Administrative Data Findings From New York State’s Incarcerated Grievance Program
Published: June 17th, 2024
In October 2023, the Correctional Association of New York (CANY) released a comprehensive report ‘Smoke Screen’: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons. Drawing upon survey responses from incarcerated individuals and interviews with grievance staff, the report found the Incarcerated Grievance Program (IGP) to be rife with delays, inconsistent across facilities, and undermined by retaliatory actions against those who file grievances.
To better understand and increase transparency around the IGP, CANY has analyzed administrative data from DOCCS’ public annual reports on the IGP as well as grievance response time reports obtained through Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests. The findings from CANY’s analysis, which are presented in this data briefing here, resonate with many of the concerns raised by incarcerated people in the Smoke Screen report and point to the need for mechanisms to address the root causes of IGP failures.
Topics covered in this analysis include (1) the number of grievances filed over time, (2) variation in grievance filing rates, (3) variation in grievance outcomes, and (4) delays in grievance response times. The data presented in Sections 1 through 3 come from DOCCS’ public annual IGP reports between 2014 and 2022, while the data presented in Section 4 comes from grievance response time reports filed by facilities at the end of 2022.
1. Number of grievances filed over time
Each year, incarcerated individuals in New York State file more than 20,000 grievances on a wide range of issues. These grievances are divided by DOCCS into six different categories (Program Services, Health Services, Facility Operations, Administrative Services, Counsel, and Executive Direction), which are further classified into subcategories, or codes. Shown below are the 23,301 grievances filed in 2022 classified by category and subcategory:
The most common codes assigned to grievances in 2022 were Medical (16.2%), Staff Conduct (12.5%), Special Housing Units (8.7%), Housing – Internal Block Affairs (8.0%), and Package Room (6.1%). Taken together, these five codes made up 51.5% of all grievances filed that year.
Medical, Staff Conduct, Special Housing Units, Housing – Internal Block Affairs, and Package Room were also the most common grievance codes for each year between 2014 and 2020. (In 2021, Miscellaneous took the place of Special Housing Units in the top five.) The following graph shows the change in the total number of grievances filed over time, as well as the change in volume for each of these five codes:
While the number of grievances filed has decreased in recent years, the total prison population has decreased as well. The change in population size can be accounted for by presenting the yearly number of grievances filed per 1000 incarcerated individuals [1]:
Below are grievance filing rates per 1000 incarcerated individuals for each of the 44 DOCCS facilities open as of the end of 2022. Filing rates overall and by grievance code differ significantly by facility, as will be discussed in the next section of this brief.
Note on the data: Grievances filed by multiple individuals about a given incident are typically consolidated and counted as a single grievance in DOCCS' internal and public-facing reports. As such, the grievance counts referenced here and throughout this brief may accurately reflect the number of incidents grieved, but likely undercount the number of distinct grievances filed about incidents. The volume of grievance consolidations is not publicly reported.
2. Variation in grievance filing rates
On average, incarcerated individuals were most likely to file grievances at maximum-security facilities and least likely to file grievances at minimum-security facilities. As the graph below shows, the filing rate at maximum-security facilities was over twice as high as the filing rate at medium- and minimum-security facilities for each year between 2014 and 2022:
Within each security level, there were notable differences in how often people filed grievances. Among maximum-security facilities in 2022, grievance filing rates ranged from 170.9 grievances per 1000 individuals at Coxsackie to 4492.2 grievances per 1000 individuals at Upstate [2]. The number of grievances per 1000 individuals filed across all maximum-security facilities in 2022 was 943.9.
Variation in filing rates was similarly present among medium- and minimum-security facilities and across all years, as can be seen in the following set of visualizations. For a discussion of factors that may affect grievance filing rates, including obstacles to accessing grievance forms, concerns about retaliation, and limitations on issues subject to the IGP, see CANY’s report Smoke Screen pp. 45-55.
2.1. Grievances and non-calendared contacts
Some facilities with low grievance filing rates had high rates of non-calendared contacts, which are defined by DOCCS as interactions in which grievance staff assist incarcerated individuals to address an issue without a formal grievance being filed [3]. At Mohawk, for example, there were 1333 non-calendared contacts per 1000 individuals in 2022—which was 8.7 times higher than the rate of grievances filed at the facility that year. The rates of non-calendared contacts at all facilities are shown in the set of visualizations below.
Of particular interest is Coxsackie, which has had the lowest grievance filing rate among maximum-security facilities each year since 2018. While incarcerated individuals at Coxsackie filed grievances and made non-calendared contacts at similar rates in 2014, the non-calendared contact rate increased to 13.0 times the grievance filing rate by 2022. Between 2014 and 2019, every decrease in the grievance filing rate at Coxsackie was mirrored by an increase in the rate of non-calendared contacts, and vice versa.
This correlation between low grievance filing rates and high non-calendared contact rates did not hold across all facilities; several facilities with low grievance filing rates had similarly low rates of non-calendared contacts. In 2022, Altona, Bare Hill, Hale Creek, and Queensboro all reported less than 100 non-calendared contacts per 1000 individuals despite being among the five facilities with lowest grievance filing rates.
Due to the limited information publicly available about the nature and outcomes of non-calendared contacts, it is difficult to assess how effective non-calendared contacts are in resolving issues and to what extent they are being used as an alternative to the formal grievance process. The rates presented here suggest that the answers may depend on the facility.
3. Variation in grievance outcomes
In the same way that grievance filing rates differed between facilities, grievance outcomes also showed substantial variation across facilities and over time. While details on the grievance process can be found in DOCCS’ annual IGP reports, we provide basic definitions of possible grievance outcomes below:
A grievance is favorably resolved if at least part of the grievance is decided in the incarcerated individual’s favor by the superintendent or IGRC.
A grievance is unfavorably resolved if it is decided against the incarcerated individual’s favor by the superintendent or IGRC.
A grievance is informally resolved if it is resolved by grievance staff without a formal hearing taking place.
A grievance can be withdrawn by the incarcerated individual before a hearing.
A grievance can be dismissed by the IGRC after a hearing.
While DOCCS groups together favorably resolved, informally resolved, and withdrawn grievances in their calculation of favorable resolution rates, this section will consider these three outcomes separately because there are qualitative differences between them [4]. The favorable resolution rate for a given year has been calculated by dividing the number of favorably resolved grievances filed that year by the total number of grievances filed that year (even if they may have been resolved in a subsequent year); informal resolution and withdrawal rates have been calculated analogously.
Below are shown rates of these three outcomes by facility security level. Although there is some variation in each outcome by security level, the most significant variation takes place between facilities of the same security level.
3.1. Variation in resolution rates by facility
The rate of favorably resolved grievances varied widely at maximum-security facilities. Whereas the favorable resolution rate across all maximum-security facilities in 2022 was 19.4%, the favorable resolution rate at individual facilities ranged from 49.9% at Auburn to 1.4% and 0.4% at Five Points and Sullivan, respectively. At Sullivan, only two of the 567 grievances filed were favorably resolved.
Variation in favorable resolution rates was similarly apparent at medium-security facilities. In 2022, favorable resolution rates at medium-security facilities ranged from 34.3% to 0%, with the rate of favorable resolutions across all such facilities being 16.0%. Eight medium-security facilities (Adirondack, Bare Hill, Hale Creek, Hudson, Mohawk, Taconic, Ulster, Washington) favorably resolved between one and ten grievances filed over the course of the entire year; four facilities (Altona, Cape Vincent, Franklin, and Riverview) favorably resolved none at all.
Favorable resolution rates at medium-security facilities (as well as maximum- and minimum-security facilities) between 2014 and 2022 are shown in the set of visualizations below.
The proportion of grievances that were informally resolved also varied notably across facilities. Some facilities with low favorable resolution rates made frequent use of informal resolutions, with several including Bare Hill, Cape Vincent, and Franklin consistently reporting informal resolution rates over ten times higher than their favorable resolution rates. However, other facilities such as Upstate and Riverview had low rates of both favorable and informal resolutions over the years.
Although informal resolutions may allow simple issues to be resolved more quickly than the formal grievance process, incarcerated people noted on CANY’s grievance survey that informal resolutions were largely ineffective at addressing more serious issues such as medical needs and staff misconduct [5]. A large proportion of grievances at facilities with low favorable resolution rates fell into these two categories—at Bare Hill, for example, where 1.4% of all grievances filed between 2014 and 2022 were favorably resolved, 41.9% of grievances were assigned medical or staff conduct codes during those years. Similarly, at Franklin, where 1.0% of all grievances filed between 2014 and 2022 were favorably resolved, 49.9% of grievances were assigned medical or staff conduct codes. The small number of favorable resolutions at these and other facilities raises questions about whether the medical and staff conduct grievances they received were adequately resolved.
Overall, the variation in favorable and informal resolution rates may reflect differences in the types of issues grieved by facility, though it is difficult to quantify the effect of these differences because DOCCS does not publicly report grievance resolution rates by category. It may also reflect the presence of accountability measures such as video cameras in select facilities, as well as differing approaches taken by superintendents and IGP supervisors across facilities. As incarcerated people describe in CANY’s grievance report, this inconsistency in approaches heavily affects the perceived legitimacy of the grievance system [6].
3.2. Variation in resolution rates over time: facility case studies
Within individual facilities, there was often significant fluctuation in favorable and informal resolution rates over time. Below are case studies of six facilities with particularly notable patterns of resolutions; an interactive visualization with resolution rates over time for each DOCCS facility is presented at the end of this section. Comparing resolution rates over time allows for a more detailed understanding of the varying approaches taken between different facilities.
Attica
The rate of favorable resolutions at Attica has increased considerably over the years, from 1 out of 1787 grievances (0.1%) in 2014 to 890 out of 2857 grievances (31.2%) in 2022. Attica has also seen an increase in the rate of informal resolutions during this time, reaching 24.2% in 2019 before falling slightly to 18.6% in 2022.
Sullivan
In contrast to Attica, the favorable resolution rate at Sullivan has sharply decreased between 2014 and 2022. Whereas 127 out of 336 grievances (37.8%) filed at Sullivan in 2014 were favorably resolved, 4 out of 839 grievances (0.5%) filed in 2020 were favorably resolved, and 1 out of 555 grievances (0.2%) filed in 2021 was favorably resolved.
Upstate
Rates of formal and informal resolutions have remained low at Upstate throughout the years, never exceeding 4.4% and 7.3%, respectively. Resolution rates have increased somewhat since 2014, when 0.2% of grievances filed were favorably resolved and 0.8% of grievances were informally resolved.
Cape Vincent
Like Bare Hill and Franklin discussed above, Cape Vincent appeared to rely primarily on informal rather than favorable resolutions. It favorably resolved 1.2% of all grievances filed between 2014 and 2022, and no more than 4.7% of grievances filed in any given year. While the informal resolution rate at Cape Vincent has remained high for most years, there have been no favorable resolutions since 2020.
Mid-State
Across all facilities in which grievances were filed, Mid-State was the only facility to have reported no informal resolutions between 2014 and 2022. The facility had a favorable resolution rate of more than 20% for all nine years and favorably resolved 28.8% of grievances in total.
Riverview
The favorable resolution rate at Riverview dropped substantially between 2017 and 2018, remaining below 2.5% from 2018 onwards. Riverview has seen an increase in the rate of withdrawn grievances in recent years, reaching 11.8% in 2020 and 12.3% in 2021.
Favorable resolution, informal resolution, and withdrawal rates are shown for each DOCCS facility below:
3.3. Withdrawal rates
While any incarcerated person can withdraw a grievance they have filed (with the exception of staff conduct and strip search grievances) [7], withdrawn grievances appeared to be concentrated in a few facilities. Sing Sing and Gouverneur had consistently high withdrawal rates of up to 10.2% and 16.4%, respectively, across all years; Fishkill and Upstate began to have a high number of grievances withdrawn more recently. These four facilities comprised 21.2% of all grievances filed in 2022, but 80.8% of grievances filed during that year that were withdrawn.
At Gouverneur, the number of withdrawn grievances exceeded the number of favorably resolved grievances each year between 2014 and 2022. While 71 incarcerated people who responded to CANY’s grievance survey said they had withdrawn a grievance because the issue at hand had been resolved, 63 said they had withdrawn their grievance due to staff intimidation or retaliation [8].
4. Grievance response times
In addition to displaying significant variation in grievance outcomes and filing rates, many facilities answered grievances well beyond the time limits specified in DOCCS Directive 4040. Facility-level grievance response time data obtained through FOIL gives insight into the extent of the delays at both the IGRC and superintendent levels [9].
Note on the data: Although CANY requested response time reports via FOIL for all facilities open at the end of 2022, no data was received from Bedford Hills, Marcy, or Sullivan for 2022. There were also several discrepancies in the data received through FOIL, both internal to the response time data itself and when compared with other data sources. Most notably, the number of grievances heard at the IGRC and superintendent levels in the FOIL data did not always align with the numbers presented in DOCCS’ public grievance reports. Other discrepancies are mentioned in this section as they become relevant to the analysis; a more complete discussion of data discrepancies can be found in Appendix B.
In the event of data inconsistencies, numbers reported in the FOIL data as opposed to DOCCS’ public reports have been used in this section.
4.1. High percentage of grievances heard beyond time limit
While Directive 4040 states that grievances must be reviewed within certain time limits, a large proportion of grievances were heard beyond these limits. Across the 41 facilities for which CANY received response time reports for 2022, 46.9% of grievances heard at the IGRC level exceeded the 16-day time limit set by DOCCS.
Many facilities with a high percentage of grievances heard by the IGRC beyond the time limit were maximum-security facilities with a large number of grievances filed; of the nine facilities with over 50% of grievances heard beyond the time limit, all but Mohawk were maximum-security. At Sing Sing, 1008 out of 1036 grievances (97.3%) were heard by the IGRC beyond the time limit.
There were also delays in grievance response times at the superintendent level. (Superintendents review grievances that are appealed or referred after being heard by the IGRC, as well as those that are passed through without being heard.) Overall, 20.3% of grievances at facilities for which CANY received response time reports were answered beyond the superintendent time limit, which varies by the type of grievance but is at most 25 calendar days. Four facilities (Hudson, Coxsackie, Mohawk, and Greene) had more than half their grievances answered by the superintendent beyond the time limit.
Unlike at the IGRC level, the facilities with the largest share of grievances answered beyond the time limit at the superintendent level were typically medium-security facilities with relatively few grievances filed compared to their maximum-security counterparts. At Hudson, 24 out of 25 grievances (96%) were answered by the superintendent beyond the time limit, and at Mohawk, 32 out of 54 grievances (59.3%) were answered beyond the time limit. At Attica, which had the highest number of grievances (1,100) reviewed by the superintendent across all facilities, a comparatively lower 20.5% of grievances were answered beyond the time limit.
Note on the data: At a few facilities, the reported percentage of grievances heard beyond the time limit at the IGRC or superintendent level did not match the computed percentage (obtained by dividing the reported number of grievances heard beyond the time limit at that level by the reported total number of grievances heard at that level). Computed rather than reported percentages have been used whenever there is a discrepancy between the two values.
4.2. Long average response times
A separate but related measure of delays in the grievance process is the average number of calendar days it takes for a grievance to receive a response. In some cases, the calendar day average at the IGRC or superintendent level exceeded the time limit at that level itself.
At the IGRC level, the calendar day average between the receipt of a grievance and an IGRC hearing exceeded the 16-day time limit at 16 facilities, including four which had an average response time of more than twice the time limit. Of the facilities with calendar day averages exceeding the IGRC time limit, many were facilities with a large number of grievances filed and a high percentage of grievances heard beyond the time limit.
Calendar day averages were similarly high at the superintendent level, where nine facilities had calendar day averages exceeding the maximum time limit of 25 days. Some of these facilities were maximum-security facilities with many grievances filed (Clinton, Green Haven, Attica, Five Points, Upstate), but the facilities with the four highest calendar day averages (Coxsackie, Greene, Mohawk, Hudson) each had less than 150 grievances answered by the superintendent.
The differing characteristics of facilities that most frequently failed to meet time limits at the IGRC and superintendent levels suggest that different approaches may be needed to reduce grievance response times at each level. CANY’s recommendations for the IGP, forthcoming later this year, will offer proposed solutions to address delays in grievance response times as well as obstacles in the filing process, variation in resolution rates, and other key matters related to the findings presented in this brief.
Endnotes
[1] All grievance filing rates throughout this brief, including rates by facility and security level, have been taken directly from DOCCS’ public annual IGP reports.
[2] While Upstate has consistently had one of the highest grievance filing rates among facilities, a filing rate of 4492.2 in 2022 should be considered high even for Upstate, as filing rates at the facility ranged from 1760.8 to 2151.5 between 2014 and 2021.
[3] Incarcerated Grievance Program Annual Report 2022, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, December 2023, 30, https://doccs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2023/12/incarcerated-grievance-program-annual-report-2022-final.pdf.
[4] For example, incarcerated people have reported that informal resolutions are more susceptible to staff bias and do not effectively resolve systemic problems. See Smoke Screen pp. 14, 97-98.
[5] ‘Smoke Screen’: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons, Correctional Association of New York, October 2023, 97-98, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/62f1552c1dd65741c53bbcf8/t/651ec66e5505c5122ed0154a/1696515700783/CANY_GrievanceReport_2023Oct.pdf.
[6] Smoke Screen, 35.
[7] Directive No. 4040: Incarcerated Grievance Program, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, January 2016, https://doccs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/12/4040.pdf.
[8] Smoke Screen, 96.
[9] With the exception of staff misconduct, discrimination, or strip search grievances, which are forwarded directly to the superintendent, all grievances are heard by the IGRC and may subsequently be appealed or referred to the superintendent. The IGRC must informally resolve or conduct a hearing for a grievance within 16 calendar days upon receipt, while the superintendent must render a decision within 20 calendar days (or 25 calendar days for staff misconduct, discrimination, and strip search grievances). For a full discussion of the implications of delays in grievance response times, see Smoke Screen pp. 56-60.
Appendix A: Grievance response time data table
|
|
HEARD BY IGRC (2022) |
ANSWERED BY SUPERINTENDENT (2022) |
||||||
|
Facility Name |
Total Heard |
Total Beyond Time Limit |
Percent Beyond Time Limit (Computed) |
Calendar Day Average |
Total Heard |
Total Beyond Time Limit |
Percent Beyond Time Limit (Computed) |
Calendar Day Average |
|
Adirondack |
80 |
2 |
2.5% |
5.9 |
53 |
1 |
1.9% |
18 |
|
Albion |
204 |
21 |
10.3% |
13.1 |
171 |
11 |
6.4% |
16 |
|
Altona |
0 |
0 |
0% |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0% |
22 |
|
Attica |
1991 |
1151 |
57.8% |
40.7 |
1100 |
226 |
20.5% |
31.8 |
|
Auburn |
998 |
479 |
48.0% |
21 |
546 |
47 |
8.6% |
7 |
|
Bare Hill |
64 |
31 |
48.4% |
15 |
68 |
7 |
10.3% |
14 |
|
Cape Vincent |
42 |
15 |
35.7% |
24 |
43 |
6 |
14.0% |
13 |
|
Cayuga |
320 |
60 |
18.8% |
14.8 |
139 |
37 |
26.6% |
21.4 |
|
Clinton |
698 |
196 |
28.1% |
15 |
435 |
82 |
18.9% |
35 |
|
Collins |
330 |
0 |
0% |
5 |
143 |
0 |
0% |
5 |
|
Coxsackie |
33 |
25 |
75.8% |
19.2 |
76 |
51 |
67.1% |
48.7 |
|
Eastern |
282 |
72 |
25.5% |
15.5 |
211 |
7 |
3.3% |
5.5 |
|
Edgecombe |
0 |
0 |
0% |
0 |
7 |
0 |
0% |
4 |
|
Elmira |
440 |
167 |
38.0% |
22.8 |
138 |
8 |
5.8% |
16.9 |
|
Fishkill |
339 |
97 |
28.6% |
21 |
154 |
27 |
17.5% |
19 |
|
Five Points |
1015 |
692 |
68.2% |
31 |
541 |
207 |
38.3% |
28 |
|
Franklin |
209 |
52 |
24.9% |
13 |
172 |
43 |
25.0% |
19 |
|
Gouverneur |
234 |
57 |
24.4% |
13.5 |
156 |
18 |
11.5% |
14.8 |
|
Great Meadow |
488 |
313 |
64.1% |
1.3 |
227 |
89 |
39.2% |
0.6 |
|
Green Haven |
773 |
475 |
61.4% |
47 |
500 |
103 |
20.6% |
32 |
|
Greene |
290 |
84 |
29.0% |
28 |
122 |
70 |
57.4% |
41 |
|
Groveland |
263 |
38 |
14.4% |
15 |
105 |
19 |
18.1% |
16.7 |
|
Hale Creek |
3 |
1 |
33.3% |
16 |
2 |
0 |
0% |
15 |
|
Hudson |
15 |
1 |
6.7% |
12 |
25 |
24 |
96.0% |
36 |
|
Lakeview |
134 |
14 |
10.4% |
11 |
103 |
12 |
11.7% |
16.2 |
|
Mid-State |
279 |
0 |
0% |
2.4 |
291 |
16 |
5.5% |
17 |
|
Mohawk |
106 |
57 |
53.8% |
27.3 |
54 |
32 |
59.3% |
37.2 |
|
Orleans |
364 |
58 |
15.9% |
11.6 |
179 |
19 |
10.6% |
13.1 |
|
Otisville |
157 |
44 |
28.0% |
16.5 |
130 |
8 |
6.2% |
9.5 |
|
Queensboro |
0 |
0 |
0% |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0% |
11 |
|
Riverview |
46 |
21 |
45.7% |
18.6 |
48 |
10 |
20.8% |
17.1 |
|
Shawangunk |
441 |
299 |
67.8% |
41.2 |
331 |
81 |
24.5% |
16.4 |
|
Sing Sing |
1036 |
1008 |
97.3% |
51.9 |
701 |
208 |
29.7% |
22.4 |
|
Taconic |
28 |
3 |
10.7% |
10 |
13 |
4 |
30.8% |
22 |
|
Ulster |
27 |
7 |
25.9% |
16 |
31 |
14 |
45.2% |
20 |
|
Upstate |
1439 |
943 |
65.5% |
29 |
1091 |
282 |
25.8% |
26 |
|
Wallkill |
95 |
13 |
13.7% |
10.5 |
103 |
5 |
4.9% |
6.7 |
|
Washington |
53 |
1 |
1.9% |
0.15 |
45 |
3 |
6.7% |
0.1 |
|
Wende |
397 |
27 |
6.8% |
11.6 |
197 |
14 |
7.1% |
9.6 |
|
Woodbourne |
345 |
108 |
31.3% |
16.2 |
309 |
0 |
0% |
6.1 |
|
Wyoming |
136 |
20 |
14.7% |
13.7 |
78 |
0 |
0% |
7.7 |
Source: 2022 facility-level grievance time frame average reports obtained via FOIL
Appendix B: Discrepancies in response time data
As mentioned in Section 4, there were a number of discrepancies within the grievance response time data obtained through FOIL as well as between the response time data and DOCCS’ public reports. These discrepancies, which are discussed in detail below, draw attention to the potential for human error in a paper-based system and point to the need for a digitized process (e.g., through kiosks or tablets) through which to file and track grievances.
Discrepancy #1: FOIL response time data vs. DOCCS public reports
Across nearly all facilities, there were differences in the number of grievances heard at both the IGRC and superintendent levels between the grievance response time FOIL data and DOCCS’ public reports. Generally speaking, these differences were more pronounced at the IGRC level than the superintendent level. There are reasons that the numbers across reports are not identical: the FOIL data counts grievances heard in a given year, whereas the public reports count grievances filed in a given year that were heard, and some facilities’ response time forms reported year-to-date totals in December rather than at the end of the year. However, the magnitude of the difference at some facilities suggests that at least part of the disparity may be due to reporting errors.
Differences in the number of grievances heard at each level are presented in the table below:
|
Facility Name |
IGRC Total (FOIL) |
IGRC Total (Public Reports) |
IGRC Diff. (FOIL - Public) |
IGRC % Diff. |
Supt. Total (FOIL) |
Supt. Total (Public Reports) |
Supt. Diff. (FOIL - Public) |
Supt. % Diff. |
|
Adirondack |
80 |
34 |
46 |
81% |
53 |
60 |
-7 |
-12% |
|
Albion |
204 |
116 |
88 |
55% |
171 |
154 |
17 |
10% |
|
Altona |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0% |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0% |
|
Attica |
1991 |
1,652 |
339 |
19% |
1100 |
675 |
425 |
48% |
|
Auburn |
998 |
544 |
454 |
59% |
546 |
622 |
-76 |
-13% |
|
Bare Hill |
64 |
34 |
30 |
61% |
68 |
68 |
0 |
0% |
|
Cape Vincent |
42 |
20 |
22 |
71% |
43 |
47 |
-4 |
-9% |
|
Cayuga |
320 |
256 |
64 |
22% |
139 |
146 |
-7 |
-5% |
|
Clinton |
698 |
314 |
384 |
76% |
435 |
435 |
0 |
0% |
|
Collins |
330 |
191 |
139 |
53% |
143 |
148 |
-5 |
-3% |
|
Coxsackie |
33 |
17 |
16 |
64% |
76 |
89 |
-13 |
-16% |
|
Eastern |
282 |
125 |
157 |
77% |
211 |
213 |
-2 |
-1% |
|
Edgecombe |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0% |
7 |
7 |
0 |
0% |
|
Elmira |
440 |
325 |
115 |
30% |
138 |
140 |
-2 |
-1% |
|
Fishkill |
339 |
237 |
102 |
35% |
154 |
154 |
0 |
0% |
|
Five Points |
1015 |
750 |
265 |
30% |
541 |
714 |
-173 |
-28% |
|
Franklin |
209 |
122 |
87 |
53% |
172 |
211 |
-39 |
-20% |
|
Gouverneur |
234 |
144 |
90 |
48% |
156 |
145 |
11 |
7% |
|
Great Meadow |
488 |
396 |
92 |
21% |
227 |
234 |
-7 |
-3% |
|
Green Haven |
773 |
529 |
244 |
37% |
500 |
687 |
-187 |
-32% |
|
Greene |
290 |
242 |
48 |
18% |
122 |
122 |
0 |
0% |
|
Groveland |
263 |
197 |
66 |
29% |
105 |
111 |
-6 |
-6% |
|
Hale Creek |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0% |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0% |
|
Hudson |
15 |
26 |
-11 |
-54% |
25 |
23 |
2 |
8% |
|
Lakeview |
134 |
77 |
57 |
54% |
103 |
106 |
-3 |
-3% |
|
Mid-State |
279 |
101 |
178 |
94% |
291 |
291 |
0 |
0% |
|
Mohawk |
106 |
77 |
29 |
32% |
54 |
54 |
0 |
0% |
|
Orleans |
364 |
231 |
133 |
45% |
179 |
189 |
-10 |
-5% |
|
Otisville |
157 |
52 |
105 |
100% |
130 |
140 |
-10 |
-7% |
|
Queensboro |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0% |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0% |
|
Riverview |
46 |
25 |
21 |
59% |
48 |
48 |
0 |
0% |
|
Shawangunk |
441 |
110 |
331 |
120% |
331 |
331 |
0 |
0% |
|
Sing Sing |
1036 |
691 |
345 |
40% |
701 |
700 |
1 |
0% |
|
Taconic |
28 |
19 |
9 |
38% |
13 |
13 |
0 |
0% |
|
Ulster |
27 |
20 |
7 |
30% |
31 |
31 |
0 |
0% |
|
Upstate |
1439 |
1,021 |
418 |
34% |
1091 |
1,368 |
-277 |
-23% |
|
Wallkill |
95 |
10 |
85 |
162% |
103 |
103 |
0 |
0% |
|
Washington |
53 |
26 |
27 |
68% |
45 |
45 |
0 |
0% |
|
Wende |
397 |
297 |
100 |
29% |
197 |
226 |
-29 |
-14% |
|
Woodbourne |
345 |
53 |
292 |
147% |
309 |
319 |
-10 |
-3% |
|
Wyoming |
136 |
101 |
35 |
30% |
78 |
56 |
22 |
33% |
Discrepancy #2: Computed vs. reported percentages of grievances beyond time limit
Each response time form has designated spots to report (1) the number of grievances heard at the IGRC and superintendent levels, (2) the number of grievances heard at each level beyond the time limit, and (3) the percentage of grievances heard at each level beyond the time limit.
On the vast majority of forms, the reported percentage of grievances heard beyond the time limit was within one percent of the computed percentage (obtained by dividing the reported number of grievances heard beyond the time limit by the reported total number of grievances heard), a difference which can be attributed to rounding. However, two facilities in 2022 had discrepancies between reported and computed percentages that were greater than one percent:
|
Facility Name |
Level Heard |
Reported % Beyond Time Limit |
Computed % Beyond Time Limit |
Difference (Reported - Computed) |
|
Shawangunk |
Superintendent |
26% |
24.5% |
1.5% |
|
Wyoming |
IGRC |
22% |
14.7% |
7.3% |
Discrepancy #3: Impossibly low calendar day averages
Using the percentage of grievances heard beyond the time limit and the time limit at a given level, it is possible to compute a lower bound for what the calendar day average at that level should be. This lower bound is simply the percentage of grievances heard beyond the time limit multiplied by the time limit, and can be mathematically justified as follows:
Computing lower bounds for calendar day averages using the time limits of 16 days at the IGRC level and 20 days at the superintendent level (the minimum time limit for grievances answered directly by the superintendent, to get the smallest lower bound possible) shows that two facilities reported calendar day averages below these lower bounds:
|
Facility Name |
Level Heard |
Total Heard |
Total Beyond Time Limit |
Reported Calendar Day Average |
Calendar Day Average Lower Bound |
|
Great Meadow |
IGRC |
488 |
313 |
1.3 |
16 × .641 = 10.26 |
|
Great Meadow |
Superintendent |
227 |
89 |
0.6 |
20 × .392 = 7.84 |
|
Washington |
IGRC |
53 |
1 |
0.15 |
16 × 0.019 = 0.30 |
|
Washington |
Superintendent |
45 |
3 |
0.12 |
20 × .067 = 1.33 |
Mathematically speaking, it is impossible for both the reported grievance counts and reported calendar day averages at these facilities to be true. Therefore, there is likely an error in the data.