The prevalence of not only STE activity, but staff?s tolerance of it, cannot be understated. Gang graffiti
is evident throughout the facility. STG leaders are surrounded by their "security" at all times; outside
their cell door, while they are showering and anywhere they go. Audit team members observed certain
inmates being 'escortedfprotected? as they went from shower to cell and vice versa. Numerous inmates
were observed wearing their pants inside out.

Customer SUP 15.19.01 specifically requires management of an institution ?from a position of strength
to ensure Zero Tolerance for STG activities" and Refuse to acknowledge or give statuslattention to
offenders as STG members". Multiple interviews with inmates reveal that STG leaders control who gets
jobs and other preferential treatment. During the audit in-brief, the audit team was told by the Warden
that the head of MDOC CID [Criminal Investigation Division) has stated there needs to be more working
with the STG leaders so they can better control their members, or something to that effect. The Warden
said he agreed with this approach and that the ?old school? ways are some of the most effective. It is
imperiative that the facility does not allow STG activity to occur freely or without consequence, much
less condone or encourage it by "working" with STG leaders, thereby empowering them.

Other auditors noted that during the audit it never felt like staff were in control of the offender
population. It was evident from observations and interviews that staff do not enforce rules or perform
routine duties consistently.

Another auditor similarly reported the Warden?s styie of managing high-risk populations and provided
important insight into the ramifications of this approach:

- Warden stated that he speaks with the gang and asks them to ?control their men."
If they do not control the individuals on the unit, the Warden will place the unit on lockdown.
The Warden said that is how Mississippi prisons operate "It ain?t right, but?s it"s the truth.?
{Quote from the Warden].

This is problematic for several reasons. First, the Warden is punishing an entire unit if "the gang leaders?
were unabie to manage their groups. This is not an effective method of influencing compliance as this
strategy can cause individuals to act out in frustration because they were not breaking the rules. Second,
the Warden is giving some power and control to these individuals and asking these individuals to have
some form of informal social control. When inmates exert power over other inmates, they can use this
to coerce, manipulate, control, or threaten individuals to get what they want and satisfy their own
needs. Not only does this have safety implications but it is not conducive to a healthy, pro-social
environment and can interfere with rehabilitative efforts. Gang leaders will reinforce behaviors they
value these behaviors are most likely antisocial and criminal. Third, the gang leaders that the Warden


I MTC Comprehensive Audit Tool Attorney?Client Priviiege Confidential and Proprietary Critical Self?Analysis 2013