Nancy Moran

Mr. Richard A. Lanham, Sr.
Commissioner of Correction
6776 Reisterstown Road
Baltimore, Maryland 21215

Re: DCR 170-4 -- Volunteer Services Program

Dear Mr. Lanham:

I would like to take the opportunity to make a few comments and suggestions in response to the (routine) volunteer review and orientation materials pursuant to DCR 170-4 recently sent to me by the Volunteer Activity Coordinator of the Penitentiary. Presumably, I will be receiving a similar package shortly from the House of Correction. I am aware that the materials are also in use at Hagerstown, Westover and elsewhere. I would appreciate it if you keep these comments confidential and restrict them only to Headquarters Security staff.

Specifically, I am addressing the paragraph which states:

"I must immediately inform the shift commander (or my immediate supervisor, if available) if I acquire any information about a planned escape, homicide, suicide, assault, disturbance or contraband smuggling, or any other act which might result in harm to any individual or threaten the security of the institution."

Contrary to the provisions of that paragraph, it is my conclusion that it would be in the best interest of the Division to set up a mechanism whereby volunteers, teachers, and others would be able to convey to the Headquarters level the apparent imminence of spontaneous or coordinated inmate activity which would tend to damage or disrupt operations in a given facility. In the case of a disturbance especially, there are several reasons why that paragraph is probably not the optimum way to solve the problem. Among them:

1. The shift commander himself may be the problem or he is perceived by the inmates as the problem.

2. A person can't be seen talking to shift commander and then 10 or so minutes later somebody is raided/ticketed/apprehended.

3. A disturbance that appears to involve at least 8 or 12 individuals with a wide number of sympathizers is also a sign that the facility administration is no longer capable of managing the problem or perceived problem on its own.

4. It is important in these cases to avoid layers of secretaries who want a recount of the story then transfer the call from one to another so that the caller never actually reaches the person in authority (this is the main reason why the warden and possibly the Commissioner himself is also inappropriate in these instances).

Depending on the situation, there may be a host of other reasons to stay cool until out of the institution.

In my experience, I have found the most suitable procedure for a volunteer to follow when inmate(s) allude to a disturbance is:

1. Downplay the situation, express doubt that it is as big or as real as the inmate(s) might be describing. Counsel and encourage the inmate that he personally is not going to be part of the situation. Express doubt or disapproval of using that means to the end.

2. Using tact and discretion, try to confirm or deny what has been said with as many others as possible or judicious without leading or inflammatory questions -- just determine veracity, scope, and to the extent possible, the precise reasons why the situation has come to exist and what resolution is thought to be suitable.

3. Weigh any information that has been forthcoming in terms of reliability of source(s), number of source(s), scope (is it one section, two sections, the whole prison) and any external evidence that might come to your attention (e.g., incidents in the visiting room, comments by other volunteers, etc.)

4. If after following steps 1-3 carefully, it appears there is reality to what is being spoken about (most of the time, there is not), the best course of action is to convey your findings to somebody with Headquarters authority (or influence) emphasizing facts rather than inferences and in an unemotional fashion. Don't point out or name individuals unless necessary to outline the metes and bounds of the problem.

If the paragraph from DCR 170-4 were taken literally by a volunteer, in the case of disturbances, the inmates would soon learn that they could manipulate volunteers and shift commanders alike with loose talk about insurrections, etc. There would be a lot of false alarms and the Division would miss a lot of genuine ones.

If there existed some mechanism for volunteers to share concerns at the Headquarters level in a confidential, informal way, the mechanism would justify itself completely with only one riot averted or major problem solved quickly and effectively. Finally, and by the way, by calling in Headquarters the volunteer might lend credence, weight and detail to information already developed through internal sources.

If you would like to discuss this matter further, please call me at my home number. I would be able to cite particulars of instances in the past which have given me insight in this area.

Sincerely,



Nancy Moran


nm
Volunteer