Inmate Transfers to Out of State Private Prisons

by Lehn Fitzgerald

From: Lehn Fitzgerald, Office of Senator Gwendolynne S. Moore; Amanda Prestegard

Date: August 3, 2000

Subject: Inmate Transfers to Out of State Private Prisons

This memo summarizes findings concerning Wisconsin’s policy of contracting for inmate beds at out-of-state private prisons. It encompasses the following areas: gang and drug activity, health and sanitation, food service, inmate mistreatment, safety issues, policy issues, and staffing issues. It covers the time period between January of 1999 to June of 2000.

Background

The state of Wisconsin began contracting for out-of-state prison beds in September of 1996 due to overcrowding in its own state prisons. Currently, a majority of Wisconsin’s out-of-state prisoners are housed with the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). CCA operates 82 prisons with 73,000 total beds in the United States, Australia, Puerto Rico, and the United Kingdom. In the U.S., CCA has over 68,000 beds in 26 states and the District of Columbia. Wisconsin also sends inmates to a private prison in Oklahoma owned by McCloud Correctional Services (a subsidiary of Dominion Venture Group) and run by the Correctional Services Corporation.

The following table provides statistics about the private prisons that currently house Wisconsin inmates:

Wisconsin Inmates Housed in Private Prisons*

Name Location Capacity WI Pop. Central Oklahoma Correctional Facility McCloud, OK 872 155 North Fork Correctional Facility North Fork, OK 1,440 1,455 Prairie Correctional Facility Appleton, MN 1,338 692 Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility Tallahatchie, MS 1,104 340 West Tennessee Detention Facility Mason, TN 600 377 Whiteville Correctional Facility Whiteville, TN 1,536 1,511 Total 6,890 4,529

*as of July 28, 2000

The Contract Monitoring Unit of the Department of Corrections (DOC) is responsible for ensuring that the private prisons comply with the tenets of their contracts with Wisconsin. The unit was authorized in June of 1998 and began operating in December of 1998. The unit started functioning approximately two years after we first sent inmates to private facilities. The unit is composed of six contract monitors, one supervisor, and two medical monitors. The contract monitors inspect prison facilities to ensure that Wisconsin inmates are properly supervised and housed. Several monitors are dispatched to conduct two to three day site visits on a monthly basis and file reports based on these inspections. During these site visits the monitors inspect the prison, talk with inmates, and observe activities. In addition, monitors meet with inmates who have contacted their office about problems they are experiencing. When the monitors are not conducting site visits, they work out of their office in Madison and respond to complaints from inmates and their relatives.

Site visit records have been obtained from both the Wisconsin DOC and from the Hawaii Department of Public Safety (HA DPS). Hawaii houses inmates in some of the same facilities that Wisconsin does including Central Oklahoma, West Tennessee, and Prairie. Hawaii monitors inspect the facilities twice a year. The following site visits have been documented by the WI DOC and HA DPS in 1999-2000:

Whiteville: <br> 1999: 4/29-5/2, 6/1-6/4, 7/26-7/29, 8/28-/31, 10/16-10/19,11/11-11/14 <br> 2000: 1/18-1/19, 2/7-2/9, 3/13-3/15, 4/4-4/6, 5/2-5/4, 6/4-6/5

North Fork: 1999: 1/28, 5/24-5/27, 7/19-7/22, 8/23-8/26, 9/14-9/17, 10/21-10/24, 11/30-12/2 <br> 2000: 2/28-2/29, 3/26-3/27, 4/26-4/27, 5/9-5/11

West Tennessee: 2000: 1/20, 2/9-2/10, 3/16, 4/3-4/4, and 5/5-5/6, 6/2-6/3 <br> HA: 3/6/00

Central Oklahoma: 2000: 2/26, 3/28, 4/24-25, 5/18 <br> HA: 3/15/00

Prairie: 2000: 1/11-1/12, 2/3-2/6, 3/20-3/22. 4/9-4/10, 5/17-5/19 <br> HA: 2/25/99, 6/8/99, 1/27/00

Tallahatchie: None as of 6/15

The information presented in this memo was compiled from DOC site visits, complaint records, American Correctional Association (ACA) accreditation reports, and other sources where noted. Each facility had one ACA report that was obtained from the CCA office. Site visits are denoted by (sv) with a corresponding date and page number. If the report is from Hawaii, it is denoted by (HA sv) with a corresponding date and page number. Unless otherwise noted, any mention of contract monitors refers to Wisconsin contract monitors. Complaints are cited by a number beginning with a year, such as (98-01-11). There were no complaint records available for review after early 1999. The complaint records were physically obtained by a staff person and an intern working for Senator Moore.

Findings

Gang Problems

More than any other facility, North Fork appears to have a number of gang related problems that have been tolerated by prison officials. At one site visit, monitors found that inmates had created a gang–related inmate newsletter in a computer class (sv 5/24, p.18). Staff was unaware of this activity and had been allowing the newsletter to be sent from inmate to inmate. According to a complaint, inmates were altering their clothing and hair, wearing gang colors, and charging others for protection (99-01-24). This complaint appears to be corroborated in a report filed by Captain Janel Nickel of Dodge Correctional Institution after a visit to North Fork on June 2, 1999. She was told by staff members at North Fork that gang members often iron gang symbols into their prison clothing using prison-provided irons. In addition to the clothing alteration, DOC Contract Unit Supervisor Jeff Wydeven, in a letter to North Fork Warden Rick Hudson, also expressed concern that the irons could be used as weapons. The warden dismissed Wydeven’s concerns and said that the irons add to the inmates’ "quality of life."

In her report Captain Nickel noted a number of gang related behaviors occurring openly in the front of prison staff. Nickel observed that staff members did not react when inmates flashed gang signs in front of them. In addition, a staff member did not respond when an inmate displayed his ID card that had gang-colored beads hanging off of it. Nickel also reported that inmates were allowed to hold gang meetings in their cells. A group of inmates turned in a written request to the unit manager asking if they could hold a gang meeting. The unit manager allowed it so long as he could be present. In addition, instead of trying to separate and break up gangs, Nickel reported that North Fork staff was allowing inmates who belonged to the same gang to move into the same cell together.

Drug Problems

Within the past six months, there have been at least two documented cases of correctional officers introducing drugs into West Tennessee. Two officers were terminated on March 13, 2000, for bringing substances into the facility (sv 3/16/00, p.2). One of the terminated officers intended to sell a pint of whiskey to inmates while the other brought in a half ounce of marijuana to sell to inmates. Both correctional officers were charged with one felony count of introducting contraband into a penal institution. In another incident, an inmate reported that he had arranged payment with a correctional officer to bring drugs and alcohol into the prison. He gave prison officials a small amount of marijuana to support his claim (sv 4/3/00, p.2). The officer was terminated on April 7, 2000, and the case was referred to outside law enforcement.

Three other facilities had reports of drug problems. Inmates at Whiteville told contract monitors that drugs are prevalent in the prison (sv 10/16/99, p.9). Inmates at Central Oklahoma stated that drugs were easily obtainable at the facility (sv 2/26/00, p.9; 4/24/00, p.4). At the same facility, inmates reported that the pill line at Health Services was not supervised and that inmates frequently passed off their pills and saved them up (sv 4/24/00, p.4). West Tennessee’s pill line also was not well staffed as the correctional officer monitoring the line didn’t ensure that the prisoners actually swallowed their pills (sv 6/2/00, p.3).

Health and Sanitation Concerns

In early January of 1999, inmate complaints stated that Whiteville had extensive plumbing problems that resulted in inmates going without food and water for at least 24 hours. The wife of one inmate complained that her husband called and told her that the water had been broken for three days, the toilets were overflowing, and that there was human feces on the floor (99-01-010). A number of other similar complaints that were filed on the same day appear to corroborate this woman’s allegations. When contract monitors contacted the warden at Whiteville, he stated the plumbing had only been broken for one day and that no feces was found on the floor.

Some of the facilities have had structural problems that raise serious health and sanitation concerns. Multiple site visit reports at Whiteville note the presence of large cracks in the walls that allowed cold air to flow into cells during winter. One woman who visited her son during Christmas of 1998 said that his cell was so cold that a candy bar and glass of water sitting by the window froze (98-12-033). Contract monitors continued to report the existence of these cracks for a number of months (sv 4/30/99, p.10; sv 6/1/99, p.12; sv 7/26/99, p.8). As of the July 1999 site visit, eight months after the initial complaints, repairs on the cracks were finally being completed (sv 7/26, p.8).

In addition to Whiteville, West Tennessee also had problems that took the prison a long time to repair. A number of inmates broke out the bottoms of the sinks in a unit in February (sv 2/9/00, p.7). The holes in the sinks grew larger over time. In an unrelated occurrence, the toilets started leaking when flushed (sv 3/16/00, p.1). The prison was still fixing both of these problems in the last site visit available for West Tennessee, four months after the problems had been originally reported (sv 6/2/00, p.3).

Food Service

In a Hawaii inspections report, a contract monitor explained the problems that a private prison was having with its food service by stating, "…it’s generally acknowledged that food is one of the areas private corporations tend to squeeze in their all important drive towards profit," (HA sv 3/15/00, p.5). While the Hawaii contract monitor was not referring to conditions at a CCA facility housing Wisconsin inmates, the problems in the food service area appear to be widespread throughout most private prisons. The food service problems found in this report are divided into three categories: food sanitation/health, food boycotts, and lack of inmate training.

Food/Health Sanitation: West Tennessee had numerous problems with food sanitation. An April visit by the contract monitors resulted in the immediate termination of the Food Service Administrator over unsanitary conditions in the kitchen. The monitors found significant evidence of mice in the dry storage area and roaches in the kitchen. Exterminators were brought in later in the month to remove the pest problem. Other minor problems that the monitors found led them to the conclusion that the Food Administrator was "running around trying to fix areas as we walked around" (sv 4/3/00, p.2). While there was no sign of infestations during their next visit, monitors reported that the food service area was still dirty and unorganized. They found food spilled on the floor and inmates and staff walking through it. A Hawaii contract monitor also found problems at the facility. He found that pans of food were placed on the floor while inmates were washing dishes (HA sv 3/6/00, p.3). North Fork also had a number of problems with their food preparation. Inmates filed 48 grievances over spoiled meat served to them (sv 9/14/99, p.9). Inmates did not receive a response to their grievances until the monitors looked into the problem nearly a month later. On the same visit, monitors found that the food preparation was very unorganized and that the menu was highly repetitive.

Two other facilities also had problems with their food service. Inmates at Central Oklahoma stated that the meals were not balanced and the kitchen often ran out of food. Prison staff stated that part of the reason they run out of food is that the inmates often steal food. Monitors recommended an increase in staff supervision to solve some of these problems. Inmates at Whiteville stated that not a lot of food was served on their plates and that it would often sit around for half an hour before being delivered to them (sv 2/7/00, p.9).

Food Boycotts: Issues such as the spoiled meat led to the inmates at North Fork planning a food boycott on September 18, 1999. Among the problems with the food service that inmates had were that the menu at the facility was very repetitive, pork was mistakenly served as turkey, and the spoiled meat issue. Inmates were hoarding food in their cells and were not going to eat at the dining hall for several days. While the line staff was aware of the planned food boycott, the administrators did not know about it until the monitors informed them of it. The contract monitors gave requests and recommendations regarding the food boycott to North Fork officials who did not appear to be very receptive to contract monitor’s input (sv 9/14/99, p.10). The food boycott did not occur. Another food boycott was threatened at Whiteville in early 1999. This food boycott did not appear to be about any particular food issue but rather about inmates being perceived by staff as money makers. A letter posted at the facility by an inmate stated that the food boycott would prevent the company from making money off of them when they ate (sv 4/29/99). This food boycott also did not occur.

Lack of Inmate Training: At Central Oklahoma, contract monitors found a number of problems relating to inmates’ lack of training in the food service area. At one site visit monitors found inmates handling food with ungloved hands and inmates eating in the dry storage area (sv 3/28/00, p.2). During another visit, inmates working in the kitchen did not know how many sandwiches were to be served (sv 4/24/00, p.2).

Medical Issues

Inmates had a number of complaints about their medical treatment. These complaints included the lack of medical care at the facilities, inappropriate protocol, and numerous medical position vacancies.

Lack of Medical Care: At least three inmates at Whiteville stated that they were not receiving proper medical attention (sv 6/1/99, p.14; sv 8/28/99, p.9). One inmate told a monitor that it took a week for the facility to provide him with antiseptic he needed for injuries he sustained while trying to escape (sv 6/1/99, p.14). In another case, an inmate at Prairie was unhappy because he was housed with an inmate who had a positive skin test for tuberculosis (sv 3/20/00, p.4). West Tennessee also had a number of medical complaints. At least two inmates felt that the facility failed to provide proper medical care for them (sv 4/3/00, p.3). At Prairie, at least one inmate needed to be transferred out of the facility in order to receive the psychiatric care that he needed (sv 3/20/00, p.4).

Inappropriate Protocol: The ACA accreditation report for West Tennessee found that officers did not regularly check on inmates who were on suicide watch. While the ACA recommends that guards watch over suicidal inmates continually, West Tennessee’s written policy calls for a check to be done every fifteen minutes. According to documentation kept by the prison, the checks were being done even less often (ACA, p.17)

Medical Vacancies: Some of the problems with medical care can be attributed to the numerous medical vacancies at these facilities. Medical positions at many of the facilities are often vacant for months at a time. For example, Whiteville lacked a dentist from early April to July of 1999 (sv 4/29/99, 6/1/99, 7/26/99). Numerous inmates complained about the dental treatment in this time period (sv 4/29/00, p.9). The most recent report from North Fork showed that they have lacked a psychologist since April (sv 4/26/00, 5/9/00). As of June 2000, Whiteville had six open nurse positions that had been open since early May (sv 5/2/00, 6/4/00). Inmate Mistreatment

North Fork had a number of instances of inmate mistreatment. One of the monitors was told by an inmate that he had been beaten by a guard in his cell (sv 8/23/99, p.14). Another inmate stated that his Unit Manager was a racist and never looked into inmate issues (sv 5/9/00, p.4). A contract monitor reported that an inmate at North Fork was placed into protective custody due to calls his mother had made to a Wisconsin senator to report staff misconduct (sv 4/26/00, p.4). The inmate did not wished to be placed into protective custody and was confused why he was there.

Whiteville has had a number of cases of inmate mistreated. A CCA attorney was terminated after he threw a chair at an inmate. While the chair was aimed at the inmate, it instead struck an officer (sv 8/28/99, p.8). In another incident, a Captain was disciplined for becoming verbally abusive towards an inmate (sv 10/16/99, p.9). Another problem at Whiteville was that an inmate was sleeping on the floor because both the inmate and his cellmate had a lower bunk restriction (sv 6/4/00, p.3).

The ACA accreditation reports for the CCA prisons reported that West Tennessee, Whiteville, and North Fork all had many inmates who were idle. The ACA report for West Tennessee from July 22, 1999, found that there were not enough jobs for inmates to keep them constructively occupied. In addition, there was not enough recreational opportunities for the degree of idleness observed (ACA, p.7). The ACA report for Whiteville also found that inmates had a high degree of idleness due to the lack of work and recreation opportunities (ACA, p.7). The report mentioned that what work there was didn’t occupy very much of the inmates’ time. The ACA report for the North Fork facility also found a high degree of idleness (ACA, p.9). An inmate at North Fork stated that inmates had lots of idle time in the prison and that there was a lack of jobs to keep prisoners busy (sv. 5/9/00, p.4). Captain Janel Nickel’s visit to North Fork appears to corroborate this. She found many inmates standing around idle on the unit because many of the prison’s programs were not being conducted.

Safety Concerns

In two separate incidents, prison facilities left items that could have been used as weapons within easy reach of the prisoners. At Central Oklahoma, three tool cribs were left unsecured in a garage that inmates could access through an open garage door (sv 3/28/00, p.2). While an incident did not occur, the unsecured tool cribs and open garage door could have given inmates easy access to potential weapons. The problem of unsecured dangerous items was not exclusive to Central Oklahoma. Monitors found unsecured security equipment scattered across a unit at Whiteville. In addition, a number of razors were left unsecured in the area (sv 10/16/99, p.12). This same visit to Whiteville found an emergency exit door in segregation unsecured (sv 10/16/99, p.7)

For a number of months, North Fork failed to prevent inmates from blocking the view into their cell. Windows are generally the only way correctional officers can see into a cell without opening it. However, the staff at the facility did not prevent inmates at North Fork from covering their cell windows with a sheet (sv 2/28/00, p.11). The inmates did not refrain from this behavior until April (sv 4/26/00, p.2). The covering of windows began at a time when hostilities were rising in the facility. Four weapons had been found by staff the day before the monitors visited, the Ping-Pong table had been damaged, guards were doing more searches, and metal detectors were going to be used in the dining room.

Prison officials have also allowed other prohibited behaviors to go unpunished. Central Oklahoma officials allowed about 40 inmates to gather on the grass in the courtyard in a "sit down" protest. The protest was in response to a new movement policy that limited the amount of time inmates could leave their housing units on weekends. A prison official met with the inmates and, following this, they peacefully dispersed. No inmates were punished despite the fact that inmates are not allowed on the grass. At Whiteville, officers failed to prevent inmates from "fishing" into other inmate’s cells. Inmates attempt to "fish" by throwing a piece of string with a hook-like instrument tied on the end (like a pencil) into another inmate’s cell in order to steal an inmate’s property. During a site visit, contract monitors observed that correctional officers were present on the cellblock and allowed this behavior to occur (sv 2/7/00, p.9).

Policy Issues

For several months the inmate property room at Whiteville was reported as being a "disaster" (sv 1/18/00, p.11). The room was unorganized and the warden of the facility ordered shelving units in order to sort through the property. A visit to the property room in March found numerous items lying around that were supposed to have been shipped back to Wisconsin the month before (sv 3/13/00, p.2). While improvements were finally being made to the system in April, there were still six outstanding property claims from January (sv 4/4/00, p.3).

During a site visit to Whiteville in April of 1999, contract monitors encouraged the warden to form an emergency response unit to deal with any incidents that could arise. The warden was unwilling to do so and felt that if something happened at the facility either the county law enforcement or a nearby CCA facility could respond (sv 4/29/99, p.13). The warden finally began to create a team after several staff members were taken hostage by inmates on November 31, 1999.

Contract monitors found a number of violations at Whiteville and North Fork. In July 1999, contract monitors found that maximum and medium security inmates were being housed together at Whiteville (sv 7/26/99, p.9). This is against prison policy and continued to occur seven months later (sv 2/7/00, p.8). In addition, there is also a rule that only two inmates are allowed in a cell at any time. The monitors found that this policy was being ignored on multiple occasions (North Fork sv 7/19/99, p.9; Whiteville sv 7/26/99, p.11).

Central Oklahoma appears to have a problem with prisoner/staff fraternization. Contract monitors viewed a staff member receiving a foot massage from an inmate (sv 5/12/00, p.4). In addition, inmates also report that sex and telephone sex are readily obtainable at the facility (sv 2/26/00, p.9).

All of the facilities have failed to provide a number of items or services required under the state contracts. All facilities are still missing a number of required legal documents, such as the Wisconsin State Statutes (Prairie sv 5/17/00, p.2; North Fork sv 5/9/00, p.6; Whiteville sv 6/9/00, p.3; West Tennessee sv 6/2/00, p.3; Central Oklahoma sv 5/12/00, p.3). In some cases, these facilities have had more than a year and a half to obtain the required documents. In addition to missing legal documents, Prairie also does not have a contract for attorney services to be provided to the inmates (sv 5/17/00, p.2). Both Prairie and Central Oklahoma still do not have properly functioning teleconferencing equipment as required by the state contracts (Prairie sv 5/17/00, p.2; Central Oklahoma sv 5/12/00, p.1).

Several of the facilities have phone rates that are greater than what is allowed under the contract with the state of Wisconsin. In December of 1999, Wisconsin and CCA agreed to instate a rule that allowed phone service providers to charge a maximum phone rate of a $3 connection fee and a $.35 per minute charge. For a number of months, both of these facilities had phone rates in excess of this maximum rate (Whiteville sv 6/1/99, p.9; North Fork sv 5/9/00, p.2). A mother whose son called her from North Fork incurred numerous charges that were higher than the maximum, including a charge in January of 2000 of $31.84 for a 31 minute phone call. In many facilities phone numbers are blocked from the inmate phones if the phone bills belonging to the people whom inmates call become too high. In addition to these issues, inmates are also not allowed to possess phone cards at West Tennessee and presumably the other facilities (sv 3/30/00, p.3).

Staffing/Lack of Training Issues

Many of the CCA facilities have difficulty retaining correctional officers. Correctional officers at CCA facilities regularly leave their positions to work either at higher paying jobs (often in a factory) or as a correctional officer with the state’s Department of Corrections. Prairie frequently loses correctional officers after one year because the Minnesota DOC (which offers higher wages) requires their correctional officers to have a year of correctional experience (sv 2/3/00, p.10). In addition to these problems, the amount of vacancies found in CCA prisons often creates staff shortages. West Tennessee’s security chief was covering a number of supervisor shifts due to staff shortages (sv 2/1/00, p.1).

A number of facilities maintain extremely high vacancy rates among correctional officers. While ACA standards require that staff vacancies may not exceed 10% for any eighteen month period, Whiteville, North Fork, and Prairie all had an average vacancy rate that exceeded this over a six month period. The average vacancy rate for the security positions at Whiteville was 17% from January to June of 2000. In the month of April the vacancy rate was about 25%. From January to June of 2000, North Fork had an average vacancy rate of about 16.3%. Prairie had a vacancy rate of about 12.9% for the same time period. Of the CCA facilities, only West Tennessee maintained a correctional officer vacancy rate that was within ACA standards. Their vacancy rate was about 7.2% from January to June of 2000.

Large numbers of vacancies in the prisons have also come about due to group terminations. In May of 1999, 87 staff members were terminated from Whiteville for various rule violations. No specific reasons were given in the reports for these terminations. The facility now uses a polygraph machine to help ensure that staff members are complying with facility rules (sv 6/1/99, p.1).

Recommendations

1) The state should conduct a contract audit of all the private facilities. While DOC could initiate an audit on its own, the Legislative Audit Bureau would likely provide a more balanced analysis. The audit should address concerns about sanitation, health, staffing issues, training guidelines, and gang affiliation problems.

2) The contract monitors need to be more active in enforcing the contractual obligations of the private prisons. Contract monitors generally report that problems exist within the facility but do little to correct the situation. When problems are noted, monitors talk to prison officials in an effort to fix the problems. However, contract monitors do not appear to require that private prisons change their behavior. Instead, monitors merely encourage changes in the way in which the prison is managed. This allows prison officials to continue their practices without fear of punishment. Monitors need to take a more proactive stance towards problems that they observe in the facilities.

3) The Wisconsin Department of Corrections also needs to take a more proactive response to the numerous violations of the contract provisions. Despite the numerous violations, the DOC has never fined or threatened to cancel contracts with any of these facilities over their failure to fulfill their contracts. Failing to respond to these violations only encourages the private facilities to further disregard their contractual obligations. A number of the violations noted in this report are quite serious and certainly merit more of a response than a notation in a contract monitoring report. Perhaps administrative rules should be required to mandate DOC enforcement of contract violations.

4) Inmates’ idle time in the facilities needs to be reduced by providing an increased number of jobs and programs for prisoners. With the exception of Prairie, the ACA reports from all of the CCA facilities indicate that inmates have too much idle time. Inmates who are not working, not in programs, and not engaged in a recreational activity are less likely to become rehabilitated. In addition, idleness can encourage disruptions in the facility. More opportunities for inmates to engage in constructive activity must be provided. However, it is important to note that these increased opportunities should not be in the form of jobs that would take employment away from the neighboring communities.

5) Private prison facilities need to increase their wages in order to retain experienced correctional officers. Almost all of the CCA facilities have difficulty keeping correctional officer positions filled and oftentimes have staffing shortages. This is likely due to the fact that one of the ways private prisons save money is by paying their correctional officers considerably less than state run prisons. Because of this, many officers leave the prison, forcing the facility to continually hire inexperienced guards. In addition, low salaries can also encourage guards to supplement their salaries through illicit means by bringing drugs and other contraband into the facilities

6) Due to the incidents that have thus far occurred, it would make sense to remove Wisconsin inmates from out of state private prisons. It is obvious that inmates in private prisons are not receiving the same care that prisoners housed in Wisconsin facilities receive. While inmates in Wisconsin prisons are not always well treated, the Wisconsin prison system provides better care for inmates than do private prisons.

Currently, it would be impossible to place the 5,000+ inmates housed in private prisons into Wisconsin facilities since Wisconsin’s prisons are already overcrowded. In order to reduce the prison population in Wisconsin, we need to begin pursuing alternative methods of corrections. We cannot build our way out of the prison overcrowding issue. The time is long overdue for an increased commitment to alternatives to incarceration such as intermediate sanctions, halfway houses, and electronic monitoring. Public safety, rehabilitation, and cost effectiveness are compatible and attainable goals. These goals need to be pursued in order to reduce the prison population in Wisconsin and halt the shipping of inmates to out of state private prisons.

After the health audit is completed by the Legislative Audit Bureau, there may be additional recommendations which should be implemented.