of misconduct were sustained in any of the closed cases. As of September 30, 2009, a decision had been made for 25.5 percent of the 5,123 BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2009. Of the 25.5 percent, 22.6 percent had a sustained decision, a rate of .8 employees per 100 total BOP staff. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2009, was Fiscal Impropricties, followed by Personnel Prohibitions and Other On-Duty Misconduct. The sustained rate of misconduct for those BOP employees for whom a decision had been made as of September 30, 2009, was the same for male and female BOP staff (.8 employees per 100 total BOP staff in that group). BOP FOIA 2016-01716 3 0f51 Executive Summary of Findings The most frequently sustained category of misconduct for male BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2009, was Fiscal while the most frequently sustained category of misconduct for female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2009, was Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates. For those BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2009, the rate was highest among Community Corrections staff (1.8 per 100 total Community Corrections staff). Although the absolute number of sustained decisions was low three), the per cupito rate was nonetheless the highest given the relatively small number of Community Corrections staff in the agency. For those BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2009, the rate was the same for non~bargaining unit and bargaining unit employees employees per 100 total BOP staff in that group). For those contract/ halfway house employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2009, the most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates. For those staff in privatized facilities with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2009, the most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Other On- Duty Misconduct, followed closely by Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates. As of September 30, 2009, four allegations of Physical Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2009 were sustained?one resulted in minor] slight injury to the inmate, and three resulted in minor/no injury to the inmate. One of the sustained allegations involved a male Correctional Services Employee, one involved a male Health Services afety employee, and the remaining two involved staff working in privatized facilities. As of September 30, 20 09, 33 allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported during Fiscal Year 2009 were sustained: nine involved the introduction of soft contraband, four involved the introduction of weapons, one involved the introduction of alcoholic beverages, seven involved the introduction of unauthorized electronic devices, two involved the introduction of Creatine/ weightlifting supplements, and ten involved the introduction of cigarettes/ tobacco. Two male Correctional Services employees were convicted of criminal violations. As of September 30, 200 9, eleven allegations of Sexual Abuse of Inmates reported during Fiscal Year 2009 were sustained: six involved BOP employees, 2 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 4 0f5l Executive Summary of Findings three involved staff working in contract/halfway house facilities, and two involved staff working in privatized facilities. One of the eleven individuals involved in the sustained allegations of Sexual Abuse of Inmates was convicted of criminal violations. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 5 of51 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct Staff Reporting In accordance with the Bureau's Standards of Employee Conduct, staff who become aware of any violation or alleged violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct must report them to the Chief Executive Of?cer the Of?ce of Internal Affairs (01A), or the Department of Justice (DOJ), Of?ce of the Inspector General (01G). The OIG has established a toll-free hotline (1-800-869-4499) which is available to anyone wishing to report DOJ employees' misconduct, as well as fraud, waste, or abuse in government. All Bureau staff are encouraged to use the OIG hotline if they wish to remain anonymous or fear retaliation or rcprisal. To report violations directly to the (HA Central Of?ce, call (202] 307-3286 or fax (202) 514?8625. CEO Reporting Upon becoming aware of any possible violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct [either through a report from staff or through personal knowledge], the CEO at the institution, Regional Of?ce, or Central Of?ce Division, or his or her designee, is to report the violation to the 01A in accordance with the following time frames. Classi?cation 1 cases are de?ned as allegations which, if substantiated, would constitute a prosecutable offense (other than offenses such as misdemeanor arrests). Classi?cation 2 cases are de?ned as allegations which involve violations of rules, regulations, or law that, if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution, but constitute serious misconduct. Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases must be reported telephonically to the BIA immediately. Written noti?cation to the CIA will be made within 24 hours [not to include weekends and holidays) of the time management learns of the matter. Include: El the identity of the complainantfs), subject(s), witness(es), and victimfs); El the details of the allegationgs); and any corroborating evidence. When it is suspected that criminal conduct has occurred, the CEO may refer the matter simultaneously to the CIA and to the local 01G or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of?ce. a 3: BOP FOIA 2016-01716 6 0f51 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct Initial Information. A Referral of Incident form is used to organize the information to be provided in the telephonic reporting of cases listed above (for contract employees use form The subject of the allegation or complaint must not be questioned or interviewed prior to receiving clearance from the OIG and the approval. This is to ensure against procedural errors and to safeguard the rights of the subject. Supporting Documentation. A Referral of Incident form (HP-5715.012) and all supporting documentation, such as victim or witness statements, medical reports, photos, and related memoranda, must be transmitted via facsimile to the CIA at (202] 514-8625 immediately but not later than 24 hours after the telephonic report. If an inmate alleges physical or sexual abuse by a staff member and has not received a medical examination, the CEO Inust arrange an immediate, con?dential medical examination and forward a cepy of the results to the CIA as soon as possible. CEOs must notify the CIA before initiating investigations involving any misconduct alleged against management staff occupying (38-13 or above positions. The CIA will coordinate further action with the 01G. Unless the CEO and the Chief of the CIA agree to a different method, ordinarily, investigations involving Classi?cation 3 cases are to be conducted using local resources. Classi?cation 3 cases are de?ned as allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations. Ordinarily, CEOs can proceed with local investigations on classi?cation 3 misconduct allegations for staff occupying bargaining unit positions or GS-12 and below non-bargaining unit positions without ?rst obtaining 01A approval. When a Classi?cation 3 investigation is initiated, facilities will immediately complete a Referral of Incident form and forward it, in WordPerfect format, to the CIA resource box Internal Affairs~. The subject of the e-mail should state Classi?cation 3 Referral and the facility mnemonic Classi?cation 3 Referral - Only the Referral of Incident form should be forwarded [no predicating information should be forwarded at that time). A signed copy of the Referral of Incident form (HP-8715.012) and the predicating information should be retained in the local investigative ?le. When a Classi?cation 3 case is complex and would result in severe disciplinary or adverse action, the procedures for reporting Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases should be followed. 5 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 7 0f51 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct Contact the CIA immediater if there is any question as to the classi?cation of the misconduct. It is important to note that case classi?cations are many times based on limited information. As an investigation unfolds, the severity of misconduct may increase or decrease, thereby moving it into another classi?cation. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 8 of51 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations For all local staff misconduct investigations completed on or after January 1, 2007, the investigator must forward the complete hivestigative packet directly to the 01A for approval prior to forwarding it to the CEO for action. These procedures apply to all local staff misconduct investigations in which BOP employees are the subject (Classi?cation 1, 2, and 3 allegations), regardless of whether any misconduct will be sustained. Where to Send Local Investigative Packets Local investigative packets should be sent via e?mail to the CIA GroupWise mailbox Internal Affairs-Local Investigative Packets~" (not to be confused with OIA's main resource mailbox, Internal To ensure local investigative packets are reviewed by the in a timely manner, they should not be sent to any individual OIA staff member or to any 01A ?eld of?ce. The subject of your e-mail message should include the 01A case number and the facility mnemonic code Format for Local Investigative Packets and What to Send Local investigative packets should include the investigative report (signed by the investigator) and all supporting documentation (af?davits, memorandums, video ?les, etc). Complete investigative packets must be forwarded; the Summary of Investigation for Classi?cation 3 Cases form is no longer applicable and should not be used. Documents must be scanned in .pdf format (Adobe Acrobat). Do not send documents in other formats .tif ?les, .wpd ?les). Each document should be scanned as a separate document and named by ?rst identifying the document and then providing the name of the individual to whom it relates. Photo images and graphic images inay be forwarded in .jpg or .gif format. For example: Af?davit-Fred onespdf Af?davit-Jessica Smith.pdf Johnson .pdf Pictures-Freddy Inmatejpg Af?davit ?les should include the Warning and Assurance to Employee Required to Provide Information if applicable, and the signed Oath for each individual. 7 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 9 of51 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations The investigative packet should not include national policy or any documents not speci?cally related to the investigation staff rosters, inmate SENTRY information, etc). Time Guidelines For Classi?cation 1 or 2 allegations, local investigators should strive to complete and forward investigative packets to the OLA within 120 calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the OLA. For classi?cation 3 allegations, local investigators should strive to complete and forward investigative packets to the OLA prior to any disciplinary action being taken and within 120 calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the CEO. Once received, the CIA will complete their review of the local investigative packet within ten business days. The investigator will he advised as to whether the investigative packet is approved or if additional information is needed. This information will be sent via e-mail to the investigator with a copy to the CEO. If additional information is needed, the investigator should forward the additional information to the OIA within 30 calendar days, who will again notify the investigator and the CEO if the packet is approved. Once approved, the investigator should forward the investigative packet to the CEO for appropriate action with all Review of Local Investigative Packet forms applicable to that packet attached. No disciplinary proceedings or other noti?cations to subjects should occur prior to the OIA's approval of the investigative packet. Reports from OILA The CIA sends the CEO a report of all local staff misconduct investigations which have extended past established time frames. SLASISISS should continue to work with the monitoring agent assigned to their facility for guidance and to provide updates on outstanding matters. BOP FOIA 2016-0171610 of51 Reported Misconduct NOTES The number of subjects exceeds the number of cases throughout this report as some cases have multiple subjects. Also, some subjects may be charged with multiple types of misconduct in a single case, causing the nu'mher of allegations to be higher. Finally, individual employees may be subjects in more than one case. Due to the dynamic nature oftlie OIA database, ?gures in this report are subject to change. During the course of an investigation, evidence may indicate circumstances other than those initially reported, causing data to be added, deleted, andfor changed. There is no nexus between reported and sustained allegations. Allegations referred to as "Inmate Related" included some type ofinmete involvement, while allegations referred to as "Non Inmate Related" occurred in the workplace but did not include inmate involvement. For a complete list of the types ofmisconduct included in each category, please reference the Appendices section of this report. All allegations of misconduct received by the CIA are referred to the 01G for review and classi?cation. The OIG determines which matters they will accept for investigation and possible criminal prosecution and defers other matters to the 01A for investigation. OLA coordinates with the OIG and/ or the FBI when investigations may lead to criminal prosecution or when there are allegations involving the abuse of an individual?s Constitutional rights under Color of Law. For those matters deferred for investigation, the OLA determines, after consulting with BOP management of?cials, whether an on- site investigation is warranted or if the matter can be investigated at the local institution level. Allegations categorized as Classi?cation 3 offenses are referred to the 01G via computer extract on a basis. During Fiscal Year 2009, the OIA opened 4,432 cases involving 5,123 BOP employees, 30 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 37 Public Health Service (PHS) employees working in BOP facilities, 3 volunteers working in BOP facilities, 268 contract/ halfway house employees, and 206 employees working in privatized facilities. These 4,432 cases represent a .7 percent increase over the 4,400 cases Opened during Fiscal Year 2008. Conversely, the rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees decreased between Fiscal Year 2008 and Fiscal Year 2009 (14.3 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2007 and 14.1 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2008). The 4,432 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2009 were classi?ed as follows: Classi?cation 1,187 Classi?cation 1,294 9 BOP FOIA 2016-0171611 0f51 Reported Misconduct Classi?cation 1,951 The largest increase occurred in cases categorized as Classi?cation 2 offenses--a 6.2 percent increase over those cases opened in Fiscal Year 2008. Classi?cation 1 cases showed an increase of 4.5 percent. Conversely, Classi?cation 3 cases showed a decrease of 4.6 percent. Table 1: Types of Reported Misconduct - FY 2009 Number of Reported Allegations Non Type of Misconduct Inmate Inmate Off-Duty Total Change Related Related from FY 211113 Other Clo-Duty Misconduct 49? 615 1,112 -15.9 Unprofessional Conduct 438 469 90? ?9.1 Abuse of inmates 832 882 14.? Personnel Prohibitions 535 61 646 -.8 Fiscal Improprieties 106 530 636 34.5 Failure to Follow.r Policy 327 239 566 -24.2 Introduction of Contraband 494 6? 561 Breach of Security 251 246 49'? 21.2 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 484 434 Off-Duty Misconduct 462 462 ?23.9 Inatteation to Duty 202 169 371 2.2 Sexual Abuse of Inn-lattes 331 331 111.7 Bribery 165 165 ?21.4 Unauthorized Release of Information 100 41 141 5.2 Investigative Violations 85 85 41.4 Discrimination 16 I 17 ?39.3 Table 1 provides a breakdown of those categories of misconduct reported during Fiscal Year 2009. The onlyr categories of reported misconduct which showed an increase from 10 BOP FOIA 2016-0171612 of51 Reported Misconduct Fiscal Year 2008 were Fiscal Improprieties (a 34.5 percent increase), Breach of Security [a 21.2 percent increase), Abuse of Inmates {a 14.7 percent increase), Sexual Abuse of Inmates (a 10.7 percent increase), Introduction of Contraband (a 3.7 percent increase), and Inattention to Duty (a 2.2 percent increase). The most signi?cant decreases occurred in the categories of Investigative Violations (a 41.4 percent decrease), Discrimination (a 39.3 percent decrease), Failure to Follow Policy {a 24.2 percent decrease), Bribery (a 21.4 percent decrease), and Off-Duty Misconduct (a 20.9 percent decrease). USA Patriot Act In the USA Patriot Act, Congress expressed concern about the potential abuse of individual civil rights and liberties by DOJ employees in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the Patriot Act mandated that the 01G wider advertise that it receives and investigates allegations of such abuses. Patriot Act violations include violence, discrimination, or threats on the part of a DOJ employee, particularly when such cases are directed toward individuals or groups associated in the public perception with acts of terrorism because of their religious beliefs, place of birth, or appearance. Patriot Act allegations which typically come to our attention are alleged mistreatment or unprofessional behavior of BOP staff toward/ around certain inmates, their visitors, or members of the public. Due to the sensitivity of these allegations they are automatically classi?ed as Classi?cation 2 or higher offenses; they should be forwarded immediately to the 01A. All Patriot Act violation allegations are then referred to a Special Operations Unit at OIG Headquarters devoted to reviewing and investigating such misconduct. Of the 4,432 cases opened during Fiscal Year 20 09, 14 cases involved Patriot Act violations. As of September 30, 2009, 4 cases remained open pending investigation, and 10 cases were closed. No allegations of misconduct were sustained in any of the closed cases. BOP FOIA 2016-0171613 0f51 Closed/ Sustained Misconduct NOTES All ?gures in this section relate to cases which were opened during Fiscal Year 2009, and were closed as of September 30, 2009. Figures are subject to change as additional cases are closed. Please refer to the appendices section of this report for the types of misconduct sustained against BOP employees as of September 30, song, for cases opened during Fiscal Year 2003. As of September 30, 2009, a decision had been made on 1,301 {29.4 percent) of the 4,432 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2009. The remaining 3,131 cases (70.6 percent) were still open and being investigated. Of the 1,301 cases closed, the majorityr [1,160, or 89.2 percent) were investigated at the institution level with authorization and monitoring provided by the CIA. Of the 1,301 cases closed, 90 were 01A on-site investigations (6.9 percent), 4? were investigated by the OIG (3.6 percent), and 4 were investigated by the FBI or other entities .3 percent). Of the 1,301 cases closed, 376 (28.9 percent) were sustained. Misconduct was sustained against 296 BOP employees, 4 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 1 PHS employee working in a BOP facility, 60 contract/ halfway house employees, and 66 employees working in privatized facilities. BOP Employees There were 5,123 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in cases opened during Fiscal Year 2009. As of September 30, 2009, a decision had been made for 25.5 percent of those employees. Of the 25.5 percent (or 1,308 employees), 22.6 percent [296) had a sustained decision (a rate of .8 employees per 100 total BOP staff). Of the 5,123 BOP employees for whom a case was opened during Fiscal Year 2009, 246 were unidenti?ed. Table 2 (on the following page) re?ects the categories of sustained misconduct for BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2009. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Fiscal Improprieties (within this categtn'j,r Misuse of Government Computers and Misuse of Travel Charge Card were sustained with the greatest frequency) followed by Personnel Prohibitions and Other Oil?Duty Misconduct. 12 BOP FOIA 2016-0171614 0f51 Closed/ Sustained Misconduct Table 2: Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2009 with 25.5 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type 01 Misconduct Inmate Nun Inmate Off-Duty TOTAL Related Related Fiscal improprieties 7 53 60 Personnel Prohibitions 50 1 5 Other On?Duty Misconduct 9 28 3? Unprofcssional Conduct 4 32 36 Off-Duty Misconduct 32 32 lnattention to Duty 19 9 28 Failure to Follow Policy l9 9 28 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 26 26 Breach of Security 16 8 24 Introduction of Contraband 17 4 I 21 Bribery 6 0 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 6 6 Investigative Violations .5 6 Abuse of Inmates 5 5 Unauthorized Release of Information 1 I Discrimination - Disciplinarj,r Action Taken Once a subject is investigated and the allegations are sustained, the type of disciplinary action taken is left to the deciding of?cial, who is generally the CEO. Each case is unique, and there are varying degrees of seriousness within each type of misconduct. Also, a single subject may be charged with multiple types of misconduct. The Douglas Factors must be considered when deciding the appropriate penalty to impose on employees for misconduct. 13 BOP FOIA 2016-0171615 0f51 Closed/ Sustained Misconduct The Douglas Factors are an accumulation of historic Civil Services practices and procedures in cases involving civil servant misconduct, created by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in the seminole Douglas case. In Douglas, the MSPB announced a non-exhaustive list of twelve factors which the BOP, like all federal agencies, must consider in determining appropriate penalties to impose in employee misconduct. The Douglas Factors are as follows: the nature and seriousness of the offense; El the employee?s job level and type of employment; the employee's disciplinary record; LI the employee's past work record, including length of service and duty performance; El the effect of the offense on the employee's ability to perform and its effect on the supervisor?s con?dence in such ability; L3 the consistency of the penalty with penalties imposed upon others for like or similar misconduct; the consistency of the penalty with the BOP's table of penalties (Program Statement 3420.09, Standards of Employee Conduct); the notoriety of the offense or its impact on the BO P's reputation; the clarity with which the employee was on notice of an rules violated or warned about the conduct in question; the employee?s potential for rehabilitation; El any and all mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense job stress tension, personality problems, mental impairment, harassment or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of others involved); the adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions. The CEO is required to consider only those Douglas Factors which are relevant to any individual and need not consider all the Douglas Factors in every case. In many cases, 14 BOP FOIA 2016-0171616 of51 Closed/ Sustained Misconduct some of the Douglas Factors may suggest one penalty while others suggest another penaltychose the appropriate penalty. The following actions were taken against (or by) those BOP employees with a sustained decision. Written Reprimand 96 Suspension 66 Resignation 58 No Action. 43 Termination 12 Retirement 9 Combined with Action in Another OLA Matter. 6 Oral Reprimand 5 Demotion. 1 The speci?c types of misconduct most frequently sustained against those individuals for whom no disciplinary action was taken were Unprofessional Conduct [17 percent), Misuse of Government Computers (12.8 percent), and Inattention to Duty (12.8 percent). - Gender There were 3,830 male BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct Subjects in Fiscal Year 2009. As of September 30, 2009, a decision had been made for 26 percent of those 3,830 male employees. 0f the 26 percent (or 996 male employees), 22.1 percent (220) had a sustained decision (a rate of .8 employees per 100 total male BOP staff). There were 1,047 female BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2009. As of September 30, 2009, a decision had been made for 26 percent of those 1,041? female employees. Of the 27 percent (or 272 female employees), 28 percent (76) had a sustained decision (a rate of .8 employees per 100 total female BOP staff). Tables 3 and 4 (on the following pages) re?ect the categories of sustained allegations for male and female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2009. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among male staff was Fiscal Improprieties (18.8 percent of all sustained misconduct by male staff), while the most frequently sustained category of misconduct among female staff was Inappr0priate Relationships with Inmates (22.4 percent of all sustained misconduct by female staff.) 15 BOP FOIA 2016-0171617 0f51 Closed/ Sustained Misconduct Table 3: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Male BOP Employees - FY 2009 with 26 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Tn? ?gigs?? ctr-om TOTAL ur'rutar Fiscal 6 43 49 18.3 Personnel Prohibitions 33 39 15 Other Dn-Duty Misconduct 'Jr' 22 29 11.2 Off?Duty Misconduct 27 2? 10.4 Unprofessional Conduct 3 2t] 23 8.8 lnattention to Duty 14 8 2.2 8.5 Failure to Follow Policy 16 5 2] 8.1 Breach of Security I 6 1? 6.5 Introduction of Contraband 12 3 15 5.3 BriberyI 5 0 5 1.9 Abuse of Inmates 5 1.9 Investigative Violations 4 4 1.5 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 2 2 .3 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 2 2 .3 Discrimination [l 0 0 Unauthorized Release ofInformation 1These items highlighted in red occurred with greater frequency among male staff than among female staff. 16 BOP FOIA 2016-0171618 0f51 Closed/ Sustained Misconduct Table 4: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Female BOP Employees - FY 2009 with 26 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations In? Mimndud 111:3: ??333? Off-Duty TOTAL 'fo of Total? Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 24 24 22.4 Unpro fessional Conduct 1 12 13 12.] Personnel Prohibitions 12 12 11.2 Fiscal lmproprieties 1 ID 1] 10.3 Other Gin-Duty Misconduct 2 6 '15 Failure to Follow Policy 3 4 7 6.5 Breach of Security 5 2 'l 6.5 to Dutyr 6 5.6 Introduction of Contraband 5 1 5.6 Off-Duty Misconduct 5 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 4 4 3.7 Investigative Violations 2 2 1.9 Unauthon'zed Release of Information 1 0 .9 Bribery 1 l] I .9 Abuse of Inmates 0 0 Discrimination 0 0 lThose items highlighted in red occurred with greater frequency among female staff than among male staff. BOP FOIA 2016-0171619 0f51 l? Closed/ Sustained Misconduct Job Discipline As of September 30, 2009, 296 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2009 had a sustained decision. Table 5 re?ects the rate of misconduct among the various job disciplines. Table 5 Discipline of BOP Employees With Sustained Misconduct - FY 2008 with 25.5 Percent Closed Number of Discipline Total Employees 221:;3132125 Misconduct Community Corrections 3 164 1.3 Food Services 20 1,600 1.3 Correctional Services 169 16,272 1.0 Computer Services 2 226 .9 Health ServiceSJSafety 19 2,507 .8 UNICOR 11 1,29? .8 Unit Management 24 3,116 .3 Education and Vocational Training 8 1,006 .8 Staff Training CenterstIC I 142 .7 Services 6 991 .6 Systems 5 984 .5 Business Of?ce 9 1,644 .5 Central Of?ce 5 1,261 .4 Reoreation 2 725 .3 CEO's Of?ce and Staff 3 926 .3 Mechanical Services 8 2,347 .3 Human Resources 1 4I5 .2 Inmate Services 0 ii?) 0 Religious Services 18 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 20 0f51 Closed/ Sustained Misconduct Two of the three Community Corrections staff with sustained allegations were charged with Misuse of Travel Charge Card, while the third was charged with Unprofessional Conduct. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among Food Service staff was Absent Without Leave (23.1 percent of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group). The most frequently sustained types of misconduct among Correctional Services staff were Inattention to Duty [10.8 percent of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group), Misuse of Government Computer (10.3 percent of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group), and Failure to Follow Policy (9.9 percent of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group). - Bargaining vs. Non-Bargaining Unit Staff There were 3,796 employees in the bargaining unit identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2009. As of September 30, 2009, a decision had been made for 24.5 percent of those 3,796 bargaining unit employees. Of the 24.5 percent (or 931 bargaining unit employees), 26.6 percent (or 248 bargaining unit employees) had a sustained decision (a rate of .8 employees per 100 total bargaining unit employees). There were 1,043! non-bargaining unit employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2009. As of September 30, 2009, a decision had been made for 31.2 percent of those 1,081 non-bargaining unit employees. 0f the 31.2 percent (or 337 non- bargaining unit employees), 14.2 percent [or 48 nonubargaining unit employees) had a sustained decision {a rate of .8 employees per 100 total non-bargaining unit employees). Contract/Halfway House Employees There were 268 contract/halfway house employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2009. As of September 30, 2009, a decision had been made for 68.7 percent of those 268 employees. Of the 68.7 percent (or 184 employees), 32.6 percent (60) had a sustained decision. It is signi?cant to note that an administrative disposition was recorded for 40.2 percent of those employees for whom a decision had been made, indicating the employee either resigned or their employment was terminated prior to an investigation being conducted. Thus, the 32.6 percent sustained rate is likely an extremely conservative ?gure. Table 6 (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against contractf halfway house employees. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates, which made up 45.5 percent of all sustained misconduct among this group. l9 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 210f51 Closed/ Sustained Misconduct Table ti: Types of Sustained Miswnduet for Contrnetf?nlfway House Employees - FY 2009 with 68.7 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type otMiseonduct Inmate Non Inmate off-Duty TOTAI Related Related inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 35 35 Personnel Prohibitions "i 2 9 Failure to Follow Policy '3 8 Unprofessional Conduct 2 2 4 investigative Violations at 4 Introduction of Contraband 2 3 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 3 3 Fiscal Improprieties 2 0 2 Inattention to Duty 1 2 Off?Duty Misconduct 2 2 Other On-Duty Misconduct 2 2 Breach of Security' 1 0 Bribery 0 Unauthorized Release of Information 1 Abuse of Inmates 0 Discrimination Staff in Privatized Facilities There were 206 employees working in privatized facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2009. As of September 30, 2009, a decision had been made for 65 percent of those 206 employees. Of the 65 percent [or 134 employees), 49.3 percent (66) had a sustained decision. Table 7 [on the following page) provides a breakdown of the categories of misconduct sustained against employees working privatized facilities. The. most frequently 20 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 22 0f51 Closed/ Sustained Misconduct sustained categories of misconduct were Other Oil-Duty Misconduct (which made up 21.2 percent of all misconduct among persons in this group) and Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates (which made up 20.5 percent of all misconduct among persons in this group). Table 7: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Privatized Facilities - FY 2009 with 65 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type Misconduct Inmate Non Inmate Off-Duty TOTAL Related Related Other Orr-Duty Misconduct 9 It] l9 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates IE 13 Personnel Prohibitions ll 0 11 Introduction of Contraband I5 2 8 Investigative Violations 7 7 Unprofessional Conduct 5 5 Failure to Follow Policy 3 2 5 Breach oI'Seourity 2 2 4 Abuse of Inmates 4 4 Inattention to Duty 0 2 2 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 2 2 Fiscal Improprieties 1 Bribery 1 I Off?Duty Misconduct 1 Discrimination 0 0 0 Unauthorized Release of Information 21 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 23 0f51 Closed/ Sustained Misconduct Contract Employees and Volunteers Working in BOP Facilities There were 30 contract staff and 3 volunteers working in BOP facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2009. As of September 30, 2009, a decision had been made for 13.3 percent of the 30 contract employees. 0f the 13.3 percent (or 4 contract employees), 100 percent (4) had a sustained decision. One allegation each of Introduction of Contraband, Breach of Security, Unprofessional Conduct, and Investigative Violations were sustained. As of September 30, 2009, the cases involving the 3 volunteers were still open and under investigation. PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities Of the approximately 780 PHS staff working in BOP facilities, 37 were identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2009 (or 4.7 per 100 PHS employees). As of September 30, 2009, a decision had been made for 13.5 percent of those 37 PHS employees. Of the 13.5 percent (or 5 PHS employees), 20 percent (1) had a sustained decision, for a sustained rate of.1 per 100 PHS employees. Unprofessional Conduct was sustained against the PHS employee with a sustained decision. 22 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 24 0f51 Physical Abuse of Inmates Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 13 - Civil Rights ?241 Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured They shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. ?242 Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section ir if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or ?re, shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be ?ned under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or may be sentenced to death. - Statistics During Fiscal Year 2009, 582 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 23 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 25 0f51 Physical Abuse of Inmates 30, 2009, a decision had been made for 33 percent [or 192) of those allegations. Physical Abuse allegations are tracked by the degree of injury sustained by the threatening injury, serious injury, minor/slight injury, minor/ no injury (harassment), and super?cial injury (injuries associated with the normal use of restraints). Four allegations of Physical Abuse have been sustained to date. One resulted in minorf slight injury to the inmate, and 3 resulted in minor/n0 injury (harassment) to the inmate. One of the sustained allegations involved a male Correctional Services employee, and one of the sustained allegations involved a male Health Services/ Safety employee. The two remaining sustained allegations involved staff working in privatized facilities. None of the subjects with sustained allegations were criminally prosecuted. 24 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 26 of51 Introduction of Contraband Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 37 - Prisons ?1791 Providing or possessing contraband in prison (1) In violation of a statute or a rule or order issued under a statute, provides to an inmate of a prison a prohibited object, or attempts to do so; or (2) being an inmate of a prison, makes, possesses, or obtains, or attempts to make or obtain, a prohibited object; shall be punished as provided in subsection of this section. Punishment-The punishment for an offense under this section is a ?ne under this title or- (1) imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; (2) imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; (3) imprisonment for no more than 5 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; (4) imprisonment for no more than one year, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection or of this section; and (5) imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section. Any punishment imposed under subsection for a violation of this section by an inmate of a prison shall be consecutive to the sentence being served by such inmate at the time the inmate commits such violation. De?nitions?As used in this section? (1) the term ?prohibited object? means- (A) a firearm or destructive device or a controlled substance in Section I or II, other than marijuana or a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subsection; (B) marijuana or a controlled substance in schedule other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subjection, ammunition, a weapon (other than a ?rearm or destructive device), or an object that is designed or intended to be used as a weapon or to facility escape from a prison; 2% 25 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 2? 0f51 Introduction of Contraband (C) a narcotic drug, methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers, lysergic acid diethylamide, or (D) a controlled substance [other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of this subsection) or an alcoholic beverage; (E) any United States or foreign currency; and (F) any other object that threatens the order, discipline, or security of a prison, or the life, health, or safety of an individual; (2) the terms ?ammunition,? ??rearm,? and ?destructive device? have, reSpectively, the meanings given these terms in section 921 of this title; (3) the terms ?controlled substance? and ?narcotic drug? have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); and (4) the term ?prison? means a Federal correctional, detention, or penal facility or any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General. Statistics During Fiscal Year 2009, 574 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2009, a decision had been made for 27.9 percent (or 160) of those allegations. Thirty?three allegations of Introduction of Contraband have been sustained to date: Type of Contraband Inmate Related Non-Inmate Related Soft Item 8 1 Weapons 0 4 Alcoholic Beverages 1 Unauthoriz ed Electronics Device 4 3 Creams/Weightlifting Supplements 2 Cigarettes Tobacco Wenty-?ve individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Nine of these individuals were male Correctional Services employees, 2 26 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 28 of51 Introduction of Contraband were female Correctional Services employees, 1 was a female Food Service employee, 1 was a female Unit Management employee, 1 was a female Education 8.: Vocational Training employee, 1 was a female Facilities employee, 1 was a contract employee working in a BOP facility, 6 were staff working in privatized facilities, and 3 were staff working in contract/ halfway house employees. One male Correctional Services employee pled guilty to Providing Contraband to a Federal Inmate, and he was sentenced to one-year probation. A second male Correctional Services employee pled guilty to Providing Inmates of a Prison Prohibited Objects. He was sentenced to one- year supervised release pursuant to the stipulations of a pretrial diversion agreement. 27 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 29 of51 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 109A Sexual Abuse ?2241 Aggravated Sexual Abuse By force or threat. - Whoever, in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act - (1) by using force against that other person, or (2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempts to do so, Shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. By other means. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly - renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and (B) engages in a sexual act with that other person; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. ?2242 Sexual Abuse Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly - 28 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 30 of51 Sexual Abuse of Inmates (1) causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or (2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person 1s (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; or attempts to do so shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. ?2243 Sexual Abuse of a Ward Of a ward - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who is - (1) in of?cial detention; and (2) under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so engaging; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both. ?2244 Abusive Sexual Contact Sexual contact in circumstances where sexual acts are punished by this chapter. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so to do would violate - (1) subsection or of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; (2) section 2242 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than three years, or both; 29 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 310f51 Sexual Abuse of Inmates subsection of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both; (4) Subsection of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both. subsection of section 2241. of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. In Other Circumstances. - Whoever, in the Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without that other person?s permission shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned no more than two years, or both. 2246 De?nitions (1) the term ?prison? means a correctional, detention, or penal facility; (2) the term ?sexual act? means (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for the purposes of this subparagraph, contact involved the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus; or (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening by another by a hand or ?nger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; o4 (D) the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another person who has not attained the age of 16 years with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (3) the term ?sexual contact? means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; 30 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 32 of51 Sexual Abuse of Inmates the term ?serious bodily injury? means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious dis?gurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. (5) the term ?of?cial detention? means - detention by a Federal of?cer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal of?cer or employee, following arrest for an offense; following surrender in lieu of an arrest for an offense; following a charge or conviction of an offense, or an allegation or ?nding of juvenile delinquency; following commitment as a material witness; following civil commitment in lieu of criminal proceedings or pending resumption of criminal proceedings that are being held in abeyance, or pending extradition, deportation, or exclusion; or (B) custody by a Federal officer or employee, or'under the direction of a Federal Of?cer or employee, fer purposes incident to any detention described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, including transportation, medical diagnosis or treatment, court appearance, work, and recreation; but does not include supervision or under control (other than custody during speci?ed hours or days) after release on bail, probation, or parole, or after release following a juvenile delinquency. . Statistics During Fiscal Year 2009, 333 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 333 allegations, 252 involved BOP employees, 6 involved contract employees working in BOP facilities, 59 involved staff working on contract/halfway house facilities, and 16 involved staff working in privatized facilities. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency were Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and male inmates [78 reported allegations] and Sexual Abuse Sexual Abuse of a Ward @2244) between female staff and male inmates [63 reported allegations). As of September 30, 2009, 11 allegations of sexual abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2009 were sustained. Of the 11 allegations, 6 involved BOP employees, 3 involved staff working in contract/ halfway house facilities, and 2 involved staff working in privatized facilities. One hundred seventy-four allegations reported during Fiscal Year 2009 are pending. 31 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 33 of51 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse /Sexual Abuse of a Ward - Female Staff/ Male Inmate Sexual Abuse Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Eden Detention Center and three male inmates. This matter was investigated by the DIG. The subject admitted she provided oral sex to one inmate, had sexual intercourse with a second inmate, and kissed a third inmate. She also admitted giving the inmates money, weightlifting supplements, tattoo ink, food, and other soft contraband. The subject's employment was terminated. She pled guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact, and she was sentenced to sixteen months incarceration and one year supervised release. 2009002592) Sexual Abuse Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at a contract/ halfway house facility and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted having sexual relations with the inmate in the kitchen and area of the facility. She also admitted she had telephone conversations with the inmate during which they spoke about their sexual liaisons. Finally, the subject admitted she allowed male and female inmates to co?mingle and have sexual relations. The subject's employment was terminated. (aoog-og642/OIG aoogooygiy) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature - Male Staff/Female Inmate Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male employee at a contract/halfway house facility and female inmates. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. Although the subject denied the allegations, two staff members and two inmates stated the subject routinely directed sexually-inappropriate comments toward female inmates. The subject was banned from having contact with federal offenders. 2009003895) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature - Male Staff/ Male Inmate I Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee at FCC Allenwood and a male inmate. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted he grabbed his crotch and pulled it up and down during an argument with the inmate. The subjects employment was terminated in an unrelated matter. 2009000440) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee at FPC Yankton and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject asked the inmate, "How many 32 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 34 0f51 Sexual Abuse of Inmates of you guys deep-throated the hot dogs last night?" The subject also stated he thought the hot dogs should be cut into three-inch sections so the inmates couldn't take them to their units and "do stuff to themselves." No disciplinary action was taken. 2009004084) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature - Female Staff] Male Inmate Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at a contract/ halfway house facility and a male inmate. The DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject reported the inmate called her residence and threatened to kill her dog if she did not commit to having a sexual relationship with him. The subject stated the inmate came to her residence and stayed for approximately 1-1/2 hours. She allowed the inmate to kiss her. The subject stated the inmate came to her house a second time while she was taking a shower, and she did not answer the door. She later heard a rumor that he had a picture of her taking a shower, and she wondered if he entered her residence. The subject resigned her employment. (2009-00859/ 01G 200900 2538) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Unit Management employee at FCI Elkton and male inmates. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The investigation revealed the subject kissed and hugged more than one inmate while on duty, and she showed partiality toward certain inmates. The subject received ?owers from inmates on two occasions, and she received $125 for her daughter's birthday from an inmate. The subject also introduced cigarettes into the institution for inmates. The subject resigned her employment. 2009003460) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between two female Correctional Services employees at FCI Phoenix and two male inmates. The DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. A civilian received nude photographs of the subjects, which he mailed to one of the inmates. The photographs were found in the inmates' cells. The subjects resigned their employment. (2oog?oi4ii/OIG 2009002818) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the California City Correctional Center and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the 01G. The subject admitted she kissed the inmate on two separate occasions. The subject resigned her employment. Prosecution was not contemplated. 2009003397] 33 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 35 of51 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Food Service employee at USP Lee and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject initially denied the allegation. Approximately one hour later, the subject admitted she hugged and kissed the inmate and gave him cologne and vitamins. She also admitted she contacted the inmate?s mother, and she spoke to the inmate via telephone approximately 25 times. The subject resigned her employment. aoogoo7025) 34 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 36 0f51 Representative Case Summaries Breach of Security A Correctional Services employee was responsible for securing inmates in their cells at 11:00 pm. in preparation for the count. A cell door was found unsecured by staff conducting the count. Breach of Security was sustained. The Correctional Services employee received a written reprimand. (Ola-aoog?o 0018) Unprofessional Conduct A UNICOR employee used profanity when telling an Assistant Factory Manager to get away from his machine and to get out of his of?ce. Unprofessional Conduct was sustained. The UNICOR employee was suspended for one day. (CIA-200900071) Two Unit Management employees engaged in an argument regarding the central ?le count. One of the employees advised the other that she did not have time to count the ?les prior to the end of her shift. The other employee expressed her dissatisfaction. The two employees yelled and created a disruption. Unprofessional Conduct was sustained. Both Unit Management employees received written reprimand. (OIA?aoog?ooa75] Inattention to Duty A Correctional Services employee was found sleeping in the perimeter patrol vehicle. The employee did not awaken until he heard the captain knocking on the vehicle window. Inattention to Duty was sustained. The Correctional Services employee received a written reprimand. (Om-2009-00099) Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates; Breach of Security An operations lieutenant found an inmate using a twelve-food ladder while painting. The inmate was unsupervised. A Facilities employee admitted he left the inmate alone for a few minutes while he dropped off a tool in the electrical shop. Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates and Breach of Security were sustained. The Facilities employee received a written reprimand. Endangering the Safety of Others; Inattention to Duty A Correctional Services employee who was providing coverage for an inmate at an outside hospital left his duty weapon in a restroom. The weapon, which was loaded, was retrieved by a hospital staff physician approximately 15 minutes later. Endangering the Safety of Others and Inattention to Duty were sustained. The Correctional Services employee was suspended for 15 days. (OLA-200900267) 35 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 3? 0f51 Representative Case Summaries Misuse of Travel Charge Card A Community Corrections employee used his travel charge card to reserve a hotel room in Costa Rica. The employee claimed that when he arrived at the hotel, he used his personal credit card to pay for the room; however, when he received his travel charge card statement, a $1,178.20 charge had been applied. The employee stated he was unable to correct the problem due to a language barrier. Misuse of Travel Charge Card was sustained. The Community Corrections employee was suSpended for three days. Failure to Follow Supervisor's Instructions A Food Service employee was told by his supervisor that he was required to work mandatory overtime following his regularly?scheduled shift. The employee stated, "I'm not staying for overtime. I will go and get a doctor's note." The employee did not work the overtime, and he did not produce a doctor?s note. When questioned, he stated he did not know the overtime was mandatory. Another employee who was also required to work mandatory overtime stated the directions provided were clear. Failure to Follow Supervisor's Instructions was sustained. The Food Service employee received a written reprimand. (OLA-200900162) Misuse of Government Computers During routine system administration and security monitoring, suspicious Internet activity was discovered under a Food Service employee's user ID. The employee visited sexually-explicit Internet sites over 1,000 times in a four?month period. Misuse of Government Computers was sustained. The Food Service employee was suspended for four days. (OLA~2oog?00378) Improper Contact With an Inmate; Offering/Giving Anything of Value Staff entered a Medical Records of?ce and saw a Health Services/ Safety employee embracing an inmate. The inmate admitted he had a friendly relationship with the employee, and he received letters, photos, and a book from her. Improper Contact With an Inmate and Offering/ Giving Anything of Value to an Inmate were sustained. The Health Services/Safety employment resigned her employment. (CIA-200901185) Failure to Follow Policy; Inattention to Duty A staff member found three controlled substances unsecured on a pharmacists desk in Health Services. A Health Services afety employee admitted he forgot to return the controlled substances to the PYXIS machine. He also admitted he did not count any of 36 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 38 of51 Representative Case Summaries the medications. Failure to Follow Policy and Inattention to Duty were sustained. The Health Services/Safety employee received a written reprimand. (OIA?aoog?01524) Impmper Contact With an Inmate Au inmate advised his probation of?cer that a contract/halfway house employee visited him several times at his home while he was on weekend pass. The inmate stated that following his release from the contract/halfway house, he and the employee had an affair. The inmate stated their relationship ended, but they were still friends. The inmate stated the employee calls him often, and she helped him purchase a car. The employee's cellular telephone number appeared on the inmate's cellular telephone under calls received. Improper Contact With an Inmate was sustained. The contract/ halfway house employee's employment was terminated. (OLA-200901219) Misuse of Inmate Labor An employee at a privatized facility used an inmate to translate medical screening intake questions for Spanish?speaking inmates. Misuse of Inmate Labor was sustained. The employee received a written reprimand. Use of Illegal Drugs/Alcohol Staff reported that a Unit Management employee smelled of alcohol. The employee was given an Aloe-Sensor II test which revealed the alcohol level in his body exceeded the allowable limit. The employee admitted he consumed beer prior to reporting for duty. Use of Illegal Drugs/Alcohol was sustained. The Unit Management employee retired prior to any disciplinary action being taken. (OIA?aoog-o 0022) 37 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 39 0f51 Significant Prosecutions Following are brief summaries of some of the significant or noteworthy prosecutions which were completed during Fiscal Year 2009. The individuals referenced are no longer employed by the BOP or any BOP contractor. - An inmate allegedly attempted suicide by tying a bed sheet around his neck while he was in the SHU. When staff entered the inmate's cell, the inmate allegedly attacked them. Staff gained control of the inmate, and he was placed on suicide watch. During a subsequent interview, the inmate stated he was not attempting suicide. The inmate claimed staff entered his cell and assaulted him because he would not remove his hat. An OIG investigation determined the inmate was physically assaulted by staff. Following the assault, a Correctional Services employee fashioned a bed sheet into a noose and hung it from the bars on the cell window to make it appear the inmate tried to hang himself. Other staff attempted to cover up the assault. The Correctional Services employee was convicted of Conspiracy to Deprive Civil Rights, Making False Statements, and Obstruction of Justice. He was sentenced to 51-months incarceration and three- ycars supervised release. Another Correctional Services employee entered into a cooperative agreement and pled guilty to Providing a False Statement and Conspiracy to Deprive Civil Rights. He was sentenced to ?ve-years probation with a condition of sixvmonths home con?nement, 500 hours community service, and a $5,000 ?ne. Athird Correctional Services employee pled guilty to Ohstructing an Of?cial Proceeding. He was sentenced to four-months incarceration and three-years supervised release. A fourth Correctional Services employee pled guilty to Conspiracy to Deprive Civil Rights and Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice. He was sentenced to 24?months incarceration and three-ye are supervised release. A Recreation employee entered into a cooperative agreement and pled guilty to two counts of Conspiracy to Obstruct an Of?cial Proceeding. He was sentenced to ?ve-years probation with six?months home monitoring, 400 hours of community service, and a $5,000 ?ne. An 01G investigation developed evidence indicating a Unit Management employee introducing marijuana into the institution for an inmate. The employee had multiple telephone contacts with the inmate's girlfriend to arrange for delivery of the marijuana. The employee met with the girlfriend and received approximately 1/ 4 pound of marijuana. The employee subsequently received a money order in the amount of $948.75 from the inmate's mother. The Unit Management employee pled guilty to Introduction of Contraband and was sentenced to 90-days home con?nement and 48-months probation. (OLA-2006- 00809) - An DIG investigation determined four staff members at a privatized facility physically abused an inmate by punching and kicking him in the head and torso 38 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 40 0f51 Signi?cant Prosecutions while the inmate was handcuffed. One of the staff members was convicted of Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law and sentenced to six-months incarceration and 24-months supervised release, and ordered to pay $3,701 in restitution. A second staff member was convicted of Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, Aiding and Abetting, and Conspiracy to Make FalSe Statements and sentenced to 30-months incarceration and three?years supervised release and ordered to pay $3,701 in restitution. A third staff member was convicted of Knowingly Making and Delivering a False Statement and was sentenced to 24- months supervised release and ?ned $500. A fourth staff member was convicted of Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, Aiding and Abetting, and Conspiracy to Make False Statements and was sentenced to 30-months incarceration and three-years supervised release and ordered to pay $3,701 in restitution. - An OIG investigation determined a Correctional Services employee met with inmates' family members at a hotel and took possession of one ounce of black tar heroin, one pound of marijuana, and two cellular telephones. The employee was found in possession of the items and admitted she intended to introduce them into the institution. The employee also admitted she accepted a cash bribe of $1,000. The Correctional Services employee was convicted by jury trial of Conspiracy to Provide Contraband to a Federal Inmate, ConSpiracy to Possess Heroin With the Intent to Distribute, and ConSpiracy to Possess Marijuana With Intent to Distribute. She was sentenced to 50-months incarceration and six- years supervised release. . An OIG investigation determined two Facilities employees smuggled tobacco into the institution for inmates. Both employees were convicted of Introduction of Contraband. One employee was fined $5,000, and one employee was ?ned $2,500. - An OIG investigation determined three government computers used by a Computer Services employee contained child pornography. The employee pled guilty to Receipt of Child Pornography and was sentenced to 78-months incarceration and 30?years supervised release. - An OIG investigation determined a Facilities employee submitted two PCS travel claims which contained materially?false information. The materially-false information included expenses that were not actually incurred, expenses that were supported by altered receipts, and expenses for family members who did not relocate with the employee. The employee pled guilty to two counts of Making Use of False Documents and was sentenced to ?ve-years supervised release and 39 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 410f51 Significant Prosecutions ordered to make restitution to the BOP in the amount of $11,063.22. (OLA-2007- 02662) - After receiving an inordinate number of complaints regarding the processing of inmate mail, staff at a privatized facility determined a mail room clerk had several containers of mail in her personal vehicle. During an 01G investigation, the employee admitted she took bulk, undeliverable mail to her home for processing after work. The employee denied stealing the mail or ?nancial instruments contained in the mail. She was convicted of Delay or Destruction of Mail and was granted pro?trial diversion for one year. 8) . An 01G investigation determined a Business Of?ce employee stole approximately $14, 147. 45 from BOP cash deposits and attempted to cover up the theft by destroying/ altering documents. The employee pled guilty to Embezzlement and Theft of Public Money and was sentenced to ?ve?years probation and ordered to make restitution in the amount of $16,483.76 - A Correctional Of?cer entered a unit control room at a privatized facility and drew a 9mm pistol to activate the second perimeter patrol. The employee then pointed the weapon at another employee?s head and stated, ?What are you going to do now? He then retrieved his equipment and went to his post. The employee pled guilty to Simple Assault and was sentenced to eight?months incarceration and one-year supervised release. 40 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 42 0f51 APPENDIX A Types of Sustained Misconduct FY 2008 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 43 0f51 with 67.7% Closed Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees- FY Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct Oil-Duty TOTAL Other Can?Duty Misconduct 50 223 273 Failure to Follow Folio},l I33 99 23? Personnel Prohibitions 223 10 233 Unprofcssional Conduct 3? 123 160 Off-Duty Misconduct 157 Fiscal Improprictles 14 143 to Duty 75 49 I24 Breach of Security 56 30 36 Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates 83 33 Investigative Violations 61 61 Introduction of Contraband 33 22 55 Unauthorized Release of Information 13 9 22 AbuSc of Inmates 19 19 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 19 I9 Bribery 9' 0 9 Discrimination 42 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 44 0f51 APPENDIX Types of Misconduct BOP FOIA 2016-01716 45 0f51 Master Code Type ofMlsennduet Inmate Work Off Category Related Related Duty Abuse 01' Inmates Physical Abuse of Inmates 101 001 1 Life Threatening 101 001A I Serious Injury 10] 001B 1 MinorfSlight Injury 101 1 MinorfNo Injury Harassment 101 001 1 Super?cial 101 001E 1 Excessive Use of Force 101 002 1 Restraint Related 101 0023 Threatening an lnmateNerbal Abuse 101 003 2 Retaliation 101 109 2 Sexual Abuse of Inm ates Aggravated Sexual Abuse - ?2241 102 005 ?2241 - Male Staf?Female Inmate 102 005A 1 ?2241 - Male Staffl'Male Inmate 102 00513 1 ?224l - Female Staf??Female Inmate 102 005C 1 ?2241 Female Inmate 102 005D ?2241 - Unknown Inmate 102 005B 1 ?2241 - Unknown Staffx?Male Inmate 102 00513 1 Sexual Abusex?SexuaI Aimee ofa Ward - ?224212243 102 006 ?2242l?243 Male Staf?'Female Inmate 102 006A 1 ?224212243 - Male Inmate 102 00613 1 55224212243 - Female Inmate 102 006C 1 ?224212243 Female Staf?MaIe Inmate 102 006D - Unknown Stafleemale Inmate 102 00611 1 ?224212243 Unknown Staffmdale Inmate 102 0061? BOP FOIA 2016-01716 46 0f51 Master Code Type of Misconduct Inmate Work Off Category Related Related Duty Abusive Sexual Contact ?2244 102 007 1 ?2244 - Male Inmate 102 002A 1 ?2244 Male Stef?-Male Inmate 102 0073 1 ?2244 - Female StaffIFemale Inmate 102 002C 1 ?2244 Female Staf?fl'Male Inmate 102 002D ?2244 - Unknown Inmate 102 00213 I ?2244 Unknown Staff?vlale Inmate I02 007F I Unprofessional Conduct ofa Sexual Nature 102 003 2 UCSN - Male Inmate 102 003A 2 UCSN Male Staf?Mnle Inmate 102 00313 2 UCSN - Female Staffl'Female Inmate 102 003C 2 UCSN - Female Staf?Male Inmate 102 00813 2 UCSN - Unknown StaffIFemaIe Inmate 102 008E 2 UCSN Unknown Staf??Male Inmate 102 2 Introduction of Contraband Soft Item Introduction 103 2'03 009 or 2 Weapons Introduction 103 203 010 Escape Paraphernalia Introduction 103 203 011 1 Money Introduction 103 203 012 Marijuana Introduction 103 203 013 Heroin 8a. Derivatives Introduction 103 203 014 1 Cocaine Introduction 103 203 (HS 1 Other Unspeci?ed Drugs Introduction 103 203 016 1 Alcoholic Beverages Introduction 103 203 or 2 Unauthorized Electronic Device Introduction 103 203 098 I or 2 Creatiner?w eightli?ing Supplement Introduction 103 203 099 I BOP FOIA 2016-01716 4? 0f51 Master Code Type nfMiseonduct Inmate Work Off "91:33:? Category Related Related Duty,r CigarettesITobaceo Introduction 103 106 1 Discrimination Discrimination 104 204 013 1 or 2 Fiscal Improprieties Time and Attendance Irregulerities 205 019 2 Abuse of Sick Leave 205 019A 3 Vaucher Falsi?cation 205 020 TheftrMisuse of Government Funds ($100The?jMisuse of Government Property 105 205 022 1 or 2 Misuse of Government Computers 105 205 022A 2 Improper Proeurement Prooedures 205 023 2 Failure to Pay Government Charge Card 205 024 3 Misuse of Travel Charge Card (51,000) 205 025A 2 or 3 Misuse ofPurehase Charge Card ($1,000) 205 02513 2 or 3 The?JMisuse of Employee Club Funds 205 026 2 Theftu?Misuse of AFGEi?Union Funds 205 02? 2 Theft of Inmate Funds 105 028 1 Thef?Destruetion of Inmate Property 105 029 2 Thefti?Misuse ofContractor Funds 105 205 035 1 or 2 TherMisuse ofContraeter Property 105 205 086 1 or 2 Failure to Account for Inmate FundsiProperty 105 093 2 Theft of Employee 205 101 I or 2 Misuse of UNICOR Resources 105 205 107 or 2 Contract Fraud 205 1 10 1 Bribery,r Bribery 106 206 030 1 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 48 0f51 46 Master Corie Type ofMiseonduct Inmate Work Off Category Related Related Duty Conspiracy to Commit Bribery 106 205 103 Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates Anything ofValue 10'? 031 2 Offeringr'?iving Anything of Value 107 032 2 Improper Contact with an Family 10'}r 033 2 Appearance of an Inappropriate Relationship 10'? 035 2 Misuse Labor 10? 036 2 Preferential Treatment of Inmates 107 037 2 Investigative Violations Ccnoealing a Material Fact 208 034 or 2 Refusing to Cooperate 203 033 or 2 Lying During an Investigation 208 039 or 2 Providing a False Statement 203 040 or 2 Alteringi?Destroying Evidencei'Doouments 2'08 041 Refusing to Submit to a Search 208 042 I or 2 Interfering with?mpeding an Investigation 208 043 or 2 Advising Someone to Violate Policy 208 044 I or 2 Conducting an Unauthorized Investigation 203 100 1 Lack of Gender 208 104 or 2 Personnel Prohibitions Threateningfintimidating Employees 209 045 I or 2 Failure to Report Violation ofRuleszeguiations 209 046 i or 2 Falsi?cation of Employment Records 209 04? 2 Misuse of Of?cial PositicnfBadge 209' 309 048 2 Inappropriate SupervisorfSubordinaie Relationship 209? 309 049 2 Engaging in Prohibited Personnel Practices 209 050 2 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 49 0f51 Master Code Type ofMisconduet Dependent Category Inmate Work Off Code Related Related 0qur UselAbuse of Illegal Drugleeohol 209I 309 051 2 or 3 Absent Without Leave (AWOL) 209 083 3 Retaliation 209 102 2 Unauthorized Release oflnformation Unauthorized Release of Information 110 210 052 1 or 2 Uther {Jo-Duty Misconduct Unprofessional Conduct ofa Sexual Nature 211 003 I, 2, or 3 to Duty 11] 211 054 3 Failure to Respond to an Emergeney 111 211 055 3 Failure to Properlyr Supervise Inmates 111 056 3 Breach of Security 111 211 05'}l 2 or 3 Breach of Computer Security 111 211 057A 2 or 3 Falsi?eation ofDoouments 111 211 058 Unprofessional Conduct 211 059 3 Failure to Follow Policy 11 1 211 060 3 GamblingEPromotion of Gambling 1] 211 061 2 Endangering the Safety of an Inmate 111 062A 2 Endangering the Safety of Others 211 0623 2 Providing False Information Other Than During 11 1 211 063 3 an Official Investigation lnsubordination 21 I 064 3 Accidental Discharge ofa Firearm 211 065 3 Solicitinngale of Goods on Government Property 21] 068 3 Job Favoritism 211 031 3 Workplace Violence 21] 032 I or 2 Failure to Meet Performance Standards 211 084 2 Failure to Follow Supervisor?s Instructions 21] 094 3 48 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 50 0f51 Master Code Type ofMisconduet Inmate Work fo Category Related Related Duty Fraudulent Workers' Compensation Claims 21 103 1 Conduct Unbeeoming a Management Of?cial 111 211 105 2 OffaDuty Misconduct Arrest and Conviction 312 069 2 or 3 Failure to Report Arrest 312 070 3 Failure to Pay Just Debts 312 071 3 Failure to Obtain Outside Employment Approval 312 072 3 312 3 Domestic Violence 31?. 2 Traffic Citation 312 075 3 Carrying an Unregisteredr??oncealed Firearm 312 {1?5 2 Discreditnble Behavior 312 3 Falsi?eation of RecordSIDoeuments 312 MS 3 Other Citation (Hunting, etc.) 312 3 Con?ict ofInterest 312 080 3 l. The category provided is a guideline. elevated to a different category. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 510f51 49 Any allegation may be U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons Washington, DC Of?ce of Internal Affairs Report for Fiscal Year 2010 BOP FOIA 2016?017161 of 42 Table of Contents Executive Summary of Findings 1 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct 3 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations 6 Reported Misconduct 8 Closedeustained Misconduct 1 Physical Abuse of Inmates 22 Introduction of Contraband 24 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 27 Representative Case Surtunaries 34 Significant Prosecut1ons38 Appendix 40 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 2 of42 Executive Summary of Findings There was a 3.4 percent increase in the number of cases opened in Fiscal Year 2010 as compared with Fiscal Year 2009. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees increased 3.5 percent in Fiscal Year 2010 as compared with Fiscal Year 2009. The largest increase occurred in cases categorized as Classi?cation 3 offenses (allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations)?a 5.9 percent increase over those cases opened in Fiscal Year 2009. The most frequently reported type of misconduct in Fiscal Year 2010 was Other On-Duty Misconduct. Unprofessional Conduct and Abuse of Inmates places second and third, respectively. The categories of misconduct which showed the larges increases from Fiscal. Year 2009 were Sexual Abuse of Inmates. Discrimination, and Unprofessional Conduct. The most significant decreases occurred in the categories of Investigative Violations, Unauthorized Release of Information, and Breach of Security. During Fiscal Year 2010, 20 cases involving Patriot Act Violations were opened. As of September 30, 2010. 16 cases remained open pending investigation. and 4 cases were closed. One allegation of misconduct was sustained. As of September 30, 2010, a decision had been made for 29.5 percent of the 5,508 BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2010. Of the 29.5 percent. 20.6 percent had a sustained decision, a rate of .9 employees per 100 total BOP staff. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2010. was Personnel Prohibitions, followed by Unprofessional Conduct and Other On-Duty Misconduct. The sustained rate of misconduct for those BOP employees for whom a decision had been made as of September 30, 2010, was the same for male and female BOP staff if .9 employees per 100 total BOP staff in that group). The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among male BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2010, was Unprofessional Conduct. while the most frequently sustained category of misconduct among female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2010, was Personnel Prohibitions. For those BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2010, the rate was highest among Computer Services staff {2.6 per 100 total Computer Services staff. Although the absolute number of sustained decisions was low 6). the per capita rate BOP FOIA 2016-01716 3 of 42 Executive Summary of Findings was nonetheless the highest given the relatively small number of Computer Services staff in the agency. For those BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30. 2010, the rate was the same for non?bargaining unit and bargaining unit employees (.9 employees per 100 total BOP staff in that group). For those contractz?halfway house employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2010, the most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates. This was also true for those staff in privatized facilities with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2010. As of September 30, 2010, 6 allegations of Physical Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2010 were sustained. all resulting in minorfno injury (harassment) to the inmate. One of the sustained allegations involved a male Correctional Services employee. The remaining 5 allegations involved staff in privatized facilities. None of the subjects with sustained allegations were criminally prosecuted. As of September 30, 2010, 30 allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported during Fiscal Year 2010 were sustained. involving 28 individuals. Twelve involved the introduction of soft contraband, 10 involved the introduction of unauthorized electronic devices, 2 involved the introduction of weapons, and 1 each involved the introduction of drugs and alcohol. A male Correctional Services employee and a female contract employee working in a BOP facility were convicted of criminal violations. As of September 30, 2010, I3 allegations of Sexual Abuse of Inmates reported during Fiscal Year 2010 were sustained: 4 involved BOP employees. 1 involved a PHS employee working in a BOP facility, 5 involved staff working in contract/halfway house employees, and 3 involved staff working in privatized facilities. One of the 13 individuals involved in the sustained allegations of Sexual Abuse of Inmates was convicted of criminal violations. [q BOP FOIA 2015?01716 4 of 42 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct Staff Reporting In accordance with the Bureau?s Standards of Employee Conduct. staff who become aware of any violation or alleged violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct must report them to the Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO), the Of?ce of internal Affairs (OIA), or the Department of Justice Of?ce of the Inspector General {010}. The 01G has established a toll?free hotline (1?800?869?4499) which is available to anyone wishing to report employees' misconduct, as well as fraud, waste, or abuse in government. All Bureau staff are encouraged to use the 016 hotline if they wish to remain anonymous or fear retaliation or reprisal. To report violations directly to the OLA Central Office, please submit a written complaint to: Federal Bureau of Prisons Of?ce of Internal Affairs 320 First Street, NW. Room 600 Washington, DC 20534 Written complaints may also be sent via fax to {202) 514-8625. CEO Reporting Upon becoming aware of any possible violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct (either through a report from staff or through personal knowledge. the CEO at the institution, Regional Office or Central Of?ce Division, or his or her designee, is to report the violation to the CIA in accordance with the following time frames. Classi?cation 1 cases are defined as allegations which, if substantiated, would constitute. a prosecutable offense (other than offenses such as misdemeanor arrests). Classification 2 cases are defined as allegations which involve violations ofrules. regulations. or law that, if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution, but constitute serious misconduct. Classification 1 and 2 cases must be reported telephonically to the OIA immediately. Written notification to the BIA will be made within 24 hours not to include weekends and holidays} of the time management learns of the matter. Include: The identity of the complainantts), subjectts), witnesstes), and victim(s); I- The details of the allegationts); and 0 Any corroborating evidence. BOP 2016?01716 5 of 42 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct When it is suspected that criminal conduct has occurred, the CEO may refer the matter simultaneously to the CIA and the Local OIG or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) office. Initial Information. A Referral of Incident form is used to organize the information to be provided in the telephonic reporting of cases listed above (for contract employees use form Include the following: The subject of the allegation or complaint must not be questioned or interviewed prior to receiving clearance from the 01G and the OIA's approval. This is to ensure against procedural errors and to safeguard the rights of the subject. Supporting Documentation. A Referral of Incident form (BF-3715.012) and all supporting documentation, such as victim or witness statements, medical reports, photos, and related memoranda, must be transmitted via facsimile to the OIA at (202) 514-8625 immediately but not later than 24 hours after the telephonic report. If an inmate alleges physical or sexual abuse by a staff member and has not received a medical examination, the CEO must arrange an immediate, confidential medical examination and forward a copy of the results to the CIA as soon as possible. CEOs must notify the CIA before initiating investigations involving any misconduct alleged against management staff occupying or above positions. The OIA will coordinate further action with the DIS. Unless the CEO and the Chief of the CIA agree to a different method, ordinarily. investigations involving Classi?cation 3 cases are to be conducted using local resources. Classi?cation 3 cases are defined as allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations. Ordinarily, CEOs can proceed with local investigations on Classification 3 misconduct allegations for staff occupying bargaining unit positions or (ES-12 and below non- bargaining unit positions without first obtaining OIA approval. When a Classi?cation 3 investigation is initiated, facilities will immediately complete a Referral. of hicident form (BP- S7l 5-012) and forward it, in Word format, to the CIA resource box Affairs~. The subject of the e?mail should stated Classification 3 Referral and the facility mneumonic Classi?cation 3 Referral - BUX). Only the Referral of Incident form should be forwarded no predicating information should be forwarded at that time}. A signed copy of the Referral of Incident form and the predicating information should be retained in the local investigative file. When 3 Classi?cation 3 case is complex and wonld result in severe disciplinary or adverse action, the procedures for reporting Classification I and 2 cases should he followed. Contact the CIA immediately if there is any question as to the classification of the misconduct. It is important to note that case classifications are many times based on limited information. As BOP FOIA 2016?01716 6 of 42 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct an investigation unfolds, the severity of misconduct may increase or decrease, thereby moving it into another classification. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 7 0f42 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations For all local staff misconduct investigations completed on or after January 1, 2007. the investigator must forward the complete investigative packet directly to the 01A for approval prior to forwarding it to the CEO for action. These procedures apply to all local staff misconduct investigations in which BOP employees are the subject (Classi?cation 1. 2. and 3 allegations), regardless of whether any misconduct will be. sustained. Where to Send Local Investigative Packets Local investigative packets should be sent via e-mail to the CIA GroupWise mailbox DIRfInternal Affairs-Local Investigative Packets~" (not to be confused with OM's main resource mailbox. To ensure local investigative packets are reviewed by the 01A in a timely manner, they should not be sent In any individual OIA staff member or to any 01A field office. The subject of your e-mail message should include the CIA case number and the facility mnemonic code Format for Local Investigative Packets and What to Send Local investigative packets should include the investigative report (signed by the investigator) and all supporting documentation (af?davits, memorandums, video ?les. etc). Complete investigative packets must be forwarded; the Summary of Investigation for Classi?cation 3 Cases form is no longer applicable and should not be used. Documents must be scanned in .pdf format (Adobe Acrobat). Do not send documents in other formats .tif ?les, .wpd ?les). Each document should be scanned as a separate document and named by ?rst identifying the document and then providing the name of the individual to whom it relates- Photo images and graphic images may be fotwarded in .jpg or -gif format. For example: Af?davit-Fred Jonespdf Af?davit-Jessica Johnsonpdf Pictures-Freddy hnate.jpg Af?davit files should include the Wanting and Assurance to Employee Required to Provide Information if applicable, and the signed Oath for each individual. The investigative packet should not include national policy or any documents not speci?cally related to the investigation staff rosters. inmate SENTRY information, etc.). BOP 2016?01716 8 of 42 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations Time Guidelines For Classi?cation 1 or 2 allegations. local investigators should strive to complete and forward investigative packets to the CIA within 120 calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the OLA. For classi?cation 3 allegations, local investigators should strive to complete and forward investigative packets to the 01A prior to any disciplinary action being taken and within 120 calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the CEO. Once received. the CIA will complete their review of the local investigative packet within ten business days. The investigator will be advised as to whether the investigative packet is approved or if additional information is needed. This information will be sent via email to the investigator with a copy to the CEO. If additional information is needed the investigator should forward the additional information to the CIA within 30 calendar days, who will again notify the investigator and the CEO if the packet is approved. Once approved, the investigator should forward the investigative packet to the CEO for appropriate action with all Review of Local Investigative Packet forms applicable to that packet attached. No disciplinary proceedings or other notifications to subjects should occur prior to the OIA's approval of the investigative packet. Reports from the 01A The CIA sends the CEO :1 report of all local staff misconduct investigations which have extended past established time frames. should continue to work with the monitoring agent assigned to their facility for guidance and to provide. updates on outstanding matters. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 9 of 42 Reported Misconduct All allegations of misconduct received by the CIA are referred to the BIG for review and classification. The 01G determines which matters they will accept for investigation and possible criminal prosecution and defers other matters to the 01A for investigation. The CIA coordinates with the 0.16 andfor the FBI when investigations may lead to criminal prosecution or when there are allegations involving the abuse of an individual's Constitutional rights under Color of Law. NOTES .. ti: 'Iitll-IL' lilt u'cs rllh. .nz. Ilu lm'. Iml?t tthtI lilt'I-t? - 1-111: things-l New 1- on wantIl'w.? Ill ..-- raw.- hum: il'Illi'li?Iit' I may l?n' vai .--. ~11 lttiht'Iilitllh'l lill?lli?HH h? l?lt?ih." FIIMIH. Ill-1H If,? -. In 111 Ir'u? I II hum 1mm?. JiI_'thlL Li It' Hi Inmate 111'. Islul- II In .I-. "Mun [Home II, IIu?lInl- .I . (Ii li'lI.? .II 'nLilltiLli oath ia'eme I For those matters deferred for investigation, the CIA determines, after consulting with BOP management officials, whether an on-site investigation is warranted or if the matter can be investigated at the local institution level. Allegations categorized as Classi?cation 3 offenses are referred to the OIG via computer extract on a basis. During Fiscal Year 2010, the CIA opened 4,570 cases involving 5,508 BOP employees. 30 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 52 Public Health Services (PHS) employees working in BOP facilities. 2 volunteers working in BOP facilities, 271 contract/halfway house employees, and 180 employees working in privatized facilities. These 4,570 cases represent a 3.4 percent increase over the 4.420 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2009. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees also increased between Fiscal Year 2009 and Fiscal Year 2010 (14.2 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2009 and 14.7 subjects per 100 total BOP employees in Fiscal Year 2010). The 4,570 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2010 were classified as follows: Classification 1 1,252 Classification 2 1,258 Classification 3 2,060 The largest increase occurred in cases categorized as Classi?cation 3 BOP FOIA 2016?0171610 of 42 Reported Misconduct percent increase over those cases opened in Fiscal Year 2009. Classi?cation 1 cases showed an increase of 5.7 percent. Conversely. Classification 2 cases showed a decrease of 2.4 percent. Table 1 provides a breakdown of those categories of misconduct reported during Fiscal Year 2010. The categories of reported misconduct which showed the largest increases from Fiscal Year 2009 were Sexual Abuse of Inmates a 23.3 percent increase), Discrimination (a 22.2 percent increase}, and Unprofessional Conduct (a 20 percent increase). The most significant decreases occurred in the categories of Investigative Violations (a 23.2 percent decrease), Unauthorized Release of Information (a 25 percent decrease}. and Breach of Security [a 20.3 percent decrease). Table 1: Types of Reported Misconduct - Fiscal Year 2111!! Number of Reported Allegations Type of Misconduct lnma 1e Non Inmate Change Related Related rm" FY 2009 Other OneDutv Misconduct 59? 6?38 1255 8.4 Unprot'essional Conduct 524 534 IS'ti 20.0 Abuse of Inmates 996 996 12 Personnel Prohibitions 589 {19 (158 -2.7 Off-Duty Misconduct Sol 561 9.8 lntroduelion of Contraband 481 64 545 6.9 Failure to Follow Policy 293 252 S45 - I 8.2 Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates 541 541 1.7 Fiscal 85 41-43 5?13 - 8.6 lnartenuott to Duty 195 235 431] Sexual Alt-Lise of Inmates 4 l3 4 [3 23 .3 Breach of Security ITO 242 412 ?113 Emitter;r 162 11 162 43.4 Unaudiorizcd Release of Information 3 1 I113 425.1} Investigative Violations 89 89 38.2 Discrimination 2t] 2 22 22 2 USA Patriot Act In the USA Patriot Act. Congress expressed concern about the potential abuse of individual civil rights and liberties by DOJ employees in the aftermath of September 11. 2001. Accordingly, the BOP 20113?01716 11 of 42 Reported Misconduct Patriot Act mandated that the DIG widely advertise that it receives and investigates allegations of such abuses. Patriot Act violations include violence, discrimination, or threats on the part of a employee, particularly when such cases are directed toward individuals or groups associated in the public perception with acts of terrorism because of their religious beliefs, place of birth, or appearance. Patriot Act allegations which typically come to our attention are alleged mistreatment or unprofessional behavior of BOP staff towardfaround certain inmates, their visitors, or members of the public. Due to the sensitivity of these allegations, they are automatically classi?ed as Classification 2 or higher offenses; they should be forwarded immediately to the (HA. A11 Patriot Act violation allegations are then referred to a Special Operations Unit at DIG Headquarters devoted to reviewing and investigating such misconduct. Of the 4,570 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2U1U. 20 cases involved Patriot Act violations. As of September 30, 2010, 16 cases remained open pending investigation, and 4 cases were closed. One allegation was sustained. A Correctional Services employee sent an inappropriate email via GroupWise to other staff regarding President Barack Obama's refusal to salute the American flag. The employee was suspended for one day. BOP FOIA 2016?0171612 of 42 Closed/Sustained Misconduct As of September 30, 2010, a decision had been made on 1,520 (33.3 percent) of the 4,570 cases NOTES opened during Fiscal Year 2010. The remaining 3,050 cases {(16.7 percent) were still open and being investigated. Of the 1,520 .. .d 1-. on m, cases closed, the majority {1,394 or 91.7 [in Jinn ,mtl percent) were investigated at the institution 1-1 Mm level with authorization and monitoring provided by the CIA. Of the cases 1,394 cases closed, 85 were 01A on-site investigations (5.6 m. m. MW, percent}, and 41 (2.7 percent) were investigated by the 016. 1101' ?l 0f the 1,520 cases closed, 451 (29.7 percent) 1'17"? were sustained. Misconduct was sustained against 334 BOP employees, 6 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 1 PHS employee working in a BOP facility, I volunteer working in a BOP facility, 72 contractfhalf way house employees. and 74 employees working in privatized facilities. all in Ir) It:!:v:c I - BOP Employees There were 5,508 BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in cases opened during Fiscal Year 2010. As of September 30, 2010, a decision had been made for 29.5 percent of those employees. Of the 29.5 percent (or 1,625 employees), 20.6 percent 334) had a sustained decision (a rate of .9 employees per 100 total BOP staff). Of the 5,508 BOP employees for whom a case was opened during Fiscal Year 2010, 244 were unidenti?ed. Table 2 (on the following page) re?ects the categories of misconduct sustained against BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2010. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Personnel Prohibitions (within this category Absent Without Leave was sustained with the greatest frequency), followed by Unprofessional Conduct and Other On- Duty Misconduct. ll BOP FOIA 2016?0171613 of 42 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 2: Types of Sustained Misconduct for BIJP Employees - FY Zlil? With 29.5 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct 113:; TOTAL Personnel Prohibitions 59 'i on Conduct [0 Si] 6? Other CIn-Duly Misconduct IS 40 53 Failure to Follow Policv ll 2.3 44 Misconduct 3? 37 Fiscal 4 3t] 34 lo Dutv 5 28 3-3 Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates 3t:- 3t] Breach of Security 5 22 2? Entmduclion of Contraband 8 I9 investigative Violations {1 Unauthorized Release of 3 4 Sexual Abuse of urinates 4 4 Bribery 2 2 Abuse of Inmates Discrimination [l - Disciplinary Action Once a subject is investigated and the allegations are sustained, the type of disciplinary action taken is left to the deciding of?cial, who is generally the CEO. Each case is unique. and there are varying degrees of seriousness within each type of misconduct. Also, a single subject may be charged with multiple types of misconduct. The Douglas Factors must be considered when deciding the appropriate penalty to impose on employees for misconduct. The Douglas Factors are an accumulation of historic Civil Services practices and procedures in cases involving civil servant misconduct. created by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in the seminole Douglas case. In Douglas, the MSPB announced a non-exhaustive list of twelve factors which the BOP, like all federal agencies. must consider in determining appropriate penalties to impose in employee misconduct. The Douglas Factors are as follows: I the nature and seriousness of the offense; BOP FOIA 2016?0171614 of 42 Closed/Sustained Misconduct I the employee's job level and type of employment; 0 the employee's disciplinary record; 0 the employee?s past work record. including length of service and duty performance; a the effect of the offense on the employee?s ability to perform and its effect on the supervisor's confidence in such ability: the consistency of the penalty with penalties imposed Upon others for like or similar misconduct; I the consistency of the penalty with the BOP's table of penalties (Program Statement 3420.09, Standards of Employee Conduct; a the notoriety of the offense or its impact on the BOP's reputation; - the clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules violated or warned about the conduct in question; a the employee's potential for rehabilitation; 0 any and all mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense job stress/tension, personality problems= mental impairment, harassment or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of others involved; 0 the adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions. The CEO is required to consider only those Douglas factors which are relevant to any individual and need not consider all the Douglas Factors in every case. In many cases, some of the Douglas Factors may suggest one type of penalty while others suggest another penaltychoose the appropriate penalty. l3 BOP FOIA 2016?0171615 of 42 Closed/Sustained Misconduct The following actions were taken against (or by) those BOP employees with a sustained decision. Written Reprimand 84 Suspension 81 No Action 59 Resignation SS Termination 18 Combined with Action in Another 01A Matter 15 Retirement 12 Oral Reprimand 5 Reassignment 1 Demotion The specific types of misconduct most frequently sustained against those individuals for whom no disciplinary action was taken were Unprofessiona] Conduct {16.4 percent of all sustained misconduct for staff in this group}. Failure to Follow Policy (12.3 percent) and Absent Without Leave (11 percent). 0 Gender There were 4.1 14 male BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2010. As of September 30, 2010. a decision had been made for 29.8 percent of those 4.1 14 male employees. Of the 29.8 percent (or [.224 male employees). 19.4 percent {237) had a sustained decision (a rate of .9 employees per 100 total male BOP staff}. There were 1,150 female BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2010. As of September 30. 2010. a decision had been made for 29.9 percent of those 1,150 female employees. Of the 29.9 percent (or 344 female employees), 28.2 percent {97) had a sustained decision (a rate of .9 employees were 100 total female BOP staff). Tables 3 and 4 (on the following pages) reflect the categories of sustained allegations for male and female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2010. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among male staff was Unprot'essional Conduct (16.1 percent of all sustained misconduct by male staff. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among female staff was Personnel Prohibitions (20.1 percent of all sustained misconduct by female staf?. 14 BOP FOIA 2016-0171616 of 42 Closed/Sustained Misconduct. Table 3: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Male BOP Employees - FY 2010 With 29.8 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type Of Misconduct Inmate Nan Inmate 0112an TOTAL of Related Related Tintal1 Conduct 3 38 46 16.] Personnel Prohibitions 33 6 39 I311 Other Cut-Duty Misconduct ll] 26 36 12.6 Failure to Follow Polici l'i' 33 Fiscal huproprietics 3 '25 28 9.8 Off-Duty Misconduct 17 2? 9.4 Laatteniion to Duty 5 21 26 9.1 Breach of Security 3 l3 3! 13 Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates I I 3.8 Introduction of Contraband 5 5 10 3.5 investigative Violations 3 3 Sexual Abuse oflnmatcs 2 .7 Unauthorixed Release of Inf on'nalion 2 2 .7 Abuse of Inmates .3 Bribery .3 Discrimination {i l] (l Those items highlighted in red occurred with greater frequency among male staff than among female staff. 15 BOP FOIA 2016?0171617 of 42 Closed/Sustained Misconduct. Table 4: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Female BOP Employees - FY 2010 With 29.9 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct Inmate Nun 1 Related Inmate tiff-Duty TOTAL ?34: of Total Related Personnel Prohibitions 26 20.1 Inappropriate Relationship with inmates 19 [9 14.2 Other Oil-Duty Misconduct 3 14 12.7 Unprofessional Conduct 2 2 4 Failure to Follow Policy 4 8.2 Off-Dow Misconduct It) 7.5 Inimduction ol? Contraband 6 3 9 lnattention lo Duty 0 5.2 Fiscal 5 fi 4.5 Breach of Security 2 4- E- 4.5 investigative Violations 3 3 2.2 Sexual Abuse of Inmates '2 2 1.5 Unauthorized Release of Information 2 1.5 Bribery .7 Abuse of Inmates 0 (l Discrimination (J (1 0 Those items highlighted in red occurred with greater frequency among female staff than among male staff. 16 BOP FOIA 2016?0171618 of 42 Closed/Sustained Misconduct 0 Job Discipline As of September 30, 2010. 334 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2010 had a sustained decision. Table 5 reflects the rate of misconduct among the various job disciplines. Table 5: Discipline Employees With Sustained Misconduct - FY 20]" With 29.5 Percent Closed Number of Discipline #:1313935 Sustained Employees Misconduct Conipulel' Services ii 235 2.6 Recordsilnmale Systems 13 1.031 I .3 Correctional Services [1'40 16,809 1.1 Health Sertrieesi?Sal'ety 28 2.610 Inmate Senrices 2 194 1.0 Central Office 13 1.257 1.0 Food Service 15 1,621 .9 Facilities 19 2.405 ,8 UNICUR 8 1.173 3" CED's Office Staff a 941 .15 Unit Management 19 "3.1 .6 Religious Services 2 3 l4 Communit?r Corrections I 172 .6 Recreation 751 .3 Business Of?ce 9 .5 Education 8: Vocational Training 4 Lil-'16 .4 Pwi?luiug): Services 4 11161 .4 Human Resources 1 415 ,2 Staff Training CentersiNIC 0 13 (1 The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among Computer Services staff was Absent Without Leave (50 percent of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group). The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among Systems staffwas Unprofessional Conduct (23.1 percent of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group). 17 BOP FOIA 2015?0171619 of 42 Closed/Sustained Misconduct I Bargaining vs. Non?Bargaining Unit Staff There were 4,109 employees in the bargaining unit identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2010. As of September 30. 2010. a decision had been made for 29 percent of those 4.109 bargaining unit employees. 0f the 29 percent (or 1.193 bargaining unit employees). 23.4 percent (01'279 bargaining unit employees) had a sustained decision {a rate of .9 employees per 100 total bargaining unit employees. There were 1.155 non-bargaining unit employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2010. As of September 30. 2010. a decision had been made for 32.5 percent of those 1.155 non-bargaining unit employees. Of the 32.5 percent (or 375 non-bargaining unit employees). 14.7 percent (or 55 non-bargaining unit employees) had a sustained decision (a rate of .9 employees per 100 total non-bargaining unit employees). Contract/Halfway House Employees There were 271 contractfhaifway house employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2010. As of September 30. 2010, a decision had been made for 61.3 percent of those 27] employees. 0f the 6 .3 percent (or 166 employees), 43.4 percent (72) had a sustained decision. It is significant to note that an administrative disposition was recorded for 34.3 percent of those employees for whom a decision had been made. indicating the employee either resigned or their employment was terminated prior to an investigation being conducted. Thus. the 43.4 percent sustained rate is likely an extremely conservative figure. Table 6 (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against contract/halfway house employees. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct was inappropriate Relationships with inmates, which made up 30 percent of all sustained misconduct among this group. 18 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 20 of 42 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 6: Types of Sustained Misconduct for ContractiHalfway House Employees - FY 20]? With 61.3 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct 11:33:: Off-Duty TOTAL hiuppropn'ate Relationship wiLh Inmates 27? 27" Other Clo?Duty Misconduct 8 15 MiSconduct 10 10 Personnel Prohihilions [a 3 9 inane-mien to Dull 5 3 8 Unprofcssional Conduct a 1' Sexual Abuse of [nmates 5 5 Investigative Violations 5 5 Introduction of Contraband I t} I Fiscal Improprietics (J I I Breach of Security I ll 1 Failure to Follow Policyr [l 1 Abuse of Inmates t} Discrimination (1 Bribery (i ll 0 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 [l l) Staff in Privatized Facilities There were 180 employees working in privatized facilities identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2010. As of September 30, 2010. a decision had been made for 74.4 percent of those 180 employees. Of the 74.4 percent (or 134 employees), 55.2 percent (74) had a sustained decision. Table 7 (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the categories of misconduct sustained against employees working in privatized facilities. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct for staff working in privatized facilities was Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates, which made up 26.9 percent of all misconduct among this group. 19 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 21 of 42 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 7: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in P?vattmd Facilities - FY 2010 With 74.4 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct . $353 ?33333? ?ft-?us mm Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates 23 28 Other On?Duty Misconduel 9 3 i? Unprot'essinnal Conduul It 3 1 Abuse of Inmates 8 Introduction of Contraband 4 3 7 Investigative 1Violations 1' it Breach tit?Security ti 6 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 4 4 Fiscal 7. 4 Personnel Prohibitions 3- 4 Poi lore to Fol low Policy 3 t} 3 Bribery 1 t) 2 Unauthorized Release of information 2 [l 2 Inattontion to Duly I ti 1 Discrimination Misconduct tl Contract Employees and Volunteers Working in BOP Facilities There were 30 contract staff and 2 volunteers working in BOP facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2010. As of September 30, 2010, a decision had been made for 33.3 percent of the 30 contract employees. Of the 33.3 percent (or 10 contract employees), 6 percent (6) had a sustained decision. Two allegations of Introduction of Contraband were sustained, and one allegation each of Abuse of Inmates, Bribery, Investigative Violations, Breach of Security, and Unprofessional Conduct were sustained. As of September 30, 2010, a decision had been made for both volunteers. One volunteer had a sustained decision. Introduction of Contraband was sustained against that individual. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 22 of 42 Closed/Sustained Misconduct PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities 0f the approximately 792 PHS employees working in BOP facilities, 52 were identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2010 (or 6.6 per 100 PHS employees). As of September 30, 2010, a decision had been made for 28.8 percent of those 52 PHS employees. 0f the 28.8 percent (or 15 PHS employees), 6.7 percent (1) had a sustained decision, for a sustained rate of .1 per 100 PHS employees. The employee was convicted of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and sentenced to 5-months incarceration, 5-months home detention, 5-years supervised release, and a $3,000 ?ne. BOP FOIA 2015?01716 23 of 42 Physical Abuse of Inmates Title 18. United States Code, Chapter 13 - Civil Rights ?2~ll Conspiracy against rights if two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory. or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent. or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -- They shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both: and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. they shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. ?242 Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or Fire, Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse. or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be ?ned under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or may be sentenced to death. I Statistics During Fiscal Year 2010. 689 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2010, a decision had been made for 40.5 percent {or 279) of those allegations. Physical Abuse allegations are tracked by the degree of injury sustained by the threatening injury, serious injury, minon?slight injury, minon'no injury (harassment), and super?cial injury (injuries associated with the normal use of restraints). Six allegations of Physical Abuse have been sustained to date. all BOP FOIA 2016?01716 24 of 42 Physical Abuse of Inmates resulting in minor/no injury (harassment) to the inmate. One of the sustained allegations involved a male Correctional Services employee. The remaining 5 allegations involved staff in privatized facilities. None of the subjects with sustained allegations were criminally prosecuted. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 25 0f 42 Introduction of Contraband Title 18. United States Code. Chapter 87 - Prisons ?1791 Providing or possessing contraband in prison Offense?Whoever- (l In violation of a statute or a rule or order issued under a statute, provides to an inmate of a prison a prohibited object, or attempts to do so; or (2) being an inmate of a prison, makes, possesses, or obtains, or attempts to make or obtain. a prohibited object; shall be punished as provided in subsection of this section. Punishment-The punishment for an offense under this section is a fine under this title or- (1) imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section; (2) imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section; (3) imprisonment for no more than 5 years, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section; (4) imprisonment for no more than one year, or both, if the object is specified in subsection or of this section; and (5) imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, if the object is specified in subsection I of this section. Any punishment imposed under subsection for a violation of this section by an inmate of a prison shall be consecutive to the sentence being served by such inmate at the time the inmate commits such violation. Definitions-As used in this section- (1) the term ?prohibited object? means- (A) a ?rearm or destructive device or a controlled substance in Section I or 11, other than marijuana or a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subsection; 24 BOP 2016?01716 26 0f 42 Introduction of Contraband (B) marijuana or a controlled substance in schedule [11, other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subjection, ammunition, a weapon (other than a firearm or destructive device), or an object that is designed or intended to be used as a weapon or to facility escape from a prison; (C) a narcotic drug, methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers, lysergic acid diethylamide, or (D) a controlled substance (other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of this subsection} or an alcoholic beverage; (E) any United States or foreign currency: and (F) any other object that threatens the order, discipline, or security of a prison, or the life, health, or safety of an individual; (2) the terms ?ammunition," ??reann,? and ?destructive device? have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 921 of this title; (3) the terms ?controlled substance" and ?narcotic drug" have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); and (4) the term ?prison? means a Federal correctional, detention, or penal facility or any pri son, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General. Statistics During, Fiscal Year 2010, 545 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2010, a decision had been made for 32.1 percent (or 1'75) of those allegations. Thirty allegations of Introduction of Contraband have been sustained to date: Type of Contraband inmate Related Nialeigg?w Soft Item ID 2 Weapons 2 Drugs f?v?icoden] 0 Alcohol 0 Unauthorized Eleclmnic Device 2 Cigarel tes?'obacco 4 25 BOP 2016?01716 2? of 42 Introduction of Contraband Twenty-eight individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Eighteen of these individuals were BOP employees (9 were male Correctional Services employees, 3 were female Correctional Services employees, 1 was a male Facilities employee, 1 was a female Facilities employee, 1 was a female Recreation employee, I was a female Business Office employee, 1 was a female Services employee, and was a female Health ServicesISafety employee). Six of these individuals worked in privatized facilities, 2 were contract employees working in BOP facilities, 1 was a volunteer working in a BOP facility, and was a contractfhalfway house employee. A male Correctional Services employee was arrested following two joint DIG and FBI undercover operations during which he accepted $1,000 for the prior introduction of alcohol and $2,500 for the pending introduction of cocaine. He pled guilty to one count of Bribery of a Public Official and was sentenced to 13-months incarceration and 24-months supervised release. A female contract employee working in a BOP facility accepted a $350 wire transfer in exchange for providing an inmate with six packs of cigarettes. She pled guilty to Introducing Contraband Into a Federal Prison and was sentenced to 12-months probation and ordered to pay a $1,200 ?ne. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 28 0f 42 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Title 18. United States Code, Chapter 109A - Sexual Abuse ?2241 Aggravated Sexual Abuse By force or threat. - Whoever, in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act (I by using force against that other person. or (2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. By other means. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly l) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or (2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission. of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby - (A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and (B) engages in a sexual act with that other person; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. ?2242 Sexual Abuse Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly - ll) causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear {other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping}; or BOP 2016?01716 29 0f 42 Sexual Abuse of Inmates (2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; or attempts to do so shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. ?2243 Sexual Abuse of a Ward Of a ward - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who is - in of?cial detention; and 2) under the custodial. supervisory. or disciplinary authority of the person so engaging: or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both. ?2244 Abusive Sexual Contact Sexual contact in circumstances where sexual acts are punished by this chapter. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so to do would violate - I.) subsection or of section 224] of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; (2) section 2242 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than three years, or both; (3) subsection of section 224] of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both; (4) subsection of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 30 of 42 Sexual Abuse of Inmates (5) subsection of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. In Other Circumstances. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without that other person?s permission shall be ?ned under this title. imprisoned no more than two years, or both. :5 2246 Definitions (1) the term ?prison? means a correctional, detention, or penal tacility; (2) the term ?sexual act" means - (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for the purposes of this subparagraph, contact involved the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; (B) contact between the mouth and the penis. the mouth and the vulva. or the mouth and the anus; or (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening by another by a hand or ?nger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (D) the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another person who has not attained the age of 16 years with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (3) the term ?sexual contact? means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (4) the term ?serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. (5) the term ?official detention" means - (A) detention by a Federal officer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal officer or employee, following arrest for an offense; following surrender in lieu of an arrest for BOP FOIA 20163?01716 31 of 42 Sexual Abuse of Inmates an offense; following a charge or conviction of an offense, or an allegation or ?nding of juvenile delinquency; following commitment as a material witness: following civil commitment in lieu of criminal proceedings or pending resumption of criminal proceedings that are being held in abeyance, or pending extradition, deportation, or exclusion; or (B) custody by a Federal officer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal Officer or employee, for purposes incident to any detention described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, including transportation, medical diagnosis or treatment, court appearance, work, and recreation; but does not include supervision or under control (other than custody during specified hours or days) after release on bail, probation, or parole, or after release following a juvenile delinquency. 0 Statistics During Fiscal Year 2010, 413 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 413 allegations, 310 involved BOP employees, 2 involved contract employees working in BOP facilities. 3 involved Pl?lS employees working in BOP facilities, 73 involved staff working on contractfhalfway house "facilities. and 26 involved staff working in privatized facilities. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency were Sexual AbusefSesual Abuse of a Ward between female staff and male inmates (78 reported allegations}, Abusive Sexual Contact between male staff and male inmates {74 reported allegations}, and Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and male inmates (66 reported allegations). As of September 30, 2010, 13 allegations of sexual abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2010 were sustained. Of the I4 allegations, 4 involved BOP employees, 1 involved a PHS employee working in a BOP facility, 5 involved staff working in contract/halfway house facilities, and 3 involved staff working in privatized facilities. One hundred ninety one allegations reported during Fiscal Year 2010 are pending. Sexual Abuser?Scsual Abuse of a Ward - Male Staff/Female lmnate 0 Sexual Abusez?Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a male Correctional Services employee at FDC Houston and two female inmates. This matter was investigated by the 016. The subject admitted having a seisual relationship with one of the inmates while she was designated to a contractfhalfway house facility. The subject further admitted be financially supported the inmate by paying her bills and buying her clothing and other items. The subject also admitted he met with another inmate on at least three separate occasions while she was designated to a treatment facility. The subject admitting kissing the inmate and giving her money. The US. Attorney's Office declined prosecution in this 30 BOP 2016-01716 32 of 42 Sexual Abuse of Inmates matter. However. the Howard County, Texas. District Attomey's Of?ce charged the subject with Improper Sexual Activity With a Person in Custody. The charges were ultimately dismissed. The subject resigned his employment. 2010000535) 0 Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward between a male PHS employee at FCI Tallahassee and a female inmate. This matter was investigated by the GIG. The victim alleged the subject sexually assaulted her while she was in the dental clinic at FCI Tallahassee. The victim provided investigators with a shirt which allegedly contained the subject?s semen. DNA testing con?rmed the subject's semen was present on the shirt. The subject admitted having sexual relations with the inmate. but he denied sexually assaulting her. The subject was convicted of Sexual Abuse of a Ward and sentenced to 5~months incarceration. S-months home detention. and 5-years supervised release. He was also ?ned $3,000. The subject's employment was terminated. (Om-201001313016 2010002800) 0 Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward between a male employee at a contract/halfWay house facility and a female inmate. This matter was investigated by the DIG. The subject admitted having sexual relations with the inmate in a motel. He also admitted communicating with the inmate via cellular telephone while she was housed at the halfway house. The U.S. Attorney's Of?ce declined prosecution because the sexual act occurred outside the halfway house. The subject resigned his employment. (CIA-2010- Abusive Sexual Contact - Male Inmate Abusive Sexual Contact between a male Con-ectional Services employee at FDC Seatac and a female inmate. This matter was investigated by the OIG. The subject admitted he and the inmate hugged on multiple occasions. held hands. kissed, and fondled each other?s buttocks and hips. The subject also provided the victim with contraband during her incarceration at FDC Seatac. and he visited her at a detention facility after her transfer from FDC Seatac. The subject paid $1,500 of the victim's legal fees and put money in her telephone account at the detention facility. The U.S. Attorney?s Of?ce declined prosecution. The subject resigned his employment. 2010002887) Abusive Sexual Contact - Male Inmate 0 Abusive Sexual Contact between a male employee at a contractfhalfway house facility and a male inmate. The subject admitted he allowed the inmate to touch his penis through his pants. The U.S. Attorney's Office declined prosecution. The state of 31 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 33 of 42 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Montana also declined prosecution, citing the US. Attorney?s Office declination. The subject's employment was terminated. (CIA-201001266016 2010002783) Abusive Sexual Contact - Female Staff/Male Inmate Abusive Sexual Contact betvveen a female Correcrional Services employee at FCC Victorville and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the DIG. The subject admitted that on approximately four occasions she and the inmate held hands and kissed, and she permitted the inmate to fondle her breasts. The subject also admitted introducing contraband (cigarettes. a screwdriver set, dice. letters and cards, and nude photographs of herself) to the inmate. The U.S. Attorneys Office declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. 2010003856) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee at the Adams County Correctional Center and a male inmate. The DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted she kissed the inmate several times, and she allowed the inmate to fondle her breasts and buttocks. The subject's employment was terminated- 2010006175} Unprol'essional Conduct of a Sexual Nature Male Staff/Female Inmate Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male employee at a contract/halfway house facility and a female inmate. The DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. When the inmate walked past the subject and commented that it was a nice, warm day, the subject stated, "Yeah, it would be nice if we were on the beach naked.? The subject was suspended for three days. 2010005579) [inprol?essional Conduct. of a Sexual Nature - Male Stafl?fMale Inmate Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male employee at a contractfhalfway house facility and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. When the victim told the subject things went awry when he relocated. the subject asked the inmate, ?Is that when you tried to make a little girl suck your dick?? The subject's employment was terminated. ITIIOIG 2010007902) Linprot'essional Conduct of a Sexual Nature ~Female Staff/Male Inmate Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Cibola County Correctional Center and a male inmate. The 010 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted she held hands with the inmate and BOP FOIA 2016-01716 34 of 42 Sexual Abuse of Inmates they hugged and kissed on approximately 40 occasions. The subject resigned her employment (OLA-201000053016 2010000214) Unprefessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at a contractfhalfway house facility and male inmates. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. During a conversation with male inmates, the subject described in detail how she performs oral sex on her girlfriend. The subject's employment was terminated. 2010003045} Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Ceirectional. Services employee at Brooklyn and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the DIG. The subject admitting hugging and kissing the inmate and spending signi?cant amounts of time with the inmate while the subject was on duty. The subject also admitted she accepted money from the inmate. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her employment. 2010007492) Unprot?essional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Cibola County Correctional Center and a male inmate. The DIS deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted exchanging letters with the inmate in which they discussed their sexual fantasies. The subject resigned her employment. CIA-201003 827K310 2010008884} 33 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 35 of 42 Representative Case Summaries Use/A huse of Illegal DrugslAlcohol A Correctional Services employee was randomly selected to provide a urine sample in accordance with the Drug Free Workplace Program. The urine sample tested positive for the use of marijuana. The employee denied he knowingly used marijuana. He stated he consumed some cookies while at his brother?s house, and after testing positive for the use of marijuana, he learned the cookies contained marijuana. The Correctional Services employee?s employment was terminated. 0-01 l31) Inappropriate Supervisor/Subordinate Employee A Correctional Services employee admitted he engaged in inappropriate conduct with a subordinate. Specifically, the employee admitted he and his subordinate kissed, took their children on family outings together. and talked about vacationing together. The employee also admitted he visited his subordinate at her house and performed work for her. The Correctional Services employee was demoted. Unprofessionul Condor! All inmate alleged that while he was waiting in line to get his commissary items, a Business Office employee treated the inmate unprofessionally. The employee admitted he told the inmate, ?You can take your fucking happy ass over there, and I will give it to you when I feel like it." The employee also admitted that when the inmate was slow in putting commissary items in his bag. the employee told the inmate, ?You want to play the slow game? I could play the slow game.? The Business Of?ce employee received a written reprimand. Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates: Breach of Security All Assistant Food Service Administrator observed an inmate running through Food Service with onions. The inmate told the Assistant Food Service Administrator he took the onions from the Food Service warehouse. The Assistant Food Service Administrator went to the warehouse and found the door unsecured. She witnessed a Cook Supervisor alone in the Cook Supervisors? office, not monitoring the activities in the warehouse. The Cook Supervisor stated he was unaware there were unauthorized in the warehouse or that food was being stolen. The Cook Supervisor received a written reprimand. (UTA-2010-01219) Misuse of Travel Charge Card A Computer Services employee used her travel charge card to make ATM withdrawals during a period when she was not on of?cial travel. Further, the employee failed to pay the travel charge card in full. Disciplinary action in this matter was combined with disciplinary action in two 34 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 36 of 42 Representative Case Summaries other matters in which misconduct was sustained against the Computer Services employee. She was suspended for 15 days. (OIA-2010-00630) Improper Contact With an inmate/Inmate?s Family A Records/Inmate Systems employee used his personal cellular telephone to call and send text messages to an inmate?s wife. The employee stated the inmate?s wife called the institution numerous times inquiring about her husband?s self?surrender. The employee stated he felt sorry for the inmate?s wife, and after the inmate selfvsurrendered, he called the inmate?s wife to assure her the inmate was processed into the institution without complication. The employee stated he was intoxicated at the time. He further stated he later sent the inmate?s wife a text message related to football while intoxicated. Further. the employee called the inmate?s wife twice more. but she did not answer. The Systems employee received a written reprimand. (OM-201000589) An inmate gave an employee at a privatized facility his cousin's telephone number. The employee and the inmate would call the inmate?s cousin and engage in three-way conversations. The employee?s employment was terminated. Preferential Treatment of Inmates A UNICOR employee accepted institution clothing from an inmate who was being transferred. The employee packed the clothing in a box and placed in on a UPS truck going to the institution where the inmate was being transferred. The UN lC OR employee received a written reprimand. 1 0410420) Interfering an Investigation A Correctional Services employee contacted an employee who was questioned during the course of an 01A investigation in which the Correctional Services employee was identified as a subject. The Correctional Services employee tried to coerce the other employee into changing her account of the incident. The Correctional Services employee was suspended for one day. 2010-00141) lnattention to Duty A used syringe was found on the ?oor of the Administrative Detention sallyport. Review of the nursing staff schedule determined a Health Services employee conducted insulin pill line around the time of the incident. Video surveillance confirmed the Health Services employee entered the Administrative Detention range and conducted insulin pill line minutes before the syringe was discovered. Further. a review of the Syringe Dispensing Machine revealed the Health Services employee checked out three syringes around the time of the incident. The Health Services 35 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 37 of 42 Representative Case Summaries employee was the only medical staff member observed on the range around the time of the incident. The Health Services employee received a written reprimand. (OIA-2010-00239) Breach of Computer Security; Unauthorized Release of Information A Health Services employee created a rule in GroupWise which fotwarded all her messages, including sensitive but unclassified information, to other institution staff who did not have a need to know. The rule also forwarded the messages to the Health Services employee?s personal e- mail address. The Health Services employee retired prior to disciplinary action being taken. (CIA-2O 10-02261) [failure to Follow Supervisor's Instructions A Religious Services employee was twice issued direct orders to prepare a memorandum regarding an incident which occurred earlier that day prior to leaving the institution. The Religious Services employee did not provide the memorandum as instructed. She was suspended for one day. (CIA-201000695) Breach of Security A six-inch ribbon cutting tool was missing from the ceramic cage in Recreation. A search of the area and the inmates assigned to the ceramics shop was met with negative results. A Recreation employee admitted he left the cage unsecured and left the area. The employee received a written reprimand. Failure to Follow Policy A Facilities employee instructed an inmate detail to disassemble an ATV valued at approximately $5,000 so the spare parts could he used to repair two other ATVs maintained at the institution. The ATV was obtained at no cost and was intended to be used for spare parts. However. the employee failed to ensure the ATV was removed from his accountable property inventory prior to having it disassembled, and he signed the accountable property inventory stating the ATV was missing. The Facilities employee received a written reprimand. (DIA- 2010-00110) Misuse of Government. Computers A Correctional Services employee sent an e-mail to all staff at the institution in which he referred to staff as ?chumps? for not speaking up when needed. The Correctional Services employee also made derogatory remarks about an employee who was recently promoted. The Correctional Services employee was suspended for one day. 36 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 38 of 42 Representative Case Summaries OfferinglGiving Anything of Value to an Inmate An employee at a conlractfhalfway house facility purchased two pizzas as a reward for inmates who buffed and waxed the floors throughout the facility. The employee was suspended for three clays. 37 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 39 0f 42 Significant Prosecutions Following are brief summaries of some of the significant or noteworthy prosecutions which were completed during Fiscal Year 2010. The individuals referenced are no longer employed by the BOP or any BOP contractor. 0 During an FBI investigation, a Correctional Services employee admitted beating an inmate when the inmate was handcuffed, lying chest down on the ground, and under the physical control of two other staff. The inmate suffered multiple fractures to his left socket and left cheekbone as a result of the Correctional Services employee?s excessive use of force. The Correctional Services employee was convicted of Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law and sentenced to twenty-eight months incarceration and two years supervised release. 2003008904) 0 During an DIG undercover operation, a Correctional Services employee accepted two ounces of marijuana and $1,000 from an undercover agent posing as a fn'end of an inmate. The Correctional Services employee was convicted of introduction of Contraband and sentenced to five years incarceration. 2005005724) 0 An inmate?s girlfriend contacted the FBI alleging her boyfriend had information regarding a staff member who was introducing tobacco and narcotics into the institution for another inmate. The inmate was interviewed by the 016, and he verified it Facilities employee provided him with tobacco and narcotics. The Facilities employee was convicted of Providing Contraband in Prison and sentenced to six months home con?nement and two-years probation. 2006000071) 0 Following a contractf halfway house employee?s resignation, it was discovered over $18,000 in subsistence and money orders was missing. An 01G investigation determined the contract/halfway house employee was responsible for the theft and for cashing five inmate money orders totaling The US. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution, but the contractfhalfway house employee was prosecuted by local authorities. She was convicted of Theft and sentenced to one-day incarceration. 3007000126) 0 An 01G investigation determined a Correctional Services employee received over $20,000 from an inmate?s wife in exchange for introducing tobacco into the institution. The Correctional Services employee was convicted of Extortion and sentenced to four years incarceration and two years supervised release. 2007002068) 0 An 01G investigation determined a Facilities employee stole a control valve he ordered using his government-issued charge card and a tool bit set from the machine shop. The Facilities employee was convicted of Theft of Government Property and sentenced to two 38 BOP FOIA 20163?01716 40 of 42 Significant Prosecutions years probation. He was also ordered to pay restitution to the BOP in the amount of $2242.40. 2007002986) During an 016 investigation, a Food Service employee admitted that on six separate occasions he smuggled contraband items into the institution, including tobacco, knives. razor blades. a cellular telephone. and drugs. The Food Service employee was paid $2,400 in bribes for introducing the contraband. He was convicted of Conspiracy to Possess Contraband in Prison and sentenced to 180 days home confinement and five years probation. He was also ordered to pay a $3,450 ?ne. (OLA-2007041911010 2007008731) Ajoint investigation by the Office of Labor Racketeeting and Fraud investigations and the DIG determined a Correctional Services employee knowingly submitted 74 fraudulent claims for ntedical travel refunds totaling ?511595.76. The Correctional Services employee was convicted of False Statements to Obtain Federal Employee Compensation Benefits. He was sentenced to four years probation and ordered to pay $1 1,602.50 in restitution. (OLA-2008-04276101G 2008009303) An 01G investigation revealed a Business Office employee stole funds from BOP imprest fund accounts. She then stole money from inmate accounts to cover the money she had previously stolen from the imprest fund accounts. The Business Of?ce employee was convicted of Theft of Government Funds and Falsifying Records. She was sentenced to ?ve years probation and ordered to pay {59.26359 in restitution. (OLA-2009020527016 2009004146) Ajoint OIG and FBI investigation revealed a Food Service employee received over $145,000 in compensation for overtime hours she did not work. The employee would create a time sheet showing no overtime worked for her supervisor to approve, and then re?access the system to add the false oveitime hours. The Food Service employee was convicted of Theft of Government Funds. She was sentenced to five months incarceration, five months home con?nement, and three years supervised release. She was also ordered to pay 100.000 in restitution, half of which was due within 14 days of her plea. 2009004501 An DIG investigation revealed a Correctional Services employee used his travel charge card to make approximately fifty unauthorized transactions totaling $4,869.19. The employee stated he used the money to support his addiction to the Oxycotin. The Correctional Services employee was convicted of Theft of Government Money and sentenced to three years supervised release. He was also ordered to pay $4,869.19 in restitution. 20090052051 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 41 of 42 Appendix Types ul?SustainL-d Misconduct fur BOP Employees FY 2M9 With Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct Inmate Non Inmate Off-Duly TOTAL Related Related Fiscal mempn'eu'es IS 223 ?241 Other Dn?Duly Mismnduct 5? ISO 237 Failure to Follow Policy [03 12?. 225 Unpml'essinnal Cnnduct 45 I61 2061 Personnel Prohibition-i 9 I 4 195 lnancnlion to Duty 89 Si no Off?Duly Misconduct Breach of Securlw 67 34 Inappropriate Rela?nnship with Inmates 73 73 Introduction of Contraband 39 24 63 Inwmigative Violations. 43 43 Aims: of Inmates 24 ?24 Unauthorized Release of mfunnalion 3 12 20 Bribery IE 2 14 Sexual Abuse oflnmalcs [0 ll) Discrimjnaliun ID 40 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 42 of 42 U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons Washington, DC Of?ce of Internal Affairs Report for Fiscal Year 2011 BOP 2016?017161 of 46 Table of Contents Executive Summary of Findings 1 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct? Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations 5 Reported Misconduct 7 Closedeustained Misconduct . l0 Physical Abuse of Inmates 21 Introduction of Contraband 23 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 26 Representative Case Surrunaries 32 Significant Prosecutlons35 Appendix 37 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 2 of 46 Executive Summary of Findings There was a 4.6 percent increase in the number of cases opened in Fiscal Year 2011 as compared with Fiscal Year 2010. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees stayed the same, however. Cases classi?ed as Classi?cation 3 offenses showed a 13.5 percent increase over those cases opened in Fiscal Year 2010, while Classi?cation 1 and 2 offenses showed a decrease (3.4 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively). The most frequently reported type of misconduct in Fiscal Year 2011 was Unprofessional Conduct. Other On-Duty Misconduct and Abuse of Inmates placed second and third, respectively. The only categories of misconduct which showed an increase from Fiscal Year 2010 were Discrimination, Failure to Follow Policy, Personnel Prohibitions, and Breach of Security. The most significant decreases occurred in the categories of Bribery, Inattention to Duty, and Off-Duty Misconduct. During Fiscal Year 2011, 33 cases involving Patriot Act Violations were opened. As of September 30, 201 l. 19 cases remained open pending investigation, and 14 cases were closed. No allegations of misconduct were sustained. As of September 30, 2011, a decision had been made for 28.2 percent of the 5,570 BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 20] 1. Of the 28.2 percent. 18.9 percent had a sustained decision, a rate of .8 employees were 100 total BOP staff). The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 201 l, was Personnel Prohibitions, followed by Unprofessional Conduct and Off-Duty Misconduct. The sustained rate of misconduct for male BOP employees for whom a decision had been made as of September 30, 2011, was .9 employees per 100 total male BOP staff, while the sustained rate of misconduct for female BOP employees for whom a decision had been .made as of September 30, 201 l, was .7 employees per .100 total. female BOP staff. The most. frequently sustained category of misconduct among male BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 201 1, was Personnel Prohibitions, while the most frequently sustained category of misconduct among female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2011. was Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates. For those BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30. 201 l. the rate was highest among Religious Services staff [1.5 per 100 total Religious Services staff. Although the absolute number of sustained decisions was low S), the per capita rate BOP 2016?01716 3 of 46 Executive Summary of Findings was nonetheless the highest given the relatively small number of Religious Services staff in the agency. For those BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 201]. the rate was higher for bargaining unit employees than for non-bargaining unit employees (.8 employees per 100 total bargaining unit staff vs. .7 employees per 100 total non- bargaining unit staff). For those contractfhalfway house employees with a sustained decision as of September 30. 20] l, the most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates. This was also true for those staff in privatized facilities with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2011. As of September 30, 201 1, two allegations of Physical Abuse reported during Fiscal year 2011 were sustained, both resulting in minorfno injury (harassment) to the inmate. One of the sustained allegations involved a male Correctional Services employee, and one involved a staff member working in a privatized facility. Neither of the subjects with a sustained allegation was criminally prosecuted. As of September 30, 2011, 26 allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported during Fiscal Year 20] were sustained, involving 24 individuals. Eleven involved the introduction of soft contraband, 10 involved the introduction of unauthorized electronic devices, 3 involved the introduction of weapons. and 1 each involved the introduction of marijuana and creatine/weightlifting supplements. A male employee at a privatized facility was arrested by local authorities. The individuals employment was terminated before the case could be adjudicated. As of September 30, 201 l, 9 allegations of Sexual Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2011 were sustained: 1 involved a BOP employee, 4 involved staff working in contracb?halfway house facilities, and 4 involved staff working in privatized facilities. None of these individuals were convicted of criminal violations. lg BOP 2016?01716 4 of 46 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct Staff Reporting In accordance with the Bureau?s Standards of Employee Conduct, staff who become aware of any violation or alleged violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct must report them to the Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO), the Of?ce of Internal Affairs (01A), or the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General The DIS has established a toll?free hotline (1?800?869?4499) which is available to anyone wishing to report employees' misconduct, as well as fraud, waste, or abuse in government. All Bureau staff are encouraged to use the 016 hotline if they wish to remain anonymous or fear retaliation or reprisal. To report violations directly to the CIA Central Office, please submit a written complaint to: Federal Bureau of Prisons Office of Internal Affairs 320 First Street, NW. Room 600 Washington, DC 20534 Written complaints may also be sent via fax to {202) 514?8625. CEO Reporting Upon becoming aware of any possible violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct (either through a report from staff or through personal knowledge. the CEO at the institution, Regional Office or Central Of?ce Division, or his or her designee, is to report the violation to the CIA in accordance with the following time frames. Classi?cation 1 cases are defined as allegations which, if substantiated, would constitute a prosecutahle offense (other than offenses such as misdemeanor arrests). Classification 2 cases are defined as allegations which involve violations of rules, regulations. or law that. if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution, but constitute serious misconduct. Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases must be reported telephonically to the OIA immediately. Written notification to the CIA will be made within 24 hours not to include weekends and holidays} of the time management learns of the matter. When it is suspected that criminal conduct has occurred, the CEO may refer the matter simultaneously to the CIA and the Local OIG or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of?ce. Unless the CEO and the Chief of the CIA agree to a different method, ordinarily, investigations involving Classi?cation 3 cases are to be conducted using local resources. Classi?cation 3 cases are defined as allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations. Ordinarily. CEOs can proceed with local investigations on Classification 3 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 5 of46 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct misconduct allegations for staff occupying bargaining unit positions or (38?12 and below non? bargaining unit positions without ?rst obtaining 01A approval. Written noti?cation to the CIA will be made within 24 hours (not to include weekends and holidays) of the time management learns of the matter. CEOs must notify the CIA before initiating investigations involving any misconduct alleged against management staff occupying (35- I 3 or above positions. The 01A will coordinate further action with the DIS. Initial Information. A Referral of incident form is used to organize the information to be provided (for contract employees use form BP-STMHIZ). Include the following: I The identity of the complainant(s), subjectts), witness{es), and victim(s); I The details of the allegation(s); and II Any corroborating evidence. The subject of the allegation or complaint must not be questioned or interviewed prior to receiving clearance from the 01G and the OIA's approval. This is to ensure against procedural errors and to safeguard the rights of the subject. Supporting Documentation. A Referral of Incident form (BF-5715.012) and all supporting documentation. such as victim or witness statements, medical reports. photos, and related memoranda, must be sent to the CIA immediately but not later than 24 hours after the telephonic report. If an inmate alleges physical or sexual abuse by a staff member and has not received a medical examination, the CEO must arrange an immediate, confidential medical examination and forward a copy of the results to the OLA. as soon as possible. Contact the CIA immediately if there is any question as to the classification of the misconduct. It is important to note that case classifications are many times based on limited information. As an investigation unfolds, the severity of misconduct may increase or decrease, thereby moving it into another classification. All Referral of Incident forms 15.012 or 2} and appropriate predicating information will be sent to the CIA via e-mail to the UTA GroupWise mailbox All documentation will be scanned in .pdf format (Adobe Acrobat) and saved as one ?le. The signed Referral of Incident form should appear on the top of the ?le with all supporting documentation underneath. BOP 2016?01716 6 0f 46 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations For all local staff misconduct investigations completed on or after January 1, 2007, the investigator must forward the complete investigative packet directly to the 01A for approval prior to forwarding it to the CEO for action. These procedures apply to all local staff misconduct investigations in which BOP employees are the subject (Classi?cation I, 2. and 3 allegations), regardless of whether any misconduct will be sustained. Where to Send Local Investigative Packets Local investigative packets should be sent via e-mail to the OIA GroupWise mailbox DIRfInternal Affairs-Local Investigative Packets~" (not to be confused with OM's main resource mailbox, Affairs?). To ensure local investigative packets are reviewed by the 01A in a timely manner, they should not be sent to any individual 01A staff member or to any 01A field of?ce. The subject of your e-mail message should include the CIA case number and the facility mnemonic code Format for Local lnvestigative Packets and What to Send Local investigative packets should include the investigative report (signed by the investigator) and all supporting documentation (af?davits, memorandums, video files, etc.) Complete investigative packets must be forwarded; the Summary of Investigation for Classi?cation 3 Cases form (BF-5716.012) is no longer applicable and should not be used. Documents must be scanned in .pdf format (Adobe Acrobat}. Do not send documents in other formats .tif ?les, .wpd files). Each document should be scanned as a separate document and named by first identifying the document and then providing the name of the individual to whom it relates. Photo images and graphic images may be foiwarded in .jpg or .gif format. For example: Report.pdf Affidavit-Fred Jonespdf Affidavitdessica Johnsonpdf Pictures-Freddy Imate.jpg Af?davit files should include the Warning and Assurance to Employee Required to Provide Information if applicable, and the signed 0th for each individual. The investigative packet should not include national policy or any documents not speci?cally related to the investigation staff rosters. inmate SENTRY information, etc.). BOP FOIA 2016-01716 7 of 46 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations Time Guidelines For Classi?cation I or 2 allegations, local investigators should strive to complete and forward investigative packets to the (HA within 120 calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the 01A. For classi?cation 3 allegations, local investigators should strive to complete and forward investigative packets to the OIA prior to any disciplinary action being taken and within 120 calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the CEO. Once received. the OLA will complete their review of the local. investigative packet within ten business days. The investigator will be advised as to whether the investigative packet is approved or if additional information is needed. This information will be sent via email to the investigator with a copy to the CEO. If additional information is needed. the investigator should forward the additional information to the CIA within 30 calendar days. who will again notify the investigator and the CEO if the packet is approved. Once approved, the investigator should forward the investigative packet to the CEO for appropriate action with all Review of Local Investigative Packet forms applicable to that packet attached. No disciplinary proceedings or other noti?cations to subjects should occur prior to the OIA's approval of the investigative packet. Reports from the OM The OIA sends the CEO a report of all local staff misconduct investigations which have extended past established time frames. SIASISISs should continue to work with the monitoring agent assigned to their facility for guidance and to provide. updates on outstanding matters. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 8 of 46 Reported Misconduct. All allegations of misconduct received by the CIA are referred to the BIG for review and classification. The 01G determines which matters they will accept for investigation and possible criminal prosecution and defers other matters to the 01A for investigation. The CIA coordinates with the DIS andfor the FBI when investigations may lead to criminal prosecution or when there are allegations involving the abuse of an individual's Constitutional rights under Color of Law. NOTES ?Jilin. "Lhto??nur. .n't unl'ict? In [he I11 II, . Inn}; iv: ilizuu 'ilil?vt' .upmn-ti. 'rli..'1c 3-. nm- cor. .md sustained . ?In. ?in. HI whit-g- Inn-Mi Ml int-J31IIHI-ngi'wi'. ivg?lw?l mi in: haw: will'iui'w. hr will'vit?l. Ix ma} mulluil- twin al l-.H 1'n .l winch-.11 211-; n: he high-pi mm, 11; til-ilthI Ivh'i?ii'd 1: . m. ini'MI- Iil'vmv in him He in In lawn:- ?bill!? .I In L'Jlt'll Ili'ijill'l. Hu I iHJurdhihC Cull; Fiscal-Year 2010 (3.4 percent and 2.2 percent, res For those matters deferred for investigation, the CIA determines, after consulting with BOP management officials, whether an on-site investigation is warranted or if the matter can be investigated at the local institution level. Allegations categorized as Classification 3 offenses are referred to the OIG via computer extract on a basis. During Fiscal Year 201], the CIA opened 4,774 cases involving 5,570 BOP employees, 38 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 48 Public Health Service employees working in BOP facilities, 4 volunteers working in BOP facilities, 2203 contract! halfway house employees, and 226 employees working in privatized facilities. These 4,774 cases represent a 4.6 percent increase over the 4,565 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2010. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees stayed the same (15.0 subjects per 100 total BOP employees during both Fiscal Years 2010 and 201 1). The 4,774 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2011 were classified as follows: Classi?cation I 1,207 Classification 2 1,228 Classi?cation 3 2,339 Cases classified as Classification 3 offenses showed an increase of 13.5 percent over those cases opened in Fiscal Year 2010. Both Classification 1 cases and Classification 2 cases showed a decrease over those opened in pectively). BOP FOIA 2016?01716 9 of 46 Reported Misconduct Table 1: Types of Reported Misconduct - Fiscal Year 2011 Number of Reported Allegations Type 0? Misconduct inmate Related ??33113? TOTAL 3:338 FY ZlIlIl] Unprolessional Conduct (155 539' -2.Fl Other Uri-Duly Misconduct 434 ?117 l,ll]l Abuse of inmates 93? 9'30 Personnel Prohibitions "1'14 59 773 4-12.? Failure to Follow Policy 394 334] 724 +?3.13 introduction of ConLrabantl 449 Fl: 53] ?2.7 Lift-Duty Misconduct 325 525 -l 7.1 Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates 52-4 524 - I 11.4 Fiscal Jinptoprieties 104 361 4&5 - 3.1 Breach of Security 189 254 443 +5-2 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 393 393 All lo Duty 148 3 ?56? ?l 9.2 ancstigativc Violations ill I [1 3.8 Unauthorized Release of Lnfonnatton 1'9 28 ltl? ~31? Bribery Ill] 1 ICE ?3?16 Discrimination 35 4 39 +35} Table. provides a breakdown of those categories of misconduct reported during Fiscal Year 201 1. The only categories of misconduct which showed an increase from Fiscal Year 2010 were Discrimination (an 85.7 percent increase). Failure to Follow Policy (a 13.8 percent increase), Personnel Prohibitions (a 12.7 percent increase), and Breach of Security (a 5.2 percent increase). The most significant decreases occurred in the categories of Bribery (a 36.6 percent decrease). Inattention to Duty (a 19.2 percent decrease). and Off-Duty Misconduct (a 17.1 percent decrease). USA Patriot Act In the USA Patriot Act, Congress expressed concern about the potential abuse of individual civil rights and liberties by employees in the aftermath of September I, 2001. Accordingly, the Patriot Act mandated that the (MG widely advertise that it receives and investigates allegations of such abuses. Patriot Act violations include violence, discrimination, or threats on the part of a employee, particularly when such cases are directed toward individuals or groups associated in the public perception with acts of terrorism because of their religious beliefs, place BOP 2016?0171610 of 46 Reported Misconduct of birth, or appearance. Patriot Act allegations which typically come to our attention are alleged mistreatment or unprofessional behavior of BOP staff toward/around eeltain inmates, their visitors, or members of the public. Due to the sensitivity of these allegations, they are automatically classified as Classi?cation 2 or higher offenses: they should be forwarded immediately to the OIA. All Patriot Act violation allegations are then referred to a Special Operations Unit at 01G Headquarters devoted to reviewing and investigating such misconduct. Of the 4,774 cases opened during Fiscal Year 201 I, 33 cases involved Patriot Act violations, As of September 30, 201 1, l9 cases remained open pending investigation, and 14 cases were closed. No allegations were sustained. BOP 2016?0171611 of 46 Closed/Sustained Misconduct As of September 30, 2011, a decision had been NOTES made on 1,512 (31.7 percent) of the 4,774 cases opened during Fiscal Year 201 l. The remaining 3,262 cases (68.3 percent) were still open and being investigated. Of the 1,512 1 ext-an stun- Jum gm 2 tic-cu cases closed. the majority 1,384 or 91.5 '41: 1 mm w: percent) were investigated at the institution level with authorization and monitoring provided by the BIA. 0f the 1,512 cases gm.? 1- H, closed, 87 were 01A on-site investigations 15.8 it mm .-1 11m. 1mm 1mm .-. .-1 percent), and 41 (2.7 percent) were investigated mamaIn. true 1111-31-11 1? Of the 1,512 cases closed, 395 (26.1 percent) were sustained. Misconduct was sustained against 297 BOP employees, 2 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 4 PHS employees working in BOP facilities, I volunteer working in a BOP facility. 47 contractfhalfway house employees. and 72 employees working in privatized facilities. BOP Employees There were 5.570 BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in cases opened during Fiscal Year 2011. As of September 30, 2011, a decision had been made for 28.2 percent of those employees. Of the 28.2 percent (or 1,569 employees), 18.9 percent (297) had a sustained decision (a rate of .8 employees per 100 total BOP staff). Of the 5,570 BOP employees for when] a case was opened during Fiscal Year 201 1, 257 Were unidenti?ed. Table 2 (on the following page) reflects the categon'es of misconduct sustained against BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30. 201 l. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Personnel Prohibitions (within this category Absent Without Leave was sustained with the greatest frequency), followed by Unprofessional Conduct and Off-Duty Misconduct {within this category Discreditable Behavior was sustained with the greatest frequency). 10 BOP 2016?0171612 of 46 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 2: Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 20? With 28 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Tm of Inmate Related Off-Duty Tom. Personnel Prohibitions ?l If! 74 Unprofcssional Conduct 3 35 43 Off-Duty Misconduct 42 42 Other Dn-Duty Misconducl ll] 19 39 Failure to Follow Policy [9 20 39 Breach of Security [2 ?11) lnattention to Duty l4 l? 31 Fiscal [mpropriotics 23 28 Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates 23 33 Inlmduclion nt'Conlrahand It] I 7 Investigative Violations 7 AbUs-e of Inmates a'l 4 Unauthorized Release of Information 3 l} Sexual Abuse of Inmates 1 Bribery I l} 1 Discrimination ll I 0 Disciplinary Action Once a subject is investigated and the allegations are sustained, the type of disciplinary action taken is left to the deciding official, who is generally the CEO. Each case is unique, and there are varying degrees of seriousness within each type of misconduct. Also, a single subject may he charged with multiple types of misconduct. The Douglas Factors must he considered when deciding the approtiriate penalty to impose on employees for misconduct. The Douglas Factors are an accumulation of historic Civil Services practices and procedures in cases invoiving civil servant misconduct, created by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in the scl?ninolc Douglas case. In Douglas, the MSPB announced a non-exhaustive list of twelve factors which the BOP, like all federal agencies, must consider in determining appropriate penalties to impose in employee misconduct. The Douglas Factors are as follows: a the nature and seriousness of the offense; ll BOP 2016?0171613 of 46 Closed/Sustained Misconduct II the employee's job level and type of employment; the employee's disciplinary record; the employee's past work record, including length of service and duty performance; the effect of the offense on the employee's ability to perform and its effect on the supervisor's confidence in such ability; the consistency of the penalty with penalties imposed upon others for like or similar misconduct; the consistency of the penalty with the BOP's table of penalties (Program Statement 3420.09, Standards of Employee Conduct; the notoriety of the offense or its impact on the BOP's reputation; the clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules violated or warned about the conduct in question; the employee's potential for rehabilitation: any and all mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense job stressr'tension, personality problems, mental impairment; harassment or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of others involved; the adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions. The CEO is required to consider only those Douglas factors which are relevant to any individual and need not consider all the Douglas Factors in every case. In many cases, some of the Donglas Factors may suggest one type. of penalty while others suggest another penaltychoose the appropriate penalty. BOP FOIA 2016?0171614 0f46 Closed/Sustained Misconduct The following actions were taken against (or by) those BOP employees with a sustained decision. Written Reprimand 88 Resignation 74 Suspension 70 No Action 34 Termination l4 Retirement l3 Combined with Action in Another 01A Matter 3 Oral Reprimand The specific types of misconduct most frequently sustained against those individuals for whom no disciplinary action was taken were Unprofessional Conduct (22.5 percent of all sustained misconduct for staff in this group), Failure to Follow Policy (12.5 percent) and Absent Without Leave {12.5 percent). 0 Gender There were 4,252 male BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 201 1. As of September 30, 201 l, a decision had been made for 28.4 percent of those 4,252 male employees. Of the 28.4 percent (or 1,206 male employees), 19.] percent 230) had a sustained decision (a rate. of .9 employees per 100 total male BOP staff). There were 1,061 female BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2011. As of September 30, 201 1, a decision had been made for 27.5 percent of those 1,061 female employees. Of the 27.5 percent (or 292 female employees), 22.9 percent (67) had a sustained decision (a rate of .7 employees were 100 total female BOP staff}. Tables 3 and 4 (on the following pages) re?ect the categories of sustained allegations for male and female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 201 l. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among male staff was Personnel Prohibitions (20.4 percent of all sustained misconduct by male staff). The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among female staff was Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates (15.3 percent of all sustained misconduct by female staff). 13 BOP 2016?0171615 of 46 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 3: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Male BOP Employew - FY 2011 With 28A Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct Inmate Inmate Related Off-Duty TOTAL '52: of Total! Related Personnel Prohibitions 4S 1 59 20.4 Failure to Follow Foliosr Ill 18 36: 12.5 Giff-Dutyr Misconduct 35 35 12.] OlhEr Orr?Duty Misconduct 9 2-1 33 1 L4 Unprofessional Conduct a 24 30 10.4 Breach of Security 8 19 27 9.3 Laartention to Duty It] [5 25 Fiscal lmproprietjes 4 15 19 6.6 Introduction ot'Contraband 6 3 9 3 Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates 3 8 2.3 Abuse of Inmates 4 4 [nvestigatiVe Violations 3 3 Hi Unauthorized Release of Inf onnation I .3 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 0 (J Discrimination 0 0 0 t) Bribery 0 0 I Those items highlighted in red occurred with greater frequency among male staff than among female staff. 14 BOP 2016?0171616 of 46 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 4: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Female BOP Employees - FY 2011 With 27.5 Percent Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconducl Inmate Inmate Related Off-Dutyr TOTAL of Total: Related Relalicnship will] Inmates IS 15 {5.3 Personnel Prohibitions l3 2 IS 15.8 Unprafessional Conduct 2 11 L17 Fiscal Improprielies 8 9 9.5 Introduction of Contraband 4 4 8 8.4 Off?Duty Misconducl "3.4 [natienlion lo Duty 4 6 6.3 Other (In-Duly Misconduct 4 5 5.3 Breach of Security 4 5 5.3 investigative Violations 4 4 4.2 Failure Follow Policy 3 4 4.2 Unauthorized Release of Information 2 i) 2 11 Sexual Abuse ul' Inmales 1 LI Bribery i] Abuse of Inmates 0 0 Discriminaljnn {l IThose items highlighted in red occurred with greater frequency among female staff than among male staff. 15 BOP 2016?0171617 of 46 Closed/Sustained Misconduct 1- Job Discipline As of September 30. 2011. 297 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 201 1 had a sustained decision. Table 5 reflects the rate of misconduct among the various job disciplines. Table 5: Discipline of BOP Employees With Sustained Misconduct - FY 21111 With 28.2 Percent Closed Number of E-ployees Total Rate per Discipline with Em 100 Total Sustained ?y Employees Misconduct Religious Services 5 327? 1.5 Community Corrections 2 167 1.2 Food Service [3 1633 1.1 Education 8: Vocational Training 12 11161] 1.1 Correctional Services I 70 1671 a 1 .0 UNICDR 7' 11112 .7 Unit Management 2 3229 Health Services/Safety 2619 .61 Facilities 14 2392 .6 Inmate Services 203 .5 CEO's Office 8: Staff 5 926 .5 Business Of?ce ?31 17m] .5 Central Office 5 1261 .4 Recreation 3 755 ,4 Services 4 1053 .4 Recordsfinmate Systems 2 102? .2 Human Resources 435 .2 Computer Services [1 242 1) Staff Training fl 113 The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among Religious Services staff was Unprofessional Conduct {40 percent of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group). The types of misconduct among Community Corrections staff were Unprofessional Conduct (50 percent of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group) and Failure to Follow Policy (50 percent of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group). The most frequently 16 BOP FOIA 2018?0171618 of 46 Closed/Sustained Misconduct sustained type of misconduct among Food Services staff was Failure to Properly Supervise inmates (10.3 percent of the. total sustained misconduct among staff in this group). Bargaining vs. Non-Bargaining Unit Staff There were 4,269 employees in the bargaining unit identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 201 I. As of September 30, 201 l. a decision had been made for 27.3 percent of those 4,269 bargaining unit employees. Of the 27.3 percent (or 1.166 bargaining unit employees), 21.9 percent (or 255 bargaining unit employees) had a sustained decision (a rate of .8 employees per 100 total bargaining unit employees. There were 1.044 non?bargaining unit employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 201 1. As of September 30, 2011. a decision had been made for 31.8 percent of those [.044 non-bargaining unit employees. Of the 31.8 percent (or 332 non-bargaining unit employees), 12.7 percent (or 425 non-bargaining unit employees) had a sustained decision (a rate of .7 employees per 100 total non-bargainin unit employees). Ct?intract/Halfway House Employees There were 203 contract/halfway house employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2011. As of September 30, 2011. a decision had been made for 63.1 percent of those 203 employees. Of the 63.1 percent (or 128 employees), 36.7 percent (47} had a sustained decision. It is signi?cant to note that an administrative disposition was recorded for 32.8 percent of those employees for whom a decision had been made. indicating the employee either resigned or their employment was terminated prior to an investigation being conducted. Thus. the 36.7 percent sustained rate is likely an extremely conservative figure. Table 6 (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against contract/halfway house employees. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates. which made up 43.1 percent of all sustained misconduct among this group. 17 BOP 2016?0171619 of 46 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 6: Types of Sustained Mlsuonducl for Contracta?Halfway House Employees - FY 20? Will: 53.] Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Inmate Non Inmate Type of Misaonducl Related Related Off-Duly TOTAL blappropriate Relationship with Inmates 25 25 Failure to Follow Policy it I 9 Other On-Duly Misconduct 4 5 Unprot'essional Conduct 3 2 5 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 4 4 Fiscal 2 0 2 Invesligatire Violations 2 1 Personnel Prohibitions 2 Off?Dulyr Misconduct 2 1 Unauthorized Release of Information 1 lnattentlon to Duly i] I Abuse of Inmates i) [l [nl Induction of Contraband 0 i] [l Discrimination t] l] Bribery 0 Breach of Security (l Staff in Privatized Facilities There were 226 employees working in privatized facilities identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2011. As of September 30. 201 l, a decision had been made for 62.4 percent of those 226 employees. Of the 62.4 percent (or 1414 employees). 51.] percent (72) had a sustained decision. Table 7 (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the categories of misconduct sustained against employees working in privatized facilities. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct for staff working in privatized facilities was Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates, which made up 25 percent of all misconduct among this group. 18 BOP 2016?01716 20 of 46 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 7: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Privatized militias - FY With 62.4 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Inmate Non Inmate Type of Misconduct Related Related Off-Duty TOTAL Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates 25 25 Other Oil?Duty Misconduct 4 l3 l'i? Inattenuon to Duty 4 7 1 Unprotessional Conduct 4 5 Introduction of Contraband 3 Breach of Security 5 2 7 Investigative Violations 6 (1 Failure to Follow Policy.I 4 5 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 4 4 Unauthorized Release of Information 2 3 Abuse of Inmates 2 2 Personnel Prohibitions 2 fl 2 Fiscal lmproprieties I i Discrimination ll 0 fl Bribery (l Off?Duty Misconduct Contract Employees and Volunteers Working in BOP Facilities There were 33 contract staff and 4 volunteers working in BOP facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2011. As of September 30, 201 l, a decision had been made for 23.7 percent of the 38 contract employees. Of the 23.7 percent (or 9 contract employees), 22.2 percent (2) had a sustained decision. One allegation each of Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates and Failure to Follow Policy were sustained. As of September 30. 20] 1, a decision had been made for 7'5 percent of the 4 volunteers. 0f the 7'5 percent (or 3 volunteers), 33.3 percent (1) had a sustained decision. Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates was sustained against that individual. 19 BOP 2016?01716 21 of 46 Closed/Sustained Misconduct PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities Of the approximately 775 PHS employees working in BOP facilities, 48 were identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2011 (or 6.2 per 100 PHS employees). As of September 30, 2011, a decision had been made for 43.8 percent of those 48 PHS employees. 0f the 43.8 percent (or 21 PHS employees), 19 percent (4) had a sustained decision, for a sustained rate of .5 per 100 PHS employees. Two allegations of Failure to Follow Policy were sustained, and one allegation each of 'Inattention to Duty, Unprofessional Conduct, and Failure to Follow Supervisor?s Instructions were sustained. BOP 2016?01716 22 of 46 Physical Abuse of Inmates Title 18. United States Code. Chapter 13 - Civil Rights ?241 Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure. oppress, threaten. or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory. or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another. with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment ofany right or privilege so secured -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap. aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse. or an attempt to kill. they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. or both, or may be sentenced to death. ?242Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law. statute, ordinance, regulation. or custom. willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State. Territory. or District to the deprivation of any rights. privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments. pains. or penalties. on account of such inhabitant being an alien. or by reason of his color, or race. than are prescribed for die punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use. attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap. aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. shall be fined under this ti tle. or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. or may be sentenced to death. I Statistics During Fiscal Year 2011. 626 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30. 2011. a decision had been made for 35.8 percent {or 224) of those allegations. Physical Abuse allegations are tracked by the degree of injury sustained by the threatening injury. serious injury. minon'slight injury, minor/no injury (harassment), and super?cial injury (injuries associated with the normal use of restraints). Two allegations of Physical Abuse have been sustained to date, both resulting in minorfno injury (harassment) to the inmate. One of the sustained allegations BOP 2016?01716 23 of 46 Physical Abuse of Inmates involved a male Correctional Services employee, and one involved a staff member working at a privatized facility. Neither of the subjects with a sustained allegation was criminally prosecuted. BOP 2016?01716 24 of 46 Introduction of Contraband Title 18. United States Code, Chapter 87 - Prisons ?l791Providing or possessing contraband in prison Offense-Whoever- (1) In violation of a statute or a rule or order issued under a statute, provides to an inmate of a prison a prohibited object, or attempts to do so; or (2) being an inmate of a prison, makes, possesses, or obtains, or attempts to make or obtain, a prohibited object; shall be punished as provided in subsection of this section. Punishment.-The punishment for an offense under this section is a line under this title or- (1) imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section; (2) imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section; (3) imprisonment for no more than 5 years, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section; (4) imprisonment for no more than one year, or both, if the object is specified in subsection or of this section; and (5) imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section. Any punishment imposed under subsection for a violation of this section by an inmate of a prison shall be consecutive. to the sentence being served by such inmate at the time the inmate commits such violation. Definitions-As used in this section- (1) the term ?prohibited object? means- (A) a ?rearm or destructive device or a controlled substance in Section 1 or 11, other than marijuana or a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subsection; (B) marijuana or a controlled substance in schedule other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subjection, ammunition, a 23 BOP 2016?01716 25 of 46 Introduction of Contraband weapon (other than a ?rearm or destructive device). or an object that is designed or intended to be used as a weapon or to facility escape from a prison; (C) a narcotic drug. methamphetamine, its salts. isomers. and salts of its isomers. lysergic acid diethylamide, or (D) a controlled substance (other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of this subsection) or an alcoholic beverage: (E) any United States or foreign currency; and (F) any other object that. threatens the order. discipline. or security of a prison. or the life. health, or safety of an individual; (2) the terms ?ammunition," ??rearm.? and ?destructive device" have, respectively. the meanings given those terms in section 921 of this title; (3) the terms ?controlled substance? and ?narcotic drug" have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802}: and (4) the term ?prison? means a Federal correctional, detention, or penal facility or any prison. institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General. I Statistics During Fiscal Year 201 l. 531 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30. 201 I. a decision had been made for 24.5 percent (or 130) of those allegations. Twenty-six allegations of Introduction of Contraband have been sustained to date: Type of Contraband Inmate Related NIEJEEN Soil llem Ill 1 Weapons 0 3 Marijuana I t) Unaulhmived Eiectronic Device I 9 Creatinel'Wcightlifting Supplements 0 Twenty?four individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Fifteen of these individuals were BOP employees (2 were male Business Office employees. 2 were male Correctional Services Employees. 2 were female Food Service employees. 2 were female Unit Management employees. 1 was a male Recreation employee. 1 24 BOP 2016?01716 26 of 46 Introduction of Contraband was male Education and Vocational Training employee, 1 was a male Health Services/Safety employee, 1 was a male Services employee, I was a female UNICOR employee, 1 was a female Education and Vocational Training employee, and 1 was a female Correctional Services employee}. Nine of these individuals worked in privatized facilities. A male employee at a privatized facility was arrested by local authorities after he introduced a small amount. of marijuana secreted in a sandwich into the institution. The individual?s employment was terminated before the case could be adjudicated. BOP 2016?01716 27 of 46 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Title 18. United States Code. Chapter 109A - Sexual Abuse ?2241 Aggravated Sexual Abuse By force or threat. - Whoever, in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act (I) by using force against that other person, or (2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. By other means. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly l) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or (2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby - (A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and (B) engages in a sexual act with that other person; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. ?2242 Sexual Abuse Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison. institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly - (1) causes another perSon to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or (2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is 26 BOP 2016?01716 28 of 46 Sexual Abuse of Inmates (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in. or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; or attempts to do so shall be ?ned under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. ?2243 Sexual Abuse of :1 Ward Of a ward - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General. knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who is - in official detention: and (2) under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so engaging; or attempts to do so. shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years. or both. 59.244 Abusive Sexual Contact Sexual contact in circumstances where sexual acts are punished by this chapter. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General. knowingly engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so to do would violate - l) subsection or of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; (2) section 2242 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than three years, or both; (3) subsection of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than two years. or both; (4) subsection of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be lined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years. or both. (5) subsection of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. BOP 2016?01716 29 of 46 Sexual Abuse of Inmates In Other Circumstances. Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without that other person?s permission shall be fined under this title, imprisoned no more than two years, or both. 2246 Definitions the term ?prison? means a correctional, detention, or penal facility; (2) the term ?sexual act? means - (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for the purposes of this subparagraph, contact involved the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; (B) contact betWeen the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus; or (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening by another by a hand or ?nger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (D) the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another person who has not attained the age of 16 years with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (3) the term ?sexual contact? means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast. inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (4) the term ?serious bodily injury? means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. (5) the term ?official detention? means - (A) detention by a Federal officer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal officer or employee, following arrest for an offense; following surrender in lieu of an arrest for an offense: following a charge or conviction of an offense, or an allegation or finding of juvenile delinquency; following commitment as a material witness; following civil commitment in lieu of criminal proceedings or pending resumption of criminal proceedings that are being held in abeyance, or pending extradition. deportation, or exclusion: or 28 BOP 2016?01716 30 of 46 Sexual Abuse of Inmates (B) custody by a Federal of?cer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal Officer or employee. for purposes incident to any detention described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph. including transportation, medical diagnosis or treatment, court appearance, work, and recreation; but does not include supervision or under control (other than custody during speci?ed hours or days) after release on bail, probation, or parole, or after release following a juvenile delinquency. 0 Statistics During Fiscal Year 201 I, 393 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. 0f the 396 allegations, 305 involved BOP employees, 8 involved contract employees working in BOP facilities. 6 involved PHS employees working in BOP facilities, 3 involved volunteers working in BOP facilities, 50 involved staff working in contrachhalfway house facilities. and 21 involved staff working in privatized facilities. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency were Abusive Sexual Contact @2244) between male staff and male inmates (96 reported allegations} and Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and male inmates (81 reported allegations). As of September 30. 201 l, 9 allegations of sexual abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2011 were sustained. Of the 9 allegations, 1 involved a BOP employee, 4 involved staff working in contract/halfway house facilities, and 4 involved staff working in privatized facilities- Two hundred allegations reported during Fiscal Year 2011 are pending. Sexual Abuse/Sexual Abuse of a Ward Male Stafl'lFemale Inmate} Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward between a male employee at a contract/halfway house facility and a female inmate. This matter was investigated by the DIG. The subject admitted having sexual intercourse with the inmate in a closet in the facility. The subject stated there may have been other occasions when he had sexual intercourse with the inmate, but he could not recall. The subject also admitted he placed a $10 credit on the inmate?s phone card, and he called her on her cellular telephone. The inmate admitted she agreed to have sexual. intercourse in the facility with the subject on at least five occasions. The inmate stated they had sexual intercourse in a closet and in a staff office. The contract with the halfway house was terminated prior to the completion of the investigation. Therefore, the subject will no longer have contact with federal offenders. The U.S. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. (2011-01803/018 20 1003556) Sexual AbuseISesual Abuse of a Ward [Female Stat?l'male Inmate} Sexual Abuse/Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Food Service employee at FCC Victorville and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the DIG. The subject initially 29 BOP 2016?01716 31 0f 46 Sexual Abuse of Inmates provided a sworn af?davit in which she denied having an inappropriate or sexual relationship with the inmate. She later provided a sworn affidavit in which she admitted she had been involved with the inmate for approximately ten months. The subject stated she and the inmate engaged in oral sex and sexual intercourse. In addition. the subject admitted giving the inmate contraband items and allowing the inmate to use her iPod. The subject resigned her employment. The US. Attorney's Office declined prosecution. (2011;00333/016 201 1000770) Abusive Sexual Contact (Male Staff/Female Inmate) Abusive Sexual Contact between a male employee at a contracu'halfway house facility and a female inmate. The DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted that prior to conducting a home confinement check at the inmate?s residence. the subject sent sexually?suggestive text messages to the inmate on her cellular telephone. The subject admitted that while at the inmate's residence, the subject and inmate kissed. and the subject placed his hand on the inmate's thigh and inside her underwear. The subject stated no further sexual contact occurred because the inmate did not want to "cheat" on her boyfriend. The subject resigned his employment. 20110067411 Iittprot'essional Conduct ofa Sexual Nature 1 Male Inmate) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male employee at the Adams County Correctional Center and a male inmate. The 016 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject told the inmate. who is homosexual. that he [the subject) is not gay, and he likes "punaani" (Jamaican slang referencing the female genitalia). The subject received an oral reprimand. {201 l-03030i'OlG 2011005371) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature (Female Stal'fli'lale Initiate) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Taft Correctional Institution and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the DIG. The subject admitted kissing the inmate in the commissary on a few occasions. The subject resigned her employment. The US. Attorney's Of?ce declined prosecution1 citing a lack of evidence and a lack of prosecutorial resources in his district. 2011000802) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at a contractfhalfway house facility and a male inmate. The DIS deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. A staff member searched the inmate?s property and found compromising photographs and text messages sent to him by the subject. The inmate stated he and the subject had known each other since the sixth grade. and their relationship began prior to his arrival at the facility. The subject resigned. (20] 1?01 142/010 2011002387) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at a contract/halfway house facility and a male inmate. The 01G deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. A cellular telephone was confiscated from the inmate. A text message from the 30 BOP 2016-01716 32 of 46 Sexual Abuse of Inmates subject was discovered on the cellular telephone. The text message stated. want to kiss you so bad." The inmate responded. "Why?? and the subject answered. "1 don't kno. Sumthin bout There was also a picture on the cellular telephone of the subject and the inmate kissing. The subject resigned her employment before an investigation could be conducted. She admitted she exchanged text messages with the inmate and kissed him. (201 201 1003432) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Adams County Correctional Center and a male inmate. The 010 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject hugged the inmate. Further. the inmate was in possession of the subject's personal telephone number. The subject was a contract Food Service worker, and she was banned from future entry into the facility. 2011006018) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the D. Ray James Correctional Facility and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted kissing the inmate on two separate occasions. The subject's employment was terminated. (20] 20l 1007800) 31 BOP 2016?01716 33 of 46 Representative Case Summaries ?ai are "o erviors ns rucim A Correctional Services employee was advised s/he had been roster adjusted for the day. and sfhe was given a direct order to report to the high security institution. The employee refused. stating she was hired to work at the medium security institution. The employee was suspended for ten days. (201 1-00250) Unprofessional Conduct A Central Of?ce employee made derogatory comments about hisfher co?worker?s clothing and appearance and stated she was "prim and proper? and didn't have any dirt under hisi?her fingernails. The subject stated people like the subject worked in the fields. while people like the co-Worker worked in the house. The subject then referred to the co-worker using a racial slur. The subject was suspended for two days. [201 1-00388) An inmate asked an Education and Vocation Training employee who was working in Recreation for some cleaning solution to be used in the barber shop. The subject asked the inmate what kind of solution he wanted. The inmate stated he didn't know what it was called. but it was used to clean the clippers and scissoni. The subject stated, "If you don?t how what you're talking about. don?t bother me." The subject also stated the inmate was pathetic, and the subject was better than the inmate because the subject had never been in prison. The subject received a written reprimand. (201 1-01162) Misuse of Government Computers While performing routine maintenance on a network server, a Computer Services employee found several nude photographs in a Selvice employee's user home directory, The subject admitted sfhe forwarded nude and semi-nude photographs of himfherself to hisi'her BOP e-mail address and then saved them to hisi?her user home directory. The subject was suspended for two days. (2011-01 168) Use/A Dose of Illegal Drugslr\leiiliul A Food Service employee was given a reasonable suspicion urinalysis test after sihe admitted using Oxycontin and Methadone without a current prescription. The subject's urine sample tested positive for the use of Methadone. None of the medical documentation she provided explained the positive test. The subject resigned. (201 1-02850) 32 BOP 2016-01716 34 of 46 Representative Case Summaries Offering/Giving A nything of Value to an Inmate A UNICOR employee purchased pizza for five inmates who recovered a lost forklift key. The subject retired prior to disciplinary action being taken. (20] 1-03688) Failure to Report Violation of Rules/Regulations The SORT conducted training on the firing range. When the participants were released for lunch, one of the sniper weapoos was left on the range. The weapon was located and secured. The responsible staff member reported the incident to two supervisory staff (a Correctional Services employee and a Business Office employee). The supervisory staff did not report the incident to the captain until the following day. One of the supervisory staff was suspended for one day, and the other was suspended for two days. (201 1-00403) Refusing to Take a Drug Test A Correctional Services employee provided a urine sample as part of the Drug Free Workplace Program. The specimen was collected in accordance with national policy guidelines, and the staff member collecting the specimen was trained and quali?ed to do so. Lab results showed the specimen was altered; speci?cally, the urine had been substituted with an unknown liquid (most likely water}. The subject's employment was terminated. (201L01 121) Failure to Follow Policy A Business Office. employee reported that hist'her computer may have a virus on it. The subject was instructed to bring hisiher computer to the computer lab. The subject allowed an inmate to deliver the computer to the computer lab. The subject also admitted sfhe moved a computer from the laundry to the outside warehouse without obtaining permission to do so from IT staff. The subject received a written reprimand. (201 1-00678) A Community Corrections employee awarded a contract to a halfway house facility without running criminal history checks on the facility's employees. The facility was rated as ?At Risk" due to signi?cant findings regarding contract oversight, and staff clearances was identified as one of the causes. The subject was suspended for ?ve days. (2011-01628) Unauthorized Release of Information A Religious Services employee admitted sfhe asked inmate one to stay in the immediate area while she met with inmate two. Following the meetin the subject told inmate two that inmate one had a history of assaulting female staff. The subject resigned prior to disciplinary action being taken. (20] l~00l30) BOP 20163?01716 35 of 46 Representative Case Summaries Thefthisuse of Government Property A Religious Services employee admitted s/he threw two coffee pots belonging to the government in the trash. The subject stated the coffee pots were taking up too much space, so sfhe discarded them. The subject received a written reprimand. (201 MN 183) Improper Contact With an Inmate/Inmate's Family An employee at a privatized facility admitted she was curious regarding the texture of an imnate's hair, and sfhe asked the inmate if sfhe could touch her hair. The subject stated sfhe touched the inmate's hair out of curiosity. The subject received a written reprimand. (2011- 01681) TRUVIEW documents showed an employee at a contract/halfway house placed money in an inmate's account on numerous occasions. Further, the subject's name appeared on the inmate's phone records. Finally, a US. Probation Officer reported the subject may have been at the inmate's residence during a home visit. The subject?s employment was terminated. (2011- 04336) 34 BOP 2016?01716 36 of 46 Signi?cant Prosecutions Following are brief summaries of some of the significant or noteworthy prosecutions which were completed during Fiscal Year 201]. The individuals referenced are no longer employed by the BOP or any BOP contractor. 0 During ajoint undercover operation, a Correctional Services employee was arrested when he accepted $2,000 in cash, one pound of marijuana, a cellular telephone, and a camera from a cooperating inmate's girlfriend. Following his arrest, the Correctional Services employee admitted he previously smuggled a cellular telephone, cigarettes, and alcohol into the institution. The Correctional Services employee pled guilty to one count of Conspiracy to Smuggle Contraband into the Prison and one count of Possessing Less than 50 Grams of Marijuana. He was sentenced to one-month incarceration, five?months home detention, and two?years supervised release, and ordered to pay a $2,000 ?ne. (2004-02868) I An DIG investigation determined a Correctional Services employee accepted over $1,000 in bribes in exchange for introducing cigarettes into the institution for an inmate. The Correctional Services employee pled guilty to a one count of Introduction of Contraband. He was ordered to pay a $5,000 ?ne. (2006-00221/016 2006000264) 0 An OIG investigation determined a Business Office employee used her purchase charge card to make personal purchases and then falsified documentation to conceal the unauthorized purchases. Further, the employee used a govemment-issued FLEET card to purchase gasoline for her personal vehicle. The subject was convicted of Embezzlement and sentenced to six-months home con?nement and five-years probation. She was also ordered to pay $18,623 in restitution. (2006-034981?016 2006007772) 0 An OIG investigation determined a Correctional Services employee received cash payments totaling $24,200 from inmates in exchange for introducing tobacco products into the institution. The Correctional Services employee pled guilty to one count of Extortion. He was sentenced to four-years incarceration and two-years supervised release. 2007002068) I An 01G investigation determined two Correctional Services employees purchased items from Oakley at a 50 percent discount for law enforcement officers. The Correctional Services employees then resold the items on e-Bay at a profit. The Correctional Services employees were found guilty of Interstate Transportation of Goods Taken by False Pretenses. One was sentenced to oneryear probation and ordered to pay $15,000 in restitution. The other was sentenced to one-year probation and ordered to pay $20,000 in restitution. 2007001583) I During a voluntary interview with the 01G, a Correctional Services employee admitted introducing tobacco into the institution for inmates. The Correctional Services employee pled guilty to Introduction of Contraband and Bribery. The Bribery charge was 35 BOP 2016?01716 37 of 46 Significant Prosecutions dismissed as pan of a plea agreement. The ColTectional Services employee was sentenced to ?ve-years probation and 100 hours of community service. (2008- 034?26/016 2003007230) An 01G investigation determined a Correctional Services employee submitted fraudulent overtime authorization forms and collected compensation for work he did not perform. The Correctional Services employees stated he nee-d the money to pay his mother's bills and for his divorce. The Correctional Services employee was found guilty to Theft of Public Money and sentenced to ?ve-years probation and sis-months home confinement. (2010?01 486K010 20100003087) An 01G investigation determined a Correctional Services employee physically assaulted an inmate and then wrote a report falsely claiming the inmate lunged at him. The Correctional Services employee was convicted of Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law and Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations. The Correctional Services employee was sentenced to four-months home con?nement, three-years supervised release, and 100 hours of community service. (2010-03121f01G 2010006845} An 01G investigation determined a Health Services/Safety employee substituted and administered non-prescription strength medications such as acetaminophen rather than Roxicet. which he took for his own use. The Health Services/Safety employee admitted he made false entries in the inmates' medical records to conceal his actions. The Health Services/Safety employee pled guilty to Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Substance. He was sentenced to ?ve-years supervised release and a $10,000 ?ne. In addition, the Health Service-slSafety employee voluntarily surrendered his DEA privileges to prescribe controlled substances, and he agreed to a five~year period of monitoring by a state board of dentistry. (2010-03SZSIOIG 2010008244) 36 BOP 2016?01716 38 of 46 Appendix Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2010 Willi 71.9 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type Dmendm inmate Related ?Ema?? TOTAL Unprofossional Condom 57 233 290 Personnel thihilions 234 21 255 Other Oti-Duty Misconduct 3?1 180 25] Failure to Follow Policy l3l'l ill) 25? Off-Duty Misconduct 2 I 21 1 Fiscal [mproprieties [5 162 Inattention to Duty 39 10?. Breach of Security 46 33 IE Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates I Introduction of Contraband 39 2o 65 Investigative Violations Abuse of inmates lo 26 Unauthorized Release of Information I 8 19 Sexual Abuse of monitor. 1 Bribery 8 8 Discrimination 37 BOP 2016?01716 39 of 46 Appendix Types of Misconduct Abuse of Inmates Physical Abuse of Inmates Excessive Use of Force Excessive Use of Force - Restraint Related Threatening an Inmate/Verbal Abuse Retaliation Sexual Abuse of Inmates Aggravated Sexual Abuse - ?2241 Sexual Abuse/Sexual Abuse of a Ward ?2242i2243 Abusive Sexual Contact - ?2244 Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature Introduction of Contraband Soft Item Introduction Weapons Introduction Escape Paraphernalia lntroduction Money Introduction Marijuana Introduction Heroin dc Derivatives Introduction Cocaine lntroduction Other Unspecified Drugs Introduction Alcoholic Beverages Introduction Unauthorized Electronic Device Introduction CreatineNt/eightlifting Supplement Introduction Cigaretteszobacco Introduction Discrimination Fiscal Improprieties Time and Attendance Irregularities Abuse of Sick Leave Voucher Falsification Thefthisuse of Government Funds Thefthisuse of Government Property Misuse of Government Computers 38 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 40 of 46 Appendix Improper Procurement Procedures Failure to Pay Government Charge Card Misuse of Travel Charge Card Misuse of Purchase Charge Card Thefthisuse of Employees' Club Funds Theft!r Misuse of Funds Theft of Inmate Funds Thefthestruction of Inmate Property The?Msuse of Contractor Funds Thefthisuse of Contractor Property Failure to Account for Inmate Funds/Property Theft of Employee Misuse of UNICOR Resources Contract Fraud Bribery Bribery Conspiracy to Commit Bribery Inappropriate Relationship With Inmates Soliciting/Acceptin Anything of Value Offerinngiving Anything of Value Improper Contact With an Inmate?nmate's Family Appearance of an Inappropriate Relationship Misuse of Inmate Labor Preferential Treatment of Inmates Investigative Violations Concealing a Material Fact Refusing to Cooperate Lying During an Investigation Providing a False Statement Alterinngestroying EvidencefDocum-ents Refusing to Submit to a Search Interfering an Investigation Advising Someone to Violate Policy Conducting an Unauthorized Investigation Lack of Candor 39 BOP 2016?01716 41 of 46 Appendix Personnel Prohibitions Threatening/Intimidating Employees {relates to personnel actions) Failure to Report Violation of Rules/Regulations Falsification of Employment. Records Misuse of Official PositionfBadge Inappropriate SupervisorISubordinate Relationship Engaging in Prohibited Personnel Practices Use/Abuse of Illegal DrugsIAlcohol Absent Without Leave Retaliation Refusing to Take a Drug Test Unauthorized Release of Information Other On-Duty Misconduct Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature lnattenti on to Duty' Failure to Respond to an Emergency Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates Breach of Security' Breach of Computer Security] 'Falsification of Documents Unprofessional ConductI Failure to Follow Policy] Gambling/Promotion of Gambling Endangering the Safety of an Inmate Endangering the Safety of Others Providing False Information Other Than During an Official Investigation Insubordination Accidental Discharge of a Firearm Solicitinngale of Goods on Government Property Job Favoritism Workplace Violence Failure to Meet Performance Standards Failure to Follow Supervisor's Instructions Fraudulent Workers' Compensation Claims Conduct Unbecoming a Management Official 40 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 42 of 46 Appendix Off-Duty Misconduct Arrest and Conviction Failure to Report Arrest Failure to Pay Just Debts Failure to Obtain Outside Employment Approval Domestic Violence Traffic Citation Carrying an UnregisteredJConcealed Firearm Discreditable Behavior Falsification of Records/Documents Other Citation (Hunting, etc.) Con?ict of Interest 'Due to the frequency of this type of misconduct, it is identified separate] 3: throughout this report. 41 BOP 2016?01716 43 of 46 Appendix Agent Monitoring Assignments Effective December 15, 2011 Alderson, WV Allenwood, PA Ashland, KY Atlanta. GA Atwater, CA Bastrop, TX Beaumont, TX Beckley, WV Bennettsville, SC Berlin, NH Big Sandy, KY Big Spring, TX Brooklyn, NY Bryan, TX Butner, NC Canaan, PA Carswell, TX Chicago, IL Coleman, FL Cumberland, MD Danbury, CT Devens, MA Dublin, CA Duluth, MN Edge?eld, SC El Reno, OK Elkton, 0H Englewood, CO Estill, SC Fairton, NJ Florence, CO Forrest City, AR Fort Worth. TX Fort Dix, NJ Gilmer, WV Grand Prairie, TX Greenville, IL 42 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 44 of 46 (momma Appendix Guaynabo, PR Hazelton, WV Herlong, CA Honolulu, HI Houston, TX Jesup, GA La Tuna, TX Leavenworth, KS Lee. VA Lewisburg, PA Lexington, KY Lompoc, CA Loretto, PA Los Angeles, CA Manchester, KY Marianna, FL Marion, IL Mendota, CA MeCreary, KY McDowell, WV MeKean, PA Memphis, TN Miami (FDC FCI), FL MXRO, MD Milan, MI Montgomery. AL Morgantown WV New York, NY NCRO, KS NERO, PA Oakdale, LA Oklahoma, OK Otisville, NY Oxford, WI Pekin, IL Pensacola, FL Petersburg, VA Philadelphia, PA Phoenix. AZ Pollock, LA 43 BOP 2016?01716 45 of 46 Appendix Ray Brook, NY Rochester, MN AZ San Diego, CA Sandstone, MN Schuylkill, PA Seagoville, TX SeaTac, WA Sheridan, 0R SCRO, TX SERO, GA Springfield, MO Talladega, AL Tallahassee, FL Terminal Island, CA Haute, Texarkana, TX Three Rivers, TX Tucson, AZ Victorville, CA Waseea, MN WRO, CA Williamsburg, SC Yankton, SD Yazoo City, MS 44 BOP 2016?01716 46 of 46 (ENEMHJUHC) U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons Washington, DC Of?ce of Internal Affairs Report for Fiscal Year 2012 BOP 2016?017161 of 44 Table of Contents Executive Summary of Findings 1 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct? Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations 5 Reported Misconduct 7 Closedeustained Misconduct . l0 Physical Abuse of Inmates 21 Introduction of Contraband 22 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 25 Representative Case Summaries 31 Significant Prosecutlon533 Appendix 36 BOP 2016?01716 2 of 44 Executive Summary of Findings There was a 17 percent increase in the number of cases opened in Fiscal Year 2012 as compared with Fiscal Year 2011. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees increased 18.8 percent over Fiscal Year 2011. Cases classified as Classification 2 offenses showed the largest increase a 30.6 percent increase over those opened in Fiscal Year 2011). Cases classi?ed as Classification 1 and Classi?cation 3 offenses also increased (17.3 percent and 9.7 percent respectively). The most frequently reported type of misconduct in Fiscal Year 2012 was Unprofessional Conduct. Other On-Duty Misconduct and Abuse of Inmates placed second and third, respectively. The only categories of reported misconduct which showed a decrease from Fiscal Year 201 1 were Discrimination, Off-Duty Misconduct, Failure to Follow Policy, and Introduction of Contraband. The most signi?cant increases occurred in the categories of lnattention to Duty, Sexual Abuse of Inmates, and Abuse of Inmates. During Fiscal Year 2012, 29 cases involving Patriot Act Violations were opened. As of September 30, 2012. 12 cases remained open pending investigation, and 17 cases were closed. No allegations of misconduct were sustained. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2012, was Personnel Prohibitions, followed by On?Duty Misconduct, and Fiscal Improprieties. The sustained rate of misconduct for male BOP employees for whom a decision had been made as of September 30, 2012, was .97 employees per 100 total male BOP staff, while the sustained rate of misconduct for female BOP employees for whom a decision had been made as of September 30, 2012, was 1.1 employees per 100 total female BOP staff. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among both male and female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 21112, was Personnel Prohibitions. For those BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2012, the rate was highest among Community Corrections staff (1.7 per 100 total Community Corrections staff). Although the absolute number of sustained decisions was low lie. 3), the per capita rate was nonetheless highest given the relatively low number of Community Corrections staff in the agency. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 3 of 44 Executive Summary of Findings For those BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2012, the rate was higher for non-bargaining unit employees than for bargaining unit employees (1.3 per 100 total non-bargaining unit employees vs. 1 per 100 total bargaining unit employees). For those contractfhalfway house employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2012, the most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates. This was also true for those staff in privatized facilities with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2012. As of September 30, 2012, no allegations of Physical Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2012 were sustained. As of September 30, 2012, 25 allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported during Fiscal Year 2012 were sustained, involving 25 individuals. Thirteen involved the introduction of soft contraband, 9 involved the introduction of unautho?zed electronic devices, 2 involved the introduction of weapons, and 1 involved the introduction of Creatine?Neightlifting Supplements. A male employee at FCI Fort Worth pled guilty to one count of 18 USC 1791, Introduction of Contraband in Prison. The subject was fined $250. His employment was terminated. As of September 30, 2012, 10 allegations of Sexual Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2012 were sustained: 7' involved BOP employees, 1 involved an employee working in a contractfhalfway house facility, 2 involved staff working in privatized facilities. L.) BOP 2016?01716 4 of 44 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct Staff Reporting In accordance with the Bureau's Standards of Employee Conduct. staff who become aware of any violation or alleged violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct must report them to the Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO), the Of?ce of Internal Affairs (OIA), or the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General The DIS has established a toll?free hotline which is available to anyone wishing to report employees' misconduct, as well as fraud, waste, or abuse in government. All Bureau staff are encouraged to use the hotline if they wish to remain anonymous or fear retaliation or reprisal. To report violations directly to the CIA Central Office, please submit a written complaint to: Federal Bureau of Prisons Office of Internal Affairs 320 First Street, NW. Room 600 Washington, DC 20534 Written complaints may also be sent via fax to {202) 514-8625. CEO Reporting Upon becoming aware of any possible violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct (either through a report from staff or through personal knowledge, the CEO at the institution, Regional Office or Central Of?ce Division, or his or her designee. is to report the violation to the CIA in accordance with the following time frames. Classi?cation 1 cases are defined as allegations which, if substantiated, would constitute a prosecutable offense (other than offenses such as misdemeanor arrests). Classification 2 cases are defined as allegations which involve violations of rules, regulations. or law that, if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution, but constitute serious misconduct. Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases must be reported telephonically to the OIA immediately. Written notification to the BIA will be made within 24 hours (not to include. weekends and holidays} of the time management learns of the matter. When it is suspected that criminal conduct has occurred, the CEO may refer the matter simultaneously to the CIA and the Local OIG or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) office. Unless the CEO and the Chief of the (HA agree to a different method, ordinarily, investigations involving Classi?cation 3 cases are to be conducted using local resources. Classi?cation 3 cases are defined as allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations. Ordinarily. CEOs can proceed with local investigations on Classification 3 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 5 0f44 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct misconduct allegations for staff occupying bargaining unit positions or (38?12 and below non? bargaining unit positions without first obtaining OIA approval. Written notification to the CIA will be made within 24 hours (not to include weekends and holidays) of the time management learns of the matter. CEOs must notify the CIA before initiating investigations involving any misconduct alleged against management staff occupying (35- I 3 or above positions. The 01A will coordinate further action with the DIS. Initial Information. A Referral of incident form is used to organize the information to be provided (for contract employees use form Include the following: I The identity of the complainands), subjectts), witnesstes), and victim(s); I The details of the allegation(s); and II Any corroborating evidence. The subject of the allegation or complaint must not be questioned or interviewed prior to receiving clearance from the 01G and the OIA's approval. This is to ensure against procedural errors and to safeguard the rights of the subject. Supporting Documentation. A Referral of Incident form (BF-5715.012) and all supporting documentation. such as victim or witness statements, medical reports, photos, and related memoranda, must be sent to the CIA immediately but not later than 24 hours after the telephonic report. If an inmate alleges physical or sexual abuse by a staff member and has not received a medical examination, the CEO must arrange an immediate, confidential medical examination and forward a copy of the results to the OM as soon as possible. Contact the CIA immediately if there is any question as to the classi?cation of the misconduct. It is important to note that case classi?cations are many times based on limited information. As an investigation unfolds, the severity of misconduct may increase or decrease, thereby moving it into another classification. All Referral of Incident forms 15.012 or 2) and appropriate predicating information will be sent to the CIA via e-mail to the UTA GroupWise mailbox All documentation will be scanned in .pdf format (Adobe Acrobat) and saved as one ?le. The signed Referral of Incident form should appear on the top of the ?le with all supporting documentation underneath. BOP 2016?01716 6 of 44 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations For all local staff misconduct investigations completed on or after January 1, 2007, the investigator must forward the complete investigative packet directly to the 01A for approval prior to forwarding it to the CEO for action. These procedures apply to all local staff misconduct investigations in which BOP employees are the subject (Classi?cation I, 2. and 3 allegations), regardless of whether any misconduct will be sustained. Where to Send Local Investigative Packets Local investigative packets should be sent via e-mail to the OIA GroupWise mailbox DIRfInternal Affairs-Local Investigative Packets~" (not to be confused with OM's main resource mailbox, "BOP?DIRHnternal To ensure local investigative packets are reviewed by the 01A in a timely manner, they should not be sent to any individual 01A staff member or to any 01A field of?ce. The subject of your e-mail message should include the CIA case number and the facility mnemonic code Format for Local Investigative Packets and What to Send Local investigative packets should include the investigative report (signed by the investigator) and all supporting documentation (af?davits, memorandums, video files, etc). Complete investigative packets must be forwarded; the Summary of Investigation for Classi?cation 3 Cases form (BF-5716.012) is no longer applicable and should not be used. Documents must be scanned in .pdf format (Adobe Acrobat). Do not send documents in other formats .tif ?les, .wpd ?les). Each document should be scanned as a separate document and named by first identifying the document and then providing the name of the individual to whom it relates. Photo images and graphic images may be forwarded in .jpg or .gif format. For example: Affidavit-Fred Jonespdf Af?davit-Jessica Johnsonpdf Pictures-Freddy Imate.jpg Af?davit files should include the Warning and Assurance to Employee Required to Provide Information (BF-194), if applicable, and the signed Oath for each individual. The investigative packet should not include national policy or any documents not speci?cally related to the investigation staff rosters, inmate SENTRY information, etc.). BOP FOIA 2016-01716 7 of 44 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations Time Guidelines For Classi?cation I or 2 allegations, local investigators should strive to complete and forward investigative packets to the (HA within 120 calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the 01A. For classi?cation 3 allegations, local investigators should strive to complete and forward investigative packets to the OIA prior to any disciplinary action being taken and within 120 calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the CEO. Once received. the OLA will complete their review of the local investigative packet within ten business days. The investigator will be advised as to whether the investigative packet is approved or if additional information is needed. This information will be sent via e-mail to the investigator with a cepy to the CEO. If additional information is needed, the investigator should forward the additional information to the 01A within 30 calendar days. who will again notify the investigator and the CEO if the packet is approved. Once approved, the investigator should forward the investigative packet to the CEO for appropriate action with all Review of Local Investigative Packet forms applicable to that packet attached. No disciplinary proceedings or other notifications to subjects should occur prior to the OIA's approval of the investigative packet. Reports from the OM The OIA sends the CEO a report of all local staff misconduct investigations which have extended past established time frames. SIASISISs should continue to work with the monitoring agent assigned to their facility for guidance and to provide. updates on outstanding matters. BOP FOIA 2016-01716 8 of 44 Reported Misconduct. NOTES "lsh iigtIIL?H til rim. IL .tl't ultl?lt'ei l'il'lltj.? lltL' ill II. . tun}; linlzt iv: 'llnui' tidLl ltI lh.? ,ll?ltlb'l change-i lit-:1: 1-. m: limos om- lL [MI-ml .Ilul . "ht whit-g. small}. my Mt twp-urn an] in: inmo- Inn-I: will'iul'w. some wtll'vit?uln may tutu -iI l-.H .t 1'n .I which- :h-q n: Met-minus In. lilt'i't-LI anllt. ?Nil 11._ In til-ill II-It'rwtl 1: . m: innin- '1i._l1..lui 'umn' Iil'vmv 'll 105,! ?Hull him tn t'In'I't'tl Inn Ill-.l Iii-12. Ilt'ilj'JlL'lt' l' '1 'llt ll' t'm'lt .- Meant?. plu- ac' I?Jlt?l'l'lli'n t-n I Illi It'l'mll 2011 {17.3 percent and 9.7 percent, respectively). All allegations of misconduct received by the CIA are referred to the BIG for review and classification. The determines which matters they will accept for investigation and possible criminal prosecution and defers other matters to the 01A for investigation. The CIA coordinates with the DIS andfor the FBI when investigations may lead to c?minal prosecution or when there are allegations involving the abuse of an individual's Constitutional rights under Color of Law. For those matters deferred for investigation, the CIA determines. after consulting with BOP management officials, whether an on-site investigation is warranted or if the matter can be investigated at the local institution level. Allegations categorized as Classification 3 offenses are referred to the DIG via computer extract on a basis. During Fiscal Year 2012, the OLA opened 5,580 cases involving 6,700 BOP employees, 38 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 90 Public Health Service employees working in BOP facilities, 4 volunteers working in BOP facilities, 217 contract! halfway house employees, and 270 employees working in privatized facilities. These 5,580 cases represent a 17 percent increase over the 4,770 cases opened during Fiscal Year 201 1. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees increased 18.8 percent over Fiscal Year 201 l. The 5,580 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2012 were classified as follows: Classification 1 1,412 Classi?cation 2 1,604 Classification 3 2,564 Cases classified as Classification 2 offenses showed the largest increase over those cases opened in Fiscal Year 2011 (a 30.6 percent increase}. Both Classi?cation 1 and Classi?cation 3 offenses also showed an increase over those cases opened in Fiscal Year BOP FOIA 2016?01716 9 of 44 Reported Misconduct Table 1: Types of Reported Misconduct FY 2012 Number of Reported Allegations Type of Misconduct Hit: Badge Inmate Related TOTAL me FY 2011 Unprofessinnal Conduct 985 5 I9 I604 3 I .4 Uri?Duty Misconduct 655 8 I0 I465 25.5 .{tbuse of Inmates 35.6 Personnel Prohibitions 74D 7 St)? 2.4 Failure to Follow Policy 461 306 76? -3.0 Fiscal Impropricties 132 492 624 29.5 lnappropriale Relationships Wilh Inmates one ?fth 7.4 Inattention to Duly 263 334 59? 54.? Sexual Abuse of Inmates 558 553 42.3 Introduction of Contraband 444 92 536 -.4 536 536 -4.5 Breach of Security 255 248 504 26.3 Investigative Violations [7"2 13'2 28.4 Unauthorized Release of Information 84 3? 121 l2.l]I Bribery I I7 2 ITS Discrimination I 3 I I9 52.5 Table provides a breakdown of those categories of misconduct reported during Fiscal Year 2012. The only categories of misconduct which showed a decrease from Fiscal Year 201 were Discrimination (a 52.5 percent decrease), Off-Duty Misconduct {a 4.5 percent decrease), Failure to Follow Policy (a 3.0 percent decrease), and Introduction of Contraband {a .4 percent decrease). The categories of misconduct which showed the largest increases were Inattention to Dutyr (a 54.7 percent increase), Sexual Abuse of Inmates (a 42.3 percent increase), and Abuse of Inmates (a 35.6 percent increase). BOP FOIA 2016?0171610 of 44 Reported Misconduct USA Patriot Act In the USA Patriot Act, Congress expressed concern about the potential abuse of individual civil. rights and liberties by DOJ employees in the aftermath of September 1 l, 2001. Accordingly, the Patriot Act mandated that the 01G widely advertise that it receives and intrestigates allegations of such abuses. Patriot Act violations include violence. discrimination. or threats on the part of a employee, particularly when such cases are directed toward individuals or groups associated in the public perception with acts of terrorism because of their religious beliefs, place of birth, or appearance. Patriot Act allegations which typically come to our attention are alleged mistreatment or unprofessional behavior of BOP staff towardlaround certain inmates, their visitors. or members of the public. Due to the sensitivity of these allegations, they are automatically classi?ed as Classi?cation 2 or higher offenses; they should be forwarded immediately to the (HA. All Patriot Act violation allegations are then referred to a Special Operations Unit at OIG Headquarters devoted to reviewing and investigating such misconduct. Of the 5,580 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2012, 29 cases involved Patriot Act violations. As of September 30. 2012, 12 cases remained open pending investigation, and 1'7 cases were closed. No allegations were sustained. BOP 2016?0171611 0f 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct As of September 30. 2012, a decision had been NOTES made on 2,007 (36 percent} of the 5,580 cases opened during Fiscal Year 20 I 2. The remaining 3,573 cases (64 percent} were still 1.. Mm?. open and being investigated. Of the 2,007 1 gun; min wur cases closed. the majority, 1,840 percent). "11 It" F'Imm u: were investigated at the institution level with authorization and monitoring provided by the. 01A. Of the 2,007 cases closed, 114 were 01A u? on-site investigations percent}, and 52 {2.6 row um. won un- percent) were investigated by the 016. The ?unto-maul.? was! ?3.1 tuzhrl'xl at'at' remaining case was investigated by the Office of Special Counsel (Hatch Act Violation). Fl'-'L'Lll - 7 Of the 2,007 cases closed, 442 (22 percent) were sustained. Misconduct was sustained against 382 BOP employees, 3 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 9 PHS employees working in BOP facilities. 33 contractfhalfway house employees, and 56 employees working in privatized facilities. - BOP Employees There were 6,700 BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in cases opened during Fiscal Year 2012. As of September 30. 2012. a decision had been made for 34.1 percent of those employees. Of the 34.1 percent (or 2,288 employees), 16.7 percent (382) had a sustained decision (a rate of 1 employee per 100 total BOP staff). 0f the 6,700 BOP employees for whom a case was opened during Fiscal Year 2012, 300 were unidenti?ed. Table 2 on the following page) reflects the categories of misconduct sustained against BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2012. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Personnel Prohibitions (within this category Absent Without Leave was sustained with the greatest frequency), followed by On-Duty Misconduct (within this category Failure to Follow Supervisor's Instructions was sustained with the greatest frequency) and Fiscal Improprieties (within this category Misuse of Travel Charge Card was sustained with the greatest frequency). 10 BOP 2016?0171612 of 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 2: Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - with 34.] Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct Inmate Related Nu" mm" Off-Duty TOTAL Related Personnel Prohibitions 90 ft 96 On?Duly Misconduel Ii 53 as Fiscal lmproprieties 5 50 35 Failure to Follow Policy IS 32 5t] U'nprol?essional Conduct 33 49 Off-Duty Misconduct 33 33 lo Duty 8 25 33 Breach of Security If) It: 32 Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates 27 27 Introduction of Contraband .IO 9 investigative Violations 8 3 Sesual Abuse of inmates 7 7 Unauthorized Rclcasc of Informatipn 5 A 3 Bribery {l 1 Abuse or Inmates 0 Discrimination ti ii . Disciplinary Action Once a subject is investigated and the allegations are sustained. the type of disciplinary action taken is left to the deciding official, who is generally the CEO. Each case is unique, and there are varying degrees of seriousness within each type of misconduct. Also, a single subject may be charged with multiple types of misconduct. The Douglas Factors must be considered when deciding the appropriate penalty to impose on employees for misconduct. ll BOP 2016?01716 13 of 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct The Douglas Factors are an accumulation of historic Civil Services practices and procedures in cases involving civil servant misconduct; created by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in the seminal Douglas case. In Douglas, the MSPB announced a non-exhaustive list of twelve factors which the BOP, like all federal agencies, must consider in determining appropriate penalties to impose in employee misconduct. The Douglas Factors are as follows: the nature and seriousness of the offense; the employee?s job level and type of employment; the employee's disciplinary record; the employee?s past work record. including length of service and duty performance; the effect of the offense on the employee?s ability to perform and its effect on the supervisor's confidence in such ability; the consistency of the penalty with penalties imposed upon others for like or similar misconduct; the consistency of the penalty with the BOP's table of penalties (Pregram Statement 3420.09, Standards of Employee Conduct: the notoriety of the offense or its impact on the reputation; the clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules violated or warned about the conduct in question; the employee?s potential for rehabilitation; any and all mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense job stress/tension. personality problems; mental impairment, harassment or bad faith. malice or provocation on the part of others involved; the adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions. The CEO is required to consider only those Douglas factors which are relevant to any individual and need not consider all the Douglas Factors in every case. In many cases, some of the Douglas Factors may suggest one type of penalty while others suggest another penaltychoose the appropriate penalty. BOP 2016?0171614 of 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct The following actions were taken against [or by) those BOP employees with a sustained decision. Written Reprimand 128 Suspension 86 No Action Taken 65 Resignation 58 Retirement 19 Termination 3 Combined With Action in Another 01A Matter 10 Demotion 1 Oral Reprimand 1 Other The speci?c type of misconduct most frequently sustained against those individuals for whom no disciplinary action was taken was Absent Without Leave (20 percent of all sustained misconduct for staff in this 0 Gender There were 5,019 male BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2012. As of September 30, 2012, a decision had been made for 34.1 percent of those 5,019 male employees. Of the 34.1 percent (or 1,712 male employees), 15.5 percent {266) had a sustained decision [a rate of .97 employees per 100 total male BOP staff). There were 1,381 female BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2012. As of September 30, 2012, a decision had been made for 34.8 percent of those 1,381 female employees. Of the 34.8 percent (or 481 female employees). 24.1 percent (1 16) had a sustained decision (a rate of 1.1 employees per 100 total female BOP staff). Tables 3 and 4 (on the following pages) reflect the categories of sustained allegations for male and female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2012. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among both male and female staff was Personnel Prohibitions (22 percent of all sustained misconduct by male staff and 15.9 percent of all sustained misconduct among female staff). Within this category Absent Without Leave was sustained with the greatest frequency. 13 BOP 2016?0171615 of 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 3: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Male BOP Employees - FY 2012 With 34.1 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct - ~17? 1?bi? R1331 Egg: 9 0mm?: TOTAL Personnel Prohibitions 6f: 5 T1 On-Dmy Misconduct 4] 48 chal Improprieties 0 3f) 36 [anml?essinnal Conduct 13 23 36 Failure to Follow Pulley I 10 Eh I 36 Off-Duty Miseonduel . 27 27 BruchofSewrio 1 1.0 2.1 lnaueution to Duty 1 [7 20 Introduction of Contraband 4 6 ll] Relationships Widl Inmates 9 9 Inve?ligative Violations; 5 5 Sexual Abuse of lnmatet'. Bribery . II It} 1 Unauthorized Release of Information I I . 1 Abuse of Inmates I ll Discrin?nation i} 14 BOP FOIA 2016?0171616 of 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 4: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Female BOP Employees - FY 2012 With 34.3 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct i 4 -. - Inmate Related N'm mm? arr?nun TOTAL 'Related- Personnel ProhibiLions. 24 25 ?scal Improprieties 5 . I4 19 Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates IS IS Dn?Duty Misconduct: 6 IE IS Failure to Follow Folio;- 3 (3 l4 lnatlentiougo [July 5 . 3 13 Evade? 3 ., A Breaeh of ?eeting 5 E: 1 [nomination of Comraband 6 3 9 Sexual Abuse of inmates ti Off-Duly Misconduct Invesliguli we Violations 3 3 Unauthorized Release of Information 2 i] 2 {Abuse of Inmates 0 .. I3 Discrimination l] . Bribery I 15 BOP FOIA 2016?0171617 of 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct 0 Job Discipline As of September 30, 2012. 382 BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2012 had a sustained decision. Table 5 re?ects the rate of misconduct among the various job disciplines. Table 5: Discipline of BOP Employees With Sustained Misconduct - FY 2012 With 34.] Percent Closed Number of hustalned Employees Misconduct Community Corrections 3 173 1.7" Health SertriceslSafety 411 2611 1.5 Recleation 9 7nd 1.2 Food Service 20 1655 .2 Correctional Services 191 16984 1.1 CEO's Office Staff 9 918 1.0 Unit Management I 34 3291 1 .0 Education at Vocational Training 1 10712 1.1.) Inmate Services I 203 1.0 Systems 10 10%: 1.0 Computer Services 2 245 8 Services 91 1 132 .8 Facilities 16 2-415 UNICDR 5 895 .6 Human Resources 2 455 .4 Business Of?ce 12?. 1?349 .41- Religious Services I 321] .3 Cenlral Officet'Nalional Institute of Corrections 4 . 1265 .3 Training Centers (1 7?9 0 The types of misconduct among Community Corrections staff were Misuse of Travel Charge Card, lnattention to Duty. and Failure to Follow Policy (33 percent each of the total sustained misconduct among staff in this group). The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among 16 BOP 2016?01716 18 of 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Health Services/Safety staff was Misuse of Travel Charge Card (15.1 percent of all misconduct among staff in this group). a Bargaining vs. Non-Bargaining Unit Staff Of the 382 BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2012, 306 were bargaining unit employees and 76 were non-bargaining unit employees. The rate of sustained misconduct among bargaining unit employees was 1 per 100 total bargaining unit employees, while the rate of sustained misconduct among non-bargaining unit employees was 1.3 per 100 total non-bargaining unit employees. Contract/Halfway House Employees There were 217 contract/halfway house employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2012. As of September 30, 2012, a decision had been made for 57 percent of those 217 employees. Of the percent (or 124 employees). 26.? percent [33) had a sustained decision. It is signi?cant to note that an administrative disposition was recorded for 50 percent of those employees for whom a decision had been made, indicating the employee either resigned or their employment was terminated prior to an investigation being conducted. Thus. the 26.7 percent sustained rate is likely an extremely conservative figure. Table 6 (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against contract/halfway house employees. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates. which made up 42 percent of all sustained misconduct among this group. 17 BOP 2016?0171619 of 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 6: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Contractl?ali'way Hnuse Employees - FY 2012 - Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct I I te 12:11:15 $12133: Dir-Duty TOTAL Inappropriate Relationships Wilh inmates to . If} investigative Violations ?i 5 Personnel Prohibitions 4 CI 4 Misconduct 2 4 Unprofessionai Conduct 1 _l _2 Failure to Follow Policy 2_ _2 Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of Irnnates I Intmduetiun of Fiscal Improprieties ii I Off?Duty Misconduct . I Discrimination 0 UI Bribery [i . Unatnbortzed Release of btfonnation Ct ti [nattenLion to Duty CI (2- Breach of Security ii i] . Staff in Privatized Facilities There were 270 employees working in privatized facilities identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2012. As of September 30, 2012, a decision had been made for 39.3 percent of those 270 employees. Of the 39.3 percent (or 106 employees), 52.8 percent (56) had a sustained decision. 18 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 20 of 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 7 (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the categories of misconduct sustained against employees working in privatized facilities. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct for staff working in privatized facilities was Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates. which made up 23 percent of all misconduct among this group. Table 7: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Privatized Facilities - FY 2012 With 39.3 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct Inmate Related "$323? Orr-Duty TOTAL Lnappropriate Relationships With Inmates l? l'i' On?Duty Miswnduct 4 9 l3 [anmfeSsit'mal Conduct 1 I2 Inattenu'nn to Duty 0 a f: Failure to Follow Policy 3 "t Introduction of Contraband '2 2 4 investigative Violations 4 4 Personnel Prohibitions 2 3 Abuse of himatos 2 2 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 2 2 Fiscal Improprieties I 2 Unauthorixeu Release of Information I Off?Duty Misconduct I Breach of Security 0 I Discrimination . [l Bribery 19 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 21 of 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Contract Employees and Volunteers Working in BOP Facilities There were 38 contract staff and 4 volunteers working in BOP facilities identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2012. As of September 30, 2012, a decision had been made for 34.2 percent of the 38 contract employees. Of the 38 percent (or 13 contract employees), 23.1 percent had a sustained decision. Two allegations of Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates were sustained. and one allegation each of Introduction of Contraband, Unauthorized Release of Information, and Failure to Follow Policy were sustained. As of September 30, 2012, a decision had been made for 25 percent of the 4 volunteers. Of the 25 percent (or I volunteer), none had a sustained decision. PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities Of the approximately 835 PHS employees working in BOP facilities, 90 were identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2012 {or 10.8 per 100 PHS employees}. As of September 30, 2012, a decision had been made for 30 percent of those 90 PHS employees. 0f the 30 percent (or 27 PHS employees), 33.3 percent (9) had a sustained decision, for a sustained rate of 1.1 per 1011 PHS employees. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among PHS employees was Unprofessional Conduct (4 sustained allegations or 28.6 percent of all sustained misconduct among staff in this group}, followed by Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates (3 sustained allegations or 21.4 percent of all sustained misconduct among staff in this groupl. Other types of sustained misconduct were: Fiscal lmproprieties 2 sustained allegations), Other On-Duty Misconduct (2 sustained allegations). Off?Duty Misconduct t1 sustained allegation), Breach of Security (1 sustained allegation), and Failure to Follow Policy I sustained allegation). BOP 2016?01716 22 of 44 Physical Abuse of Inmates Title 18. United States Code. Chapter 13 - Civil Rights ?24l Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure. oppress. threaten. or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory. or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States. or because of his having exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another. with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment ofany right or privilege so secured -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years. or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap. aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse. or an attempt to kill. they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. or both. or may be sentenced to death. ?5242 Deprivation of rights under color ol'law Whoever. under color of any law. statute. ordinance, regulation. or custom. willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State. Territory. or District to the deprivation of any rights. privileges. or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. or to different punishments. pains. or penalties. on account of such inhabitant being an alien. or by reason of his color. or race. than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens. shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use. attempted use. or threatened use of a dangerous weapon. explosives. or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years. or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap. aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. shall be ?ned under this title. or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. or may be sentenced to death. I Statistics During Fiscal Year 2012. 812 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30. 2012. a decision had been made for 43.3 percent (or 352) of those allegations. Allegations of Physical Abuse allegations are tracked by the degree of injury sustained by the threatening injury. serious injury. minor/slight injury. minorfno injury (harassment). and superficial injury (injuries associated with the normal use of restraints}. No allegations of Physical Abuse were sustained as of September 30. 2012. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 23 of 44 Introduction of Contraband Title 18. United States Code, Chapter 87 - Prisons ?l791 Providing or possessing contraband in prison Offense?Whoever? (1) In violation of a statute or a rule or order issued under a statute, provides to an inmate of a prison a prohibited object, or attempts to do so; or (2) being an inmate of a prison, makes, possesses, or obtains, or attempts to make or obtain, a prohibited object; shall be punished as provided in subsection of this section. Punishment.-The punishment for an offense under this section is a line under this title or- (1) imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section; (2) imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section; (3) imprisonment for no more than 5 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; (4) imprisonment for no more than one year, or both, if the object is specified in subsection IND) or of this section; and imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section. Any punishment imposed under subsection for a violation of this section by an inmate of a prison shall be consecutive. to the sentence being served by such inmate at the time the inmate commits such violation. Definitions-As used in this section- (1) the term "prohibited object? means- (AJ a ?rearm or destructive device or a controlled substance in Section I or 11, other than marijuana or a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subsection; (B) marijuana or a controlled substance in schedule other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subjection, ammunition, a BOP 2016?01716 24 of 44 Introduction of Contraband weapon (other than a ?rearm or destructive device), or an object that is designed or intended to be used as a weapon or to facility escape from a prison; (C) a narcotic drug, methamphetamine. its salts. isomers. and salts of its isomers. lysergic acid diethylamide, or D) a controlled substance (other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (A), (B). or (C) of this subsection) or an alcoholic beverage: (E) any United States or foreign currency; and (F) any other object that. threatens the order. discipline, or security of a prison. or the life. health, or safety of an individual; (2) the terms ?ammunition," ??rearm.? and ?destructive device" have, respectively. the meanings given those terms in section 921 of this title; (3) the terms ?controlled substance? and ?narcotic drug" have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act t_ 21 USC, ?802}: and (.4) the term ?prison? means a Federal correctional, detention, or penal facility or any prison, institution. or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General. I Statistics During Fiscal Year 2012, 536 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30. 2012. a decision had been made for 29.7 percent (or 159') of those allegations. Twenty-five allegations of Introduction of Contraband have been sustained to date: Nun inmate Type of Contraband Inmate Related Related Sofl Item I 2 Weapons fl 2 Unauthorized Electronic Device 2 7' Supplements (J Twenty-five individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Nineteen of these individuals were BOP employees (5 were male Correctional Services employees, 5 were female Health ServiceslSafety employees, 3 were female Correctional Services Employees. 1 was a male Business Office employee, 1 was a male Unit Management employee, 1 was a male Inmate Services employee, 1 was a male Facilities 23 BOP 2016?01716 25 of 44 Introduction of Contraband employee, 1 was a male Recreation employee, and was a female in the CEO's Of?ce Staff). One individual was a contract employee working in a BOP facility, one was a eonn'aetfhalfway house employee, and four were staff in privatized facilities. A male employee at FCI Fort Worth, who was also involved in a sexual relationship with a male inmate, admitted he introduced 5 pornographic magazines into the institution at the inmate's request and provided the inmate with a greeting card which stated, ?Love you for life." The employee plead guilty to one count of 18 USC, 1791, Introduction of Contraband in Prison. He was ?ned $250.00. The subject resigned his employment. BOP 2016?01716 26 of 44 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Title 18. United States Code. Chapter 109A - Sexual Abuse ?2241 Aggravated Sexual Abuse By force or threat. - Whoever, in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act (I) by using force against that other person, or (2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. By other means. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly l) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or (2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby - (A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and (B) engages in a sexual act with that other person; or attempts to do so, shall be lined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. ?2242 Sexual Abuse Whoever, in the special maritime and tenitorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison. institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly - (1) causes another perSon to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or (2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is 25 BOP 2016?01716 27 of 44 Sexual Abuse of Inmates (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual. act: or attempts to do so shall be ?ned under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. ?2243 Sexual Abuse of :1 Ward Of a ward - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General. knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who is - in official detention: and (2) under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so engaging; or attempts to do so. shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than [5 years. or both. ?2244 Abusive Sexual Contact Sexual contact in circumstances where sexual acts are punished by this chapter. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so to do would violate - subsection or of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; (2) section 2242 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than three years, or both; (3) subsection of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both: (4) subsection of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act. shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than two years. or both. (5) subsection of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. BOP 2016?01716 28 of 44 Sexual Abuse of Inmates In Other Circumstances. Whoever, in the special maritime and territorialjurisdiction of the United States, or a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without that other person?s permission shall be fined under this title, imprisoned no more than two years, or both. ,5 2246 Definitions (I) the term ?prison? means a correctional, detention, or penal facility; (2) the term ?sexual act? means - (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for the purposes of this subparagraph, contact involved the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus; or (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening by another by a hand or ?nger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (D) the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another person who has not attained the age of 16 years with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (3) the term ?sexual contact" means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person: (4) the term ?serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ. or mental faculty. (5) the term ?official detention? means - (A) detention by a Federal officer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal of?cer or employee, following arrest for an offense; following surrender in lieu of an arrest for an offense: following a charge or conviction of an offense, or an allegation or finding of juvenile delinquency; following commitment as a material witness; following civil commitment in lieu of criminal proceedings or pending resumption of criminal proceedings that are being held in abeyance, or pending extradition, deportation, or exclusion: or 27 BOP 2016?01716 29 of 44 Sexual Abuse of Inmates (B) custody by a Federal of?cer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal Of?cer or employee. for purposes incident to any detention described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph. including transportation, medical diagnosis or treatment, court appearance, work, and recreation; but does not include supervision or under control (other than custody during speci?ed hours or days) after release on bail, probation, or parole, or after release following a juvenile delinquency. 0 Statistics During Fiscal Year 2012, 558 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to the CIA or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 558 allegations, 466 involved BOP employees, 5 involved contract employees working in BOP facilities, 6 involved Public Health Service employees working in a BOP facility, 62 involved staff working in contraco'halfway house facilities, and 20 involved staff working in privatized facilities. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency Were Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and male inmates (135 reported allegations) and Abusive Sexual Contact @2244] between male staff and male inmates (101 reported allegations), As of September 30, 2012, 10 allegations of sexual abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2012 were sustained. Of the ID allegations, '7 involved BOP employees, 1 involved an employee working in a contract/halfway house facility, and 2 involved staff working in privatized facilities. Three hundred thirty allegations reported during Fiscal Year 2012 were pending. Sexual Abuse/Sexual Abuse of a Ward {Female Staff/Male Inmate) Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee at FCC Terre Haute and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the (HQ. The subject admitted having sexual intercourse with the inmate in the back seat of a BOP patrol vehicle. The subject also admitted she gave the inmate a necklace, and she communicated with the inmate via cellular telephone and Facebook. The subject was convicted of Sexual Abuse of a Ward in the Southern District of Indiana. She was sentenced to 36 months probation and 81') hours of conununity service and fined $1,500. The subject resigned her employment. (2012-01 144XOIG 20120014110) Abusive Sexual Contact (Male Sta?'llvlalc Inmate} Abusive Sexual Contact between a male Correctional Services employee at Fort Worth and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the 010. The subject admitted he and the inmate hugged and kissed and massaged each others? crotch through their clothing. The subject also admitted he provided the inmate with lubricant and watched while the inmate masturbated. The subject admitted he routinely gave the inmate food which he brought from outside the institution, and he provided the inmate with ?ve pornographic magazines. The subject pled 28 BOP 2016?01716 30 of 44 Sexual Abuse of Inmates guilty to one count of Introduction of Contraband in Prison in the Northern District of Texas. He was ?ned $250. The subject resigned his employment. (2012?0241 2012003021} Abusive Sexual Contact tFemale Inmate) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee at the Willaey County Correctional Center and a male inmate. The 010 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted engaging in a romantic relationship with the inmate. She admitted kissing the inmate and touching him on his penis. chest. hair. and hands. She also admitted the inmate touched her on her buttocks, face, and hands. Finally, the subject admitted giving the inmate pens and food and accepting a drawing from him. The subject resigned her employment. (2012- 2012006251) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female employee at MCFP Spring?eld and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the DIS. The subject admitted hugging and kissing the inmate and touching his genitalia. She also admitted giving the inmate food and personal letters. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her employment. (2012;01671/0106 2012002422) Unprol'essional Conduct of a Sexual Nature {Male Stal'li'Female Inmate) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male employee at a contract/halfway house facility and a female inmate. The 016 deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted he tried to kiss the inmate on three occasions. and he placed his hand on her upper thigh. The subject resigned his employment. (2012-002361016 2012000275) Unprol'essional Conduct of a Sexual Nature {Female Staff/Male Inmate) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Education and Vocational Training employee at USP Atwater and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the 01G. A review of the inmate's telephone calls revealed he was having a relationship with the subject. The subject was placed under video surveillance. The video surveillance revealed the inmate asked the subject to have sexual intercourse with him. but she declined. The subject also declined a second request to have sexual intercourse. but she showed the inmate a vaginal contraceptive and stated. "Look what 1 got. The subject and the inmate entered a storage room twice where they embraced and kissed. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her employment. 201200l701} Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at a contractfhalfway house facility and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the DIS. The subject admitted she kissed the inmate on three occasions. She also admitted she provided the inmate with cards. letters, and sexually-provocative pictures of herself. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her employment. (2012-03487IOIG 2012004600) 29 BOP 2016?01716 31 of 44 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at Otisville and a male inmate. The DIS deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted kissing the inmate and holding hands with the inmate. She also admitted introducing tobacco for the inmate and corresponding with the inmate and his family regarding her work history, training dates, days off, and personal interests. The subject resigned her employment. 2012005276} Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Health Services employee at FMC Lexington and a male inmate. The OIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted she and the inmate e-mailed one another, passed notes. kissed, and hugged. The subject also admitted she sent the inmate $300 through his sister. and she brought a polishing cloth into the institution so the inmate could polish his gold teeth. The subject resigned her employment. 2012005718) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Correctional Services employee at FCI Pekin and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the 01G. The subject admitted writing letters of a sexual nature to the inmate, talking to him on the telephone, and sending money to his account. The subject also admitted sending text messages to who she believed to be the inmate's uncle but was actually the DIG. Prosecution was not contemplated. The subject resigned her employment. 2012006955) 30 BOP 2016?01716 32 of 44 Representative Case Summaries Failure to Follow Supervisor's Instructions A Supervisor of Education asked a Teacher when he would like to attend Annual Refresher Training (ART). The Teacher asked to attend during the week of January 31, 2012. The Supervisor of Education instructed the Teacher to select another week because two Teachers were already scheduled to attend during the week of January 31. 2012. The Supervisor of Education was away from the institution from January 20, 2012, until February 2. 2012. Upon his return, he learned the Teacher attended ART during the week of January 31, 2012. Outcome: Failure to Follow Supervisor?s Instructions was sustained. The Teacher received a written reprimand. Unprol?essional Conduct An inmate threw his food tray out of his cell. and it landed on the floor. A Correctional Officer threw the food tray back into the cell, splattering food on the cell door. The incident was captured on video. Outcome: Unprofessional Conduct was sustained. The Correctional Officer received a written reprimand. . A Food Service Administrator and a Facilities Manager engaged in a heated argument about relocating the trash dumpster. Both staff admitted using profanity and shouting at one another. While both staff alleged the other initiated physical contact with the other1 staff witnesses to the incident recalled no physical contact. Outcome: Unprofessional Conduct was sustained. The Food Service Administrator was suspended for 14 days, and the Facilities Manager was suspended for 3 days. lite/Abuse of Illegal DrugslAlcohol A Case Manager provided a urine specimen during a random drug test. The specimen tested positive for the Use ofcocaine. Outcome: Use/Abuse of Illegal Drugsi'Alcohol was sustained. The Case Manager's employment was terminated. l\r?lisuse of Travel Charge Card A Dental Officer used her government-issued travel charge card to make personal purchases at Expedia and a hotel. The employee was not on official travel at the time of the charges. Outcome: Misuse of Travel Charge Card was sustained. The Dental Officer received a written reprimand. Failure to Follow Policy An inmate who was assigned to a residential reentry center (RRC) was arrested and detained by local police as a suspect in a stabbing. The stabbing victim ultimately died of his wounds. The RC Director reported the arrest to a Community Corrections Specialist. The Community Corrections Specialist failed to contact the US. Marshals Service to place a detainer on the 31 BOP 2016?01716 33 of 44 Representative Case Summaries inmate. This oversight resulted in the inmate posting bond and being released from the custody of local police. Outcome: Failure to Follow Policy was sustained. The Community Corrections Specialist received a written reprimand. lnattention to Duty A Medical Of?cer inadvertently left a folder containing sensitive inmate medical information on a bench in an inmate television room. The Medical Officer stated she laid the folder down while attempting to break up a ?ght between two inmates. An inmate recovered the folder and returned it to the nursing station 15 minutes later. Outcome: lnattention to Duty was sustained. The Medical Officer received a written reprimand. Breach of Security A Camp Administrator entered a restroom prior to leaving the institution at the end of her shift- She inadvertently left her keys in the restroom. An inmate ordered found the keys the following morning and returned them to staff. The area where the restroom was located was secured overnight, and inmates did not have access to the area until the following morning. Outcome: Breach of Security was sustained. The Camp Administrator received a written reprimand. Refusing to Cooperate: Failure to Pay Just Debts During a background investigation, it was discovered a Correctional Officer had outstanding debts in the community totaling over $5,000. The Correctional Of?cer was given several opportunities to rectify his financial issues; however, he did not cooperate with the person conducting his background investigation. Outcome: Refusing to Cooperate and Failure to Pay ust Debts were sustained. The Correctional Officer was suspended for three days. Unauthorized Electronic Device Introduction An Associate Warden entered the secure perimeter of the institution with a personal cellular telephone and a government -issued cellular telephone in her possession. She was not authorized to enter the institution with either electronic device. Outcome: Unauthorized Electronic Device Introduction was sustained. The Associate Warden received a written reprimand. 32 BOP 2016?01716 34 of 44 Signi?cant Prosecutions Following are brief summaries of some of the significant or noteworthy prosecutions which were completed during Fiscal Year 2012. The individuals referenced are no longer employed by the BOP or any BOP contractor. During an 016' investigation a Correctional officer admitted he met with inmates' relatives and received approximately $20,000 from them in exchange for introducing tobacco to inmates. The Correctional Officer pled guilty to Bribery (Title 18 USC, He was sentenced to 5 years probation and 350 hours of community service. Further, the Correctional Officer is banned from working for any corrections agency (federal. state, or local). {2003-00999} An inmate told the he gave a Correctional Of?cer $3,000 in 1.1.8. currency in exchange for introducing tobacco into the facility. Subsequently, the inmate's girlfriend reportedly mailed the Conectional Of?cer approximately $13,000 as additional bribes for tobacco smuggling. When interviewed by the DIS, the Correctional Officer provided a sworn affidavit in which he denied the allegations. When told the 016 had contrary evidence, the Correctional Officer terminated his interview. Soon after his 016 interview, the Correctional Of?cer applied for a medical disability retirement, which was approved. The OlG's investigative findings and the suspicious circumstances of the Correctional Officer's retirement were provided to the Of?ce of Personnel Management for review. The Correctional Officer ultimately pled guilty to making false statements during his OIG interview, a violation of 18 USC, ?1001. He was sentenced to 36 months probation. (2009?01238) During an investigation a Correctional Officer admitted accepting money from an inmate in exchange for providing him cigarettes and cigars in the future. The Correctional Officer also admitted bringing in protein supplements for another inmate in exchange for monetary payments. The Correctional Officer admitted receiving approximately $5,000 from the inmates in exchange for introducing contraband. The subject pled guilty to one count of Bribery (Title 18 USC, ?20 He was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment, followed by one year of supervised release. (2010-00131) During an 01G investigation a Materials Handler Supervisor admitted she introduced four boxes of contraband (soda, cookies, and t-shirts) into the facility and provided the contraband to an inmate. The Materials Handler Supervisor also admitted she agreed to bring a cellular telephone into the facility for the inmate. Further, the Materials Handler Supervisor admitted she stole bed sheets, t-shirts, and shower shoes from the facility and sold the stolen items at local flea markets. The Materials Handler Supervisor was convicted of Theft (Title 18 USC. ?64l). She was sentenced to 2 years probation and ordered to seek mental health counseling and perform 40 hours of community service. She was also ordered to pay $624 in restitution. Li) BOP FOIA 2016?01716 35 of 44 Significant Prosecutions A joint BIG and Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) investigation determined a Halfway House Director embezzled $184,076.17 from the halfway house by misusing debt cards issued to her and her assistant. The Halfway House Director used the debit cards to purchase inventory to sell through her personal on?line business. The Halfway House Director pied guilty to an indictment charging her with theft concerning a program receiving federal funds. She was sentenced to 18 months incarceration followed by 3 years of supervised release. The Halfway House Director was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $162,412 1 .17. (2010~04287) During a voluntary interview with the OIG and the Department of Labor. a union of?cial admitted to making unauthorized ATM cash withdrawals and writing unauthorized checks from the union local's checking account. The union of?cial pled guilty to Wire Fraud (Title 18, ?l343). As part of a plea agreement, she repaid a total of $16,570.17 she stole from the union iocal's account. She was sentenced to 4 months home confinement and 36 months probation. She was also ordered to successfully participate in a mental health counseling program. (2011-01525) An OIG investigation determined a Correctional Of?cer received multiple bribes in the form of pre-paid credit cards and Western Union transfers. In exchange, he supplied multiple inmates with contraband. including: tobacco products, cellular telephones, electronics, jewelry, ?tness supplements. and alcohol. The Correctional Officer pled guilty to an indictment charging him with Bribery of a Public Of?cial (Title 18 USC. He was sentenced to 24 months incarceration. followed by 36 months of supervised release. He was also ordered to forfeit $15,000 in proceeds of the offense, although the court settled for $5,000. (201 1-02065) An 01G investigation was initiated based on information from a civilian that a Resident Monitor at a contractfhalfway house facility was involved in an inappropriate relationship with an inmate. When initially interviewed by the DIG, the Resident Monitor denied any type of inappropriate relationship with the inmate, to include telephone conversations. After being confronted with telephone records, the Resident Monitor admitted she had several conversations with the inmate on the evening of his escape from the facility. In addition, the Resident Monitor admitted she allowed the inmate to kiss her on several occasions. The Resident Monitor pled guilty to a one count indictment of Making a False Statement {18 USC, ?1001). She was sentenced to 3 years probation and 300 hours of community service. (2011-02974) A civilian received a letter from Equifax Information Services notifying her that the BOP had conducted a credit check on her based on a recent application for employment. The civilian denied applying for employment with the BOP. The civilian stated she and her spouse were in the midst of a contentious divorce, and her spouse's daughter was employed by the BOP as a Human Resources Specialist. The DIG obtained a BOP Usage Report indicating the Human Resources Specialist conducted credit report queries on her 34 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 36 of 44 Signi?cant Prosecutions stepmother, her father. and herself. During an interview with the OIG, the Human Resources Specialist claimed she ran the credit report queries of her father and stepmother in order to pre-screen her father for employment as a contractor with the BOP. The Human Resources Specialist claimed he had written consent from both her father and stepmother. The signatures on the consent documents were ultimately determined to he forgeries. The Human Resources Specialist signed a Plea Agreement to a Criminal Information charging her with one count of a False Statement (Title 18 USC, ?1018). She was sentenced to 6 months probation and 50 hours of community service, and fined $500. (2012?00603) 35 BOP 2016?01716 37 of 44 Appendix Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Empluyew - With 18.1 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Non Inmate Type or Misconduct Inmate Related Related Off-Duty TOTAL Personnel Prohibitions 303 2 I 3% Failure to Follow Policy I 3.3? Unprofessional Conduct 53 [32 234 Orr-Duly Misconducl 51 I67 318 Off~DuljJ Misconduct 200 200 Fiscal hoproprielies l3 I42 155 Innucmion lo Duty 49 85 134 Breach of Sccuriw 64 NE: inappropriate Relationships With homes 89 39 Introduction of Contraband 34 37' 71 ancstigativc Violations 50 SU Abum: of Inmates 20 EU Unau?iorized Reloasc of Inform-anon 3 3 ll Bribery 8 [l 8 Sexual Abuse of Inmates f) Discrimination {l 36 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 38 of 44 Appendix Types of Misconduct Abuse of Inmates Physical Abuse of Inmates Excessive Use of Force Excessive Use of Force - Restraint Related Threatening an Inmate/Verbal Abuse Retaliation Sexual Abuse of Inmates Aggravated Sexual Abuse - ?2241 Sexual Abuser?Sexual Abuse ofa Ward ?2242i2243 Abusive Sexual Contact - ?2244 Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature Introduction of Contraband Soft Item Introduction Weapons Introduction Escape Paraphernalia lntroduction Money Introduction Marijuana Introduction Heroin dc Derivatives Introduction Cocaine Introduction Other Unspecified Drugs Introduction Alcoholic Beverages Introduction Unauthorized Electronic Device Introduction CreatineNt/eightlifting Supplement Introduction Cigaretteszobacco Introduction Discrimination Fiscal Improprieties Time and Attendance Irregularities Abuse of Sick Leave Voucher Falsification Thefthisuse of Government Funds Thefthisuse of Government Property Misuse of Government Computers 37 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 39 of 44 Appendix Improper Procurement Procedures Failure to Pay Government Charge Card Misuse of Travel Charge Card Misuse of Purchase Charge Card Thefthisuse of Employees' Club Funds Theft!r Misuse of Funds Theft of Inmate Funds Thefthestruction of Inmate Property The?Msuse of Contractor Funds T?hefthisuse of Contractor Property Failure to Account for Inmate Funds/Property Theft of Employee Misuse of UNICOR Resources Contract Fraud Bribery Bribery Conspiracy to Commit Bribery Inappropriate Relationship With Inmates Soliciting/Accepting Anything of Value Offerinngiving Anything of Value Improper Contact With an Inmateflnmate's Family Appearance of an Inappropriate Relationship Misuse of Inmate Labor Preferential Treatment of Inmates Investigative Violations Concealing a Material Fact Refusing to Cooperate Lying During an Investigation Providing a False Statement Alteringz?Destroying EvidencefDocuments Refusing to Submit to a Search Interfering With/Impeding an Investigation Advising Someone to Violate Policy Conducting an Unauthorized Investigation Lack of Condor BOP 2015?01716 40 of 44 Appendix Personnel Prohibitions Threatening/Intimidating Employees {relates to personnel actions) Failure to Report Violation of Rules/Regulations Falsi'fication of Employment Records Misuse of Official Positioni?Badge Inappropriate Supervisor/Subordinate Relationship Engaging in Prohibited Personnel Practices Use/Abuse of Illegal DrugsIAIcohol Absent Without Leave Retaliation Refusing to Take a Drug Test Unauthorized Release of Information Other On-Duty Misconduct Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature lnattenti on to Duty' Failure to Respond to an Emergency Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates Breach of Security' Breach of Computer Security] 'Falsification of Documents Unprofessional ConductI Failure to Follow Policy] Gambling/Promotion of Gambling Endangering the Safety of an Inmate Endangering the Safety of Others Providing False Information Other Than During an Official Investigation Insubordination Accidental Discharge of a Firearm Solicitingi?Sale of Goods on Government Property ob Favoritism Workplace Violence Failure to Meet Performance Standards Failure to Follow Supervisor's Instructions Fraudulent Workers' Compensation Claims Conduct Unbecoming a Management Official BOP FOIA 2016?01716 41 of 44 Appendix Off-Duty Misconduct Arrest and Conviction Failure to Report Arrest Failure to Pay Just Debts Failure to Obtain Outside Employment Approval Domestic Violence Traffic Citation Carrying an UnregisteredJConcealed Firearm Discreditable Behavior Falsification of Records/Documents Other Citation (Hunting, etc.) Con?ict of Interest 'Due to the frequency of this type of misconduct, it is identified separate] 3: throughout this report. 40 BOP 2016?01716 42 of 44 Monitoring Assignments Alderson, WV A?cevi?e. AL Allenwood. PA Ashland. KY Atlanta. GA Atwater, CA Bastrop. TX Beaumont. TX Buckley. WY SC Berlin. NH Big Sandy, KY Big Spring. TX Brooklyn. NY Bryan. TX Rumor. NC Canaan, PA Carswal]. TX Chicago. IL Coleman. FL Cumberland, MD Danhuxy. CT Dawns. MA Dublin. CA Duluth. MN Edge?eld. SC El Reno. 0K Elkron. UH Englewood. CO Eslill. SC Faimn. NJ Florence. C0 Forrest City. AR Fort Worth. TX Fort Dix. NJ Gilmcr. WV Grand Prairie. TX Graenville. ll. . Guaynabo. PR Hazellon. WV E?ective October 17. 20h? Hormone) Harlong, CA Honolulu. HI Houstome Imp. GA LaTuna. TX Lavenworth. KS Lac, VA. Lawishurg. PA Lexington. KY Lompoc. CA 10mm, PA Los Angeles. CA Manchester. KY Marianna. FL Marion. IL Mendota. CA KY McDowell. WV McKean. PA Memphis. TN Miami 8r FC-D. FL MXRO, MD Milan. Montgomery. AL . New York. NY NERO. KS NERO. PA Oakdalc. LA Oklahoma. OK Otisville. NY Oxford. Pekin. IL Pmsacola. FL VA Philadelphia. PA Phoenix. AZ Pollock. LA Ray Brook. NY Rochester. MN WMMUXGJ BOP 2016?01716 43 of 44 Monitoring Assignments Sa?'ord. AZ San Diego, CA Sandstone. MN Schuylkill. PA Seagoville. TX SnaTac, WA Sheridan, OR SCRO, TX SEED. GA Spring?eld, MO Talladega, AL Tallahassee, FL Efec?ve October I 7, C) Terminal Island, CA Tetra. Hauta, IN Texarkana. TX Three Rivers, TX Tucson, AZ . Victorville, CA Wm. MN WRO. CA Williamsbm?g. SC Yankton, SD Yazoo City. MS BOP 2016?01716 44 of 44 US. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons Washington, DC Of?ce of Internal Affairs Report for Fiscal Year 2013 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 1 of 44 Table of Contents Executive Summary of Findings 1 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct? Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations? Reported Misconduct 7 Closedeustained Misconduct 10 Physical Abuse of Inmates 2] Introduction of Contraband 23 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 26 Representative Case Summaries 31 Significant Prosecutions 34 Appendices}? Monitoring Assignments 41 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 2 0f44 Executive Summary of Findings There was a 1.3 percent decrease in the number of cases opened in Fiscal Year 2013 as compared with Fiscal Year 2012. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees decreased 2.8 percent from Fiscal Year 2012. Cases classified as Classi?cation 1 offenses showed an increase of 7.2 percent over those opened in Fiscal Year 2012, while cases classified as both Classification 2 and 3 offenses showed a decrease (2.7 percent and 4.9 percent, respectively). The most frequently reported type of misconduct in Fiscal Year 2013 was Unprofessional Conduct. Abuse of Inmates and Other On-Duty Misconduct placed second and third, respectively. The only categories of reported misconduct which showed an increase from Fiscal Year 2012 were Discrimination, Unauthorized Release of Information, Sexual Abuse of Inmates, lnattention to Duty, and Abuse of Inmates. The largest decreases occurred in the categories of Failure to Follow Policy, Fiscal Improprieties, and Bribery. During Fiscal Year 2013. 14 cases involving Patriot Act Violations were opened. As of September 30. 2013, 10 cases remained open pending investigation, and 4 cases were closed. No allegations of misconduct were sustained. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2013, was Personnel Prohibitions, followed by Unprofessional Conduct. and Other On-Duty Misconduct. The sustained rate of misconduct for male BOP employees for whom a decision had been made as of September 30, 2013, was 1 employee per 100 total male BOP staff, while the sustained rate ofmiseonduct for female BOP employees for whom a decision had been made as of September 30, 20 3, was .9 employees per 100 total female BOP staff. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among male BOP employees for whom a decision had been made as of September 30, 2013, was Unprofessional Conduct, while the most frequently sustained categories of misconduct among female BOP employees for whom a decision had been made as of September 30, 2013, were Fiscal Improprieties and lnattention to Duty. For those BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2013, the rate was highest among Residential Reentry Management staff {3.8 per 100 total Residential Reentry Management staff}. Although the absolute number of sustained decisions was low only 1), the per capita rate was nonetheless the highest given the relatively low number of Residential Reentry Management staff in the agency. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 3 0f44 Executive Summary of Findings For those BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2013, the rate was higher for non-bargainin unit employees than for bargaining unit employees (I per 100 total non-bargainin unit employees vs. .9 per 100 total bargaining unit employees}. For those contract Residential Reentry Center employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2013, the most frequently sustained categoty of misconduct was Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates. This was also true for those staff in privatized facilities with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2013. As of September 30, 2013, 3 allegations of Physical Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2013 were sustained. The inmates involved sustained minor/no injuries. None of the subjects involved were criminally prosecuted. As of September 30, 2013, 24 allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported during Fiscal year 2013 were sustained, involving 22 individuals. Six involved the introduction of soft contraband, 3 involved the introduction of weapons, 12 involved the introduction of unauthorized electronic devices. and 3 involved the introduction of Creatine/weightlifting supplements. None of the subjects involved were criminally prosecuted. As of September 30, 2013, 4 allegations of Sexual Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 20l3 were sustained: 3 involved BOP employees and 1 involved an employee at a privatized facility. None of the subjects involved were criminally prosecuted. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 4 of44 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct Staff Reporting In accordance with the Bureau's Standards of Employee Conduct. staff who become aware of any violation or alleged violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct must repon them to the Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO), the Of?ce of Internal Affairs (01A), or the Department of Justice (130.7}, Of?ce of the Inspector General (010}. The 01G has established a toll?free hotline (LEGO-8694499) which is available to anyone wishing to report DOJ employees' misconduct, as well as fraud, waste, or abuse in government. All Bureau staff are encouraged to use the hotljne if they wish to remain anonymous or fear retaliation or reprise]. To report violations directly to the CIA Central Office, please submit a written complaint to: Federal Bureau of Prisons Office of Internal Affairs 320 First Street, NW, Room 814 Washington, DC 20534 Written complaints may also be sent via fax to {202) 5 l4~8625. CEO Reporting Upon becoming aware of any possible violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct (either through a report from staff or through personal knowledge, the CEO at the institution, Regional Of?ce or Central Of?ce Division, or his or her designee. is to report the violation to the 01A in accordance with the following time frames- Classi?cation 1 cases are defined as allegations which. if substantiated, would constitute a prosecutable offense (other than offenses such as misdemeanor arrests}. Classification 2 cases are de?ned as allegations which involve violations of rules, regulations, or law that, if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution, but constitute serious misconduct. Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases must be reported telephonically to the (HA immediately. Written notification to the BIA will be made within 24 hours (not to include weekends and holidays) of the time management learns of the matter. When it is suspected that criminal conduct has occurred. the CEO may refer the matter simultaneously to the CIA and the local 016 or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) office. Unless the CEO and the Chief of the CIA agree to a different method, ordinarily, investigations involving Classification 3 cases are to be conducted using local resources. Classi?cation 3 cases are defined as allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations. Ordinarily, CEOs can proceed with local investigations on Classification 3 BOP 2016?01716 5 of 44 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct misconduct allegations for staff occupying bargaining unit positions or GS- 12 and below non? bargaining unit positions without ?rst obtaining OIA approval. Written notification to the CIA will be made within 24 hours {not to include weekends and holidays) of the time management learns of the matter. CEOs must notify the CIA before initiating investigations involving any misconduct alleged against management staff occupying (SS-13 or above positions. The OLA will coordinate further action with the DIG. Initial Information. A Referral of Incident form is used to organize the information to be provided (for contract employees use form Include the following: I The identity of the complainant(s], subjectts), witnesstes}, and victim(s); I The details of the allegation(s); and I Any corroborating evidence. The subject of the allegation or complaint must not be questioned or interviewed prior to receiving clearance from the BIG and the OIA's approval. This is to ensure against procedural errors and to safeguard the rights of the subject. Supporting Documentation. A Referral of Incident form (BP-ATISDIE) and all supporting documentation, such as victim or witness statements. medical reports, photos, and related memoranda, must be sent to the CIA immediately but not later than 24 hours after the telephonic report. If an inmate alleges physical or sexual abuse by a staff member and has not received a medical examination, the CEO must arrange an immediate. confidential medical examination and forward a copy of the results to the CIA as soon as possible. Contact the CIA immediately if there is any question as to the classification of the misconduct. It is important to note that case classi?cations are many times based on limited information. As an investigation unfolds. the severity of misconduct may increase or decrease. thereby moving it into another classification. All Referral of Incident forms 15.012 or and appropriate predicating information will be sent to the 01A via e-mail to the CIA GroupWise mailbox All documentation will be scanned in .pdf format (Adobe Acrobat) and saved as one ?le. The signed Referral of Incident form should appear on the top of the file with all supporting documentation Underneath. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 6 of 44 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations For all local staff misconduct investigations completed on or after January 1, 2007, the investigator must forward the complete investigative packet directly to the OLA for approval prior to forwarding it to the CEO for action. These procedures apply to all local staff misconduct investigations in which BOP employees are the subject (Classi?cation 1, 2. and 3 allegations), regardless of whether any misconduct will be sustained. Where to Send Local Investigative Packets Local investigative packets should be sent via e-mail to the CIA GroupWise mailbox DIR/lnternal Affairs-Local Investigative Packets~" (not to be confused with OIA's main resource mailbox. Affairs?). To ensure local investigative packets are reviewed by the OIA in a timely manner, they should not be sent to any individual 01A staff member or to any 01A field office. The subject of your e-mail message should include the CIA case number and the facility mnemonic code Format for Lin-a] Investigative Packets and What to Send Local investigative packets should include the investigative report (signed by the investigator) and all supporting documentation (affidavits. memorandums. video files, etc). Complete investigative packets must be forwarded; the Summary of Investigation for Classi?cation 3 Cases form 16.012) is no longer applicable and should not be used. Documents must be scanned in .pdf format (Adobe Acrobat). Do not send documents in other formats .tif tiles. .wpd files). Documents should be scanned in three groups. named as follows: Investigative Reporl (01A Case Number) Affidavits and MOIs (OIA Case Number) Supporting Documentation (01A Case Number) Photo images and graphic images may be forwarded in .jpg or .gif format. Affidavit files should include the Warning and Assurance to Employee Required to Provide Information if applicable. and the signed Oath for each individual. The investigative packet should not include national policy or any documents not speci?cally related to the investigation staff rosters. inmate SENTRY information, etc). BOP FOIA 2016?01716 7 0f 44 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations 'l?ime Guidelines For Classi?cation I or 2 allegations. local investigators should strive to complete and forward investigative packets to the 01A within [20 calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the OLA. For classi?cation 3 allegations, local investigators should strive to complete and forward investigative packets to the OM prior to any disciplinary action being taken and within 120 calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the CEO. Once received. the OIA will complete their review of the local investigative. packet within ten business days. The investigator will be advised as to whether the investigative packet is approved or if additional information is needed. This information will be sent via c~mail to the investigator with a copy to the CEO. If additional information is needed. the investigator should forward the additional information to the CIA within 30 calendar days, who will again notify the. investigator and the CEO if the packet is approved. Once approved. the investigator should forward the investigative packet to the CEO for appropriate action with all Review of Local Investigative Packet forms applicable to that packet attached. No disciplinary proceedings or other notifications to subjects should occur prior to the OIA's approval of the investigative packet. Reports from the OH The (HA sends the CEO a report of all local staff misconduct investigations which have extended past established time frames. should continue to work with the monitoring agent assigned to their facility for guidance and to provide updates on outstanding matters. BOP 2016?01716 8 of 44 Reported Misconduct All allegations of misconduct received by the CIA are referred to the BIG for review and classi?cation. The OIG determines which matters they will accept for investigation and possible criminal prosecution and defers other matters to the OM for investigation. The OIA coordinates with the 0.16 andfor the FBI when investigations may lead to criminal prosecution or when there are allegations involving the abuse of an individual's Constitutional rights under Color of Law. NOTES llIL Ll: IlilliilL I-l liic' Heme-.511 liil?wl'fi??ll .nv: .utlict". Duran.) the yuan-c In? in um mm, -. Mtlit'i' 11'1" II'lLtl. tl.il.l Lit. l-L'h ll, Hue r? I?m wan:- ht'luu-n II Hula tumult-'1 In tart-uh Ila- nv'lmlri ul ll1'-. tin-it: have ti. urhzu um 54' nmluph' type-n wt I. in .I til-w Ila I'ernlm In. high-l Elii.ll \ ll-g nth? kit. rim. Irrtr-ul in as ?Clair-l. ?wilt lti?nf ml (Elan-5 " wry-pit trial-inlay: l-?nr .I L'IlvnlilL-Iz': l'l lln' relic: ml uL'I'l'iI'lili't ti Ill lfilu'il unit-Intuit ri'h'icllt'i' i'tn'lt. I ir't'r-Jl't For those matters deferred for investigation, the CIA determines, after consulting with BOP management officials, whether an on-site investigation is warranted or if the matter can be investigated at the local institution level. Allegations categorized as Classi?cation 3 offenses are referred to the 010 via computer extract on a basis. During Fiscal Year 2013, the CIA opened 5,503 cases involving 6,609 BOP employees. 39 contract employees working in BOP facilities. 62 Public Health Service employees working in BOP facilities. 3 volunteers working in BOP facilities, 172 contract! residential reentry center employees, 7' drug treatment contractors. and 216 employees working in privatized facilities. These 5,503 cases represent a 1.3 percent decrease over the 5,574 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2012. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees decreased 2-8 percent from Fiscal Year 2012- The 5,503 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2013 were classified as follows: Classi?cation 1 1,510 Classi?cation 2 l,555 Classi?cation 3 2,438 Cases classi?ed as Classi?cation 1 offenses showed an increase of 7.2 percent, while cases classified as both Classi?cation 2 and Classi?cation 3 offenses showed a decrease (2.7 percent and 4.9 percent, respectively). BOP FOIA 2016?01716 9 of 44 Reported Misconduct Table 1: Types of Reported Misconduct - FY 21113 Number of Reported Allegations ?33 Change Type "f Misconduct Inmate Non Inmate 0 TOTAL from 2012 Related Related Unprofessionat Conduct 964 551 1515 +2.5 Abuse of Inmates 1364 1364 Oil-Duty Misconduct 562 Mi 1303 '9'6 Personnel Prohibitions 694 as 760 lnattention to Duty 2313' 418 707 I Failure to Follow Policy 384 295 679 Sexual Abuse oi" Inmates I575 675 +23'6 Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates 582 582 Off?Duty Misconduct 574 574 '05 Breach of Security 223 319 542 "8'3 Fiscal Improprieties 120 410 530 ?17'4 Introduction of Contraband 427 30 5t}? . . . . . 40.8 Investigative Violations 181 181 Unauthorized Release of Information 106 43 149 +252 Bribery 193 3 106 "109 Discrimination 29 2 31 +632 Table 1 provides a breakdown of those categories of misconduct reported during Fiscal Year 2013. The only categories of reported misconduct which showed an increase from Fiscal Year 2012 were Discrimination (a 63.2 percent increase). Unauthorized Release of Information (a 25-2 percent increase), Sexual Abuse of Inmates {a 23.6 percent increase), [nattention to Duty (a 10.1 percent increase}, and Abuse of Inmates (a 2.5 percent increase). The largest decreases occurred in the categories of Failure to Follow Policy (a 19.7 percent decrease}. Fiscal Itnproprieties (a 17.4 percent decrease). and Bribery (a 10.9 percent decrease). BOP 2016?0171610 of 44 Reported Misconduct USA Patriot Act In the USA Patriot Act, Congress expressed concern about the potential abuse of individual civil rights and liberties by DOJ employees in the aftermath of September 1 1, 2001. Accordingly, the Patriot Act mandated that the 016 widely advertise that it receives and investigates allegations of such abuses. Patriot Act violations include violence, discrimination, or threats on the part of a employee, particularly when such cases are directed toward individuals or groups associated in the public perception with acts of terrorism because of their religious beliefs, place of birth, or appearance. Patriot Act allegations which typically come to our attention are alleged mistreatment or unprofessional behavior of BOP staff toward/around certain inmates, their visitors. or members of the public. Due to the sensitivity of these allegations, they are automatically classi?ed as Classi?cation 2 or higher offenses; they should be forwarded immediately to the CIA. All Patriot Act violation allegations are then referred to a Special Operations Unit at 016 Headquarters devoted to reviewing and investigating such misconduct. Of the 5,503 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2013, I4 cases involved Patriot Act violations. As of September 30, 2013, 10 cases remained open pending investigation, and 4 cases were closed. No allegations were sustained. 0f the 5,574 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2012, 29 cases involved Patriot Act violations. As of September 30, 2013, 4 cases remained open pending investigation, and 25 cases were closed. No allegations were sustained. BOP 2016?0171611 0f 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct As of September 30, 2013, a decision had been NOTES made on 1,796 (32.6 percent) of the 5,503 cases opened during Fiscal. Year 2013. The remaining 3,707 cases (67.4 percent) were still .-.. I, ,l open and being investigated. Of the 1,796 2 lit-til m- 34.0 - m; rind-L cases closed, the majority. 1,682 (93.7 percent). 1-1 3U Jors ?um-tn u? were investigated at the institution level with "'fhr'n-il" i? i' ?1 authorization and monitoring provided by the "h 01A. Of the 1,796 cases closed, 84 were 01A W. m? on-site investigations [4.7 percent), and 28 {1.6 .., 1' percent) were investigated by the 01G. The ?cu-mi 1101' remaining cases were investigated by the Office 1? ?Pk of Special Counsel (Hatch Act Violations). Fr-tal To.? I?ll Ill 111? L'll'I-ll 0f the 1,796 cases closed, 392 (21.8 percent) i were sustained. Misconduct was sustained against 352 BOP employees, 3 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 7 PHS employees working in BOP facilities, I volunteer working in a BOP facility, 1 contractl'residential reentry center employees, and 70 employees working in privatized facilities. BOP Employees There were 6,609 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in cases opened during Fiscal Year 2013. As of September 30, 2013, a decision had been made for 29.8 percent of those employees. Of the 29.8 percent (or 1,976 employees), 17.8 percent (352) had a sustained decision (a rate of .9 per 100 total BOP employees). Of the 6,609 BOP employees for whom a case was opened during Fiscal Year 2013, 373 were unidenti?ed. Table 2 (on the following page) re?ects the categories of misconduct sustained against BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2013. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Personnel Prohibitions (Absent Without Leave made up 78.1 percent of all sustained misconduct within this category), followed by Unprofessional Conduct, and On-Duty Misconduct (Failure to Follow Supervisor?s Instructions made up 40 percent of all sustained misconduct within this category). 10 BOP FOIA 2016?0171612 of 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 2: Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2013 With 29.8 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct Off-Duty TOTAL Personnel Prohibitions 57 1' 64 Unprofessional Conduct 2? 32 59 On?Duty Misconduct 13 55 Inattention to Duty 2] 3t} 5] Fiscal 2 4O 42 Failure to Follow Policy l? .14 4] Breach of Security 16 2t] 36 Off-Duly Misconduct 31 31 Introduction of Contraband 7 l4 2 Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates 20 2t] Investigative Violations 9 9 Unauthorized Release of lnforrnation 5 2 7 Abuse of Inmates 4 4 Sexual Abuse oflnmates 3 3 Bribery 2 2 Discrimination - Disciplinary Action Once a subject is investigated and the allegations are sustained, the type of disciplinary action taken is left to the deciding. official, who is generally the CEO. Each case is unique, and there are varying degrees of seriousness within each type of misconduct. Also, a single subject may be charged with multiple types of misconduct. The Douglas Factors must be considered when deciding the appropriate penalty to impose on employees for misconduct. BOP FOIA 2016?0171613 of 44 ll Closed/Sustained Misconduct The Douglas Factors are an accumulation of historic Civil Services practices and procedures in cases involving civil servant misconduct, created by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in the seminal Douglas case. In Douglas, the MSPB announced a non-exhaustive list of twelve factors which the BOP, like all federal agencies, must consider in determining appropriate penalties to impose in employee misconduct. The Douglas Factors are as follows: the nature and seriousness of the offense; the employee?s job level and type of employment; the employee's disciplinary record; the employee?s past work record. including length of service and duty performance; the effect of the offense on the employee's ability to perform and its effect on the supervisor's confidence in such ability; the consistency of the penalty with penalties imposed upon others for like or similar misconduct; the consistency of the penalty with the BOP's table of penalties (Program Statement 3420.] 1, Standards of Employee Conduct; the notoriety of the offense or its impact on the reputation: the clarity with which the employee was on notice of any mics violated or warned about the conduct in question; the employee?s potential for rehabilitation; any and all mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense job stress/tension, personality problems, mental impairment, harassment or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of others involved; the adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions. The CEO is required to consider only those Douglas factors which are relevant to any individual and need not consider all the Douglas Factors in every case. in many cases, some of the Douglas Factors may suggest one type of penalty while others suggest another penaltychoose the appropriate penalty. 12 BOP FOIA 2016?0171614 of 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct The following actions were taken against (or by) those. BOP employees with a sustained decision. Written Reprimand 1 12 Suspension 90 No Action 59 Resignation 45 Termination 2t) Retirement [6 Combined with Action in Another OLA Matter 7 Oral Reprimand 1 Other Demotion The speci?c type of misconduct most frequently sustained against those individuals for whom no disciplinary action was taken was Misuse of Travel Charge Card (17.9 percent of all sustained misconduct for staff in this group}. I Gender There were 4,902 male BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2013. As of September 30, 2013. a decision had been made for 30.4 percent of those 4,902 male employees. Of the 30.4 percent (or L489 male employees), 17.6 percent (262) had a sustained decision (a rate of 1 employee per 100 total male BOP staff). There were 1.334 female BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2013. As of September 30, 2013. a decision had been made for 29 percent of those 1,334 female employees. Of the 29 percent (or 387 female employees), 23.3 percent (90) had a sustained decision (a rate of .9 employees per 100 total female BOP staff J. Tables 3 and 4 (on the following pages) re?ect the categories of sustained allegations for male and female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2013. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among male BOP employees was Unprofessional Conduct (l5.2 percent of all sustained misconduct by male staff), while Fiscal lmproprieties and lnattention to Duty were the most frequently sustained categories of misconduct tunong female BOP employees (13.8 percent each of all sustained misconduct by female staff). The specific type of Fiscal lmpropriety most frequently sustained against female BOP employees was Misuse of Travel Charge Card (66.6 percent of all sustained Fiscal [mpropriety allegations). BOP FOIA 2016-0171615 of 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 3 - Types of Sustained Misconduct for Male BOP Employees - FY 2013 With 30.4 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type Of Inmate Relate ?gem?? Off-Duty TOTAL Unprofessional Conduct 2! 30 Si Personnel Prohibitions 4-4 6 50 Uri-Duty Misconduct 33 44 Inattention to Duty 16 20 36 Failure to Follow Policy 15 20 35 Fiscal lmpropn'eties 2 25 27 Breach of Security I I4 25 Off?Duty Misconduct 23 23 Introduction of Contraband 5 Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates l3 13 Investigative Violations t3 6 Unauthorized Release of Information 5 (l 5 Bribery 2 [i 2 Abuse of Inmates Sexual Abuse of Inmates Discrimination [l l} Those categories of misconduct highlighted in red were sustained with greater frequency among male BOP staff than among female BOP staff. BOP 2016?0171616 of 44 I4 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 4: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Female BOP Employees - FY 2013 With 29 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct 327533 ?3123233 "3 Off-Wt TOTAL Fiscal lmproprieti es 0 15 15 lnattention to Duty 5 IO 15 Personnel Prohibitions l3 l4 On-Duty Misconduct 2 9 Breach of Security 5 t3 1 Off-Duty,r Misconduct 8 Unprofcssional Conduct 6 2 8 Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates 7 Failure to Follow Policy 3 4 7 Investigative Violations 3 3 Abuse of Inmates 2 2 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 2 2 Introduction of Contraband 2 2 2 Unauthorized Release of Information 0 2 2 Discrimination t] {l Bribery l} I) {l Those categories of misconduct highlighted in red were sustained with greater frequency among female BOP staff than among male BOP staff. BOP 2016?0171617 of 44 15 Closed/Sustained Misconduct I Job Discipline As of September 30, 2013, 352 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2013 had a sustained decision. Table 5 re?ects the rate of misconduct among the various job disciplines. Table 5: Discipline of BOP Employees With Sustained Misconduct - FY 2013 With 29.8 Percent Closed Number of Employees Rate Per 100 . . . .. Total Dlsupllne ?11h Fm Iovecs Total Sustained 11 Employees Misconduct Residential Reentry Management I 26 3.8 Health Seniicest'Safety 40 2.628 1.5 Food Servicos 23 ?"175 1.4 Correctional Services 133 17.91 3 l.l UNICOR 9 813 Ll Unit Management 32 3.3315 Lt} Religious Services 3 325 .9 Inmate Services 2 223 .9 Education a: Vocational Training 9 1.070 .3 Computer Services 2 24a .3 Systems 9 1.066 .8 Office and Staff 6 942 .6 Business Office 9 1.?74 ?3 Recreation 3 7?75 .4 Human Resources 2 461 .4 Facilities It] 2 454 .4 Central Uf?cefNalional Institute of Corrections ti L372 .4 Services 3 l.199 1 Training Centers 0 72 l] Unprofessional Conduct was sustained against the one Residential Reentry Management employee with sustained misconduct as of September 30. 2013. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among Health Services/Safety staff was Inattention to Duty (16.3 percent of 16 BOP FOIA 2015?0171618 of 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct all misconduct among staff in this group). The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among Food Services staff was Unprofessional Conduct (18.5 percent of all misconduct among staff in this group). I Bargaining vs. Non-Bargaining Unit Sta 11' Of the 352 BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30. 2013, 289 were bargaining unit employees and 63 were non~bargaining unit employees. The rate of sustained misconduct among bargaining unit employees was .9 per 100 total bargaining unit employees. while the rate of sustained misconduct among non-bargaining unit employees was 1 per 100 total non-bargaining unit employees. Residential Reentry Center Employees There were 172 contractfresidential reentry center employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2013. As of September 30, 2013, a decision had been made for 52.9 percent of those 172 employees. Of the 52.9 percent (or 91 employees). 12.1 percent [11) had a sustained decision. It is significant to note that an administrative disposition was recorded for 56 percent of those employees for whom a decision had been made. indicating the employee either resigned or their employment was terminated prior to an investigation being conducted. Thus, the 12.1 percent sustained rate is likely an extreme! conservative ?gure. Table 6 (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the types of misconduct sustained against contract/residential reentry center employees. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Inappropriate Relationship with Donates, which made up 37.5 percent of all sustained misconduct among staff in this group. 17 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 ?19 of 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 6: Types of Sustained Misconduct for ContractfResidential Reentry Center Employees - FY 2013 With 52.9 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Inmate Non Inmate Type of Misconduct Related Related Off-Duty OTAL nappropriate Relationships With Inmates 6 Unprofessional Conduct 3 t} 3 Failure to Follow Policy 2 [t 2 Abuse of Inmates 1 Fiscal [mproprieties Off-Duty Misconduct Breach of Security 1 {l 1 Sexual Abuse of Inmates {l 0 Introduction of Contraband {i {l {l Discrimination t} l} [l Bribery (i [t l) Investigative Violations 0 Personnel Prohibitions (l Unauthorized Release of Information 1 0 {l Oil-Duty Misconduct {l {l lnattention to Duty {1 {l [l Staff in Privatized Facilities There were 216 employees working in privatized facilities identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2013. As of September 30, 2013. a decision had been made for 55.1 percent of those 216 employees. 0f the 55.1 percent (or 1 19 employees), 58.8 percent had a sustained decision. Table 7' (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the categories of misconduct sustained against employees working in privatized facilities. The most frequently sustained category of IS BOP FOIA 2016?01716 20 of 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct misconduct for staff working in privatized facilities was Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates, which made up 26.9 percent of all misconduct among staff in this gToup. Table 7: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Privatized Facilities - 2013 With 55.1 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct . 12:12:: Ma?a?? Off-Duty TOTAL Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates 2] 2i On-Duty Misconduct 13 7 3D LJ nprofessional Conduct 9 10 Failure to Follow Policy 8 l} 8 Inattention to Duty 4 5 Investigative Violations 3 3 Personnel Prohibitions 3 t} 3 Breach of Security 3 ll 3 Off-Duty Misconduct 2 2 Abuse of inmates Sexual Abuse of Inmates Unauthorized Release of information t} I Introduction of Contraband t} Discrimination Fiscal lmproprieties [l Bribery (J t} {l [9 BOP 2016?01716 21 of 44 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Contract Employees and Volunteers Working in BOP Facilities There were 39 contract staff and 3 volunteers working in BOP facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2013. As of September 30, 2013, a decision had been made for 33.3 percent of the 39 contract employees. Of the 33.3 percent (or 13 contract employees), 23.] percent (3) had a sustained decision. Two allegations of On?Duty Misconduct were sustained against staff in this group and one allegation each of Fiscal Improprieties, Unauthorized Release of Information, Inattention to Duty, and Unprofessional Conduct were sustained. As of September 30, 2013, a decision had been made for 66.7 percent ofthe 3 volunteers. Introduction of Contraband and Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates were sustained against one of these individuals. PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities Of the approximately 884 PHS employees working in BOP facilities, 62 were identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2013 (or 7 per 100 PHS employees}. As of September 30. 2013, a decision had been made for 27.4 percent of those 62 PHS employees. 0f the 27.4 percent (or 17' PHS employees). 41.2 percent (7) had a sustained decision, for a sustained rate of .8 per 100 total PHS employees working in BOP facilities. The most frequently sustained categories of misconduct among PHS employees were On-Duty Misconduct and Inattention to Duty (3 sustained allegations each). One allegation each of Introduction of Contraband, Fiscal Improprielies, Breach of Security, and Failure to Follow Policy were sustained. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 22 of 44 Physical Abuse of Inmates Title 18. United States Code. Chapter 13 - Civil Rights ?241 Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten. or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the 331116; 01' If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. or both, or may be sentenced to death. {$242. Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, titan are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap. aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be ti ned under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or may be sentenced to death. - Statistics During Fiscal Year 2013, 591 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to the CIA or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 20 3. a decision had been made for 38.2 percent {or 226) of those allegations. Allegations of Physical Abuse allegations are tracked by the degree of injury sustained by the threatening injury, serious injury, minorfslight injury, minorino injury (harassment), and super?cial injury (injuries associated with the normal use of restraints). Three allegations of Physical Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2013 were sustained as of September 30, 20l3. The inmates involved sustained minort?no injuries. None of the subjects involved (one female BOP employee, one 71 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 23 of 44 Physical Abuse of Inmates contract/residential reentry center employee. and 1 employee at a privatized facility) were criminally prosecuted. 22 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 24 of 44 Introduction of Contraband Title 18. United States Code. Chapter 87 - Prisons ?l791 Providing or possessing contraband in prison Offense-Whoever- (I) In violation of a statute or a rule or order issued under a statute, provides to an inmate of a prison a prohibited object, or attempts to do so; or (2) being an inmate of a prison, makes, possesses, or obtains, or attempts to make or obtain, a prohibited object; shall be punished as provided in subsection of this section. Punishment-The punishment for an offense under this section is a fine under this title or- (1) imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection (djt of this section; (2) imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section; (3) imprisonment for no more than 5 years, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section; (4) imprisonment for no more than one year, or both, if the object is specified in subsection or of this section; and (5) imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, if the object is specified in subsection IMF) of this section. Any punishment imposed under subsection b) for a violation of this section by an inmate of a prison shall be consecutive. to the sentence being served by such inmate at the time the inmate commits such violation. Definitions?As used in this section? tl the term ?prohibited object" means- (A) a ?rearm or destructive device or a controlled substance in Section Ior IL other than marijuana or a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subsection; (B) marijuana or a controlled substance in schedule [11, other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subjection, ammunition, a 23 BOP 2016?01716 25 0f 44 Introduction of Contraband weapon (other than a firearm or destructive device), or an object that is designed or intended to be used as a weapon or to facility escape from a prison; (C) a narcotic ding, methamphetamine, its salts. isomers. and salts of its isomers. lysergic acid diethylamide, or (D) a controlled substance (other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (A), (B). or (C) of this subsection} or an alcoholic beverage; (E) any United States or foreign currency; and (F) any other object that threatens the order. discipline, or security of a prison, or the life, health, or safety of an individual; (2) the terms ?ammunition," ??rearm,? and ?destructive device" have. respectively. the meanings given those terms in section 921 of this title; (3) the terms ?controlled substance" and ?narcotic drug? have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 USC. ?802l: and (4) the term ?prison? means a Federal correctional, detention, or penal Facility or any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General. II Statistics During Fiscal Year 2013, 506 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2013, a decision had been made for 21.7r percent or 1 10) of those allegations. As of September 30. 2013, 24 allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported during Fiscal Year 2013 were sustained: Type of Contraband Inmate Related Nile??w Soft Item 4 2 Weapons ti 3 Unauthorized Elecuonjc Device 2 It] CmatineM?eightlifling Supplements 3 ll Twenty-two individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Twenty of these individuals were BOP employees (1 1 male Correctional Services employees, 1 female Correctional Services employee, 3 male Food Service employees, 1 male Recreation employee. 1 male UNICOR employee, 1 male Facilities employee, 1 female Unit Management employee. and 1 female Education Vocational Training employee}. 1 was a PHS 24 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 26 of 44 Introduction of Contraband employee working in a BOP facility. and I was a volunteer working in a BOP facility. None of these individuals were criminally prosecuted. 25 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 27 of 44 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Title 18. United States Code. Chapter 109A - Sexual Abuse ?2241 Aggravated Sexual Abuse By force or threat. - Whoever, in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison. institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act - (l by using force against that other person. or (2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. By other means. - Whoever. in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison. institution. or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly - renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or (2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant. or other similar substance and thereby - (A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and (B) engages in a sexual act with that other person; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any tenn of years or life, or both. sill-42 Sexual Abuse Whoever, in the special maritime and teiritorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison. institution. or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly - (I) causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear {other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or 26 BOP 2016?01716 28 0f 44 Sexual Abuse of Inmates (2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; or attempts to do so shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. $9.243 Sexual Abuse of a \N?ard (13) Of a ward - Whoever. in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who is - in official detention; and (2) under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so engaging: or attempts to do so, shall be lined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both. ?2244 Sexual Contact Sexual contact in circumstances where sexual acts are punished by this chapter. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so to do would violate - (I) subsection or of section 224] of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; (2) section 2242 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than three years, or both; subsection of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both; (4) subsection of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be lined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (5) subsection of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. 27 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 29 of 44 Sexual Abuse of Inmates In Other Circumstances. Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without that other person?s permission shall be fined under this title, imprisoned no more than two years, or both. it 2246 Definitions l) the term ?prison" means a correctional, detention, or penal facility; (2) the term ?sexual act" means - (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for the purposes of this subparagraph, contact involved the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus; or (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening by another by a hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate. harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (D) the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another person who has not attained the age of lo years with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (3) the term ?sexual contact" means the intentional touching. either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person: (4) the term ?senous bodily injury? means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious dis?gurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member. organ, or mental faculty. the term ?of?cial detention" means - detention by a Federal officer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal of?cer or employee, following arrest for an offense; following surrender in lieu of an arrest for an offense; following a charge or conviction of an offense, or an allegation or finding of juvenile delinquency; following commitment as a material witness; following civil commitment in lieu of criminal proceedings or pending resumption of criminal as BOP FOIA 2016?01716 30 of 44 Sexual Abuse of Inmates proceedings that are being held in abeyance. or pending extradition. deportation. or exclusion; or (B) custody by a Federal of?cer or employee. or under the direction of a Federal Officer or employee, for purposes incident to any detention described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, including transportation. medical diagnosis or treatment. court appearance, work. and recreation: but does not include supervision or under control (other than custody during specified hours or days) after release on bail. probation. or parole. or after release following a juvenile delinquency. - Statistics During Fiscal Year 2013. 675 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 675 allegations. 614 involved BOP employees. 3 involved contract employees working in BOP facilities. 1 involved a PHS employee working in a BOP facility. 1 involved a volunteer working in a BOP facility. 29 involved staff working in contractfhalf way house facilities. and 27 involved staff working in privatized facilities. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency were Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and male inmates (226 reported allegations) and Abusive Sexual Contact (?2244) between male staff and male inmates (139 reported allegations}. As of September 30. 2013. 4 allegations of Sexual Abuse reported during FY 2013 were sustained. Of the 4 allegations 3 involved BOP employees and 1 involved an employee in a privatized facility. Three hundred eighty nine allegations reported during FY 2013 were pending. Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature [Male StafflMale Inmate] Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Food Service employee at FMC Rochester and two male inmates. The DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject asked a male staff member and the two inmates. "Would you suck a wiener for one million dollars?" The subject was suspended for five days. (2013-0154UOIG 2013002115) Unprofessianal Conduct of a Sexual Nature [Female Staff/Male Inmate) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Health Services employee at MCFP Spring?eld and a male inmate. The BIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted having a conversation with an inmate who was showering. The inmate's penis was erect. and the subject told the inmate his penis was not the biggest the subject had seen. The subject resigned her employment. 2013000556) 29 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 31 of 44 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Rivers Correctional Institution and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the OIG. When interviewed by the OIG the subject denied having a sexual relationship with the inmate. Subsequent to the interview the subject resigned her employment without giving advance notice and providing no reason for her resignation. The inmate refused to be interviewed. The 010 reviewed copies of letters obtained from the inmate's property. all of which were signed "Seven.? The letters contained sexually-suggestive phrases referencing sexual encounters between "Seven" and the inmate. Known writings obtained from the subject's personnel records were forensically analyzed for comparison to copies of the letters recovered from the inmate's property- A comparative examination of the exhibits concluded the subject "probably" wrote the letters. Due to the subject?s resignation and the inmate's refusal to be interviewed, the 016 was unable to positively ascertain the exact nature and extent of their relationship. The US. Attorney's Of?ce for the Western District of North Carolina declined prosecution. (2013- 00537IOIG 2013000728) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Records/Inmate Systems employee at FCI Phoenix and a male inmate. The GIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted she had a personal relationship with the inmate, and she communicated with the inmate through letters and cards. The subject admitted, and the evidence substantiated. that some of the communications included sexual thoughts and fantasies. The subject resigned her employment. (2013-008691'016 2013001230) BOP 2016?01716 32 of 44 Representative Case Summaries Mist-m lr?tithout Leavt A Health ServicesfSafety employee failed to report for duty. Since she did not have any earned leave or approved Leave Without Pay (LWOP). the employee was placed on Absent Without Leave The employee was advised that any future requests for LWOP would only be approved if accompanied by acceptable medical documentation. The subject was issued an eight-point letter which identified areas which needed to be addressed by a physician. The employee provided her supervisor with medical documentation which did not address the issues raised in the eight~point letter. The employee was granted I685 hours of LWOP and placed on AWOL for 554 hours. The subject resigned her employment. (2013-06434) Failure to Follow Supen ists Conduct A Unit Management employee created the work schedules for two separate unit management teams using a single seniority roster after being instructed not to do so. Although the employee said he combined seniority lists and rosters because "the result was the same.? he admitted his supervisor told him the work schedules for each unit team must be created separately. Further. the employee admitted he was angry and he "may have said something about going postal." He also admitted that out of anger he told the warden he could see himself "popping the Associate Warden in the face." Failure to Follow Supervisor's and Unprofessiona] Conduct were sustained. Disciplinary action in this case was combined with that in another case. and the subject was demoted. (2013-01037) (fonduet A Correctional Services employee entered a dormitory at approximately 11:45 pm. for his morning watch shift. The dormitory is split into two sides, A and B, with a grill separating the two sides. The grill is supposed to be secured when the lights are turned off at 10:00 pan. The employee secured the grill in preparation for the 12:00 am. count. Two inmates came from the A side asking to be let through to the side. The employee wrote both inmates an incident report for being in an unauthorized area. The employee then stated to one of the inmates. "How many times have I told you motherfuckers that at lights out you have to be on the side your bunk is on.?1 The subject was suspended for one day. (2013-0506?) A Recreation Specialist stated she removed some offensive photos from the walls of the staff office in Recreation. One was of an opossum and another was of people being sprayed with a powerful hose. The Recreation Specialist returned to the of?ce a few days later to ?nd the photos had been enlarged and redisplayed. and more photos had been added to the display. One of the new photos depicted a lion in the jungle and was attached to a memorandum sent by the Attorney General notifying staff of the hiring of the new BOP Director, Another photo showed two lesbian women embracing and kissing one another with a caption which stated, "Navy. it's not just a job, it's an adventure. Let the journey begin." This same photo was pasted to a memorandum regarding the Lesbian. Gay. Bisexual, and Transgender Program. An investigation .11 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 33 of 44 Representative Case Summaries revealed a Recreation employee printed the photos using a government computer and posted them on the wall. The Recreation employee was suspended for one day. (2012-02275) inattentitm tn ofSecurity A staff member placed his personal bag on the counter and walked through the metal detector. The metal detector alerted. The staff member picked up the bag and entered the institution without being further screening using the X-ray machine. The screening officer (a Correctional Services employee} also failed to look inside the bag to determine its contents. The Correctional Services employee also breached the security of the institution by allowing an official visitor to enter the institution with his cellular telephone. The visitor retrieved the cellular telephone from his shirt pocket during a meeting with institution staff. The staff member?s employment was terminated during his probationary period. (2013-04293) 'l'nnttentiun In Duty A staff member opened the door to a medical room to allow an inmate to clean the room. The staff member found staff random drug test paperwork lying on the printer in the room. The paperwork was left on the printer in an area accessible to other staff members by a Health Services/Safety employee. The staff member resigned her employment. (2013?00009) X-lisusc of Travel Charge Card A Business Office employee made a purchase at a local restaurant using her government?issued travel charge card. The employee stated she inadvertently used her travel charge card to pay for her lunch. No disciplinary action was taken. (2013-05586) Failure to Follow A Food Service employee inadvertently took institution keys home with her. When she became aware she possessed the keys, she failed to immediately return them to the institution as required by Program Statement 5500.1 1 . Further, Food Service post orders state the keys will be turned in to the Control Center when departing. The staff member received a written reprimand. (2013- 00058) Falsil'icntinn nl' An employee contacted the Inventory Management Specialist to schedule an accountable property inventory for the landscape detail. The Inventory Management Specialist informed the employee he already had a signed copy of the inventory, The employee learned a Facilities employee signed his (the employee's) name on the inventory. The Facilities employee was suspended for one day. (20] 31?01375) BOP FOIA 2016?01716 34 of 44 Representative Case Summaries Improper L?untact With an Inmate An inmate added a Unit Management employee's cellular telephone number to his inmate contact list. The inmate then called the Unit Management employee on three occasions. The inmate identified himself, and the recipient of the call is informed the call is coming from an inmate at a federal prison. The recipient is instructed to press 5 to accept the call or to hang up to decline the call. In all three instances, the Unit Management employee accepted the call. During one of the calls the inmate told the Unit Management employee he added her to his inmate contact list using a ?ctitious name. The inmate and the Unit Management employee also discuss their feelings for one another. The subject resigned her employment. (2013-01063) BOP FOIA 2016?01716 35 of 44 Signi?cant Prosecutions Following are brief summaries of some of the significant or noteworthy prosecutions which were completed during Fiscal Year 2013. The individuals referenced are no longer employed by the BOP or any BOP contractor. The 01G predicated an investigation on allegations that staff at USP McCreary removed an inmate from a transport bus and assaulted him while the bus was parked at a gas station due to mechanical. problems. The inmate had allegedly urinated on a correctional officer's seat shortly before the assault. When interviewed staff stated they observed a male Correctional Services employee punch the inmate twice in the face with his fist, then start to turn away before punching the inmate in the face twice more. The inmate was in full restraints at the time. Staff stated they did not see the inmate do anything to justify the use of force. The subject initially denied punching the inmate, then claimed that if in fact he had punched the inmate (to which he would not admit), the punches were justi?ed. The subject pled guilty to a one count Information tiled in the Eastern District of Tennessee charging him with assault, in violation of Title 18, USC. Section 1 The subject was sentenced to two years of probation. {2009-02206f01G 2009005323} The DIG predicated an investigation on information received from an inmate at the Eden Detention Center that staff were smuggling cocaine, marijuana, tobacco, and other contraband into the facility in exchange for monetary bribes. A Correctional Of?cer told the 010 he smuggled tobacco into the facility for an inmate on 15 occasions and received monetary bribes from the inmate's family and friends. The (3116 determined the Correctional Officer received $7,450 in money orders and wire transfers from the inmate's wife. The subject was arrested pursuant to a one-count indictment charging him with Bribery of Public Officials and Aiding and Abetting. The subject was sentenced to 18 months incarceration and 1 year supervised release and was ordered to pay a $l00 special assessment. The inmate was arrested pursuant to a one~count indictment charging him with Bribery of Public Officials and Aiding and Abetting. He was sentenced to 14 months incarceration (to be served consecutive to his current sentence) and 1 year supervised release and ordered to pay a $100 special assessment. (201 201 1004362) The 01G predicated an investigation on an allegation that a male Facilities employee at FCI Bennettsville provided marijuana, tobacco, and pornographic material to inmates in exchange for monetary bribes. Additionally, during a shakedown of the plumbing shop, a quantity ofmethamphetamine was discovered in a secured locker, and it purportedly came from the employee. During an 01G interview the subject admitted providing tobacco to an inmate in exchange for $200. The subject stated the inmate's acquaintance sent the money to the subject via Western Union. The subject denied introducing any other contraband into the facility and denied providing contraband to any other inmate. The subject was indicted, arrested, and convicted in US. District Court, District of South Carolina. for violation of Title 18, USC, Section 1791(a}(1}, Providing Contraband in Prison. The subject was sentenced to 36 months of probation and ordered to pay a $10 assessment fee. (201 105689! OIG 2011009774] 34 BOP 2015?01716 36 of 44 Signi?cant Prosecutions The OIG predicated an investigation on allegations that a female Education 8: Vocational Training employee at Talladega provided tobacco products to an inmate in exchange for money. During the 016 investigation. additional allegations were made that the subject also provided the inmate with drugs and a cellular telephone in exchange for money and that she had a sexual relationship with the inmate. When interviewed by the DIG, the subject admitted to providing tobacco to the inmate on three occasions in exchange for $2,000 she received from the inmate?s father and sister. The subject denied having sexual relations with the inmate, and she denied introducing drugs or cell phones into the facility. The subject was indicted. arrested, and convicted in US. District Conn, Northern District of Alabama. for violations of Title 18. USC. Section 201 1. Bribery. and Title 18, USC, Section 1791(a}(1) and Providing Contraband in Prison. She was sentenced to 24 months of probation and ordered to pay a $110 special assessment fee. (2011067051016 201 1011211) The 01G predicated an investigation on allegations that a male Correctional Services employee at FCC Yazoo City introduced tobacco into the medium security institution in exchange for money. The investigation determined the subject received $2,500 via Western Union from the brother of an inmate housed at FCC Yazoo City. Additionally, the inmate's brother mailed $2,500 in cash money and a quantity of bulk tobacco to a post office box at the direction of the subject. The subject subsequently admitted to the OIG that he provided an inmate with contraband in exchange for $5,000, The subject was indicted in the Southern District of Mississippi for violations of Title 18, USC, Section Bribery of a Public Of?cial, and Title 18, USC, Providing Contraband in Prison. The subject pled guilty to one count of Bribery and was sentenced to 15 months incarceration, 36 months supervised release, a $1,500 fine, and a $100 special assessment. 2012003313) The. OIG predicated an investigation based on the receipt ofinforrnation that the Tucson Police Department was investigating an off-duty incident wherein a male Correctional Services employee at FCC Tucson allegedly threatened his civilian girlfriend by pointing a loaded ?rearm at her. The subject was arrested on Arizona State charges of Domestic Violence and Aggravated Assault. The subject pled guilty to an Arizona State charge of Disorderly Conduct involving the reckless display of a deadly weapon. The subject was sentenced to 3 years of probation and ordered to pay a $565 fine. 2012008981) The 01G predicated an investigation based on allegations from the State of Texas Attorney General's Office that a contract employee at FCI Seagoville illegally obtained inmates' personally identifiable information. which she then used to defraud the Texas Medicaid Program. The subject and her husband were arrested and pleaded guilty to an information charging them with conspiracy to commit false statements related to health care matters. in violation of Title 18, USC, Section 371. (Title 18, USC, Section 1035008)}. The subject and her husband were sentenced to 60 months probation and 35 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 3? 0f 44 Signi?cant Prosecutions ?ned $l0,000 each. In a separate civil action ?led by the Texas Attorney Generai's Of?ce, the subject and her husband agreed to forfeit $2,750,000 of which $1,820,359.63 was distributed to reimburse the Texas Medicaid Program through the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. Office of Inspector General. (2013-031 2010003467} BOP FOIA 2016?01716 38 of 44 Appendices Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2012 With 77.8 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct REESE ?$3333? Off-Duty TOTAL Personnel Prohibitions 31 I 19 33D Uri?Duty Misconduct 64 245 309 Unprofessional Conduct 79 196 275 Failure to Follow Policyr lib-l I44 268 Fiscal Improprieties 3 21? 225 Off-Duty Misconduct 206 206 Breach of Security 30 97 lnattention to Duty 44 I IS 159 Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates 89 89 Introduction of Contraband 26 42 68 Investigative Violations 6 6] Sexual Abuse of Inmates 2] Unauthorized Release of Information 8 9 17' Abuse of Inmates 12 12 Bribery 5 0 5 Discrimination 0 37 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 39 0f 44 Appendices Types of Misconduct Abuse of Inmates Physical Abuse of Inmates Excessive Use of Force Threatening an InmateNerbal Abuse Retaliation Sexual A bu st of Imnates Aggravated Sexual Abuse - ?2241 Sexual Abuse/Sexual Abuse of a Ward - ?2242l2243 Abusive Sexual Contact - ?2244 Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature Introduction of {?ontrahantl Soft Item Introduction Weapons Introduction Escape Paraphernalia Introduction Money Introduction Marij uana Introduction Heroin 8: Derivatives Introduction Cocaine Introduction Other Unspeci?ed Drugs Introduction Alcoholic Beverages Introduction Unauthorized Electronic Device Introduction CreatinefWeightlifting Supplement Introduction Cigarettesfrobacco Introduction Discrilninutinn Fiscal Time and Attendance Irregularities Abuse of Sick Leave Voucher Falsi?cation Theft/Misuse of Government Funds 'I?hefthisuse of Government Property Misuse of Government Computers Improper Procurement Procedures Failure to Pay Government Charge Card Misuse of Travel Charge Card Misuse of Purchase Charge Card Thefthisuse of Employees' Club Funds TherMisuse of AFGEfUnion Funds Lu OD BOP FOIA 2016?01716 40 0f 44 Appendices Theft of Inmate Funds Thefthestruction of Inmate Property rI'I'1erlIv?Iisuse of Contractor Funds Thefthisuse of Contractor Property Failure to Account for Inmate Theft of Employee Misuse of UN Resources Contract Fraud Bribery Bribery Conspiracy to Commit Bribery Inappropriate Relationship With Inmates Soliciting/Accepting Anything of Value Offeringf?iving Anything of Value Improper Contact With an Inmatellnmate's Family Appearance of an Inappropriate Relationship Misuse of Inmate Labor Preferential Treatment of Inmates Investigative Violations Concealing a Material Fact Refusing to Cooperate Lying During an Investigation Providing a False Statement AIteringI'Destroying EvidenceiDocuments Refusing to Submit to a Search Interfering With?mpeding an Investigation Advising Someone to Violate Policy Conducting an Unauthorized Investigation Lack of Candor Personnel Prohibitions Threatening/Intirnidating Employees (relates to personnel actions] Failure to Report Violation of Rules/Regulations Falsi?cation of Employment Records Misuse of Of?cial PositionfBadgc Inappropriate Supervisor/Subordinate Relationship Engaging in Prohibited Personnel Practices UselAbuse of Illegal DrugslAlcohol Absent Without Leave Retaliation BOP FOIA 2016?01716 41 0f 44 Appendices Refusing to Take a Drug Test tinautlmriletl Release of Information: Other (in-Duty Misconduct Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature Inattention to DutyI Failure to Respond to an Emergency Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates Breach of Securityl Breach of Computer Security] Falsi?cation of Documents Unprofessional Conduct] Failure to Follow Policy] Gambling/Promotion of Gambling Endangering the Safety of an Inmate Endangering the Safety of Others Providing False Information Other Than During an Official Investigation lnsubordination Accidental Discharge of a Firearm Soliciting/Sale of Goods on Government Property Job Favoritism Workplace Violence Failure to Meet Performance Standards Failure to Follow Supervisor's Instructions Fraudulent Workers' Compensation Claims Conduct Unbecoming a Management Of?cial Off-Duty Arrest and Conviction Failure to Report Arrest Failure to Pay Just Debts Failure to Obtain Outside Employment Approval Domestic Violence Traffic Citation Carrying an UnregisteredfConcealed Firearm Discreditable Behavior Falsi?cation of Records/Documents Other Citation (Hunting, etc.) Conflict of Interest 'Due to the frequency of this type of misconduct. it is identi?ed separately throughout this report. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 42 of 44 Monitoring Assignments Emma; May 13. 2913 '15 i. 5 ?16 {b Hedong. CA Alanine. AL Haw-lulu. A?mwood. PA mm- .. KY Imp. GA Adana, 0A.. umw?x . KS - Bastmp. TX La, VA Lavish-mg. may. WV minim. KY- Willa. SC 14mm. CA Berlin. NH-.. PA Big sandy, KY In; Angela, H. mam Mm. Brooklyn. NY.. Miami-1mg? Butler. NC. Maiden. CA Chum, PA ?My. Carmen, TX ?unwell, WV Claim. mm PA (damn. I-1 Memphis. MD Mimi (FDC Fm. FLW CT mo, Dams. MA Hilm. HI-.. Dublin. Dilluth, Mot-mow: Edga?eld. SC..- New York NY E1 in?. NCRO. NERO. .. Englewoodco Olkdaic. LA Built. 5C (lithium. Flam. CO- mm. Foam City. AIL.-. Palm, For: mam Punishing VA-- Gihnar. PM PA Gum Pub-in. Phoenix, AZ Grams-mil .. Polka. LA Guy-min. PR Ruth-nah, Harem WV Ms .. Roma. MNF 41 BOP FOIA 22016-01716 43 of 44 Monitoring Assignments Sa?brd. AZ Sun Dingo. Schuylkill, PA Sis-Tao. SCRO, TX Spring?eld. MO-.. Tall-clogs. 2m BOP FOIA 2016?01716 44 of 44 Termini Islami. Tame llama. Italian, ?we Rum Tumn. AZ Vista-ilk. WM Yuma, Yuma Cily. MS 42 US. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons Washington, DC Office of Internal Affairs Report for Fiscal Year 2014 BOP FOIA 2016?017161 0f 43 Table of Contents Executive Summary of Findings 1 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct? Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations 5 Reported Misconduct 7 Closedeustained MisconductIU Physical Abuse of Inmates 20 Introduction of Contraband 22 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 25 Representative Case Summaries 32 Appendices 36 Monitoring Assignments 4U BOP FOIA 2016?01716 2 of 43 Executive Summary of Findings There was a 5.3 percent decrease in the number of cases opened in Fiscal Year 2014 as compared with Fiscal Year 2013. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees decreased 8.5 percent from Fiscal Year 2013. Cases classi?ed as Classi?cation 1 offenses showed a decrease of 17.1 percent over those opened in Fiscal Year 2013, and cases classi?ed as Classification 2 offenses showed a decrease of 14.4 percent. Conversely, cases classified as Classification 3 offenses showed an increase of 7.8 percent. The most frequently reported type of misconduct in Fiscal Year 2014 was On?Duty Misconduct. Unprofessional Conduct and Abuse of Inmates placed second and third, respectively. The only categories of reported misconduct which showed an increase from Fiscal Year 2013 were Inattention to Duty, Failure to Follow Policy, Fiscal Improprieties, and Personnel Prohibitions The largest decreases occurred in the categories of Discrimination, Unauthorized Release of Information, and Investigative Violations. During Fiscal Year 2014, 15 cases involving Patriot Act Violations were opened. As of September 30, 2014, 11 cases remained open pending investigation, and 4 cases were closed. No allegations of misconduct were sustained. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30. 2014, was Personnel Prohibitions, followed by lnattention to Duty and Failure to Follow Policy. The sustained rate of misconduct for male BOP employees for whom a decision had been made as of September 30, 2014, was .6 employees per 100 total male BOP staff, while the sustained rate of misconduct for female BOP employees for whom a decision had been made as of September 30, 2014, was .8 employees per 100 total female BOP staff. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among both male and female BOP employees for whom a decision had been made as of September 30, 20l4, was Personnel Prohibitions. For those BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2014, the rate was highest among Health ServicesfSafety staff. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among this group was Inaltention to Duty. For those BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2014, the rate was higher for non-bargaining unit employees than for bargaining unit employees BOP FOIA 2016-01716 3 of 43 Executive Summary of Findings (.8 per 100 total non-bargaining unit employees vs. .6 per 100 total bargaining unit employees}. For those contract Residential Reentry Center employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2014, the most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Unprofessional Conduct. The most frequently sustained categories of misconduct among staff in privatized facilities with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2014, were Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates and Other On-Duty Misconduct. As of September 30, 2014, 6 allegations of Physical Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2014 were sustained. The inmates involved sustained minorino injuries. None of the subjects involved were criminally prosecuted. As of September 30, 2014, 12 allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported during Fiscal year 201.4 were sustained, involving .1 1 individuals. One involved the introduction of soft contraband, 1 involved the introduction of a weapon, 5 involved the introduction of unauthorized electronic devices, and 5 involved the introduction of cigarettesftobacco. None of the subjects involved were criminally prosecuted. As of September 30, 2014, 7" allegations of Sexual Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2014 were sustained: 5 involved BOP employees, 1 involved a contract employee working in a BOP facility, and 1 involved a PHS employee working in a BOP facility. None of the subjects involved were criminally prosecuted. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 4 of 43 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct Staff Reporting In accordance with the Bureau?s Standards of Employee Conduct. staff who become aware of anyr violation or alleged violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct must report them to the Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO), the Office of Internal Affairs or the Department of Justice (DOD, Of?ce of the Inspector General (DIG). The 016 has established a toll-free hotline (1-800-869-4499) which is available to anyone wishing to report D01 employees? misconduct, as well as fraud, waste, or abuse in government. All Bureau staff are encouraged to use the 01G hotline if they wish to remain anonymous or fear retaliation or reprisal. To report violations directly to the CIA Contra! Of?ce. please submit a written complaint to: Federal Bureau of Prisons Office of Internal Affairs 320 First Street, W, Room 600 Washington, DC 20534 Written complaints may also be sent via fax to (202) 514-8625. CEO Reporting Upon becoming aware of any possible violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct (either through a report from staff or through personal knowledge, the CEO at the institution, Regional Of?ce or Central Office Division, or his or her designee, is to report the violation to the OIA in accordance with the following time frames. Classi?cation 1 cases are defined as allegations which. if substantiated, would constitute a prosecutable offense (other than offenses such as misdemeanor arrests). Classification 2 cases are defined as allegations which involve violations of rules. regulations. or law that, if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution. but constitute serious misconduct. Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases must he reported telephonically to the (HA immediately. Written noti?cation to the OIA will be made within 24 hours (not to include weekends and holidays} of the time management learns of the matter. When it is suspected that criminal conduct has occurred, the CEO may refer the matter simultaneously to the OIA and the local OIG or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of?ce. Unless the CEO and the Chief of the 01A agree to a different method, ordinarily, investigations involving Classification 3 cases are to be conducted using local resources. Classification 3 cases are defined as allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations. Ordinarily, CEOs can proceed with local investigations on Classification 3 BOP 2016?01716 5 of 43 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct misconduct allegations for staff occupying bargaining unit positions or (33-12 and below non- bargaining unit positions without first obtaining 01A approval. Written notification to the CIA will be made within 24 hours (not to include weekends and holidays) of the time management learns of the matter. CEOs must notify the (MA before initiating investigations involving any misconduct alleged against management staff occupying (33-13 or above positions. The CIA will coordinate further action with the DIG. Initial Information. A Referral of Incident form (BP-A715.012) is used to organize the information to be provided (for contract employees use form Include the following: The identity of the complainands}, subject(s), witness(es), and victim(sl; I The details of the allegation(s); and II Any corroborating evidence. The subject of the allegation or complaint must not be questioned or interviewed prior to receiving clearance from the BIG and the OIA's approval. This is to ensure against procedural errors and to safeguard the rights of the subject. Supporting Documentation. A Referral of Incident form (BP-A715.012) and all supporting documentation. such as victim or witness statements, medical reports, photos, and related memoranda, must be sent to the CIA immediately but not later than 24 hours after the telephonic report. If an inmate alleges physical or sexual abuse by a staff member and has not received a medical examination, the CEO must arrange an immediate, confidential medical examination and forward a copy of the results to the CIA as soon as possible. Contact the CIA immediately if there is any question as to the classification of the misconduct. It is important to note that case classifications are many times based on limited information. As an investigation unfolds, the severity of misconduct may increase or decrease, thereby moving it into another classification. All Referral of Incidem forms (B1187 15.012 or and appropriate predicating information will be sent to the CIA via e-mail to the BIA GroupWise mailbox All documentation will be scanned in .pdf format {Adobe Acrobat) and saved as one file. The signed Referral of Incident form should appear on the top of the file with all supporting documentation underneath. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 6 0f 43 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations For all local staff misconduct investigations completed on or after January 1, 2007, the investigator must forward the complete investigative packet directly to the 01A for approval prior to forwarding it to the CEO for action. These procedures apply to all local staff misconduct investigations in which BOP employees are the subject (Classification I. 2. and 3 allegations), regardless of whether any misconduct will be sustained. Where to Send Local Investigative Packets Local investigative packets should be sent via e-mail to the BIA GroupWise mailbox DIR/Internal Affairs?Local Investigative Packets?3' (not to be confused with OIA's main resource mailbox, "BOP-DIlentemal To ensure local investigative packets are reviewed by the 01A in a timely manner, they should not be sent to any individual 01A staff member or to any 01A ?eld office. The subject of your e?mail message should include the CIA case number and the facility mnemonic code leg.1 2007-00001-BUX). Format for Local Investigative Packets and What to Send Local investigative packets should include the investigative report (signed by the investigator) and all supporting documentation (affidavits. memorandums, video files. etc.) Complete investigative packets must be forwarded; the Summary of Investigation for Classi?cation 3 Cases form (BP-A716.012) is no longer applicable and should not be used. Documents must be scanned in .pdf format (Adobe Acrobat}. Do not send documents in other formats (egu .tif files. .wpd ?les). Documents should be scanned in three groups. named as follows: Investigative Report (01A Case Number) Affidavits and MOIs (01A Case Number) Supporting Documentation Case Number) Photo images and graphic images may be forwarded in .jpg or .gif format. Af?davit files should include the Warning and Assurance to Employee Required to Provide Information if applicable. and the signed 0th for each individual. The investigative packet should not include national policy or any documents not specifically related to the investigation staff rosters. inmate SENTRY information. etc). BOP 2016-01716 7 of 43 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations Time Guidelines For Classi?cation 1 or 2 allegations, local investigators should strive. to complete and forward investigative packets to the OIA within 120 calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the OIA. For classification 3 allegations, local investigators should strive to complete and forward investigative packets to the CIA prior to any disciplinary action being taken and within [20 calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the CEO. Once received, the CIA will complete their review of the local investigative packet within ten business days. The investigator will be advised as to whether the investigative packet is approved or if additional information is needed. This information will be sent via e-mail to the investigator with a copy to the CED. If additional information is needed. the investigator should forward the additional information to the CIA within 30 calendar days. who will again notify the investigator and the CEO if the packet is approved. Once approved. the investigator should forward the investigative packet to the CEO for appropriate action with all Review of Local Investigative Packet forms applicable to that packet attached. No disciplinary proceedings or other notifications to subjects should occur prior to the approval of the investigative packet. Reports from the (HA The CIA sends the CEO a report of all local staff misconduct investigations which have extended past established time frames. should continue to work with the monitoring agent assigned to their facility for guidance and to provide updates on outstanding matters. BOP 2016?01716 8 of 43 Reported Misconduct All allegations of misconduct received by the CIA are referred to the OIG for review and classification. The OIG determines which matters they will accept for investigation and possible criminal prosecution and defers other matters to the 01A for investigation. The CIA coordinates with the OIG andfor the FBI when investigations may lead to criminal prosecution or when there are allegations involving the abuse of an individual's Constitutional rights under Color of Law. NOTES cl l'l 4.71:1 Figult". n1 ll la- Ill .1I. I :?tu .r'ILliLilln' I'lliL'l Vein-tied. 11.11.! 1w li?lttl. 'l'lactt- 1-: on lat-w. . - 1 l? fin. mmlur Ila].- won: but Itl'. mulnr-lc -1 tn .1 numb-:1 r? 11; no.1?? ll'l 1 11-: L1 in I'm-h. "ll' tult'r't: .I luv :H-u-laml'tl't. I'n" 1- '1?.er ?claw-V I'm; 11-.Iul Htt'llulc?ll 13.20.11 rm-sgvu'x . r-lr'me II I- ?Mull an increase of 7.8 percent. For those matters deferred for investigation. the CIA determines, after consulting with BOP management officials, whether an on-site investigation is warranted or if the matter can be investigated at the local institution level. Allegations categorized as Classi?cation 3 offenses are referred to the 0161 via computer extract on a basis. During Fiscal Year 2014, the CIA Opened 5,201 cases involving 6,177 BOP employees, 30 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 96 Public Health Service employees working in BOP facilities, 3 volunteers working in BOP facilities, 144 contract! residential reentry center employees, 6 drug treatment contractors, and 179 employees working in privatized facilities. These 5,201 cases represent a 5.3 percent decrease over the 5,492 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2013. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees decreased 8.5 percent from Fiscal Year 2012. The 5,201 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2014 were classified as follows: Classi?cation 1 1.245 Classi?cation 2 . 1,329 Classi?cation 3 2,627 Cases classified as Classi?cation 1 offenses showed a decrease of 17.1 percent, while cases classified as Classification 2 offenses showed a decrease of 14.4 percent. Conversely, cases classified as Classi?cation 3 offenses showed BOP FOIA 2016?01716 9 0f 43 Reported Misconduct Table I: ypes of Reported Misconduct - FY 2014 Number of Reported Allegations Type or Misconduct Inmate Non Inmate . . 915 Change from Related Related 0mm? mm" 2013 Oil-DullMisCImdLIcl 590 "1'72 [363 ?l (E Unp_rolessional Conduct 751 597 13411 - 3.3 Abuse of [umates 1021?) 1026 ~24? luattenlion to Dur}r 335 507 392 24.2 Failure to Follow Policy 529 353 53'? 13.0 Personnel Prohibitions 1'22 63 18": 2.3 Fiscal lniproprietics 13o 5111 (13? 11.] Sexual Abuse oflnmates 583 583 43.5 inappropriate Relationships With Inmates 56? 567 45.0 Breach ol'Sccurit}r 22.1 302 525 318 Ut?f?Dutv Misconduct 479 47"} -2 .0 Introduction of Contraband 294 92 33o 23.9 Investigalive Violations 130 130 {-15.3 Bribery 82 111 92 Unauthorized Release of [ntomiation as 20 88 4'10. Discrimination 6 3 9 511.9 Table 1 provides a breakdown of those categories of misconduct reported during Fiscal Year 2014. The only categories of reported misconduct which showed an increase from Fiscal Year 2013 were lnattention to Duty (a 24.2 percent increase). Failure to Follow Policy (an 18 percent increase), Fiscal lmproprieties (a 17.1 percent increase), and Personnel Prohibitions (a 2.3 percent increase). The largest decreases occurred in the categories of Discrimination (a 71.9 percent decrease), Unauthorized Release of Information (a 40.1 percent decrease), and Investigative Violations (a 35.3 percent decrease). BOP FOIA 2016?0171610 of 43 Reported Misconduct USA Patriot Act In the USA Patriot Act, Congress expressed concern about the potential abuse of individual civil rights and liberties by employees in the aftermath of September 11. 2001. Accordingly, the Patriot Act mandated that the DIG widely advertise that it receives and investigates allegations of such abuses. Patriot Act violations include violence, discrimination. or threats on the part of a employee, particularly when such cases are directed toward individuals or groups associated in the public perception with acts of terrorism because of their religious beliefs, place of birth, or appearance. Patriot Act allegations which typically come to our attention are alleged mistreatment or unprofessional behavior of BOP staff toward/around certain inmates, their visitors, or members of the public. Due to the sensitivity of these allegations, they are automatically classi?ed as Classi?cation 2 or higher offenses; they should be forwarded immediately to the BIA. All Patriot Act violation allegations are then referred to a Special Operations Unit at OIG Headquarters devoted to reviewing and investigating such misconduct. Of the 5,201 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2014, 15 cases involved Patriot Act violations. As of September 30, 2014, 1 cases remained open pending investigation, and 4 cases were closed. No allegations were sustained. Of the 5,492 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2013, 14 cases involved Patriot Act violations. As of September 30, 2014, 3 cases remained open pending investigation, and 1 cases were closed. No allegations were sustained. BOP 2016?0171611 0f 43 Closed/Sustained Misconduct As of September 30, 2014. a decision had been NOTES made on 1,410 (27.1 percent) of the 5,201 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2014. The remaining 3,791 cases (72.9 percent) were still open and being investigated. Of the 1,410 3111.1 .1 cases closed, the majority, 1,283 (91 percent). ?li'l'rlhfurr 1" 113111.?. were investigated at the institution level with 1 1.. . 1-. . .. authorization and monitoring provided by the 01A. 0f the 1,410 cases closed, 83 were 01A on?site investigations (5.9 percent). and 44 (3.1 ..1 .1.1-.- percent) were investigated by the 016. 151.11? Of the 1,410 cases closed, 299 (21.2 percent) 51' were sustained. Misconduct was sustained against 258 BOP employees, 4 contract employees working in BOP facilities. 4 PHS employees working in BOP facilities, 4 contractr'residential reentry center employees, and 44 employees working in privatized facilities. 1.- 1:1 'lu. I 4 HOP mployccs There were 6,177 BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in cases opened during Fiscal Year 2014. As of September 30. 2014, a decision had been made for 24.5 percent of those employees. 0f the 24.5 percent {or 1,514 employees), 16.8 percent (255) had a sustained decision (a rate of .7 per 100 total BOP employees). Of the 6,177 BOP employees for whom a case was opened during Fiscal Year 2014, 313 were unidenti?ed. Table 2 (on the following page) reflects the categories of misconduct sustained against BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30. 2014. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Personnel Prohibitions (Absent Without Leave made up 80.6 percent of all sustained misconduct within this category), followed by Inattention to Duty and Failure to Follow Policy. 10 BOP FOIA 2016?0171612 of 43 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Talile 2: Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2M4 With 24.5 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct Inmate Non Inmate . Related Related 0mm? 1 0 ML Personnel Prohibitions 54 3 62 lnattention In Duly 15 39 44 Failure to Follow Policx 22 18 39 Unwiessional Conduct l3 24 57' On-Dutjg Misconduct i3 23 3h Fiscal lmpropriclies I 3t] 31 Off-Duty Misconduct 2t} 2t] Inappropriate Relationships With inmates 2t) 2t! Breach of Security 9 l5 Investigative Violations 9 introduction of Contraband '1 3 8 Sexual Abuse of Inmates ?i 5 Abuse of inmates 3 3 Unauthorized Release of hiforiuation 2 3 Bribery 0 Discrimination {l (J 0 Disciplinary Action Once a subject is investigated and the allegations are sustained. the type of disciplinary action taken is left to the deciding of?cial, who is generally the CEO. Each case is unique, and there are varying degrees of seriousness within each type of misconduct. Also. a single subject may be charged with multiple types of misconduct. The Douglas Factors must be considered when deciding the appropriate penalty to impose on employees for misconduct. ll BOP FOIA 2016?0171613 of 43 Closed/Sustained Misconduct The Douglas Factors are an accumulation of historic Civil Services practices and procedures in cases involving civil servant misconduct, created by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in the seminal Douglas case. In Douglas, the MSPB announced a non-exhaustive list of twelve factors which the BOP. like all federal agencies. must consider in determining appropriate penalties to impose in employee misconduct. The Douglas Factors are as follows: the nature and seriousness of the offense; the employee's job level and type of employment; the employee?s disciplinary record; the employee?s past work record; including length of service and duty performance; the effect of the offense on the employee?s ability to perform and its effect on the supervisor's confidence in such ability; the consistency of the penalty with penalties imposed upon others for like or similar misconduct; the consistency of the penalty with the BOP's table of penalties (Program Statement 3420.11; Standards of Employee Conduct; the notoriety of the offense or its impact on the BOP's reputation; the clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules violated or warned about the conduct in question; the employee?s potential for rehabilitation; any and all mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense job stress/tension; personality problems. mental impairment; harassment or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of others involved; the adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions. The CEO is required to consider only those Douglas factors which are relevant to any individual and need not consider all the Douglas Factors in every case. In many cases, some of the Douglas Factors may suggest one type of penalty while others suggest another penaltychoose the appropriate penalty. BOP FOIA 2016?0171614 of 43 Closed/Sustained Misconduct The following actions were taken against (or by) those BOP employees with a sustained decision. Written Reprimand 7'0 Resignation 64 Suspension 42 No Action 38 Termination 16 Retirement 13 Combined With Action in Another 01A Matter 7 Other 3 Demotion 2 The specific type of misconduct most frequently sustained against those individuals for whom no disciplinary action was taken was Failure to Follow Policy (23.8 percent of all sustained misconduct for staff in this group). I Gender There were 4,452 male BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2014. As of September 30. 2014. a decision had been made for 24.7 percent of those 4.452 male employees. Of the 24.7 percent or 1.120 male employees). 15.5 percent {174) had a sustained decision (a rate of .6 employees per 100 total male BOP staff). There were 1.322 female BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2014. As of September 30. 2014. a decision had been made for 26.2 percent of those 1,322 female employees. Of the 26.2 percent (or 347 female employees). 23.3 percent (81) had a sustained decision a rate of .8 employees per 100 total female BOP staff). Tables 3 and 4 (on the following pages) reflect the categories of sustained allegations for male and female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2014. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among both male and female BOP employees was Personnel Prohibitions (2U.1 percent of all sustained misconduct by male staff. and 15.6 percent of all sustained misconduct by female staff). Absent Without Leave made up 75.6 percent of all sustained within this category for male staff and 94.1 percent of all sustained misconduct within this category for female staff. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 15 of 43 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 3: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Male BOP Employees FY 2014 With 24.? Perconl Cloned Number of Sustained Allegations Type Of Misconduct Inmate Nun Inmate . . . Related Related 0mm?? Personnel Prohibitions 3T 8 45 Failure to Follow Policy [5 to 3 Inartention to Duty IO 20 30 Misconduct 19 25 Unpmfessional Conduet Ill 15 25 Fiscal lmprogieties EU 21 Offv?uty Misconduct Breach of Security 4 [1 ll] Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates Investigative Violations 5 5 Abuse of Inmates 3 3 Introduction of Contraband 2 3 Bribery I Unauthorized Release of Information I II I Sexual Abuse of Inmates Disoriminarion t} Those categories of misconduct highlighted in red were sustained with greater frequency among male BOP staff than among female BOP staff. BOP FOIA 2016?0171616 of 43 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table il: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Female BOP Employees - FY 2014 With 2&2 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct 31$; Off-Duty TOTAL Personnel PrtihibiLitms ll 17 lnappmp?aie Relationships With Inmates 14 [0 5 9 14 flu?Duty Misconduct 1 Unprollessiunnl Conducl 2 9 I Fiscal 0 In If} Failure to Follnw Policy 6 2 8 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 5 5 Introduction of Contraband 3 2 ?i Breach of Secun'tl 2 3 Investigative Violations 4 il Misconduct 3 3 Unauthorized Release of information I 2 Abuse of Inmates [l {l Discrimination Bribery Those eategonies of misconduct highlighted in red were sustained with greater frequency among female BOP staff than among male BOP staff. BOP FOIA 2016?0171617 of 43 Closed/Sustained Misconduct I .101) Discipline As of September 30, 2014, 255 BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2014 had a sustained decision. Table 5 reflects the rate of misconduct among the various job disciplines. Table 5: Discipline of FOP Employees With Sustained Misconduct - FY 2014 With 24.5 Percent Closed ?Mb" Rate Per um . . . Employees With Ulsupllne Total Employees .. . Total Sustained I Misconduct mp oyees Heallh ServicesJ'Safely 2666 33 L4 Religious Services 326 -l 1.2 Training Centerstatiunal institute ofCorrections 1 Lil Correctional Sewices 1725] [33 .8 Educalion 85 Vocational Training I 103 9 .8 Services 1213 ll! .8 CEU's Of?ce and Staff 95!] i 5 Unit Management 3390 In .3 Food Services fr 8 .5 Central Prairie 1 I l2 6 .5 Human Resources 454 2 .4- Recreation 7?93 2 .3 Business Of?ce 762 f1 .3 Recurdsl?lnlnale Systems 1092 3 .3 Facilities 3493 E- UNICOR 755 Computer Services 253 [l Inmate Services Stir-l ll The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among Health ServicesfSafety staff was lnattention to Duty (22.7 percent of all misconduct among staff in this group). The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among Religious Services staff was also Inattention to Duty (50 percent of all misconduct among staff in this group). BOP 2016?0171618 0f 43 Closed/Sustained Misconduct 0 Bargaining vs. Non-Bargaining Unit Staff Of the 255 BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30. 2014, 204 were bargaining unit employees and 51 were non-bargaining unit employees. The rate of sustained misconduct among bargaining unit employees was .6 per 100 total bargaining unit employees, while the rate of sustained misconduct among non-bargaining unit employees was .8 per 100 total non-bargaining unit employees. Residential Reentry Center Employees There were 144 contractfresidential reentry center employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2014. As of September 30, 2014. a decision had been made for 29.9 percent of those 144 employees. 0f the 29.9 percent (or 43 employees). 9.3 percent had a sustained decision. It is signi?cant to note that an administrative disposition was recorded for 67.4 percent of those employees for whom a decision had been made, indicating the employee either resigned or their employment was terminated prior to an investigation being conducted. Thus. the 9.3 percent sustained rate is likely an extremely conservative figure. Two allegations ofUnprofessional Conduct were sustained, and one allegation each of Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates. Other On-Duty Misconduct. and Failure to Follow Policy were sustained. Staff in Privatized Facilities There were 179 employees working in privatized facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2014. As of September 30, 2014. a decision had been made for percent of those 179 employees. Of the 62 percent (or I 1 1 employees). 42.3 percent had a sustained decision. Table 7 on the following page) provides a breakdown of the categories of misconduct sustained against employees working in privatized facilities. The most frequently sustained categories of misconduct for staff working in privatized facilities were Inappropriate Relationship with Inmates and Other On-Duty Misconduct {'Falsification of Documents, Endangering the Safety of Inmates, and Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates). each of which made up 20.3 percent of all misconduct among staff in this group. BOP FOIA 2016?0171619 of 43 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 6: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Frimtized Facilities FY 21:14 With 62 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type Of Mismndum Inmate Nun Inmate . . Related Related 0mm? Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates IS [3 Orr-Duty Misconduct 9 4 l3 lnartention to Duty 6 3 9 Failure to Follow Policy 7" 8 Aburu: of Inmates 6 Unprufessional Conduct 5 {w Personnel Prohibitions I t] 2 Unauthorized Release of information 1 t} Breach of Security 1 2 Introduction of Contraband 1 Investigative Violations I Off-Duly Misconduct 1 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Discrimination Fiscal [mproprielies l] Bribery BOP FOIA 2016?01716 20 of 43 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Drug Treatment Contractors There were 6 drug treatment contractors identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 20l4. As of September 30. 2014. a decision had been made for 33.3 percent (or 2) of the 6 drug treatment contractors. No misconduct was sustained. Contract Employees and Volunteers Working in BOP Facilities There were 30 contract staff and 3 volunteers working in BOP facilities identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2014. As of September 30, 2014, a decision had been made for 33.3 percent of the 30 contract employees. Of the 33.3 percent (or 10 contract employees), 40 percent had a sustained decision. Two allegations each of Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates and Introduction of Contraband were sustained. and one allegation each of Sexual Abuse of Inmates and Unprofessional Conduct were sustained. As of September 30. 2014, a decision had been made for 33.3 percent (or 1) of the 3 volunteers. No misconduct was sustained- PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities Of the approximately 830 PHS employees working in BOP facilities, 96 were identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2014 {or 10.9 per JOO PHS employees). As of September 30. 2014, a decision had been made for 37.5 percent of those 96 PHS employees. Of the 37.5 percent (or 36 PHS employees}, 11.1 percent (4) had a sustained decision, for a sustained rate of .5 per 100 total PHS employees working in BOP facilities. Two allegations of Fiscal lmproprieties were sustained, and one allegation each of Sexual Abuse of Inmates, Introduction of Contraband. Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates, Personnel Prohibitions. Other On-Duty Misconduct, and Unprofessional Conduct were sustained. l9 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 21 of 43 Physical Abuse of Inmates Title 18. United States Code. Chapter 13 - Civil Rights ?ll-ll Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten. or intimidate any inhabitant of any State. Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States. or because of his having exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years. or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. {$242 Deprivation of rights under color ot'law Whoever, under color of any law. statute. ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any tights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws ol?the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or ?re, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or may be sentenced to death. I Statistics During Fiscal Year 2014, 580 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to the OLA or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 2014, a decision had been made for 29.3 percent (or [70} of those allegations. Allegations of Physical Abuse allegations are tracked by the degree of injury sustained by the inmatets)--life threatening injuly. serious injury, minorfslight injury, minor/no injury (harassment), and super?cial injury (injuries associated with the normal use of restraints). Sis allegations of Physical Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2014 were sustained as of September 30, 20.14. The inmates involved sustained BOP FOIA 2016?01716 22 of 43 Physical Abuse of Inmates minor/no injuries. None of the subjects involved (two male BOP correctional services employees and 4 employees at privatized facilities) were criminally prosecuted. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 23 of 43 Introduction of Contraband Title 18, United States Code. Chapter 87 - Prisons ?l791 Providing or possessing contraband in prison Offense?Whoever- (1) In violation of a statute or a rule or order issued under a statute, provides to an inmate of a prison a prohibited object, or attempts to do so; or (2) being an inmate of a prison, makes, possesses, or obtains, or attempts to make or obtain, a prohibited object; shall be punished as provided in subsection of this section. Punishment-The punishment for an offense under this section is a ?ne under this title or- (1) imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section; (2) imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section; (3) imprisonment for no more than 5 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection of this section; (4) imprisonment for no more than one year, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection or of this section; and (5) imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section. Any punishment imposed under subsection for a violation of this section by an inmate of a prison shall be consecutive to the sentence being served by such inmate at the time the inmate commits such violation. Definitions-As used in this section- (1) the term ?prohibited object" means; (A) a firearm or destructive device or a controlled substance in Section lot other than marijuana or a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subsection; (B) marijuana or a controlled substance in schedule HI, other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subjection, ammunition, a 22 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 24 0f 43 Introduction of Contraband weapon (other than a firearm or destructive device), or an object that is designed or intended to be used as a weapon or to facility escape from a prison; (C) a narcotic drug, methamphetamine. its salts, isomers. and salts of its isomers, lysergic acid diethylamide, or (D) a controlled substance (other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of this subsection) or an alcoholic beverage; (E) any United States or foreign currency; and (F) any other object that threatens the order, discipline, or security of a prison. or the life, health, or safety of an individual; (2) the terms ?ammunition," ?firearm." and ?destructive device" have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 921 of this title; (3) the terms ?controlled substance" and ?narcotic drug? have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act {21 USC, ?802); and (4) the term "prison" means a Federal correctional. detention. or penal facility or any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General. 0 Statistics During Fiscal Year 2014, 386 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30. 2014, a decision had been made for 24.1 percent (or 93) of those allegations. As of September 30, 2014, 12 allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported during Fiscal Year 2014 were sustained: Type of Contraband [11:12:23 Soft Item I 0 1" Linaulhorized Electronic Device 4 i t) *Knife Eleven individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Seven of these individuals were BOP employees (2 male Correctional Services employees, 2. female Correctional Services employees. 1 male Education 8: Vocational Training employee. 1 female Unit Management employee. and 1 female CEO's Office and Staff employee). 1 was a 23 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 25 of 43 Introduction of Contraband PHS employee working in a BOP facility, 2 were contract employees working in BOP facilities, and was an employee at a privatized facility. None of these individuals was criminally prosecuted. BOP FOIA 2015?01716 26 of 43 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 109A - Sexual Abuse ?2241 Aggravated Sexual Abuse By force or threat. - Whoever, in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act - by using force against that other person- or (2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. By other means. a Whoever, in the special maritime and territorialjurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly (I) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or (2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a dntg, intoxicanl, or other similar substance and thereby (A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and B) engages in a sexual act with that other person: or attempts to do so. shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. ?2242 Sexual Abuse Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly - causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or 25 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 2? 0f 43 Sexual Abuse of Inmates (2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is - (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; or attempts to do so shall be ?ned under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. sill-13 Sexual Abuse of 3 Ward Of a ward - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who is - in official detention; and (2) under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so engaging; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than [5 years, or both. ?2244 Abusive Sexual Contact Sexual contact in circumstances where sexual acts are punished by this chapter. - Whoever. in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so to do would violate - subsection or of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; (2) section 2242 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than three years, or both; (3) subsection of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both; (4) subsection of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (5) subsection of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. 26 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 28 of 43 Sexual Abuse of Inmates in Other Circumstances. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without that other person?s permission shall be fined under this title, imprisoned no more than two years, or both. 2246 Definitions (1) the term ?prison? means a correctional, detention, or penal facility; (2) the term ?sexual act" means - (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for the purposes of this subparagraph, contact involved the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus; or (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening by another by a hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (D) the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another person who has not attained the age of 16 years with an intent to abuse, humiliate. harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (3) the term ?sexual contact? means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (4) the term ?serious bodily injuty? means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious dis?gurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. the term ?of?cial detention" means (A) detention by a Federal officer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal officer or employee, following arrest for an offense: following surrender in lieu of an arrest for an offense; following a charge or conviction of an offense, or an allegation or finding of juvenile delinquency; following commitment as a material witness; following civil commitment in lieu of criminal proceedings or pending resumption of criminal '27 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 29 of 43 Sexual Abuse of Inmates proceedings that are being held in abeyance. or pending extradition. deportation. or exclusion; or (B) custody by a Federal officer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal Of?cer or employee, for purposes incident to any detention described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, including transportation, medical diagnosis or treatment, court appearance, work, and recreation; but does not include supervision or under control other than custody during speci?ed hours or days} after release on bail. probation, or parole, or after release following a juvenile delinquency. I Statistics During Fiscal Year 2014, 583 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 583 allegations, 506 involved BOP employees, 5 involved contract employees working in BOP facilities, 5 involved PHS employees working in BOP facilities, 37 involved staffworking in contractr'halfway house facilities, 29 involved staff working in privatized facilities, and 1 involved a drug treatment contractor. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency were Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and male inmates (191 reported allegations) and Abusive Sexual Contact (?2244) between male staff and male inmates (1 10 reported allegations}. As of September 30, 2014, 7' allegations of Sexual Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2014 were sustained. Of the 7 allegations, 5 involved BOP employees, 1 involved a contract employee working in a BOP facility, and 1 involved a PHS employee working in a BOP facility. Three hundred thirty eight allegations reported during Fiscal Year 2014 were pending. Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward {Female StaffMale Inmate) Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Correctional Services employee at FCC Burner and two male inmates. This matter was investigated by the OIG. When interviewed by the DIS Inmate I stated he has known the subject for approximately four to five years, and they became friends. Inmate 1 stated they developed feelings for each other, and they exchanged e? mails. lnmate 1 stated that on his birthday, he and the subject kissed in the bathroom. Inmate denied they ever had sex. Inmate 1 stated. however, the subject confided in him that she had a personal relationship, which included sex, with another inmate. A review of the e-mails between the subject and Inmate 1 supported Inmate l's statements. When interviewed by the 01G, the subject initially denied both having e-mail contact with Inmate and kissing him. When presented with the e-mails, the subject admitted both the relationship with Inmate and Inmate 2. The subject stated she had sex with Inmate 2 in the bathroom at FCC Butner. The AUSA for the Eastern District of North Carolina declined to pursue criminal charges because the case did not meet their guidelines for prosecution. The subject resigned her Employment. (2014- 00888/018 2014001337) BOP FOIA 2015?01716 30 of 43 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward between a female contract employee at USP Marion and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the 01G. The inmate provided an af?davit in which he stated that while in USP Marion's medical lab the subject gave the inmate oral sex on two occasions, and they had sexual intercourse on one occasion. The inmate further stated the subject gave the inmate one or two packs of cigarettes per week for approximately 12 weeks. The subject admitted she gave the inmate oral sex on two occasions and had sexual intercourse with him on one occasion. She also admitted she gave the inmate victim and another inmate a total of approximately 15 to 20 packs of cigarettes. The subject's employment as a contractor was ended prior to the conclusion of the investigation. The AUSA for the Southern District of Illinois declined prosecution due. in part, to a lack of resources and the fact the subject is no longer employed as a contractor with the BOP. 2014001424) Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Unit Management employee at FCC Yazoo City and two male inmates. This matter was investigated by the BIG. A letter addressed to the subject from one inmate victim was intercepted in the FCC Yazoo City mail room. The inmate wrote that he loved the subject more than she loved the inmate, and the inmate asked the subject to mail him pictures and make phone calls on his behalf. The 016 determined the inmate received twelve postal money orders which included the return address of a post office box opened by the subject. Further, the telephone number associated with the post of?ce box was the same as a telephone number on the inmate?s telephone list for a person identified as "parent." The OIG also determined the subject and the inmate used the Inmate Telephone System (ITS) to communicate approximately 40 times between October 2012 and January 20l3. These calls contained romantic and sexually-explicit content. The inmate refused to answer any questions regarding his relationship with the subject. During a compelled interview the subject admitted she spoke with the inmate via ITS while he was incarcerated at FCC Coleman, and some of the telephone calls were sexual in nature. The subject also admitted she sent the inmate postal money orders. The subject denied any physical contact with the inmate and denied providing the inmate with any contraband items. The subject admitted she had two sexual contacts with a different inmate at FCC Yazoo City. The subject told the OIG she engaged in both vaginal intercourse and oral sex with the inmate in her office at FCC Yazoo City. The subject initially denied she provided the inmate with any contraband items. After her 01G interview. she resigned her employment. The following day she sent the OIG an e-mail in which she admitted she provided the inmate with tobacco and outside food items. The Assistant US. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi declined prosecution. (2(ll4-l11553fOIG ODI Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward between a female Health Services employee at FCC Allenwood and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the 010. When interviewed by the DIG the subject admitted she engaged in inappropriate physical contact with the inmate several times in the Health Services unit. The subject stated she and the inmate kissed passionately several times, the inmate had penetrated the subject digitally on at least two occasions. the inmate fondled the subject?s breasts on at least three occasions, and the subject touched the inmate?s penis on at least three occasions. The AUSA for the Middle District of declined prosecution based on the fact the inmate involved did not cooperate with the investigation. The subject resigned her employment. (2014-03570/016 2014005373] 29 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 31 of 43 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature [Female Staff/Male Inmate) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female PHS employee at Phoenix and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the DIG. When interviewed by the 016 the subject admitted she kissed the inmate twice during a medical visit in the Phoenix patient treatment room. The subject also admitted she corresponded with the inmate. to include sending him photographs of her wearing lingerie. The AUSA for the District of Arizona-Phoenix. declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. 2014000063) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Correctional Services employee at FCC Oakdale and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the 01G. The 01G investigation developed evidence that the subject had an inappropriate relationship with the inmate that included kissing him once and exchanging five letter of affection with him. Additionally, the subject misused her BOP e-mail by using it to receive a photograph of her vagina which she subsequently printed and gave to the inmate along with two packs of cigarettes. The OIG also found the subject demonstrated a lack of candor during her interview when. she initially denied the allegations. The AUSA for the Western District of Louisiana declined prosecution of the subject for a violation 18 USC. ?l791. Providing or Possessing Contraband in Prison. The subject resigned her employment. 2014000609) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female Correctional Services employee at FCI Herlong and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the OIG. Review ofthe institution's surveillance video revealed that on March 27. 2014. at 4:36 am. the subject unsecured and entered the inmate victim's cell. closing the door behind her. The subject remained alone in the cell with the inmate for approximately seven minutes. On April 5. 2014. at 4:43 am. the subject again entered the inmate's cell and remained alone with him for approximately eight minutes. The DIG interviewed the subject's husband. who was also employed at FCI Herlong. He stated another employee sent him a test message inquiring about rumors regarding the subject and the inmate. The subject's husband confronted his wife later that day. and she drove away in their personal vehicle. The subject subsequently sent a text message to her husband saying she was sorry and hoped he found love and happiness. The subject's husband realized his wife was suicidal. and he called the Sheriff?s Of?ce. The 016 obtained an incident report from the Sheriff's Office indicating the subject was found in her vehicle. and she had taken a large amount of medication. When asked if she took the medication to harm herself. the subject responded in the affinnative. The subject told the Deputy Sheri ff she fell in love with an inmate. and she was going to be sent to prison for having an affair with him. The subject's spoke to her while she was at the hospital. She denied sexual contact with the inmate. or introducing contraband for him. but she admitted kissing him when she entered her cell. She also admitted writing letters to the inmate. The inmate initially refused to speak to the 01G. but he requested to speak to them after being transferred to another facility. The inmate stated the subject began making unsolicited sexual remarks to the inmate. she brought him cigarettes. and they exchanged letters. The inmate stated he resisted the subject's sexual advances. but she threatened to report him for selling the cigarettes she gave him if he did not cooperate. The 30 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 32 of 43 Sexual Abuse of Inmates inmate claimed that around the end of March 2014 the subject entered the inmate's cell and performed oral sex on him even though he asked her to stop several times. The inmate claimed that around the second week of April 2014, the subject entered the inmate's cell a second time and performed oral sex on him against his will. The subject declined to be interviewed by the 01G. The Assistant US. Attorney for the Eastern District of California declined prosecution based on insuf?cient evidence to provide the allegations. 2014006875) 3 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 33 of 43 Representative Case Summaries Following are brief summaries of some of the cases which were completed during Fiscal Year 2014. I A male Correctional Services employee went to an inmate's cell, pulled a spray bottle from around his waist, and sprayed the inmate with the contents of the bottle, striking him in the face and the front of his body. while making comments such as "How do you like it?" Witnesses stated the inmate previously sprayed the subject with a liquid substance. The subject refused to cooperate during the investigation. Physical Abuse of Inmates. Retaliation Unprofessional Conduct, and Refusing to Cooperate were sustained. The subject resigned his employment. (2014-04638) 0 A male Correctional Services employee admitted telling an inmate. "You don't tell us what to fucking do, we tell you what to fucking do," and will fucking drop you on your face." Threatening an Inmate/Verbal Abuse was sustained. The subject was suspended for two days. (2013-01154) I During an investigation conducted by the Office of the Inspector General, a female contract employee admitted she engaged in vaginal sexual intercourse with an inmate in a bathroom in Health Services. The subject also admitted she introduced tobacco into the facility and provided it to the inmate on approximately ten occasions. Finally. the subject admitted she provided a cellular telephone to the inmate following his transfer to a work release center. The subject was charged with Providing Prohibited Items to an Inmate (18 USC ?1791). She pled guilty to the offense and was sentenced to one-year probation. Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of an Inmate, Cigarettes/Tobacco Introduction. Improper Contact With an Inmate. and Of feringlGiving Anything of Value were sustained. The subject resigned her employment. (2013-07462) I An Of?ce of the Inspector General investigation was predicating upon the receipt of information that a male Correctional Services employee was smuggling tobacco and marijuana into the facility and selling it to inmates. The sister of one of the inmates acted as a middle person by receiving money from inmates' families and forwarding it to the subject. The subject's acquaintance and his wife assisted the subject by obtaining payments wired by the inmates sister to financial institutions and providing the money to the subject. The DIG conducted an undercover meeting with the subject which resulted in his arrest after he accepted $200 from a confidential witness. The subject was charged with Receiving a Bribe as a Public Of?cial (18 USC and Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Mail. Fraud 18 USC ?1349). The subject pled guilty to a criminal information, and he was sentenced to three-years supervised release. Marijuana Introduction. Cigaretteszobaceo 1ntroduction. and Bribery were sustained. The subject resigned his employment. 2013-04913) I While screening a female Business Office employee's handbag through the X?ray machine, staffobserved what appeared to be a firearm in the handbag. The subject '31 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 34 of 43 Representative Case Summaries immediately reported the incident and provided a statement indicating she inadvertently left the ?rearm in her handbag. The subject stated she did not intend to threaten or intimidate anyone with the firearm and had no malicious intent in carrying the Weapon. The subject stated she carries the ?rearm solely for her personal protection while off duty. The subject was instructed to remove the weapon from institution grounds, which she did. Weapons Introduction was sustained. The subject was suspended for thirty days. (2013-00229) A male Food Service employee was seen in the staff dining room with a cellular telephone in his hand. When questioned. the subject stated he went to the staff dining room for lunch, and he forgot he had the phone in his pocket. Unauthorized Electronic Device Introduction was sustained. The subject received a written reprimand. (2013- 07451} A male Correctional Services employee processed an inmate into the facility and issued him a receipt for the $265 he had with him upon his arrival. The subject failed to deposit the money into the inmate's BOP account. The subject processed two additional inmates into the facility and received $71 and $11, respectively. from them. but the subject failed to issue the inmates receipts or deposit the money into their BOP inmate accounts. When interviewed by the 01G. the subject stated he accidentally took the and $1 I home with him after he forgot to remove it from his uniform's left breast pocket. The subject stated he located the cash deposits, still in the envelopes, in his uniform pocket and returned them the following day. The subject had no recollection of the missing $265. However, a preponderance of evidence exists that the subject was also responsible for the missing $265 based on the fact the subject provided the inmate with a temporary receipt but failed to deposit the funds, video records con?rmed the subject put an envelope in his pocket, and the subject admitted mishandling other inmate deposits in a similar manner. In addition. the subject failed a polygraph examination regarding his account of the $265 transaction. The Assistant US. Attorney?s Office declined prosecution. Theft of Inmate Funds was sustained. The subject resigned his employment. (2013-00177) Computer Services staff were notified via a system alert that a staff terminal server had detected and removed a virus. The virus was contracted from the Facebook social media site which. had been accessed by a male UNICOR employee. The computer was taken off line for eight hours, and an intensive virus scan was completed. No further viruses were detected. Misuse of Government Computers and Breach of Computer Security were sustained. The subject received a written reprimand. (2014-01143) A female PHS employee used her government?issued travel charge card to purchase personal items at Target, to include alcoholic beverages, while attending training in Aurora, Colorado. Misuse of Travel Charge Card was sustained. The subject received a written reprimand. (2014-01444) BOP 2016?01716 35 0f 43 Representative Case Summaries A female employee at a privatized facility provided her personal cellular telephone number to two inmates. The subject communicated with the inmates via text messages with the knowledge the inmates were in possession of a contraband cellular telephone. Improper Contact With an Inmate was sustained. The subject resigned her employment. (20l4-Ul 178.) A female employee at a contractfresidential reentry center facility was seen driving a former inmate's vehicle to work. When interviewed, the subject stated she and the former inmate worked together at a bar and became friends. The subject stated the former inmate allowed the subject to use his car while her car was being repaired. The subject stated she used the former inmate?s car on four or five occasions. Improper Contact With an Inmate was sustained. The subject resigned her employment. A male Correctional Services employee was arrested and charged with Public Intoxication and Obstructing a Peace Of?cer. The subject told the arresting officer where he works and asked for professional courtesy" on the night of the arrest so he could make arrangements for someone to pick up him and his wife. Arrest and Conviction and Misuse of Official PositionfBadge were sustained. The subject was suspended for one day. (20] 1-0260?) A male Correctional Services employee was notified that he was to provide a urine sample for testing in compliance with the Drug Free Workplace program statement. The subject stated he was sick, and he had to go home. The subject was advised the process had been initiated and asked if he was aware of the consequences for refusing to submit to a urinalysis test. The subject stated, don?t care. This is bullshit. I've worked her 18 years and have always done my job. I?m sick. and I need to go home right now.? The subject left the institution without further comment and without providing a urine sample. Refusing to Take a Drug Test was sustained. The subject's employment was terminated. A male Health ServicesISafety employee refused to administer an inmate's insulin after being told twice by a lieutenant to do so. The subject only administered the insulin after hein ordered to do so by the warden. Endangering the Safety of an Inmate and Failure to Follow Supervisor's were sustained. The subject was suspended for one day. (2012-08184) During the 10:00 a.m. institutional count. a housing unit called in a bad count. During the second count of the unit. a female Recreation employee radioed the control center stating she located the inmate on the recreation yard. A review of video recordings revealed Recreation staff failed to clear the buildings prior to the count. Further, two Recreation staff {a male and a female) admitted they did not walk through the buildings to ensure no inmates were present. lnattention to Duty was sustained against the subjects. They both received written reprimands. (2012-07133) 34 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 36 of 43 Representative Case Summaries A female Education and Vocational Training employee called another employee a "whore." Unprofessional Conduct was sustained. The subject received a written reprimand. (2013-08023) A male Facilities employee told an inmate that bologna sandwiches are called "nigger steaks.? Unprofessional Conduct was sustained. The subject was suspended for one day. (2013-07388) A physician?s assistant opened a PHS employee's desk drawer to look for a pencil and found Five syringes inside. The subject stated she placed in the syringes in her desk drawer and forget to put them in the Pyxis machine. The subject stated the syringes were in her desk drawer for a period of six days. Failure to Follow Policy and Inattention to Duty were sustained. The subject received a written reprimand. (2013-06510) BOP FOIA 2016?01716 37 of 43 Appendices Types of Suslulned Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2?13 Willi 75.3 Percenl Closed Number of Sustained Allegations lurnute Non Inmate Tvpe of Misconduct Related Related Off-Duty TOTAL Personnel Prohibitions 26? IS 282 On-Dulv Misconduct 54 133 242 uprol?essioual Conduct 35 153 2 38 Failure to Follow Poliev 2 l0 Inauention to Dury 77' 12?) 206 Off-Dugr Misconducl 192 ?1'2 Fiscal lmyroprietics 7 H4 ISI Breach of Security 51 RU 131 Inappropriate Relationships Willi Inmates 92 '92 lnlroduction of Contraband 2.2 45 luvesligalive Violalious 56 56 Unauthorized Release of Information [3 23 Sexual Abuse ol'lninmes l3 l8 Abuse of inmates I4 i4 Bribery 5 {l DiscriminaLiou Ill 36 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 38 of 43 Appendices Types of -\lmsc of Inmates Physical Abuse of Inmates Excessive Use of Force Threatening an Inmate/Verbal Abuse Retaliation Sexual Abuse of Inmates Aggravated Sexual Abuse ?224l Sexual Abuser?Sexual Abuse of a Ward - ?2242l2243 Abusive Sexual Contact - ?2244 Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature Introduction of Contraband Soft Item Introduction Weapons Introduction Escape Paraphernalia Introduction Money Introduction Marijuana Introduction Heroin Derivatives Introduction Cocaine Introduction Other Unspecified Drugs Introduction Alcoholic Beverages Introduction Unauthorized Electronic Device Introduction Creatme?Veigbtlifting Supplement Introduction Ci garettesl'T obacco Introduction Discrimination Fiscal Imprupriclies Time and Attendance Irregularities Abuse of Sick Leave Voucher Falsificati on Thefthisusc of Government Funds Thefthisuse of Government Property Misuse of Government Computers Improper Procurement Procedures Failure to Pay Government Charge Card Misuse of Travel Charge Card Misuse of Purchase Charge Card Misuse of SmartPay 2 Credit Card Theft/Misuse of Employees' Club Funds 37' BOP FOIA 2016?01716 39 of 43 Appendices Thefthisuse of Funds Theft of Inmate Funds Thefthestruction of Inmate Property Thefthisuse of Contractor Funds Theft/Misuse of Contractor Property Failure to Account for Inmate Theft of Employee Misuse of UNICOR Resources Contract Fraud Bribery Briberyr Conspiracy to Commit Bribery Inappropriate Relationship With Inmates Solicitingf Accepting Anything of Value Offering/Giving Anything of Value Improper Contact With an Inmateilnmate?s Family Appearance of an Inappropriate Relationship Misuse of Inmate Labor Preferential Treatment of Inmates Inn'sligzllivc Violations Concealing a Material Fact Refusing to Cooperate Lying During an Investigation Providing a False Statement AlteringiDestroying EvidencefDocuments Refusing to Submit to a Search Interfering With?mpeding an Investigation Advising Someone to Violate Policy Conducting an Unauthorized Investigation Lack of Candor Personnel Prohibitions Employees (relates to personnel actions} Failure to Report Violation of Ruleszegulations Falsification of Employment Records Misuse of Of?cial PositionfBadge Inappropriate Supervisor/Subordinate Relationship Engaging in Prohibited Personnel Practices Use/Abuse of Illegal DrugslAlcohol Absent Without Leave 38 BOP FOIA 20163?01716 40 of 43 Appendices Retaliation Refusing to Take a Drug Test nautlmrircd Rclcasc of Other I'm-Duly Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature lnattention to Duty1 Failure to Respond to an Emergency Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates Breach ofSecurityj Breach of Computer Security] Falsification of Documents Unprofessional Conductl Failure to Follow Policy' Gambling/Promotion of Gambling Endangering the Safety of an Inmate Endangering the Safety of Others Providing False Information Other Than During an Official Investigation Insuhol?dination Accidental Discharge of a Firearm Solicitinngale of Goods on Government Property Job Favoritism Workplace Violence Failure to Meet Performance Standards Failure to Follow Supervisor?s Instructions Fraudulent Workers' Compensation Claims Conduct Unbecoming a Management Of?cial (HT-Duty Arrest and Conviction Failure to Repon Arrest Failure to Pay Just Debts Failure to Obtain Outside Employment Approval Domestic Violence Traf?c Citation Carrying an UnregisteredfConcealed Firearm Discreditable Behavior Falsification of Recordsr'Documents Other Citation (Hunting, etc.) Conflict of Interest lDue to the frequency of this type of misconduct, it is identified separately throughout this report. 39 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 41 of 43 Monitoring Assignments Alderson. WV Alieeville. AL Allenwood, PA Ashland, KY Atlanta, GA Atwaier, CA Basirop, TX Beaumont, TX Beckley. WV Benneltsville, SC Berlin, NH Big Sandy. KY Big Spring, TX Brooklyn, NY Bryan, TX Bulner, NC Canaan, PA Carswell, TX Chicago, IL Coleman, FL Cumberland, MD Danhury. CT Devens, MA Dublin, CA Duluth, MN Edge?eld. SC El Reno, OK Elkton, OH Englewood, CO Estill. SC Fairton, NJ Florence, C0 Forrest City. AR Fort Worth, TX Fort Dix, NJ Gilmer. WV Grand Prairie, TX Greenville, IL Guaynaho, PR Hazelton. WV . Herlong. CA Honolulu, HI Houston. TX La Tuna, TX Leavenworth, KS 40 Lee. VA Lewisburg, PA Lexington. KY Lornpoc. CA Loretto, PA Los An geles, CA Manchester, KY Marianna, FL Marion. ll. Mendota, CA MeCreary, KY McDowell, WV McKean, PA Memphis, TN Miami (FDC 8r FCI). FL MXRO. MD Milan. MI Montgomery, AL Morganlown WV New York, NY NCRO, KS NERD. PA Oakdale, LA Oklahoma, OK Otisville, NY Oxford, Wl Pekin. Pensacola, FL Petersburg, VA Philadelphia. PA Phoenix, AZ Pollock, LA Ray Brook. NY Rochester, MN Safford. AZ San Diego, CA Sandstone. MN Schuylkill. PA Seagoville, TX Sea'l?ac. WA Sheridan, OR SCRO, TX SERO. GA Spring?eld, MO Talladega, AL Tallahassee, FL BOP 2016?01716 42 of 43 Monitoring Assignments Terminal Island. CA Terre Haute. IN Texarkana, TX Thomson, IL Three Rivers, TX Tucson, AZ Victorville, CA 4] Waseca, MN WRD, CA Williamsburg, SC Yankton, SD Yazoo City. MS BOP 2016?01716 43 of 43 U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons Washington, DC Of?ce of Internal Affairs Report for Fiscal Year 2015 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 1 of 41 Table of Contents Executive Summary of Findings 1 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct? Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations? Reported Misconduct 7 Closedeustained Misconduct 10 Physical Abuse of Inmates 20 Introduction of Contraband 22 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 25 Representative Case Summaries 31 Appendice334 Monitoring As51gnments38 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 2 0f41 Executive Summary of Findings There was a .06 percent increase in the number of cases opened in Fiscal Year 2015 as compared with Fiscal Year 2014. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees decreased percent from Fiscal Year 2014. Cases classified as Classi?cation 1 offenses showed a decrease of 15.6 percent. while eases classified as Classi?cation 3 offenses showed an increase of 7.4 percent. Cases classified as Classi?cation 2 offenses showed an increase of only .23 percent. The most frequently reported type of misconduct in Fiscal Year 2015 was Unprofessional Conduct. On-Duty Misconduct and Personnel Prohibitions placed second and third. respectively. The only categories of reported misconduct which showed an increase from Fiscal Year 2014 were Introduction of Contraband. Personnel Prohibitions. Off-Duty Misconduct, and Unauthorized Release of Information. The largest decreases occurred in the categories of Discrimination and Sexual Abuse of Inmates. During Fiscal Year 2015, '15 cases involving Patriot Act Violations were opened. As of September 30, 2015, 9 cases remained open pending investigation. and 6 cases were closed. No allegations of misconduct. were sustained. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2015, was Personnel Prohibitions, followed by Unprofessional Conduct. The sustained rate of misconduct for male BOP employees for whom a decision had been made as of September 30, 2015, was .66 employees per 100 total male BOP staff, while the sustained rate of misconduct for female BOP employees for whom a decision had been made as of September 30, 2015, was .71 employees per 100 total female BOP staff. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among both male and female BOP employees for whom a decision had been made as of September 30, 2015. was Personnel Prohibitions. For those BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30. 2015.. the rate was highest among Human Resources staff. The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among staff in this group was Inattention to Duty. For those BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30. 2015. the rate was higher for bargaining unit employees than for non-bargaining unit employees BOP FOIA 2016?01716 3 0f41 Executive Summary of Findings (.69 per 100 total bargaining unit employees vs. .58 per 100 total non~bargaining unit employees. For those Residential Reentry Center employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2015, the most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Inappropriate Relationships with Inmates. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct for staff in privatized facilities with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2015, was Failure to Follow Policy. As of September 30. 2015, 3 allegations of Physical. Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2015 were sustained. The inmates involved sustained minor/no injuries. None of the subjects involved were criminally prosecuted. As of September 30,2015, 20 allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported during Fiscal Year 2015 were sustained, involving 18 individuals. Ten involved the introduction of unauthorized electronics devices, 8 involved the introduction of weapons (5 handguns and 3 other weapons), and 2 involved the introduction of soft centraband. None of the subjects involved were criminally prosecuted for introducing contraband. As of September 30, 2015. 6 allegations of Sexual Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2015 were sustained: 2 involved BOP employees, 1 involved a residential reentry center employee. and 3 involved employees working in privatized facilities. One of the subjects (from a privatized facility) pled guilty to False Statements and Aiding and Abetting. She was sentenced to 6 months incarceration and 1 year supervised release. She was also ordered to pay a $5,000 fine. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 4 of41 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct Staff Reporting In accordance with the Bureau's Standards of Employee Conduct. staff who become aware of any violation or alleged violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct must repon them to the Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO), the Of?ce of Internal Affairs (01A), or the Department of Justice (130.7}, Of?ce of the Inspector General (010}. The 01G has established a toll?free hotline (LEGO-8694499) which is available to anyone wishing to report DOJ employees' misconduct, as well as fraud, waste, or abuse in government. All Bureau staff are encouraged to use the 016 hotljne if they wish to remain anonymous or fear retaliation or reprise]. To report violations directly to the CIA Central Office, please submit a written complaint to: Federal Bureau of Prisons Office of Internal Affairs 320 First Street, NW, Room 600 Washington, DC 20534 Written complaints may also be sent via fax to {202) 5 l4~8625. (11110 Reporting Upon becoming aware of any possible violation of the Standards of Employee Conduct (either through a report from staff or through personal knowledge, the CEO at the institution, Regional Of?ce or Central Of?ce Division, or his or her designee. is to report the violation to the 01A in accordance with the following time frames- Classi?cation 1 cases are defined as allegations which. if substantiated, would constitute a prosecutable offense (other than offense-s such as misdemeanor arrests}. Classification 2 cases are defined as allegations which involve violations of rules, regulations, or law that, if substantiated, would not likely result in criminal prosecution, but constitute serious misconduct. Classi?cation 1 and 2 cases must be reported telephonically to the (HA immediately. Written notification to the BIA will be made within 24 hours (not to include weekends and holidays) of the time management learns of the matter. When it is suspected that criminal conduct has occurred. the CEO may refer the matter simultaneously to the CIA and the local 016 or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) office. Unless the CEO and the Chief of the CIA agree to a different method, ordinarily, investigations involving Classification 3 cases are to be conducted using local resources. Classi?cation 3 cases are defined as allegations of misconduct which ordinarily have less impact on institutional operations. Ordinarily, CEOs can proceed with local investigations on Classification 3 BOP 2016?01716 5 0f41 Reporting Incidents of Misconduct misconduct allegations for staff occupying bargaining unit positions or {33? 12 and below non? bargaining unit positions without ?rst obtaining OIA approval. Written notification to the CIA will be made within 24 hours (not to include weekends and holidays) of the time management learns of the matter. CEOs must notify the CIA before initiating investigations involving any misconduct alleged against management staff occupying (SS-13 or above positions. The OLA will coordinate further action with the DIG. Initial Information. A Referral of Incident form is used to organize the information to be provided (for contract employees use form Include the following: I The identity of the complainands], subjectts), witnesstes), and victim(s); I The details of the allegationfs); and I Any corroborating evidence. The subject of the allegation or complaint must not be questioned or interviewed prior to receiving clearance from the BIG and the OIA's approval. This is to ensure against procedural errors and to safeguard the rights of the subject. Supporting Documentation. A Referral of Incident form (BF-A715.012) and all supporting documentation, such as victim or witness statements. medical reports, photos, and related memoranda, must be sent to the CIA immediately but not later than 24 hours after the telephonic report. If an inmate alleges physical or sexual abuse by a staff member and has not received a medical examination, the CEO must arrange an immediate. confidential medical examination and forward a copy of the results to the CIA as soon as possible. Contact the CIA immediately if there is any question as to the classification of the misconduct. It is important to note that case classi?cations are many times based on limited information. As an investigation unfolds, the severity of misconduct may increase or decrease. thereby moving it into another classification. All Referral of Incident forms 15.012 or and appropriate predicating information will be sent to the CIA via e-mail to the CIA GroupWise mailbox All documentation will be scanned in .pdf format (Adobe Acrobat) and saved as one ?le. The signed Referral of Incident form should appear on the top of the file with all supporting documentation Underneath. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 6 of4?l Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations For all local staff misconduct investigations completed on or after January 1, 2007, the investigator must forward the complete investigative packet directly to the OLA for approval prior to forwarding it to the CEO for action. These procedures apply to all local staff misconduct investigations in which BOP employees are the subject (Classification 1. 2. and 3 allegations), regardless of whether any misconduct will be sustained. Where to Send Local Investigative Packets Local investigative packets should be sent via e-mail to the CIA GroupWise mailbox DIR/lnternal Affairs-Local Investigative Packets~" (not to be confused with OlA's main resource mailbox. Affairs-J). To ensure local investigative packets are reviewed by the OIA in a timely manner, they should not be sent to any individual 01A staff member or to any 01A field office. The subject of your e-mail message should include the CIA case number and the facility mnemonic code 20 15-0000 Format for Local Investigative Packets and What to Send Local investigative packets should include the investigative report (signed by the investigator) and all supporting documentation (af?davits. memorandums. video files, etc.). Complete investigative packets must be forwarded; the Summary of Investigation for Classi?cation 3 Cases form 16.012) is no longer applicable and should not be used. Documents must be scanned in .pdf format (Adobe Acrobat). Do not send documents in other formats .tif tiles. .wpd files). Documents should be scanned in three groups. named as follows: Investigative Report (01A Case Number) Affidavits and MOIs (OIA Case Number) Supporting Documentation (01A Case Number) Photo images and graphic images may be forwarded in .jpg or .gif format. Affidavit files should include the Warning and Assurance to Employee Required to Provide Information if applicable. and the signed Oath for each individual. The investigative packet should not include national policy or any documents not speci?cally related to the investigation staff rosters. inmate SENTRY information, etc). BOP FOIA 2016?01716 7 0f41 Review of Local Staff Misconduct Investigations 'l?ime Guidelines For Classi?cation 1 or 2 allegations. local investigators should strive to complete and forward investigative packets to the CIA within [20 calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the OLA. For classi?cation 3 allegations, local investigators should strive to complete and forward investigative packets to the OM prior to any disciplinary action being taken and within 120 calendar days of the date a local investigation was authorized by the CEO. Once received. the 01A will complete their review of the local investigative packet within ten business days. The investigator will be advised as to whether the investigative packet is approved or if additional information is needed. This information will be sent via email to the investigator with a copy to the CEO. If additional information is needed. the investigator should forward the additional information to the CIA within 30 calendar days, who will again notify the. investigator and the CEO if the packet is approved. Once approved. the investigator should forward the investigative packet to the CEO for appropriate action with all Review of Local investigative Packet forms applicable to that packet attached. No disciplinary proceedings or other notifications to subjects should occur prior to the OIA's approval of the investigative packet. Reports from the OH The CIA sends the CEO a report of all local staff misconduct investigations which have extended past established time frames. should continue to work with the monitoring agent assigned to their facility for guidance and to provide updates on outstanding matters. BOP 2016?01716 8 0f41 Reported Misconduct All allegations of misconduct received by the CIA are referred to the BIG for review and classi?cation. The OIG determines which matters they will accept for investigation and possible criminal prosecution and defers other matters to the 01A for investigation. The OIA coordinates with the 0.16 andfor the FBI when investigations may lead to criminal prosecution or when there are allegations involving the abuse of an individual's Constitutional rights under Color of Law. NOTES IJII. iL' nl Hu- '1 l' Ii. liIr-- tufl'nur?l .irg It- tiring?. Vii-Ill Ilnl Lni.? Ilium: rt In by vlt'ltlt?nl Hull-1 llu'l?u' l1 Ill [LEI-II-l'lfil .pllt-j; Win-1}: ulu ilJlili?L" -.ul nullit?t'ln Liar-gill. li'IL? ll Il1 . l-wt'. Lir- \r'mu' List" 'Xisn smile written il _i' lug go. 'utliil multiply '1Ill'__'il. rum; .1I iliIL Ill'. l'_I llitgillj- lLL_l' m-nt' l'nl_' ui' till-ngItI'I-x ll it'iIL-il ll .I it; lairtl" lliliinl I: pr ul- Ii writ-it?d I1: ll1. t? l-tll Lilni I'llLilhil l'il Ll unwell-I: llal or Iln: . .pea .1 Ill: ll it E'nl l'i [.Ilc?n?t' lh!? For those matters deferred for investigation, the CIA determines, after consulting with BOP management officials, whether an on-site investigation is warranted or if the matter can be investigated at the local institution level. Allegations categorized as Classi?cation 3 offenses are referred to the 010 via computer extract on a basis. During Fiscal Year 2015, the CIA opened 5,206 cases involving 6,102 BOP employees, 20 contract employees working in BOP facilities. 68 Public Health Service (PHS) employees working in BOP facilities, 2 volunteers working in BOP facilities, I 19 contractfresidential reentry center employees, 1 drug treatment contractor, and 156 employees working in privatized facilities. These 5,206 cases represent a modest .06 percent increase over the 5,203 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2014. The rate of reported misconduct among BOP employees decreased 3.7 percent from Fiscal Year 2014. The 5,206 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2015 were classified as follows: Classi?cation 1 1,050 Classi?cation 2 I334 Classi?cation 3 2,822 Cases classi?ed as Classi?cation 1 offenses showed a decrease of 15.6 percent. while cases classi?ed as Classification 3 offenses showed an increase of 7.4 percent. Cases classified as Classi?cation 2 offenses showed an increase of only .23 percent. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 9 of 41 Reported Misconduct Table l: Types of Reported Misconduct - Fiscal Year 2015 Number of Reported Allegations Types ufMiscunducl Inmate Non Inmate 011' Change Related Related - uty TOTAL from 2014 lConduct 784 ti [3 I402 t) fin-Duty Misconduct 432 761 Iii} - 4.l Personnel Prohibitions 920 an QED 23.] Failure to Follow Policy $44 380 924 lnattention to Duly 3'94 524 913 [i Abuse of inmates 838 333 - 8.0 Fiscal lmproprieties 9] 470 56] fovDuw Misconduct 536 536 5.5 Breach of Security 232 30] 533 Inapplopriale Relationships With Inmates 490 490 -l 6.9 introduction of Contraband 32G 161 48] 22.4 Sexual Abuse of Inmates 433 433 ?12 investigative Violations i3o l3f1 Unauthorized Release of anormation b4 31 95 3 3 Bribery 78 78 43.3 Discrimination 3 t] 3 as? Table I provides a breakdown of those categories of misconduct reported during Fiscal Year 2015. The only categories of reported misconduct which showed an increase from Fiscal Year 2014 were Introduction of Contraband (a 2.4 percent increase), Personnel Prohibitions (a 23.1 percent increase), Off-Duty Misconduct (a 5.5 percent increase), and Unauthorized Release of Information (a 3.3 percent increase}. The largest decreases occurred in the categon'es of Discrimination (a 66.7 percent decrease) and Sexual Abuse of Inmates (a 27.2 percent decrease). BOP FOIA 2016?0171610 of41 Reported Misconduct USA Patriot Act In the USA Patriot Act, Congress expressed concern about the potential abuse of individual civil rights and liberties by DOJ employees in the aftermath of September 1 1, 2001. Accordingly, the Patriot Act mandated that the 016 widely advertise that it receives and investigates allegations of such abuses. Patriot Act violations include violence, discrimination, or threats on the part of a employee, particularly when such cases are directed toward individuals or groups associated in the public perception with acts of terrorism because of their religious beliefs, place of birth, or appearance. Patriot Act allegations which typically come to our attention are alleged mistreatment or unprofessional behavior of BOP staff toward/around certain inmates, their visitors. or members of the public. Due to the sensitivity of these allegations, they are automatically classi?ed as Classi?cation 2 or higher offenses; they should be forwarded immediately to the CIA. All Patriot Act violation allegations are then referred to a Special Operations Unit at 016 Headquarters devoted to reviewing and investigating such misconduct. Of the 5,206 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2015, 15 cases involved Patriot Act violations. As of September 30, 2015, 9 cases remained open pending investigation, and 6 cases were closed. No allegations were sustained. 0f the 5,203 cases opened during Fiscal Year 2014, 17 cases involved Patriot Act violations. As of September 30, 2015, 6 cases remained open pending investigation, and 1 cases were closed. No allegations were sustained. BOP 2016?01716110f41 Closed/Sustained Misconduct . 1 As of September 30, 2015, a decision had been made on 1,335 (25.6 percent) of the 5,206 cases 1 opened during Fiscal. Year 2015. The remaining 3,871 cases (74.4 percent) were still 1 open and being investigated. Of the 1,335 3 cases closed. the majority. 1.197 {89.6 percent). "1 "1 were investigated at the institution level with authorization and monitoring provided by the (HA. Of the 1,335 cases closed, 1 13 were 01A on-site investigations (8.5 percent), and 25 {1.9 percent) were investigated by the 01G. HI 'wl 1-- ;Hr. ?Ltl'llt'ut EH - 1":11 L1- Flt-"at. I1 urn-12.n- [1?1 '11? 11mm; .1. Ofthe 1,335 cases closed, 293 (21.9 percent) 1 were sustained. Misconduct was sustained against 261 BOP employees. 5 contract employees working in BOP facilities, 3 PHS employees working in BOP facilities, 3 contractiresidential reentry center employees, and 45 employees working in privatized facilities. BUP Employees There were 6,102 BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in cases opened duti Fiscal Year 2015. As of September 30, 2015, a decision had been made for 23.5 percent of those employees. Of the 23.5 percent (or 1,431 employees), 18.2 percent (261) had a sustained decision (a rate of .67 per 100 total BOP employees). Of the 6,102 BOP employees for whom a case was opened during Fiscal Year 2015, 285 were unidenti?ed. Table 2 (on the following page) reflects the categories of misconduct sustained against BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2015. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct was Personnel Prohibitions. followed by Unprofessional Conduct. 10 BOP FOIA 2016?0171612 0f41 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 2: Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 2015 With 25.6 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct Non Inmate [uninh- Related Related Off-Duty TOTAL Personnel Prohibitions 53 7 65 Unprofessional Conduct I4 29 43 inattention to Duty 15 32 37 On?Duly Misconduct 6 ?3 34 Fiscal 0 33 33 Failure to Follow Policy a ll 27 Off?Duly Misconduct 24 24 Breach of Security 6 ll} l6 Introduction of Contraband 0 l5 5 Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates 12 12 Investigative Violations 6 Abuse nl'lnmates 2 2 Sexual Abuse of Initiates 2 1 Unauthorized Release of hitormalion Discrimination 0 Bribery If.) 0 Disciplinary Action Once a subject is investigated and the allegations are sustained, the type of disciplinary action taken is left to the deciding official, who is generally the CEO. Each case is unique, and there are varying degrees of seriousness within each type of misconduct. Also, a single subject may be charged with multiple types of misconduct. The Douglas Factors must be considered when deciding the appropriate penalty to impose on employees for misconduct. The Douglas Factors are an accumulation of historic Civil Services practices and procedures in cases involving civil servant misconduct, created by the Merit Systems Protection Board [1 BOP FOIA 2016?0171613 of41 Closed/Sustained Misconduct (MSPB) in the seminal Douglas case. In Douglas, the MSPB announced a non?exhaustive list of twelve factors which the BOP, like all federal agencies, must consider in determining appropriate penalties to impose in employee misconduct. The Douglas Factors are as follows: the nature and seriousness of the offense; the employee's job level and type of employment: the employee's disciplinary record; the employee's past work record, including length of service and duty performance; the effect of the offense on the employee?s ability to perform and its effect on the supervisor's confidence in such ability; the consistency of the penalty with penalties imposed upon others for like or similar misconduct; the consistency of the penalty with the BOP's table of penalties Program Statement 3420.11, Standards of Employee Conduct; the notoriety of the offense or its impact on the reputation; the clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules violated or warned about the conduct in question; the employee's potential for rehabilitation; any and all mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense job stress/tension, personality problems, mental impairment, harassment or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of others involved; the adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions. The CEO is required to consider only those Douglas factors which are relevant to any individual and need not consider all the Douglas Factors in every case. In many cases, some of the Douglas Factors may suggest one type of penalty while others suggest another penaltychoose the appropriate penalty. 12 BOP FOIA 2016?0171614 0f41 Closed/Sustained Misconduct The following actions were taken against (or by) those BOP employees with a sustained decision. Written Reprimand 86 Resignation 53 Suspension 48 No Action 34 Retirement 16 Termination 9 Other 6 Combined With Action in Another Reassignlnent 1 The speci?c type of misconduct most frequently sustained against those individuals for whom no disciplinary action was taken was Unprofessional Conduct {17.6 percent of all sustained misconduct for staff in this group}. 0 Gender There were 4,491 male BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2015. As of September 30, 2015, a decision had been made for 23.3 percent of those 4,491 male employees. Of the 23.3 percent (or 1.048 male employees), 17.7 percent (186) had a sustained decision [a rate of .66 employees per 100 total male BOP staff). There were 1,326 female BOP employees identified as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2015. As of September 30, 2015. a decision had been made for 24.4 percent of those 1,326 female employees. Of the 24.4 percent (or 323 female employees), 23.2 percent had a sustained decision (a rate of .71 employees per 100 total female BOP staff). Tables 3 and 4 {on the following pages} re?ect the categories of sustained allegations for male and female BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2015. The most frequently sustained category of misconduct among both male and female BOP employees was Personnel Prohibitions, followed by Unprofessional Conduct. BOP FOIA 2016-0171615 of 41 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 3: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Male BOP Employees - Fiscal Year 2015 With 23.3 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct Non Inmate Inmate Related Related Off-Duty TOTAL Personnel Prohibitions 39 5 44 Unprot?essional Conduct It} I 9 29 Fiscal 27" Orr?Duty Mimonduct i 22 2? inattenlion In Duty.r 1 IS 26 Off?Duty Misconduct 20 10 Failure to Follow Policy 4 I4 18 introduction of Contraband t} 1 I Breach of Security 5 1 inappropriate Relationships IWith Inmates i' 7' Abuse of Inmates 2 2 investigative Violau'ons 2 2 Unauthorizad Release of Information 1 2 Sexual Abuse of Inmates, Discrimination 0 Briben- Those categories of misconduct highlighted in red were sustained with greater frequency among male BOP staff than among female BOP staff. [4 BOP 2016?0171616 0f41 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 4: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Female BOP Employees - Fiscal Year 2015 With 24.4 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct Non Inmate Inmate Related Related Off-Duty TOTAL Personnel Prohibitions 2 2 Unprofessitmai Conduct 4 ll) 1-1 Inattention to Duty . 4 'l 1 Failure to Follow Policy 2 6 (in-Duly Misconduel 6 7' Fiscal Ilnproprielies fl 5 Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates 5 Breach of Security 1 4 5 Investigative Violations 4 4 Off-Duty Misconduct 4 4 introduction of Contraband 4 4 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Abuse of inmates Discrimination [l [l Brit-er}r (i ll Unauthorized Release of Information Those categories of misconduct highlighted in red were sustained with greater frequency among female BOP staff than among male BOP staff. 15 BOP 2016?0171617 0f41 Closed/Sustained Misconduct I Job Discipline As of September 30, 2015. 26] BOP employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2015 had a sustained decision. Table 5 re?ects the rate of misconduct among the various job disciplines. Table 5: Discipline of BOP Employees With Sustained Misconduct - FY 2015 With 23.5 Percent Closed Discipline Total Number-inf Employees With Rate Per Inn 'i?ntel Employees Sustained Mlsconduct Employees Human Resources 479 5 LU Facilities 2563 24 .93 Services 1247 .83 Recreation 330 7 .34 CEOs Office and Staff 8 .32 Food Service 1742 I '4 .30 Computer Services 353 2 .30 Correctional Services 1764? ll? .72 Health Servicesr?Sai'ely 2763 IR .65 Unit Management 3-43? 22 .64 Religious Services 335 2 Records.i Inmate Systems 5 .46 Education Sc Vocational Training I 03 5 nil-i Business Of?ce 1738 (1 .35 Cenlral Di?ceiStaff Training Centers 4 .34 UNICUR 655 I .2 inmate Services 339 it it The most frequently sustained type of misconduct among Human Resources staff was lnattention to Duty (40 percent of all misconduct among staff in this group). The most frequently sustained types of misconduct among Facilities staff were Inattention to Duty and Failure to Follow Policy (13.9 percent each of all misconduct among staff in this group). 16 BOP FOIA 2016?0171618 of41 Closed/Sustained Misconduct I Bargaining vs. Non-Bargaining Unit Staff Of the 261 BOP employees with a sustained decision as of September 30, 2015. 225 were bargaining unit employees and 36 were non-bargaining unit employees. The rate of sustained misconduct among bargaining unit employees was .69 per 100 total bargaining unit employees, while the rate of sustained misconduct among non-bargaining unit employees was .58 per 100 total non-bargaining unit employees. Residential Reentry Center Employees There were [43 contractfresidential reentry center employees identi?ed as misconduct subjects in Fiscal Year 2015. As of September 30, 2015, a decision had been made for 36.4 percent of those 143 employees. Of the 36.4 percent (or 52 employees), 5.8 percent had a sustained decision. It is significant to note that an administrative disposition was recorded for 76.9 percent of those employees for whom a decision had been made, indicating the employee either resigned or their employment was terminated prior to an investigation being conducted. Thus. the 5.8 percent sustained rate is likely an extremely conservative ?gure. Two allegations of inappropriate Relationships With Inmates were sustained against Residential Reentry Center employees. and one allegation each of Sexual Abuse of Inmates. Other On-Duty Misconduct (inmate related), Failure to Follow Policy (inmate related). and Fiscal Improprieties (non-inmate related) were sustained against Residential Reentry Center employees. Staff in Privatized Facilities There were 130 employees working in privatized facilities identi?ed as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2015. As of September 30. 2015. a decision had been made for 58.9 percent of those 180 employees. Of the 5 8.9 percent (or 106 employees}, 42.5 percent [45} had a sustained decision. Table ti (on the following page) provides a breakdown of the categories of misconduct sustained against employees working in privatized facilities. The most frequently sustained categories of misconduct for staff working in privatized facilities were Failure to Follow Policy (19.1 percent of all sustained misconduct among this group} and Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates 14.7 percent of all sustained misconduct among this group). [7 BOP FOIA 2016?0171619 of 41 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Table 6: Types of Sustained Misconduct for Staff in Privatized Facilities - Fiscal Year 2015 With 58.9 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct Non Inmate Inmate Related Related TOTAL Failure to Follow Policy -i 9 i3 inappropriate Relationships With inmates IU 10 On?Duly Miseunducl 2 7 8 Breach of Security 7" al Conduct 5 2 7 investigative Violations 5 5 Abuse of Inmates 4 4 introduction of Contraband 3 4 hiaitemion Duty 2 2 4 Sexual Abuse of inmatas 3 3 Fiscal lmproprieries i] Bribery 1 Personnel Prohibitions Discrimination Unauthorized Release of lnt'ormallon 0 0 Off-Duly Misconduct 0 IS BOP FOIA 2016?01716 20 of41 Closed/Sustained Misconduct Drug Treatment Contractors There were 6 drug treatment contractors identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2015. As of September 30., 2015, no decision had been made for any of these individuals. Contract Employees and Volunteers Working in BOP Facilities There were 31 contract employees and 3 volunteers working in BOP facilities identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2015. As of September 30, 2015, a decision had been made for 32.3 percent of the 31 contract employees- Of the 32.3 percent (or 10 contract employees), 50 percent (5) had a sustained decision. Two allegations of Other OnwDuty Misconduct (non~inmate related). 2 allegations of Unprofessional Conduct (non?inmate related), and allegation of Introduction of Contraband (non-inmate related) were sustained against contract employees working in BOP facilities. As of September 30. 2015. no decision had been made for the 3 volunteers working in BOP facilities who were identi?ed as misconduct subjects. PHS Employees Working in BOP Facilities Of the approximately 871 PHS employees working in BOP facilities, 99 were identified as misconduct subjects during Fiscal Year 2015 (or 11.4 per 100 PHS employees). As of September 30. 2015. a decision had been made for 17.2 percent of those 99 PHS employees. 0f the 17.2 percent (or 17 PHS employees). 17.6 percent (3) had a sustained decision. for a sustained rate of .3 per 100 total PHS employees working in BOP facilities. One allegation of Inattention to Duly (inmate related), 1 allegation of Breach of Security (non- inmate related), and allegation of Unprofessional Conduct (non-inmate related} were sustained against PHS employees. 19 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 21 of41 Physical Abuse of Inmates Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 13 - Civil Rights ?24l Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten. or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory. or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be ?ned under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. 9:242. Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State. Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens. shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be ti ned under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or may be sentenced to death. . Statistics During Fiscal Year 2015, 490 allegations of Physical Abuse of Inmates were either reported to the CIA or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30, 20 5. a decision had been made for 35.] percent {or 172) of those allegations. Allegations of Physical Abuse allegations are tracked by the degree of injury sustained by the inniatet'sinlife threatening injury, serious injury, minor/slight injury, minor/no injury (harassment), and super?cial injury (injuries associated with the normal use of restraints). Three allegations of Physical Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2015 were sustained as of September 30, 20l5. The inmates involved sustained minor/no injuries. One of the subjects involved was a BOP employee (Food Service), 30 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 22 of41 Physical Abuse of Inmates and two were staff working at privatized facilities. None of the subjects with a sustained allegation of Physical Abuse of Inmates were criminally prosecuted. BOP FOIA 2016?01716 23 0f41 Introduction of Contraband Title 18. United States Code. Chapter 87 . Prisons ?l791 Providing or possessing contraband in prison Offense-Whoever- (I) In violation of a statute or a rule or order issued under a statute, provides to an inmate of a prison a prohibited object, or attempts to do so; or (2) being an inmate of a prison, makes, possesses, or obtains, or attempts to make or obtain, a prohibited object; shall be punished as provided in subsection of this section. Punishment-The punishment for an offense under this section is a fine under this title or- (1) imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if the object is speci?ed in subsection (djt of this section; (2) imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section; (3) imprisonment for no more than 5 years, or both, if the object is specified in subsection of this section; (4) imprisonment for no more than one year, or both, if the object is specified in subsection or of this section; and (5) imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, if the object is specified in subsection IMF) of this section. Any punishment imposed under subsection for a violation of this section by an inmate of a prison shall be consecutive. to the sentence being served by such inmate at the time the inmate commits such violation. Definitions?As used in this section? tl .3 the term ?prohibited object" means- (A) a ?rearm or destructive device or a controlled substance in Section 101' II, other than marijuana or a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subsection; (B) marijuana or a controlled substance in schedule [11, other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (C) of this subjection, ammunition, a 22 BOP 2016?01716 24 0f41 Introduction of Contraband weapon (other than a ?rearm or destructive device}, or an object that is designed or intended to be used as a weapon or to facility escape from a prison; (C) a narcotic drug. methamphetamine. its salts. isomers. and salts of its isomers. lysergic acid diethylamide. or (D) a controlled substance (other than a controlled substance referred to in subparagraph (A), (B). or (C) of this subsection} or an alcoholic beverage; (E) any United States or foreign currency; and (F) any other object that threatens the order. discipline. or security of a prison. or the life, health. or safety of an individual; (2) the terms ?ammunition." ??rearm.? and "destructive device" have. respectively. the meanings given those terms in section 921 of this title; (3) the terms ?controlled substance" and ?narcotic drug? have. respectively. the meanings given those terms in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 USC. ?802lL and (4) the term "prison" means a Federal correctional. detention, or penal facility or any prison. institution. or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General. 0 Statistics During Fiscal Year 2015. 481 allegations of Introduction of Contraband were either reported or detected during the course of an investigation. As of September 30. 2014. a decision had been made for 21.4 percent (or 103) of those allegations. As of September 30. 2015. 20 allegations of Introduction of Contraband reported during Fiscal Year 2015 were sustained: Type of Contraband 1117:1133 Soft Item I Weapons 3 Unauthorized Electronic Device 3 *5 Handguns and 3 Other Weapons Eighteen individuals were involved in the sustained allegations of Introduction of Contraband. Thirteen of these individuals were BOP employees 9 male and 4 female). Five of the BOP employees worked in Correctional Services. 2 worked in Health Services/Safety. 2 worked in Services. and 1 each worked in Education and Vocational Training, the Business Of?ce. Food Services. and Facilities. One of the individuals with a sustained allegation was a contract employee working in a BOP facility. and 4 were staff working in privatized facilities. 23 BOP FOIA 2016-01716 25 of41 Introduction of Contraband None of these individuals was criminally prosecuted for introducing contraband, though one person working in a privatized facility was criminally prosecuted in the Northern District of Texas for False Statements. She was sentenced to tin-months incarceration and 1?year supervised release. 24 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 26 0f41 Sexual Abuse of Inmates Title 18. United States Code. Chapter 109A - Sexual Abuse {$2241 Aggravated Sexual Abuse By force or threat. - Whoever, in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison. institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act - l) by using force against that other person. or (2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. By other means. - Whoever. in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution. or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly - renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or (2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant. or other similar substance and thereby - (A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and (B) engages in a sexual act with that other person; or attempts to do so, shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned for any tenn of years or life, or both. ?2242 Sexual Abuse Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison. institution. or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly - (I) causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear {other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or 25 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 27 0f4?l Sexual Abuse of Inmates (2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is (A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; or attempts to do so shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. {$2243 Sexual Abuse of 3 Ward Of a ward - Whoever. in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who is - in official detention; and (2) under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so engaging: or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both. ?2244 Abusive Sexual Contact Sexual contact in circumstances where sexual acts are punished by this chapter. - Whoever, in the special maritime and tenitorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution. or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so to do would violate - (I) subsection or of section 224] of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more. than ten years, or both; (2) section 2242 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title. imprisoned not more than three years, or both; (3) subsection of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years. or both; (4) subsection of section 2243 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be lined under this title, imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (5) subsection of section 2241 of this title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be ?ned under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life. 26 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 28 of 41 Sexual Abuse of Inmates In Other Circumstances. Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of our pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without that other person?s permission shall be fined under this title, imprisoned no more than two years, or both. 2246 Definitions (1) the term ?prison" means a correctional, detention, or penal facility; (2) the term ?sexual act" means - (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for the purposes of this subparagraph, contact involved the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus; or (C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening by another by a hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (D) the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another person who has not attained the age of lo years with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; (3) the term ?sexual contact" means the intentional touching. either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus. groin, breast. inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person: (4) the term ?selious bodily injury? means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness. extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or itnpairmeut of the function of a bodily member. organ, or mental faculty. the term ?of?cial detention" means - detention by a Federal officer or employee, or under the direction of a Federal of?cer or employee, following arrest for an offense; following surrender in lieu of an arrest for an offense; following a charge or conviction of an offense, or an allegation or finding of juvenile delinquency; following commitment as a material witness; following civil commitment in lieu of criminal proceedings or pending resumption of criminal 27 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 29 of41 Sexual Abuse of Inmates proceedings that are being held in abeyance. or pending extradition. deportation. or exclusion; or (B) custody by a Federal officer or employee. or under the direction of a Federal Officer or employee, for purposes incident to any detention described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, including transportation. medical diagnosis or treatment. court appearance, work. and recreation: but does not include supervision or under control (other than custody during specified hours or days} after release on bail. probation. or parole. or after release following a juvenile delinquency. - Statistics During Fiscal Year 2015. 431 allegations of Sexual Abuse were either reported to the 01A or detected during the course of an investigation. Of the 431 allegations. 359 involved BOP employees. 2 involved contract employees working in BOP facilities. 4 involved PHS employees working in BOP facilities. 43 involved staff working in contracti?residential reentry facilities. and 23 involved staff working in privatized facilities. The types of allegations reported with the most frequency were Unprofe-ssional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between male staff and male inmates (172 reported allegations) and Sexual Abusei?Sexual Abuse of a Ward (?2242l2243) between female staff and male inmates [57' reported allegations). As of September 30. 2015, six allegations of Sexual Abuse reported during Fiscal Year 2015 were sustained. These allegations involved 2 BOP employees. 1 contractlresidential reentry employee, and 3 employees working in privatized facilities. Two hundred and sixty-nine allegations reported during Fiscal Year 2015 were pending. Sexual Abusei?Sexual Abuse of a Ward (Female Inmate) Sexual Abuse/Sexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at the Eden Detention Center and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the DIG. When interviewed by the 01G the subject signed two sworn af?davits asserting she never engaged in sexual activity with the inmate or provided contraband to him. The subject later signed a third affidavit admitting she engaged in sexual intercourse and oral sex with the inmate and provided him with contraband sunglasses and gum. The subject pled guilty in the Northern District of Texas to 18 USC ?1001. False Statements. and 18 USC Aiding and Abetting. She was sentenced to six-months incarceration and one-year supervised release. and she was ordered to pay a $5.000 fine. The subject's employment was terminated. (2015700373016 2015000708} Sexual AbusefSexual Abuse of a Ward between a female employee at a residential reentry center and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the 016. When interviewed by the DIG the subject acknowledged she has known the inmate and his family for approximately 15 years. The subject admitted having vaginal intercourse with the inmate. approximately 100 times outside the 2.3 BOP FOIA 2015?01716 30 0f41 Sexual Abuse of Inmates facility and during the time he was a resident there. The subject confirmed she was pregnant at the lime of the interview. but she stated she was unsure if the child was the inmate's. The 016 did not present this matter for criminal prosecution. The subject left the facility immediately following the interview. Attempts to contact her were met with negative results, and her employment was ultimately terminated for abandonment of employment. 2015002673} Sexual Abuse/Sexual Abuse ofa Ward between a female Correctional Services employee at MDC Brooklyn and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the DIG. When interviewed by the 016 the subject admitted she provided partially nude photographs of herself to the inmate, and she sent money to the inmate's commissary account through a third party. The subject also admitted kissing the inmate and providing him with oral sex inside the institution. The Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York declined prosecution. The subject resigned her employment. 2015004170) Abusive Sexual Contact [Female Staff/Male Inmate) Abusive Sexual Contact between a female staff member at the Eden Detention Center and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the OIG. During two OIG interviews the subject admitted kissing and hugging the inmate on approximately ten occasions and admitted she allowed the inmate to touch her breasts. hip, and buttocks over her clothing with his hand on approximately five occasions. The Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas-Lubbock Division declined prosecution. The subject's employment was terminated. (20] 5-03337f01G 2015004856) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature {Male StaffMale Inmate) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a male Correctional Services employee at Seatac and a male inmate. The DIG deferred this matter to the BOP for administrative resolution. The subject admitted he told the inmate, "Look into my eyes so we can climax together." The subject resigned his employment. (2015-02268/016 2il15002957) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature (Female Staff/Male Inmate) Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature between a female employee at the Big Spring Correctional Center and a male inmate. This matter was investigated by the DIG. A Big Spring Correctional Center Supervisor reported that as he was exiting the Flightline Unit storage area, he observed the subject kissing and hugging the inmate. When interviewed by the 016 the inmate admitted he worked for the subject for two months in the Flightline Unit dining hall. The inmate stated he attempted to touch the subject's cheek once, but the inmate denied ever trying to kiss the subject. When she was interviewed, the subject admitted developing an inappropriate relationship with. the inmate. which led to the two of them kissing on two separate occasions. The subject denied engaging in sexual activity with the inmate. The US. Attorney's Office for 29 BOP 2016?01716 31 of41 Sexual Abuse of Inmates the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division, declined prosecution. The subject's employment was terminated. 2015003378) BOP FOIA 2016?01716 32 0f41 Representative Case Summaries Following are brief summaries of some of the cases which were completed during Fiscal Year 2015. A staff member was given a key ring with one key and a red label on it by an inmate. A male Correctional Services employee admitted he failed to secure the key to his belt, and he lost the key. Breach of Security and Failure to Follow Policy were sustained. The subject received a written reprimand. (2015-00017) Two male Facilities employees were seen driving up to a restaurant in a government vehicle. The two subjects went inside. ordered their food, picked up their food. and then departed the restaurant in the government vehicle. Both subjects were on shifts which did not include a lunch break. and retrieving food was not part of their official duties. TheftIMisuse of Government Property was sustained. Both subjects were suspended for one day. (2015-00168) A staff member observed an inmate talking to someone on an unmonitored telephone in the unit management common area. A female Correctional Services employee allowed inmates to use a staff telephone to make personal phone calls. Breach of Security, Failure to Follow Policy, and Preferential Treatment of Inmates were sustained. The subject received a written reprimand. (2015-00223) Staff found one 9mm round lying on a gray box which was located behind the activities lieutenant's desk. Staff also found four more 9mm rounds inside a male Correctional Services employee's black jacket which was lying on the gray box. The subject did not remember having the 9mm rounds in hisjacket, and he encountered no problems when his jacket was processed through the metal detector upon entering the institution. The contraband was able to get into the secure confines of the institution since it was not discovered during staff search procedures. The 9mm rounds were from a day when the subject attended ?rearms' training. Introduction of Contraband Weapons Introduction was sustained. The subject was suspended for three days. (2015-00370) A male employee at a privatized facility allowed an inmate to leave one unit and enter another unit. The subject then sat and talked with the inmate for approximately one hour. The inmate then roamed around the unit talking to other inmates for another hour. Staff witnessed the subject speaking to the inmate on a daily basis over a five month period. The subject and inmate were observed walking together in the hallways near the end of the subject's shift, as well as walking and talking on the recreation yard for approximately four hours. Improper Contact With an Inmatel'lnmate's Family was sustained. The subject's employment was terminated. (ZDI 5-00541) Three male employees at a privatized facility failed to report that immediate force was used on an inmate when the inmate tried to ?head butt" one of the subjects. Failure to Follow Policy was sustained. The subjects' employment was terminated. (2015?00682) 31 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 33 0f41 Representative Case Summaries A review of video surveillance of the SHU revealed a male Correctional Services employee was not present as he indicated in the SHU log. The subject did not make his watch tours during a three hour time period; however, the subject signed the security check log as if he had completed his watch tours. The subject admitted he missed some of his watch tours, but he signed the security check logs as if he had completed them. Falsification of Documents was sustained. The subject resigned his employment. (2015- 00990] A male Correctional Services employee used his government-issued travel charge card to purchase fuel while not on travel status. Due to the subject not paying the amount due on his card late fees were assessed. Misuse of Travel Charge Card and Failure to Pay Government Charge Card were sustained. The subject resigned his employment. (2015-01087) A male Food Service employee used his right hand to strike an inmate on the right side of his head as the subject was pointing to a dish machine which had cheese on top of it. In response. the inmate hit the subject in the torso. The subject then chest bumped the inmate. The subject admitted he inadvertently hit the inmate on the side of the head while pointing. The subject also acknowledged he chest bumped the inmate. Physical Abuse of Inmates was sustained. The subject received a written reprimand. (2015-01261) A female staff member in the CEO's office admitted that as she was putting on her coat to leave the office. she discovered her personal cell phone inside her coat pocket. The subject stated she did not enter the secure confines of the institution that day. lnattention to Duty was sustained. The subject received a written reprimand. (2015-01413) A male Correctional Services employee failed to properly secure an inmate in his assigned cell. The subject admitted that he and another staff member started at opposite ends of the range and began to secure the cell doors. The subject stopped at one of the cells to ask the other staff member a question and failed to secure that cell door. Failure to Follow Policy and Inattention to Duty were sustained. The subject resigned his employment. {2015-01872} A staff member con?scated a Class A tool (a hammer drill) from an inmate in the center of the compound. A male Facilities employee was responsible for the tool and the inmate work detail. The subject admitted the inmate had possession of a Class A tool. and the subject did not maintain constant supervision of the inmate as the inmate used the tool. Breach of Security and Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates were sustained. The subject was suspended for one day. (2015-02127) A female Services employee signed certifyin another Services employee's The reflected the employee as being on LWOP status. The BOP FOIA 2016?01716 34 0f41 Representative Case Summaries employee's LWOP was not approved by the Warden, and the subject failed to ensure the appropriate supporting documentation was present when signing the Failure to Follow Policy was sustained. The subject received a written reprimand. (2015-02585) Staff witnessed a female PHS employee use the words "fuck" and "motherfucker" during an ART presentation. One staff member covered his ears due to the amount of profanity being used by the subject. Staff witnessed the subject make statements such as, "Don't go against me, or I will ruin you," "Don't go against me, I am the boss," "Come here, get in my office now." and stating she would "hammer" or ?ruin" anyone who ?goes against? her. The subject continuously denied making such statements. even when confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of the allegations. Lack of Candor and Unprofessional Conduct were sustained. The subject was reassigned to ICE PHS service prior to discipline being imposed. {2015-03004} A male employee at a privatized facility noti?ed another staff member that a pair of sip joint pliers was missing from the subject's toolbox. The subject told the other staff member that the subject had not counted the tools in the toolbox in the last week; however, the subject signed the Daily Tool Log and the Tool Inventory Log indicating all the tools were accounted for. The missing pliers were found on top of the kitchen roof where the subject had been working. Falsi?catiou of Documents and Inattentiou to Duty were sustained. The subject's employment was terminated. A routine check of a male Education and Vocational Training employee's computer revealed a history of pornographic sites being viewed. The subject admitted he visited the sites through Craig's List. Misuse of Government Computers was sustained. The subject resigned his employment. 1) Ln BOP FOIA 2016?01716 35 0f41 Appendices Types of Sustained Misconduct for BOP Employees - FY 21114 With 65.6 Percent Closed Number of Sustained Allegations Type of Misconduct Inmate Non Inmate Off-Duty 0T AL Related Related On-Duty Misconduct 27:5 451 723 Personnel Prohibitions 21 1 21 332. Inattention to Duty TU Ital) 330 Failure to Follow Polio).r 108 102 210 Unprofeasional Conduct 55 138 193 Fiscal Improprieties 3 155 163 Off-Duty Misconduct 133 133 Breach of Security 43 52 95 Inappropriate Relationships With Inmates 83 33 Introduction of Contraband I7 31 48 InvestigatiVe Violations 43 43 Sexual Abuse of Inmates I5 15 Unauthorized Release of Information 3 6 ]4 Abuse of inmates I Bribery 9 i} 9 Discrimination 0 0 34 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 36 of 41 Appendices Types of Misconduct Abuw of Inmates Physical Abuse of Inmates Excessive Use of Force Threatening an InmateNerbal Abuse Retaliation Sexual Abuse of Inmates Aggravated Sexual Abuse - ?224l Sexual Abuse/Sexual Abuse of a Ward - ?2242l2243 Abusive Sexual Contact - ?2244 Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature Introduction of Contraband Soft Item Introduction Weapons Introduction Escape Paraphernalia Introduction Money Introduction Marijuana Introduction Heroin 8.: Derivatives Introduction Cocaine Introduction Other Unspeci?ed Drugs Introduction Alcoholic Beverages Introduction Unauthorized Electronic Device Introduction CreatinefWeightlifting Supplement Introduction Ci garettes/T obacco Introduction Discrimination Fiscal Time and Attendance Irregulatities Abuse of Sick Leave Voucher Falsi?cation Thefu'Misuse of Government Funds of Government Property Misuse of Government Computers Improper Procurement Procedures Failure to Pay Government Charge Card Misuse of Travel Charge Card Misuse of Purchase Charge Card Misuse of SmartPay 2 Credit Card Thefthisuse of Employees' Club Funds 35 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 37 of 41 Appendices Thefthisuse of AFGEfUnion Funds Theft of In mate Funds Theft/Destruction of Inmate Property Thefu'Misuse of Contractor Funds Theftl'Misuse of Contractor Property Failure to Account for Inmate Funds/Property Theft of Employee Funds/Property Misuse of UNICOR Resources Contract Fraud Bribery Bribery Conspiracy to Commit Bribery Inappropriate Relationship ith Inmates Soliciting/Accepting Anything of Value Offering/Giving Anything of Value Improper Contact With an Inmateilnmate's Family Appearance of an Inappropriate Relationship Misuse of Inmate Labor Preferential Treatment of Inmates Violations Concealing a Material Fact Refusing to Cooperate Lying During an Investigation Providing a False Statement Alterinngestroying EvidencefDoeuments Refusing to Submit to a Search Interfering With?mpeding an Investigation Advising Someone to Violate Policy Conducting an Unauthorized Investigation Lack of Candor Personnel Prohibitions ThreateningJIntimjdating Employees (relates to personnel actions) Failure to Report Violation of Ruleszegulations Falsification of Employment Records Misuse of Of?cial PositionlBadge Inappropriate SupervisorISubordinate Relationship Engaging in Prohibited Personnel Practices Use/Abuse of Illegal Drugs/Alcohol Absent Without Leave 36 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 38 of 41 Appendices Retaliation Refusing to Take a Drug Test I 'nnutlmriaetl Release of? miter ()n-Duti- Misconduct Unprofessional Conduct of a Sexual Nature Inattention to Dutyl Failure to Respond to an Emergency Failure to Properly Supervise Inmates Breach of SecurityI Breach of Computer Securityl Falsification of Documents Unprofessional ConductI Failure to Follow PolicyI Gambling/Promotion of Gambling Endangering the Safety of an Inmate Endangering the Safety of Others Providing False Information Other Than During an Of?cial Investigation Insubordination Accidental Discharge of a Firearm Soliciting/Sale of Goods on Govemment Property Job Favoritism Workplace Violence Failure to Meet Performance Standards Failure to Follow Supervisor's Instructions Fraudulent Workers' Compensation Claims Conduct Unbecoming a Management Of?cial Off-Duty Misconduct Arrest and Conviction Failure to Report Arrest Failure to Pay Just Debts Failure to Obtain Outside Employment Approval Domestic Violence Traf?c Citation Carrying an Unregistered/Concealed Firearm Discreditable Behavior Falsification of RecordsIDocuments Other Citation (Hunting. etc.) Con?ict of Interest lDue to the frequency of this type of misconduct. it is identi?ed separately throughout this report 37 BOP FOIA 2016?01716 39 of 41 Monitoring Assignments Alderson, WV Aliceville, AL Allenwood, PA Ashland, KY Atlanta, GA Atwaler, CA Bastrop, TX Beaumont, TX Beckley, WV Bennettsville, SC Berlin, NH Big Sandy, KY Bi Spring, TX Brooklyn, NY Bryan, TX Butner, NC Canaan, PA Carswell, TX Chicago, IL Coleman, FL Cumberland, MD Danbury, CT Devens, MA Dublin, CA Duluth, MN Edgefield, SC El Reno, OK Elkton, OH Englewood, CO Estill, SC Fairton, NJ Florence, CO Forrest City, AR Fort Worth, TX F011 Dix, NJ Gilmer, WV Grand Prairie, TX Greenville, lL Guaynabo, PR Hazelton, WV Herlong, CA Honolulu, HI Houston, TX 38 Jesup, GA La Tuna, TX Leavenworth, KS Lee, VA Lewisburg, PA Lexington, KY Lompoc, CA Loretto, PA Los Angeles, CA Manchester, KY Marianna, FL Marion, IL Mendota, CA McCreaIy, KY McDowell, WV McKean, PA Memphis, TN Miami FL MXRO, MD Milan, Ml Montgomery, AL Morgantowo WV New York, NY NCRO, KS NERO, PA Oakdale, LA Oklahoma, OK Otisville, NY Oxford, W1 Pekin, IL Pensacola, FL Petersburg, VA Philadelphia, PA Phoenix, AZ Pollock, LA Ray Brook, NY Rochester, MN Safford. AZ San Diego, CA Sandstone, MN Schuylkill, PA Seagoville, TX SeaTac, WA BOP FOIA 2016?01716 40 0f Monitoring Assignments Sheridan, OR SCRO, TX SERO, GA Springfield, MO Talladega, AL Tallahassee, FL Terminal Island, CA Terre Haute, IN Te xarkana, TX Thomson, 1L Three Rivers, TX Tucson, AZ Viclorville, CA Waseea, MN WRO, CA Williamsburg, SC Yankl?nn, SD Yaznn City. MS BOP 2016?01716 410f41