District of Columbia
Corrections Information Council (CIC)

ANNUAL REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2012

November 30, 2012
CIC Board Members
Michelle R. Bonner, Chair
Katharine A. Huffman
Reverend Samuel Whittaker
CIC Program Analyst
Cara M. Compani

Table of Contents

Letter from the CIC Board
I. Introduction
a. Statutory Mandate of the CIC
b. CIC Composition
II. Fiscal Year 2012
7
III. Tours
IV. Overview of the D.C. Inmate Population
a. D.C. Department of Corrections
b. Federal Bureau of Prisons
c. Halfway Houses
V. Community Concerns
17
a. Contact with Concerned Citizens
b. Contact with D.C. Inmates
c. Contact with Families of Incarcerated Individuals
VI. Observations
VII. Looking Forward
VIII. Appendix

2

5
5
6
10
12
12
13
16
17
17
18
19
21
22

District of Columbia Corrections Information Council (CIC)
November 30, 2012
To Mayor Gray, Members of the City Council for the District of Columbia, and the D.C.
Community at-large:
It is our great honor to provide you with the first annual report of the newly reestablished D.C.
Corrections Information Council (CIC). While our efforts have just begun, we are encouraged
by the interest and support that have brought us to this point. The restoration of this independent
oversight body demonstrates the importance that our community places on the wellbeing of those
DC residents who are incarcerated, whether locally or far from home. We look forward to
working with those in the D.C. and Federal governments, corrections and detention
professionals, incarcerated D.C. residents and their families and friends, and the broader D.C.
community to improve the safety, health, and safe and successful reentry of incarcerated DC
residents.
In calendar year 2012 the D.C. Corrections Information Council (CIC) was reestablished with
the leadership of D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s Administration, the D.C. City Council, and the
City Council’s Judiciary Committee. The three Board Members were sworn in on June 7, 2012.
The CIC hired a full time Program Analyst, Cara Compani, who began her work on August 20,
2012. During the relatively short period of time of the last quarter of Fiscal Year 2012, the CIC
began the process of setting up administrative operations, while also attending public hearings
and numerous events with D.C. community members to understand their concerns regarding
conditions of confinement and reentry into the D.C. community. The CIC also held training
sessions with experts in the areas of criminal justice, toured three Federal Bureau of Prison
(BOP) facilities, and met with D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC) and BOP leadership.
The CIC’s mandate is to inspect the prison, jail, and halfway house facilities where DC residents
are incarcerated, in order to ensure compliance with constitutional, human rights, statutory, and
institutional standards that govern the operation of these facilities. During Fiscal Year 2012
there were no fewer than 5,971 D.C. residents in over 100 BOP facilities, and 2,371 residents in
DOC custody. Many D.C. residents in BOP custody are far from their government, homes, and
families. They face unique obstacles in maintaining community connections and in reentering

3

the community upon completion of their sentences. The CIC’s oversight role also includes
reporting on these unique obstacles and making recommendations to remove barriers to reentry.
The CIC owes many thanks for its renewed existence. First and foremost, we are grateful for the
tireless efforts of advocates, community members, and the friends and family members of our
city’s incarcerated residents to reestablish the CIC. We applaud and thank Mayor Gray and his
Administration, D.C. City Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, and all the members of the
Council of the District of Columbia for recognizing the critical role of the CIC, revising and
strengthening our statutory mandate, and taking the necessary steps to appoint the CIC board
members. The CIC would also like to thank the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety
and Justice, which has provided support and assistance on the logistics of setting up the
administration of the CIC. We also recognize the attention and support shown by the Office of
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. Lastly, we could not do the work of the CIC without
the cooperation of the BOP and the DC DOC, as well as their contractors; and we appreciate
their willingness to work with the CIC this fiscal year.
We are grateful for this opportunity to serve the city and the residents of the District of
Columbia.
Sincerely,

Michelle R. Bonner

Rev. Samuel Whittaker

Katharine A. Huffman

Michelle R. Bonner
CIC Board Chair

Rev. Samuel Whittaker
CIC Board Member

Katharine A. Huffman
CIC Board Member

4

I. Introduction
The District of Columbia Corrections Information Council (CIC) is an independent monitoring
body presently made up of three volunteer board members from the D.C. community and a fulltime program analyst. Established by the Revitalization Act of 1997 and expanded by the
District of Columbia Jail Improvement Act of 2003, the CIC is mandated to inspect and monitor
conditions of confinement at facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prison (BOP), D.C.
Department of Corrections (DOC) and their contract facilities where D.C. residents are
incarcerated. Additionally, the CIC assesses programs and services available to D.C. residents at
these facilities. Through its mandate, the CIC will collect information from many different
sources, including site visits, and report its observations and recommendations to the D.C.
Mayor, the D.C. Deputy Mayor of Public Safety and Justice, the D.C. City Council, the Director
of BOP, the Director of the DOC, and to the D.C. community.

a. Statutory Mandate of the CIC
In 1997, Congress passed The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government
Improvement Act of 1997, also known as the Revitalization Act.1 This act transferred the
convicted D.C. felon population from the Lorton Correctional Complex to BOP custody. The
Revitalization Act established the CIC and outlined CIC membership, compensation, and duties.
The portion of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of
1997, Public Law 105-33, addressing the CIC duties states:
(g) District of Columbia Corrections Information Council.-(4) Duties.--The Council shall report to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons
with advice and information regarding matters affecting the District of
Columbia sentenced felon population.
The authority of the CIC was expanded in the District of Columbia Jail Improvement Act of
2003. The establishment, membership, compensation, and duties of the CIC were further
delineated and codified in D.C. Code § 24-1012 and D.C. Code § 24-211.01.3 The pertinent
section of D.C. Code § 24-101outlining the CIC’s duties states:
(4) Duties. -- The CIC shall:
(A) Report to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons with advice and information
regarding matters affecting the District of Columbia sentenced felon population;
(B) Conduct comprehensive inspections, unannounced whenever possible, of
facilities housing District of Columbia sentenced felons and interview selected
staff at each facility;
(B-i) Conduct comprehensive inspections of the District of Columbia's Central
Detention Facility in accordance with § 24-211.02(b)(1) and submit a report of
each inspection to the Mayor, the Council, and the Director of the District of
Columbia's Department of Corrections;

1

Public Law 105-33 (1997).
D.C. Code § 24-101(g-1) (2001).
3
D.C. Code § 24-101.01(2010).
2

5

(C) Review documents related to the conditions of confinement at each facility
housing District of Columbia sentenced felons, including, but not limited to,
inmate files and records, inmate grievances, incident reports, disciplinary reports,
use of force reports, medical and psychological records, administrative and policy
directives of the facility, and logs, records, and other data maintained by the
facility; and
(D) Transmit to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, the Mayor, the Council,
and the Director of the District of Columbia's Department of Corrections the
following reports, copies of which shall be made available to the public:
(i) An annual report on the conditions of confinement of District of
Columbia sentenced felons; and
(ii) A report on each inspection of a facility housing District of Columbia
sentenced felons.

b. CIC Composition4
Historically, there have been two CIC Board appointed in 2002 and 2004. In 2002, the CIC
Board was composed of Harold S. Russell (Chair), Chester Hart, and Ginny Spevak. In 2004
the CIC Board was composed of Ronald E. Hampton (Chair), Linda Jo Smith, and John D.
McDowell. There was no CIC Board appointed between 2005 and 2012. On June 7, 2012, the
new CIC board members were official sworn in by Mayor Gray.
Michelle R. Bonner - appointed to the CIC by Mayor Gray, Ms. Bonner is the Director of Legal
Services at Our Place D.C., a nonprofit that provides legal and other social services to presently
and formerly incarcerated women.
Reverend Samuel Whittaker – appointed by Mayor Gray, Reverend Whittaker is the pastor of
Contee AME Zion Church, 903 Division Avenue, N.E., Washington. As a pastor in the Ward 7
community Reverend Whittaker has seen and pastored many citizens returning from
incarceration. Reverend Whittaker also served on Mayor Gray’s 2011 Faith Based Transition
team.
Katharine A. Huffman – appointed by the DC City Council, Ms. Huffman serves as a Principal
at the Raben Group LLC in Washington, D.C., a comprehensive legislative law firm with a
mission to identify opportunities and solve problems for clients in the corporate, nonprofit,
foundation, and government sectors.

4

6

Full biographies of the CIC members are attached at Exhibit A

II. Fiscal Year 2012
For Fiscal Year 2012, the CIC set and reached the following goals:
Goal One: Community Outreach. The D.C. community, their concerns, experience, and
expertise are extremely important to the CIC. To fulfill this goal, the CIC attended numerous
meetings, D.C. Council hearings, forums, and events with D.C. community members to
understand their concerns regarding conditions of confinement and reentry into the D.C.
Community. The list below outlines the events the CIC attended.
• August 2012, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) Community
Resource Day;
• August, 21, 2012, U.S. Parole Commission’s Quarterly Meeting;
• August 30, 201, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) Reentry Steering
Committee Meeting;
• September 13, 2012, Re-Entry Task Force monthly meeting;
• September 15, 2012, Fairview Halfway House Open house;
• September 15, 2012, D.C. Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE) Caring
for Loved Ones in Federal Prison, at Reverend Whittaker’s Church Contee AME Zion
Church, 903 Division Ave., NE. The guest speaker was CIC Board Member Reverend
Whittaker;
• September 17, 2012, Video Visitation Town Hall with Councilmember Phil Mendelsohn
and DOC Director Thomas Faust, Deanwood Recreation Center;
• September 20, 2012, Chairmen Phil Mendelson Committee on the Judiciary Public
Oversight Hearing on Corrections Corporation of America’s (CCA) Management of the
District’s Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF);
• September 20, 2012, Youth Justice Project (YJP) Steering Committee Meeting;
• September 25, 2012, Chairmen Phil Mendelson Committee on the Judiciary public
hearing on the Innocence Protection Amendment Act of 2012 and Re-entry Facilitation
Amendment Act of 2012; and
• September 27, 2012, CSOSA Community Justice Advisory Network, Gallaudet
University. Chairman Phil Mendelson was the Keynote Speaker.
To further facilitate outreach to the D.C. Community the CIC held an open meeting both in July
and September of 2012. The CIC has implemented a policy of holding one meeting open to the
public on the second Tuesday of each month from 6:30 until 8:00 pm at the Martin Luther King
Jr. Library, Washington, D.C.5 The CIC plans plan to have future meetings focused on specific
areas within the CIC’s mandate.

5

For additional information on the time and location of this meeting please contact the CIC or reference the CIC’s
website.

7

Additionally, the CIC attained general information about D.C. residents in DOC and BOP
custody, including, but not limited to:6
• The number of D.C inmates in DOC and BOP custody;
• The demographics of incarcerated D.C. residents;
• The location of D.C. inmates in BOP custody and their distance from D.C.; and
• The security levels of BOP facilities where D.C. residents are incarcerated.
Goal Two: CIC Administrative Development. To fulfill its mandate, the CIC set up
administratively. The CIC now has an office, a mailing address, a telephone number, the ability
to be contacted by D.C. residents, a full time Program Analyst, and two interns from Georgetown
University Law Center.
Although the first several months were successful, the CIC has faced and is still facing some
obstacles. The CIC guarantees all D.C. residents anonymity for phone conversations and written
correspondence; however, in our current office space we do not have capacity to maintain this
confidentiality as the work of the CIC increases. Our current office space is a cubicle in the
Wilson Building. Although, we do not believe anyone in this building will infringe on the CIC’s
privacy, without an office with a door the CIC cannot guarantee the confidentiality that is crucial
to our inspecting and monitoring role.
Additionally, it is not possible for the CIC to monitor conditions of confinement for all D.C.
residents incarcerated in D.C. and across the U.S. with our current resources. The CIC consists
of volunteer board members with separate full-time jobs; and it has a budget for only one staff
person. Of the over 100 incarceration facilities, the CIC must pick and choose which facilities we
inspect, rather than providing the critical oversight to all facilities that house D.C. inmates. In
order to fulfill our mandate, the CIC needs a larger support staff, independent office space, and
budget increase in order to effectively fulfill its mandate.7
From the end of August 2012 through September 29, 2012, the CIC reviewed the mandates,
annual reports, and inspection reports of all domestic and international independent prison
inspection bodies. In addition to reviewing the mandates and reports of these bodies the CIC
spoke to members of the above-mentioned bodies. The CIC also began developing separate
inspection manuals capable of supporting comprehensive inspections for BOP facilities, DOC
facilities, and halfway houses.
Goal Three: Training. The CIC had several training sessions with members of the D.C.
community and experts in prison oversight. The sessions included training on general
information about D.C. agencies and organizations, best inspection and monitoring practices, and
largest areas of concern for D.C residents in DOC and BOP custody. The CIC will continue
training with local and national experts throughout our tenure.

6

Please see section III Overview of the D.C. Inmate Population for this information.
For FY 2013, CIC has been awarded a budget of only $128,500, which only allows for the hire of one staff person,
and does not allow for additional staff, independent office space, or travel for additional staff and volunteers
conducting the work of the CIC.
7

8

Goal Four: Establish Lines of Communication with BOP and DOC. The CIC met with
Charles E. Samuels, Jr., Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Thomas N. Faust, Director of
the D.C. Department of Corrections, and their support staffs. Through these meetings the CIC
established lines of communication and discussed access agreements with both agencies.

9

III.

Tours

On September 10, 2012 the CIC toured United States Penitentiary (USP) Hazelton, Secure
Female Facility (SFF) Hazelton, and Federal Correctional Institute (FCI) Cumberland.8 Jennifer
L. Edens, Chief, Office of Legislative Affairs and Justin B. Long, Legislative Affairs Specialist,
Office of Legislative Affairs, provided transportation and a tour of each facility to the CIC, a
member of Chairman Phil Mendelson’s staff, and members of Deputy Mayor for Public Safety
and Justice Paul Quander’s staff.
The CIC is grateful for the opportunity to tour these facilities; however, these tours are not
inspections pursuant to the CIC mandate. The current CIC will begin its inspections of facilities,
where D.C. inmates are incarcerated and reside in Fiscal Year 2013.
USP Hazelton
The approximate population of USP Hazelton is 1,400, including 197 male D.C. inmates.9 At
the facility, the CIC spoke with employees and toured the medical unit, meal hall during a meal,
gym, library, shipbuilding program, and Federal Prison Industries.10 The CIC was informed that
staff at this facility is expected to be on the floor walking around and communicating openly
with inmates; this did appear to be the case during our tour.
The inmate workers in the UNICOR factory work from 6:30 am to 2:30 pm; this time frame
allowed inmate workers to partake in education/GED classes at night. In the UNICOR factory,
the inmates were working non-stop through the duration of our tour. The factory was producing
a variety of products for the U.S. Army.
The gym had several cardiovascular machines. The machines appeared to be new and the gym
was well-equipped. The ship building center contained model size ships built by the inmates; the
ships themselves were impressive, skilled, and detailed. Additionally, the CIC was informed that
USP Hazelton offers college classes with local community colleges and universities. The law
libraries were all computerized; the CIC was informed the computers are equipped with D.C.
legal material. Overall, the CIC was impressed with the demeanor of the staff, the general
atmosphere, and the ability of inmates, staff, and visitors to walk freely with no observable safety
concerns at a USP during our tour.
SFF Hazelton
SFF Hazelton has a population of approximately 700 inmates including 63 female D.C.
inmates.11 At the facility, the CIC ate at the meal hall and observed programming. The CIC
observed the PAWS service dog training program, Leadership Empowerment Advancement
Program (LEAP), and the Re-entry Resource Center.
8

Please see Section IV Overview of the D.C. Inmate Population b. Federal Bureau of Prisons and Exhibit B for
further discussion on security levels at BOP institutions.
9
Marianne Staroscik, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA),
Distribution of District of Columbia Inmates Adjudicated in D.C. Superior Court and Housed in BOP Facilities, by
State and Gender (July 2012). [hereinafter CSOSA Distribution July 2012].
10
Also known as UNICOR.
11
CSOSA Distribution July 2012.

10

We spoke with one participant in the PAWS program who had been incarcerated several times,
and this program was a turning point for her. She never through she could succeed before, but
now she feels she has the skills to get a job and succeed.
LEAP is a four-phase, approximately-20-week program.12 The CIC met women participating in
this program; they were practicing public speaking and exuberating confidence.
Additionally, the facility has a Re-entry Resource Center, which offers courses in the following
skill set categories: intentional living, financial literacy, medical terminology, inner peace, selfawareness, relationship renewal, business development, and community connection.13
FCI Cumberland
The approximate population of FCI Cumberland is 1,200, including 133 male D.C. inmates.14
The CIC toured the educational unit and the library, spoke with members of the mental health
team, and observed the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP). The first thing the CIC
noticed upon entering this facility was the landscaping. Built in the 1990’s, unlike other BOP
facilities, it still has trees and greenery on its campus.
The FCI Cumberland brochure provided the CIC with a description of the RDAP program.
“This 500 hour comprehensive and intensive drug abuse program where the participants
not only live in the same housing unit; but they must also participate in the following
mandatory groups - basic process, advanced process, community meeting and
evaluation, community responsibility, criminal life styles, employment readiness,
intensive orientation, living with others, rational thinking, recover maintenance, life style
balance, victim empathy, victim impact, and transition.”15
There is a community atmosphere on the RDAP unit. The CIC observed a community meeting.
At this meeting, the residents were authentic in sharing with each other. They spoke openly
about their feeling and the challenges surrounding reentry into the community, workforce, and
their families.

12

Federal Bureau of Prisons SFF Hazelton, Leadership Empowerment Advancement Program [program outline].
Federal Bureau of Prisons SFF Hazelton, the Re-entry Resource Center [course catalogue].
14
CSOSA Distribution July 2012.
15
Federal Bureau of Prisons Federal Correctional Institution Cumberland, Maryland [brochure].
13

11

IV.

Overview of the D.C. Inmate Population

The CIC gathered information from DOC, BOP, and CSOSA to identify the number, location,
and demographics of D.C. residents incarcerated in DOC and BOP facilities.

a. D.C. Department of Corrections
Overall, at the end of Fiscal Year 2012, there were 2,371 individuals in DOC custody.16 This
includes 1,789 inmates at Central Detention Facility (D.C. Jail), 508 inmates at Correctional
Treatment Facility (CTF), and 75 residents at contract halfway houses facilities.17 Below is a
further break down of these numbers by date, facility, gender and ethnicity.
DOC Population Broken Down by Facility and Month for Fiscal Year 201218

D.C. Jail
CTF
Contract Halfway
Houses
Total

10/11

11/11

12/11

1/12

2/12

3/12

4/12

5/12

6/12

7/12

8/12

9/12

2168
729
123

2163
654
116

1979
594
106

1968
540
86

1951
513
74

1896
550
68

1889
526
76

1921
512
84

1893
505
80

1878
534
72

1848
521
78

1789
508
75

3020

2933

2678

2595

2538

2514

2492

2516

2478

2485

2447

2371

Gender
In Fiscal Year 2012, the average male population at the D.C. Jail was 1,915, and the average
male population at CTF was 359. In Fiscal Year 2012, the average female population at CTF
was 199 and the average juvenile population at CTF was 30.19
Average Daily DOC Population for Fiscal Year 2012 Broken-down by Gender20
D.C. Jail
CTF
Total

Male
1915
359
2347

Female
0
199
212

Juveniles
0
30
30

Ethnicity
In Fiscal Year 2012, 91.05% of DOC inmates were Black, 5.30% of DOC inmates were
Hispanic, 2.30% of DOC inmates were White, and 1.35% of DOC inmates were of another
16

D.C. Department of Corrections, D.C. Department of Corrections Facts and Figures, October 2012, available at
http://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/DC_Department_of_Corrections_Facts_n_F
igures_Oct_2012.pdf [hereinafter D.C. Department of Corrections Facts and Figures, October 2012].
17
D.C. Department of Corrections Facts and Figures, October 2012. More information on DOC contract Halfway
Houses is located in subsection c. Halfway Houses.
18
D.C. Department of Corrections Facts and Figures, October 2012.
19
D.C. Department of Corrections Facts and Figures, October 2012.
20
D.C. Department of Corrections Facts and Figures, October 2012.

12

ethnicity or did not disclose their ethnicity.21 The general D.C. population has the following
ethnic makeup: 50% black, 42% white, 9.5% Hispanic, and 4.45% other.22

23

24

b. Federal Bureau of Prisons
BOP operates facilities at five different security levels: minimum, low, medium, high, and
administrative. Below is a description of facilities operating at different security levels and
community based programs, where D.C. inmates are incarcerated.25
• Community-based correctional programs include Community Corrections Management
(CCM);
• Minimum security facilities are known as Federal Prison Camps (FPCs);
• Low security facilities are known as Federal Correctional Institutions (FCIs Low);
• Medium security facilities are known as FCIs Medium (and USPs designated to house
medium security inmates);
• High security facilities are known as United States Penitentiaries (USPs); and
• Administrative facilities are institutions with special missions including the treatment of
inmates with serious or chronic medical problem or the containment of extremely
21

D.C. Department of Corrections Facts and Figures, October 2012. Information pertaining to inmate ethnicity was
disclosed personally by the inmate.
22
U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 State & County QuickFacts District of Columbia, available at
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html. 2.5% of Persons reporting two or more races; U.S. Census
Bureau http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html.
23
D.C. Department of Corrections Facts and Figures, October 2012.
24
U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 State & County QuickFacts District of Columbia, available at
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html. 2.5% of Persons reporting two or more races; U.S. Census
Bureau http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html.
25
Additional information on BOP security levels is attached at Exhibit E.

13

dangerous, violent, or escape-prone inmates. Administrative facilities include
Metropolitan Detention Centers (MDCs), Federal Detention Centers (FDCs), and Federal
Medical Centers (FMCs), as well as the Federal Transfer Center (FTC), the Medical
Center for Federal Prisoners (MCFP), and the Administrative-Maximum (ADX) U.S.
Penitentiary. Administrative facilities, except the ADX, are capable of holding inmates in
all security categories.
According to the Distribution Report from the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
(CSOSA) , November 2012, as of October 26, 2012, there were 5,830 D.C. residents, including
5,545 males and 285 females, incarcerated within 109 BOP facilities in 32 states.26 Generally,
the largest numbers of D.C. residents were incarcerated at ten facilities in seven states.
Top Ten BOP facilities with the Largest Number of D.C. Residents October 201227

States Incarcerating the Largest Number of D.C. Residents
The states with the largest number of D.C. residents in June of 2012 were (in descending order)
North Carolina, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Florida, New
Jersey, Maryland, and California.

26

Marianne Staroscik, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA),
Distribution of District of Columbia Inmates Adjudicated in D.C. Superior Court and Housed in BOP Facilities, by
State and Gender (November 2012). [hereinafter CSOSA Distribution November 2012].
27
CSOSA Distribution November 2012.

14

Top Ten States with the Largest Number of D.C. Residents October 201228

Female D.C. Residents in BOP Custody
In October 2012 there were 285 female D.C. inmates in BOP custody in D.C. and twelve states
with one facility incarcerating females in each state.29

30

28
29

CSOSA Distribution November 2012.
CSOSA Distribution November 2012.

15

D.C. Inmates in BOP Custody Distance from D.C.
As of June 2012 approximately 70 % (3,900 out of a total 5,577) of D.C. residents in BOP
custody were located within 500 miles of D.C. in thirty-eight BOP facilities.31 Conversely, 1453
out of a total 5,577, D.C. residents in BOP custody were located more than 500 miles from D.C.
in seventy-one BOP facilities.32

c. Halfway Houses
There are four halfway houses in D.C.: Fairview, Hope Village, Extended House, and Efforts
from Ex-Convicts (EFEC). Fairview is the only female halfway house in the city. DOC
contracts with all four halfway houses; BOP contracts solely with Hope Village for males and
Fairview for females.
Average DOC Daily Population for Fiscal Year 2012 at Contract
Halfway Houses by Gender.

30

CSOSA Distribution November 2012.
CSOSA Distribution July 2012.
32
CSOSA Distribution July 2012.
31

16

V. Community Concerns
Through the CIC’s attendance at D.C. Council hearings, contact with advocates, contact with
inmates, and contact with inmates’ families, the CIC became aware of some of the community’s
concerns regarding conditions of confinement, programming, and reentry. Below is an outline of
some of the concerns brought to the CIC’s attention thus far. We recognize that this information
is far from comprehensive; the CIC has begun collecting and compiling this information in order
to gain insight and become aware of potential issues so that we can prioritize our work and
conduct the most efficient and comprehensive inspections possible. The CIC has not
independently confirmed any of the issues raised below.

a. Contact with Community Advocates
Inmates with Disabilities
Two District residents shared with advocates their stories as profoundly deaf inmates at
CTF. They reported a number of problems they encountered at CTF, including the following:
• Frequent denials of qualified sign language interpreters in situations where they are
statutorily mandated;
• Failures to make accommodations that would enable deaf inmates to participate in
rehabilitation and educational programs;
• Limited access to telecommunications typewriters, or TTY devices, compared to voice
telephones; and
• An absence of videophones, which are necessary for many deaf inmates to communicate
effectively.
Juveniles
Advocates’ concerns surrounding juveniles in DOC custody include the following:
• Video Visitation. For juveniles in person visits with community, friends, and family are
essential to reentry;
• Reentry is very difficult for juveniles in D.C., more service providers and services are
necessary; and
• Many juveniles are being sent to the regional jails in Virginia, Piedmont and Northern
Neck. The community is concerned about this placement because contact with family,
friends, and reentry services are inhibited by the distance (174 miles to Piedmont and 105
miles to Northern Neck) and lack of information and access to these facilities.
Additionally, the D.C. community is not aware of the programming that exists at these
facilities.

b. Contact with D.C. Inmates
A general list of concerns noted by inmates includes the following (facilities are not listed
because these issues may span more than one individual institution):
• The denial and unfair burdens of Public Safety Factor Waiver;
• Inmates are not receiving good time credits;

17

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Retaliatory practices by correction officers against inmates;
Denial of necessary medical care to inmates;
It is very hard for family to visit D.C. inmates at BOP facilities across the county;
Dangerous overcrowding, including placing two and three people in a cell that the BOP's
own regulations state is only designed for one;
Pay cuts for detail and UNICOR workers;
Lack of job training and education opportunities for inmates;
Lack of psychological help for inmates; and
Poor condition of kitchens and food.

c. Contact with Families of Incarcerated Individuals
The CIC has spoken to and received correspondence from family members of D.C. residents
incarcerated in BOP, DOC, and their contract facilities. A general list of concerns noted by
family members includes the following:
• Excessive use of Solitary Confinement/Special Housing Unit (Allenwood);
• Insufficient Medical Care (Lewisburg);
• Excessive Use of Force (Lewisburg);
• Counselors at the facility will not return family phone calls (Lewisburg);
• Insufficient translation available for staff and inmates (Rivers);
• Programs listed on website are not actually offered (Rivers);
• Inmates are not able to speak with their attorneys (Rivers);
• Visitation is difficult; specifically, the wands used to test for drugs are inaccurate and the
procedure for wand testing is not followed (Rivers);
• Stigma associated with inmates from D.C. (general);
• No running water or flushing toilets (D.C. Jail South 1); and
• Lack of assistance search for jobs (Hope Village).

18

VI.

Observations

Number of D.C. Resident at the ADMAX Florence
According to BOP, the Administrative Maximum (ADMAX) facility in Florence, Colorado
houses offenders requiring the tightest controls and is responsible for the containment of
extremely dangerous, violent, or escape-prone inmates.33 In November 2012, there were 218,505
inmates in BOP custody and 433 inmates at the ADMAX in Florence.34 Therefore, 0.20% of
inmates in BOP custody were incarcerated at the Florence ADMAX. Comparing D.C. inmates
to the general population, as of October 26, 2012, there were 5,830 D.C. residents in BOP
custody and 32 D.C. residents at the Florence ADMAX.35 Therefore, .55% of D.C. inmates in
BOP custody are at the Florence ADMAX. The CIC is interested in investigating why D.C.
residents are more likely to be placed in Florence ADMAX than the overall BOP population.
BOP Distance from D.C.
As of June 29, 2012 over 70 % (73.95%), 4124 out of a total 5577, D.C. residents in BOP
custody are located within 500 miles of D.C. The CIC commends BOP for keeping this large
number of D.C. residents within this radius. In the coming fiscal year, the CIC will further
examine why over twenty five percent of its residents are incarcerated over 500 miles away.
Additionally, although within 500 miles, we have heard that families are unable to visit relatives
at the Virginia regional jail facilities, Northern Neck and Piedmont. The CIC intends to
investigate this in Fiscal Year 2013.
The CIC is also concerned with D.C. residents being placed away from their home with almost
no other D.C. residents. Thirty-three (33) facilities have five or less D.C. residents and all but
one are located greater than 500 miles away from D.C. The CIC is also interested in
investigating why this is so.
Video Visitation
On September 17, 2012, the CIC attended the Video Visitation Town Hall with Chairman Phil
Mendelsohn and DOC Director Thomas N. Faust at the Deanwood Recreation Center. At this
Town Hall, Director Faust discussed video visitation at the D.C. Jail, and D.C. community
members expressed their opinion on the issue:
DOC:
• In person visits are generally not allowed; however, in person visits are permissible for
attorneys, clergy and under special circumstances. Special circumstances are determined
on a case-by-case basis and generally include personal family related issues;
33

Federal Bureau of Prisons, Prison Types & General Information, available at
http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/index.jsp.
34
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Weekly Population Report (November 22, 2012) available at
http://www.bop.gov/locations/weekly_report.jsp#bop.
35
CSOSA Distribution November 2012.

19

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Inmates have two 45 minutes visits per week, greater than the amount of time inmates
had for in person visitation36;
Video visits can be scheduled over the phone or online;
The visitation process for video visitation is much more streamlined than the process for
in person visits;
Video visitation has eliminated long waits, pat downs, and the uncertainty of a last
minute visitation cancellation;
Video visitation decreases the amount of staff necessary for visitation;
Video visitation allows for visitation on Saturday and Sunday, which was previously not
available for in person visits; and
There is not, and according to Director Faust, never will be any cost for video visitation.

Community Concerns:
• Video Visitation does not provide privacy for visits;
• This visitation takes away the human element of visitation, specifically human contact;
• Video Visitation is inhumane, takes the human element about having a visit.
• Video Visitation deprived an inmate of the close proximity of a loved one and decreased
inmate’s moral;
• In person visitation is important for maintaining community ties necessary for reentry;
• Fifty percent of the population at the D.C. Jail is pre-trial detainees; these individuals are
innocent until proven guilty; and
• Few jurisdictions use this as the exclusive means of visitation. The large majority of
jurisdictions who use video visitation use this as an option.
The CIC will further investigate the exclusive use of video visitation at the D.C. Jail in Fiscal
Year 2013.

36

D.C. Department of Corrections, Video Visitation at the DC Jail, (August 30, 2012),
http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/doc/section/4/release/23567

20

VII. Looking Forward
In Fiscal Year 2013, the CIC will begin inspections at BOP, DOC, and their contract facilities.
Additionally, the CIC will continue to complete trainings with experts from the national and
D.C. community and further the CIC’s goals set in Fiscal Year 2012. Specifically, the CIC will
conduct its first inspection at the halfway house Hope Village at the end of November 2012.
Additionally, in Fiscal Year 2013 the CIC hopes to obtain a confidential and secure office space.
The CIC guarantees all D.C. residents anonymity for phone conversations and written
correspondence. As the work of the CIC increases, we cannot guarantee confidentiality from our
current cubicle. Also, the CIC would like to increase the size of our office staff. It is not
possible for the CIC to fulfill our mandate providing critical oversight to all facilities that house
D.C. inmates with just one employee and three volunteer board members. Therefore, in the
coming years the CIC will need a larger budget to increase staff size and acquire a secure office
space. Both of these items are necessary to fulfill the CIC’s mandate and critical oversight role.

21

VIII.

Appendix

Exhibit A Biographies of the CIC Board Members
Michelle R. Bonner is the Director of Legal Services at Our Place D.C., a nonprofit that
provides legal and other social services to presently and formerly incarcerated women. At Our
Place, Ms. Bonner appears before the U.S. Parole Commission in parole revocation hearings and
before D.C. Superior Court in civil matters, such as divorce, child custody and civil protection
hearings. Ms. Bonner also provides numerous other direct legal services and legal education to
presently incarcerated women in DOC and the BOP, as well as to formerly incarcerated women
in the community.
Ms. Bonner has lived and practiced law in Washington, D.C. since her graduation from Stanford
Law School in 1996. She was a Prettyman/Stiller Fellow in the Trial Advocacy Program at
Georgetown University Law Center’s Criminal Justice Clinic. As a clinic fellow, she taught both
trial advocacy and litigation skills to third year law students and represented indigent criminal
defendants in D.C. Superior Court. She has also worked as a criminal defense attorney in the
Trial Division of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, where she
represented indigent criminal defendants at jury trials, bench trials and various hearings at D.C.
Superior Court. Additionally, Ms. Bonner has engaged in private practice in D.C., and has
represented clients in bankruptcy, landlord-tenant issues, small claims, divorce, small business &
nonprofit development, and criminal appeals.
In addition to her Juris Doctorate Degree from Stanford Law School, Ms. Bonner has obtained a
Masters in Criminal Justice Policy from the London School of Economics and Political Science
and a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science from The Johns Hopkins University in
Baltimore, Maryland.
Katharine A. Huffman serves as a Principal at the Raben Group LLC in Washington, D.C., a
comprehensive legislative law firm with a mission to identify opportunities and solve problems
for clients in the corporate, nonprofit, foundation, and government sectors. With many years of
experience working with nonprofits and foundations, Ms. Huffman leads teams to assist clients
in identifying their policy goals, developing short- and long-term strategic plans, building
organizational programming and resources, expanding coalition partnerships, and implementing
public and policymaker educational and lobbying campaigns.
Prior to joining The Raben Group, Katharine was the Director of State Affairs for the Drug
Policy Alliance, a national nonprofit membership organization. She also founded the
organization's first state-level office, in New Mexico. Ms. Huffman began her legal career as a
civil rights litigator and Soros Justice Fellow at the Southern Center for Human Rights in
Atlanta, Georgia, where she focused on prison and jail conditions of confinement in the
southeastern United States.
Katharine grew up in Memphis, Tennessee. She received her law degree from Yale Law School
and received her undergraduate degree in Psychology and Music from Emory University, where

22

she was a Robert W. Woodruff Scholar. She has lived and worked in D.C. since 2004, where
she and her husband are currently raising their two young children.
Reverend Samuel Whittaker is a native Washingtonian; he was educated in D.C. public
schools, received his college degree in Sociology from the University of the District of
Columbia, and holds a Certificate of Completion from the Wesley Theological Seminary.
Reverend Whittaker had completed his requirements for Clinical Pastoral Education unit and
serves as a contract chaplain at the Washington Hospital Center. Reverend Whittaker also
served on Mayor Gray’s 2011 Faith Based Transition team.
As a pastor in the Ward 7 community, Reverend Whittaker has seen and pastored many citizens
returning from incarceration. It is his passion to help all who are willing to have a second chance
at becoming a positive force in the community, where they live. Over the past seven years,
Reverend Whittaker has helped many people find their way to a productive way of life through
faith based initiatives.
Reverend Whittaker fell in love with God while a senior in high school and joined Trinity AME
Zion Church, Washington, D.C., under the pastorate of Bishop Richard K. Thompson. There, he
grew and was nurtured in the ways of the Lord. Reverend Whittaker was called into the ministry
in 1982 and served as assistant Pastor while at Trinity.
His desire was always to serve the Lord and as a result of his faithfulness, Reverend Whittaker
was called upon to Pastor St. John AME Zion Church, Odenton, Maryland and Union AME Zion
Church, New Castle, Delaware and is presently the shepherd of Contee AME Zion Church, 903
Division Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C.

23

Exhibit B Federal Bureau of Prison Security Levels37
The Bureau operates institutions at five different security levels in order to confine offenders in
an appropriate manner. Security levels are based on such features as the presence of external
patrols, towers, security barriers, or detection devices; the type of housing within the institution;
internal security features; and the staff-to-inmate ratio. Each facility is designated as either
minimum, low, medium, high, or administrative. Institutions may undergo institution population
changes to accommodate the agency’s bed space capacity, security level, and population
management needs.
Minimum Security
Minimum security institutions, also known as Federal Prison Camps (FPCs), have dormitory
housing, a relatively low staff-to-inmate ratio, and limited or no perimeter fencing. These
institutions are work- and program-oriented; and many are located adjacent to larger institutions
or on military bases, where inmates help serve the labor needs of the larger institution or base.
Low Security
Low security Federal Correctional Institutions (FCIs) have double-fenced perimeters, mostly
dormitory or cubicle housing, and strong work and program components. The staff-to-inmate
ratio in these institutions is higher than in minimum security facilities.
Medium Security
Medium security FCIs (and USPs designated to house medium security inmates) have
strengthened perimeters (often double fences with electronic detection systems), mostly cell-type
housing, a wide variety of work and treatment programs, an even higher staff-to-inmate ratio
than low security FCIs, and even greater internal controls.
High Security
High security institutions, also known as United States Penitentiaries (USPs), have highly
secured perimeters (featuring walls or reinforced fences), multiple- and single-occupant cell
housing, the highest staff-to-inmate ratio, and close control of inmate movement.
Correctional Complexes
A number of BOP institutions belong to Federal Correctional Complexes (FCCs). At FCCs,
institutions with different missions and security levels are located in close proximity to one
another. FCCs increase efficiency through the sharing of services, enable staff to gain experience
at institutions of many security levels, and enhance emergency preparedness by having
additional resources within close proximity.
Administrative
Administrative facilities are institutions with special missions,
such as the detention of pretrial offenders; the treatment of
inmates with serious or chronic medical problems; or the
containment of extremely dangerous, violent, or escape-prone inmates. Administrative facilities
include Metropolitan Correctional Centers (MCCs), Metropolitan Detention Centers (MDCs),
37

BOP Website

24

Federal Detention Centers (FDCs), and Federal Medical Centers (FMCs), as well as the Federal
Transfer Center (FTC), the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners (MCFP), and the
Administrative-Maximum (ADX) U.S. Penitentiary. Administrative facilities, except the ADX,
are capable of holding inmates in all security categories.
Satellite Prison Camps
A number of BOP institutions have a small, minimum security camp adjacent to the main
facility. These camps, often referred to as Satellite Prison Camps (SPCs), provide inmate labor
to the main institution and to off-site work programs. FCI Memphis has a non-adjacent camp that
serves similar needs.
Federal Satellite Low Security
FCI Elkton and FCI Jesup each have a small Federal Satellite Low Security (FSL) facility
adjacent to the main institution. FCI La Tuna has a low security facility affiliated with, but not
adjacent to, the main institution.
Secure Female Facility
Currently, the BOP has one Secure Female Facility (SFF) unit (located at USP Hazelton, WV)
designed to house female inmates. Programming at the SFF promotes personal growth by
addressing the unique needs of this population.

25

Exhibit C D.C. Inmates in BOP Custody within 500 miles of D.C.
As of June 29, 2012 over 70 % (73.95%), 4124 out of a total 5577, D.C. residents in BOP
custody are located within 500 miles of D.C.
BOP facilities located within 500 miles of D.C.
State

Name of Facility

Type

Total
Number

Male

Female

Distance
from
D.C.
(miles)

MD

Annapolis Junction

CCM

16

11

5

24

VA

Petersburg (Low)

FCI

186

186

0

129

VA

Petersburg (Medium)

FCI

33

33

0

129

MD

Cumberland

FCI

133

133

0

137

PA

Philadelphia

FDC

75

39

36

137

NJ

Fairton

FCI

186

186

0

143

NJ

Fort Dix

FCI

14

14

0

173

PA

Schuylkill

FCI

119

119

0

175

PA

Loretto

FCI

5

5

0

187

PA

Lewisburg

USP

134

134

0

189

WV

Hazelton

USP

260

197

63

193

PA

Allenwood (Low)

FCI

9

9

0

197

PA

Allenwood

USP

140

140

0

197

PA

Allenwood (Medium)

FCI

108

108

0

203

WV

Morgantown

14

14

0

211

NC

Rivers

804

804

0

212

NY

Brooklyn

FCI
Corr.
Instit.
MDC

14

14

0

224

NC

Butner II (Medium)

FCI

137

137

0

244

NC

Butner (Low)

FCI

17

17

0

244

NC

Butner

FMC

16

16

0

244

NC

Butner I (Medium)

FCI

36

36

0

244

NC

Raleigh

CCM

3

3

0

244

PA

Canaan

USP

157

157

0

265

WV

Alderson

FPC

14

0

14

278

CT

Danbury

FCI

76

0

76

291

PA

McKean

FCO

62

62

0

295

WV

Gilner

FCI

181

181

0

299

WV

Beckley

FCI

132

132

0

302

26

OH

Northeast Ohio Correctional
Center

CORR.
CTR

3

3

0

305

NY

Otisville

FCI

69

69

0

313

OH

Elkton

FCI

8

8

0

314

WV

McDowell

FCI

90

90

0

361

SC

Bennettsville

FCI

94

94

0

399

MA

Devens

FMC

35

35

0

430

KY

Ashland

FCI

4

4

0

433

VA

LEE

USP

190

190

0

435

KY

Big Sandy

USP

176

176

0

447

SC

Williamsburg

FCI

74

74

0

467

DC

Central Office

300

277

23

N/A

4124

3907

217

Total

27

Exhibit D D.C. Inmates in BOP Custody Further than 500 miles of D.C.

State

Name of Facility

Type

Total
Number

Male

Female

Distance
from
D.C.
(miles)

KY

Manchester

FCI

42

42

0

515

NY

Ray Brook

FCI

66

66

0

516

KY

Lexington

FMC

13

13

0

544

SC

Edgefield

FCI

119

119

0

551

SC

Estill

FCI

63

63

0

551

KY

McCreary

USP

159

159

0

570

GA

Atlanta

USP

50

50

0

642

GA

Atlanta

CCM

1

1

0

642

TN

Nashville

CCM

1

1

0

665

GA

Jesup

FCI

18

18

0

667

IN

Terre Haute

FCI

9

9

0

673

IN

Terre Haute

70

70

0

673

GA

D. Ray James

3

3

0

693

GA

McRae

2

2

0

701

IL

Chicago

USP
Corr.
Center
Corr.
Instit.
CCM

1

1

0

701

AL

Talladega

FCI

5

5

0

730

IL

Greenville

FCI

4

4

0

790

IL

Pekin

FCI

6

6

0

807

IL

Marion

USP

9

9

0

835

FL

Coleman II

USP

100

100

0

843

FL

Coleman (Low)

FCI

6

6

0

843

FL

Coleman (Medium)

FCI

16

15

1

843

FL

Coleman I

USP

85

85

0

843

TN

Memphis

FCI

11

11

0

861

FL

Tallahassee

FCI

6

3

3

870

WI

Oxford

FCI

4

4

0

900

AR

Forrest City (Medium)

FCI

6

6

0

923

AR

Forrest City (Low)

FCI

1

1

0

923

FL

Marianna

FCI

19

19

0

942

MS

Yazoo City (Medium)

FCI

7

7

0

1027

MS

Yazoo City (Low)

FCI

3

3

0

1027

MN

Rochester

FMC

20

20

0

1047

28

FL

Miami

FDC

1

1

0

1057

FL

Miami

FCI

1

1

0

1078

MO

Springfield

MCFP

41

41

0

1092

MN

Waseca

FCI

4

0

4

1105

MN

Minneapolis

CCM

2

2

0

1108

KS

Leavenworth

USP

11

11

0

1110

LA

Pollock

USP

46

46

0

1174

LA

Medium

USP

15

15

0

1174

LA

Oakdale

FDC

7

7

0

1206

LA

Oakdale

FCI

14

14

0

1206

TX

Dallas

CCM

1

1

0

1332

TX

Beaumont (Low)

FCI

3

3

0

1335

TX

Beaumont (Medium)

FCI

10

10

0

1335

TX

Beaumont

USP

36

36

0

1335

OK

Oklahoma City

FTC

20

19

1

1353

TX

Fort Worth

FCI

6

6

0

1360

TX

Carswell

FMC

14

0

14

1367

OK

El Reno

FCI

5

5

0

1369

TX

Houston

FDC

1

1

0

1411

TX

Big Spring

FCI

2

2

0

1617

TX

Three Rivers

FCI

11

11

0

1629

CO

Denver

CCM

2

2

0

1701

CO

Englewood

FCI

1

1

0

1701

CO

Florence

FCI

4

4

0

1706

CO

Florence

ADMAX

31

31

0

1706

CO

Florence

USP

32

32

0

1706

AZ

Tucson

USP

97

97

0

2277

AZ

Phoenix

FCI

3

3

0

2317

CA

Victorville Medium I

FCI

3

3

0

2604

CA

Victorville

USP

33

33

0

2604

CA

Victorville Medium II

FCI

8

8

0

2604

CA

Herlong

FCI

6

6

0

2658

CA

Sacramento

CCM

2

2

0

2732

WA

Seattle

CCM

1

1

0

2759

CA

Lompoc

USP

7

7

0

2814

CA

Dublin

FCI

2

0

2

2820

CA

Mendota

FCI

4

4

0

2824

CA

Atwater

USP

38

38

0

2835

29

OR
Total

30

Sheridan

FCI

3

3

0

1453

1428

25

2857