Skip navigation
CLN bookstore

Study of Operation of the FL DOC, CGL, 2015

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
NOVEMBER 2015
Florida Legislature
Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability
111 West Madison Street, Room 874
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1400
Prepared by:
CGL
2485 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95833

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORT SECTION

PAGE

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................1
1. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STAFFING ....................................................................10
2. SECURITY OPERATIONS ........................................................................................45
3. POPULATION MANAGEMENT AND INMATE RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT ...........79
4. INMATE PROGRAMS ...........................................................................................100
5. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................122
APPENDICES
A: Florida Documents Tracking
B:

Listing of Inmate Programs Offered

C: Demographics and Success Measures for Substance Abuse Programming
D: Florida Program Services Inventory

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), a joint
entity of the Florida Legislature (Legislature), solicited competitive bids in order to award a
contract with an independent consultant for a Study of Operations of the Florida Department
of Corrections (FDC).
The goal of the solicitation process was to fulfill the requirements of Chapter 2015-232, Laws
of Florida (also known as Senate Bill 2500-A) passed during a special 2015 session of the
Legislature. The bill states:
“From the funds in Specific Appropriations 2667 and 2668, $300,000 in nonrecurring
general revenue funds is appropriated for the Office of Program Policy Analysis and
Government Accountability to contract with an independent consultant to study the operations
of the Department of Corrections with regard to the incarceration of inmates. The contractor
shall identify both positive and negative aspects of the department's operations and shall
prepare a report of its findings, including recommendations for improvements. The report
shall be submitted to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives no later than December 1, 2015.”
The solicitation sought a consultant to conduct an immediate, thorough, and detailed study of
the operations of the FDC with reference to applicable best management practices in the
corrections industry. Consistent with the time requirements contained in Senate Bill 2500-A,
the final report for this study was required to be submitted no later than November 30, 2015.
The following specific operational areas were designated for review:
Correctional Officer Staffing
•

•
•
•
•

Use of best practices identified for the corrections industry, especially those related to
correctional officer screening and recruitment, training, retention, turnover,
compensation, officer/inmate interaction, minimum staffing levels, and the use of
double shifts and overtime
Content and implementation of FDC policies and practices for correctional officer
screening and recruitment
Content and implementation of FDC policies and practices for training new
correctional officers
Content and implementation of FDC policies and practices related to correctional
officer retention
FDC correctional officer turnover rates and reasons for turnover by FDC region
1

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

•
•
•

•
•

•

Comparison of FDC correctional officer compensation as compared to compensation
for county jail correctional officers in Florida
Content and implementation of FDC policies and procedures for correctional
officer/inmate interactions, including the use of force and incident reporting
Content and implementation of training provided to experienced correctional officers,
including training on officer/inmate interactions and the use of force and incident
reporting
Content and implementation of FDC policies and practices related to the use of
minimum staffing levels, including frequency of occurrence by institution
Content and implementation of FDC policies and practices related to the use of
overtime and double shifts, including the amount of overtime paid annually by the
FDC for Fiscal Years (FY) 2010/11 through 2014/15
Any other issues identified as meeting or failing to meet best practices identified for the
corrections industry related to correctional officer staffing, with notations of positive
and negative findings and recommendations for improvement in needed areas across
all correctional officer staffing components

Security Operations
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Use of best practices identified for the corrections industry, especially those related to
security operations
Organization and structure of security at the institutional level at FDC facilities
Content and implementation of FDC policies and practices that are designed to
ensure correctional officer safety
Content and implementation of FDC policies and practices that are designed to
ensure inmate safety
Content and implementation of FDC policies and practices related to correctional
officer-to-inmate ratios, both in terms of overall ratios and in terms of supervision
standards
Content and implementation of FDC policies and practices related to correctional
officer assignments within the FDC institutions
Any other issues identified as meeting or failing to meet best practices identified for the
corrections industry related to security operations, with notations of positive and
negative findings and recommendations for improvement in needed areas across all
security operations components

2

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Risk and Needs Assessment
•
•

•
•

•

Use of best practices identified for the corrections industry, especially those related to
risk and needs assessment
Content and implementation of FDC policies and practices related to the use of the
risk and needs assessment for inmate security classification during the reception
process
Content and implementation of FDC policies and practices related to the use of the
risk and needs assessment for institutional placement decisions
Content and implementation of FDC policies and practices related to the use of the
risk and needs assessment for developing a re-entry plan and making program
placement decisions
Any other issues identified as meeting or failing to meet best practices identified for the
corrections industry related to risk and needs assessment, with notations of positive
and negative findings and recommendations for improvement in needed areas across
all risk and needs assessment components

Inmate Programs
•
•
•

•
•
•

Use of best practices identified for the corrections industry, especially those related to
inmate programming
Content and implementation of FDC policies and practices related to the provision of
inmate programming
Inventory and descriptions of all inmate programs addressing inmate rehabilitation
(including substance abuse treatment), academic and vocational education, and reentry, including for each location the program capacity, inmate participation rates,
and demographic characteristics of participating inmates
Program performance information, including completion rates by location and an
evaluation of the impacts program participation has on recidivism
Description of current inmate program funding sources and alternatives
Any other issues identified as meeting or failing to meet best practices identified for the
corrections industry related to inmate programs, with notations of positive and
negative findings and recommendations for improvement in needed areas across all
inmate program components

3

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

On August 20, 2015, a contract was executed between the Florida Legislature, through the
Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), and Carter
Goble Associates, LLC (CGL) to complete the scope of work as specified in the ITN (intent to
negotiate), the addendums to the ITN, and the clarifications reached through the subsequent
negotiations. Consistent with the requirements of Senate Bill 2500-A, the draft final report
was required to be delivered not later than November 9, 2015, with the final report delivered
not later than November 30, 2015. This compressed time schedule for this review determined
to a great degree the scope of work and approach that CGL developed to achieve the
project objectives.
CGL Project Approach

Project Team
The members of the CGL team assigned to complete the scope of work for this review
included six former administrators of major state correctional systems. Their experience
includes directing a number of other comparable engagements—including operational
analysis for state correctional systems such as Alaska, Ohio, Montana, Maryland, Florida,
Virginia, Oklahoma, Colorado, North Dakota, and Massachusetts.
To assist in completion of the tasks required to achieve the objectives of this project, CGL
teamed with MGT of America (MGT) of Tallahassee, Florida, and the JFA Institute of
Washington, D.C. (JFA).

Selection of Site Visits
As specified in the ITN, the project team conducted site visits at a representative sample of the
FDC’s facilities. Due to the short length of the project schedule, it was critical that a balanced
and representative sample of the system as a whole be selected for site visits. The sample
included a cross section of facilities from all of the FDC’s administrative regions, security
levels, and special purpose facilities.
The contract required that CGL propose a plan and tentative schedule for site visits to a
representative sample of facilities that, at a minimum, included the following FDC locations:
•
•
•
•

Central office in Tallahassee
At least one of the three FDC regional offices
At least one reception center
At least five major institutions, including one in each of the FDC’s three regions. (At
the inception of this project, the correctional facilities in Florida were divided into three
4

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

regions, with each region having a regional director and support staff providing
oversight of between 17 and 20 facilities. Per Governor’s Executive Order 15-102,
the secretary of corrections was directed to increase the number of regions from three
to four, and the fourth region was in the process of being fully implemented at the
time of issuance of this report.)
Figure 1: FDC 4-Region Map

Per the contract, CGL developed and reached consensus with OPPAGA on the specific
facilities selected for site visits by the project team. The project team reviewed preliminary
data made available by the FDC on the present mission, operational status, and
demographics of each facility within the department. Based on this information and
discussion with OPPAGA, CGL selected a pool of facilities for review that was also consistent
with the requirements noted in the above listing.
5

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

The final institutional sites reviewed were as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Central office in Tallahassee
Region II regional office in Lake Butler
Apalachee Correctional Institution
Northwest Florida Reception Center
Dade Correctional Institution
Homestead Correctional Institution
Everglades Correctional Institution
Baker Correctional Institution
Union Correctional Institution
Lowell Correctional Institution
Florida Women’s Reception Center
Everglades Re-Entry Center
Baker Re-Entry Center

In addition to the above, key staff at the Lake Butler Medical and Reception Facility were
interviewed.

Site Visit Protocol
CGL developed a site visit protocol to assure consistency and standardization of operational
analysis. The key elements of the protocol are summarized in the following:
•

•
•
•
•
•

Review and inspect physical security systems, including an assessment of perimeter
fences, intrusion detection systems, lighting, surveillance systems, contraband
interdiction systems, and use of “officer alert” technology.
Determine the effectiveness of the emergency response procedures and protocols in
response to critical incidents, including the reporting and follow-up.
Observe the operational practices of the facility in order to determine how operational
policies impact security staffing needs.
Examine chain of command, reporting relationships, and decision-making authority as
it relates to managing effective and efficient facility operations.
Assess the organization and structure of security at the institutional level at FDC
facilities.
Conduct an efficiency and effectiveness analysis of building custodial services,
grounds keeping, and building and grounds maintenance to assess overall facility
condition and sanitation.
6

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•

Examine the level and content of staff training.
Review budget management and resource utilization.
Assess the level of departmental and institutional operational compliance policies and
procedures, as well as the overall effectiveness of current policies and practices in
assuring effective security.
Assess the content and implementation of FDC policies and practices that are
designed to ensure correctional officer safety.
Assess the content and implementation of FDC policies and practices that are
designed to ensure inmate safety.
Assess the content and implementation of FDC policies and practices related to
correctional officer-to-inmate ratios, both in terms of overall ratios and in terms of
supervision standards. This review took into account the implementation of the
federally mandated Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) standards. PREA was enacted
in 2003 to address the sexual assault of inmates while incarcerated. A set of specific
PREA-related standards that prisons are required to follow were issued in 2012.
Assess the content and implementation of FDC policies and practices related to
correctional officer assignments within the FDC institutions.
Review and assess any other issues identified as meeting or failing to meet best
practices identified for the corrections industry related to security operations, with
notations of positive and negative findings and recommendations for improvement in
needed areas across all security operations components.

The overall objective of the site visits was to identify the strengths and weaknesses of FDC
institutional operations and security and develop specific recommendations for improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of the department’s performance.
In concert with the site visits, the project team also conducted an assessment of the program
offerings within the department to document the FDC’s program resources, use of needs
assessment tools, participation levels, and performance, with an emphasis on re-entry
programming. Appendices B, C, and D detail the inventory of programs offered in the FDC
and provide the following information concerning each program. We note that FDC does not
maintain this complete listing of information on all of its funded programs.
•
•
•
•
•

Comprehensive listing of all funded inmate programs offered
Brief description of each program, including identification of the target population
Category of program (educational, vocational, treatment, re-entry, etc.)
Program capacity
Program location
7

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

•
•
•
•
•
•

Funding source
Average participation level over past year and identification of whether program is
under or over utilized (where available)
Demographics of participating inmates (where available)
Completion rates (where available)
Recidivism statistics relative to program (where available)
Other comments and/or findings

The project team also reviewed policies and procedures related to re-entry. The review
focused on the adequacy and thoroughness of current policies, comparing them with
nationally accepted standards and best practices.
An attempt was also made to describe the gap between current program capacities and the
initial needs assessments conducted on newly admitted inmates to determine and identify
whether the availability of programming slots adequately aligns with inmate needs.

Interviews
A key element of the assessment included the interviews of staff at all levels of the FDC in
order to understand the operational and managerial issues facing the department. A total of
284 central office managers, regional, institutional, and program staff were interviewed to
obtain a broad perspective of the operational approach of the department, the principles and
philosophy on which the operational approach is based, and the challenges that staff face in
achieving the objectives of the department at all levels. Of this total, 125 correctional officers
and sergeants were interviewed along with 24 institutional administrators and 19 central
office staff. Staff representing all the major institutional and operational functions at the
institutional level were interviewed.
These interviews were supplemented with staff focus group sessions conducted at each facility
visited and included institutional officers, civilians, and command staff. These focus groups
were designed to identify morale issues and to capture the perceptions of management
policies and support of staff.
We also interviewed a large contingent of inmates at every facility we visited. These
interviews covered a wide range of topics including access to programming and services,
facility operations, and inmate safety and security. Some of the comments and input
provided by those interviewed underscored our observations or directed us to issues that
needed further review.

8

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Analysis of Documents and Data
Analysis of documents and data related to the key issues reviewed was critical to the analysis
contained in this report. CGL submitted an initial request of pertinent data, reports, and
background materials related to each specific department and facility under review. This
initial request included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Authorized, budgeted, filled, and vacant positions by facility and position title
Overtime utilization and expenditures by pay period, function, and shift
Current and prior year budget and expenditures for each institution by line item and
detail object
Average daily facility population and capacity numbers for the last 12 months
Demographic data on the present facility population, including offense profile,
classification level, age, health status, and other relevant information
Facility capacity by housing unit classification (segregation, protective custody, witness
protection, special needs, satellite facilities, reception, etc.)
Facility academic, vocational, and treatment programs with current enrollment and
staffing
Number of inmates with no job or program assignment
Critical incidents (assaults, escapes, disciplinary transfers, etc.) occurring within the last
12 months
Current master roster
Current daily rosters for a one-week cycle
Institutional directives or policies
Facility physical plant layout and any schematics
Planned capital projects relating to facility security or capacity
Training documentation for facility staff
Facility accreditation reports
Facility table of organization and command structure, identifying all supervisory
positions
Audits and performance data
Maintenance expenditures and work order tracking data

The initial request was supplemented through additional document requests as the project
review proceeded and additional needs were identified. Appendix A contains a listing of
documents reviewed during the course of the review.

9

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

1.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STAFFING

This section of the report examines issues related to the staffing of FDC facilities. This wide
range of topics, which includes recruitment, salaries, and staff deployment, are all
interconnected to a degree, which makes it difficult to understand them in isolation from each
other. For example, salary levels affect turnover, which in turn has an impact on recruitment,
which has a direct bearing on training. The common thread, however, through many of the
department’s staffing issues, is the adequacy of available staffing resources to meet the
operational needs of facilities.
The simple fact, as shown in Figure 2, is that despite an uptick in correctional officer staffing
in Calendar Year (CY) 2015, the FDC today manages an inmate population that has been
largely stable over the last six years with significantly fewer correctional officers than it has
used to manage its facilities in the past. As of June 30, 2015, the FDC had 10,973 filled
correctional officer positions and 720 vacancies. This compares with 12,099 filled
correctional officer positions and 554 vacancies on June 30, 2006. Significant budget
reductions beginning in FY 2010/2011 resulted in lower system staffing levels.
Figure 2: FDC Correctional Officer Headcount and Inmate Population, CY 2006-2015
14,000

100,000
90,000

12,000
10,000

70,000
60,000

8,000

50,000
6,000

40,000
30,000

4,000

20,000
2,000

10,000
-

2006

2007

2008

Correctional Officers

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Average Daily Population (excluding Privates)

10

Average Daily Population

Number of Correctional Officers

80,000

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

The issue of the adequacy of current facility staffing is outlined through the issues presented in
the following.

Officer Screening and Recruitment
Correctional officer recruitment and screening is a top-level priority for the FDC. The
magnitude of hiring requirements, the dispersion of facilities around the state with widely
varying economic and employment environments, and the operational impact of failing to
meet facility staffing requirements all combine to make the efficient hiring of new correctional
officers a major issue.
FINDING 1-1: Establishment of a statewide office responsible for recruitment and screening
has played a major role in improving FDC hiring efficiency.
Over the last four years, the FDC has gradually moved to centralize the correctional officer
application process. Historically, each institution has been responsible for recruiting and
screening applicants that would ultimately be assigned to work at that institution. Under this
system, institutions would post advertisements for correctional officer positions, and applicants
would apply directly to every institution at which they wanted to work. This resulted in multiple
applications by individuals willing to work at different institutions, all of which were processed
in parallel tracks at each facility. The system also required significant administrative work by
correctional officers and facility managers in the recruitment and screening process.
Problems with the system include duplicate applications, interviews, employment verifications,
and processing among neighboring institutions, redundant administrative activities at multiple
facilities, and disparate hiring workloads among facilities related to local issues and needs. 1
Centralized authority for recruiting, screening, and hiring correctional officers is a recognized
best practice among state correctional systems for the consistency and efficiency provided by
this approach.
While facilities still receive applications and conduct initial screening, the FDC has now
established a parallel, centralized hiring office. The revised application process utilizes
statewide correctional officer pool advertisements on the state human resources website,
People First, one each for certified and non-certified applicants. Use of People First eliminates
duplicate applications, as the system only allows one application per advertisement. The
advertisement directs the applicant to a prescreening form that includes an initial background
review and allows the applicant to indicate a preference of work locations.

1

Per Statewide Recruitment Center, September 16, 2015
11

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

With this information, personnel conducts the initial background investigation, and if the
applicant passes, requests submission of supporting documents and a full employment
application. Upon verification of these materials, applicants are scheduled for screening at
regional sites that include physical abilities testing and oral interviews. Applicants that pass
this stage move on to drug testing and physical exam. Following these actions, FDC central
office personnel conduct a final review of the applicant file to assure all documents are
present, all pre-employment requirements are met, and set a start date. Institutional
placement is based on an established priority system that takes into account specific facility
hiring needs.
Since adopting this system in 2012, through September 9, 2015, the FDC has processed
52,687 correctional officer applications. Out of this total, the department screened 41,374
applicants and made 9,609 offers of employment for correctional officer positions. Of these
offers, 9,595 were accepted. 2 In aggregate, 18 percent of applications resulted in
employment offers. Most recently in 2014, the statewide recruiting office prescreened and
processed 7,611 correctional officer applications that were sent to institutions. Virtually all of
the correctional officer applicants hired are not certified and require training.
Figure 3 shows the level of application processing, screening, and hiring by region. Region 3
must process a substantially greater number of applications to generate the number of
applicants required to keep pace with vacancies. This is a function of both greater staff
turnover in region 3 facilities and the fact that only 10.5 percent of the 25,437 applications
filed in region 3 resulted in job offers.

2

FDC Office of Human Resources Management
12

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Figure 3: Employment Application Processing Per Region, CY 2012-2015
30,000
25,437
25,000
18,885

20,000
15,000
10,000

15,179
12,390

12,071
10,099

5,000

3,734

3,202

2,673

Region 1
Applications filed by region

Region 2
Applications screened by region

Region 3
Offers extended by region

Source: FDC Office of Human Resources Management

FINDING 1-2: The FDC correctional officer recruitment and applicant screening process
successfully generates sufficient numbers of applicants to fill system vacancies.
Maintaining an adequate pipeline of new hires and expediting the hiring process are key
objectives of the centralized applicant hiring screening system. To this end, the department
has streamlined its human resource and screening process to expedite the hiring process. In
2015, the average amount of time required to process the applications of the 2,072
correctional officers hired to date, from initial prescreening to actual starting date on the job,
was 101 days. 3 Expediting the hiring process to this degree, given this scale of hiring, is
exceptional. We are unaware of any large state correctional system that has achieved this
level of efficiency in the correctional officer recruitment, screening, and hiring process.
In 2014, the FDC hired 2,908 new correctional officers. This barely kept pace with the 2,897
correctional officer separations experienced by the department that same year. In order to
maintain this rate of hiring, the FDC attempts to maintain a pipeline of approved applicants
ready for hire. In reviewing snapshot reports of vacancies and screened applicants pending

3

FDC Office of Humans Resources Management
13

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

final personnel action prior to hire during calendar year 2014, it appears that Region 3
maintains a pool of 3.8 screened applicants per vacancy approved to fill and that Regions 1
and 2 maintain hiring pools of approximately 1.2 screened applicants per vacancy approved
to fill.
In managing this pipeline, the department closely tracks institutional vacancies through the
personnel applicant tracking system (PATS). PATS provides correctional officer applicant
tracking details and various management reports for personnel, regional directors, regional
recruiters, and wardens. Bi-weekly reports document the current number of vacancies in each
institution, as well as the number of approved applicants in each stage of the final hiring
process (hire date committed, drug test/physical scheduled, human resources documents
processed), and highlights those facilities with high vacancy rates and insufficient numbers of
applicants in the hiring pipeline. Department management uses the report as an alert to focus
recruitment and hiring activity at facilities that are falling behind in filling vacancies.
The department has set a goal for 2015 to accelerate hiring to net an increase of 1,400
correctional officers. Assuming constant attrition levels and the same ratio of applicants-tojob-offers that has existed since 2012, this will require that the department process 23,560
applications for correctional officer positions in 2015. The challenge of meeting this target
without completely depleting the pipeline of applicants available to fill vacancies in 2016 is
significant.
Recruitment and hiring are strengths of the FDC. Several managers commented that the
department does not have a recruitment problem; it has a retention problem. The department
has chosen to refine and improve the recruitment and hiring process as the most effective
means to maintain authorized staffing levels, despite nearly 3,000 correctional officers
leaving the FDC every year. The policies and procedures established by the FDC are sound
and well implemented.

Correctional Officer Compensation
The average salary of a correctional officer in the FDC is $31,951. New correctional officer
trainees start at $2,334 per month ($28,008 annual salary). Upon completion of training
and full certification as a correctional officer, they receive an increase in salary of 10 percent,
to $30,808 annually. Officers employed in Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee, and St. Lucie
Counties receive an additional $1,200, and officers working in Palm Beach, Broward, Dade,
and Monroe Counties receive an additional $2,500 for the increased cost of living in these
areas. By comparison, Florida Highway Patrol staff receive a $5,000 additional salary
differential for employment in these same counties.
14

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

FINDING 1-3: Correctional officer salary levels have remained stagnant for a number of
years.
The system has no means for automatic step increases, absent the automatic increase a
trainee receives upon certification as a correctional officer. Officers have not received a
general increase in pay in eight years. As shown in Figure 4, although the official salary
range for a certified correctional officer extends from $30,808 to $40,803, the average
salary for all FDC correctional officers is only $31,951, or 3.7 percent higher than the
starting certified officer salary level. As a result, the primary means for staff to increase their
level of compensation is through overtime or promotion.
Figure 4: Certified Correctional Officer Salary Range and Actual Average Salary Level
$45,000
$40,083

$40,000

$35,000
$30,808

$31,951

$30,000

$25,000

$20,000
Starting

Average

Maximum

Source: FDC Office of Human Resources Management

FINDING 1-4: FDC correctional officer salary levels are substantially below salary levels in
other large state correctional systems.
The FDC’s starting salary of $28,008 for non-certified correctional officers is far below the
levels of most large state correctional systems. Florida has the third largest state correctional
system in the U.S., trailing only Texas and California. Of the top 10 state correctional systems
by size, the FDC’s correctional officer starting salary level ranks 9th, with only Georgia
15

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

offering a lower rate of entry pay. California and Illinois provide starting salaries that are 61
percent higher than Florida’s. Texas, which has perhaps the most comparable correctional
system to Florida among the top 10 systems, provides a starting salary that is 12 percent
higher (Figure 5).
Figure 5: 2015 Starting Correctional Officer Salaries, 10 Largest State Correctional Systems
California

$45,000

Illlinois

$45,000

New York

$39,014

Ohio

$34,860

Michigan

$33,400

Pennsylvania

$33,236

Arizona

$32,916

Texas

$31,247

Florida

$28,007

Georgia

$25,000
$-

$5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Source: CGL survey of the ten largest state correctional systems

FINDING 1-5: FDC correctional officer salary levels are below salary levels for correctional
officers employed by large Florida counties.
FDC starting salary levels also lag behind entry level pay for correctional officers in Florida’s
nine largest county jail systems. The disparity in starting pay ranges from 7 percent in Duval
County to a 56 percent higher starting pay in Collier County. On average, starting salaries
for correctional officers in these counties are 33 percent above FDC levels (Figure 6).

16

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Figure 6: Correctional Officer Starting Salaries in FDC and Major Florida County Jails
Collier

$43,795

Broward

$42,304

Polk

$40,459

Pinellas

$39,220

Lee

$35,294

Miami-Dade

$35,196

Orange

$34,694

Escambia

$34,590

Duval

$29,982
$28,008

FDC
$0

$5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000

Source: CGL survey of the nine largest Florida counties

This disparity between county and state correctional officer salary levels places the state at a
severe competitive disadvantage in recruiting staff and retaining officers once they have been
trained and certified. One administrator summarized the current hiring environment as, “Our
competition for hiring is Walmart, not other law enforcement agencies.”
Although the FDC does not formally keep data on the number of officers who resign their
positions to take jobs with county jail systems, anecdotal reports indicate that counties actively
recruit new FDC correctional officers once they have attained certification. In effect, the
counties use FDC to train their prospective employees. Although the FDC requires an officer
to reimburse the state for the cost of training if they leave within two years of attaining
certification, in some instances the counties will cover the cost of this reimbursement in
addition to providing a signing bonus and a substantial pay increase over state salary levels.
Low salary levels also have an impact on officer morale. Officers in focus groups at every
institution visited identified the low level of pay and lack of opportunities for increased salary
as major sources of staff discontent. Low salaries contribute to devaluation of the work of a
correctional officer, leading to poor work performance.

17

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Staff Retention
Low salary levels are a contributing factor in the FDC’s rate of correctional officer turnover.
High rates of turnover can have a serious negative impact on facility operations by reducing
the number of veteran staff available to manage the most challenging post assignments and
instead forcing reliance on less experienced officers. A low number of correctional officers
with significant work experience will increase operational risk throughout a correctional
system. In addition, high turnover increases administrative costs, as the system must
continually recruit, hire, and train increasing numbers of staff to offset the large number
leaving.
FINDING 1-6: The correctional officer turnover rate has grown by 50.4 percent over the last
six years.
Turnover rates in the FDC have increased since FY 2009/10 as shown in Figure 7, growing
from 11.7 percent that Fiscal Year to 17.6 percent in FY 2014/15. Annual separations have
increased by 29 percent over this period and totaled 2,931 in FY 2014/15. The turnover rate
has increased substantially more than the actual number of separations due to the decline in
the overall number of correctional officers that has occurred in the system during this time
period.
Figure 7: FDC Turnover Rates and Separations, FY 2009/10 – FY 2014/15
3,500

17.6%

3,000
2,500

14.6%

16.0%

15.4%

14.6%

20.0%
18.0%
16.0%

11.7%

14.0%
12.0%

2,000

10.0%
1,500
1,000

2,831

2,868

2,516

2,396

2,276

2,931

8.0%
6.0%
4.0%

500

2.0%
0.0%

FY 2009/10

FY 2010/11

FY 2011/12

FY 2012/13

Separations

FY 2013/14

CO Turnover

Source: FDC Office of Human Resources Management

18

FY 2014/15

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

With this level of sustained turnover, the overall level of experience in the department’s
correctional officer cadre is low. Half of the department’s correctional officers have less than
3.1 years of work experience. 4 The experience level at the FDC’s largest, most difficult
facilities is even lower. As shown in Table 1, at 5 out of the 10 largest FDC-operated
facilities, half of the staff has less than two years of work experience.
Table 1: Correctional Officer Job Experience: 10 Largest FDC Facilities
Median Years of
CO Experience
0.77

09/15/15 Inmate Count
1,616

Columbia Annex

1.92

1,550

Gulf

3.09

1,535

Gadsden

1.67

1,532

Wakulla Annex

2.15

1,496

Dade

1.35

1,478

Martin

2.35

1,460

Everglades

0.97

1,448

DeSoto

2.81

1,428

Santa Rosa

2.76

1,389

Okeechobee

Source: FDC Office of Human Resources Management

FINDING 1-7: Turnover rates are higher in central and southern Florida.
Analysis of patterns of turnover among the different geographic regions where the FDC has
facilities shows higher turnover rates in those parts of the state with larger populations, more
competition for employment, and higher costs of living. Figure 8 shows the aggregate
turnover rate by region from FY 2009/10 through FY 2014/15. Region 1 corresponds to the
Florida panhandle, region 2 is northern Florida, region 3 takes in facilities in the central
portion of the state, and region 4 is south Florida. While the differences in turnover are not
large, they are significant and show higher rates for the southern and central regions of the
state, as well as higher turnover rates in northern Florida as compared to the panhandle.

4

Source: FDC Office of Human Resources Management report, CO Experience by class, August 31, 2015.

19

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Figure 8: Turnover by FDC Region, FY 2009/10 through FY 2014/15
18.0%

16.8%
15.5%

16.0%
14.0%

13.5%

14.2%

12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

Region 4

FINDING 1-8: Turnover is disproportionately high among new correctional officers.
FDC data indicate that approximately 25 percent of all new correctional officers terminate
their employment within 12 months of beginning employment. Within two years, the attrition
rate for new officers climbs to 32 percent. According to the FDC, it costs approximately
$1,200 on average to train a new correctional officer. Given a projected 3,000 correctional
officers trained this year, this attrition rate means that the FDC will spend $900,000 training
staff that will not work in the state correctional system for longer than two years.
FINDING 1-9: The work assignment practices of the FDC contribute to the assignment of
inexperienced staff in the most challenging post assignments.
Most facilities within the FDC have multiple work sites under the jurisdiction of a single
warden. In addition to the main unit, facilities often have satellite work camps and re-entry
centers. These satellite facilities are smaller and generally have a much less challenging
inmate population and work environment. Staff are allowed to transfer to work at these
facilities at the discretion of the warden. Such assignments are highly valued and generally go
to more senior staff.
The overall impact of this practice, however, is to concentrate the most experienced senior
officers at the least demanding work assignments, leaving the new or relatively inexperienced
20

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

officers responsible for managing demanding post assignments in the large institutions.
Figure 9 compares the relative levels of work experience between correctional officers
assigned to large facility main units and their associated work camp facilities. The level of
staff experience is approximately five times higher in the work camps as compared to the
main units of these facilities. This practice works to the detriment of overall operational
performance by misallocating experienced staff resources.
Figure 9: Correctional Officer Years of Experience – Prisons Compared to Work Camps
12.0
10.24
10.0

9.17

8.0

6.91

6.66

5.86

6.0
4.41
4.0
2.31
2.0

1.79

1.02

0.62

2.15

0.97

0.0
Okeechobee

Gulf

Dade
Main Unit

Martin

DeSoto

Santa Rosa

Work Camp

Source: FDC Office of Human Resources Management

The increased operational stress placed on new staff by this practice may play a role in the
high turnover rate for new staff. Turnover rates at the facilities in the above comparison, for
example (with the exception of Santa Rosa), all exceed the FDC average of 17.6 percent. The
annual turnover rates at Okeechobee, Dade, and Martin are 27, 25, and 26 percent
respectively.
RECOMMENDATION 1: Establish a policy to balance the assignment of senior correctional
officers and less experienced staff consistent with operational needs.
FINDING 1-10: High turnover rates are correlated with low salary levels.

21

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Analysis of correctional officer turnover and salary levels for large state correctional systems
shows that the potential impact of salary levels on staff retention is significant. Figure 10
shows the reported current correctional turnover rates that accompany starting salary levels
for the 10 largest state correctional systems. The states with higher starting salary levels have
much lower staff turnover rates. All of the states with starting salaries above $33,000 have
turnover rates ranging from 5 to 9 percent. As salaries decline, turnover rates increase.
Florida has the second lowest starting salary of the top 10 states and the second highest
turnover rate (17.6 percent), trailing only Georgia, which has the lowest starting salary
($25,000) and by far the highest turnover rate at 32 percent.
Figure 10: Starting Salaries and CO Turnover – 10 Largest State Correctional Systems
$50,000

35%

$45,000

30%

$40,000
$35,000

25%

$30,000

20%

$25,000
$20,000

15%

$15,000

10%

$10,000

5%

$5,000
$-

0%

Starting Salary

Turnover Rate

Source: CGL survey of the ten largest state correctional systems

In the context of correctional systems in the southern U.S., FDC salary and turnover rates
appear comparatively more positive. Figure 11 shows that in these states, which tend to have
much lower correctional officer salaries, the same relationship of salary level to turnover is
apparent. In this group of nine southern states, the FDC has the third highest starting salary
levels and the third lowest staff turnover rate. It should be noted that many of these systems
are experiencing significant operational stress. In recent years, the correctional systems of
Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Georgia have faced major litigation
and federal investigations into facility conditions.

22

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Figure 11: Starting Salary and Turnover Rates in Southern State Correctional Systems
60%

$31,000
$29,000

50%

$27,000
40%

$25,000
$23,000

30%

$21,000

20%

$19,000
10%

$17,000
$15,000

0%

Starting Salary

Turnover Rate

Source: Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) 2014 survey of correctional staff turnover and vacancy

The largest issues in staff retention are the same as those identified with staff morale, the
negative impact of low, stagnant salary levels, and working conditions that exacerbate staff
stress. Although department policies on post assignments may contribute in part to the job
stress inexperienced staff may experience on the job, the larger issue here, as described
elsewhere in this report, is staffing levels that require staff to take on very demanding,
challenging work assignments with minimal support and/or backup.
The FDC has limited policy tools to address these fundamental issues and improve retention.
Facility managers do have the opportunity to reward staff with promotions and reassignments,
as described in Procedure 208.021, Request for Reassignment or Promotion. Relocation or
reassignment to another duty or satellite institution can be an effective incentive for an officer
that needs a change in environment. However, rewarding staff through relocation to less
demanding facilities can have the unintended consequence of placing the primary burden for
operating the FDC’s most challenging facilities on relatively inexperienced staff.
Although the rate of turnover diminishes with rank, an agency the size of the FDC will always
have substantial opportunities for professional advancement through promotion. Depending
23

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

upon their pay grade level, correctional officers may receive an increase in salary of 7.5 10.0 percent upon promotion to sergeant. From FY 2012/13 to date, 3,145 FDC employees
have received promotions. Figure 12 shows the distribution of promotions in FY 2014/15.
Figure 12: FY 2014/15 Promotions by Rank

Sergeant

844

Lieutenant

147

Captain

74

Major

24

Colonel

18
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Source: FDC Office of Human Resources Management

The overall number and distribution of promotions is similar to historical trends, with the
exception of promotions to sergeant. The 844 promotions to sergeant represented a 33
percent increase over levels experienced in both FY 2012/13 and FY 2013/14. Insofar as the
overall number of sergeants in the FDC was essentially stable during this time, the increase
must be attributable to increased sergeant turnover.
FDC policy guiding promotions appears consistent with standard policies in other state
correctional systems, with an objective scoring of applicants based on education, work
experience, training, performance evaluations, and veterans’ preference. The top five
candidates for each rank are interviewed and selected by a board composed of a warden,
assistant warden, and chief of security. The policy is sound and appears fairly implemented.

24

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Training
Pursuant to Procedure 209.101, Training Requirements, the FDC Bureau of Staff
Development and Training is the designated authority for all department training. The training
required and provided is aligned with Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), American
Correctional Association (ACA) training standards, and FDC supplemental procedures.
The Bureau of Staff Development and Training is responsible for developing and facilitating
the FDC’s master training plan in addition to processing all training requests, coordinating
curriculum development, and maintaining the department’s electronic learning management
system. Designated staff are assigned to each major work location to assist in ensuring staff
are properly scheduled to receive required training.
FINDING 1-11: Training for new officers meets recommended professional requirements.
The basic recruit curriculum addresses all key subject matter areas, including officer safety,
communications, inmate supervision, use of special equipment, intake and release
procedures, management of special populations, defensive tactics, firearms, first aid, and
wellness. The program has successfully passed biennial audit by the Florida Department of
Law Enforcement. Trainee feedback on the quality of training has been positive. The
curriculum is currently under review by FDC management, which may result in modifications
to increase the relevance and utility of the training for new correctional officers.
All newly hired employees must complete 40 hours of online orientation training within 30
days of hire. Correctional officer trainees then proceed to basic recruit training, which consists
of 420 hours of certified officer training provided by department training academies
established at major institutions throughout the state. Training is offered at 25 academies in
22 locations around the state. As of May 2015, approximately 1,500 FDC trainees were
enrolled in academies with an additional 1,200 waiting to get in. 5
Producing enough certified graduates of basic recruit training to address facility staffing needs
is challenging. Class sizes in training academies have been increased from an average of 2430 trainees per class to 36-64, depending upon the availability of space. The FDC also
received $500,000 this year in new funding to contract with six community colleges for
additional training academies. 6

5
6

Bureau of Staff Development and Training, September 10, 2015
Ibid.
25

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

The new recruit training process has a dropout rate of approximately 18 percent. The most
common reasons for termination are inability to pass either the defensive tactics or firearms
portion of the curriculum. Much of the orientation in basic recruit training is to ensure that the
trainee has the skills and temperament required for the job. As opposed to some state
correctional systems that impose more selective standards on the hiring process, the FDC
maximizes recruiting and hiring and relies upon the training program to screen out
candidates that may not meet department requirements. 7
FINDING 1-12: Training for experienced officers is being provided consistent with established
procedures.
A review of FDC training records for 2014 showed that certified correctional officers received
an average of 48.4 hours of training. Sample individual training records were reviewed, as
well as department-wide staff training records. Individual training records for experienced
correctional officers reflected staff had received mandatory in-service training in a manner
consistent with the procedures. The only exceptions noted were those staff that had been on
extended leave status during the fiscal year. In respect to correctional officers, it was not
uncommon to see a 100 percent overall compliance rating for correctional officers at several
facilities when extended leave staff were excluded.
The FDC requires 40 hours annually of mandatory in-service training for all certified
correctional officers. The number of required training hours is consistent with national
standards (ACA). Specific subject matters, including use of force, inmate relations, defensive
tactics, and chemical agents, are all considered mandatory in-service training topics required
to be provided on an annual basis. Specific inmate relations training included Inmate
Manipulation and Contraband, Inmate Discipline, Inmate Grievance Refresher, and
Inappropriate Behavior Including Sexual Misconduct. Training is provided through a
combination of forums, including classroom setting, firing range, and on-line (electronic). The
FDC recently added a training module on de-escalation in response to concern over
use-of-force issues.
The FDC maintains documentation of training records in a comprehensive electronic data
system referred to as the Florida Department of Corrections Training Database. The system
identifies staff by facility, position classification, training requirements, completed training,
and the total number of hours completed by subject matter and fiscal year. Designated facility
personnel monitor and track the status of training compliance levels at each facility. Sample

7

Ibid.
26

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

database systems were reviewed and reflected the systems were being maintained on a
current basis.
FINDING 1-13: Not all facilities have an officially recognized training position.
In some facilities, the assignment of staff to coordinate basic recruit training and annual inservice training is considered a collateral or secondary duty to their main responsibilities. In
several cases, these positions may also be listed as a “special assignment” that falls outside
the employees’ normal duties. In facilities that are part of a correctional complex (multiple
facilities), a designated position may be recognized at one facility, while the other facilities
meet those responsibilities through secondary duties or special assignments. There was no
indication that staff training was negatively impacted by the on-site personnel resources
provided; however, the job duties for an institutional training officer should be a full-time
assignment. In those institutions without a training position on the roster, the concern is that
training is not being given sufficient attention, or that staff in other post assignments are
detailed to manage training to the detriment of their official post assignment.
FINDING 1-14: Staff records reflect specialized training is provided to experienced
correctional officers based on work assignments.
For example, a total of 60,567 hours of training entitled “Critical Thinking during Critical
Incidents” was provided during calendar year 2015 8. Additional examples of specialized
training included the following: Verbal and Non-Verbal Components of De-Escalation;
Neutralize, Empathize, Actively Listen and Resolve; Supervision of Youthful Offenders, Close
Management and Transitional Care Unit, Female Offenders, Confinement Housing, and
Special Teams Training.
Additional procedures more specific in nature to staff training and/or specialized training
were examined, including in part the following:
•

•

8

Pursuant to Procedure 602.022, Special Operations Teams, specific training
requirements are clearly stated in the procedure to maintain status on each specialized
team. The training requirements identified in the procedure appeared appropriate.
Pursuant to Procedure 602.030, Security Staff Utilization, it is the responsibility of the
chief of security with secondary responsibility to the shift supervisor to ensure that all
scheduled in-service and specialized training is recorded in the training section of the

FDOC Staff Training Data Summary Report.
27

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

•

security staff profile. Specific training requirements are clearly stated and appeared
appropriate.
Pursuant to Procedure 602.004, Forced Cell Extraction, the chief of security will
ensure a record of each officer who has received the appropriate department
approved training in forced cell extractions is maintained. Specific training
requirements are clearly stated and appeared appropriate.

FINDING 1-15: The training policies and procedures governing the training provided to
experienced correctional officers is consistent with state and nationally recognized best
practices.
The review confirmed that sufficient procedures were in place and training was consistently
provided on an ongoing basis in all key facets, including in the areas of officer/inmate
interactions, use of force, and incident reporting.
RECOMMENDATION 2: Eliminate the use of classifying facility training responsibilities as
“special assignments.”
The FDC should review how on-site training responsibilities are being scheduled, managed,
and recorded at each facility to determine appropriate staffing allocation. All work locations
may not require a dedicated training position.

Temporary Employment Authorization Assignments
Newly hired officers, unless previously certified as correctional officers under state regulations,
are hired under a category known as temporary employment authorization (TEA) status. An
individual remains on TEA status until the candidate completes the basic recruit training
program and passes a Florida Department of Law Enforcement-administered certification
examination. TEA officers normally work in the institutions while awaiting assignment to the
training program. This can take up to six months, but in most cases averages three months
before the individual attends the training. Table 2 summarizes the status of the FDC’s 1,395
TEAs as of October 30, 2015.

28

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Table 2: TEA Status, October 30, 2015

TEAs

Pending Academy
Placement
540

Pending Academy
Completion
782

Pending Passing
Certification Exam
73

Total
1,395

Source: FDC Office of Human Resources Management

TEA officers are restricted from working in certain posts, such as perimeter patrol,
confinement, and other sensitive posts, because they have not been trained and certified.
Procedure 602.030, Security Staff Utilization, states that “officers in temporary employment

status (TEA) may be assigned to any post where adequate supervision is provided by an
individual holding the rank of at least correctional officer except for those posts specifically
prohibited in “Officers in Temporary Employment Authorization (TEA) Status.” The procedure
clarifies that adequate TEA supervision does not require constant direct sight and sound
supervision by the certified supervising staff member, but must include regular/frequent
contact and observation combined with ready availability should the TEA require assistance.
As a result, a TEA may be left alone for brief periods, if appropriate, based on security
considerations such as the setting (e.g., dormitory or recreation yard), the number of inmates
to be supervised, and the custody classification of the inmates to be supervised.

Procedure 208.016, Officers in Temporary Employment Authorization (TEA) Status, effective
October 8, 2014, outlines procedures and requirements for the utilization of TEA officers and
further establishes restrictions on their employment. TEA officers are not required to be
firearms certified, must begin their basic recruit training within 180 consecutive days of
beginning their TEA status, and must complete the basic recruit training program within 18
months of beginning the training program. TEA staff are restricted from certain assignments,
including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Tower/vehicles/stationary perimeter posts
Vehicular gates (may assist in searches of incoming work squads under the supervision
of a certified uniformed employee of at least the rank of correctional officer)
Outside work squads
Outside inmate transport/medical escort
Medical isolation/self-harm observation status
Special housing units
Canine
Death row

29

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

FINDING 1-16: Supervision and assignment of TEAs in institutions is a concern.
Staff at all levels indicated that TEA staff are not presented with sufficient training prior to
being placed on post with limited supervision. A TEA essentially arrives at a facility and is
assigned to work a post with no preparation other than the general employee orientation
training that all new staff are required to complete. Nothing in this orientation adequately
prepares a TEA to supervise inmates or function in a security post. At a number of facilities
visited by the project team, staff referenced a field training officer program (FTO) that is
available for TEAs to participate in. The FTO program involves having an experienced and
trained supervising officer work with a TEA to provide guidance and specific training using an
on-the-job training methodology. However, this training procedure was not universally
followed at the facilities we visited.
Facility supervisors, including wardens, indicated that attempts to establish a field training
program for TEA staff have met with limited success. Attempts to provide FTO training are
often interrupted by the need for officers to cover other high-priority assignments, such as
Level I posts (critical posts such as housing, which must be staffed at all times to assure
institutional security). As a result, the training process breaks down and TEAs must function in
posts without adequate supervision and in violation of FDC policy. This type of breakdown is
primarily attributable to lack of staff, which forces facility managers to maximize use of all of
their resources, including TEAs.
In staff focus groups, officers reported that as TEAs they were often assigned to man a
housing unit post without adequate supervision. One officer commented “they just threw us to
the wolves,” when speaking about their placement in sensitive security posts without training
and supervision. This practice is in opposition to recognized best practices for training and
orienting new staff and represents a risk to operational security and performance.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The department should cease the practice of placing untrained
officers on posts in the institution without proper orientation, familiarization, and training.
The project team recognizes the pressures caused by understaffing and the need to have
personnel available to staff posts in the institution. Regardless of the pressure, utilizing
untrained staff can only lead to security violations, dissatisfaction with the job, and contribute
to staff turnover. The department should establish, at a minimum, a 40-hour classroom
orientation/training designed for correctional officers to familiarize them with important
elements of the job prior to basic recruit certification training. The classroom
orientation/training should be followed by a mandatory 80-hour on-the-job training program,
where the TEA works alongside an experienced and trained field training officer who
30

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

processes the TEA through an organized on-the-job training experience. Once the three-week
training program is completed, the TEA would be eligible for staffing those posts allowed
under current procedures.

Overtime Management
In the absence of staff resources available to fill critical posts, facility administrators must rely
upon overtime to provide mandatory security coverage. Analysis of correctional officer
overtime shows total spending in FY 2014/15 of $18.2 million. The average amount of
overtime per officer, per paycheck was 18.7 hours. This corresponded to overtime earnings
of $438.69 per paycheck. 9
Each facility visited by the project team relied upon overtime to staff critical posts. For
example, at Apalachee Correctional Institution (ACI), staff recorded a total of 17,857.25
hours of overtime in the first 226 days of 2015. Hours recorded as a result of “shortage of
help—meet critical complement” account for 12,087, or 68 percent of this total. For 2015
to-date, the ACI has averaged more than 79 hours of overtime each day, and staff shortages
have accounted for 53.5 hours of that amount.
The FDC assigns facility staff to three basic shift schedules: 12-hour shifts which generally
operate from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. for the day shift and 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. for the night shift, every
day through the year, 8-hour swing shifts which may operate from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. and 2
p.m. to 10 p.m. covering times of peak institutional activity, and an 8-hour administrative
shift which may operate from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., five days per week. The highest reliance on
overtime usage occurred on the night shifts. During the day, staff from the administrative shift
is often used to fill the gaps on day and swing shifts. This option is not available for the night
shifts. They must hold over staff until staff from other shifts can be contacted and report to the
facility to fill a vacant post.
This type of pattern repeated at the other facilities. Utilization reports documented that
overtime levels are, by and large, being driven by the lack of staff available to cover critical
posts.
The maximum amount of continuous time an officer is allowed to work under a 12-hour shift
system is 16 hours. The project team requested data on the number of specific instances
where officers were held over 4 hours past their regular shift to work 16 continuous hours.
However, the FDC does not collect this data. We instead asked to sample the number of

9

Source: FDC Office of Human Resources Management
31

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

times staff were held over their shift in this manner during the month of August at three
institutions visited: Lowell, Northwest Florida Reception Center (NWFRC), and Everglades.
NWFRC and Everglades showed 11 and 25 separate instances of extended shift overtime
during this month; however, Lowell showed much heavier reliance on this practice, with 129
instances of staff held over to 16 hours during the month of August, or an average of four
extended shifts each day of the month. 10 Without more data, it is not possible to determine
the pattern of this practice throughout the FDC.
Despite the level of utilization, the FDC does make reduction of overtime expense a priority.
Facilities take any cash payout of overtime seriously, and there is a concerted effort to make
sure they flex out (or adjust out) any overtime earned before it needs to be paid. Any overtime
earned in a 28-day cycle that isn’t flexed out must be paid out at the end of that cycle. If an
employee takes sick leave or vacation leave in the 28-day cycle, any overtime on the books is
adjusted out first to get it off the books before sick or vacation time is used. Also, supervisors
will tell staff to come in late or take off early to offset the overtime before it needs to be paid.
While this practice mitigates the use of overtime, its practical impact is to exacerbate the
problem of unstaffed security posts.

Staff on Non-Inmate Contact Status
When staff are placed under investigation, they can be placed on “non-inmate contact” until
the investigation is finalized. When placed on non-inmate contact, the individual is moved to
a post where there is no interaction with the inmate population. Also, the individual could be
moved to a different facility to provide further separation or simply placed on administrative
leave.
FINDING 1-17: The department has a significant number of staff on non-inmate contact
status.
The FDC records indicate that 95 staff were on non-inmate contact or on administrative leave
at the time of our review. 11 The following details these findings:
•

10
11

Non-Inmate Contact
 Seventy-five staff are on non-inmate contact at the facility where they normally
work. On average, these 75 staff have been on non-inmate contact for 113 days.

FDC survey of overtime use at NWFRC, Everglades, and Lowell.
Source: Email and Spreadsheet from FDC dated 9/22/2015
32

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Nine staff have been relocated to another facility and placed on non-inmate
contact. On average, these nine staff have been on non-inmate contact for 240
days. (Three staff have been on non-inmate contact at another facility for 456
days.)
Administrative leave
 Eleven staff are on administrative leave. On average, these 11 staff have been on
administrative leave for 76 days.


•

In total, the 95 staff on non-inmate contact or administrative leave have been on that status
for an average of 121 days.
More than half of the incidents that led to staff being placed on non-inmate contact or
administrative leave were the result of some form of use of force.
Based on the number provided, it appears that placing staff on non-inmate contact is
preferred over placement on administrative leave. Facility staff indicted that Secretary Jones
recently began allowing the placement of staff on non-inmate contact in lieu of placing them
on administrative leave. The benefit, they indicate, is having the staff available to work
functions such as mail room or control centers that do not come into contact with inmates,
thereby helping to alleviate already short staffing levels. They also noted that previously when
staff were placed on administrative leave they would brag that they would get a second job
and have income. In our opinion, however, if the case is serious enough, staff should not be
allowed on any facility grounds. The presence of a staff person under investigation for inmate
abuse can be toxic to facility operations and staff morale.
RECOMMENDATION 4: The department should not allow staff to work in institutions on noninmate contact when they are under investigation for serious violations.

Roster Management
An operations-based roster management system is in use in the FDC that is designed to
establish accountability and provide documentation on how custody staff is deployed. Our
review identified consistent use of a roster management system providing custody personnel
accountability based on established workload responsibilities. Qualified personnel were
sufficiently assigned to manage and maintain the system on a daily basis.
The roster management system has been developed pursuant to FDC Procedure 602.030,
Security Staff Utilization. The stated purpose of the procedure is “to establish guidelines for
appropriate and efficient use of security staff.”
33

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

The procedure describes in detail the authorization required for establishment of post
assignments and the development and maintenance of a staffing roster. The entire process is
managed through an automated computer application known as RMS (roster management
system.) Specific procedures indicate that the FDC Bureau of Security Operations is
responsible for developing the post assignment chart for each institution based on the
number of authorized and funded security positions. Any changes to the post chart must be
approved by the Bureau following a request from the facility warden and chief of security. The
roster process is centrally managed and requires that approvals be obtained before making
any permanent changes to the staffing roster. Accommodations, however, can be made
locally for temporary alterations from the roster for activities known as “special assignments.”
The Security Staff Utilization procedure, which has an effective date of June 2, 2014, has
been developed in a manner consistent with applicable American Correctional Association
(ACA)/Commission on Accreditation for Corrections (CAC) standards, state and federal
statutes, Florida administrative codes, and the Florida Teamsters Local Union #2011 Security
Services Bargaining Unit.
FINDING 1-18: The chief of security (COS) of each institution is responsible for allocating
positions based upon available personnel. The RMS and associated processes are consistent
with national best practices.
The COS is responsible for assigning the security staffing level designation to each post on
the master security roster, as well as other administrative functions to include designating
gender specific posts, making adjustments to the roster based upon personnel changes,
recording extended special assignments and personnel loans, and forwarding the roster to the
warden for a quarterly review. The shift supervisor (OIC) serves as a critical support position
in managing the daily deployment process. In interviewing OICs in several facilities, they
appeared extremely knowledgeable in the use and application of the RMS.

Minimum Staffing Levels
Facility staffing is a critical issue that touches all operational aspects of the Florida
correctional system. Our reviews in general showed effective policies and management
systems that are well-designed to manage a very large, complex system. Staffing levels
however, were a significant issue in all facilities reviewed.
FINDING 1-19: The span of control of shift supervisors at the larger facilities is excessive.
Shift operations at most facilities consist of one captain serving as the OIC of shift operations.
One of the primary characteristics identified in the department’s institutional operations is the
34

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

consistent application of a wide span of supervisory control. A wide span of control indicates
that supervisory staff have a significant number of subordinates they supervise. The primary
advantage to using this form of supervisory oversight is that it is initially less expensive to
operate the facility.
The current general supervisory practice is to have one OIC assigned, and when there is a
specialized housing unit, such as confinement, intake, or mental health, an additional
supervisor (lieutenant) is directly responsible strictly for that area. There are exceptions, such
as the supervision practice at the Union Correctional Institution where there were several
lieutenants assigned to various tasks, including assisting the shift supervisor. At all other
facilities visited, an assistant shift supervisor was not assigned.
At the women’s reception center in Ocala, for example, there were between 30 and 35
security staff assigned to each of the four 12-hour shifts, and there was no assistant shift
supervisor available on any of the four shifts. Based on the workload responsibilities of the
OIC, which includes a significant amount of time devoted to accessing automated data
systems, providing and reviewing required daily reports, authorizing leave-time, being present
during inmate meals, assigning staff to secondary duties and special assignments, conducting
employee hearings, and inspecting housing units, there is very little time available to provide
staff supervision. There are sergeants available; however, the role of the sergeant is
oftentimes that of a lead worker, and at several posts the position is interchangeable with an
officer.
The scope of work required of the shift supervisor hampers their ability to meet existing
responsibilities while providing adequate staff supervision. Having a highly visible physical
presence in the facility is essential and oftentimes impacts operations. When command and
supervisory staff become overloaded, operational issues may not be addressed, potential for
breaches in security increases, and overall efficiency of the facility may be jeopardized. Proper
supervision is critical, especially due to the large number of TEAs filling post assignments in
the institutions. This lack of appropriate on-site supervision is more prevalent at the mid-tolarge-sized facilities that currently do not have an assistant chief commander position.
RECOMMENDATION 5: Conduct an on-site review of the current operational responsibilities
of the OIC in relation to the overall shift responsibilities.
RECOMMENDATION 6: Based on the results of the review, establish an assistant shift
supervisor at recognized facilities either on all four 12-hour shifts or strictly during the 12hour day shifts.

35

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

FINDING 1-20: FDC policies and procedures establish guidelines for the appropriate and
efficient use of correctional officers.
Our review consistently identified that written policies and procedures were well developed,
and staff directly involved in determining correctional officer assignments were extremely
familiar with the established procedures.
Security staff deployment is authorized in Procedure 602.030, Security Staff Utilization, a
policy issued by the FDC Office of Institutions that has an effective date of June 2, 2014. The
procedure’s stated purpose is “To establish guidelines for appropriate and efficient use of
security staff.” The procedure describes in detail authorization for establishment of post
assignments and the development of a staffing roster.
Pursuant to the procedure, the FDC Bureau of Security Operations is responsible for
developing a post chart for each institution based on the number of authorized and funded
security positions. A post chart as defined is considered “an actual listing by title of all security
posts that are necessary to operate an institution.” Any changes to the post chart must be
approved by the Bureau following a request from the facility warden and chief of security.
Accommodations are made for temporary alterations from the roster for activities known as
either “secondary duties” or “special assignments.”
Additional FDC policies and procedures are available that directly impact post assignments,
including 208.016, Officers in Temporary Employment Authorization Status, 602.050,
Institutions – Security Post Orders, and 602.036, Gender Specific Security Positions, Shifts,
Posts, and Assignments. These established procedures further define eligibility and specific
duties and responsibilities to be accomplished by the officer.
All the primary procedures related to staff deployment reference compliance with a number of
ACA standards, as well as state statutes, the applicable Florida Teamsters agreement, and
Florida Administrative Code rules.
FINDING 1-21: Current policies, procedures, and department manuals in place consistently
incorporated safety features for correctional officers.
These policies have all been established in line with applicable Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.), ACA standards, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards,
and FDC supplemental procedures. Specific policies and guidelines that directly referenced
officer safety were reviewed and included the following:

36

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

FDC master training plan: Officer safety has been identified as a critical mission of the FDC
and is a mandatory subject matter presented during both pre-service and annual in-service
training. 12 The FDC annual training assessment survey completed during FY 2015 reported
that for the third consecutive year, nearly 90 percent of staff recognized staff training provided
promotes employee safety. 13
Specific training and post-related procedures that have been established include: Procedure

209.101, Training Requirement; 209.004, Field Training Officer Program for Institutions;
209.301, Firearms Training; 602.003, Use of Force Devices, Agents and Munitions;
602.004, Forced Cell Extractions; 602.008, Incident Reports – Institutions; 602.022, Special
Operations Teams; 602.024, External Inmate Transport and Security; 602.026,
Standardization of Security Equipment; 602.027, Security Inspections; 602.030, Security Staff
Utilization; 602.044, Internal Movement and Supervision Requirements; 108.014, EHSO
Program, EHSO Manual, and 602.009, Emergency Preparedness. These procedures were
reviewed and found to sufficiently address safety factors consistent with best correctional
practices.
Our review revealed that in addition to the mandatory training provided, the FDC has
implemented specific training designed to minimize the potential for risk to an officer. Such
training being provided focuses on developing advanced skills in crisis intervention, deescalation, managing a critical incident, and implementing effective countermeasures.
Pursuant to established procedures, the expansive availability of security equipment directly
related to officer safety included the use of security surveillance cameras, video recorders,
cellular phones for external escort personnel, two-way radios with man-down alarms, physical
restraints, special management spit shield, body alarms, and chemical agents for those
qualified and assigned to high-liability risk areas. Specific procedures reviewed included

Procedure 602.028, Special Management Spit Shield; 602.044, Internal Inmate Movement
and Supervision Requirements; 602.024, External Inmate Transportation and Security; 33602.203, Control of Contraband; 602.041, Radio Operations; 602.037, Tool Control;
602.023, Personal Body Alarms; 602.018, Contraband and Searches of Inmates; 602.034,
Perimeter Security; 602.027, Security Inspections; 602.004, Forced Cell Extraction; 33602.210, Use of Force; 602.003, Use of Devices, Agents and Munitions, Emergency Plans
and the Environmental Health and Safety Manual. These procedures were reviewed and

12
13

Florida Department of Corrections Master Training Plan, FY 2015/16.
Florida Department of Corrections Master Training Plan, p 3.
37

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

found to sufficiently address essential safety factors consistent with nationally recognized best
practices.
An ongoing, multi-phase security surveillance camera expansion project was occurring at the
time of our review addressing safety features including the increased use of security cameras
and monitors, as well as to provide audio enhancement features. In addition, the use of body
cameras is being considered in select locations to provide additional supportive
documentation and safety for correctional officers.
Assault rates on staff reportedly have been relatively stable during the five previous fiscal
years. Based on data provided by the FDC Bureau of Institutional Operations, during the five
most recent completed fiscal years the level of assaults on staff has been relatively consistent.
The reports reflect the following average number of assaults by inmates on staff per month for
each fiscal year: FY 11 (67), FY 12 (62.1), FY 13 (62.4), FY 14 (60.75), and FY 15 (66.2).
The most significant issue that negatively impacts officer safety appears to be lack of staff
resources to provide adequate supervision or backup.
FINDING 1-22: Facilities generally have only enough staff to fill Level 1 positions in each
facility for the 12-hour shifts.
While this finding may be taken to imply facilities have sufficient staff, filling only Level I posts
creates serious operational risks if adopted as a long-term pattern for facility staffing. It needs
to be clearly understood that Level I posts are considered mandatory posts, not the minimum
number of posts that should be filled. There are Level II posts and other secondary duties that
must be performed to ensure the safety and security of facility operations. These include
security threat group coordinators, lock and key officers, tool control officers, recruiters,
canine officers, and training officers.
Because these posts represent important services and functions, they are typically noted as
special assignments on the rosters. The staff members assigned to the special duties are taken
from the shift complement, thus reducing the number of personnel available to staff the duty
rosters. Staff often referred to this as taking staff “out of hide” as a reference to staff that
should be available to be deployed on the duty roster but are redirected to the special duties
without being replaced.
All institutions visited by the project team had special assignments. In fact, we were advised
that a number of these special assignments are somewhat permanent and mandated by
department officials. Although these functions are considered important, they have not been
formally approved and budgeted. Therefore, beginning each shift with only enough staff to fill
38

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Level I posts jeopardizes facility security because other needed posts must also be regularly
filled.
FINDING 1-23: All of the facilities inspected by the project team had at least intermittent
issues of operating at or below minimum staffing levels.
Our review consistently identified the lack of available security personnel to fill established
posts. It has become routine in many facilities to leave post assignments vacant and rely on
overtime due to the lack of on-site staff to meet critical needs.
The FDC provides housing and services to a wide variety of inmates in over 50 major
facilities. The specific mission of each facility may vary from re-entry to close custody; the risk
and needs assessment for each individual may be different, and the facility designs vary from
a single-story open dormitory to multi-level confined units. Facilities housing a large number
of inmates classified as community access-minimum generally require fewer staff in the
housing units than facilities housing high-risk inmates classified as close custody. As a result
of the diverse missions, daily activities involving inmate access and movement procedures
throughout the facilities can vary. The type and level of supervision required and the activity
levels often impact required staffing levels.
The FDC procedures do not reference specific staff-to-inmate ratios. Because of the different
missions of correctional facilities, the variances in the types of inmates housed, and the level
of programming and other factors, there is no single staff-to-inmate ratio that is recognized
as a national best practice in the industry. There are standards that reference certain posts be
filled; however, no specific staff-to-inmate ratios are recommended.
The FDC Office of Institutions has issued “staffing level guidelines” that provide direction to
the facilities regarding post assignments and the post level designation that should be
assigned to commonly filled posts. The posts are designated based on importance.
•

•

•

Level I posts: Level I posts are those posts considered “critical” for the daily operation
of a shift. They are the top priority and are required to be filled even if it requires the
use of overtime.
Level II posts: Level II posts are considered “essential” to the operation of the facility,
as these posts provide for normal activities and programming to occur in the
institution.
Level III posts: Level III posts are considered “necessary” posts, but are typically not
filled unless there is an abundance of personnel available.

39

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Supervisor-to-line staff ratios are also not mandated by state or federal law. The FDC
procedures do not cite specific ratios required in either procedures or guidelines. Supervisory
levels are based on approved post charts developed by the FDC Bureau of Security
Operations.
The staffing level guidelines issued by the FDC Office of Institutions provide direction to
facility management staff on the designated post level for specific position responsibilities by
type of inmate being supervised, shift, and building type. For example, in the guidelines the
following is presented: Shift Supervisor: Level I on all shifts, Control Room Sergeant: Level I

on all shifts, Housing Unit Sergeant: Level I on all shifts, and open-bay dormitory/general
population: Day Shift Officer 1 (Level I) and Officer 2 (Level III) 14. Very seldom are Level III
posts filled due to the overall staffing levels available. There is additional reference in the
guidelines to staffing levels and post designations for several other posts, e.g., control rooms,
housing units, inner perimeter security, food services, vehicle gate, clinic officer, and laundry.
The guidelines provide no allowance for the size of the facility or size of the housing unit.
Whether a facility has a capacity of 1500 or 500, the number of internal security Level I posts
remains the same. Some housing units may contain fewer than 50 inmates, while others may
house over 250 15.
There is, however, allowance provided based on the type of offender being housed. For
example, on the 12-hour day shift, if close management/confinement inmates are housed in
the building, three Level I correctional officer floor posts are required. This staffing level does
not include the officer in the housing unit control room, as that post is considered a separate
post assignment. If general population close-custody inmates are housed, only one Level I
floor post is required based on the guideline. A review of daily security rosters reflects the
same.
Close custody inmates in general population are considered the highest risk general
population inmates to house. When secondary duties are taken into consideration and the
control room is required to be staffed at all times, the project team observed situations where
only one officer was present in a housing unit with over 150 inmates16. This practice is
inconsistent with recognized best practices in the corrections industry.

14

Office of Institutions, Staffing Level Guidelines sheet.
Dade Correctional Center, T- Building capacity is 258.
16
This situation was observed at three separate FDC institutions.
15

40

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

FINDING 1-24: Level I posts are often vacated during the shift, due in part to the level of
secondary responsibilities assigned to correctional officers and the number of cases where
staff are reassigned to special assignments.
Because of the shortage of staff, which manifests itself with the posting of only Level I
positions throughout the institutions, the project team found that staff assigned to housing unit
posts are often reassigned from those posts to perform secondary duties or to be assigned to
a special assignment. This often leaves only one officer in the unit to supervise a fairly large
number of inmates, usually in excess of 100. In a number of the facilities that have enclosed
housing unit control centers, the remaining housing unit officer retreats to the control center
and supervises the inmates from behind the security barriers of the control center.
We note that determining the adequacy of staffing levels was difficult due to roster practices.
Facility rosters typically illustrate that Level I posts are filled and, as a result, it appears at first
glance as if inmate supervision is direct and adequate. However, the rosters are misleading,
as they suggest that officers are working inside the housing units when, in fact, there are
cases where at least one of those officers is not present for a significant portion of the shift. If
Level II and Level III positions were staffed and operating, this would not be an issue, as the
Level II or Level III post could be reassigned, leaving the housing units with an adequate
complement of Level I staff. As a result, the inability to fill Level II and III posts creates a
security hazard caused by the understaffing.
These housing unit staff are often reassigned during their shift due to “secondary
responsibilities.” Secondary responsibilities are duties that are added to an employee’s
normal responsibilities and often require them to move to a different location in the facility. It
is not unusual to have a unit sergeant or a correctional officer away from their housing unit
post performing secondary duties for a number of hours during their shift. These secondary
duties can include providing recreation yard coverage, movement control, supervision of the
dining room, area searches, perimeter checks, staff searches at pedestrian entrances, control
room monitoring, suicide observation, inmate transport, canteen supervision, and inmate
escort.
Besides secondary responsibilities being assigned to staff, the staffing issue is further
complicated by the number of “special assignments” established in the facilities. Procedure
602.030, Security Staff Utilization, defines extended special assignments as the “reassignment
of an officer to the administrative shift to perform other security related duties or tasks for
which there is no post. This assignment will be for a period of 60 days to 365 days.” These
special assignment positions were seen throughout our facility visits and included positions
41

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

such as arsenal sergeant, lock and key sergeant, canine sergeant, work squad sergeant,
administrative lieutenant, and work squad lieutenant. The project team found a significant
number of staff are reassigned to responsibilities commonly referred to as “special
assignments.”
To identify the amount to which Level I posts were unmanned, we reviewed FDC Bureau of
Security Operations Level 1 unmanned accumulative report as of September 17, 2015. This
report revealed the “Total Instances of Unmanned Level 1 posts from February 2, 2014, to
September 17, 2015, was 39,063,” and the “Total Unmanned Level I Post hours” from the
same time period was 220,558.83” 17 .
As a specific example, a daily security roster for September 1, 2015, at the Lowell Annex
reflected over 110 staff hours were reported as being used during one 12-hour shift to meet
either secondary duties or special assignments. 18 The sample is relatively consistent with our
findings in most facilities. On that shift at Lowell Annex there were no officers being held on
overtime to address these issues, and as a result, staff from existing post assignments were
being pulled from their posts to meet those additional duties.
The lack of sufficient posted personnel in the housing units, which becomes more acute when
one of the officers is away performing secondary duties or is reassigned to a special
assignment, is a cause for concern. With limited housing unit supervision, inmates are
presented with frequent opportunities to involve themselves in illicit activity.
FINDING 1-25: Lack of civilian personnel exacerbates security staffing needs.
In many jurisdictions, civilian personnel perform ancillary functions unrelated to safety and
security that would require the assignment of a correctional officer. Many of the civilian
positions have lower salaries than certified correctional officers, and they are not required to
attend the lengthy training academy program as well. Our analysis found correctional officers
performing a number of civilian functions, including clerical, motor pool mechanic, human
resource recruiter, program supervisor, disciplinary report coordinator, Prison Rape
Elimination Act (PREA) coordinator, ACA coordinator, administrative assistant, maintenance
worker, and caustic manager. At one facility there were five correctional officers performing
clerical duties. It was particularly noteworthy to find that staff on the administrative roster are
often noted as having a job title, such as utility officer, but function as something different.

17
18

FDOC Bureau of Security Operations, Weekly Level 1 Unmanned Summary Totals, September 17, 2015.
FDOC, Lowell Annex Daily Security Roster, Tuesday, September 1, 2015, Day Shift – B.
42

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

RECOMMENDATION 7: To determine the number of security staff needed, the department
should conduct a comprehensive staffing analysis that includes:
•

Security post analysis: The first step in any security staffing analysis is to conduct an
analysis of each security post to determine whether it should exist and the frequency
and duration that it should be filled. The solution calls for conducting an analysis of
the posts that need to be staffed to provide appropriate security and a task analysis
that examines tasks that need to be performed by correctional officers throughout the
institution, hour by hour. A post analysis should address the following areas:








Creation of sufficient post assignments to supervise inmates in recreation, work
and common areas without relying on pulling housing unit officers off of their
posts.
Limiting secondary duties for those posts that have responsibility for the
supervision of inmate housing units and critical areas of the institution.
Creating posts for important specialized duties that must be performed,
including tool control officer, key and lock officer, security threat group officer,
canine officer, and disciplinary officer.
Limiting the number of special assignments to those posts and functions critical
to operational effectiveness.
Identifying civilian functions that need to be performed and creating civilian
positions to perform those duties. Clerical positions, administrative positions,
and maintenance positions are better suited for civilian personnel skilled in
those areas. This also will increase the use of certified staff in safety and
security posts in the institution.

•

Develop accurate relief factor: Once all correctional officer positions are identified
and their assignments, tour of duty, and days off are established, FDC should
recalculate the relief factor to ensure coverage of seven-day and five-day posts, etc.
The relief factor must account for days off, discharge of benefit leave, military leave,
vacancies, and time on the job lost due to training.

•

Develop consistent and complete master roster for each facility: The FDC Bureau of
Security Operations should lead the effort to develop a master roster for each facility,
and combine staffing rosters that allow for a visual display of personnel assignments
by shift and post, thus accounting for the deployment of all personnel in the institution.
The master roster should list all approved posts and personnel assigned to each shift.
This document should be updated monthly. All listed posts should account for all
43

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

assignments in the institution, and personnel should not be assigned to functions
inconsistent with their post assignment unless special circumstances exist.

Correctional Officer Supervision
The FDC has the proactive responsibility of developing policies and procedures that clearly
direct staff in the performance of their duties. The department not only has the responsibility
to develop effective policies and procedures, but also to ensure personnel are properly
trained on those policies and procedures. Addressing safety in a correctional setting is
paramount and often reflected as a byproduct of fundamentally sound policies, quality
training, and sufficiently deployed staffing levels. The development of policies that have been
casually or less-than-thoroughly prepared can lead to misinterpretations, inconsistencies, and
safety concerns.

44

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

2.

SECURITY OPERATIONS

The findings and analysis that follow are a result of the direct observation of the operation of
FDC facilities, interviews with staff, focus groups, and review of institutional data.

Organization and Structure of FDC Security Systems
FDC security operations are overseen by an assistant secretary for institutions who reports to
the secretary of corrections. The assistant secretary has five main direct reports, four of whom
are involved in supervising and managing facility security.
The institutional support section is responsible for security operations, which has as a major
component audits and inspections. Each facility warden is supervised by a regional director
who is responsible for supervision of the facilities in his/her region.
The regional director reports to the assistant secretary. Each regional director is supported by
an assistant regional director, and they are responsible for multiple facilities within their
geographic region, including state correctional facilities, private facilities, and work camps.
The number of facilities each regional director manages varies, but is between 17 and 20
major correctional facilities.
Figure 13: FDC Office of Institutions Organization Chart
Institutions
Deputy Secretary

Medical & Mental
Health Services
Assistant Secretary

Institutions
Assistant Secretary

Dental Services

Pharmacy Services

Director

Director

Nursing Services

Health Services
Administration

Security

Reentry

Deputy Assistant
Secretary

Deputy Assistant
Secretary

Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4

Director

Director

Mental Health
Services
Director

Source: FDC website
45

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

The main role of the regional office appears to be as consultants to the facility managers and
as facilitators in assisting in resolving issues and problems. The regional office is actively
involved in monitoring the performance of the facilities and ensuring compliance with
departmental policy requirements. The regional staff work directly with wardens to ensure
appropriate follow-up is initiated regarding security inspections and in the development of
budgets.
Regional programs staff have no real role in program development and implementation.
Program offerings are controlled by the central office with little regional office input. The
betterment programs are initiated and encouraged locally at the institutional level.
Regional managers do have input into selection of wardens, assistant wardens, and other
command staff. They also conduct the warden’s performance evaluations.
The budget is set by the central office. The regional office has some discretionary funds, but
does not have the ability to move funds from one facility to another if needed.
The regional office staff includes the assistant regional director and correctional service
consultants (CSC) who monitor and assist in operational issues, staffing, etc. The regional
warden position is being phased out and converted to a CSC position. Region 2 also has a
motor pool supervisor and a maintenance supervisor.
The structure and authority of the regional offices are similar to regional functions found in
many state systems. Authority varies from state to state, with some having more direct and
autonomous authority over the facilities in the region, while others serve in capacities similar
to Florida in that they are consultants and facilitators for assisting the wardens in the
resolution of issues and problems and monitor overall performance in relation to
departmental requirements.
By executive order, the regional director is also required to visit each facility in the region two
times per quarter.
Florida State Law 944.151, Security of Correctional Institutions and Facilities, describes
legislative intent regarding correctional institutions security requiring that the secretary of
corrections appoint a security review committee to maintain compliance with policy
requirements. A summary of the requirements of the law includes the following:
•

Establish a periodic schedule for the physical inspection of buildings and structures to
determine security deficiencies with emphasis on older facilities that have experienced
a significant number of escapes or attempts in the past.
46

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

•
•

•
•

•
•

Conduct or cause to be conducted announced and unannounced comprehensive
security audits of state and private correctional institutions.
Adopt and enforce minimum security standards and policies; annually make written,
prioritized budget recommendations to the secretary that identify critical security
deficiencies at major institutions.
Investigate and evaluate the usefulness of the dependability of existing security
technology at the institutions and new technology available.
Contract, if deemed necessary, with security personnel, consulting engineers,
architects, or other security experts the committee deems necessary for security audits
and security consultant services.
Establish a periodic schedule for conducting announced and unannounced escape
simulation drills.
Submit an annual legislative budget request outlining critical repairs and security
renovation needs.

The typical structure of the security department at the institutions is as follows: Each facility
warden is responsible for the security of their institutions. Major facilities have an assistant
warden of operations that directly oversees institutional security. A colonel/chief of security
reports to the assistant warden and is the uniformed commander of the institution. The
colonel directly supervises the shift captains, and the captains are responsible for security staff
deployment and supervision of shift activities, which includes supervision of staff and the
inmate population. In some cases, a facility major is assigned to the facility in support of the
colonel. Lieutenants are assigned to institutions and perform specialized duties in support of
the security operation.

Perimeter Security
FDC’s Procedure 602.034, Perimeter Security, provides specific and detailed requirements
for perimeter security. Consistent compliance with all perimeter security operational
requirements is essential in the detection and prevention of inmate escape attempts from
department facilities. The staff members assigned to perimeter security posts are responsible
for the prevention and detection of escape attempts and the observation of activities within
the secure perimeter, as well as the prevention of outside assaults. There is recognition in the
policy that all procedural requirements may not be attainable due to the age and physical
condition of the perimeter buildings and fences. Policy components include a description of
the configuration of each perimeter by security level of the institution, lighting requirements,
condition of fences, secondary power supply, vehicle gate security, inspection requirements,
responsibilities of tower staff, roving patrols, and electronic detection.
47

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Each FDC facility has officer(s) on each shift that have specific duties to perform a
comprehensive internal check of the interior and exterior of all fences, gates, manhole covers,
structures, etc. The project team walked the interior perimeters at a number of facilities with
the internal security officers to review the process of conducting perimeter checks. The checks
we reviewed were thorough, and facility staff noted any issues found. Each check is logged in
a logbook in the master control room. Secure correctional institutions’ perimeter security is
supported by armed perimeter vehicle patrols at all times and, where applicable, armed
towers monitor perimeter security as well.
FINDING 2-1: Perimeter security systems are outdated, in poor operational condition, and
fencing is in disrepair.
The electronic intrusion detection systems in a number of locations were outdated and either
were prone to frequent false alarms or didn’t operate as specified. A number of these
perimeter detection systems are in the process of being assessed, repaired, and/or replaced.
At one facility, an electronic stun fence was also in need of repair or replacement. It also has
been noted in a number of department security audits that certain perimeter fencing does not
meet department policy specifications, and those issues were noted as being in violation of
the policy but requiring new funding. Finally, interior perimeter fencing in some locations was
noted to be in disrepair or rusting, and the fence ties used to connect the fabric to the fence
poles are domestic ties that can easily be removed and used as weapons. A sturdier metal
bracket-type fence tie is better suited for correctional applications. A number of the audits
reviewed indicated that funding was needed to address perimeter security issues, but it was
unclear if formal funding requests have been submitted.
RECOMMENDATION 8: The department should conduct a perimeter security audit of its
institutions and develop an improvement and replacement plan to upgrade perimeter security
fencing and intrusion detection systems, which are found to be in need of attention
throughout the FDC.

Count Procedure
The stated purpose of FDC’s count procedure (602.006) is “to establish guidelines for the
uniform inmate count reporting system, ensuring the accountability of the inmate population
within the custody and control of the Florida Department of Corrections.” The policy details
formal and informal count procedures, as well as emergency counts. There are eight formal
counts conducted in any 24-hour period. During hours of movement, a formal count is taken
within every 4-hour period. The count system is maintained in the main control room at each
facility and count records are kept. Count procedures are detailed and adequate to ensure
48

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

accountability. Nationally, the number of counts required at a specific facility varies
depending on the physical plant, custody level, mission of the facility, etc. The FDC policy is
consistent with national standards.
FINDING 2-2: The procedure relating to inmate counts was found to be consistent with
national standards and best correctional practice. Count records reviewed at the facilities are
properly maintained, and there were no violations of the count procedure observed.

Tools Control
The stated purpose of Procedure 602.307, Tools and Sensitive Items Control, is “to establish
guidelines for the control and management of tools and sensitive items.” The procedure
specifies the manner in which tools are classified, how inventories are kept, procedures for
issuance of tools, procedures for documenting lost tools, and disposal of excess or damaged
tools, as well as procedures for managing sensitive items such as dental equipment and
hypodermic needles. Procedures are designed to minimize the use of tools as weapons,
prevent the use of tools in escape attempts, prevent injury, and provide for a quick
determination of tools that are missing. Each institution is required to designate tool control
officers under the direction of the chief of security/colonel.
FINDING 2-3: The tool control practices observed were found to be generally compliant with
department procedure and consistent with national standards and best practices.
Although a full tool control audit did not take place, inventories we spot-checked were
compliant with procedural requirements. The tool control officer is typically not a budget
position, but a special assignment position.

Key Control and Locking Systems
FDC Procedure 602.039, Key Control and Locking Systems, provides specific and detailed
requirements for the maintenance, storage, and issuance of keys, as well as maintenance of
locks. Each facility is required to appoint a key control officer and an assistant key control
officer, and they are to be trained according to departmental specifications.
A number of facilities operated with contemporary automated key dispensing systems, which
are located in close proximity to the master control rooms and facility pedestrian entrances. In
those facilities where the automated system was either not functioning or hadn’t been
installed, a manual key dispensing process was in place where staff issued keys to employees
and logged the transaction to maintain a record of which employee possessed keys, the time
they received them, and when they returned them. At each facility, a key control officer was
49

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

assigned to manage the key control system. A review was conducted at a number of facilities
to examine the key control operations. It was noted that monthly and quarterly audits are
conducted and documented, and those records were reviewed by the project team. A
selected number of inventories were reviewed and found to be accurate. It should be noted
that key control officers assigned are often assigned as special assignment officers and are
not noted on the shift roster as permanently assigned. No irregularities of departmental
procedures were observed, and the procedure was generally compliant with national
standards as we understand them. The key management program appears to be properly
managed, and documentation reviewed was in good order.

Emergency Management
FDC Procedure 602.206, Emergency Management, provides general and specific guidance
for the management of disorders. A disorder incident is defined as any assault, bomb threat,
employee strike, escape, evacuation, fire, hazardous material or chemical spill or leak,
hostage situation, medical emergency, natural or man-made disaster, pandemic, riot or
disorder, or any other significant event requiring departure from normal operations. Each
facility is responsible for drafting procedures to address the types of incidents noted above.
A total of 12 different emergency plan areas were reviewed by the project team at each
facility assessed. The procedures reviewed included bomb threat, computer security,
disturbance, employee work stoppage, escape, evacuation, fire, hazardous materials,
hostage, medical, natural disaster, and outside assault. The plans were found to be very
thorough and provide specific guidance to staff in these 12 emergency areas. A review of the
procedures at each institution indicated the warden had approved the policies and submitted
them to the appropriate regional office. Procedures were approved at the regional level and
forwarded to the FDC Office of Institutions.
FINDING 2-4: Departmental approval of the emergency management plans had not
occurred in all cases.
RECOMMENDATION 9: The department should formally review and approve facility
emergency plans and further ensure that proper training is taking place with local law
enforcement and agencies providing mutual aid assistance at each site throughout the
department.

Use and Control of Toxics and Hazardous Materials
The department has adopted an environmental health and safety plan designed to reduce
and/or remove potential occupational hazards in the workplace. The program is administered
50

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

through the facility environmental health and safety officer (EHSO) and the maintenance and
construction superintendent.
The EHSO is responsible for conducting monthly inspections and reporting hazards that need
to be addressed. Imminent dangers are to be addressed immediately with facility leadership.
The EHSO has the authority to stop any work activity if imminent danger is identified. The
EHSO is a full-time position at each institution according to policy, reports directly to the
warden, and performs job tasks including monthly inspections, monitoring of daily operations
to ensure compliance, investigating and reporting hazards, accidents, fires, lightning, and
other damage, conditions, and situations affecting the health, safety, and welfare of
employees and inmates. Numerous other duties and responsibilities are listed in Chapter 1 of
the EHSO manual.
FINDING 2-5: The facilities reviewed have a designated EHSO as required by department
policy.
Procedures reviewed appeared consistent with national standards and the control of
hazardous materials and toxic substances were found to be well-controlled based on
observations that were made.
The inventory, storage, and issuance process appeared to be in good order. Spot-checks of
certain program components found the documentation to be accurate as well. Overall
sanitation of the facilities was good, which suggested that cleaning supplies were readily
available and the controls in place adequate to meet policy requirements, again based on
our observations.

Critical Incidents Management
FDC Procedure 602.008, Incident Reports-Institutions, requires the documentation of
information that is important to the safety and operation of correctional facilities. Per the
procedure, an incident “refers to any unusual occurrence or information received about

which formal documentation and notification is indicated. This may include an accident
involving possible injury to a person or damage to equipment, a suspicious action or
occurrence, or other circumstances which could impact agency operations. The incident may
be related to an inmate, an employee, or member of the general public.” The procedure
specifies the information to be contained in an incident report and the format to be followed,
including specific forms to be used. Incident reports are reviewed by the shift supervisor or
department head that completes the initial report disposition on any incident, which is a brief
report on the incident. The chief of security is tasked to review the incident report(s) and
51

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

notate findings and/or comments. The chief is also responsible for assigning a log number to
each incident report. Subsequent to the chief’s review, the warden is required to review the
incident report and take appropriate action.
Critical incident reviews are conducted on serious incidents. Procedure 605.008, Critical
Incident Reviews, effective June 26, 2015, outlines procedures to be followed to review
serious incidents. A critical incident is defined as “an incident resulting in serious injury or
death of an employee or inmate, incidents involving the escape or attempted escape of an
inmate from the secure perimeter and any other incident requiring the level of review by the
Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Assistant Secretary, or the Regional Directors.”
FINDING 2-6: The project team’s review of recent incidents indicated that the incident report
procedure operating pursuant to Procedure 602.008 is being complied with and incident
reports are a critical component of the facility communication system.
Supervisory personnel review incident reports on an ongoing basis to identify operational
issues that need to be addressed. Critical incidents, including escapes, serious injury, etc.,
require the involvement and review of the secretary, deputy secretary, assistant secretary, or
the regional directors. These procedures are consistent with national standards and best
practices.
The project team did not conduct an exhaustive analysis of incidents that occurred in FDC
facilities; however, it is important to note that the number of sexual offenses is a concern that
should be assessed closely going forward. As an example, the number of sexual offenses
(inmate-on-inmate) alleged in the past 12 months at one correctional facility was 67. This
appears to be a relatively high number of sex offense allegations. Staff indicated that the
procedures put in place to protect inmates under PREA has resulted in an increase in the
number of complaints made by inmates. They further related that some of this is due to
attempts by inmates to manipulate the process in order to obtain a transfer to a more
desirable facility.
Staff at other facilities also indicated that PREA procedures have resulted in a significant
increase in sexual abuse complaints; however, the staff similarly expressed concern that some
inmates are using the complaint system to manipulate a change in their status for placement
in a facility that they consider preferable to the one they are in.
An additional concern identified was the number of lewd and lascivious acts by inmates
towards female officers at a number of the facilities assessed. At one medium-sized
correctional facility, from January through September 2015, there were 147 reports of lewd
52

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

and lascivious acts towards females, a 100 percent increase over five years ago. This was
found at other sites, although not as prominent.
RECOMMENDATION 10: The high number of sexual misconduct cases at this facility and
others, including both inmate-on-inmate and inmate-on-staff, should be examined more
closely going forward, as it appears that the number of complaints/reports are increasing and
prevention and prosecution efforts do not appear to be effective in controlling and deterring
the misconduct. Investigators should also carefully review and investigate, where appropriate,
inmate complaints regarding sexual assault to ensure that the procedures designed to protect
inmates are not being abused as manipulation to receive a transfer to a more desirable
location.

Post Orders
Post Order Procedure 602.050, Institution Security Post Orders, establishes guidelines for the
development and implementation of post orders for security posts in the institutions. The
procedure also calls for an annual review of these post orders. A post order is described as

“a written order detailing the specific duties and responsibilities to be accomplished by the
officer assigned to the security post.” Post orders are considered classified documents, as they
relate to the physical security and operational safety of the facility. Post orders are developed
at the departmental level and can be modified with additional duties that are specific to the
particular institution.
FINDING 2-7: The post order policy and process is consistent with national standards, and
the post orders themselves reviewed at the institutions are descriptive of duties and
responsibilities of the various positions and provide proper guidance for correctional officers.

Search and Control of Contraband
The control of contraband is key to the safe and secure operation of a correctional facility
and to maintaining the safety and security of staff and inmates. Contraband, such as cell
phones, drugs, and weapons, creates a serious risk in an environment where there already is
a high potential for violence. Contraband, such as cell phones, can be used to organize
crimes in and out of the facility, develop plans for escape, or establish plans to traffic drugs
and weapons into the facility. The introduction of contraband into a correctional setting has
been established as a felony by Florida Statutes 951.22 and 944.4. As a result, it is
imperative that a correctional system make every effort to reduce or eliminate the amount of
contraband in its facilities.

53

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

FDC Procedure 602.018, Contraband and Searches of Inmates, effective March 18, 2015,
details the requirements and procedures associated with the search of inmates and areas for
contraband. The policy provides guidelines for conducting searches of inmates, their living
areas, and their property in order to control the introduction and movement of contraband,
as well as to prevent escapes.

FDC Procedure 602.016, Entering and Exiting Department of Corrections Institutions,
outlines procedures for controlling contraband and searching individuals entering the
institution. Staff are required to be searched at a rate of 25 percent of all staff per month, and
searches are documented in the Staff Search Log DC-2004. Procedures also require that staff
working at the institution are to be subject to a pat search on a random basis, and at least
every fifth person attempting to enter the facility is to be searched. Any person refusing to be
searched is to be denied entry into the facility. Staff are allowed to carry a number of items
into the facility, to include their meals and beverages in approved lunchboxes. Clear plastic
lunchboxes are sold in the canteen and are used for this purpose. In addition to the pat
searches, all individuals entering the facility are subject to a search for metal, utilizing a
standup magnetometer or handheld metal detector. Inmates entering the institution are
subject to more extensive search, to include removal of their clothing.
Other areas of contraband control include that all inmate property be inspected for
contraband by the property officer before it enters the institution. Correctional officers working
housing posts are further required by post orders to conduct searches of inmate property at a
minimum rate of 25 percent per month, and the searches are to be logged on Search Log
Form DC6-2001. Inmates are also subjected to random pat searches, strip searches, and
magnetometer searches.
FINDING 2-8: While the FDC does not have complete contraband data, observations, staff
reports, and the limited data available show that contraband is a major issue.
The project team requested detailed contraband information from the FDC, and a listing of
all contraband incidents by facility was provided. However, the data was not broken down by
individual years and was only a cumulative amount of contraband by facility from January 1,
2010, through October 2015. In its present form it did not provide an ability to analyze the
data or the trends, if any, over time. It was also reported by the FDC that this data reflected
raw numbers extracted from the management information notification system (MINS) and that
there may be errors based on data entry. MINS is FDC’s automated system for the reporting
of incidents and events.

54

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

In the absence of detailed system-wide data on contraband that provides the ability to analyze
recent trends in incidents of contraband, the project team reviewed the only other reported
department-wide source for contraband detection. This information was found on the FDC
website, where the FDC Office of Inspector General reported the amount of contraband
seized by the inspector general’s canine teams and interdiction operations during FY
2013/14 (Table 3).
Table 3
K9/Drug Interdiction Team Operations

FY 2013/14

Contraband Type Seized
Alcohol (gallons)
Commercial

21.67

Homemade

78.31

Drugs (grams)
Marijuana

2,342.37

Synthetic Cannabinoid

13,360.65

Cocaine

54.3

Other

1,001.0

Prescription drugs (dosage units)

1,142

Weapons, Cell Phones, Money
Firearms (in vehicles on state property)
Ammunition (rounds, in vehicles)
Knives/sharps (entering or inside institution)

15
1,099
477

Cell phones or parts/accessories

1,783

Cash (excessive or contraband)

$5,707

Source: FDC K9/Drug Interdiction

As a result, the project team had to rely on documentation that was provided by individual
institutions. In many cases, the time frame in which the data was collected differed between
facilities. At one correctional facility in a 30-day period from September 1 to September 30,
2015, there were 39 weapons and six cell phones discovered. At a different facility in the past
12 months, inmates have been cited for disciplinary reports regarding contraband as follows:
93 cell phone reports, 75 drug offenses, and 30 reports of possession of a weapon. Staff and
inmates indicated that cell phones are penetrating the security perimeter at a number of the
facilities and are available to inmates. A separate institution reported the following amount of
contraband seized during the most recent 90-day period: 8.9 grams of K-2 spice, 1.5 grams
of marijuana, 17.01 lbs. of tobacco, and 56 cell phones.
55

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

FINDING 2-9: While searches are being conducted, the amount is insufficient to control or
deter the introduction of contraband.
One important tactic in reducing contraband is the consistent, yet random, search of inmates
and individuals entering the facility. Throughout this review, staff indicated that the amount of
searches conducted in the facilities has decreased in recent years due to the lack of staff. In
its recent report regarding use of force, the Association of State Correctional Administrators
(ASCA) noted “Searches and contraband control was less than adequate because minimal

staffing levels does not allow for any searches beyond the three cell searches required of each
officer on each shift. As a result, the team found that the facilities were experiencing
contraband control issues.” 19 The staffing level findings resulting from this review, as
addressed in another section of this report, support ASCA’s finding that shifts are frequently
being staffed at minimum staffing levels, and secondary duties have an adverse effect on the
ability to conduct more frequent and effective searches for weapons and contraband.
FINDING 2-10: Staff and visitors entering the facilities are being searched consistent with
procedural requirements, and attempts are made to search employee possessions. However,
the volume of personal items entering the institution is too great, and the time allotted for the
search is insufficient to ensure that the search process is thorough and effective.
In some cases, staff are allowed to enter the institution with certain personal items that are not
allowed according to the entrance procedures. During the processing of staff in and out on
the evening shift during one of our review visits, the project team observed that some
employees appeared to be allowed to enter with personal flashlights and carry them to their
posts. The flashlights were of different types and sizes and were not thoroughly searched.
FINDING 2-11: Staff reported in interviews and observation of the project team confirmed
that insufficient searching is conducted due to the lack of available staff.
Many security employees were reported to have secondary duties, and shifts are frequently
being staffed at the minimum staffing requirements. Shakedowns and searches have become
an “extra” duty that can only be done when staffing exceeds minimum levels. Additional
duties and frequent operations at minimum staffing levels have an adverse effect on the ability
to conduct more frequent and effective searches for weapons and contraband.

19

Assessment of Use of Force Policies and Practices within the Florida Department of Corrections, Association of
State Correctional Administrators, August 31, 2015
56

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

FINDING 2-12: FDC policy on tobacco use has created a secondary market for the
trafficking of tobacco products and for staff to violate policies and become complicit in the
supply of contraband.
The FDC smoking policy20 allows staff to bring in one pack of cigarettes or tobacco per day.
For inmates, such products are contraband and highly sought-after items. For employees,
these are items that can be easily trafficked with inmates for what was estimated in some
locations to be $10 per cigarette. Inmates are not allowed to smoke. During interviews at the
facilities visited, it was stated that the tobacco policy has “given license to officers to be
corrupt.” The smoking policy creates a significant security issue for the management of FDC
institutions. The vast majority of systems in the U.S. are now tobacco-free, and any tobacco in
the facilities is banned, including access by staff. Such a policy eliminates the introduction of
tobacco products into the facilities and eliminates a major source of trafficking.
FINDING 2-13: The facilities lack modern scanning technology that permits the identification
of potential contraband through a close examination of individuals that are entering the
institution and the possessions that they carry.
Only aging metal detectors are deployed in the FDC facilities reviewed, and this equipment
cannot detect non-metal items such as drugs or plastic items that could be fashioned into a
weapon.
RECOMMENDATION 11: Increase security staffing above current minimum levels to ensure
that sufficient staff are available to conduct thorough searches of inmates entering the facility,
their property, and their living areas.
RECOMMENDATION 12: The FDC should conduct a review of contraband flow at all
facilities and develop an action plan for increased searches, more effective search
procedures, improved supervision of inmates during contact visitation, and the strengthening
of entry points where vulnerability is detected.
RECOMMENDATION 13: Consider revising the list of allowable items to enter the institution
with staff, and reduce the volume of items to make the search process more effective.
Limitations and control should be placed on the amount and type of food staff are permitted
to bring into the facilities in order to improve the control of contraband.

20

Policy 605.005 - Use of Tobacco Products by Employees, Effective March 26, 2014
57

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

RECOMMENDATION 14: A comprehensive staffing study should be initiated in order to
ensure that sufficient staff are available to conduct thorough searches of inmates entering and
moving within the facility, along with their property and their living areas.
RECOMMENDATION 15: FDC facilities should become tobacco-free institutions. The
presence of tobacco in the institutions presents an unnecessary opportunity for trafficking a
prohibited product.
RECOMMENDATION 16: The FDC should obtain modern scanners that will more effectively
detect and prevent unauthorized items from entering the facility. Use of this type of equipment
at entry points and locations within the facility will reduce contraband and improve security.
This equipment will likely be an effective deterrent, especially at the minimum-security units
where large groups of inmates exit the facility on a daily basis for work details and are likely
candidates to introduce contraband into the facility because of their access to the community.
RECOMMENDATION 17: The FDC should develop a system to track contraband on a
monthly basis by facility.

Use of Force
In view of the extensive use of force study 21 completed by representatives of the Association of
State Correctional Administrators (ASCA), the project team examined the processes and, in
particular, the policies that govern the use of force. We did collect basic information on the
number of incidents of use of force as reflected in the following charts but did not extensively
review specific cases of the application of use of force within the department. We note that
use of force incidents have risen significantly in the first few months of FY 2015/16.

21

Assessment of the Use of Force Policy and Directives within the Florida Department of Corrections, August 31,

2015, ASCA

58

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Figure 14: Total Use of Force Incidents by Fiscal Year

7,600

7,460

7,400
7,200
7,000
6,800

6,709

6,575

6,600

6,503

6,400

6,258

6,200
6,000
5,800
5,600

FY 2010/11

FY 2011/12

FY 2012/13

FY 2013/14

FY 2014/15

Source: FDC Data provided October 14, 2015

Figure 15: Average Monthly Use of Force Incidents

640

622

620

606

600
580
560

548

559

540

542
522

520
500
480
460

FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16
through Sept

Source: FDC Data provided October 14, 2015

59

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

The FDC uses Rule 33-602.210 of the Florida Administrative Code as their official use of
force policy. While ASCA noted in their use of force study that FDC’s use of force policy “is
consistent overall with widely accepted practices of adult correctional agencies nationwide,”
our review found its content and organization lacks clarity, and staff throughout the
department repeatedly indicated that the current policy was difficult to understand.
FINDING 2-14: The FDC’s use of force policy provides confusing and disparate guidelines
for when and how force can be used.
Policies should be written using simple, clear, and concise language that any reader can
clearly understand. A policy that is difficult to read or confusing provides little benefit to staff
or to the department. The need for clarity is especially critical regarding guidelines for use of
force in a correctional setting and should clearly impart to staff when and how force should
be used.
The use of force policy is a complex and lengthy document that does not organize guidelines
for using force into an easy-to-understand format. In fact, readers must search line-by-line
through the 15 pages to find disconnected, non-specific guidance regarding when and how
force can be used. The following are some of the use of force guidelines and their location in
the policy:
•

Page 2 provides initial basic guidance for the use of force:
“Department staff shall use force, organized or reactionary, only as a last resort when
it reasonably appears that all other alternatives are not feasible to obtain compliance
with law or administrative rules…. “

•

Page 3 provides one of several guidelines for when force with chemical agents can be
used:
“Hands-on physical force shall not be used if injury is less likely to occur by using
chemical agents, impact munitions, or electronic immobilization devices.”

•

A separate section on page 3 provides another guide for when chemical agents can
be used:
“Chemical agents shall only be used when the use of force is authorized and the level
of forces is necessary to prevent injuries to staff or inmates including any self-injurious
behavior exhibited by inmates.”

•

Page 5 identifies yet another situation where chemical agents can be used:
60

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

“Officers may utilize chemical agents whenever an inmate becomes disorderly or
disruptive or does not comply with clear and audible orders that have been
communicated to cease such behavior.”
•

Page 7 provides direction regarding a specific condition when force should not be
used:
“Force shall not be used solely as a response to verbal abuse.”

•

Page 10 provides guidance for use of force to provide medical treatment:
“Officers may use reasonable physical force to restrain an inmate, upon supervision
and direction of a physician or medical practitioner for the purpose of providing
necessary treatment or for the safety of an employee.”

Because these guidelines are strewn throughout the document, a reader cannot quickly open
the rule and find clear direction regarding use of force. Additionally, we found that much of
the guidance was too broadly written and lacked specific details needed to inform staff of
when and how force can be used.
For example, the guidance on page 2 notes force can be used “only as a last resort when it
reasonably appears that all other alternatives are not feasible to obtain compliance with law
or administrative rules,” but never defines what “other alternatives” should be attempted first.
The guidance on page 3 indicating “Hands-on physical force shall not be used if injury is less
likely to occur by using chemical agents, impact munitions, or EIDs (electronic immobilization
devices)” could be misconstrued by staff and support a broad use of chemical agents in the
facilities. In corrections, any use of soft hand control techniques and applying restraints could
potentially lead to injury. Therefore, lack of clarity in this language appears to open the door
for the wide use of chemical agents.
The direction on page 5 that states that “Officers may utilize chemical agents whenever an
inmate becomes disorderly or disruptive or does not comply with clear and audible orders
that have been communicated to cease such behavior” seems to conflict with that found on
page 2 regarding determining “other alternatives are not feasible” and promotes the use of
chemical agents in situations where it may not be necessary by allowing their use as the first
resort when an inmate does not comply with an order.
RECOMMENDATION 18: The department should request to revise the current administrative
use of force rule or develop its own additional guidance that provides clear and complete
61

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

direction to department staff. The policy should be organized in a manner that makes it
coherent and understandable. The practice of using policy documents to further clarify and
implement the requirement of a rule is a commonplace practice in correctional systems
nationally. Sample use of force policies are available from several sources. One firm, LETRA,
Inc., has developed a comprehensive model use of force policy that may be available upon
request.
In our tours of facilities, it was apparent that the FDC administration had been making a
concerted effort to address past use of force issues and the methods with which inmates were
supervised. At most of the facilities toured, the project team generally observed appropriate
interactions between staff and inmates. However, in a few facilities, we found vestiges of a
“boot camp” type relationship between staff and inmates that had negative overtones. This
relationship was demonstrated in established practices that included inmates being required
to turn away from staff and face the wall when staff passed by, and inmates being required to
stand at attention outside their cell every time a staff person entered the wing of their cellhouse. This last issue occurs regularly throughout the day because housing unit staff are
required to conduct wing checks every hour between 5 a.m. and 11 p.m. Therefore, on a
normal day, the inmate would be required to step out of the cell and stand as many as 19
times per day.
RECOMMENDATION 19: The “boot camp” style interactions with inmates, while subtle, are
unnecessary and should be ceased as they support a negative culture and environment that
can lead to increased safety issues.

Security Threat Groups
Security threat groups (STGs) pose a serious security risk in correctional facilities. These
organizations can take control over facility operations by trafficking contraband, exploiting
vulnerable inmates, ordering assaults on other inmates and staff, and disturbing facility
schedules and events. The presence of STG inmates in a facility can be detrimental to inmate
safety, as gang members often extort, threaten, or assault rival gang members or inmates that
are unaffiliated. If not identified and controlled, STGs have been known to organize major
disturbances and riots. It is, therefore, imperative the correctional system first accurately
identify those inmates who are members of STGs so that they can be appropriately monitored
and controlled.

FDC Procedure 108.011, Security Threat Management Program, identifies that offenders can
be designated as confirmed, suspected, or potential STG members. The policy defines each
designation as follows:
62

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

•
•

•

Confirmed STG member: Refers to an inmate or offender identified by the security
threat intelligence unit (STIU) as a member of an STG.
Potential STG member: Refers to an inmate or offender who has the potential to
become an identified member due to suspected security threat, individual, or STG
activity.
Suspected STG member: Refers to an inmate or offender who is suspected of being a
security threat individual or STG member and is monitored by the STIU with the
assistance of the security threat group coordinators pending identification.

Procedure 108.011, Security Threat Groups Management Program, effective May 14, 2014,
establishes guidelines for the identification and tracking of individuals and groups affiliated
with STGs through the collection of valid and credible intelligence. The policy calls for the
assignment of STG coordinators at each institution who are responsible for assessing STG
training needs, coordinating STG intelligence information, and communicating that
information to the central office STIU, a branch of the FDC Office of Inspector General.
Department strategy calls for facility coordinators to gather intelligence on STGs and
individuals who are suspected or confirmed members of an STG. The STIU is further
responsible for recommending management strategies to manage STG information and
activity.
FINDING 2-15: The allocation of part-time institutional staff to STG responsibilities is
inadequate to ensure that gang identification and management strategies are in place to
reduce gang influence and provide for inmates’ safety in the institutions.
System-wide STG coordinators are performing their assigned duties on a part-time basis.
Documents provided to the project team indicated that there are 29 positions that are filled
through the unfunded special assignments that are designated by the department. However,
institutional STG coordinators reported that they had secondary duties that reduced the time
they had available to gather STG intelligence at the facilities. One STG officer interviewed
indicated that 25 percent of his time is related to STG activities, as he is also responsible for
managing the inmate drug testing program, supervising the FTO program, and other duties
as assigned. A second STG coordinator is a transportation officer, who also estimates that 25
percent of his time is spent on STG duties. At one larger facility the STG coordinator is also
the sergeant of the confinement unit. Information obtained from other facilities also reveals
that STG coordinators are generally assigned part-time to STG duties and fulfill this capacity
less than 25 percent of the time. This is insufficient, particularly in the larger, more secure
facilities, and is considered less of an issue at minimum and re-entry facilities.

63

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

The absence of dedicated STG staffing is likely to contribute to an under-reporting of inmates
that belong to gangs. As noted in a separate section of this report, there are only core
programs slots for about 14 percent of the overall inmate population in FDC. At a large
facility with a population of close to 2,000 inmates, the STG coordinator stated that there
were 55 confirmed and 75 suspected gang members in that facility. Staff interviewed
indicated that the number of gang members is considerably higher, but the resources
allocated to STG intelligence gathering are insufficient to capture the information needed to
confirm additional gang members. This information was reported to the project team
throughout our analysis. The presence of undetected gang activity can adversely impact
inmate safety.
RECOMMENDATION 20: Additional resources dedicated to STG management are needed
at the institutions. STG coordinators should be appointed full-time to monitor gang activity,
collect/analyze gang intelligence, and identify STG members. In the larger institutions that are
experiencing gang issues, a single STG coordinator will not be sufficient to manage this
process, but will likely require appointing a team of STG coordinators.

Technology to Support Security Operations
With the rapid adoption of technology in our society, the development and use of specialized
technology in correctional systems has grown to the point where it can play a vital role in
improving the security and management of a facility’s operation. Correctional systems have
found that new technologies, including digital camera and recording systems, enhanced body
scanners, and fence detection systems, can enhance the security of the system.
The adoption of new technology in the FDC has occurred at a very slow pace. For many
years, limited funding has reduced the department’s ability to purchase new technology or to
even maintain existing aging technology.
FINDING 2-16: Historically, FDC has deployed a very limited amount of technology to
support its security needs. The use of technology in FDC is minimal and has only recently
begun to be upgraded.
For a long period of time, any technology that has been in place within FDC facilities was
deteriorating. Included in these were a meager amount of video surveillance camera systems,
faulty fence detection systems, and aging man-down alarms.

64

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Video Surveillance Systems
Video surveillance systems in correctional facilities can serve as a complementary means to
monitor inmates and improve facility safety and security. In tandem with the proper
deployment of staff, video surveillance systems can extend the amount of area under visual
coverage, improve visual evidence, reduce serious incidents, and better observe inmate
behavior. Advancements in this technology in the past 10 years have further improved video
resolution, recording capabilities, and monitoring access.
With the requirements established by PREA, the importance of visually monitoring nearly all
areas of a correctional facility has grown. Modern monitoring systems use Internet Protocol
(IP) camera technology, where video from digital cameras can be sent and received through
a computer network and the Internet. This technology ensures that anyone on the system with
Internet access and appropriate approval can access those cameras and recordings.
Until recently, the few existing video surveillance cameras in FDC were not functional or had
limited placement and poor resolution. However, knowing that video surveillance could
reduce the number of serious incidents in a facility and enhance the department’s ability to
thoroughly investigate incidents, FDC developed a multi-year plan to install new cameras and
digital video recorders (DVRs) in key areas of every facility. The following are the three
currently identified phases of their video surveillance installation program:
•

•

•

Phase I: Installation of cameras, audio recording sensors, and DVRs at all major
facility special housing and confinement units. Additionally, a select number of
facilities were designated to have cameras installed in general population housing.
Phase I has been completed, and 3,402 cameras and 457 DVRs were installed.
Phase II: Phase II is currently underway and will complete camera and DVR installation
in all housing units in the FDC. The $1.7 million funded for this phase will result in the
additional installation of 584 cameras and 48 DVRs.
Phase III: Phase III is currently in the planning stage and would involve the
identification and placement of cameras and DVRs in key areas other than housing
units, including food services, chapel, recreation yards, industries, education, laundry,
and barbershop. Additionally, the goal will be to place the system on the Internet so
that cameras and DVRs can be remotely accessed by authorized staff. The number of
additional cameras and DVRs to be deployed for this phase has not yet been
determined. Likewise, the department has not estimated a cost associated with this
phase.

65

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

The cameras and DVRs that have been installed as part of this program are not currently
connected across an IP network. As a result, if supervisory staff needs to review a recorded
event, in most cases they must do so in the control room of the housing unit where the
incident occurred. The project team identified concerns that supervisory staff must sit in a
housing unit control room to replay audio and video from incidents while subordinate staff
are present in the area manning the control room post.

Body Scanners/Metal Detectors
As noted in the section regarding the security vestibule used for processing of staff and visitors
entering the facilities, only metal detectors are currently used in the screening process. Metal
detectors only detect metal—they cannot detect weapons made from plastic or ceramics, nor
can they detect explosives, or liquids, or drugs. As a result, the benefits of metal detector use
are very narrow.

Perimeter Technology
Fence detection technology can improve a facility’s perimeter security while reducing the
need for staff to man external guard towers. The project team found fence detection systems
in some facilities to be obsolete and faulty, thereby increasing the opportunity for a successful
escape or penetration into the facility. For example, at one facility the perimeter fence
detection system is old and has extensive false alarms that render it ineffective. At another
facility visited, the microwave security system between the double fences is prone to frequent
false alarms, each of which must be checked by the roving patrol after being notified. This
system requires regular, ongoing maintenance. Additionally, we were informed the “stun
fence” located at a secure unit inside a major facility is subject to frequent failures and is
becoming increasingly more difficult to repair due to the unavailability of parts.

Body Alarms/Body Cameras
The department issues body alarms to staff that allow them to either press a button or pull on
an attached lanyard as a method to sound an alarm in the event of an emergency. The body
alarms found at the facilities visited were problematic and many were over 10 years old. The
facilities noted they are constantly attempting to repair failing body alarms, but the process is
complicated by the fact that parts are difficult to find and can take months to receive. The
department has developed a plan to replace all body alarms over a five-year period. For this
upcoming budget cycle the department has submitted a request for $1,050,000 to replace
approximately one-quarter of the body alarms in the system.

66

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Body cameras have taken on increased importance to law enforcement agencies across the
country, as police try to ensure the consistent practices of their staff and document the
behavior of employees and arrestees. However, the use of body cameras is not yet widely
found in correctional systems. FDC is considering the use of body cameras and plans to pilot
a study for effectiveness and benefits of using the devices widely in the system in the near
future. It was reported that currently the department is in the fact-gathering stage and no
schedule for testing or implementation has been developed.
It is very apparent that the FDC has recently begun making concerted efforts to improve the
technology used in its facilities. Additionally, it is also clear that technology enhancements
have not been made for a considerable number of prior years. However, there remains more
to be accomplished, and the following represent our recommendations:
RECOMMENDATION 21: Continue the installation of the video surveillance systems at the
facilities, and ensure that authorized supervisory staff will be able to access the cameras and
recordings from remote locations.
RECOMMENDATION 22: Purchase and pilot-test enhanced scanning technology at select
facilities to replace the use of metal detectors.
RECOMMENDATION 23: As part of a perimeter security review, develop a comprehensive
assessment of the functionality of current fence detection systems, and begin replacement of
those that are no longer effective or unable to be repaired.
RECOMMENDATION 24: The legislature should consider funding to begin replacing aging
body alarms. Also, continue with plans to pilot-test body cameras.
Technology cannot only improve security, but it can also increase efficiency and
accountability. For example, electronic timekeeping systems can improve the accuracy of
processes associated with time and attendance, as well as enhance timekeeping efficiency.
Since 2011, the Legislature has been requesting FDC install an electronic timekeeping
system. Up until recently, very little action has been taken by the department to meet these
requests. However, in the FY 2014/15 budget, the FDC requested $10 million to begin
implementation; $5 million was eventually appropriated by the Legislature to the department.
A vendor, Kronos, has been selected to manage the project schedule, and staff report that
timekeeping began piloting user acceptance testing (UAT) early this summer at three
correctional facilities: Marion Correctional Institution, Lowell Correctional Institution, and
Florida Women’s Reception Center. UAT is typically the last phase of the software testing
67

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

process in which users test the software to make sure it can handle tasks required in realworld scenarios. These facilities planned to go live with full use on October 23, 2015.
The next group of facilities to have the electronic timekeeping system installed has not been
identified, but FDC administration indicated the goal is to have the system fully installed by
the end of the fiscal year. The project team inspected the system at Lowell Correctional
Institution and received mixed feedback from staff concerning its implementation. One
concern that is still being worked out is the need for supervisory staff to override the system in
instances when an employee clocks in or out more than seven minutes before or after their
shift. Staff are to be paid overtime if they work seven minutes over their allotted shift schedule.
RECOMMENDATION 25: Develop an electronic timekeeping implementation plan with
Kronos, the firm contracted to install and implement the electronic timekeeping system.

Gatehouse Security Vestibule Operation
Most of the facilities inspected have a small security vestibule in their gatehouse/control
center that serves as a security screening checkpoint for staff and visitors entering the facility.
The physical size of the vestibules is very small and increases the potential for contraband to
be smuggled into the facility, as well as delays staff arriving for shift work to reach their post
on time.
The vestibule sizes vary slightly, but are approximately 150 square feet and directly adjacent
to the main control center. This checkpoint is the singular point where those entering the
facility are required to consent to a search and pass through a metal detector. In addition to
the metal detector, a fold-up table is typically used where those entering could empty their
pockets and other items for search. Also, a pat-down of a rotating number of people entering
is performed based on a random schedule.
FINDING 2-17: The extremely small size of the vestibule creates a number of issues for the
facilities.
Only a few individuals can enter at a time. The small size of the room restricts the number of
persons that can enter to between two and four. At shift change, a large number of staff
entering the facility causes a backlog due to the small size of this checkpoint. In fact, staff had
to arrive as much as 30 minutes early to make sure they could be processed through the
security vestibule in time to be on post as required. Staff routinely reported that the size of the
vestibules often resulted in staff being late to their post and necessitated overtime being paid
to those staff whose relief was delayed.
68

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

The space provided in the existing vestibules is too small to separate individuals into sterile
and non-sterile areas. The following graphic shows how a physical plant for a security
checkpoint should be arranged to ensure proper search procedures with a walk-through
metal detector:
Figure 16: Proper Traffic Flow for Security Checkpoint

As shown, individuals should progress in a linear manner through the room. Upon entering
the room they are in a non-sterile area prior to any search and any use of the metal detector.
After they have turned over items in their pockets or anything carried on-person for search,
they are to progress through the metal detector. Once they have cleared the metal detector,
they should remain in the sterile area until the search is completed and their personal items
returned to them. They should never be allowed to step back in the non-sterile area where
other staff entering the vestibule may be located. Unfortunately, the small size of the space in
this vestibule does not allow the separation of a non-sterile and sterile area. Individuals who
have progressed through the metal detector must walk back in the non-sterile area where
other persons who have yet to be searched are located. This creates the potential for
contraband to be passed back and forth to undermine these search procedures.
RECOMMENDATION 26: The department should develop plans to modify the physical plant
facilities to improve the space associated with security screening of staff and visitors. The
enhanced space and process should clearly separate non-sterile and sterile areas of the
procedure. Additionally, the department should pilot the use of more advanced scanning
technology in its facilities in an effort to reduce the introduction of contraband.

Duty Warden Tour Requirements
The visibility and presence of administrative staff in the facility can play a key role in ensuring
policies are being followed. One of the best methods to ensure appropriate interactions
69

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

between staff and inmates, to verify facility schedules are operating on time, to confirm
inmates have full access to programs and services, and to validate that policies are being
followed, is for the facility administrative staff to regularly be in the areas where staff and
inmates are located. This includes housing units, medical/mental health units, programs
areas, dining halls, and recreation areas. This “management by walking around,” strategy
has been found effective in maintaining a safe and secure facility, as supervisory staff are
constantly inspecting, observing, and (if necessary) correcting facility operations.
Typically, the warden of the facility is the senior-most person responsible for making key
decisions, monitoring and supervising facility operations, and managing responses to serious
incidents. However, wardens are not on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Most state
correctional systems identify the other senior staff (known as duty wardens) at the facility to
share responsibilities during the times the warden is not on grounds. Per FDC Procedure
605.002, Duty Wardens, duty warden responsibilities are typically shared between the
warden, assistant wardens, correctional officer chiefs, institutional correctional services
administrators, and/or classification. These individuals rotate “duty” on a weekly basis.
During the week each is assigned as a duty warden, they are responsible for taking calls from
the facilities during off hours, touring the facility, visiting each shift, and in some cases
positively identifying inmates who are to be released.
FINDING 2-18: Duty Warden Procedure 605.002 is vague and does not specifically require
comprehensive facility tours by duty warden staff, nor does it require documentation of duty
warden tours.
The duty warden procedure provides guidelines for “designation, responsibilities, and training
of Duty Wardens.” This review found the required responsibilities of duty wardens limited,
especially in regard to their tours and presence in the facility. Section 3(c) of the policy
identifies the following tour requirements for duty warden staff:
“Physically tour the institution to include the following areas as indicated, as part of
Duty Warden responsibilities:





Food service (at least once during weekend/holiday)
Confinement (A Duty Warden will be present on a holiday or weekend day to
conduct seventy-two [72]-hour confinement reviews pursuant to ‘Administrative
Confinement,’ Rule 33-602.220, F.A.C., if delay of the review would violate
the established time limits.)
Mental health units (at least once during weekend/holiday)

70

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015








Visiting parks (shall be visited at least one [1] day during normal visitation
hours)
Infirmary (at least once during weekend/holiday)
Visits to satellite centers under the facility will be determined by the Warden,
but will occur not less than once per week and can be scheduled during the
workweek (visits during evening and midnight shifts are strongly encouraged)
Areas where inmates have been placed on suicide observation (at least once
during weekend/holiday)
Program areas i.e., substance abuse, education, and transition (scheduled
during the workweek).”

Additionally, the procedure requires each duty warden visit each shift during their rotation.
Most of the specific requirements only address duty warden tour requirements for weekends
or holidays. There are few requirements for tours during the week, and no requirements for
duty wardens to tour and inspect general population housing areas where most of the inmate
population is located. Additionally, there are no requirements for duty warden rounds to be
documented. For the majority of our facility visits, it appeared that duty warden staff had a
regular presence inside their facility. However, documentation of duty warden tours was
minimal or non-existent. Per best practices, areas where inmates are regularly present,
including housing units, confinement, kitchens and dining rooms, health care units, mental
health units, recreational areas, vocational, maintenance, and industry buildings, should be
visited at least every two days by duty warden staff. Other areas such as towers, perimeter,
administration buildings, chapels, warehouses, and commissaries should be toured every
three days excluding weekends and holidays.
RECOMMENDATION 27: The department should develop a more prescriptive duty warden
policy that identifies the frequency with which each building should be inspected and that
creates a requirement for a more detailed log documenting these inspections.

Movement Control Center Gate (“Center Gate”)
Each of the facilities inspected had internal security fencing and gates that separate inmate
housing from program and service areas. The area near the gates is considered a
“checkpoint” and is used as a staging/holding area for inmates moving to a different section
of the facility. This location in the facility is commonly referred to as the movement control
center gate (“center gate”). When efficiently operated, the use of internal fencing and gates
for the purpose of controlling inmate movement throughout the facility is recognized
nationally as a positive element of internal physical plant design.
71

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

FINDING 2-19: Movement control center gate procedures result in extended waiting periods
for inmates and create potential safety concerns as a result of increased idleness and the
mixing of diverse populations. Our observations found procedures at the center gate
frequently resulted in delayed access to program services.
Pursuant to FDC Procedure 602.044, Internal Inmate Movement and Supervision
Requirements, a policy has been established to provide guidance and direction in the control
and management of internal movement within the secure confines of facility perimeters. A
combination of escorted movement, direct supervision, mass movement, and a “pass” system
is applied at each facility. The internal movement written procedures identified in the policy
are consistent with national best practice procedures when properly applied. The application
of the procedures with the practice of using the “center gate” as a checkpoint during peak
movement times often results in extended waiting periods for inmates and potential safety
concerns as a result of increased idleness and mixing diverse populations, frequently resulting
in delayed access to program services. The most significant waiting periods occur during the
day shift when inmate movement and facility activity levels are at their highest.
Project team observations at the facilities found that in excess of 100 inmates often wait as
long as 30 minutes for access through this checkpoint. Staff at multiple facilities reported that
during peak periods the waiting time ranges from 15 minutes to an hour, depending on the
efficiency in movement and delivery of services. This extended duration can create security
risks, as well as delay access to programs and services.
Delays often occur during meal periods and may continue throughout peak movement
periods. A secondary peak period that often results in extended waiting periods near the
center gate occurs after the morning meal count clears. General population inmates
scheduled to attend programing, sick-call, work assignments, and classification from all
housing units converge on the center gate. Call-out sheets, movement passes, and work
assignment rosters are all required to be reviewed prior to the inmate being authorized to
proceed through the gate. When one officer is assigned to the gate, passes are required to
be checked and frequent searches are to be conducted. As a result, the movement process
can take time. In addition, when count is cleared late, program participation may also be
delayed.
For example, a movement sheet from August 19, 2015, was reviewed that reflected inmates
were “released from housing unit on call-outs” at 8:41 a.m. According to the facility activity
sheet, education programs are scheduled to start at 8:30 a.m. Considering the inmates left
the housing unit at 8:41 a.m. and had to be staged and processed at the center gate prior to
72

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

proceeding to the education area, participation in educational programming was delayed.
Staff interviewed reported the delay is a common occurrence. During this time period the
routine practice of staging, mixing populations, and extended waiting in an open area near
the center gate occurs.
This practice creates other concerns, including:
•
•

•

Inmates affiliated with opposing security threat groups (STGs) may be staged together
for extended periods of time.
During the waiting period, inmates assigned to external work details resulting in
community access may be called to the center gate and mixed with inmates not
approved to work in the community. Some facilities process the outside work detail
inmates through an alternate gate.
In many facilities (not all), there is no seating available in the staging area. The
staging area is an open area located in the immediate vicinity of the center gate.
Delays can be extensive, and the number of inmates waiting can be high.

This movement practice and the institution’s ability to monitor inmate movement was further
impaired by our finding that many of the existing video surveillance cameras placed along
walkways and designed to provide remote video surveillance of the staging areas were not
operational.
RECOMMENDATION 28: Evaluate the appropriateness of increasing the number of
recognized post assignments at the center gate during peak movement periods.
RECOMMENDATION 29: Enhance the coordination of movement through the center gate by
reviewing existing activity schedules for possible adjustments and re-evaluating the current
efficiency levels of delivery of services.

Facility Physical Plant Conditions
A poorly maintained correctional facility can create security and safety issues for staff and
inmates, as well as a work environment that is not conducive to good performance.
Deteriorating security fences and fence detection systems can increase the potential for
escapes. Leaking roofs can create health hazards of mold and mildew and may render some
spaces inappropriate for use. Lack of repair of showers, toilets, and sinks creates health and
hygiene risks for inmates. In all, a correctional system that does not promptly address serious
physical plant issues presents to its staff and inmates a lack of concern for the environment
they must work and live in.
73

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

FINDING 2-20: Many facilities are in poor condition. The correctional facilities reviewed
have experienced years of neglect, and the Legislature has recently appropriated funding to
begin repairs.
The department reports having over 4,000 buildings and 20 million square feet of space that
must be maintained. The average age of the facilities in FDC is over 30 years and, as a
result, many of the existing systems are well past their useful life. Specifically identified in the
FDC priorities for the coming year is the need to repair 140 roofs, as well as upgrade
electrical and utility distribution at higher-risk facilities. This review of facilities found that up to
one year ago many facilities had seriously deteriorated and were not being properly
maintained.
It was evident from our facility inspections that only in the past year have funding allocations
begun to address the extreme maintenance issues that are facing the department. At several
of the facilities visited it was apparent that significant progress has only recently been made in
making needed repairs to the physical plant. However, there still exists a large backlog of
unfunded maintenance needs and many issues that will require significant future funding. The
following are examples of what was found:
•

•
•
•
•

•

The medical unit at one large facility was closed after completion of roof repair when
it was discovered that the previous roof leaks had permeated the building to the point
that mold and mildew growth had caused the building to be uninhabitable. The facility
currently must use a makeshift four-bed infirmary on grounds or transfer inmates in
need of medical care to other facilities.
The stun fence surrounding a high-security housing unit is obsolete and repair parts
are unavailable.
The main electrical feed into one institution is teetering on the brink of failure.
The perimeter fence detection system used by one of the facilities visited is old,
deteriorated, and no longer useful.
Multiple roofs are leaking and need repair across all facilities visited, and evidence of
patching and re-patching was apparent. At one facility, 22 roofs were leaking and
water stains were noted throughout the interior of buildings.
At a female facility, a substantial roof leak has existed in the chapel for some time. A
portion of the chapel is now cordoned off and is unusable due to falling ceiling
materials caused by the leak.

74

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

RECOMMENDATION 30: The Legislature should consider appropriating additional funds to
continue efforts begun during the last year to fully repair and maintain its correctional
facilities.

Security Audit Process
Correctional system accountability can be maintained through a thorough and consistent
inspection process. FDC Policy 602.040, Operational Review and Self-Audit System for
Correctional Institutions, effective November 26, 2014, and Policy 602.055, Unannounced
Security Audit System for Institutions, outline the specific requirements designed to meet
statutory mandates. The FDC has established comprehensive inspection practices that are
based on Florida State Law 944.151, which states that the FDC shall be responsible for the
security of correctional institutions and facilities. To comply with the law, the secretary of
corrections is required to appoint a security review committee which shall, at a minimum, be
composed of the inspector general, the statewide security coordinator, the regional security
coordinators, three wardens, and one correctional officer. The security review committee is
required to:
•
•
•

•

•

Establish a periodic schedule for the physical inspection of buildings and structures of
each state and private correctional institution to determine security deficiencies.
Conduct or cause to be conducted announced and unannounced comprehensive
security audits of all state and private correctional institutions.
Investigate and evaluate the usefulness and dependability of existing security
technology at the institutions and new technology available and make periodic written
recommendations to the secretary on the discontinuation or purchase of various
security devices.
Contract, if deemed necessary, with security personnel, consulting engineers,
architects, or other security experts the committee deems necessary for security audits
and security consultant services.
Establish a periodic schedule for conducting announced and unannounced escape
simulation drills.

Per FDC policy, facilities are regularly audited to measure their performance against required
policies. Specifically, an operational review takes place at each facility every other year. The
procedure establishes guidelines for conducting these reviews, as well as providing for
guidance to departmental personnel on conducting institutional security self-audits on the off
years or every other year. The self-audits are required, and the regional directors are
responsible for ensuring compliance with the policy.
75

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

FDC Procedure 602.027, Security Inspections, effective June 17, 2014, outlines procedures
for institutions to conduct security inspections of the facility. This policy is also promulgated in
compliance with Florida Statute 944.151, Security of Correctional Institutions and Facilities.
This procedure also requires that the chief of security conduct at least one security system
check per month.
FINDING 2-21: The comprehensive inspection process devised by FDC represents a best
practice, and the department should be commended for its thoroughness and staff’s
commitment to correcting findings.
A few areas of concern exist:
•

The review of documents associated with the inspection process indicated that there
were a number of findings where state funds are required in order to correct an
identified deficiency. In these cases, the action plan simply stated “this is a funding
issue and cannot be corrected at the institutional level.” No further action was taken.
As an example, in one case a specific finding was reported that the outer perimeter
fence posts were severely rusted, thus weakening the structural integrity of the outer
perimeter fence. Another area of noncompliance was reported that lighting along the
perimeter was insufficient.
The facility management’s response in both of these instances deferred action to
correct the deficiencies because of funding issues. A response that this cannot be
corrected at the institutional level should be immediately followed up with a formal
funding request or indication that emergency repairs are required and are being
taken. This is a material weakness noted in the audit process, where funding difficulties
halt further action to address the problem.

•

The process results in a review of written policies but does not address systemic issues
that may be facing the facility. As a result, facility compliance measures how well a
facility meets requirements but may not be a good measure of overall facility
performance or security. As much as this process is effective in meeting what it is
required to do, there appears something more needed that will allow the department
to more quickly discover and respond to some of the issues found during this review.
Examples of issues that would not be necessarily addressed by the inspection process
include the contraband issues stemming from the smoking policy, lack of a unified
approach to STGs and the probable underestimation of the number of STG group
members, lack of appropriate scanning equipment to reduce the contraband being
76

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

brought in the facilities, consistent issues with attempts to adequately staff the facilities,
and the large number of PREA complaints.
RECOMMENDATION 31: While the inspection process appears to thoroughly document
FDC facility compliance with policy, some additional tasks should be implemented. These
include:
•
•
•

Findings that cannot be corrected without additional funding need to be followed up
with a request for funding to the appropriate authority.
Notations on how compliance was achieved should be documented.
The department should establish an action committee to confront major facility issues
that are not addressed as part of the inspection process.

FDC Vehicle Fleet
FINDING 2-22: The department’s vehicle fleet Is aging and unreliable.
The need to transport inmates in a correctional system is constant, and the reason for these
moves can be many, including transporting to another facility so that an inmate can access
programming that better meets their needs, transfers for disciplinary reasons, transporting
inmates from the reception and intake centers to their permanent facilities, moving inmates in
need of medical care to outside hospitals, and transporting work crew inmates to
communities and areas where they perform services.
Corrections professionals understand that transporting a group of inmates outside of the
confines of a secure facility creates substantial security risks to the staff, inmates, and the
communities in which the transport occurs. One issue that can seriously jeopardize the
security of a transport is an unreliable vehicle. A breakdown of a 40-passenger bus on the
side of a busy highway creates substantial security concerns for the staff and those in the area
As a result, any fleet used by a correctional system must be operable and in good condition.
The department reports having nearly 3,000 vehicles with an average age of 16 years and
average mileage of nearly 160,000. Nearly 75 percent of those vehicles meet the state
eligibility for disposal. Virtually all of the 43 transport buses used by FDC exceed the state
disposal criteria, and they average 16 years of age and over 300,000 miles. A major
contributor to this issue is the fact that the FDC has not had funding to replace aging
vehicles. In fact, most of the vehicles brought into the fleet were used. In the last 5 years, the
department has added a total of 308 vehicles onto its fleet. At this pace, it would take the
department 49 years to completely replace its fleet. Unfortunately, only a few of the 308
vehicles obtained by the department were new, with the majority being from federal and state
77

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

surplus and inter-agency transfer. Figure 17 shows that over the past 5 fiscal years, 81
percent of the total vehicles the department acquired were used.
Figure 17

CONDITION OF FDC REPLACEMENT VEHICLES
FY 2010-11 THROUGH FY 2014-15
New Vehicles
19%

Used Vehicles
81%

Source: FDC Office of Budget and Financial Management

Our inspections of vehicles used for transport at several facilities noted many that were
deteriorating, difficult to maintain, and past their useful life. Physical observation of the
vehicles found significant rust, which partially is due to the high levels of air moisture in
Florida. FDC staff have gone to significant effort to try to adequately maintain vehicles that
should have long-since been retired, but funding needs to be provided to ensure that vehicles
will function appropriately while transporting inmates across the state.
RECOMMENDATION 32: The Legislature should consider appropriating additional funds to
replace aging buses and transport vehicles.

78

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

3.

POPULATION MANAGEMENT AND INMATE RISK AND NEEDS
ASSESSMENT

Population Trends
The State of Florida inmate population has seen an overall increase in the adult daily
population over the last 10 years by an annual average of 1.7 percent per year. This growth
has not been consistent throughout the 10-year window, but rather concentrated heavily
between 2006 and 2010. As seen in Table 4, the adult inmate population has seen steady
increases through 2011 when the population reached a 10-year high of 102,319. Since
2011, however, the adult inmate population has alternated between years of decline and flat
population levels. Growth in the first six years of the time period examined totaled 17,418
offenders, or an average annual increase of 3.2 percent per year. In the most recent four
years, however, the adult inmate population declined by 2,269 offenders for an average
annual decrease of -0.6 percent per year. In the most recent year, 2015, the inmate
population decreased by 892 offenders, or -0.9 percent.
Table 4: Florida Department of Corrections
Annual Average Daily Population for FY 2004/05 – FY 2014/15
June Each Year
2005

Population
84,901

Yearly Percent
Change

2006

88,576

4.3%

2007

92,844

4.8%

2008

98,192

5.8%

2009

100,894

2.8%

2010

102,232

1.3%

2011

102,319

0.1%

2012

100,537

-1.7%

2013

100,884

0.3%

2014

100,942

0.1%

2015

100,050

-0.9%

10-Year Change

1.7%

5-Year Change

-0.4%

Source: Criminal Justice Estimating Conference Work-Papers 7/28/2015

Admissions to correctional facilities over the previous 10 years show an overall decline,
particularly after 2008. It should be noted the substantial decrease in admissions between

79

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

2008 and 2010 can be attributed to the ending of “zero-tolerance 22.” For this reason,
admissions data is examined for the most recent five-year period beginning FY 2010/11. The
rate of decrease in admissions in the most recent five years (-3.4 percent per year) far
exceeds the rate of decrease in the inmate population (-0.4 percent per year).
Correspondingly, the length of stay (LOS) in correctional facilities has risen from just under 30
months on average in 2008 to almost 40 months by 2015. This LOS is well above the
national average of 30 months reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. If Florida had an
LOS that approximated the national average of 30 months, its inmate population would be
approximately 80,000. The longer LOS also explains to a large degree Florida’s significantly
higher incarceration rate of 522 per 100,000 population versus the U.S. state incarceration
rate of 416 per 100,000. 23
The 10-year increase in LOS can be attributed to longer sentences being imposed by the
courts that began in 2006 and continued through 2013. It can be noted that approximately
1,350 life-sentenced offenders are admitted every year, and the housed lifer population has
doubled since FY 2007/08 to over 15,000 in FY 2014/15.
Table 5: Florida Department of Corrections
Annual Admissions, Population, and Calculated LOS: FY 2004/05 – FY 2014/15
July 1 – June 30 FY
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
10-Year Change
5-Year Change

Admissions
34,129
36,772
39,200
42,279
40,050
37,794
35,627
32,598
33,516
32,882
31,581
-0.6%
-3.4%

Population
84,901
88,576
92,844
98,192
100,894
102,232
102,319
100,537
100,884
100,942
100,050
1.7%
-0.4%

Calculated LOS
29.9
28.9
28.4
27.9
30.2
32.5
34.5
37.1
36.1
36.8
38.0
2.5%
3.3%

Source: Criminal Justice Estimating Conference Work-papers held 7/28/2015
Length of Stay calculated using Admissions x LOS-population formula

22

In 2003, the FDC implemented a “zero tolerance policy” where probation officers were required to formally
report all technical violations the courts. In 2004, the department extended this policy to all other offenders
under community supervision. In 2007 the FDC rescinded the policy.
23
Carson, E. Ann. September 2015. Prisoners in 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau
of Justice Statistics, p. 8.
80

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Projection Methodology
The State of Florida utilizes an in-house methodology for producing inmate population
forecasts that is run by the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR). The
forecasts are prepared on a regular basis, but there is no specific time frame for producing
new forecasts. Most recently there have been three conferences held each year. There are
four principals for each conference, which consist of professional staff members representing
the State of Florida Governor's Office, Senate, House of Representatives, and the Legislative
Office of Economic and Demographic Research. The FDC used to be represented by a
principal, but that has been discontinued for some time.
A wide array of criminal justice trends are reviewed at each conference. A formal forecast is
prepared by the Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research. Taking into
account all of the trends presented and context of the historical numbers, a final forecast is
selected and issued. Documentation, results, and a video of the conference is posted on the
EDR’s website.
Recidivism
The FDC publishes a comprehensive recidivism report on an annual basis. This and other
reports are prepared by the FDC Bureau of Research and Data Analysis. In addition to
reporting an overall recidivism rate, the report also identifies those factors that are shown to
have an independent effect on recidivism rates.

Definitions of Recidivism
Criminologists have used three measures for calculating state prison recidivism rates: (1)
re-arrest, (2) reconviction, and (3) return to state prison. Of the three, state correctional
systems typically report on the number and percent of prisoners released who return to state
imprisonment within a one-, two- or three-year period. The other two measures (reconviction
and re-arrest) are more difficult to measure, as they require matching an inmate’s identity to
the state or national criminal history data systems.
A few states (Texas, California, and Florida) and the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS) are able to report on the percentage of released inmates who have
been arrested and/or convicted of a new crime. In order to make these calculations, the state
correctional agency must have access to the state’s criminal justice database so it can identify
arrests and court dispositions of those arrests within the state.

81

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

As noted above, in the past year the FDC has been able to develop the capacity to compute
all three measures of recidivism (re-arrest, reconviction, and re-admission to prison).
However, the annual reports have only been able to show re-admission to prison rates.

Trends
The most recent FDC recidivism report was published in June 2015 and covers inmates
released between 2006 and 2013 24. Figure 18 is taken directly from the 2015 FDC
recidivism report. It shows that since 2006, the overall recidivism rate has declined from 33
percent to 26 percent. The report also identifies those factors that are associated with higher
or lower recidivism rates. Multivariate analysis is completed in all of the FDC recidivism
reports to identify which inmate attributes have a direct and independent impact on recidivism
rates. Some of the more significant factors that were found to have an independent effect on
recidivism are as follows:
1. Gender (females have lower rates)
2. Offense (those convicted of drugs, murder, and manslaughter have lower
rates)
3. Age at release (older inmates have lower rates)
4. Post-release supervision (those with no release supervision have lower rates)
5. Prior prison commitments (those with fewer or no priors have lower rates)
6. Custody level (low-custody inmates have lower rates)
7. Prior drug history (inmates with no drug history have lower rates)
8. Visitation (inmates receiving visits have lower rates)

24

Florida Prison Recidivism Report: Releases from 2006 to 2013. June 2015. Tallahassee, FL: Florida

Department of Corrections.

82

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Figure 18. FDC Return to Prison Recidivism Rates
2006-2010 Permanent Releases

Source: FDC Florida Prison Recidivism Report: Releases from 2006 to 2013, p.5

One factor that was tested by the FDC and was not found to have an impact on lowering or
increasing recidivism rates was the length of imprisonment. In other words, whether an inmate
served one, two, three, or more years, there was no associated reduction or increase in the
recidivism rates. This finding is consistent with other research studies that found amount of
time served is not a predictor of recidivism. 25
The FDC researchers also looked at the impact of obtaining a GED/high school certificate,
receiving a vocational certificate, or change in Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE) scores.
When these factors were added to the statistical model, only higher TABE test scores were
shown to reduce recidivism.

Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983. April 1989. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
Department of Justice. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. June 2002. Washington, DC: Bureau of
Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. 2014 Outcome Evaluation Report. July 2015. Sacramento, CA:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
25

83

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Comparison to Other States
The BJS has been publishing national prison recidivism studies since 1985. The most recent
study was released in 2014 and provided detailed data on recidivism rates for prisoners
released in 2005. 26 That report showed that 49 percent of the national sample returned to
prison within three years, which compared with the Florida rate of 33 percent for the same
year of releases (2005)27. Although the Florida rate is 16 percent lower than the overall U.S.
rate, there are at least two caveats that need to be addressed.
First, the national rate is heavily skewed by California, which constitutes 26 percent of the
national release sample. This means that any national rate of recidivism will be heavily
influenced by the performance of California inmates. This issue takes on greater significance
when one notes that California has had a very high recidivism rate (well over 60 percent) due
to its well-known policy of returning parolees to prison for technical violations. When
California’s inmates are excluded from the national statistics, the three-year return-to-prison
rate drops to 40 percent—or just 7 percent above the Florida rate.
Second, inmates discharged without any parole supervision will have significantly lower
return-to-prison rates than inmates placed on parole, as they cannot be returned for a
technical violation. The majority (63 percent in FY 2013/14) of inmates are released from
Florida facilities with no supervision. 28 This skews Florida’s recidivism rate downward
compared to other states that have a higher percentage on supervision after release. For
example, in Florida, inmates released to supervision in 2010 had a return-to-prison rate of
39 percent. So, for a direct comparison between Florida and the U.S. rates, one would have
to control for the influence of California and the fact that 63 percent of Florida’s inmate
releases have no supervision. All of these factors suggest that Florida’s lower return-to-prison
recidivism rate is more a reflection of its unique sentencing structure rather than its nature and
form of imprisonment and/or the delivery of rehabilitative services.

FDC’s Declining Recidivism Rate
Regardless of these issues that can complicate comparisons with other states, it is true that the
Florida return-to-prison rate has declined 6.5 percent since 2006 (from 32.5 percent in 2006
to 25.7 percent in 2010). There are a number of factors that could have contributed to this
26

Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. April 2014. Washington,

DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Florida Prison Recidivism Report: Releases From 2006 to 2013. June 2015. Tallahassee, FL: Florida
Department of Corrections.
28
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/annual/1314/stats/im_release.html
27

84

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

decline that cannot be thoroughly tested by looking only at the attributes of released inmates.
For example, there is the overall declining crime rate in Florida and elsewhere in the U.S. that
could be serving to reduce recidivism rates. Additionally, the FDC has been implementing reentry programs and attempting to link an inmate’s risk and needs levels to the appropriate
services. At this point, we do not know why the return-to-prison rate has declined.
The preferred measure for recidivism should be re-arrest rates, which negates the biased
effects associated with a return-to-prison rate. Based on the newly implemented recidivism
data file developed by Professor William Bales of Florida State University and the FDC, the
re-arrest rate for all crimes is 69 percent, which is virtually the same rate reported by the BJS
since 1989. So, while return-to-prison rates are low and have declined, the percentage of
inmates re-arrested after release is comparable to the U.S. rates, which have not declined.
(Table 6).
FINDING 3-1: The FDC does produce a high-quality report on FDC’s recidivism rates based
on a three-year return-to-prison measure. That measure is incomplete (does not incorporate
re-arrest rates) for assessing trends in the FDC recidivism rates over time and with other
states. Previous reports were unable to use a three-year re-arrest rate which can now be used
to make a more complete assessment of trends in the FDC recidivism rates over time and with
other states.
FINDING 3-2: Using the recently implemented re-arrest rate suggests that the FDC recidivism
rate is comparable to other states and is not declining.
FINDING 3-3: There is considerable research validated by the FDC (and others) that the
length of imprisonment has no impact on recidivism rates.
FINDING 3-4: The primary incarceration factors that reduce recidivism are the number of
family visits and low custody at release.
RECOMMENDATION 33: The FDC should incorporate the use of the re-arrest measure in
subsequent studies of recidivism and their evaluations of programs.

85

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Table 6. Comparisons of Florida and National Recidivism Measures
3-Year Recidivism
Measure

Pew

BJS

Florida

Return to Prison

43%

50%

33%

Excluding CA

37%

39%

NA

NA

68%

68%

Re-Arrest

Sources: Pew Center on the States, State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons (Washington, DC: The Pew
Charitable Trusts, April 2011); FDC and FSU Partnership Project dated 10-27/2015

Reception and Intake Process
The reception process was observed at two facilities: the NW Florida Reception Center and
the Lowell Reception Center. In addition, staff at the Lake Butler Reception and Medical
Center were interviewed relative to the process.
The reception processing of an inmate can be completed in 5 to14 days; however, an inmate
is typically not transferred to their permanent facility for four to six weeks. The initial reception
process includes the initial medical and mental health exams, dental, mental health
evaluations, drug screening assessment, TABE testing, and a classification interview. Intake
inmates have follow-up medical and mental health visits within 14 days of entry. The intake
processing schedule as reported in documents received at the reception centers is as follows:
Day 1: Intake
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Interview by team officer: Initial interview is conducted and entered into CARP
(computer assisted reception process), verifying the identity and physical characteristics
of each inmate to include social security number, true name, date of birth, height,
weight, tattoos, scars, and other identifying marks. The inmate is also examined for
any tattoos that are related to an STG.
Receipt of property: Property staff takes possession of each inmate's personal property
and monetary funds.
Receiving staff ensure the inmate is in compliance with grooming standards.
Inmate showers and is issued standard inmate clothing and linens.
Initial health screening: Medical staff conducts an initial health screening on each
reception inmate.
Fingerprinting: Inmate is fingerprinted using the biometric identification system.
Inmate is interviewed for demographic information.
Photograph/ID card: Digital photograph is taken and inmate is issued an FDC
identification card.
86

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

•
•
•
•
•

Inmate is given initial inmate orientation.
Inmate is given Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) orientation.
Inmate is interviewed by classification staff in order to obtain their sexual risk indicator
(SRI).
Inmate is given assigned bunk number as well as their schedule for the remainder of
the reception process.
Process is begun to ensure inmate has or can be provided some form of identification
to be used upon release.

Day 2: Dental/Mental Health/ Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE)
•
•

•

Inmate is given initial dental exam.
Inmate is given mental health assessment.
 Mental health testing (orientation, behavioral health, and BETA-III.
 Behavioral health scoring from support staff, usually immediately after it is
administered.
 Elevated behavioral health scores (9 or above) are forwarded to the unit.
 Initial suicide profiles, if behavioral health scores are elevated, are completed;
those with elevated behavioral health scores are escorted to the unit by security.
 If an inmate is a suicidal/homicidal risk, they are immediately referred to the
psychiatrists.
TABE testing for standard basic education levels is administered. Consultation with
inmates under 22 years of age is conducted to determine if there exists a special
education status (Child Find). GED or high school diploma verification is completed.

Day 3: Medical
•
•
•

Inmate is given initial physical exam.
Inmate is scheduled for any required medical follow-up on days 3-14 and to be seen
by a clinician within 14 days; if on medications to see a psychiatrist within 10 days
If not on any medication, inmate must be seen within 14 days by a psychiatric
specialist.

Day 4: Classification Interview
•
•

Classification interview is conducted.
Arrest history: Staff enters complete arrest history for each inmate and compares with
CCIS (comprehensive case information system) for accuracy, noting, and documenting
any open capias/warrants.
87

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

Initial risk assessment is conducted.
Inmate management plan is prepared.
Internal management and housing level review release plan is developed.
Inmate personal background is entered into CARP.
Inmate work skills are identified.
Development of a release plan begins.
Transition goals are identified.
Inmate file is reviewed denoting any high profile cases, need for special review,
existence of outstanding detainers, past arrest records, escape history, STG
involvement, military history, special education history, employment record, work skills,
programs recommended, victim notification needs, and any outstanding financial
obligations.
File audit is conducted.

Day 5: Psychological Assessment/Medical Appointment
•
•
•
•
•
•

Mental health intake psychological screening report is entered in CARP (DC4-644).
WASI (Weschler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence) is administered for inmates below
76 on BETA-III (MHTST).
Initial suicide profile is completed, if suicidal history (no mental health service provider
needed in CARP on day 5).
Inmates who are referred to the psychiatrist are seen by day 10 for their MHPER to
assign a grade.
All other screenings, including the WAIS-III (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) if WASI
is below 76, need to be completed by day 14.
Follow-up with medical, if needed.

While this process is scheduled to be completed in five days, staff reported at all three
facilities that inmates stay in reception facilities for between four and six weeks before transfer
to their permanent facilities. Staff reported this was due a number of issues, including the time
needed to complete the paperwork process and required signatures. They also stated that
rarely did bed-space limitations at the permanent facilities play a factor in the time inmates
spent in reception.
As noted in the classification section of this report, the CINAS is used to identify the needs of
inmates in FDC. The CINAS is then used as part of the automated inmate ranking system
(AIRS) to rank inmates for placement in core programs (education, vocational, and substance
abuse treatment). A ranking is not done on an inmate if he or she has more than 36 months
88

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

to serve, or less than 4-12 months based on the program that one is applying for. At any
given time, approximately 6,750 inmates have an academic ranking, 6,735 have a
vocational program ranking, and 10,612 have a substance abuse program ranking. 29
While it would appear that CINAS should be conducted as soon as possible and as part of
the reception process, it is not. CINAS is not begun until an inmate is transferred from
reception to a permanent facility.
Other factors concerning the CINAS system are:
•
•

•

There are five different interviews that make up CINAS, and the first occurs upon
arrival at the permanent facility.
Reception center staff interviewed agreed that conducting CINAS at reception makes
sense. The downside is that the reception process is somewhat chaotic and is not
always conducive to completing meaningful interviews with inmates. However, the
problem with waiting to complete the CINAS until the inmate arrives at the permanent
facility is that there may be no suitable programs at that facility. When that occurs, a
program transfer is initiated if a program slot is available.
The TABE is only administered in English, so for non-English speaking inmates, the
CINAS score is skewed.

The AIRS is a system to rank inmates for placement within educational, vocational, and
substance abuse programming in the department. The specifics of AIRS include the following:
•

29

The purpose of AIRS is to rank all inmates for placement in core programs. Its intent
was that the inmate ranked number 1 would be the first inmate chosen when a
vacancy occurs. For example, if a vacancy opens in a residential substance abuse
treatment program at Marion Correctional Institution, then the inmate ranked number
1 for placement in substance abuse treatment programs would be slotted for that
vacancy, even if the inmate was currently located at another facility. However, our
review found that this is not the case, as facilities with the program vacancy will first
review their own population to determine if an eligible inmate exists, even if that
inmate isn’t highly ranked. In practice, facilities basically consider all inmates ranked
between 1 and 500 as equals, and if a vacancy comes up in substance abuse
treatment program at their facility, they will scan their current population to see if any

Based on FDC October 2015 snapshot data file.
89

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

•

inmates ranked between 1 and 500 are housed there. If there are, these inmates will
be selected for the program over inmates housed at other facilities.
The AIRS ranking system for substance abuse placement is at least partially based on
how inmates answer questions in the Drug Simple Screening Index (DSSI) at intake.
Although the DSSI is a somewhat dated screening form, it has been shown, as noted
elsewhere, to be a strong predictor of recidivism. The AIRS ranking for education is
based on the TABE score given on the second day of intake.

Staff did report concerns with the validity of AIRS rankings. Because the ranking is based on
substance abuse interviews and TABE testing is conducted very early in the intake process,
staff addressed concerns that often inmates are overwhelmed when they enter and don't fully
comprehend the importance of accurately providing substance abuse histories or making an
effort on the TABE tests. If inmates give inaccurate responses to the 16 DSSI substance abuse
questions they are asked, or just randomly provide answers on the TABE test, they will have an
AIRS ranking that is not reflective of their real needs. This suggested the need to ensure
inmates are aware of the importance of these steps, or that it may be better to push them
back to later in the intake process. Follow-Up, the pilot program that the FDC Office of ReEntry is testing to extend the reception process, is at least partially the result of these concerns.
RECOMMENDATION 34: FDC is piloting administering CINAS at reception centers.
Currently, the CINAS is not administered until an inmate is transferred from reception and
placed in their permanent facility. If the CINAS determines an inmate needs programming not
provided by the permanent facility, then they would have to be transferred a second time. In
our opinion, the benefit of administering CINAS at reception can yield increased efficiencies
in the department and reduce the number of inmate transfers needed while placing inmates
closer to their needed resources.
Currently, the time it takes to complete the initial interviews and all associated reception
paperwork is 14 days. FDC is piloting extending this time frame to conduct the intake and
reception process. We agree with the need to ensure that newly admitted inmates in a
reception center must be well prepared and thoroughly understand the importance and
consequences of the assessments and testing that they will complete (including the TABE test
and drug assessments).
RECOMMENDATION 35: It is recommended that the department determine whether an
extended reception process or improvement in the steps taken to make inmates aware of the
importance of the intake process will ultimately enhance the reliability of the recidivism
indexes generated by CINAS.
90

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

RECOMMENDATION 36: This review found that in the current system the intake process is
typically completed within 14 days, but inmates stay at the reception facility for up to six
weeks. If the reception process is not ultimately extended (as being currently piloted), we
recommend the department more quickly transfer inmates to their permanent facilities.
Inmate Classification
There are three systems employed by FDC that guide the placement of inmates to particular
facilities and housing units within each facility. These separate systems have overlapping
criteria that cover a wide array of the inmate’s current offense, sentence, prior criminal
record, gang affiliation, institutional conduct, motivation, and attitudes. They are designed to
classify inmates according to their risk to become a management problem and be involved in
serious and/or repetitive misconduct while incarcerated. They are not designed to predict risk
of recidivating. All three systems are described below in general terms, as trying to describe
them in detail is not feasible given the intricacies of each system.

Custody Assessment and Reclassification System (CARS)
The more traditional system is known as the Custody Assessment and Reclassification System
(CARS). It consists of five distinct custody levels which are defined as follows:
Maximum: Inmates who are under a sentence of death.
Close: Inmates who must be maintained within an armed perimeter or under direct, armed
supervision when outside of a secure perimeter.
Medium: Inmates eligible for placement at a work camp with a secure perimeter, but who are
not eligible for placement in an outside work assignment without armed supervision.
Minimum: Inmates eligible for outside work assignments, but not for placement at a
community residential facility.
Community: Inmates eligible for placement at a community residential facility.
In assigning inmates to these five custody levels, the FDC employs a process at admission that
scores inmates on the following items:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Current offense (1-15 points)
Prior offenses (1-10 points)
Prior release from medium custody (-1 point)
Prior release from minimum custody (-2 points)
91

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

Prior release from community custody (-3 points)
Age 28 years or older (-1 point)
GED or high school diploma (-1 point)
Employed 6 months or more (-1 point)
Completed a primary program on current incarceration (-3 points)
Completed a secondary program on current incarceration (-1 point)
Inmate’s adjustment has been above satisfactory past 24 months (-6 points)
Inmate’s adjustment has been above satisfactory past 12 months (-4 points)
Inmate’s adjustment has been above satisfactory past 6 months (-2 points)
Inmate’s adjustment has been unsatisfactory past 6 months (2 points)

These items are then scored and a custody level is determined by applying the following
scale:
Community and minimum custody:

0-10 points

Medium custody:

11-19 points

Close custody:

20 or more points

Maximum custody:

Death row

Two observations are warranted relative to the CARS scoring system: First, the age factor is a
dichotomous variable (28 years and older), when an interval scale would be more
appropriate (such as 25 years and younger, 26-34 years, 35-44 years, 45 years and older).
Second, there is no separation for males and females. Women typically have lower rates of
misconduct, which has led to many states developing separate scoring systems for males and
females. This can be easily accomplished by developing a separate custody scale so that
males and females have custody levels based on equivalent rates of misconduct.
The distinction between minimum and community custody is based not on the score but
largely on how much time an inmate has remaining to serve. For example, minimum-custody
inmates can be assigned to community custody if they are within 19 months of their tentative
release date. Community custody inmates who are within 14 months of their tentative release
date can be assigned to work release.
As suggested by the scoring algorithm listed above, the initial custody level is driven by the
inmate’s current offense and prior convictions. Those initial points can be reduced by positive
behavior and staff’s assessment of “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” adjustment.

92

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Internal Management Score
The second system that drives the inmate’s classification and housing setting is part of the
internal risk management system (IRMS). The IRMS is designed (among other things) to assign
each inmate into one of five internal management (or IM) categories as listed below:
IM1:

Low risk

IM2:

Low-Moderate risk

IM3:

Moderate risk

IM4:

Moderate-High risk

IM5:

High risk

Placement into one of these five levels is based on an internal scoring process that reviews the
inmate’s recent disciplinary report (DR) history (severity and time frames), gang activity, and
certain crimes (homicide and domestic violence).
There is another scoring system within the IRMS that consists of eight items, some of which are
also used for establishing the CARS and IM level, but are only used to increase the inmate’s
IM level. These are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.
8.

Disciplinary history (disciplinary conduct)
Close management history (placements in administrative segregation)
Security threat group history (designated as STG)
Institutional adjustment history (overall adjustment or OAR score of “unsatisfactory,”
“satisfactory,” or “above satisfactory” based on work, programs, and disciplinary
reports)
Age (same as CARS)
Outside Influence (positive, neutral, or negative)
Attitude and motivation (interest in work assignments and programs)
Overall classification assessment score

93

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Housing Level System
The third and final system is also part of the IRMS, but is referred to as the housing level
scoring system. It is designed to assign inmates to one of the following five housing levels
based on their IM level and other characteristics noted below:
HO1

IM Level 1 and incarcerated for at least one year

HO2

IM Level 1 and incarcerated for 3-12 months

HO3

IM Level 3, escape flag, or incarcerated for less than 90 days

HO4

IM Level 4, escape flags, close management, high-severity crime

HO5

IM Level 5, death row, escape, special management

Significantly, HO5 inmates require placement in a cell, while HO4 inmates should be placed
in a cell if available. HO3, HO2, and HO1 inmates are to be assigned to open-bay dorms.
Of the three systems, the housing level system is the most important process for determining
where an inmate is actually housed. But as shown above, it is driven by the IM system, which,
in turn, is being influenced by the CARS custody system.
Table 7 shows how the current inmate population is classified according to these three highly
interrelated classification processes. The CARS system shows a high proportion (41 percent)
of inmates assigned to close custody, while the same proportion (42 percent) are assessed as
“low” risk based on the IM system. There also are significant numbers of close-custody
inmates assigned to HO1 dorms. The housing levels present a balance between CARS and
IM. Significantly, about one-third of the inmates should be assigned to cells (HO4 and HO5).
Another two-thirds are designated for HO1, HO2, and HO3 dorms.

94

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Table 7. Comparisons of Classification Designations by System
Current FDC Facility Population
Custody
Unclassified1
Community

CARS
Inmates
%
1,673
1.7
8,833
8.9

Inmate Management
IM Risk Level
Inmates
Missing
0
1-Low
42,283

%
0.0
42.4

Housing Level
HO Level
Inmates
Missing
0
HO1-Dorms
21,307

%
0.0
21.4

Minimum
Medium
Close
Maximum

16,817
31,294
40,618
385

16.9
31.4
40.8
0.4

2-Low-Moderate
3-Moderate
4-Moderate-High
5-High

15,142
31,736
8,651
1,808

15.2
31.9
8.7
1.8

HO2-Dorms
HO3-Dorms
HO4-Cells
HO5-Cells

17,245
26,441
31,604
3,023

17.3
26.5
31.7
3.0

Total

99,620

100

Total

99,620

100

Total

99,620

100

Source: JFA Institute analysis of FDC August 31, 2015 inmate snapshot data file.
1
Unclassified inmates are those who have recently arrived to the reception center and have not yet been formally classified.

Tables 8 and 9 show how the CARS and IM systems are associated with the HO system.
While there are associations between the custody and HO levels, there are also some
differences. For example, there are 2,394 close custody inmates in HO1 dorms. There are
much stronger associations between the IM and HO levels. There are no IM3, IM4, or IM5
inmates in HO levels 1 and 2 (dorms). However, there are 6,176 IM1 inmates designated for
HO4 cells.
In terms of validation studies, the most recent analysis provided by the FDC was an internal
evaluation of the CARS system conducted by Professor William Bales of Florida State
University in 2012. He found that the CARS system was valid (i.e., predictive of general
inmate misconduct and violence) but was over-classifying some inmates into close custody.
JFA conducted its own internal analysis by simply comparing the number of DRs that each
inmate has accumulated since being incarcerated with their CARS, IM, and HO levels. That
analysis shows very strong associations by the various levels of risk produced by each system.
Table 8. Current FDC Facility Population by Custody and Housing Level
CARS Custody Level
HO Level

Unclassified

Community

Minimum

Medium

Close

Maximum

Total

HO1 - Dorms

97

4,827

6,528

7,461

2,394

0

21,307

HO2 - Dorms

30

3,223

5,133

7,484

1,375

0

17,245

HO3 - Dorms

1,471

777

5,120

16,192

2,881

0

26,441

64

6

35

156

31,343

0

31,604

HO4 - Cells
HO5 - Cells
Total

11

0

1

1

2,625

385

3,023

1,673

8,833

16,817

31,294

40,618

385

99,620

Source: JFA Institute analysis of FDC inmate August 31, 2015 snapshot data file

95

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Table 9. Current FDC Facility Population by IM Level and Housing Level
IM Level
HO Level

IM1

IM2

IM3

HO1- Dorms

21,307

0

HO2 - Dorms

8,681

HO3 - Dorms

5,849

HO4 - Cells
HO5 - Cells
Total

IM4

IM5

Total

0

0

0

21,307

8,564

0

0

0

17,245

705

19,887

0

0

26,441

6,176

5,599

11,378

8,451

0

31,604

270

274

471

200

1,808

3,023

42,283

15,142

31,736

8,651

1,808

99,620

Source: JFA Institute analysis of FDC inmate August 31, 2015 snapshot data file

Professor Bales recommended modifying the cut-off for close custody upward to 21 points.
He also found that medium-custody inmates with a score of 11 had conduct records similar
to minimum-custody inmates, and that the scoring system should be modified by adjusting the
cut-off for medium-custody inmates as well. The FDC has not taken any action on these two
recommendations.
The scoring, transfer, and housing of inmates for CARS, IM, and HO levels are under the
control and supervision of the FDC Bureau of Classification Management. This unit consists
of a small cadre of highly trained and efficient staff that are constantly managing and
monitoring the overall inmate population. Because the entire process is highly automated, the
ability to accurately classify and house inmates according to the CARS, IM, and HO criteria is
very efficient.
The actual work of classification is carried out by the facility’s classification officers who are
assigned to the reception or permanent housing facilities. The initial classification process is
conducted by the classification officers assigned to the six reception centers. This work is
accomplished by the classification officer reviewing all court and legal papers and then
conducting a private interview with the inmate. Interview information is used to complete a
great deal of the IM risk related and drug history data. The inmate is well-informed by the
classification officer on the basis for his/her classification custody level and housing
assignment. As noted above, the most important decision is whether the inmate will be
transferred to a facility that provides open-bay dorms or cells.
Reclassifications occur on an event basis (DRs, request for programs, or cell or facility
transfer). Most state prison classification systems require a mandatory re-classification review
on an annual basis. While this is not part of the FDC system, inmates are required to be seen
by their case managers on a regular basis, which includes an update of the various fields that
drive the CARS, IM, and HO systems.
96

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Risk and Needs Assessment
Once an inmate is transferred to the “permanent” facility, a risk and needs assessment is
conducted for the purpose of determining the inmate’s need for the core rehabilitative
services (education, substance abuse, and vocational training) offered by the FDC. Most state
correctional systems complete such an analysis during the reception center process. This
assessment is completed via the Corrections Integrated Needs Assessment System (CINAS).
The explicit goal of the CINAS is to reduce recidivism by assigning inmates to rehabilitative
programs.
A key feature of the CINAS is a lengthy interview where the inmate is asked to respond to 49
questions asked by the facility’s classification officer. This process requires that questions be
read in a standard manner and that the inmate comprehends the questions and answers
honestly. Previous reliability studies of such systems have shown this interview process to be
problematic unless staff training is well-executed.
There have been two external reviews of the CINAS. One report was completed by Dr.
Patricia Hardyman (February 19, 2012), who was a consultant for the National Institute of
Corrections (NIC). The NIC report made a number of recommendations to alter the current
system. These included numerous recommendations to alter and clarify the wording and
responses to the 49 interview questions. Perhaps the most important recommendation was to
conduct an inter-rater reliability study and a “process evaluation” to see how well the system
has been implemented (accuracy in the scoring process and assignment to meaningful
programs in a timely manner). Thus far, a formal evaluation has not been completed;
however, the FDC is now pilot testing a revised risk/needs assessment system that addresses
some of the NIC recommendations.
The second report was conducted by Northpointe a few months later (May 21, 2012). That
review found that the risk index component was a strong predictor of recidivism (AUC [area
under the curve] of .69), but that the dynamic risk factors had significant internal consistency
problems that were related to inconsistencies in how questions are asked, interpreted, and
answered by the inmate. Recommendations were made to correct these assessment problems.
In response to these two studies, the FDC is preparing to modify the CINAS and implement a
new risk/needs assessment system, Spectrum, in 2016. The FDC has indicated that the new
system will focus more on the inmate needs and less on the risk level, but at this time there is
not a formal system to review for this report.

97

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Finally, as noted elsewhere in this report, there is a severe lack of meaningful risk reduction
programs and there is a large number of inmates who are released who have not completed
a core program. Further, there is little incentive for inmates to participate in such programs
because it has no impact on the length of imprisonment. Most states grant significant
amounts of program credits for participating in and completing such programs. Risk/needs
systems are designed to identify what programs inmates should be placed in with the ultimate
goal of those programs helping reduce inmate recidivism. But FDC’s risk/needs assessment
system has little real utility because there are few meaningful program slots.
FINDING 3-5: The CARS classification system has been validated and meets national
standards. Nonetheless, there is evidence that it is over-classifying inmates into the close- and
medium-custody levels.
FINDING 3-6: The intake process that determines inmate classification levels is well designed
and efficient.
FINDING 3-7: Where an inmate is to be transferred and housed is largely determined by the
IM and HO systems.
FINDING 3-8: There is a sizeable number of HO4 inmates assigned to either a cell or openbay dorm for no reason other than bed availability.
FINDING 3-9: The CINAS risk/needs assessment system has potential reliability scoring
deficiencies that may be impairing the assessment of the inmates’ service needs.
FINDING 3-10: The lack of meaningful programs coupled with the absence of good time
incentives serves to significantly diminish the value utility of a risk/needs assessment system in
reducing recidivism rates.
RECOMMENDATION 37: Adjustments should be made to the CARS cut-off levels as
recommended by Professor William Bales. It is also recommend that the age factor be
modified and transformed from a dichotomous to an interval level variable.
RECOMMENDATION 38: The CARS custody scale should also be modified based on the
differing rates for males and females.
RECOMMENDATION 39: The department should develop some valid means to adequately
discriminate between which HO4 inmates are better qualified for dormitory placement and
which are better suited for housing in cells.

98

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

RECOMMENDATION 40: The CINAS or its replacement (Spectrum) should undergo an interrater reliability study with a special focus on the dynamic risk assessment factors.
RECOMMENDATION 41: To enhance the potential for CINAS to have an impact on
recidivism rates, gain time incentives are needed to reward inmates who participate and
complete risk-reducing programs.

99

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

4.

INMATE PROGRAMS

The benefit of sound, effective, comprehensive inmate programs cannot be understated.
Effective programming can improve inmates’ attitudes while incarcerated, thereby reducing
the disruptiveness and the potential for violence. It can improve their success upon release
and as a result, reduce the future burden on the criminal justice system, reduce future inmate
population levels, reduce the amount of taxpayer funding that is appropriated for criminal
justice needs, and ultimately improve the society in which we live. FDC offers a wide variety of
programs to incarcerated inmates. The FDC Office of Re-Entry provided a listing of 38
different programs it supports and operates for inmates within its facilities:
Education Programs
• Adult Basic Education
• General Education Development
(GED)
• Voluntary Literacy
• Special Education
• Title I
• Secondary education program (Smart
Horizons career online high school
diploma)
• Inmate teaching assistant program
• Correspondence study course
program
• General library access
• Law library access
Vocational Programs
•
•

Career and technical education
Prison dog training program

Religions Programs
•
•
•
•
•

Chapel library program
Faith and character-based residential
program
Primary worship opportunities
Religious diet program
Religious education classes

Substance Abuse Programs
• Substance abuse screening and
assessment
• Character Awareness and Motivation
Program (CAMP)
• Community-Based residential
therapeutic community
• Substance abuse counselors at
department-operated community
release centers
• Integrated Co-Occurring Re-Entry and
Evaluation (I-CORE) Program
• Intensive outpatient program
• Substance abuse prevention and
education
• Residential therapeutic community
• Substance abuse transitional re-entry
centers
• Youthful offender outpatient substance
abuse program
• Suwannee Correctional Institution
extended day program for youthful
offenders age 17 and under
Classification Programs
•
•
•
•
•
100

Basic training programs
Extended day program
Community release centers
LIFERS program
Corrections transition program

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Transition Programs
•
•
•

Re-Entry Centers and Facilities

100-Hour transition skills program
Thinking for Change
Veteran dorm program

•
•

Contracted re-entry centers
Re-Entry facilities

Program participation has been proven to improve inmate success while incarcerated and
upon release. For programs to be effective, however, they must be offered in a consistent
manner and provide ample time for offenders to interact in the classroom or group setting.
The department has set a standard for the amount of time education programs should be
offered in morning and afternoon sessions. Specifically, Policy 501.106, Adult Education
Programs, states “To the greatest extent possible, inmates assigned to adult basic education
(open population), inmate teaching assistant education, and general educational
development (open population) programs will be afforded at least three (3) hours of
educational programming per morning and/or afternoon session(s).”
FINDING 4-1: Observations across facilities found security procedures often negatively
impacted inmate access to scheduled programs.
At many of the facilities visited, delayed inmate counts, lack of security staff, and the staging
of inmates for movement to programs consistently delays program start times and impacts
inmate access to meaningful programming.
For example, at Everglades Correctional Institution, the morning education classes are
scheduled to start at 8:30 a.m. and run to 11:00 a.m. Typically, due to lengthy count (which
starts at 8:00 a.m.) and due to the manner in which the facility stages inmates for release to
the programs buildings, inmates don’t arrive to the classes until 9:30 a.m. Our observation
and the comments of staff verified this finding. Similar issues were found at other facilities,
including Dade Correctional Institution. On our first day at Dade, inmates did not arrive to
scheduled education programs until approximately 9:30 a.m. due to late count and inmate
staging delays. On the second day, the education building officer was reassigned in the
morning, so movement to the building was delayed until she arrived at her post at
approximately 9:40 a.m. It is not only education programs that are affected by these delays,
as access to substance abuse programming, medical unit visits, and other programs are
regularly delayed by security issues.
This issue is multifaceted and involves both the lack of staff and the fact that security practices
such as inmate counts and inmate movement delay the arrival of inmates to programs. As a
result, there is not a single recommendation that could address this issue. Adding more
101

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

security staff could make some improvement in this area, but additionally, the department will
need to study and implement other methods to eliminate this issue. This could include
developing an alternative program schedule that does not overlap as significantly with inmate
count, moving count times, or reducing delays due to inmate movement staging.

Program Policy Review
As part of this project, the project team reviewed the following Florida statutes, department
policies, administrative rules related to inmate programs:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

501.102, TABE and Pre-GED Testing
501.103, Teacher Certification and In-Service
501.104, GED Testing
501.106, Academic Education Programs
501.107, Inmate Teaching Assistant and Voluntary Literacy Program
501.108, Correspondence Study Courses
501.109, Use of Copyrighted Videos in Programs
501.201, Special Education Services
501.301, Law Library Programs
501.302, Copying Services for Inmates
501.303, Law Library Interlibrary Loan Services
501.304, Acquisition and Disposal of Law Library Materials
501.305, Word Processing Services in Law Libraries
501.310, General Library Programs
501.401, Admissible Reading Material for Institutions
501,402, Donations
502.001, Career and Technical Education for Inmates
506.102, Service Dog Training and Canine Obedience Training for Canine
Adoptions
503.001, Guidelines for Native American Religious Observances
503.002, Chaplaincy Services
503.003, Spiritual Advisor Visits
503.004, Volunteers
503.006, Religious Diet Program
506.032, Faith and Character-Based Residential Programs
Section 944.803, F.S., Faith- and Character-Based Programs
Section 944.275, F.S., Gain Time
102

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

506.101, Veteran Dorm Program
601.222, Youthful Offender Character Awareness and Motivation Program
507.001, Bureau of Transition and Substance Abuse Treatment Services: Substance
Abuse Program Management
507.101, Institutional Substance Abuse Program Licensure
507.102, Mandatory Participation in In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
507.201, Substance Abuse Screening at Reception Centers
507.202, Substance Abuse Program Admissions – Institutions
507.203, Substance Abuse Program Completion or Termination
507.204, Peer Facilitators
507.401, Substance Abuse Clinical Records
507.402, Substance Abuse Clinical Record Transfer – Institutions
507.702, Contract and Program Oversight and Monitoring of All Institutional
Substance Abuse Re-Entry Programs, Community-Based Residential and Outpatient
Re-Entry Programs, Mental Health and Sex Offender Treatment Re-Entry Programs,
Post-Release Substance Abuse Transitional Housing Re-Entry Programs, and Re-Entry
Special Project/Programs
607.211, Designation of Youthful Offenders, Young Adult Offenders, and Youthful
Offender Facilities
601.204, Placement of Inmates into Community Release Programs
601.101, Incentive Gain Time
601.201, Inmate Work Program
601.721, Visiting Operations
601.722, Visiting Schedule
601.723, Visiting Check-In Procedures

With the exception of the inmate visitation finding noted below, the above policies and
statutes were reviewed and found to be sufficient and consistent with national standards and
policies from other states.
FINDING 4-2: The inmate visitation schedule allows only a restricted number of hours per
week for inmate visits.
In the section of this report regarding recidivism, we note Dr. William Bales’s recidivism study
found one of the primary incarceration factors that reduces recidivism is the number of family
visits. Because access to family visits can be of such benefit, the department should have in
place visiting policies that promote visitation. However, Rule 33-601.722, F.A.C. Visiting
103

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Schedule, has significant limitations to inmate visitation, as visits can only be conducted on
weekends and on nine holidays during the year:
Regular visitors shall be allowed to visit between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time (EST), 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Central Standard Time (CST) each
Saturday and Sunday.
Regular visiting shall occur on the following holidays:
1. New Year’s Day
2. Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., third Monday in January
3. Memorial Day
4. Independence Day
5. Labor Day
6. Veteran’s Day, November 11
7. Thanksgiving Day
8. Friday after Thanksgiving
9. Christmas Day
RECOMMENDATION 42: FDC should promote the benefits of inmate visitation by increasing
inmate access to visitation throughout the week.
FINDING 4-3: Inmate idleness is a significant issue in the FDC.
With limited programming, it was apparent that inmate idleness is an issue across most
facilities. However, it is difficult to accurately measure idleness due to the fact that nearly all
inmates are officially assigned to a work assignment if not in a core program.
As noted in a separate section of this report, there are only core programs slots for about 14
percent of the overall inmate population in FDC. What is more difficult to determine is the
actual number of inmates who have work assignments that keep them busy and involved. Of
issue is the fact that every inmate who is not actively participating in a core program
(education, vocational, or substance abuse) or is not in a status that precludes the ability to
work (reception and orientation, disciplinary confinement, administrative confinement,

104

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

protective custody, infirmary, or isolation placement) is allocated to a work assignment in the
offender management system whether they are actively working or not.
For example, during our tour at one facility there were 1,251 inmates assigned to 33 different
inmate assignments ranging from orderlies to housemen to maintenance workers. The
following table breaks down the number of inmates assigned to each category:
Table 10: Breakdown of Inmate Assignments at Selected Facility
Assignment Category
Core Programs
Work Assignments
Status Precludes Work/Program Assignment
Total

Number of Inmates Assigned
(09/16/2015)
104
860
287
1,251

Source: Inmate by Primary Work Supervisor Report at Selected Facility 09/16/2015

The chart below identifies the distribution of inmates in these assignment categories:
Figure 19: Distribution of Assignment Types at Selected Facility

Not Assigned to
Work or
Programs
23%

Assigned to
Work
69%

Assigned to
Programs
8%

Source: Inmate by Primary Work Supervisor Report at Selected Facility 09/16/2015

105

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Sixty-nine percent of the inmate population on the day of our visit were assigned to a work a
job. This represents 860 of the total inmates at the facility. Only 8 percent (104 inmates) were
assigned to a core program, and 23 percent (287 inmates) were in a confinement status or
placed in the infirmary.
Figure 20: Work Assignment Breakdown at Selected Facility

Housemen
45%

Inside
Grounds
22%

Food Services
11%

Other Work
Assignments
22%
Source: Inmate by Primary Work Supervisor Report–09/16/2015

Figure 20 breaks down the 860 inmates placed in work assignments. Of those with work
assignments, 45 percent (387 inmates) are housemen responsible for cleaning in the eight
housing units, 22 percent (192 inmates) work inside grounds where they maintain the
grounds inside the perimeter fence, and 11 percent (97 inmates) worked in food services.
Based on our experiences these numbers are excessive. For example, 387 inmates assigned
as housemen in the eight housing units results in an average of 48 housemen assigned per
unit. At most, 20 inmates would be more than sufficient to maintain the cleanliness of a
housing unit. Also, 192 inmates assigned to inside grounds is vastly more than needed. A
team of 30-40 inmates would suffice to maintain grounds. Inmates on these work crews were
reluctant to discuss the amount of time they actually spent at work, since they earn gain time
for successful involvement in their assignment. However, some inmates did indicate they were
rarely called out to work, if at all. Staff comments across facilities supported this issue.

106

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

The real driver for overloading work assignments appears to be the desire to award “gain
time” to inmates. In effect, many of the job assignments are just “paper assignments” for the
purpose of awarding gain time. Section 944.275, F.S., Gain Time, allows the FDC to award
four different types of gain time:
•

•
•
•

Incentive gain time: Incentive gain time can be awarded for each month an inmate
works diligently or takes training (classes), uses time constructively, or otherwise
engages in positive activities. The amount varies in relation to the inmate’s
performance and adjustment.
Meritorious gain time: Meritorious gain time can be awarded in an amount from 1 to
60 days for an inmate who performs some outstanding deed.
Educational achievement gain time: Inmates can receive a one-time award of up 60
days for earning a GED or certificate of completion of a vocation program.
Education gain time: Inmates who satisfactorily complete the mandatory literacy
program may receive a one-time award of up to 6 days per commitment.

Gain time (also known as “good time” or “good conduct credits”) has often been used as a
population management tool in many state correctional systems. The award of time off of
inmate sentences allows agencies to reduce or control their inmate population levels. Some
states have established statutory good time where good time credits are automatically
awarded at the start of the inmate's sentence, and the inmate receives all potential credits at
this time. When the inmate misbehaves, the good time credits can be revoked. Florida’s
system uses an earned credit system in which inmates do not automatically receive their good
time at the beginning of their sentence. An earned credit system is an incentive system where
inmates are rewarded with good time credits only for positive behavior or actions while
incarcerated. We will not measure the benefits or cost of each type of system, but in FDC, as
an effort to control its population levels, the earned credit system has created an incentive to
assign every available inmate to a work assignment regardless of the amount of work that
needs to be done.
RECOMMENDATION 43: Idleness would be reduced if FDC had more core programs that
would provide meaningful training and skills to offenders. We recommend the Legislature
consider appropriating increased funds to expand the capacity of education, vocational, and
substance abuse programs.
This would increase assignments and make facilities more effective and productive, and
would allow the department to offer programs in alignment with its re-entry objectives.

107

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Re-Entry Center Programs
The department has established re-entry centers that focus on preparing inmates for transition
back into the community. The goal of the facilities is to provide a positive, supportive
atmosphere where inmates can participate in programming that improves their success upon
release. There are three re-entry centers in operation:
•
•
•

Gadsden Re-Entry Center – a 432-bed male facility that opened in January 2014
Everglades Re-Entry Center – a 432-bed male facility that opened in February 2015
Baker Re-Entry Center – a 432-bed male facility that opened in March 2015

Additionally, FDC operates re-entry facilities at Baker Correctional Institution, Polk
Correctional Institution, and in Sago Palm.
The re-entry centers can accept inmates within 36 months of release who will be released to
counties served by each center. For example, Everglades Re-Entry Center accepts inmates
who will be returning to Broward and Dade Counties, while Gadsden Re-Entry Center serves
inmates who will be returning to 17 counties in the northern region of the state. Because they
are therapeutic communities, staff must address behavioral issues differently than they would
in a typical correctional facility, with the goal of positively improving offender behavior rather
than employing punitive measures.
The project team visited Everglades Re-Entry Center and Baker Re-Entry Center. Though they
were in the early stages of operation, we found the comprehensive scope and variety of
programming to be impressive, as were the efforts being made by staff to develop a positive
atmosphere for training and education programs that ensure facility residents (inmates) are
provided as much opportunity as possible to be successful upon release. Discussions with
staff indicate a well-conceived plan to provide a full range of services designed to prepare
inmates for re-entry, develop support and employment resources in the community, and
monitor inmates on a regular basis after release. On-site observation found security and
program staff fully committed to the community, and we saw a great deal of positive
interaction between staff and inmates. As a result of these findings, the re-entry center
programs could well become a model for other states.
FINDING 4-4: Re-Entry centers have the potential for reducing recidivism. Outcomes from
participation in the program should be tracked and formal recidivism rates for the program
developed after a sufficient period of time after release.

108

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

FINDING 4-5: The capacity of inmate programs is insufficient, as it does not come close to
meeting the needs of the inmate population.
Detailed information regarding the 38 programs offered by FDC is provided in several
appendices (B, C, and D) to this report.
Our review found the scope of these programs to be comprehensive, and they provide a
continuum of care throughout the system with a focus on preparing inmates for successful
release back into the community. However, it is not the type of programming that is at issue.
The concern is the minimal amount of funding for programs, and as a result, the inadequate
availability of programming capacity in FDC. The table below summarizes the major
categories of core inmate programming and provides FDC’s capacity for those programs.
Table 11
Core Program Capacity
Program Type
Education Programs
Vocational Programs
Substance Abuse Treatment Programs
Total Capacity – Core Programs

Capacity
6,902
1,404
5,331
13,637

Source: FDC Office of Re-Entry

Currently, there is a total capacity of 13,637 slots in academic, vocational, and substance
abuse treatment programming 30. This compares to an FDC inmate population of nearly
99,586 on September 30, 2015 31 and results in 14 percent of the population having access
to core programming (Figure 21).

30
31

Per FDC Office of Re-Entry
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/pop/facility/
109

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Figure 21

Sources: FDC Office of Re-Entry & website: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/pop/facility/

FDC expends a great amount of resources attempting to identify and assess the treatment
and educational needs of offenders, but this effort has very limited value as so few programs
exist. Our tours of all of the facilities visited supported this finding, as the amount of
educational, vocational, and substance abuse programming was meager. For example, at
Dade Correctional Institution, core programs were limited to educational classes and had a
total capacity of 60 inmates, enough to provide programming to only 4 percent of the facility
population. Everglades Correctional Institution had a core program capacity of 84, which
represents just 6 percent of the overall population. This leaves offenders with few meaningful
activities and increases inmate idleness. There is broad understanding among correctional
experts that idleness can have a negative psychological impact on inmates and lead to
increased behavioral issues.
In addition to the core programming, the department also funds a variety of other programs
shown in the table below.
Table 12
Capacity of Other Programs and Program Facilities
Program Type
Capacity
Substance Abuse Education and Prevention
2,306
Faith- and Character-Based Residential Programs
6,488
Other Religious Programs
Open Access
Transition Programs
2,421*
Classification Programs
6,468
Re-Entry Centers and Re-Entry Facilities
4,053
Source: FDC Office of Re-Entry

110

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Notes:

Transition Program capacity includes 1,395 for 100-Hour Transition Program (46.5 facilitators x 30 inmates per
facilitator), and 288 for Thinking for Change Program (24 classes x 12 inmates per class).

Attempting to add all the slots available to arrive at the total number of program slots is not
valid due to a significant amount of double counting. For example, the three re-entry centers
(Gadsden, Everglades, and Baker) have a total combined capacity of 1,296. These beds are
counted in the re-entry centers and facilities category and are also counted in the substance
abuse education and prevention category.
RECOMMENDATION 44: The Legislature should consider appropriating additional funds to
increase the capacities of education, vocational, and substance abuse treatment programs.
Providing more core programming would provide meaningful training and skills to a greater
number of offenders, improve their chances of successful re-entry upon release, and reduce
idleness while incarcerated.
The project team assessed the potential for an inmate welfare trust fund to be used to partially
fund inmate programs. Prior to 2003, FDC had an inmate welfare trust fund, which was
funded by revenue from inmate canteens and telephone calls and used to offset the costs of
programs operated by the facilities. When the fund was terminated in 2003, all revenue from
those sources began being placed in the general revenue fund. A bill proposed in 2015
would re-establish the inmate welfare trust fund and limit the amount that can be deposited in
it to $5 million annually.
Inmate trust funds are found in many correctional systems across the country and serve the
purpose of supplementing funding for programs and services that are of benefit to the inmate
population. Typically, expenditures from the inmate welfare trust fund must provide some
benefit to the inmate population. Most systems prefer to spend trust funds on programs that
have the broadest impact across the inmate population. These expenditures can often be as
basic as purchasing recreational equipment (basketballs, volleyballs, weights) or leisure
equipment (televisions in day rooms, visiting room toys and games for children) or equipment
specific for maintaining recreational yards (mowers, rakes, etc.). Of the 38 funded programs
FDC identified, 33 were funded solely or partially by general revenue funds. Any of these
would be an initial candidate for being supported by inmate welfare trust fund revenue, but
some may be more appropriate. For example, using the fund for programs that are targeted
for a narrow segment of the inmate population, such as the Basic Training program (boot
camp) or some of the narrowly focused substance abuse programs, would not have the
desired impact of benefitting the entire population. However, programs that all inmates have
access to could benefit from trust funds. For example, the purchase of general library and law
library materials, as well as funding the salaries of library staff would be a wise use of these
111

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

funds. Additionally, trust funds could be used to purchase materials used in broad substance
abuse education programs.

Background on Treatment Effects in Correctional Programming
The past decade has witnessed a significant up-tick in the advocacy of prison-based
treatment/rehabilitative programs to reduce recidivism rates. Underpinning this trend is a
body of meta-analysis that shows treatment, under certain conditions, can reduce recidivism
rates. The FDC references these studies in their own internal evaluations of their rehabilitative
programs, so it is important to review how these studies are done and their major findings.
Drawing upon the field of medicine, the results of these studies suggest that increasing the
availability of effective treatment programs for inmates would both reduce crime and save tax
dollars.
Meta-analysis is a statistical technique that is used to quantitatively measure the relative
effects of a number of program evaluations in the hope of determining the overall effects of a
common program or policy on outcome measures like recidivism and costs. Meta-analysis is
not to be confused with conducting a literature review and making conclusions based on that
review. For example, Lawrence Sherman and his colleagues conducted a comprehensive
literature review in 1997 on crime prevention programs. 32 Unlike meta-analysis, a literature
review simply identifies interventions that have been shown in a number of studies to be
effective, but no specific analysis is made on the recidivism reduction rates and costs savings
one can expect if they implement such a program.
There have been some critiques of the meta-analysis, with the most recent one made by
Richard Berk. 33 He points out that meta-analysis may be useful in terms of providing
descriptive information on the collective effects of treatment interventions, but they should not
be used to make sweeping statements about causality or the overall power of the intervention.
And there are substantial problems in meta-analysis, such as how the studies are selected, the
assumption that they represent the types of programs that exist in the real world, and the
mixing of studies using random assignment with those that do not.

32

Sherman, Lawrence, Denise Gottfredson, Doris MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, and Shawn Bushway.
(1997). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. A Report to the United States
Congress by the National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.
33
Berk, Richard. (2007). Statistical inference and meta analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 3:237 –
270.
112

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

This raises the issue of the quality of a study’s research design itself. The “gold standard” is
the experimental design with random assignment of subjects to experimental and control
conditions. Quasi-experimental designs try to approximate the rigor of random assignment;
they have inherent limitations which can serve to bias treatment effects. The most common
problem in quasi-experimental designs is that they often fail to control for the person’s
motivation to participate in a new program or policy. Thus, the treatment group differs from
that key attribute, which favors their potential to show a positive impact.
The most recent meta-analysis that has been completed on correctional programs was
conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP). 34 The WSIPP’s report
selected 571 studies that utilized either an experimental or quasi-experimental design. Only
28 percent, or 160 of the 571 studies, were based on true experimental studies as opposed
to the less stringent quasi-experimental studies. Importantly, the WSIPP rejected any studies
that only used program completers rather than including program drop-outs or program
failures. It is a well-established principle in research evaluation that any meaningful
evaluation of a program must include both program completers and program failures.
The WSIPP found that programs that focus on education, employment skills, and vocational
training have consistent positive, but modest, results in the 5-10 percent range. It also found
that faith-based programs, boot camps, and other life skills-type programs have not been
shown to be effective.

Steve Aos, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake, Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and
What Does Not (Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2006).
34

113

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

FDC Program Effectiveness
FDC does keep track of the effectiveness of substance abuse programming and annually
reports the recidivism rates of those programs 35. This is not the case, however, with education
and vocational programs. The most recent recidivism rates developed by the department for
education and vocational programs were in 2001. The following table provides a review of
the recidivism rates of substance abuse programming based on three-year return rates. It
compares the recidivism rates for those inmates who successfully completed the program with
those who were non-completers.
Table 13: Substance Abuse Program Recidivism Rates
Substance Abuse Program Type
Intensive Outpatient Program
Residential Therapeutic Community
Substance Abuse Program Center
Post-Release Transitional Housing

Recidivism Rates for
Program NonCompleters
40.2%
41.9%
32.1%
41.7%

Recidivism Rates
for Program
Completers
34.7%
28.6%
17.5%
27.5%

Difference
-5.5%
-13.3%
-14.6%
-14.2%

Source: FDC Bureau of Transition and Substance Abuse Treatment Services Annual Report FY 2013/14

There are two major problems with this analysis as shown in the above table. First, it does not
show a “pooled” rate that combines the rates of completers and non-completers. Both groups
are “participants” and should be defined as such. Second, there is no effort to create a
control or comparison group. These two flaws make it impossible to say the programs are
effective.
FINDING 4-6: FDC needs to conduct more rigorous evaluations of its education, vocational,
and substance abuse programs. As noted above, the current studies cannot be used to make
any conclusions about their impact on recidivism.
The FDC and a few external research organizations have, over the years, published studies or
statistics attempting to measure the impact of the FDC rehabilitative programs on recidivism
rates. More recently, the FDC attempted to summarize their collective research findings and
compare them with the WSIPP meta-analysis results.
All of the studies (a total of 10) as summarized below were conducted at least 10 years ago
and have not been updated by the FDC. None of the studies employed an experimental
design, and some do not even qualify as a credible quasi-experimental design. More

35

FDC Bureau of Transition and Substance Abuse Services, Inmate Programs Annual Report FY 2013-14
114

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

importantly, 8 of the 10 FDC studies either only analyze program completers or make a
comparison between program completers and program non-completers, which heavily skews
the results in favor of the program. Following is an example from the 2001 FDC system
evaluation of correctional facility programs.
“The recidivism rate for the 1,788 inmates who received a GED was 29.8% compared to
35.4% for those who did not complete a program. This reduction in recidivism (5.6%)
translates into approximately 100 inmates not returning to prison. Avoiding the cost of
their re-incarceration for one year would amount to cost savings of approximately $1.9
million.” 36
In this example there is no control group that is similar to the inmates who enrolled in the
program and would represent what the recidivism rate would be if the program did not exist.
The cost savings estimate is equally misleading. The FDC used a “fully loaded” rather than a
marginal imprisonment cost for the estimated 100 inmates who avoided a return to prison
due to the program. This faulty cost-benefit argument permeates the entire document.
The results of the FDC studies were also compared with the WSIPP results which show far
more modest recidivism results. The outcome results for the FDC are much higher than the
WSIPP, but that is due to the flawed research design that excludes program completers. It is
noteworthy that the FDC acknowledges this research deficiency but proceeds to make the
faulty comparison.
Finally, in interpreting these results, one should employ what is known as the “number needed
to treat” (NNT) estimate. This statistic is used to estimate how many people need to be treated
in order for one person to benefit from treatment. It is calculated by taking the inverse of the
absolute rate reduction. So, in the example of the 5.3 percent reduction for correctional
facility-based therapeutic communities, the NNT is 20, meaning that 20 people have to
unnecessarily go through the program in order to prevent one person from recidivating (Table
14). The NNT emphasizes the modest effects that a single program can have on an inmate’s
life.

36

Analysis of the Impact of Inmate Programs Upon Recidivism (Florida Department of Corrections, Bureau of

Research and Data Analysis, January 2001), p. 2.

115

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Table 14: Comparison of National Meta-Analysis Results and FDC Results
WSIPP
Recidivism
# of
Reduction
Studies

Program Type

FDC
Recidivism
Reduction

# of Studies

In Prison Therapeutic Communities

5.3%

7

Cognitive-Behavioral Prison Drug Treatment

6.8%

8

11% to 15%

3

12.4%

5

27% to 32%

3

5.1%

7

14% to 16%

2

12.6%

3

27% to 32%

2

Community Drug Treatment
Adult Education
Vocational Education

Impact of Faith and Character-Based Programs and Institutions
FDC has established faith and character-based residential programs designed to offer
inmates a wide assortment of programs and betterment activities in a religious context. The
department has established two facilities that are completely focused on this programming
(Wakulla and Lawtey), and self-improvement dormitories have been created at facilities in all
regions. FDC does monitor the recidivism rates of inmates who enroll and complete other
types of treatment programs. In particular, findings were made available on inmates showing
an interest in faith and character-based programs institutions (FCBI).
With regard to the comparison of inmates showing an interest in FCBI and the overall
recidivism rates, the FDC found no difference in the recidivism rates (Table 15).
Table 15:
Comparison Recidivism Rates (Return to Prison within Three Years)
Releases CY 2002-2009
Release Cohort
All Male Inmates Released
Male Inmates Interested in FCBI Program
Female Inmates Released
Female Inmates Interested in FCBI Program

Releases
228,530
11,585
27,723
1,993

Return to Prison
33%
34%
19%
18%

Source: FDC Bureau of Research and Data Analysis

Further FDC analysis examined inmates that spent at least six months at one of the FCBI
facilities and found that they have lower overall lower recidivism rates than those interested in
the FCBI program but who did not participate. Here, the research is trying to control for
motivation, which is a stronger quasi-experimental design.

116

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

According to the FDC researchers, when differences in inmate factors that affect recidivism
(offense history, demographics, custody) are controlled for, there remains a level of
improvement in recidivism rates at three years from release when compared to a group who
expressed an interest in the program but never spent time at the FCBI.
This effect is statistically significant for Wakulla and Lawtey. Hillsborough also shows some
improvement, but due to the small number of female inmates released in the period of study
and the relatively low recidivism rates for female inmates in general, it does not reach
statistical significance. There is no formal published report on this study (Table 16).
Table 16:
FCBI Recidivism Rates (Return To Prison within Three Years)
Release Cohort
Wakulla FCBI – Males, at Least Six Months at Facility
Lawtey FCBI – Males, at Least Six Months at Facility
Hillsborough FCBI – Females, at Least Six Months at Facility

Releases
1,123
1,737
541

Return to Prison
25%
23%
14%

Source: Bureau of Research and Data Analysis, FDC

An independent impact study of FCBI was completed by the Urban Institute in October 2007.
That study also used a quasi-experimental design where inmates were matched on relevant
attributes but not on motivation to participate in the FCBI. The sample sizes were also much
smaller (189 males and 100 females for both the FCBI and comparison groups.) That study
found that both the FCBI and comparison groups had very low recidivism rates, and there
were no differences after 12, 18, and 24 months post-release for either the males or females
(Table 17). 37

Nancy G. LaVigne Diana Brazzell Kevonne Small. 2008. Evaluation of Florida’s Faith- and Character- Based
Institutions. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Final Report
37

117

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Table 17:
Re-Incarceration Outcomes of FCBI Inmates
and a Matched Comparison Group
Return to
prison
within…
12 months
18 months
24 months
26 months

FCBI
Inmates
(n=189)
8
4.2%
20
10.6%
23
12.2%
27
14.35

Men
Comparison
Group
(n=189)
8
4.2%
19
10.1%
32
16.9%
34
18.0%

Women
FCBI Comparison
Inmates
Group
(n=100)
(n=100)
4
7
4.0%
7.0%
9
8
9.0%
8.0%
14
11
14.0%
11.0%
15
12
15.0%
12.0%

Note: None of the comparisons has a statistical significance of p < 0.10.

Collectively, there are mixed results on whether FCBI programs have an impact on recidivism
rates. Inmates who participate in them and complete them have lower recidivism rates (in the
5-10 percent range), but it is not clear whether it is the program or the inmate’s pre-program
motivation or disposition to change that is “causing” the lower recidivism rates.
There are two positive points to make here. First, the core FDC program areas (education,
vocational training, and substance abuse) are the same ones that other literature reviews and
meta-analyses have identified as consistently impacting recidivism rates, albeit in a modest
manner. 38
Second, the FDC has entered into a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded researcherpractitioner partnership with Florida State University (FSU) that is designed to produce higher
quality program evaluations of FDC programs. But until those studies are completed, the
FDC should cease on publishing misleading statistics on the effectiveness of their programs. If
an agency is to adhere to the principles of best practices, it also needs to adhere to the
principles of rigorous evaluations.
FINDING 4-7: Most of the evaluations are at least 10 years old and need to be updated
using more rigorous research designs. Such an opportunity may exist with the current
researcher-practitioner partnership with FSU.

David Farabee, 2005. Rethinking Rehabilitation: Why Can’t We Reform Our Criminals? Washington, DC:
American Enterprise Institute.
38

118

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

FINDING 4-8: The FDC is properly focused on the three core programs that have been
shown to have some modest effect (reductions of 5-10 percent) on recidivism rates.
FINDING 4-9: The research on the FCBI institutions has been stronger than the research on
the core FDC program areas.
FINDING 4-10: The results for FCBI are mixed. Inmates who participate in and complete
FCBI programming have modestly lower recidivism rates, but one cannot conclude it is due to
the program.
RECOMMENDATION 45: The FDC should evaluate statements of program effectiveness for
studies that did not include a pooled recidivism rate that included program completers and
non-completers or did not have a control group. The FDC needs to conduct far more
rigorous studies of program effectiveness using appropriate evaluation designs. Given the
number of inmates eligible for core programs who cannot participate due to lack of program
slots, there is a great opportunity to conduct rigorous experimental studies on program
effectiveness using random assignment. Priority for such studies should be for the education,
vocational training, and substance abuse program needs.
The analysis summarized in this section was completed with the assistance of several sources,
including documents produced by the FDC. These documents are footnoted for
reference. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

39

Analysis of the Impact of Inmate Programs Upon Recidivism (Florida Department of Corrections, Bureau of

Research and Data Analysis, January 2001).
40

Fact Sheet on Inmate Substance Abuse Programs (Florida Department of Corrections, Bureau of Substance

Abuse Programs, in-process).
41

Annual Report, Inmate Programs, FY 2004-05 (Florida Department of Corrections, Bureau of Substance

Abuse Programs, in-process).
42

P. Lattimore, C. Krebs, W. Koetse, C. Lindquist, and A. Cowell, “Predicting the Effect of Substance Abuse
Treatment on Probationer Recidivism,” Journal of Experimental Criminology 1, Research Triangle Institute
International, Springer 2005) 159-189.
43

R. Linster, “Evaluation of Florida’s Residential Drug Treatment Program, Prison Diversion Program, Final
Report,” (National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 1999).
44

Florida Department of Corrections Institutional Education Programs (Florida Department of Corrections,

Bureau of Program Services, Fall 2002).

Inmate Programs Annual Report (Florida Department of Corrections, Bureau of Transition and Substance
Abuse Treatment Services FY 2013-2014).

45

119

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

Volunteer/Betterment Programs
FINDING 4-11: As funding for programs decreased in the past decade, the use of volunteers
increased, creating a large number of volunteer-supported “betterment” programs to help
offset the minimal level of funded programming.
These betterment programs cover a wide range of services, including activities and events,
religious education, self-help programming, and substance abuse education. A few examples
include the Gavel Club (Toastmasters) at Northwest Reception Center, Money Matters
(personal finance education) at Dade Correctional Institution, and numerous religious
programs at all institutions. At all facilities visited, the project team found a large volunteer
contingent involvement in a substantial amount of programming. In fact, for FY 2014/15, the
department estimates a total of 85,320 volunteer visits to facilities that provided 356,760
hours of programming and services 46. We compliment the FDC on adapting to the shortage
of funding programming, but note that betterment programming provided lacks any analysis
from the department regarding its effectiveness. The FDC Office of Re-Entry has indicated
they are attempting to identify and monitor those betterment programs that have some
standardization to them and that have a defined curriculum.
The department is also piloting several new programs or changes in programming practices
which include:
•

46

Extended reception stay pilot - The department has had concerns with the compressed
time frame in which the initial assessment of inmate needs is conducted. Currently, this
assessment occurs within the first five days of admission to a reception center. During
our facility inspections, several staff noted the fact that conducting TABE tests and
substance abuse screenings so early in the process can have negative consequences.
They have found that often inmates have not yet “settled down” or acclimated after
admission and do not provide their full attention to accurately completing the
screenings. As a result, the results of screening tools used to identify an inmate’s
long-term needs are often inaccurate. The Office of Re-Entry has the same concern
and is therefore piloting an extended reception stay at Central Florida Reception
Center and at Lowell Correctional Institution. TABE testing and screening will be
conducted later in the process after inmates have some time to adjust to a correctional
setting. Also, motivational curriculum will be implemented to confront the growing use
of drugs and K2 spice in the facilities.

FDC Office of Re-Entry
120

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

•

Prototype prisons pilot - The department has also recently begun developing
“prototype prisons.” The motivation for the prototype prisons stemmed from Governor
Scott’s Executive Order 15-134 issued on July 9, 2015. The Executive Order directs
the secretary to “develop and implement two (2) prototype correctional institutions to

evaluate the impact of enhanced operational elements related to modern and
innovative security techniques, technology, productivity, environmental factors, staffing
levels and functions, climate control, institutional organization, shift scheduling,
training and certification, and other facility improvements, with an emphasis on
enhancing the safety, health and well-being of staff and inmates.” The Executive
Order identified the two prototype prisons would be created at the Lake and Liberty
Correctional Institutions. The department has begun the development of these
prototype facilities. Each will establish a model for proper housing and programming
for general inmate population. Lake Correctional Institution will also focus on those
inmates with significant mental health needs.

121

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

5.

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

Correctional systems and facilities can be very difficult places to work and manage. Facility
employees are responsible for supervising, securing, and treating offenders who, by their very
crime, have been deemed to be inappropriate or unsafe for placement in the free community.
On a daily basis staff can be verbally challenged and the potential for more dangerous
confrontation is always near. But at the same time, correctional systems and their staff must
provide needed services to inmates in a safe and humane manner. One key to successful
correctional facility operation relies on retaining a contingent of well-trained staff who have
the experience necessary to appropriately manage the FDC’s challenging population of
nearly 100,000 inmates.
Our review found a significant lack of experienced staff in the facilities and supervisory staff
who, due to their broad duties and responsibilities, were spread too thin. In some major
facilities, the average tenure of a correctional officer was less than one year, and security
supervisors’ responsibilities were too great to provide these inexperienced staff with consistent
guidance and oversight. Further complicating this issue is that more than 1 out of every 10
correctional officers working in the facilities has yet to complete the required basic pre-service
training.
Not only are FDC’s staff inexperienced due to high turnover, but the number of staff is also
insufficient. One fundamental challenge facing the FDC lies in adequately staffing the
operations of its facilities by maintaining a complement of correctional officers that is
appropriate to operate the system in a manner that is safe and meets professional standards.
Based on the facilities reviewed in this study, the current correctional officer staffing levels
appear to, at times, provide minimal coverage of critical security and operational functions.
Even maintaining this minimal staffing level is complicated by the sheer size of the system’s
manpower requirements and the increasingly high rates of turnover. In response, the FDC has
developed an efficient recruitment and hiring process which generates a high volume of
applicants to compensate for the high separation rate for correctional officers.
Many of the operational deficiencies identified through this review can be directly or indirectly
tied to the lack of an adequate work force that possesses the experience and skills to
consistently carry out the mandates of the FDC as outlined in policy and procedure. Until
these work force issues are addressed, challenges in maintaining a safe and secure system
will continue. To address the staffing issues, the State of Florida needs to have comprehensive
independent staffing analysis conducted that could provide FDC and the Legislature with a
blueprint for staff needs. To determine the true staffing needs of the department, a significant
122

STUDY OF OPERATIONS
OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
November 2015

number of facilities must be visited to assess overall security staff workload and the number of
posts needed to meet the work requirements. This review must take into account the
secondary duties and special assignments that so often pull correctional officers off of their
primary post. The study would also need to develop an accurate relief factor based on actual
leave data.
With such a large number of inexperienced staff, it is extremely important that FDC policies
impart clear and concise guidance, and we found most of FDC’s policies to be in line with
national standards. However, one of its more important policies, use of force, was found to
be confusing, unnecessarily complicated, and lacking clear direction for when force should,
or should not be deployed. We recommend this policy be revised.
The issues of staffing are compounded by the absence of sufficient inmate program and
training slots. Insufficient inmate programing has a negative effect on both inmate success
upon release and the safety and security of the facilities. Presently, the capacity of core inmate
programs (education, vocational, and substance abuse treatment) serves 14 percent of the
inmate population. The department attempts to supplement this lack of programming with a
wide variety of volunteer programs, which while important to providing activities for inmates,
are not validated or tested for effectiveness.
To further complicate the issue, it was found that those few core programs that are offered
are regularly cut short due to a variety of security-related practices and issues. It was not
uncommon to find programs that are scheduled to operate three hours a day starting an hour
or more late. When combined with limited program slots, this leaves inmates with little
opportunity to make productive use of their time and can lead to the corrosiveness of inmate
idleness, where inmate frustration rises and their behavior turns negative. The department
also needs to determine the long-term effectiveness of each of the core programs as they are
presently designed. For many of FDC’s funded programs, this effectiveness is not currently
tracked. The department should conduct formal recidivism studies for the core programs,
which would measure and contrast the re-arrest rates for program completers and noncompleters.
The review also found that the FDC has adequate classification and risk assessment
instruments in place. There are some structural weaknesses in the instruments, but the FDC
has initiated steps to make changes that will reduce potential over-classification and enhance
the effectiveness of the risk assessment process. However, such changes will not have a
significant impact on the overall costs and effectiveness of the correctional system until the
sufficient programs are made available and the population is reduced.
123

APPENDIX A
FLORIDA DOCUMENTS TRACKING

APPENDIX A: Florida Documents Tracking - Security Standards
Document Source
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards

Document Name

Document Number

Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Weapons & Security Equipment
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control

1.01.010 - procedure # 602.025
1.01.020 - procedure # 602.025
1.01.030 - procedure # 602.025
1.01.040 - procedure # 602.025
1.01.041 - procedure # 602.025/602.041
1.01.042 - post order # 15
1.01.050 - procedure # 602.025
1.01.060 - procedure # 602.025
1.01.070 - procedure # 602.025
1.01.080 - procedure # 602.025
1.01.090 - procedure # 602.025/602.041
1.01.120 - procedure # 602.025
1.01.121 - procedure # 602.025
1.01.122 - procedure # 602.025
1.01.131 - procedure # 602.025
1.01.132 - procedure # 602.025
1.01.141 - procedure # 602.025
1.01.160 - procedure # 602.025
1.01.161 - procedure # FAC 33-602-210
1.01.171 - procedure # FAC 33-602-210
1.01.190 - procedure # 602.011
1.01.200 - procedure # 602.003
1.01.210 - procedure # 602.033
1.01.220 - procedure # 602.032
1.01.230 - procedure # 602.025
1.01.240 - procedure # 602.041
1.02.010 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.020 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.030 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.040 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.051 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.061 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.070 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.080 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.081 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.090 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.100 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.110 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.111 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.120 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.131 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.140 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.150 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.151 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.220 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.230 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.250 - procedure # 602.039

A-1

Document Date
revised 05/14/2010
revised 05/24/2006
revised 12/30/2008
revised 09/28/2011
revised 12/30/2008
N/A
revised 07/30/2002
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 12/30/2008
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 02/01/2011
revised 02/01/2011
revised 05/24/2006
revised 11/23/2010
revised 11/23/2010
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/04/2007
revised 11/04/2009
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 11/18/2005
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006

APPENDIX A: Florida Documents Tracking - Security Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards

Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Key Control
Property
Property
Property
Property
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter

1.02.260 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.270 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.280 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.310 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.320 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.340 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.350 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.380 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.391 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.400 - procedure # 602.039
1.02.410 - procedure # 604.104
1.02.420 - procedure # 602.039
1.03.010 - procedure # N/A
1.03.020 - procedure # N/A
1.03.030 - procedure # N/A
1.03.040 - procedure # N/A
1.04.010 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.020 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.040 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.050 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.060 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.061 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.062 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.063 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.064 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.070 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.071 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.080 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.081 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.090 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.115 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.180 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.185 - procedure # 602.034, 602.027
1.04.192 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.210 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.220 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.230 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.235 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.241 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.250 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.260 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.261 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.280 - post order 35
1.04.281 - post order 35
1.04.282 - post order 35
1.04.300 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.311 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.320 - procedure # 602.034
1.04.321 - post order # 50
1.04.330 - procedure # 602.034

A-2

revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 12/30/2008
revised 05/24/2006
revised 05/24/2006
revised 06/08/2012
revised 05/24/2006
revised 08/22/2006
revised 09/20/2007
revised 01/25/2010
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 11/18/2005
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 08/20/2009
revised 05/25/2006
revised 03/02/2007
revised 05/25/2006
revised 11/18/2005
revised 11/18/2005
revised 06/09/2010
revised 11/23/2010
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 02/08/2012
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 09/28/2011
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 10/29/2004
revised 05/25/2006
revised 09/09/2015
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 01/25/2010

APPENDIX A: Florida Documents Tracking - Security Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards

Perimeter
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Entrance Procedures
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control

1.04.340 - procedure # 602.034
1.05.010 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.021 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.030 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.031 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.040 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.050 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.060 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.071 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.080 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.100 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.110 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.120 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.130 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.131 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.140 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.141 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.160 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.170 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.180 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.181 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.190 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.200 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.210 - procedure # 602.016
1.05.220 - procedure # 602.016
1.06.010 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.020 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.030 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.040 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.060 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.070 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.080 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.090 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.100 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.101 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.102 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.103 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.110 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.120 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.130 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.140 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.150 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.160 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.170 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.180 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.190 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.200 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.220 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.230 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.240 - procedure # 602.037

A-3

revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 09/15/2011
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 09/28/2011
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 12/30/2008
revised 11/23/2010
revised 05/25/2006
revised 02/07/2006
revised 04/24/2007
revised 12/30/2008
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 11/18/2005
revised 08/05/2003
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 07/06/2011
revised 05/25/2006
revised 03/02/2007
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 11/18/2005
revised 06/05/2006
revised 05/25/2006

APPENDIX A: Florida Documents Tracking - Security Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards

Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Tool Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Sensitive Item Control
Communications
Communications
Communications

1.06.250 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.255 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.260 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.261 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.270 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.280 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.290 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.300 - procedure # 602.016
1.06.310 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.320 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.330 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.340 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.350 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.370 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.380 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.390 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.400 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.410 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.420 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.430 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.440 - procedure # 602.037
1.06.450 - procedure # 603.037
1.06.460 - procedure # 602.037
1.07.010 - procedure # 602.037
1.07.020 - procedure # 602.037
1.07.030 - procedure # 602.037
1.07.050 - procedure # 602.037
1.07.070 - procedure # 602.037
1.07.080 - procedure # 602.037
1.07.100 - procedure # 602.015
1.07.110 - procedure # 602.037
1.07.120 - procedure # 602.037
1.07.130 - procedure # FS 944.151 and 208.049
1.07.140 - procedure # 602.010
1.07.150 - procedure # 602.010
1.07.160 - procedure # 602.010
1.07.170 - procedure # 602.010
1.07.180 - procedure # 602.010
1.07.190 - procedure # 602.010
1.07.200 - procedure # 602.010
1.07.210 - procedure # 602.010
1.07.220 - procedure # 602.010
1.07.230 - procedure # 602.010
1.07.240 - procedure # 602.010
1.07.250 - procedure # 602.010
1.07.260 - procedure # 602.010
1.07.270 - procedure # 602.010
1.08.010 - post order # 1
1.08.050 - procedure # 602.041
1.08.070 - procedure # 602.041

A-4

revised 05/25/2006
revised 04/21/2009
revised 03/02/2007
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 09/24/2007
revised 03/21/2008
revised 03/21/2008
revised 09/06/2005
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 09/06/2005
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 06/05/2006
revised 12/19/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 06/12/2008
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 03/15/2013
revised 05/25/2006
3/25/2013
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 06/18/2008

APPENDIX A: Florida Documents Tracking - Security Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards

Communications
Communications
Communications
Communications
Communications
Communications
Communications
Communications
Communications
Communications
Communications
Communications
Communications
Communications
Communications
Communications
Mail
Mail
Mail
Mail
Mail
Mail
Mail
Mail
Counts
Counts
Counts
Counts
Counts
Counts
Counts
Counts
Counts
Counts
Counts
Counts
Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates

1.08.090 - procedure # 602.041
1.08.100 - procedure # 602.041
1.08.110 - procedure N/A
1.08.120 - procedure N/A
1.08.130 - procedure N/A
1.08.140 - procedure N/A
1.08.150 - procedure N/A
1.08.160 - procedure # 602.023
1.08.170 - procedure # 602.023
1.08.175 - procedure # 602.023
1.08.180 - procedure # 602.041
1.08.190 - procedure # 602.041
1.08.191 - procedure # 602.041
1.08.200 - procedure # 602.041
1.08.210 - procedure # 602.041
1.08.220 - procedure # FS944.151, 602.013
1.09.030 - procedure N/A
1.09.040 - procedure N/A
1.09.050 - procedure N/A
1.09.060 - procedure N/A
1.09.075 - procedure N/A
1.09.110 - procedure N/A
1.09.120 - procedure N/A
1.09.150 - procedure N/A
1.10.011 - procedure # 602.006
1.10.021 - procedure # 602.006
1.10.031 - procedure # 602.006
1.10.071 - procedure # 602.006
1.10.090 - procedure # 602.006
1.10.091 - procedure # 602.006
1.10.120 - procedure # 602.006
1.10.121 - procedure # 602.006
1.10.130 - procedure # 602.006
1.10.140 - procedure # 602.006
1.10.150 - procedure # 602.006
1.10.160 - procedure # 602.006
1.11.010 - procedure # 602.024
1.11.020 - procedure # 602.024
1.11.030 - procedure # 602.024
1.11.040 - procedure # 602.024
1.11.050 - procedure # 602.024
1.11.060 - procedure # 602.024
1.11.070 - procedure # 602.024
1.11.080 - procedure # 602.024
1.11.090 - procedure # 602.024
1.11.100 - procedure # 602.024
1.11.110 - procedure # 602.024
1.11.120 - procedure # 602.024
1.11.130 - procedure # 602.024
1.11.131 - procedure # 602.024

A-5

revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 12/30/2008
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 12/30/2008
revised 03/21/2013
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 12/20/2004
revised 12/20/2004
revised 03/21/2008
revised 05/25/2006
revised 12/20/2004
revised 03/22/2002
revised 03/22/2002
revised 03/22/2002
revised 03/12/2008
revised 08/22/2006
revised 03/22/2002
revised 08/22/2006
revised 08/22/2006
revised 02/01/2007
revised 08/22/2006
revised 05/25/2006
revised 11/20/2012
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 04/21/2009
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2007
revised 05/26/2008
revised 05/26/2009
revised 05/26/2010

APPENDIX A: Florida Documents Tracking - Security Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards

Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates
Transportation of Inmates
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Security Inspections
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management

1.11.140 - procedure # 602.024
1.11.160 - procedure # 602.024
1.11.170 - procedure # 602.032
1.11.180 - procedure # 602.032
1.11.090 - procedure # 602.032
1.11.200 - procedure # 602.032
1.12.020 - procedure # 602.027
1.12.021 - procedure # 602.027
1.12.030 - procedure # 602.027
1.12.031 - procedure # 602.027
1.12.032 - procedure # 602.027
1.12.040 - procedure # 602.027
1.12.070 - procedure # 602.027
1.12.080 - procedure # 602.027
1.12.120 - procedure # 602.027
1.12.150 - procedure # 602.027
1.12.160 - procedure # 602.027
1.12.170 - procedure # 602.027
1.12.180 - procedure # 602.016
1.12.200 - procedure # 602.027
1.12.220 - procedure # 602.018
1.12.230 - procedure # 602.016
1.12.250 - procedure # 602.033
1.12.260 - procedure # 602.033
1.12.270 - procedure # 602.027
1.12.280 - procedure # 602.027
1.12.290 - post order # 37
1.12.300 - procedure # 602.040
1.12.400 - post order # 09
1.12.410 - procedure # 602.033
1.13.010 - procedure N/A
1.13.020 - procedure N/A
1.13.030 - procedure N/A
1.13.040 - procedure N/A
1.13.041 - procedure N/A
1.13.043 - procedure N/A
1.13.051 - procedure N/A
1.13.060 - procedure N/A
1.13.061 - procedure N/A
1.13.130 - procedure N/A
1.13.131 - procedure N/A
1.13.140 - procedure N/A
1.13.150 - procedure N/A
1.13.160 - procedure N/A
1.13.170 - procedure N/A
1.13.180 - procedure N/A
1.13.190 - procedure N/A
1.13.200 - procedure N/A
1.13.210 - procedure N/A
1.13.230 - procedure N/A

A-6

revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2012
revised 11/18/2005
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 09/06/2005
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 06/19/2013
revised 11/18/2005
revised 05/26/2006
revised 11/18/2005
revised 09/06/2005
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 06/20/2007
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 09/22/2014
revised 12/30/2008
revised 07/29/2014
revised 12/11/2014
revised 06/03/2015
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 12/30/2008
revised 05/26/2006
revised 12/30/2008
revised 05/26/2006
revised 12/30/2008
revised 05/26/2006
revised 12/30/2008
revised 12/30/2008
revised 12/30/2008
revised 03/21/2008
revised 12/30/2008
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 12/30/2008
revised 12/30/2008
revised 12/30/2008
revised 12/30/2008
revised 12/30/2008

APPENDIX A: Florida Documents Tracking - Security Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards

Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Confinement & Close Management
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Outside Work Squads
Blood Borne Pathogen Precautions
Blood Borne Pathogen Precautions
Blood Borne Pathogen Precautions
Blood Borne Pathogen Precautions
Blood Borne Pathogen Precautions
Blood Borne Pathogen Precautions
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units

A-7

1.13.240 - procedure N/A
1.13.241 - procedure N/A
1.13.242 - procedure N/A
1.13.243 - procedure N/A
1.13.261 - procedure N/A
1.13.320 - procedure N/A
1.13.360 - procedure N/A
1.13.390 - procedure N/A
1.13.480 - procedure N/A
1.14.010 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.011 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.015 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.016 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.017 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.018 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.019 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.020 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.021 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.030 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.070 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.080 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.090 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.091 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.100 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.120 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.121 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.122 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.130 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.131 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.132 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.140 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.141 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.142 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.143 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.160 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.180 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.190 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.200 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.210 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.220 - procedure # 602.057
1.14.230 - procedure # 602.057
1.15.010 - procedure # N/A
1.15.020 - procedure # N/A
1.15.030 - procedure # N/A
1.15.040 - procedure # N/A
1.15.050 - procedure # N/A
1.15.060 - procedure # N/A
1.16.010 - procedure # 602.009
1.16.020 - procedure # 602.009
1.16.040 - procedure # 602.009

revised 12/30/2008
revised 05/26/2006
revised 12/29/2008
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 03/02/2007
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/20/2007
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 05/26/2006
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 09/05/2014
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 02/01/2011
revised 02/01/2011
revised 02/01/2011

APPENDIX A: Florida Documents Tracking - Security Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards

Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Audit of Gen Emergency Prep Plans & Special Ops Units
Security Threat Groups
Security Threat Groups
Security Threat Groups
Security Threat Groups
Security Threat Groups
Security Threat Groups
Use of Force
Use of Force
Use of Force
Use of Force
Use of Force
Use of Force
Use of Force
Use of Force
Use of Force

A-8

1.16.100 - procedure # 602.009
1.16.120 - procedure # 602.009
1.16.140 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.160 - procedure # 602.009
1.16.165 - procedure # 602.002, 602.001
1.16.170 - procedure # 602.009
1.16.191 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.193 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.200 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.210 - procedure # 602.004
1.16.215 - procedure # 602.022/602.025/602.026/602.001
1.16.220 - procedure # 602.004
1.16.230 - procedure # 602.004
1.16.240 - procedure # 602.004
1.16.250 - procedure # 602.004
1.16.260 - procedure # 602.011
1.16.270 - procedure # 602.009
1.16.280 - procedure # 602.009
1.16.290 - procedure # 602.038
1.16.2001 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.2002 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.2004 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.2006 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.2008 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.2009 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.2010 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.2011 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.2012 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.2013 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.2014 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.2015 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.2016 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.2017 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.2018 - procedure # 602.022
1.16.2019 - procedure # 602.022
1.17.010 - procedure # 108.011
1.17.020 - procedure # 108.011
1.17.030 - procedure # 108.011
1.17.040 - procedure # 108.011
1.17.050 - procedure # 108.011
1.17.060 - procedure # 108.011
1.18.010 - procedure # 33-602.210
1.18.020 - procedure # 33-602.210
1.18.030 - procedure # 33-602.210
1.18.040 - procedure # 33-602.210
1.18.050 - procedure # 33-602.210
1.18.060 - procedure # 33-602.210
1.18.080 - procedure # 33-602.210
1.18.090 - procedure # 33-602.210
1.18.100 - procedure # 33-602.210

revised 02/01/2011
revised 02/01/2011
revised 05/26/2006
revised 02/01/2011
revised 03/15/2013
revised 02/01/2011
revised 12/20/2004
revised 12/20/2004
revised 12/20/2004
revised 12/20/2004
revised 06/24/2009
revised 12/20/2004
revised 05/26/2006
revised 12/20/2004
revised 12/20/2004
revised 02/01/2011
revised 02/01/2011
revised 02/01/2011
revised 02/01/2011
revised 12/20/2004
revised 09/28/2011
revised 09/28/2011
revised 09/28/2011
revised 12/20/2004
revised 12/20/2004
revised 05/26/2006
revised 12/20/2004
revised 12/20/2004
revised 09/28/2011
revised 09/20/2007
revised 09/28/2011
revised 02/08/2012
revised 11/23/2010
revised 05/26/2006
revised 09/28/2011
revised 01/03/2014
revised 01/03/2014
revised 01/03/2014
revised 01/03/2014
revised 01/03/2014
revised 01/03/2014
revised 05/14/2010
revised 05/14/2010
revised 01/15/2014
revised 05/14/2010
revised 05/14/2010
revised 05/14/2010
revised 05/14/2010
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006

APPENDIX A: Florida Documents Tracking - Security Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards
Florida Department of Corrections Operational Review Standards

Use of Force
Security Self Audit
Security Self Audit
Security Self Audit
Internal Movement of Inmates
Internal Movement of Inmates
Internal Movement of Inmates
Internal Movement of Inmates

1.18.110 - procedure # 33-602.210
1.19.010 - procedure # 602.040
1.19.020 - procedure # 602.040
1.19.030 - procedure # 602.040
1.20.010 - procedure # 602.044
1.20.020 - procedure # 602.044
1.20.030 - procedure # 602.044
1.20.040 - procedure # 602.004

A-9

revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006
revised 09/06/2005
revised 03/12/2008
revised 03/12/2008
revised 05/26/2006
revised 05/26/2006

Florida Documents Tracking - Programs and Education
Document Source
Org Chart
Org Chart
Org Chart
Org Chart
Org Chart
Org Chart
Academic Program Information (1)
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
New Academic Programs Under Consideration
New Academic Programs Under Consideration
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Academic Program Information
Vocational Career Info (2)
Vocational Career Info
Vocational Career Info
New Vocational Career Programs Under Consideration
Vocational Career Info
Vocational Career Info
Chaplaincy Services Info (3)
Chaplaincy Services Info
Chaplaincy Services Info
Chaplaincy Services Info
Chaplaincy Services Info
Chaplaincy Services Info
Chaplaincy Services Info
Chaplaincy Services Info
Chaplaincy Services Info

Procedure Title

Procedure Number

Effective Date

Office of Re-Entry Administration Org Chart
Office of Re-Entry Regional Personnel Education Program Mangers & Regional Chaplains
Office of Re-Entry Administration
Office of Re-Entry Bureau of Education
Office of Re-Entry Chaplaincy Services
Office of Re-Entry Bureau of Transition & Substance Abuse Treatment Services

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Sep-15
Jul-15
Jul-15
Jul-15
Jul-15
Aug-15

Academic Program Info
IDEA (Special Education)
Title I
Secondary Education Program (Smart Horizon Career online High School)
Inmate Teaching Assistant Training Program
Correspondence Study Courses Program
Library Services
Limited Academic Internet Content
Adult Academic Education Orientation Program
Title I Program
Tabe and Pre-GED Testing
Teacher Certification and In-Service
GED Testing
Academic Education Programs
Inmate Teaching Assistant and Volunteer Liter
Correspondence Study Courses
Use of Copyrighted Videos In Programs
Special Education Services
Law Library Programs
Copying Services For Inmates
Law Library Interlibrary Loan Services
Acquisition and Disposal of Law Library Materials
Word Processing Services In Law Libraries
General Library Programs
Admissible Reading Material for Institutions
Donations

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
501.101
501.102
501.103
501.104
501.106
501.107
501.108
501.109
501.201
501.301
501.302
501.303
501.304
501.305
501.310
501.401
501.402

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
11/19/2013
10/23/2012
2/4/2015
9/19/2012
11/19/2013
11/19/2013
6/26/2015
11/26/2014
10/8/2014
9/4/2014
1/9/2013
11/26/2014
9/24/2013
6/4/2014
9/24/2013
10/3/2013
2/4/2015

Career and Technical Education
Prison Dog Training Program
Institutional Jobs Credentialing Program (IJCP)
Career and Technical Education for Inmates
Service Dog Training and Canine Obedience Training for Canine Adoptions

N/A
N/A
N/A
502.001
506.102

N/A
N/A
N/A
12/10/2014
9/4/2014

Chaplaincy Library Program
Faith & Character Based Residential Program
Primary Worship Opportunities
Religious Diet Program (RDP)
Religious Education Classes
Guidelines for Native American Religious Observances
Chaplaincy Services
Spiritual Advisor Visits

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
503.001
503.002
503.003

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1/13/2014
9/11/2013
7/23/2014

A-10

Florida Documents Tracking - Programs and Education
Chaplaincy Services Info
Chaplaincy Services Info
Chaplaincy Services Info
2015 Florida Statutes
Transition Services Information (4)
Transition Services Information
Transition Services Information
Transition Services Information
Transition Services Information (New Programs Under Consideration)
Transition Services Information (New Programs Under Consideration)
Transition Services Information (New Programs Under Consideration)
Transition Services Information
Transition Services Information
No Content Section (5)
Substance Abuse Programs (6)
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Programs
Classification Programs (7)
Classification Programs
Classification Programs
Classification Programs
Classification Programs
Classification Programs
Classification Programs
Classification Programs
Re-Entry Centers & Inst. (8)
Re-Entry Centers & Inst.
Re-Entry Centers & Inst.
Maps

Volunteers
Religious Diet Program
Faith & Character Based Residential Programs
Title XLVII Criminal Procedure & Corrections

503.004
503.006
506.032
944.803

5/16/2014
7/27/2015
5/16/2014
N/A

100-Hour Transition Skills Program
Thinking for a Change (T4C)
Veteran Dorm Program (VDP)
Receiving Enhanced Specialized Transition Assistance Re-Entry Training (RESTART)
Life Path
Orientation Dorm
100-Hour Transition Skills Program
Veteran Dorm Program

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
504.001
506.101

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5/16/2014
10/3/2013

Substance Abuse Assessment and Screening
Character Awareness and Motivation Program (CAMP)
Community-Based Residential Therapeutic Community
Substance Abuse Counselors at Department-Operated Community Release Centers
Integrated Co-Occurring Re-Entry and Evaluation (I-CORE) Program
Intensive Outpatient Program
Substance Abuse Prevention and Education
In-Prison Residential Therapeutic Community
Substance Abuse Transitional Re-Entry Centers
Youthful Offender Outpatient Substance Abuse Program (Sumter)
Suwannee CI Extended Day Program for Youthful Offenders Age 17 and Under
Post Release Transition Housing
Youthful Offender Outpatient Substance Abuse Program (Sumter)
Youthful Offender Character Awareness and Motivation Program
Bureau of Transition & Substance Abuse Treatment Services: Substance Abuse Program Management
Institutional Substance Abuse Program Licensure
Mandatory Participation In In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Substance Abuse Screening At Reception Centers
Substance Abuse Program Admissions-Institutions
Substance Abuse Program Completion or Termination
Peer Facilitators
Substance Abuse Clinical Records
Substance Abuse Clinical Record Transfer-Institutions
Contract &Program Oversight & Monitoring of All Institutions

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

601.222
507.001
507.101
507.102
507.201
507.202
507.203
507.204
507.401
507.402
507.702

8/6/2014
5/16/2014
11/19/2013
10/24/2014
9/4/2014
2/12/2014
10/7/2014
11/21/2012
10/26/2012
8/6/2013
1/3/2013

Basic Training Program
Extended Day Program (EDP)
Community Release Centers
Learning to Improve the Future by Exercising Response Strategies (LIFERS)
Corrections Transition Program (CTP) - Florida International University (FIU)
Designation of Youthful Offenders, Young Adult Offenders, & Youthful Offender Facilities
Placement of Inmates Into Community Release Programs

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
601.211
601.204

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5/9/2014
11/4/2014

Contracted Re-Entry Centers
Department of Corrections - Re-Entry Facilities
Programs-Region 1

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
Sep-15

A-11

Florida Documents Tracking - Programs and Education
Maps
Maps
Maps
Maps
Maps

Programs-Region 2
Programs-Region 3
Programs-Region 4
DC Operated & Contracted Community Release Centers
Post Release Substance Abuse Transitional Housing Programs (Funded Beds)

A-12

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Sep-15
Sep-15
Sep-15
11/14/2014
9/14/2015

Florida Documents Tracking - Miscellaneous Electronic Files
Document Source
National Institute Of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Inspector General
Office of Administration
Office of Administration
Office of Human Resources
Office of Human Resources
Office of Human Resources
Office of Human Resources
Office of Human Resources
Office of Human Resources
Office of Human Resources
Office of Human Resources
Office of Human Resources
Office of Human Resources
Office of Human Resources
Office of Human Resources
Office of Human Resources
Offices of Human Resource Management
Offices of Human Resource Management
Office of Human Resources
Office of Human Resources
Office of Human Resources
Office of Human Resources
Office of the Deputy Secretary
Office of the Deputy Secretary
Office of the Deputy Secretary
Office of the Deputy Secretary
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions

Document Title
Technical Assistance Report
Use of Force
Security Threat Management Program
Administration Of the Inmate Trust Fund
Certification of Cellular Phone/Smartphone Usage
Auxiliary Correctional & Correctional Probation Officers
Correctional Officer & Correctional Probation Officer Promotional Process
Extended Workdays for Correctional Officers
Officers in Temporary Employment Authorization (TEA) Status
Reimbursement for Basic Recruit Training & Related Expenses
Request for Reassignment or Promotion
Performance Management
Separation Process for Terminated Employees
Career Service Grievance Process
Administrative Leave Pending Investigation
Employee Counseling and Discipline
Random Drug Testing Program for Department Staff
Employee Benefits Advisory Committee & Approved Employee Insurance Programs
Background Investigation & Appointment of Certified Officers
General Pay
Position Overlap
Pre-Employment/Employment Drug & Medical Exam Testing Program
Unused Leave Payouts
Overtime
Development, Maintenance, & Administration Of Examinations
Field Training Officer Program For Institutions
Training Requirements
Firearms Training
Placement of Inmates Into Community Release Programs
Reception Process-Initial Classification
Inmate Orientation
Personalized Program Plan & Transition Plan for Community Release Programs
Special Review
Institutional Classification Unit, Institutional Classification Team, & State Classification Office
Transition Planning & Release
Inmate Work Assignments
Addiction Recovery Supervision Program
Use of Force Devices, Agents, & Munitions
Forced Cell Extraction
Incidents Reports - Institutions
Entering & Exiting Department of Corrections Institutions
Contraband & Searches of Inmates
Special Operations Teams
External Inmate Transportation & Security
Standardization of Security Equipment
Security Inspections
Security Staff Utilization
Inmate Deaths
Perimeter Security
Gender Specific Security Positions, Shifts, Posts, & Assignments
Tools & Sensitive Item Control
Key Control & Locking Systems
Operational Review & Self-Audit System for Institutions
Internal Inmate Movement & Supervision Requirements
Institutions-Security Post Orders

A-13

Document Number
15P1032
33-602.210
108.011
203.015
203.017
208.004
208.005
208.007
208.016
208.017
208.021
208.022
208.029
208.030
208.031
208.039
208.045
208.047
208.049
208.055
208.056
208.058
208.061
208.062
209.003
209.004
209.101
209.301
601.204
601.209
601.210
601.214
601.215
601.223
601.503
601.805
601.807
602.003
602.004
602.008
602.016
602.018
602.022
602.024
602.026
602.027
602.030
602.031
602.034
602.036
602.037
602.039
602.040
602.044
602.050

Effective Date
9/4/2015
12/1/2012
5/14/2014
2/19/2014
10/24/2014
4/15/2015
5/28/2015
7/31/2013
10/8/2014
1/24/2014
5/16/2014
5/16/2014
4/8/2014
4/8/2014
10/14/2014
4/8/2014
7/14/2014
4/8/2014
8/5/2011
3/25/2011
3/25/2013
3/18/2015
2/3/2015
4/8/2014
12/10/2014
11/4/2014
2/3/2015
9/13/2010
11/4/2014
5/9/2014
8/15/2014
6/4/2014
10/11/2013
7/14/2014
7/21/2014
2/26/2014
7/21/2014
6/5/2015
7/21/2014
6/26/2015
7/14/2015
3/18/2015
11/26/2014
3/18/2015
5/9/2014
6/17/2014
6/2/2014
8/24/2015
10/20/2014
3/18/2015
3/18/2015
10/3/2013
11/26/2014
6/2/2014
5/9/2014

Florida Documents Tracking - Miscellaneous Electronic Files
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Department of Corrections
ASCA Use of Force Audit
Policy Describing Org & Structure of FDOC Security Department
Facility Table of Organization
Facility Table of Organization
Facility Table of Organization
Facility Table of Organization
Facility Table of Organization
Facility Table of Organization
Facility Table of Organization
Facility Table of Organization
Facility Table of Organization
Facility Table of Organization
Facility Table of Organization
Facility Table of Organization
Facility Physical Plant Layout & any Schematics
Facility Physical Plant Layout & any Schematics
Facility Physical Plant Layout & any Schematics
Facility Physical Plant Layout & any Schematics
Facility Physical Plant Layout & any Schematics
Facility Physical Plant Layout & any Schematics
Facility Physical Plant Layout & any Schematics
Facility Physical Plant Layout & any Schematics
FDOC Policy on Correctional Officer Safety to include availability of Protective Equipment

Prison Rape: Prevention, Detection, & Response
Escort Chair
Unannounced Security Audit System for Institutions
Community/Minimum Outside Work Squads
Correctional Officer Exit Surveys
Reception Process-Intake & Inmate Identification
Appointment to Management Positions - Institutions
Duty Wardens
Use of Tobacco Products By Employees
Critical Incident Reviews
Use of Force Reduction Efforts 2015
Assessment of Use of Force Policy & Practices within the Florida Department of Corrections
Security of Correctional Institutions & Facilities
Apalachee CI-Warden's Office Org Chart
Apalachee-CI Classification
Apalachee-CI-West Classification
Apalachee CI-Programs
Apalachee CI-Food Service
Apalachee CI-Warehouse
Apalachee CI-Maintenance
Apalachee CI-Security-Main
Apalachee CI-Security-Main-Admin
Apalachee CI-Security-West
Apalachee CI-Security-West-Admin
Apalachee CI-Security-West-WS
ACI East Aerial Photo
ACI East Compound Schematic Overhead
ACI West Aerial Photo
ACI West Compound Overhead Schematic
ADP Statistics Information
ACI East - Building Floor Plans Schematics
East & West Schematic with Building Numbers
ACI Physical Plant (Facility Description)

602.053
602.054
602.055
602.057
602.059
603.002
605.001
605.002
605.005
605.008
N/A
N/A
944.151
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Certificate # 1-700-02
N/A

10/8/2014
3/18/2015
10/14/2014
8/24/2015
12/8/2014
12/10/2014
8/6/2014
3/18/2015
3/26/2014
8/24/2015
N/A
8/31/2015
N/A
11/17/2014
11/17/2014
11/17/2014
11/17/2014
11/17/2014
11/17/2014
11/17/2014
11/17/2014
11/17/2014
11/17/2014
11/17/2014
11/17/2014
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
07/01/2014 - 08/31/2015
N/A
11/1/2006
N/A

EHSO Manual Chapter 1
EHSO Manual Chapter 2
EHSO Manual Chapter 3
EHSO Manual Chapter 4
EHSO Manual Chapter 5
EHSO Manual Chapter 6
EHSO Manual Chapter 7
EHSO Manual Chapter 8
EHSO Manual Chapter 9
EHSO Manual Chapter 10
EHSO Manual Chapter 11
EHSO Manual Chapter 12
EHSO Manual Chapter 13
EHSO Manual Chapter 16
EHSO Manual Chapter 17
EHSO Manual Chapter 18
EHSO Manual Chapter 19
EHSO Manual Chapter 20
EHSO Manual Chapter 21
EHSO Manual Chapter 22
EHSO Manual Chapter 23
EHSO Manual Chapter 24
EHSO Manual Chapter 25
EHSO Manual Chapter 26

Administration
Safety Committees
Environmental Health & Safety Inspections & Record Keeping
Safety Training
Indoor Environmental Quality
Accident Investigations
General Safety Rules
Fire Safety
Hazard Communication
Confined Space Program
Respiratory Protection Program
Tuberculosis Exposure Control
Environmental Health
Contaminated Bedding & Linen Handling
Clean Up & Disinfection of Blood & Body Fluid Spills
Bloodborne Pathogens
Personal Protective Equipment
Barber & Cosmetology Sanitation
Electrical Safety
Welding
Lock Out/Tag Out
Fall Protection
Ladders & Scaffolds
Excavations, Ditching & Trenching

1.01 - 1.06
2.01 - 2.08
3.01 - 3.05
4.01 - 4.06
5.01 - 5.10
6.01 - 6.06
7.01 - 7.12
8.01 - 8.22
9.01 - 9.07
10.01 - 10.16
11.01 - 11.10
12.01 - 12.13
13.01 - 13.09
16.01 - 16.08
17.01 - 17.06
18.01
19.01 - 19.17
20.01 - 20.07
21.01 - 21.09
22.01 - 22.08
23.01 - 23.06
24.01 - 24.06
25.01 - 25.05
26.01 - 26.04

3/31/2014
4/9/2014
4/8/2014
5/23/2014
5/23/2014
8/4/2014
6/9/2014
7/30/2014
6/10/2014
6/12/2014
6/11/2014
7/16/2010
7/16/2015
9/8/2014
7/16/2010
7/16/2010
7/16/2010
7/29/2014
10/21/2010
7/16/2010
10/6/2010
7/16/2010
7/16/2010
7/16/2010

A-14

Florida Documents Tracking - Miscellaneous Electronic Files
EHSO Manual Chapter 27
EHSO Manual Chapter 28
EHSO Manual Chapter 30
EHSO Manual Chapter 31
EHSO Manual Chapter 32
EHSO Manual Chapter 33
EHSO Manual Chapter 34
EHSO Manual Chapter 35
EHSO Manual Chapter 36
Office of Institutions
Appendix A Lesson Plan - Housekeeping for Inmates
Appendix B - International Biohazard Symbol
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Inspector General
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of Institutions
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections

Power Equipment, Tools & Industrial Equipment
Automotive and Heavy Equipment Safety
Work Crew Safety
Chainsaw & Tree Felling Safety
Institutional Sanitation
Biomedical Waste Handling & Disposal
Risk Management
Food Service
Clipper Shave Sanitation
Emergency Preparedness
Bloodborne Pathogens exposure control plan
Bloodborne Pathogens exposure control plan
Bloodborne Pathogens exposure control plan
Environmental Health & Safety Program
Inmate Orientation
Protective Management
Correctional Officer Supervision Standards
Relief Factor for Staffing Security Posts
Employment Gender Policy for Security Positions
Daily Security Roster Apalachee East Unit - Day
Daily Security Roster Apalachee East Unit - Administrative
Daily Security Roster Apalachee East Unit - Night
East Unit Master Staffing Rosters
Daily Security Roster Apalachee East Unit - Swing
Security Staff Utilization
Daily Security Roster Apalachee West Unit - Day
Daily Security Roster Apalachee West Unit - Administrative
Daily Security Roster Apalachee West Unit - Night
East Unit Master Staffing Rosters
Daily Security Roster Apalachee East Unit - Swing
Apalachee CI Overtime Report YTD
Apalachee CI Audit - ACA Report - Visiting Committee Report
Apalachee East Unit (Operational Review)
Apalachee East Unit (Operational Review)
Apalachee East Unit -Un-Announced Security Audit
Apalachee East Unit - Operational Self-Audit
Apalachee East Unit - Operational Self-Audit
Apalachee East Unit - Operational Self-Audit
Apalachee East Unit - Operational Self-Audit
APACI - Negative or Disciplinary Transfers over the last 12 months
Critical, Serious, Violent, and Sexually Based Incidents as reported via MINS system
Post Order # 3
Post Order # 4
Post Order # 9
Post Order # 10
Post Order # 16
Post Order # 17
Post Order # 18
Post Order # 37
Post Order # 55
Post Order # 56
Monthly Use of Force Report
Monthly Use of Force Report
Monthly Use of Force Report
Monthly Use of Force Report
Monthly Use of Force Report
Monthly Use of Force Report
Monthly Use of Force Report

A-15

27.01 - 27.07 & 28.08
28.01 - 28.13
30.01 - 30.07
31.01 - 31.09
32.01 - 32.08
33.01 - 33.16
34.01 - 34.13
35.01 - 35.04
36.01 - 36.08
602.009
N/A

7/19/2010
7/23/2010
1/3/2011
9/15/2010
10/6/2010
10/6/2010
5/10/2011
10/6/2010
9/25/2014
7/23/2014
N/A

108.014
33-601.100
33-602.221
N/A
33-602.602
33-602.603
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
602.030
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Mar-05
10/8/2014
2/12/2015
3/6/2014
N/A
6/19/1990
12/20/1992
9/11/2015
9/11/2015
9/11/2015
9/2/2015
9/11/2015
6/2/2014
9/11/2015
9/11/2015
9/11/2015
8/31/2015
9/11/2015
8/31/2015
9/17/2014
7/13/2015
12/9/2013
10/13/2014
7/9/2014
3/30/2015
6/29/2015
12/16/2014
N/A
N/A
3/17/2015
1/30/2015
3/17/2015
3/17/2015
7/24/2014
12/1/2014
1/28/2015
4/20/2015
8/24/2015
12/1/2014
4/1/2015
8/1/2015
2/1/2015
1/1/2015
7/1/2015
6/1/2015
3/1/2015

Florida Documents Tracking - Miscellaneous Electronic Files
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Office of Institutions
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections

Monthly Use of Force Report
Facility Master Activity Schedule
Facility Capacity by Housing Unit Classification
Institution Visits and Tours and Programs for the Public
Policy that addresses facility tours by executive staff
Response Plan (Bomb Threat)
Response Plan (Computer Security Incident)
Response Plan (Disturbance)
Response Plan (Employee Work Stoppage)
Response Plan (Escape)
Response Plan (Evacuation)
Response Plan (Fire)
Response Plan (HazMat)
Response Plan (Hostage)
Response Plan (Medical)
Response Plan (Natural Disaster)
Response Plan (Outside Assault)
Classification - Transfer of Inmates
Inmate Discipline - General Policy
Inmate Discipline - Terminology & Definitions
Rules of Prohibited Conduct & Penalties for Infractions
Control of Contraband
Use of Force
Inmate Transfer Approval Process
County Procedure
Personal Body Alarms
Arsenal and Ready Room Equipment
Special Management Spit Shield
ICS Simulations and Response Plan Drills/Exercises
Radio Operations
Unannounced Security Audit (Northwest Florida Reception Center)
Unannounced Security Audit (Apalachee Correctional Institution)
Unannounced Security Audit (Dade Correctional Institution)
Unannounced Security Audit (Everglades Correctional Institution)
Unannounced Security Audit (Homestead Correctional Institution)
Unannounced Security Audit (Baker Correctional Institution)
Unannounced Security Audit (Reception and Medical Center)
Unannounced Security Audit (Union Correctional Institution)
Unannounced Security Audit (Lowell Correctional Institution)
Unannounced Security Audit (Florida Women's Reception Center)
Security Audits (Operational Review Schedule)
Relief factor for Correctional Officers Authority
Unannounced Security Audit (Apalachee East Unit Correctional Institution)
Unannounced Security Audit (Baker Correctional Institution)
Unannounced Security Audit (Dade Correctional Institution)
Unannounced Security Audit (Everglades Correctional Institution)
Unannounced Security Audit (Florida Women's Reception Center)
Unannounced Security Audit (Homestead Correctional Institution)
Unannounced Security Audit (Lowell Correctional Institution)
Unannounced Security Audit (NWFRC Main Unit)
Unannounced Security Audit (R.M.C. - Main Unit)
OPPAGA No Inmate Contact Region I, II, III and Admin Leave
Regional Director's Briefing Report
Apalachee Inmate Demographics (Facility Population Report)
Apalachee Correctional Institution (Available Bunks
Apalachee - MINS Incident Report
Apalachee - MINS Incident Report
Apalachee - MINS Incident Report

A-16

N/A
N/A
N/A
33-602.230
944.23
602.012
206.009
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
33-601.215
33-601.301
33-601.302
33-601.314
33-602.203
33-602.210
601.219
602.006
602.023
602.025
602.028
602.038
602.041
SA 14-12
SA 14-27
SA 14-21
SA 14-05
SA 13-33
SA 15-09
SA 15-15
SA 13-18
SA 14-28
SA 15-01
N/A
33-208.201 F.A.C
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Region I
DC52 102
Incident # 0000640539
Incident # 0000641089
Incident # 0000641087

5/1/2015
N/A
N/A
10/28/2014
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
9/19/2000
2/12/2015
1/28/2007
11/4/2014
1/7/2014
11/5/2013
2/4/2015
8/24/2015
3/18/2015
9/4/2014
8/24/2015
9/8/2014
11/26/2014
5/23/2014
10/17/2014
9/4/2014
3/3/2014
11/12/2013
3/27/2015
6/30/2015
7/19/2013
10/31/2014
1/16/2015
2015-2016
FY - 2014-2015
12/13/2014
3/23/2015
8/18/2014
2/23/2014
1/5/2015
11/4/2013
10/27/2014
5/18/2014
6/22/2015
N/A
9/11/2015
9/17/2015
9/13/2015
8/11/2015
9/16/2015
8/13/2015

Florida Documents Tracking - Miscellaneous Electronic Files
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Governor
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of Institutions
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Department of Management Services
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of Human Resources
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
OPPAGA
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections Office of Re-Entry Bureau of Education
Florida Department of Corrections Office of Re-Entry Bureau of Education
Florida Department of Corrections Office of Re-Entry Bureau of Education
Florida Department of Corrections Office of Re-Entry Bureau of Education
Florida Department of Corrections Office of Re-Entry Bureau of Education
Florida Department of Corrections Office of Re-Entry Bureau of Education

Apalachee - MINS Incident Report
Apalachee - MINS Incident Report
Lewd & Lascivious Incidents since @ Apalachee
Termination/Resignation Listing (Apalachee)
Technical Manual - Inmate Risk Management System & Sexual Risk Index (IRMS/SRI)
Custody by sex & location
Inmate Orientation Handbook
Executive Order
Corrections Integrated Needs Assessment System (CINAS) - Results from Psychometric Study
Inmate Orientation
Current Salary Levels by CO by Facility
Average CO Experience
Oppaga 2015 Tenure as FDOE Employee for each CO Separation by Facility
Overtime Hours and Earnings by CO and Facility
Promotions by facility
Promotions Individual Employees
Separation by Facility
Separation by Individual Employees
Actual End of Month CO Staffing by Facility
Authorized CO Positions by Facility
Salary Incentive Program for Full-Time Officers
Notification of Pay Additives
Basic Recruit Training Programs for Law Enforcement, Correctional, and Correctional Probation
General Training Programs; Requirements and Specifications
Classes In Security Services Eligible for Criminal Justice Incentive Pay
CO Appointment Rate
Comparison of Benefits
Correction Officer series vacancies 5 years (Excel Spread Sheet)
Turnover Correction Officer Series All Institutions (Excel Spread Sheet)
Turnover Correction Officer Series Statewide (Excel Spread Sheet)
OPPAGA Training Data Course 2012 - 2015
Outside employment
Chapter 33-601 - Classification and Central Records
Chapter 33-601 - Classification and Central Records
Chapter 33-601 - Classification and Central Records
Chapter 33-601 - Classification and Central Records
Chapter 33-601 - Classification and Central Records
Chapter 33-601 - Classification and Central Records
Chapter 33-601 - Classification and Central Records
Chapter 33-601 - Classification and Central Records
Chapter 33-601 - Classification and Central Records
Chapter 33-601 - Classification and Central Records
Chapter 33-601 - Classification and Central Records
Chapter 33-601 - Classification and Central Records
Chapter 33-601 - Classification and Central Records
Chapter 33-601 - Classification and Central Records
Chapter 33-601 - Classification and Central Records
Chapter 33-601 - Classification and Central Records
Chapter 33-601 - Classification and Central Records
Vehicle Purchases
Faith and Character Based Prison effect on Recidivism
Outside Employment notification application
Adult Academic Education Programs
Correspondence Study Courses Program
IDEA (Special Education)
Career and Technical Education
Prison Dog Training Program
Inmate Teaching Assistant Training Program

A-17

Incident # 0000637916
Incident # 0000637916
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NI1-091
15-134
N/A
601.21
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
943.22
110.2035(7)/216.251(3)/60L-32.0012
11B-35.002
11B-35.001
N/A
PIM 14-20-01
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
208.013
33-601.721
33-601.722
33-601.723
33-601.724
33-601.725
33-601.726
33-601.727
33-601.728
33-601.729
33-601.730
33-601.731
33-601.732
33-601.733
33-601.734
33-601.735
33-601.736
33-601.737
N/A
09-38
DC2-831
F.S. 955.801
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

7/31/2015
7/31/2015
01/01/2010 - 09/01/2015
01/01/2015 to 09/08/2015
7/24/2014
7/31/2015
11/5/2014
7/9/2015
5/21/2012
8/15/2014
8/31/2015
8/31/2015
FY - 2014-2015
FY - 2014-2015
2012-2015 to Current
2012-2015 to Current
2012-2015 to Current
2012-2015 to Current
2012-2015 to Current
2012-2015
FY - 2015
8/13/2015
5/29/2014
5/29/2014
10/10/2000
7/25/2014
1/1/2015
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
8/27/2014
2/13/2012
10/12/2005
2/21/2013
7/12/2011
3/29/2012
2/21/2013
8/12/2013
3/6/2014
2/21/2013
5/27/2002
11/4/2014
9/24/2012
6/28/2012
11/28/2010
11/18/2001
9/29/2003
3/22/2012
2010 - 2015
10/1/2009
8/20/2012
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Florida Documents Tracking - Miscellaneous Electronic Files
Florida Department of Corrections Office of Re-Entry Bureau of Education
Florida Department of Corrections Office of Re-Entry Bureau of Education
Florida Department of Corrections Office of Re-Entry Bureau of Education
Florida Department of Corrections Office of Re-Entry Bureau of Education
Florida Department of Corrections Office of Re-Entry Bureau of Education
Florida Department of Corrections Office of Re-Entry Bureau of Education
Florida Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Email from Angela Gordon
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Email from Angela Gordon
Email from Angela Gordon
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Office of Institutions
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Corrections

Library Services
Secondary Education Program (Smart Horizons Career Online High School)
Title I
Limited Academic Internist Content
Adult Academic Education Orientation Program
Institutional Jobs Credentialing Program (IJCP)
Applications Filed Per Institution 2014
CO Trainee County's by Facility
TEA Numbers by Institution
Org Charts
Lowell ACA Summary Sheet
Lowell Operational Review 2014
Staffing positions/vacancies
ACA audit report
2015 - 1st quarter self-audit
2014 - 4th quarter self-audit
2014 - 3rd quarter self-audit
Un-Announced Security Audit - Review Findings
Total Population Break Down
Non-Security Staffing levels
Revised Bed Space Capacity Lowell CI
Revised Bed Space Capacity Annex
Briefing Document
Florida Women's reception center ACA Summary
Dade CI ACA Accreditation Audit
Reaccreditation Audit
Accreditation for corrections Non-Mandatory Standards
ACA Compliance Tally
Email from Debra Cox to John Holtz
Accreditation for corrections standards (Reaccreditation Audit)
Baker CI - Org Charts
Dorm Capacities
Inmate housing assignments
Inmate Activity Schedule
Total Staffing & vacancies
Reception to release Opportunity Workshop
ACA Compliance Audit Report
Inmate Health Profile - Outpatient MH pop

A-18

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
HSSO162-53

N/A
3/1/2012
N/A
2015-16
2015-16
N/A
2014
9/23/2015
10/30/2015
12/18/2014
9/9/2015
6/11/2014
10/5/2015
11/7/2012
8/6/2015
5/21/2015
3/31/2015
10/27/2014
10/5/2015
10/5/2015
3/23/2015
7/14/2009
N/A
9/23/2015
7/7/1905
10/9/2013
10/9/2013
10/9/2013
6/9/2015
9/26/2014
N/A
2/4/2015
10/6/2015
10/8/2015
N/A
7/6/1905
4/10/2015
10/7/2015

APPENDIX B
LISTING OF INMATE PROGRAMS OFFERED

APPENDIX B: Listing of Inmate Programs Offered (All FDC Programs, Including Description, Target Population, and Capacity)
Listing of Inmate
Programs Offered

Adult Basic Education (ABE)

General Educational
Development (GED)

Brief Description of Program

Provides basic education
(mathematics, reading, language,
and workforce readiness skills)

Provides education to those inmates
in preparation for GED certificate
testing

Voluntary Literacy

Provides basic education instruction

Special Education

Specially designed instruction that
meets requirements of federal law
as reflected in Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

Target Population/Eligibility
Inmates without high school diploma or GED who have a TABE
grade equivalency score of 8.9 or lower in reading, mathematics,
language, or total battery and who are appropriately ranked in
CINAS/AIRS system; or if they meet mandatory literacy requirements
of Florida statute 944.801, which requires inmates attend ABE if they:
•
Have two years or more remaining on sentence upon
admission to FDC
•
Have not achieved a total TABE battery score of more than
6.0 grade level
•
Have not been enrolled in ABE or equivalent courses for at
least 150 hours, and:
o Are not sentenced to life or death
o Are not housed in a work release center, road
prison, work camp, or vocational center, and
o Are not specifically exempted due to health
reasons

Inmates with no documented high school diploma and academic
skills ranging from 9.0 – 12.9 grade level on TABE test and who are
appropriately ranked in CINAS/AIRS system

Inmates who are assigned to institutional full time assignments that
prevent participation in academic programs, whose TABE scores are
between 0.0 and 12.9

Capacity

Not individually
identified. Total
capacity for ABE, GED,
Voluntary Literacy,
Special Education and
Title 1 = 6,902
Offered at 79 facilities

Not individually
identified. Total
capacity for ABE, GED,
Voluntary Literacy,
Special Education and
Title 1 = 6,902
Offered at 79 facilities
Not individually
identified. Total
capacity for ABE, GED,
Voluntary Literacy,
Special Education and
Title 1 = 6,902
Offered at 65 facilities

Inmates must be under 22 years of age, have a verified special
education history, and have not earned a high school diploma

B-1

1,350

Listing of Inmate
Programs Offered

Brief Description of Program

Target Population/Eligibility

Capacity
Not individually
identified. Total
capacity for ABE, GED,
Voluntary Literacy,
Special Education and
Title 1 = 6,902

Title 1

Federal grant program which
supplements education services for
neglected and/or delinquent
students

Secondary Education Program
(Smart Horizons Career Online
High School Diploma)

Offers career-based online high
school diplomas with the goal of
preparing adults for transition into
the workplace

Inmates with TABE reading score between 5.0 and 9.0 with no high
school diploma or GED. Priority is given to those within three years
or less of release

341

Designed to train inmates as inmate
teaching assistants that supplement
lack of funding for academic
teachers in FDC

Eligibility Criteria:
•
GED or high school diploma
•
TABE Level A total battery score of grade 11.0 or higher
•
Release date of two or more years after completion of
inmate teaching assistant training program
•
No more than one disciplinary report which resulted in
placement in disciplinary confinement in the past 12
months
•
No disciplinary actions in an education environment

No capacity provided,
available at all major
institutions

All inmates may participate, except those in reception, orientation, or
“in-transit” status

Available at all major
institutions

All inmates may access general libraries

Room capacity of all
general libraries is
2,071

All inmates may access law libraries

Room capacity of all
law libraries is 1,566

Eligibility Criteria:
•
Prior work history
•
Good institutional adjustment
•
Occupational aptitude and interest as expressed by inmate
•
Priority assessment ranking per CINAS/AIRS system

1,404

Inmates under the age of 22 who have not earned a high school
diploma or GED and are enrolled in an academic or vocational
course of study for a minimum of 15 hours per week

Offered at 20 facilities

Inmate Teaching Assistant
Program

Correspondence Study Course
Program

General Library

Law Library

Career and Technical Education
(Vocational Programs)

Inmates are allowed to participate
in post-secondary correspondence
study programs with
colleges/universities
Inmates in correctional facilities are
provided access to a physical
general library with access to books
and periodicals
Inmates in correctional facilities are
provided access to a physical law
library with access to the minimum
required legal materials set forth by
the courts
A wide range of training and entry
level programs that provide job
skills to inmates to increase their
employment prospects

B-2

Listing of Inmate
Programs Offered

Brief Description of Program

Target Population/Eligibility

Prison Dog Training Program

Inmates participate in the training
of dogs for social and obedience
skills

Eligibility Criteria:
•
Prefer inmates with a minimum of 18-24 months left to
serve and no history of crime against animals

Chapel Library Program

A limited sized religious library is
provided in the facility chapel

All general population inmates are eligible to participate. Inmates in
confinement status can request materials to be delivered to them

Faith and Character Based
Residential Program

Primary Worship Opportunities
Religious Diet Program

Religious Education Classes

100 Hour Transition Skills
Program

Thinking for Change (T4C)

Veteran Dorm Program

Residential program designed to
develop inmates’ spiritual and
moral resources that build
character and allow for skill
development that will support
successful re-entry to society
Facilities provide a variety of weekly
worship opportunities to inmates
Inmates with sincerely-held beliefs
that have dietary obligations are
provided kosher meals in lieu of a
regular meal
Facilities provide various religious
education opportunities for inmates
to further study details of religions
Statutorily (944.7065) mandated
program to provide inmates with
fundamental skills and resources in
the areas of employment, life skills
training, job placement, and access
to support services with the goal of
increasing their chance of
successful re-entry into society
Cognitive-behavioral classroom
program designed by the National
Institute of Corrections (NIC) with
the goal of reducing recidivism.
The main components of the
program are cognitive self-change,
social, and problem solving skills
Inmates with military service can be
placed in a residential setting that
provides a variety of programming
designed to improve their chance of
success upon release

A voluntary program for inmates in general population with no
discipline in the past three months

Capacity
No capacity provided,
operated at 21
facilities
No capacity provided,
available at all major
institutions

6,488

All inmates are eligible to participate

Available at all
institutions

Any inmate is eligible, but must request participation and articulate
reasons why kosher diets meet their sincere religious beliefs

Available at all
institutions

All general population inmates are eligible to participate

Available at all
institutions

A mandatory program for all inmates within 18 months of release

Estimated capacity:
1,395 (based on 46.5
contractual facilitators
that can accommodate
30 inmates at a time)

Inmate must be within 36 months of release and be pre-screened
through a brief interview

No capacity provided;
however, offered at 24
facilities and each
group has capacity of
12 inmates. Estimated
capacity: 288

Eligibility:
•
Verified military service
•
Honorable discharge
•
No greater than 60 months to release

738

B-3

Listing of Inmate
Programs Offered
Substance Abuse Assessment and
Screening

Character Awareness and
Motivation Program (CAMP)

Brief Description of Program
This is an activity that determines
inmates’ program needs. It is not a
program. Inmates are screened at
reception to determine their
substance abuse treatment needs
For those youthful offenders at
Lancaster CI who display poor
institutional adjustment. It
supplements the physical
component (training and drills) of
the Youthful Offender program with
academic programs, betterment
programs, substance abuse
treatment, and mental health
programs

Community Based Residential
Therapeutic Community

Substance abuse programming for
inmates in community release
centers

Substance Abuse Counselors at
Department-Operated Community
Release Centers

Substance abuse programming for
inmates at FDC operated
community release centers

Integrated Co-Occurring Re-Entry
and Evaluation (I-CORE) Program

Grant funded program at Jefferson
CI for inmates with co-occurring
substance abuse and mental health
disorders

Target Population/Eligibility

Capacity

All inmates are screened at reception

Conducted at 5
reception centers

Eligibility:
•
Must be housed at Lancaster CI
•
Must display poor institutional adjustment to the Youthful
Offender program

50

Eligibility Requirements:
•
Mandated for treatment
•
In community custody
•
Within 12 months of release with sufficient time left to serve
to participate in a program that lasts from 6 to 12 months
•
Has a priority AIRS ranking
•
Has a psychoactive substance use disorder
Eligibility Requirements:
•
Mandated for treatment
•
In community custody
•
Within 14 months of release with sufficient time left to serve
to participate in a program that lasts from 6 to 12 months
•
Has a priority AIRS ranking
•
Has a psychoactive substance use disorder
Eligibility Requirements:
•
Mandated for treatment
•
Mental health grade of 2 or higher
•
Within 36 months of release with sufficient time left to serve
to participate in a program that lasts from 9 to 12 months
•
Is returning to Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, or Wakulla
Counties
•
Has a priority AIRS ranking
•
Has a psychoactive substance use disorder

B-4

338

655

68

Listing of Inmate
Programs Offered

Intensive Outpatient Program

Substance Abuse Prevention and
Education

Brief Description of Program
A 4-6 month outpatient substance
abuse program focused on
changing drug abuse and criminal
behaviors. Inmates participate for
a minimum of 12 hours of
counselor-supervised activities per
week
Substance abuse educational
services that are provided to
inmates in lieu of substance abuse
treatment

In-Prison Residential Therapeutic
Community

9-12 month residential therapeutic
community focused on inmate
substance abuse needs

Substance Abuse Transitional ReEntry Centers

A modified therapeutic community
for inmates in community release
centers

Youthful Offender Outpatient
Substance Abuse Program

Program at Sumter CI to provide
substance abuse programming to
youthful offenders

Suwannee CI Extended Day
Program for Youthful Offenders
Age 17 and Under

Extended day program (boot campstyle program) for inmates at
Suwannee CI

Target Population/Eligibility
Eligibility Requirements:
•
Mandated for treatment
•
Within 36 months of release with sufficient time left to serve
to participate in a program that lasts at least 4 months
•
Has a priority AIRS ranking
•
Has a psychoactive substance use disorder
Eligibility Requirements:
•
Mandated for treatment
•
Within 3-6 months of release
•
Has a priority AIRS ranking
Eligibility Requirements:
•
Mandated for treatment
•
Within 36 months of release with sufficient time left to serve
to participate in a program that lasts at least 4 months
•
Has a priority AIRS ranking
•
Has a psychoactive substance use disorder
Eligibility Requirements:
•
Meets criteria for placement in a community release center
•
Mandated for treatment
•
Sufficient time left to serve to participate in a program that
lasts at least 6 to 12 months
•
Has a priority AIRS ranking
•
Has a psychoactive substance use disorder
Eligibility Requirements:
•
Meets the definition of a youthful offender
•
Mandated for treatment
•
Within 36 months of release and has sufficient time left to
serve to participate in a program that lasts at least 4
months
•
Has a priority AIRS ranking
•
Has a psychoactive substance use disorder
Must be classified as a youthful offender and age 17 or younger

B-5

Capacity

1,466

2,306
Note: 1,296 are ReEntry Center beds

954

867

24

60

Listing of Inmate
Programs Offered

Brief Description of Program

Target Population/Eligibility

Capacity

Basic Training Program

Provides boot camp-style
environment and programming for
offenders 24 years of age and
younger

Eligibility Requirements:
•
Must be sentenced pursuant to Chapter 958, Youthful
Offender statute, or designated as a youthful offender by
the department (first-time offender, age 24 or under serving
10 years or less. Cannot be a capital offense or a life
felon)
•
Must be eligible for release

506

Extended Day Program

A boot camp-style program that
provides 16 hours of day time
programming for youthful offenders

Must be sentenced as a youthful offender

Estimated capacity:
1,935
Offered at 8 facilities

Provides housing and transitional
services to soon-to-be-released
inmates. Inmates in the CRCs can
be employed in the community and
participate in a therapeutic
community

There are four types of assignments within a CRC, and each has their
specific eligibility criteria:
•
Community Work Release – Portion of the program that
allows inmates to work in the community
o Inmates with non-advanceable release dates (85%
sentence) must be within 14 months of release
o Inmates with advanceable release dates must be
within 19 months
•
Center Work Assignments - Portion of the program that
allows inmate to hold a job assignment in the center
(maintenance, food service) or be assigned to outside work
details
o Inmates with non-advanceable release dates (85%
sentence) must be within 19 months of release
o Inmates with advanceable release dates must be
within 28 months
•
Transition – Portion of the program that provides inmates
substance abuse programming
o Inmates with non-advanceable release dates (85%
sentence) must be within 28 months of release
o Inmates with advanceable release dates must be
within 36 months
•
Community-Based Therapeutic Program – Portion of the
program that provides transitional services (substance
abuse treatment, education/vocational, self-betterment)
while in the community
o Inmates release dates must be no less than 6
months and no greater than 12 months

Community Release Centers
(CRCs)

B-6

3,895

Listing of Inmate
Programs Offered

Brief Description of Program

Program designed for long-term
offenders who will be released at
some time from prison. The goal is
to help better prepare them for
return to society
Similar to the LIFERs program at
Sumter CI. Sponsored by Florida
International University, the goal of
Corrections Transition Program
this program for long-term inmates
is to better prepare them for
eventual release to society
The agency has established three
re-entry centers that focus on
Contracted Re-Entry Centers
successful re-entry and preparing
inmates for transition back to the
community
FDC has established re-entry
facilities that focus on successful reRe-Entry Facilities
entry and preparing inmates for
transition back to the community
Sources: Data provided by FDC in September 2015
Learning to Improve the Future by
Exercising Response Strategies
(LIFERS)

Target Population/Eligibility

Accepts anyone who is referred and any self-referrals, in accordance
with class size

Accepts anyone who is referred and any self-referrals, in accordance
with class size

Capacity

92

40

Inmates musts be within 36 months of release and have no detainers
from other countries. Additionally, inmates must be released to one
of the counties served by the re-entry center

1,296

Inmates musts be within 36 months of release and have no detainers
from other countries. Additionally, inmates must be released to one
of the counties served by the re-entry center

Available at 3 facilities

B-7

APPENDIX C
DEMOGRAPHICS AND SUCCESS MEASURES FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAMMING

APPENDIX C: Demographics and Success Measures for Substance Abuse Programming
Program

Current
Slots

Number of
Inmates
Participants
(2013-2014)

Sex M/F

Race

Age

Success Rate
(2013-2014)

Intensive
Outpatient
Program

1,466

4,559

92.6%/7.4%

Black – 44.6%
White – 51.4%
Other – 4.0%

91.7%

Residential
Therapeutic
Community – In
Community
Release Centers
and Prisons

1,292

3,510

87.5%/12.5%

Black – 42.9%
White – 54.4%
Other – 2.7%

Substance Abuse
Program Center

867

1,706
(enrolled)

69.1%/30.9%

Black – 25.9%
White – 72.1%
Other – 2.0%

Under 18 – 0.0%
18-24: 14.3%
25-29: 18.9%
30-34: 19.5%
35-39: 12.6%
40-44: 11.2%
45+: 23.5%
Under 18 – 0.0%
18-24: 13.5%
25-29: 22.7%
30-34: 20.6%
35-39: 14.4%
40-44: 9.9%
45+: 18.9%
Under 18 – 0.0%
18-24: 12.0%
25-29: 17.1%
30-34: 19.8%
35-39: 14.9%
40-44: 13.0%
45+: 23.2%

Readiness Group

91.4%/8.6%

Black – 41.4%
White – 54.4%
Other – 4.2%

Alumni Group

87.2%/12.8%

Black – 43.0%
White – 52.8%
Other – 4.2%

C-1

Under 18 – 0.0%
18-24: 12.9%
25-29: 18.8%
30-34: 17.6%
35-39: 12.7%
40-44: 11.2%
45+: 26.8%
Under 18 – 0.0%
18-24: 6.2%
25-29: 17.1%
30-34: 18.7%
35-39: 14.7%
40-44: 12.3%
45+: 31.0%

2-Year
Recommitment
Rate (for Inmates
Released in
2011-2012)
Completers:
24.0%
NonCompleters:
27.9%

3-Year
Recommitment
Rate (for Inmates
Released in 20102011)
Completers:
34.7%
Non-Completers:
40.2%

63.6%

Completers:
22.9%
NonCompleters:
24.8%

Completers:
28.6%
Non-Completers:
41.9%

Community
Based
Programs:
80.4%

Completers:
12.8%
NonCompleters:
19.1%

Completers:
17.5%
Non-Completers:
32.1%

Behind the
Fence
Programs:
78.3%
None Available

None Available

None Available

None Available

None Available

None Available

Program

Post-Release
Transitional
Housing

Work Release
Substance Abuse
Programs

Current
Slots

Number of
Inmates
Participants
(2013-2014)

Sex M/F

Race

Age

Success Rate
(2013-2014)

144

661

86.7%/13.3%

Black – 40.1%
White – 58.3%
Other – 1.6%

61.1%

87.6%/12.4%

Black – 36.6%
White – 60.3%
Other – 3.1%

Under 18 – 0.0%
18-24: 5.5%
25-29: 9.3%
30-34: 12.2%
35-39: 12.7%
40-44: 13.1%
45+: 47.2%
Under 18 – 0.0%
18-24: 13.5%
25-29: 22.5%
30-34: 23.1%
35-39: 15.2%
40-44: 9.7%
45+: 16.0%

2-Year
Recommitment
Rate (for Inmates
Released in
2011-2012)
Completers:
14.2%
NonCompleters:
33.7%

3-Year
Recommitment
Rate (for Inmates
Released in 20102011)
Completers:
27.5%
Non-Completers:
41.7%

Source: FDC Bureau of Transition and Substance Abuse Treatment Services Annual Report FY 2013-2014
Definitions:
•
Alumni Group - weekly continuing care groups for inmates who have completed the Intensive Outpatient Program or a therapeutic community.
•
Successful Outcome/Exit - denotes compliance with program requirements that results in program completion.
•
Unsuccessful Outcome/Exit - denotes noncompliance with program requirements resulting in termination from the program and non-completion.
•
Administrative Outcome/Exit - denotes type of program outcome that is neither success nor failure in the program, and is not counted when calculating success
rates.
•
Success Rate - successful exits divided by total of successful exits and unsuccessful exits.
•
Recommitment Rate - the percentage of program releases who are re-incarcerated within a given time period. Includes returns for a new offense or technical
violation.

C-2

APPENDIX D
FLORIDA PROGRAM SERVICES INVENTORY

APPENDIX D: Florida Program Services Inventory

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Academic Education Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

ABE

Funding Source

GED

Voluntary
Literacy

GRF & ABE Grant

Data Provided

Locations

Locations

Locations

APALACHEE EAST UNIT

1,278

X

X

X

APALACHEE WEST UNIT

799

X

X

X

ARCADIA ROAD PRISON

95
X

X

X

ATLANTIC C.R.C.

42

AVON PARK C.I.

937

AVON PARK WORK CAMP

493

BAKER C.I.

1,100

BAKER RE-ENTRY CENTR

420

BAKER WORK CAMP

275

BAY C.F.

973

BERRYDALE FRSTRY CMP

126

BIG PINE KEY R.P.

58

BLACKWATER C.F.

1,989

Special Education

Title 1

IDEA Federal Grant
and GRF

Title 1 Grant

Slots (Included in
Total Student
Capacity)

Locations

70

40

X

X

X

Secondary
Ed. (Smart
Total Student Horizons) HS
Capacity
Diploma

Capacity

GRF

Capacity

All Major
Institutions

All Major Institutions

Room Capacity Room Capacity

30

19

132

X

X

60

X

X

20

X

10

X

10

146

GRF

20

X

BRIDGES OF POMPANO

No funding

13

X

149

GRF

20

80

BRIDGES OF ORLANDO

Law Library

GRF and ABE
Grant

28

118

BRIDGES OF LAKE CITY

General
Library

60

BRIDGES OF COCOA

136

Correspondence
Study Course
Program

176

BRADENTON BRIDGE
BRIDGES OF JACKSONVILLE

Inmate
Teaching
Assistant
Program

24

12

5

26

27

98

X

X

15

BRIDGES OF SANTA FE

143

X

X

10

BROWARD BRIDGE

168

X

X

1,288

X

X

X

60

8

20

X

X

X

80

50

24

X

X

X

25

CALHOUN C.I.
CALHOUN WORK CAMP
CENTURY C.I.
CENTURY WORK CAMP
CFRC-EAST
CFRC-MAIN
CFRC-SOUTH

20

273
1,285
269
822
1,125

20

7

7

20

8

105

CHARLOTTE C.I.

1,268

X

X

X

COLUMBIA ANNEX

1,550

X

X

X

40

D-1

X

132

31

29

X

132

62

43

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Academic Education Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

ABE

Funding Source

GRF & ABE Grant

Data Provided
COLUMBIA C.I.

GED

Voluntary
Literacy

Locations

Locations

Locations

Title 1

Special Education
IDEA Federal Grant
and GRF

Title 1 Grant

Slots (Included in
Total Student
Capacity)

Locations

Correspondence
Study Course
Program

General
Library

Law Library

GRF

GRF and ABE
Grant

No funding

GRF

GRF

Capacity

All Major
Institutions

All Major Institutions

Room Capacity Room Capacity

1,339

X

X

X

132

30

35

982

X

X

X

60

20

20

CROSS CITY EAST UNIT

424
278

X

X

X

60

1,478

X

X

X

60

45

25

X

X

X

132

57

24

X

X

X

40

30

964

X

X

X

1,381

X

X

X

X

X

X

90

X

X

X

70

DADE C.I.
DAYTONA CRC
DESOTO ANNEX
DESOTO WORK CAMP
EVERGLADES C.I.
EVERGLADES RE-ENTRY
FL.WOMENS RECPN.CTR
FLORIDA STATE PRISON
FORT PIERCE C.R.C.
FRANKLIN C.I.

1,428
1,448

749

FT. MYERS WORK CAMP

112

GRACEVILLE C.F.
GRACEVILLE WORK CAMP

60

24

40

45

50

12

225

15

10

25

25

30

35

84
1,278

FSP WEST UNIT

GAINESVILLE W.C.

X

415

423

GADSDEN RE-ENTRY CTR

70

276

FRANKLIN CI WORK CMP

GADSDEN C.F.

X

Capacity

Inmate
Teaching
Assistant
Program

CROSS CITY C.I.
CROSS CITY WORK CAMP

90

Secondary
Ed. (Smart
Total Student Horizons) HS
Capacity
Diploma

24

1,532
395
248
1,861
258

GULF C.I.

1,535

X

X

X

147

37

26

GULF C.I.- ANNEX

1,342

X

X

X

66

20

30

X

132

40

33

X

132

13

26

GULF FORESTRY CAMP

24

271

HAMILTON ANNEX

1,356

X

X

X

HAMILTON C.I.

1,122

X

X

X

HARDEE C.I.

1,512

X

X

X

110

59

35

X

X

X

60

28

9

X

X

X

132

49

30

HARDEE WORK CAMP

287

HERNANDO C.I.

417

HOLLYWOOD C.R.C.

149

HOLMES C.I.

1,134

100

70

D-2

X

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Academic Education Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

ABE

Funding Source

GRF & ABE Grant

Data Provided
HOLMES WORK CAMP
HOMESTEAD C.I.
JACKSON C.I.
JACKSON WORK CAMP
JACKSONVILLE BRIDGE
JEFFERSON C.I.
KISSIMMEE C.R.C.

IDEA Federal Grant
and GRF

Title 1 Grant

Slots (Included in
Total Student
Capacity)

Locations

Locations

Locations

666

X

X

X

1,341

X

X

X

140

X

X

1,141

X

X

X

X

X

X

30

X

X

X

260

X

X

X

X

X

X

Capacity

Inmate
Teaching
Assistant
Program

Correspondence
Study Course
Program

General
Library

Law Library

GRF

GRF and ABE
Grant

No funding

GRF

GRF

Capacity

All Major
Institutions

All Major Institutions

Room Capacity Room Capacity

292
90

26

18

160

78

55

12

18

88

12

12

X

176

22

8

X

15

X

66

X

274
40
80

24

150

LAKE C.I.

775
889

LANCASTER C.I.

440

PROGRAM
LARGO R.P.

Title 1

Special Education

Locations

LAKE CITY C.F.

LANCASTER W.C.

GED

Voluntary
Literacy

Secondary
Ed. (Smart
Total Student Horizons) HS
Capacity
Diploma

209
73

LAWTEY C.I.

795

X

X

X

90

20

20

LIBERTY C.I.

1,293

X

X

X

80

47

12

25

20

27

25

27

30

37

27

LIBERTY SOUTH UNIT
LOWELL ANNEX

415
1,381

X

X

X

LOWELL C.I.

967

X

X

X

LOWELL WORK CAMP

338
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

60

20

40

20

X

X

X

125

21

30

35

50

21

17

70

35

25

LOXAHATCHEE R.P.
MADISON C.I.
MADISON WORK CAMP
MARION C.I.
MARION WORK CAMP
MARTIN C.I.
MARTIN WORK CAMP
MAYO C.I. ANNEX

X

88

X

176

20

91
1,176

70

24

282
1,281

70

X

232

277
1,460
257
1,297

MAYO WORK CAMP

302

MIAMI NORTH C.R.C.

174

MOORE HAVEN C.F.

40

979

NWFRC ANNEX.

1,316

X

X

NWFRC MAIN UNIT.

1,297

X

X

X

D-3

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Academic Education Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

ABE

Funding Source

GRF & ABE Grant

Data Provided
OKALOOSA C.I.

850

OKALOOSA WORK CAMP

268

OKEECHOBEE C.I.

GED

Voluntary
Literacy

Locations

Locations

Locations

X

X

X

Title 1

Special Education
IDEA Federal Grant
and GRF

Title 1 Grant

Slots (Included in
Total Student
Capacity)

Locations

Secondary
Ed. (Smart
Total Student Horizons) HS
Capacity
Diploma

Capacity

19

8

14

8

30

26

26

15

13

10

X

PANAMA CITY C.R.C.

67

PENSACOLA C.R.C.

80
X

X

30

41
1,106

X

POLK WORK CAMP

289

PUTNAM C.I.

448

X

X

QUINCY ANNEX

394

X

X

R.M.C WORK CAMP

427

R.M.C.- MAIN UNIT

1,358

X

X

X

R.M.C.- WEST UNIT

844

X

X

X

40

97
635

4

10

1,051

22

22

334

X

X

1,389

X

X

SANTA ROSA C.I.

1,525

X

X

X

295

X

X

X

SHISA HOUSE EAST

15

X

X

SHISA HOUSE WEST

31

SUMTER WORK CAMP

145

X

SANTA ROSA ANNEX

SUMTER B.T.U.

Room Capacity Room Capacity

40

X

83

SUMTER ANNEX

All Major Institutions

25

134

ORLANDO C.R.C.

SUMTER C.I.

All Major
Institutions

20

144

ORLANDO BRIDGE

ST. PETE C.R.C.

Capacity

35

OPA LOCKA C.R.C.

SOUTH BAY C.F.

GRF

20

60
30

SANTA ROSA WORK CMP

GRF

63

X
X

SAGO PALM RE-ENTRY

No funding

29

X
X

S.F.R.C SOUTH UNIT

GRF

24

X
X

S.F.R.C.

Law Library

GRF and ABE
Grant

30

404

REENTRY CTR OF OCALA

General
Library

35

1,616

POLK C.I.

Correspondence
Study Course
Program

66

OKEECHOBEE WORK CAMP

PINELLAS C.R.C.

Inmate
Teaching
Assistant
Program

70
X

90
40

450

24

15

8

40

20

50

20

32

18

30
10

1,938
143
1,174

X

X

X

66

X

X

X

220

32
289

D-4

X

176

X

100

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Academic Education Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

ABE

GED

Funding Source

GRF & ABE Grant

Data Provided
SUNCOAST C.R.C.(FEM)

Voluntary
Literacy

Locations

Locations

Locations

1,199

X

X

X

SUWANNEE ANNEX

1,294

X

X

X

TALLAHASSEE C.R.C

Title 1

Special Education
IDEA Federal Grant
and GRF

Title 1 Grant

Slots (Included in
Total Student
Capacity)

Locations

Capacity

Inmate
Teaching
Assistant
Program

Correspondence
Study Course
Program

General
Library

Law Library

GRF

GRF and ABE
Grant

No funding

GRF

GRF

Capacity

All Major
Institutions

All Major Institutions

Room Capacity Room Capacity

162

SUWANNEE C.I
SUWANNEE WORK CAMP

Secondary
Ed. (Smart
Total Student Horizons) HS
Capacity
Diploma

100

X

200

40

25

X

132

64

48

332
111

TAYLOR ANNEX

1,365

X

X

X

90

65

49

TAYLOR C.I.

1,239

X

X

X

110

24

41

X

80

20

40

68

33

TAYLOR WORK CAMP
TOMOKA C.I.

407
1,251

X

X

TOMOKA CRC-285

110

X

X

15

TOMOKA CRC-290

80

X

X

25

1,947

X

X

X

420

X

X

X

30

TOMOKA CRC-298
TOMOKA WORK CAMP
TTH OF BARTOW

58
283
78

TTH OF DINSMORE

142

TTH OF KISSIMMEE

148

TTH OF TARPON SPRING
UNION C.I.
UNION WORK CAMP
W.PALM BEACH C.R.C.

83
30

50

148

WAKULLA ANNEX

1,496

X

X

X

140

WAKULLA C.I.

1,297

X

X

X

110

X

X

X

92

WAKULLA WORK CAMP
WALTON C.I.
WALTON WORK CAMP
ZEPHYRHILLS C.I.

TOTAL

24

24

50

40

50

27

39

22

422
1,158
272
658
99,581

X

X
79

X
79

50
65

1,350

D-5

20

6,902

341

-

-

6

16

2,071

1,566

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Vocational Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

Funding Source
Data Provided
APALACHEE EAST UNIT

1,278

APALACHEE WEST UNIT

799

ARCADIA ROAD PRISON

95

ATLANTIC C.R.C.

42

AVON PARK C.I.

937

AVON PARK WORK CAMP

493

BAKER C.I.

1,100

BAKER RE-ENTRY CENTR

420

BAKER WORK CAMP

275

BAY C.F.

973

BERRYDALE FRSTRY CMP

126

BIG PINE KEY R.P.

58

BLACKWATER C.F.

1,989

BRADENTON BRIDGE
BRIDGES OF COCOA
BRIDGES OF LAKE CITY

149

BRIDGES OF ORLANDO

146

BROWARD BRIDGE
CALHOUN C.I.
CALHOUN WORK CAMP
CENTURY C.I.

Primary
Worship
Opportunties

Religious
Diet
Program

Religious
Education
Classes

Corr. Foundation
Doners

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF/JAG Byrne
&RSAT Grant

GRF

Locations

All Major
Institutions

Capacity

All Institutions

All Institutions

All Institutions

# of Facilitator
Positions

Locations

Capacity

Prison Dog
Training

GRF and Perkins
Grant
Capacity

100 Hour
Transition
Thinking for
Skills Program
Change
Veteran Dorm

18

1

108

1

X

1

X

72

X

98
143
168
1,288

18

1

273
1,285

CENTURY WORK CAMP

269

CFRC-EAST

822

CFRC-MAIN

1,125

CFRC-SOUTH

Chapel
Library
Program

Faith and
Character
Based
Residential
Program

Career and
Technical
Education
(Vocational)

80
136

BRIDGES OF SANTA FE

Transition Programs

118

BRIDGES OF JACKSONVILLE

BRIDGES OF POMPANO

Religious Programs

1

X

X

1

105

CHARLOTTE C.I.

1,268

18

COLUMBIA ANNEX

1,550

18

120

D-6

1

X

1

X

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Vocational Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

Funding Source
Data Provided
COLUMBIA C.I.

Religious Programs

Transition Programs

Chapel
Library
Program

Faith and
Character
Based
Residential
Program

Primary
Worship
Opportunties

Religious
Diet
Program

Religious
Education
Classes

Corr. Foundation
Doners

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF/JAG Byrne
&RSAT Grant

GRF

Locations

All Major
Institutions

Capacity

All Institutions

All Institutions

All Institutions

# of Facilitator
Positions

Locations

Capacity

Career and
Technical
Education
(Vocational)

Prison Dog
Training

GRF and Perkins
Grant
Capacity

100 Hour
Transition
Thinking for
Skills Program
Change
Veteran Dorm

1,339

18

1

CROSS CITY C.I.

982

54

1

CROSS CITY EAST UNIT

424

CROSS CITY WORK CAMP
DADE C.I.
DAYTONA CRC
DESOTO ANNEX
DESOTO WORK CAMP
EVERGLADES C.I.
EVERGLADES RE-ENTRY
FL.WOMENS RECPN.CTR
FLORIDA STATE PRISON
FORT PIERCE C.R.C.
FRANKLIN C.I.

278
1,478
1,428
1,448

X

128

1

X

964

1
1

84
1,278
749

FT. MYERS WORK CAMP

112

18

1

X

36
X

1,532

GADSDEN RE-ENTRY CTR

395

GAINESVILLE W.C.

248

X

1,861
258

GULF C.I.

1,535

GULF C.I.- ANNEX

1,342

GULF FORESTRY CAMP

1

1,381

FSP WEST UNIT

GRACEVILLE WORK CAMP

143

415

423

GRACEVILLE C.F.

54

276

FRANKLIN CI WORK CMP

GADSDEN C.F.

1

-

18

1
128

271

HAMILTON ANNEX

1,356

18

HAMILTON C.I.

1,122

54

HARDEE C.I.

1,512

18

X

18

X

HARDEE WORK CAMP

287

HERNANDO C.I.

417

1

X

X
1
1
1
X
467

D-7

142

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Vocational Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

Funding Source
Data Provided
HOLLYWOOD C.R.C.
HOLMES C.I.
HOLMES WORK CAMP
HOMESTEAD C.I.
JACKSON C.I.
JACKSON WORK CAMP
JACKSONVILLE BRIDGE
JEFFERSON C.I.

Religious Programs

Transition Programs

Chapel
Library
Program

Faith and
Character
Based
Residential
Program

Primary
Worship
Opportunties

Religious
Diet
Program

Religious
Education
Classes

Corr. Foundation
Doners

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF/JAG Byrne
&RSAT Grant

GRF

Locations

All Major
Institutions

Capacity

All Institutions

All Institutions

All Institutions

# of Facilitator
Positions

Locations

Capacity

Career and
Technical
Education
(Vocational)

Prison Dog
Training

GRF and Perkins
Grant
Capacity

100 Hour
Transition
Thinking for
Skills Program
Change
Veteran Dorm

149
1,134

36

1

292
666

36

X

1

1,341

168

1

X

1

X

1

X

1

X

274
140
1,141

KISSIMMEE C.R.C.

150

LAKE C.I.

775

LAKE CITY C.F.

889

LANCASTER C.I.

440

36
108

62

PROGRAM
LANCASTER W.C.
LARGO R.P.

209

LAWTEY C.I.

795

LIBERTY C.I.

1,293

LIBERTY SOUTH UNIT
LOWELL ANNEX

70

73
18

1

1,381

36

967

72

LOWELL WORK CAMP

338

18

MADISON C.I.
MADISON WORK CAMP
MARION C.I.
MARION WORK CAMP
MARTIN C.I.
MARTIN WORK CAMP
MAYO C.I. ANNEX
MAYO WORK CAMP

876

415

LOWELL C.I.
LOXAHATCHEE R.P.

X

86

1
1

X

X
X

91
1,176

18

1

X

1

X

282
1,281

72

277

X

80

X

1,460

1

257
1,297

18

1

302

D-8

168

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Vocational Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

Funding Source
Data Provided
MIAMI NORTH C.R.C.
MOORE HAVEN C.F.
NWFRC MAIN UNIT.

1,297

OKALOOSA C.I.

850

OKALOOSA WORK CAMP

268
404

OPA LOCKA C.R.C.

144

ORLANDO BRIDGE

134

ORLANDO C.R.C.

83

PANAMA CITY C.R.C.

67

PENSACOLA C.R.C.

80

POLK WORK CAMP

448
394

R.M.C WORK CAMP

427

R.M.C.- MAIN UNIT

1,358

R.M.C.- WEST UNIT

844

S.F.R.C.
SAGO PALM RE-ENTRY

Corr. Foundation
Doners

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF/JAG Byrne
&RSAT Grant

GRF

Locations

All Major
Institutions

Capacity

All Institutions

All Institutions

All Institutions

# of Facilitator
Positions

Locations

Capacity

Capacity

100 Hour
Transition
Thinking for
Skills Program
Change
Veteran Dorm

56

X
1

X

X

1

54

172

1

X

128

1

X

X
1

1

97
635
1,051

X

334

18

SANTA ROSA ANNEX

1,389

18

SANTA ROSA C.I.

1,525

SANTA ROSA WORK CMP

Religious
Education
Classes

GRF and Perkins
Grant

289

PUTNAM C.I.

S.F.R.C SOUTH UNIT

Religious
Diet
Program

41
1,106

QUINCY ANNEX

REENTRY CTR OF OCALA

Primary
Worship
Opportunties

Prison Dog
Training

1,616

OKEECHOBEE WORK CAMP

POLK C.I.

Chapel
Library
Program

Faith and
Character
Based
Residential
Program

Career and
Technical
Education
(Vocational)

979
1,316

PINELLAS C.R.C.

Transition Programs

174

NWFRC ANNEX.

OKEECHOBEE C.I.

Religious Programs

1

X
1
1

295

SHISA HOUSE EAST

15

SHISA HOUSE WEST

31

D-9

X

240

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Vocational Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

Funding Source
Data Provided
SOUTH BAY C.F.
ST. PETE C.R.C.
SUMTER C.I.
SUMTER ANNEX
SUMTER B.T.U.
SUMTER WORK CAMP
SUNCOAST C.R.C.(FEM)

Chapel
Library
Program

Faith and
Character
Based
Residential
Program

Primary
Worship
Opportunties

Religious
Diet
Program

Religious
Education
Classes

Corr. Foundation
Doners

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF/JAG Byrne
&RSAT Grant

GRF

Locations

All Major
Institutions

Capacity

All Institutions

All Institutions

All Institutions

# of Facilitator
Positions

Locations

Capacity

Career and
Technical
Education
(Vocational)

Prison Dog
Training

GRF and Perkins
Grant
Capacity

100 Hour
Transition
Thinking for
Skills Program
Change
Veteran Dorm

143
1,174

72

1

32
162
1,294

1
36

332
111

TAYLOR ANNEX

1,365

54

TAYLOR C.I.

1,239

18

X

36

X

228

1

X

96

1

TOMOKA C.I.

1,251
110

TOMOKA CRC-290

80

TOMOKA WORK CAMP
TTH OF BARTOW

58
78
142

TTH OF KISSIMMEE

148

UNION C.I.

83
1,947

UNION WORK CAMP

420

W.PALM BEACH C.R.C.

148

WAKULLA ANNEX

1,496

18

WAKULLA C.I.

1,297

18

X

36

X

WAKULLA WORK CAMP
WALTON C.I.

1

283

TTH OF DINSMORE
TTH OF TARPON SPRING

1

407

TOMOKA CRC-285
TOMOKA CRC-298

92

289

SUWANNEE ANNEX

TAYLOR WORK CAMP

X

66

1,199

TALLAHASSEE C.R.C

Transition Programs

1,938

SUWANNEE C.I
SUWANNEE WORK CAMP

Religious Programs

1,481
1,568

422
1,158

431
1

D-10

96

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Vocational Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

Funding Source
Data Provided
WALTON WORK CAMP
ZEPHYRHILLS C.I.

TOTAL

Religious Programs

Transition Programs

Chapel
Library
Program

Faith and
Character
Based
Residential
Program

Primary
Worship
Opportunties

Religious
Diet
Program

Religious
Education
Classes

Corr. Foundation
Doners

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF

GRF/JAG Byrne
&RSAT Grant

GRF

Locations

All Major
Institutions

Capacity

All Institutions

All Institutions

All Institutions

# of Facilitator
Positions

Locations

Capacity

Career and
Technical
Education
(Vocational)

Prison Dog
Training

GRF and Perkins
Grant
Capacity

100 Hour
Transition
Thinking for
Skills Program
Change
Veteran Dorm

272
658
99,581

1,404

21

6,488

D-11

46.5

24

738

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Substance Abuse Programs

Substance
Abuse
Assessment
and
Screening

Population
Count
09/30/2015

Funding Source
Data Provided
APALACHEE EAST UNIT

1,278

APALACHEE WEST UNIT

799

ARCADIA ROAD PRISON

95

ATLANTIC C.R.C.

42

AVON PARK C.I.

937

AVON PARK WORK CAMP

493

BAKER C.I.

420

BAKER WORK CAMP

275

BAY C.F.

973

BERRYDALE FRSTRY CMP

126

BIG PINE KEY R.P.

58

BLACKWATER C.F.

1,989

BRADENTON BRIDGE

118

BRIDGES OF COCOA

80

BRIDGES OF JACKSONVILLE

136

BRIDGES OF LAKE CITY

149

BRIDGES OF ORLANDO

146

BRIDGES OF SANTA FE
BROWARD BRIDGE
CALHOUN C.I.
CALHOUN WORK CAMP
CENTURY C.I.
CENTURY WORK CAMP
CFRC-EAST
CFRC-MAIN
CFRC-SOUTH

GRF/JAG Byrne Grant

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

DOJ/BJA Grant

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

GRF/JAG
Byrne Grant

GRF/JAG Byrne &
RSAT Grant

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

GRF

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

Location

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

50
85
160

50
50
432

352

120

172

273
50

136

269
822
1,125

X

105

1,339

CROSS CITY C.I.

982

CROSS CITY EAST UNIT

424

EVERGLADES C.I.

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

1,285

1,550

DESOTO WORK CAMP

GRF

168

COLUMBIA C.I.

DESOTO ANNEX

Substance
Youthful
Suwannee CI
Abuse
Offender
Extended Day
Substanse
Treatment Beds
Outpatient
Program for
Abuse
Substance Abuse
Youthful
Transitional Re- at Re-Entry
Centers
Program
Offenders
Entry Centers

1,288

1,268

DAYTONA CRC

In-Prison
Residential
Therapeutic
Community

98

COLUMBIA ANNEX

DADE C.I.

Intensive
Outpatient
Program

Substance
Abuses
Prevention
and
Education

143

CHARLOTTE C.I.

CROSS CITY WORK CAMP

Integrated CoOccuring ReEntry and
Evalation
(I-CORE)
Program

1,100

BAKER RE-ENTRY CENTR

BRIDGES OF POMPANO

Substance Abuse
Character and Community Based Counselors at
Dept. Operated
Motivation
Residential
Community
Awareness
Therapeutic
Release Centers
Program (CAMP)
Community

118

278
1,478
1,428
276
1,448

EVERGLADES RE-ENTRY

415

FL.WOMENS RECPN.CTR

964

110

50
432

X

D-12

352

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Substance Abuse Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

Funding Source
Data Provided
FLORIDA STATE PRISON
FORT PIERCE C.R.C.
FRANKLIN C.I.

749

395
248

GULF C.I.- ANNEX

1,342
1,356

HAMILTON C.I.

1,122

HARDEE C.I.

1,512

HARDEE WORK CAMP

287

HERNANDO C.I.

417

HOLLYWOOD C.R.C.

149

JACKSON C.I.
JACKSON WORK CAMP
JACKSONVILLE BRIDGE
JEFFERSON C.I.

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

DOJ/BJA Grant

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

GRF/JAG
Byrne Grant

GRF/JAG Byrne &
RSAT Grant

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

GRF

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

Location

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

50
85

432

352

110

50

60

50

271

HAMILTON ANNEX

HOMESTEAD C.I.

GRF/JAG Byrne Grant

258
1,535

HOLMES WORK CAMP

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

1,861

GULF C.I.

HOLMES C.I.

156

1,134
292
666
1,341

68

274
140

165

1,141

KISSIMMEE C.R.C.

150

LAKE C.I.

775

LAKE CITY C.F.

889

LANCASTER C.I.

440

68

50

68

50

150
85

50

50
50

LANCASTER C.I. CAMP PROGRAM
LANCASTER W.C.

209

LARGO R.P.

73

LAWTEY C.I.

795

LIBERTY C.I.

1,293

LIBERTY SOUTH UNIT
LOWELL ANNEX

85

50

415
1,381

LOWELL C.I.

967

LOWELL WORK CAMP

338

LOXAHATCHEE R.P.

Substance
Youthful
Suwannee CI
Abuse
Offender
Extended Day
Substanse
Treatment Beds
Outpatient
Program for
Abuse
Substance Abuse
Youthful
Transitional Re- at Re-Entry
Centers
Program
Offenders
Entry Centers

112

GAINESVILLE W.C.

GULF FORESTRY CAMP

In-Prison
Residential
Therapeutic
Community

1,532

GADSDEN RE-ENTRY CTR

GRACEVILLE WORK CAMP

Intensive
Outpatient
Program

Substance
Abuses
Prevention
and
Education

GRF

84

FSP WEST UNIT

GRACEVILLE C.F.

Integrated CoOccuring ReEntry and
Evalation
(I-CORE)
Program

1,278
423

GADSDEN C.F.

Substance Abuse
Character and Community Based Counselors at
Dept. Operated
Motivation
Residential
Community
Awareness
Therapeutic
Release Centers
Program (CAMP)
Community

1,381

FRANKLIN CI WORK CMP
FT. MYERS WORK CAMP

Substance
Abuse
Assessment
and
Screening

91

50

165

50
30

D-13

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Substance Abuse Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

Funding Source
Data Provided
MADISON C.I.
MADISON WORK CAMP
MARION C.I.
MARION WORK CAMP
MARTIN C.I.
MARTIN WORK CAMP
MAYO C.I. ANNEX
MAYO WORK CAMP

GRF

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

GRF/JAG Byrne Grant

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

DOJ/BJA Grant

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

GRF/JAG
Byrne Grant

GRF/JAG Byrne &
RSAT Grant

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

GRF

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

Location

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

85

257

1,316

144
134

ORLANDO C.R.C.

83

50

PANAMA CITY C.R.C.

67

50

PENSACOLA C.R.C.

80

50

PINELLAS C.R.C.

41

50

50

50
136

1,106

POLK WORK CAMP

289

PUTNAM C.I.

448

QUINCY ANNEX

394

R.M.C WORK CAMP

427

R.M.C.- MAIN UNIT

1,358

R.M.C.- WEST UNIT

844

136

X

40

97
635
1,051

X

334

SANTA ROSA ANNEX

1,389

SANTA ROSA C.I.

1,525

110

50

295

SHISA HOUSE EAST

15

SHISA HOUSE WEST

31

SUMTER C.I.

110

268
1,616

ORLANDO BRIDGE

ST. PETE C.R.C.

50

850

OPA LOCKA C.R.C.

SOUTH BAY C.F.

85

136
X

404

SANTA ROSA WORK CMP

50

100

OKEECHOBEE WORK CAMP

S.F.R.C.

110

302

1,297

SAGO PALM RE-ENTRY

50
266

1,297

NWFRC ANNEX.

S.F.R.C SOUTH UNIT

Substance
Youthful
Suwannee CI
Abuse
Offender
Extended Day
Substanse
Treatment Beds
Outpatient
Program for
Abuse
Substance Abuse
Youthful
Transitional Re- at Re-Entry
Centers
Program
Offenders
Entry Centers

1,460

NWFRC MAIN UNIT.

REENTRY CTR OF OCALA

In-Prison
Residential
Therapeutic
Community

277

174

POLK C.I.

Intensive
Outpatient
Program

Substance
Abuses
Prevention
and
Education

282

979

OKEECHOBEE C.I.

Integrated CoOccuring ReEntry and
Evalation
(I-CORE)
Program

1,281

MIAMI NORTH C.R.C.

OKALOOSA WORK CAMP

Substance Abuse
Character and Community Based Counselors at
Dept. Operated
Motivation
Residential
Community
Awareness
Therapeutic
Release Centers
Program (CAMP)
Community

1,176

MOORE HAVEN C.F.

OKALOOSA C.I.

Substance
Abuse
Assessment
and
Screening

15

1,938
143
1,174

50

D-14

60

24

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Substance Abuse Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

Funding Source
Data Provided
SUMTER ANNEX
SUMTER B.T.U.
SUMTER WORK CAMP
SUNCOAST C.R.C.(FEM)

TAYLOR C.I.

1,239

110
80

148

TOTAL

GRF

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

Location

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

60

60

50
85

50

1,466

2,306

113
60

148
1,297

ZEPHYRHILLS C.I.

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

420

WAKULLA C.I.

WALTON WORK CAMP

GRF/JAG Byrne &
RSAT Grant

83

1,496

WALTON C.I.

GRF/JAG
Byrne Grant

1,947

WAKULLA ANNEX
WAKULLA WORK CAMP

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

78

TTH OF KISSIMMEE

W.PALM BEACH C.R.C.

DOJ/BJA Grant

58

142

UNION WORK CAMP

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

283

TTH OF DINSMORE

UNION C.I.

GRF/JAG Byrne Grant

1,251

TOMOKA CRC-290

TTH OF TARPON SPRING

GRF/JAG Byrne
Grant

407

TOMOKA CRC-285

TTH OF BARTOW

GRF

111
1,365

TOMOKA CRC-298

Substance
Youthful
Suwannee CI
Abuse
Offender
Extended Day
Substanse
Treatment Beds
Outpatient
Program for
Abuse
Substance Abuse
Youthful
Transitional Re- at Re-Entry
Centers
Program
Offenders
Entry Centers

332

TAYLOR ANNEX

TOMOKA WORK CAMP

In-Prison
Residential
Therapeutic
Community

162
1,294

TOMOKA C.I.

Intensive
Outpatient
Program

Substance
Abuses
Prevention
and
Education

32

SUWANNEE ANNEX

TAYLOR WORK CAMP

Integrated CoOccuring ReEntry and
Evalation
(I-CORE)
Program

289
1,199

TALLAHASSEE C.R.C

Substance Abuse
Character and Community Based Counselors at
Dept. Operated
Motivation
Residential
Community
Awareness
Therapeutic
Release Centers
Program (CAMP)
Community

66

SUWANNEE C.I
SUWANNEE WORK CAMP

Substance
Abuse
Assessment
and
Screening

50

422
1,158
272
658
99,581

5

50

338

650

68

D-15

954

867

1,056

24

60

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Classification Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

Funding Source
Data Provided
APALACHEE EAST UNIT

LIFERS Program

Corrections
Transition Program
(FIU)

Contracted ReEntry Centers

Contracted
Reentry Facilities

GRF

Outside Sources

FIU and Volunteers

GRF

GRF/JAG Byrne Grant

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Locations

Basic Training
Program

Extended Day
Program

Community
Release Centers

GRF

GRF

Capacity

Locations

1,278

APALACHEE WEST UNIT

799

ARCADIA ROAD PRISON

95

ATLANTIC C.R.C.

42

AVON PARK C.I.

937

AVON PARK WORK CAMP

493

BAKER C.I.

45

1,100

BAKER RE-ENTRY CENTR

420

BAKER WORK CAMP

275

BAY C.F.

973

BERRYDALE FRSTRY CMP

126

BIG PINE KEY R.P.

58

BLACKWATER C.F.

1,989

1,165
432

BRADENTON BRIDGE

118

BRIDGES OF COCOA

80

84

BRIDGES OF JACKSONVILLE

136

140

BRIDGES OF LAKE CITY

149

156

BRIDGES OF ORLANDO

146

152

BRIDGES OF POMPANO

98

100

BRIDGES OF SANTA FE

143

156

BROWARD BRIDGE

168

172

CALHOUN C.I.
CALHOUN WORK CAMP
CENTURY C.I.
CENTURY WORK CAMP
CFRC-EAST
CFRC-MAIN
CFRC-SOUTH
CHARLOTTE C.I.

Re-Entry Centers/Facilities

120

1,288
273
1,285
269
822
1,125
105
1,268

D-16

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Classification Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

Funding Source
Data Provided
COLUMBIA ANNEX

1,550

COLUMBIA C.I.

1,339

CROSS CITY C.I.

982

CROSS CITY EAST UNIT

424

CROSS CITY WORK CAMP
DADE C.I.
DAYTONA CRC
DESOTO ANNEX
DESOTO WORK CAMP
EVERGLADES C.I.

GRF

GRF/JAG Byrne Grant

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Locations

Capacity

Locations

40
432

1,381
84

84

1,278
423
749

FT. MYERS WORK CAMP

112
1,532

GADSDEN RE-ENTRY CTR

395

GAINESVILLE W.C.

248

432

1,861
258

GULF C.I.

1,535

GULF C.I.- ANNEX

1,342

GULF FORESTRY CAMP

FIU and Volunteers

1,448

FSP WEST UNIT

GRACEVILLE WORK CAMP

Outside Sources

GRF

276

FRANKLIN CI WORK CMP

GRACEVILLE C.F.

GRF

GRF

-

964

GADSDEN C.F.

Contracted
Reentry Facilities

Community
Release Centers

1,428

FL.WOMENS RECPN.CTR

FRANKLIN C.I.

Contracted ReEntry Centers

Extended Day
Program

278

415

FORT PIERCE C.R.C.

LIFERS Program

Corrections
Transition Program
(FIU)

Basic Training
Program

1,478

EVERGLADES RE-ENTRY
FLORIDA STATE PRISON

Re-Entry Centers/Facilities

271

HAMILTON ANNEX

1,356

HAMILTON C.I.

1,122

HARDEE C.I.

1,512

D-17

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Classification Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

Funding Source
Data Provided
HARDEE WORK CAMP

287

HERNANDO C.I.

417

HOLLYWOOD C.R.C.

149

HOLMES C.I.

292

HOMESTEAD C.I.

666

JACKSON C.I.

Contracted ReEntry Centers

Contracted
Reentry Facilities

GRF

Outside Sources

FIU and Volunteers

GRF

GRF/JAG Byrne Grant

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Locations

Extended Day
Program

Community
Release Centers

GRF

GRF

Capacity

Locations

156

1,341

JACKSON WORK CAMP

274

JACKSONVILLE BRIDGE

140

JEFFERSON C.I.

LIFERS Program

Corrections
Transition Program
(FIU)

Basic Training
Program

1,134

HOLMES WORK CAMP

165

1,141

KISSIMMEE C.R.C.

150

LAKE C.I.

775

LAKE CITY C.F.

889

X

LANCASTER C.I.

440

X

209

X

156

LANCASTER C.I. CAMP PROGRAM
LANCASTER W.C.
LARGO R.P.

73

LAWTEY C.I.

795

LIBERTY C.I.

1,293

LIBERTY SOUTH UNIT
LOWELL ANNEX

415
1,381

LOWELL C.I.

967

LOWELL WORK CAMP

338

LOXAHATCHEE R.P.
MADISON C.I.
MADISON WORK CAMP
MARION C.I.
MARION WORK CAMP
MARTIN C.I.

X
394

Re-Entry Centers/Facilities

X

91
1,176
282
1,281
277
1,460

D-18

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Classification Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

Funding Source
Data Provided
MARTIN WORK CAMP
MAYO C.I. ANNEX

LIFERS Program

Corrections
Transition Program
(FIU)

Contracted ReEntry Centers

Contracted
Reentry Facilities

GRF

Outside Sources

FIU and Volunteers

GRF

GRF/JAG Byrne Grant

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Locations

Basic Training
Program

Extended Day
Program

Community
Release Centers

GRF

GRF

Capacity

Locations

257
1,297

MAYO WORK CAMP

302

MIAMI NORTH C.R.C.

174

MOORE HAVEN C.F.

979

NWFRC ANNEX.

1,316

NWFRC MAIN UNIT.

1,297

OKALOOSA C.I.

850

OKALOOSA WORK CAMP

268

OKEECHOBEE C.I.

186

1,616

OKEECHOBEE WORK CAMP

404

OPA LOCKA C.R.C.

144

150

ORLANDO BRIDGE

134

136

ORLANDO C.R.C.

83

84

PANAMA CITY C.R.C.

67

71

PENSACOLA C.R.C.

80

84

41

45

PINELLAS C.R.C.
POLK C.I.

1,106

POLK WORK CAMP

289

PUTNAM C.I.

448

QUINCY ANNEX

394

R.M.C WORK CAMP

427

R.M.C.- MAIN UNIT

1,358

R.M.C.- WEST UNIT

844

REENTRY CTR OF OCALA
S.F.R.C SOUTH UNIT
S.F.R.C.
SAGO PALM RE-ENTRY
SANTA ROSA ANNEX

Re-Entry Centers/Facilities

1,208

97

100

635
1,051
334

384

1,389

D-19

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Classification Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

Funding Source
Data Provided
SANTA ROSA C.I.
SANTA ROSA WORK CMP

LIFERS Program

Corrections
Transition Program
(FIU)

Contracted ReEntry Centers

Contracted
Reentry Facilities

GRF

Outside Sources

FIU and Volunteers

GRF

GRF/JAG Byrne Grant

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Locations

Basic Training
Program

Extended Day
Program

Community
Release Centers

GRF

GRF

Capacity

Locations

1,525
295

SHISA HOUSE EAST

15

32

SHISA HOUSE WEST

31

15

SOUTH BAY C.F.
ST. PETE C.R.C.
SUMTER C.I.

1,938
143

150

1,174

X

SUMTER ANNEX

66

X

SUMTER B.T.U.

32

SUMTER WORK CAMP
SUNCOAST C.R.C.(FEM)

112

162
1,199

SUWANNEE ANNEX

1,294

SUWANNEE WORK CAMP

332

TALLAHASSEE C.R.C

111

TAYLOR ANNEX

1,365

TAYLOR C.I.

1,239

TOMOKA C.I.

92

289

SUWANNEE C.I

TAYLOR WORK CAMP

165
X

121

407
1,251

TOMOKA CRC-285

110

TOMOKA CRC-290

80

84

TOMOKA CRC-298

58

60

TOMOKA WORK CAMP
TTH OF BARTOW

113

283
78

79

TTH OF DINSMORE

142

150

TTH OF KISSIMMEE

148

150

83

84

TTH OF TARPON SPRING
UNION C.I.
UNION WORK CAMP

Re-Entry Centers/Facilities

1,947
420

D-20

FDC Program Services
Inventory

CURRENT LOCATION

Classification Programs

Population
Count
09/30/2015

Funding Source
Data Provided
W.PALM BEACH C.R.C.

1,496

WAKULLA C.I.

1,297

WAKULLA WORK CAMP
WALTON C.I.
WALTON WORK CAMP
ZEPHYRHILLS C.I.

TOTAL

LIFERS Program

Corrections
Transition Program
(FIU)

Contracted ReEntry Centers

Contracted
Reentry Facilities

GRF

Outside Sources

FIU and Volunteers

GRF

GRF/JAG Byrne Grant

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Capacity

Locations

Basic Training
Program

Extended Day
Program

Community
Release Centers

GRF

GRF

Capacity

Locations

148

WAKULLA ANNEX

Re-Entry Centers/Facilities

150

422
1,158
272
658
99,581

506

8

3,895

D-21

92

40

1,296

2,757

 

 

PLN Subscribe Now Ad
Advertise Here 4th Ad
CLN Subscribe Now Ad 450x600