8. Creates language to forbid the department from retaliation of inmates using the ICRS.
9. Updates the chapter to clarify the filing of complaints by limiting the annual number of complaints an inmate can file to 25 unless certain circumstances apply and limits the original complain to 500 words on no more than two pages.
10. Creates a subsection to address requirements of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA).
11. Creates language to clarify the appeals process. The appeal process must be written in 500 words on no less than two pages. Amends the appeal filing time frame from 10 calendar days to 14 days, repeals the 5 working days to issue a written receipt, amends the time frame for the CCE to make a recommendation to the Secretary from 35 working days to 45 days, amends the time frame for an inmate to file an appeal if he doesn’t hear back for the ICE from 30 working days to 45 days
12. Creates language in the processing section to require date stamping of complaints, allows the inmate extra time to re-file returned complaints, amends the time frame for the ICE to acknowledge receiving the complaint in writing from 5 working days to 10 calendar days, creates a 10 day time frame for the ICE to return complaints and amends the ICE time frame to make a recommendation to the reviewing authority or reject the complaint from 20 working days to 30 days.
13. Repeals the ability to dismiss or affirm complaint with modifications. Complaint can now be dismissed or affirmed in whole or part, amends the time frame for the reviewing authority to make a decision from 10 working days to 15 days and amends the time frame from 30 working days to 45 days an inmate must wait to appeal if he doesn’t get a response.
14. Repeals the ability for the Secretary to adopt the CCE’s recommendation with modifications, amends the time frame for the Secretary to make a decision from 10 working days to 45 days and amends the wait time for the inmate to proceed if he doesn’t hear back from 45 working days to 90 days.
15. Creates language to allow complaints to be processed under this chapter if the inmate is released.
16. Amends time frame for the inmate to inform decision maker the implementation of an affirmed complaint hasn’t been done from 30 working days to 60 days.
17. Creates language to allow the ICE to access protected health information in order to investigate.
18. Corrected references to DOC 310 in other DOC chapters.
F. Summary of and comparison with existing or proposed federal regulations that are intended to address the activities to be regulated by the proposed rule:
The Federal Regulations for the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) National Standards require that departments provided inmates with multiple internal ways to privately report sexual abuse and sexual harassment, retaliation for reporting such incidents, and staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to such incident. (28 C.F.R. Part 115.51(a)) The Federal PREA Regulations provide that staff shall accept reports made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and from third parties and shall promptly document any verbal reports. (28 C.F.R. Part 115.51(c)) Wisconsin rules permit inmates or third parties to file a complaint using the inmate complaint review system or may use alternative methods of filing, including submission of the complaint directly to the warden. The PREA regulations require that the department shall not impose a time limit on when an inmate may submit a grievance regarding an allegation of sexual abuse. (28 C.F.R. Part 115.52(b)(1)) The department may apply otherwise-applicable time limits to any portion of a grievance that does not allege an incident of sexual abuse. (28 C.F.R. Part 115.52(b)(1)) Wisconsin has a similar rule. The PREA regulations require that the department shall not require an inmate to use any informal grievance process, or to otherwise attempt to resolve with staff, an alleged incident of sexual abuse. (28 C.F.R. Part 115.52(b)(1)) An inmate who alleges sexual assault may submit a grievance without submitting it to a staff member who is a subject in the complaint first. (28 C.F.R. Part 115.52(b)(1)) Wisconsin has a similar rule. The PREA regulations require that third parties, including fellow inmates, staff members, family members, attorneys and outside advocates shall be permitted to assist inmates in filing request for administrative remedies relating to allegations of sexual abuse, and shall be permitted to file such requests on behalf of inmates. (28 C.F.R. Part 115.52(e)(1)) Wisconsin has a similar rule. The PREA regulations require that the department shall establish procedures for filing of an emergency grievance alleging that an inmate is subject to a substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse. (28 C.F.R. Part 115.52(f)(1)) Wisconsin has a similar rule. Wisconsin rules permit inmates to contact any staff member who is not the subject of the allegation for immediate corrective action. The PREA regulations require that the department may discipline an inmate for filing a grievance related to alleged sexual abuse only where the agency demonstrates that the inmate filed the grievance in bad faith. (28 C.F.R. Part 115.52(g)) Wisconsin has a similar rule. The warden may discipline an inmate for filing a complaint related to alleged sexual abuse only where the warden demonstrates that the inmate filed the complaint in bad faith. The Department of Justice provides informative standards that may be adopted or applied by departments to permit inmate grievance procedures within the institution that affect them personally. (28 C.F.R. Part 40.5) The standards provide that a grievance procedure shall afford a successful grievant a meaningful remedy. (28 C.F.R. 40.6) The regulations provide that an institution may require an inmate to attempt informal resolution before the inmate files a grievance. (28 C.F.R. 40.7(a)). Wisconsin rules have a similar rule. The federal regulations permit institutions to include inmates with an advisory role for employees and inmates in the operation of the grievance system. (28 C.F.R. 40.7(b)) The Wisconsin rules permit inmates to submit grievances and respond to inquiries, if applicable from institution complaint examiners. The federal standards provide that no inmate or employee who appears to be involved in the matter shall participate in the resolution of the grievance. (28 C.F.R. 40.7(c)) Wisconsin rules provide that inmates submit complaints to designated complaint examiners. The federal standards provide that each grievance shall be answered in writing at each level of decision and review along with simple directions how to seek further review, if applicable. (28 C.F.R. 40.7(f)) Each response shall be made within fixed time limits at each level. Wisconsin rules adopt time limits for each level of the review process. Each grievant shall be entitled to review by a person or other entity, not under the institution’s supervisor or control, of the disposition of all grievances, including alleged reprisals by an employee against an inmate. (28 C.F.R. 40.7(f)) Wisconsin rules have similar provisions. The grievance procedure shall contain special provisions for responding to grievances of an emergency nature. (28 C.F.R. 40.8) Wisconsin rules have emergency procedures for PREA related complaints. G. Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states:
1. Illinois
Illinois requires inmates to attempt to resolve any issues with his or her counselor before filing a complaint. (20 Ill. Adm. Code 504.810 § (a)) If the complaint cannot be resolved on the lowest level, an inmate may file a complaint within 60 days of the incident that gave rise to the complaint. 20 Ill. Adm. Code § 504.810 (a)) The 60 day requirement can be waived by the department if good cause is shown for an untimely filing. (20 Ill. Adm. Code § 504.810 (a)) Wisconsin also requires that inmates attempt to resolve any issues on the lowest level before filing a formal complaint. (DOC 310.07 (1)-(2)) If the issue cannot be resolved, an inmate has 14 days from the incident that gave rise to the complaint in which he or she may file a formal complaint. (DOC 310.07 (1)-(2)) An inmate may receive an extended time limit for submitting the complaint beyond 14 days if the inmate can show good cause. (DOC 310.09(5) (d)) In Illinois, if there is an emergency situation in which there is a substantial risk of harm to the offender, complaint proceedings will be expedited. (20 Ill. Adm. Code § 504.840(a)-(b)) Wisconsin has a similar provision. (DOC 310.11(8)) Illinois requires only that details of the incident be included in a complaint. (20 Ill. Adm. Code § 504.810 (b)) Wisconsin has more requirements for how a complaint should be filled out. Wisconsin requires that the complaint be neatly handwritten or typed on the correct form, that the complaint include an original inmate signature, that the complaint include only 500 words or two pages of description, and that the complaint not contain any obscene or threatening language or a foreign substance. (DOC 310.07 (2) (a)-(g)) Illinois rules require a grievance officer to review complaints weekly. (20 Ill. Adm. Code § 504.830 (a)) Although Wisconsin rules do not require officers to review complaints weekly, the rules do require an Institution Complaint Examiner (ICE) to acknowledge receipt of a complaint in writing within 10 days of receipt. (DOC 310.09 (3)) Illinois allows the grievance officer to reject a complaint if (1) the issue had previously been addressed and no new information is presented or (2) the issue does not affect the inmate in question. (20 Ill. Adm. Code § 504.830 (a) (1)-(2)) Like in Illinois, the ICE in Wisconsin may reject a complaint if 1) the issue had previously been addressed and no new information is presented or (2) the issue does not affect the inmate in question. (DOC 310.09 (5) (b),(f)) Furthermore, the ICE may also reject a complaint if (1) the complaint is made solely to harass a person, (2) if the complaint does not raise a significant issue regarding policies, rules, living conditions, or employee actions that affect the inmate, (3) if there is insufficient information in the complaint to properly resolve the issue, (4) if complaint content and timeline requirements are not met, (5) if the issue is moot, (6) if the complaint contains obscene or threatening language, or (7) if the complaint contains a foreign substance. (DOC 310.09 (a)-(h)) In order to complete an investigation, Illinois allows the inmate to appear before the grievance officer, and the grievance officer may also call witnesses. (20 Ill. Adm. Code § 504.830 (c)) In order to complete an investigation, Wisconsin gives the ICE complete access to facilities, inmates, employees and department records to make a determination about the complaint (DOC 310.09 (6)) Illinois rules requires the grievance officer to report his or her findings to the chief administrative officer, who in turn provides the inmate with a written decision within 2 months of receipt of the written grievance when reasonably feasible. (20 Ill. Adm. Code § 504.830 (d)) Wisconsin rules allows the ICE to make a recommendation to the reviewing authority, which must occur within 30 days from the date of receiving the complaint. (DOC 310.09 (8)) The reviewing authority has 15 days of receiving the recommendation to a make a decision. (DOC 310.10 (1)) When inmates feel their issue has not been resolved adequately, Illinois allows inmates to appeal to the director within 30 days after the initial decision. (20 Ill. Adm. Code § 504.850 (a)) On the other hand, Wisconsin requires that inmates appeal a complaint decision to the Corrections Complaint Examiner(CCE) within 14 days of the decision (DOC 310.11 (1)) or within 14 days if the inmate has not received a response after 45 days of receipt of acknowledgment. (DOC 310.08(1)) When a complaint is on appeal in Illinois, the director has discretion in determining whether the complaint requires a hearing before the administrative board. (20 Ill. Adm. Code § 504.850 (b)) After an administrative board hearing, the director must review the findings of the board and make a final decision concerning the complaint within 6 months of receiving the appealed complaint. (20 Ill. Adm. Code § 504.850 (f)) In Wisconsin, after the CCE makes a determination about the appeal, the CCE must send a recommendation to dismiss or affirm the appeal to the secretary of the department of corrections within 45 days. (DOC 310.11 (9)) The secretary then has 20 days to make a decision about the appeal after receiving the CCE’s recommendation. (DOC 310.12 (1)) Illinois’s inmate complaint rules states that inmates that are unable to speak or read English may request the procedure to be conducted in the inmate’s own language. (20 Ill. Adm. Code § 504.810 (d) (2)) Wisconsin’s DOC 310 does not contain any similar rules. Illinois does not address the issue of confidentiality specifically. Wisconsin requires that all filed complaints must be kept confidential, though confidentiality may be waived by the inmate. (DOC 310.14 (1),(3))
Illinois allows records of the complaint process to be maintained in offender’s master file without restriction (20 Ill. Adm. Code § 504.860) whereas Wisconsin mandates that a record of the complaint process cannot be maintained in the inmate’s file unless a reviewing authority gives permission, or maintaining a record in the inmate’s file is reasonably necessary to investigate the complaint, administer a remedy, or for litigation purposes. (DOC 310.14 (2)-(4))
Illinois refers to people within state custody for correctional purposes as offenders. Wisconsin refers to people within state custody for correctional purposes as inmates. The Illinois system used to resolve inmate issues upon request is referred to as a grievance system. The Wisconsin system used to resolve inmate issues upon request is referred to as a complaint system.
2. Iowa
Iowa administrative code has only one provision that addresses an inmate complaint system. 201 IAC 50.21(3)(c) requires that an inmate complaint system be available to all prisoners and that prisoners unable to read English receive an explanation of the complaint process. (201 IAC 50.21 (3)) The complaint system must include at least one level of appeal, and a jail is allowed to limit the use of the system to ensure it does not become abused.
Iowa does not have any further administrative rules which govern the complaint process for inmates in prison. The Iowa department of corrections has issued a policy and procedure which addresses complaint procedures in institutions. (Policy Number IN-V-46 (eff. 1/2005))
3. Michigan
There are no Michigan statutes or administrative code rules that set out procedures to address complaint processes. However, MCL § 791.203 gives the director of corrections the power “to supervise and control the affairs of the department, and the several bureaus thereof.” Under this authority, Michigan’s department of corrections implemented Policy Directive 03.02.130 (eff. 7/2007) to address inmate complaints.
4. Minnesota
There is only one Minnesota administrative code rule that governs inmate complaint procedures. Minn. R. 2911.900 requires that inmates have access to a written complaint procedure that includes at least one level of appeal. Additionally, Minn. Stat. § 243.56 gives inmates the ability to communicate in writing with the facility’s chief executive officer and with the commissioner of corrections. Under this authority, Minnesota’s department of corrections implemented Policy 303.100 (eff. 9/2012) to address inmate complaints. H. Summary of the factual data and analytical methodologies that DOC used in support of its determination of the rule’s fiscal effect on small businesses under s. 227.114, Stats. The department of corrections has determined that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses since the rule does not regulate small businesses as that term is defined in s. 227.114, Stats. I. Any analysis and supporting documents that DOC used in support of the department’s determination of the proposed rule’s effect on small businesses or that was used when the DOC prepared an economic impact report.
Not applicable.
