Gassing Report

Executive Summary

On January 1, 1998, the Governor signed Senate Bill 136 enacting Penal Code Section 4032. Penal Code Section 4032 mandates certain procedures and investigations, in addition to reporting to the Board of Corrections, when there is an incident of battery by "gassing" in a local correctional facility. Gassing is defined as "…intentionally placing or throwing, or causing to be thrown, upon the person of another, any mixture of human excrement or other bodily fluids or substances."

This Bill resulted from the concern that: 1) the lifestyle of many inmates makes them more susceptible than the average person to a number of serious, communicable diseases, and 2) malicious inmates can use their infected body fluids as weapons against correctional employees. Gassing is not a new phenomenon in the field of corrections. In fact, it is well documented that inmates do in fact resort to gassing as a retaliatory act. In a typical scenario, the inmate waits until a correctional employee is near the food pass slot, or door hinge, before throwing the mixture of excrement and urine catching them by surprise.

Under Penal Code Section 6027, the Board of Corrections is mandated to "make a study of the entire subject of crime, with particular references to conditions in the State of California, including causes of crime…" In response to its mandated duty, the Board of Corrections developed methodology to study gassing incidents at local correctional facilities, and its findings and recommendations are enumerated in this report to the Legislature.

The Board of Corrections focused on four issues:

1. Are incidents of gassing occurring frequently in detention facilities?
2. Under what circumstances do these incidents occur?
3. To what extent do local facility administrators view gassing as a serious and growing problem?
4. What harm is being done by such incidents to correctional personnel?

As will be discussed in the report below, incidents of gassing are occurring. Nevertheless, the frequency of occurrence appears to be low. Inmates with a history of violent or serious crimes, who are housed alone, are committing the majority of the incidents. It appears that facility administrators have taken the necessary precautions to prevent incidents of gassing and minimize the negative effects when the incidents do occur. There is no evidence to date of substantial harm to local correctional employees resulting from gassing incidents. The Board of Corrections will continue to gather incident reports and analyze the data.

Methodology

The Board of Corrections received notification of the passage of Senate Bill 136, and in accordance with the mandates of Penal Code (PC) Section 4032, developed methodology for data collection, analysis, and reporting to the Legislature by January 1, 2000. The Board of Corrections collected and analyzed data from February 27, 1998 through November 3, 1999. The following occurred to facilitate data collection, analysis, and report preparation:

• A letter to all sheriffs, chiefs of police, and chief probation officers was prepared and distributed by the Board's Executive Director outlining the mandated reporting requirements under the newly enacted PC Section. Approximately 500 letters were distributed to agency representatives who manage a total average daily population of 91,175 inmates and juveniles. (Appendix A).
• A follow up letter was mailed to all parties approximately one year later to reiterate mandated reporting provisions. (Appendix B).
• The Board of Corrections selected a field representative to be the coordinator and central contact person for all inquiries and technical assistance relative to PC Section 4032. This field representative also consulted with the author of the Senate Bill to clarify questions.
• The Board of Corrections assigned a Board support person to collect and maintain a chronological file of all incident reports and attachments submitted by local correctional facilities.
• Board of Corrections staff members made a formal presentation to the California State Sheriffs’ Association (CSSA) Detention and Correction Subcommittee detailing the provisions of PC Section 4032 and the coordinated effort by staff.
• Board staff made numerous presentations at various correctional seminars, which were attended by jail managers and supervisors, to inform them of the provisions of PC Section 4032 and to emphasize the mandated reporting requirements.

Field representatives from the Facilities Standards and Operations Division routinely discussed the reporting requirements with jail managers, administrators, and training staff during biennial inspections.

Findings

1. During the reporting period, 20 of 58 counties reported 43 gassing incidents to the Board of Corrections¹ (Appendix C and D). The reporting period was from February 27, 1998 through November 3, 1999. Sixty-five percent of the gassing incidents (28) were reported from adult facilities and thirty-five percent (15) from juvenile (Sonoma County submitted reports for adult and juvenile). Adult males accounted for forty-nine percent (21), juvenile males thirty-three percent (14), adult females sixteen percent (7), and juvenile females two percent (1) of the total.
2. Sixteen counties reported 28 gassing incidents in Type I, II, III, and IV facilities (Appendix C). These 16 counties represent 63.1 percent of the reported average daily population (79,965) for Type I, II, III, and IV facilities for 1998/99. Five counties reported 15 gassing incidents in juvenile halls and camps (Appendix D). These five counties represent 9.2 percent of the reported average daily population (11,210) at juvenile halls and camps for the first three quarters of 1999.
3. Fourteen inmates were requested by the investigating agency to submit to medical testing due to direct skin contact with the victim. The test results were negative for all fourteen inmates, and there was a reported cost of $330 for three of the tests. The cost for the remaining eleven tests were not reported to the Board of Corrections.
4. The cost of testing is separate from the total cost of treatment. A victim of a gassing incident may require periodic AIDS/HIV testing if the suspect tests positive at a future date. Additionally, if a suspect does test positive, there would likely be psychiatric and medical treatment for the victim. During the time this report was prepared, there was no ongoing AIDS/HIV testing or psychiatric treatment.
5. Charges were filed with the local District Attorney's Office in 22 of the incidents. In 20 incidents, no charges were filed as a result of the investigation, and one case was rejected by the local District Attorney's Office. To date, only two suspects are known to have charges issued for the offense, and one was assessed a penalty of $545.
6. A profile of the adult inmates, with known criminal history, involved in gassing incidents reveals the following:
   • Eighteen offenders had been convicted of one or more violent or serious felony offenses.
   • Four offenders had not been convicted of a serious or violent crime.
7. A profile of the juveniles in custody, with known criminal history, discloses the following:
   • One juvenile had a Juvenile Court Finding of a violent offense.
   • Ten juveniles had no serious or violent offense findings.
   • One juvenile with no previous serious or violent finding was involved in two separate incidents.
8. In all 43 incidents, the offenders were confined in special housing. Seven counties reported the purchase of special safety equipment including protective clothing, eye protection, and breathing apparatuses for future situations. One county also noted that they were conducting a policy review.
9. Twenty-one percent of the correctional facilities reported that they are now using protective equipment.
10. In thirty-three percent (14) of the incidents, inmates submitted to blood tests. Thirteen cases were negative, and the result of the other is pending. In the remaining sixty-seven percent (29) of the incidents, no test was deemed necessary. For those tests where the cost was reported, the average cost per test was $110.

_______________________
¹Refer to Gassing Incidents Reported at Adult and Juvenile Correctional Facilities

Conclusions

The Board of Corrections approached this issue from four perspectives. We wanted to:

1. Find out whether these incidents of gassing were occurring in detention facilities, and with what frequency;
2. Understand some of the circumstances in which these incidents occur;
3. Assess the degree to which local facility administrators view gassing as a serious and growing problem; and,
4. Determine the harm being done by such incidents to correctional personnel.

Although we have survey data regarding specific incidents from only 20 jurisdictions and about 43 actual occurrences of gassing, we can begin to address issues (1) and (2), which we have in this report. Nevertheless, we need much more data from a broader sample to arrive at definitive conclusions.

However, concerning issues (3) and (4), our constant and widespread contact with the field, supported by the survey data suggests that jurisdictions have been dealing effectively with the issue of gassing. Obviously deadly diseases like AIDS cause us to revisit this issue periodically (from the standpoint of asking whether we are doing enough). There is a heightened awareness by staff when confronting contagious inmates, in conjunction with precautionary measures that are currently being implemented.

In terms of issue (4), not one case has been reported of a correctional employee being infected by a gassing incident. So far, the measures put in place to protect correctional employees seem to be working. Nevertheless, the Board of Corrections will continue to be vigilant in monitoring these cases.

The immediate benefit of Penal Code Section 4032 is the heightened awareness of infectious diseases in correctional facilities. The Board of Corrections will continue to address the issue in its overall effort to maintain and improve corrections staff competency.

Recommendations

At this time, the incidents reported to the Board of Corrections are not substantial in number nor do they appear to pose an unusual health threat to staff. The Board of Corrections will continue to provide technical assistance in this area to local correctional facilities personnel and law enforcement agencies.