NCJ Number
48222
Journal
Monthly Labor Review Volume: 100 Issue: 3 Dated: (MARCH 1977) Pages: 53-56
Date Published
1977
Length
4 pages
Annotation
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY PROCEDURE AND THE FUNCTIONING OF GRIEVANCE MECHANISMS IN THE STATES OF MARYLAND, CALIFORNIA, AND WISCONSIN ARE NOTED.
Abstract
PRISON GRIEVANCE MECHANISMS, SIMILAR TO THOSE USED IN LABOR, HAVE BEEN APPLIED SUCCESSFULLY IN SEVERAL STATES TO DIFFUSE EXTREMELY TENSE SITUATIONS. THE MOST SIMPLISTIC MECHANISM INSURES THE INMATE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO HIS OR HER COMPLAINT WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME. AT THE MOST COMPLEX LEVEL, THE PROCEDURE MAY INVOLVE ALL THE INMATES AT ALL DIFFERENT STAGES AND PROVIDES A FINAL STEP, AFTER PERSONAL HEARINGS, FOR ADVISORY ARBITRATION BY NEUTRAL INDIVIDUALS APPOINTED BY THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION. THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY PROCEDURE PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNSELOR TO SOLVE THE INMATE'S COMPLAINT, FOLLOWED BY SUCCESSIVE ATTEMPTS ON THE PART OF THE SUPRVISOR, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, AND NATIONAL DIRECTOR. NO PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWS OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL BUREAU IS PROVIDED. THE WISCONSIN PRISON SYSTEM EMPLOYS AN INSTITUTIONAL COMPLAINT INVESTIGATOR TO PROCESS GRIEVANCES. IN MARYLAND, THE INMATE GRIEVEANCE COMMISSION SERVES THE SAME FUNCTION. IT IS A FIVE-MEMBER REVIEW BOARD COMPOSED OF PART-TIME COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR. THE PROCESS TAKES 3 MONTHS OR LONGER TO REACH FRUITION. THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE IN CALIFORNIA VARIES ACCORDING TO INSTITUTION, BUT THE MAIN PREMISE IS TO INVOLVE INMATES AND STAFF IN DECISIONMAKING THAT CULMINATES IN A FORM OF ADVISORY ARBITRATION. THERE ARE FURTHER APPEAL PROCEDURES IF THE MEDIATION EFFORTS ARE NOT SATISFACTORY. SOME INMATES ARE SKEPTICAL ABOUT USING GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES, BUT THOSE WHO HAVE DONE SO SUCCESSFULLY BELIEVE THAT IT OFFERS A REAL CHANCE TO GAIN A VOICE IN PRISON OPERTIONS. OVERALL, INMATES, STAFF, AND THE COURTS SEEM TO FIND THE MECHANISMS USEFUL. IN THE STATES MENTIONED, THE COURTS HAVE GIVEN FORMAL RECOGNITION TO GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES IN SOME JURISDICTIONS BY REFUSING TO ATTEND TO PRISONER SUITS UNTIL THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED. THERE IS SOME INDICATION THAT THE USE OF THESE PROCEDURES IS ELIMINATING MANY SUITS, ESPECIALLY TRIVIAL ONES. (JSP)