IDOC POLICY ON CENSORED EMAIL NOTIFICATIONS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AND CAUSES UNNECESSARY WORK FOR STAFF
In response to the lawsuit in SHACKELFORD v. McKAY, Ada County (Idaho) Case No. CV-OC-16-05583, the IDOC agreed to amend a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to require staff to notify prisoners whenever an electronic communication or ECM (email, videogram or photo attachment) was censored. The IDOC simply repurposed a document used by IDOC mailrooms to notify prisoners of censored or confiscated incoming (postal) mail (Attachment to IDOC SOP 503.02.01.001). Despite the SOP change and requirements, staff rarely, if ever, properly or timely notify prisoners when ECMs are censored or confiscated.
What IS happening is that any time there is an ECM confiscation, an electronic communication of the fact is usually sent to the intended recipient prisoner which reads: "HELLO [inmate name / number], AN EMESSAGE THAT WAS SENT TO YOU HAS BEEN CENSORED AND WILL NOT BE DELIVERED. NO REFUNDS ARE PROVIDED FOR CENSORED MAIL." This communication provides no practical notice or useful information other than the fact of the censorship since there is no indication as to who sent the ECM, when the ECM was sent, why the ECM was censored, or who censored it.
In some cases, unknown to the prisoner, the censored ECM is released to the prisoner's email account (after second-level review by investigators) AFTER the electronic "Notice" has been sent. Most often, the prisoner is unaware that the censored email has been released and available as the prisoner has no idea when - or from whom - the censored email originated.
Days after receiving the electronic "Notice" of confiscation, when there has been no required (paper) Notice provided (or prisoners have no idea that the affected email has been released), prisoners are forced to write a Concern Form to the Investigations Department in their facility, inquiring as to the status of the unidentified censored ECM. Investigators then have to find the email, match the electronic notice to the censored ECM, respond to the Concern Form and provide the proper (paper) Notice as required by SOP. Often, investigators will not respond to the Concern Form within the time allotted (7 days) and the prisoner has no option then but to file a grievance due to SOP deadlines on grievance filings
In many instances, the Concern Form (Reply from investigations) will arrive days after the grievance has been filed - and whether the Concern Form reply answers the question or not (or the ECM has been unknowingly released) the grievance must go through the process, wasting many hours of staff time per week... it cannot be withdrawn once filed.
Institutional staff are able to communicate with individual prisoners via the JPay email system - at no cost to the state or prisoner. With this ability, there is absolutely no reason staff cannot use this method to notify a prisoner that an ECM has been censored AND provide the data necessary to the prisoner that would constitute legitimate Notice as required by both SOP and law rather than simply telling a prisoner... 'hey, we took your stuff'. Thirty seconds spent by staff who are censoring the ECM providing the required data the first time in the electronic notice will save many staff work hours later.
This method of proper Notice would prevent the need for most Concern Form inquiries to the investigators regarding censored ECMs, would prevent grievances due to late Concern Form replies and save staff dozens of manhours (or is it "personhours" these days?) per month - hours which can then be used to investigate things that have for too long been ignored
What IS happening is that any time there is an ECM confiscation, an electronic communication of the fact is usually sent to the intended recipient prisoner which reads: "HELLO [inmate name / number], AN EMESSAGE THAT WAS SENT TO YOU HAS BEEN CENSORED AND WILL NOT BE DELIVERED. NO REFUNDS ARE PROVIDED FOR CENSORED MAIL." This communication provides no practical notice or useful information other than the fact of the censorship since there is no indication as to who sent the ECM, when the ECM was sent, why the ECM was censored, or who censored it.
In some cases, unknown to the prisoner, the censored ECM is released to the prisoner's email account (after second-level review by investigators) AFTER the electronic "Notice" has been sent. Most often, the prisoner is unaware that the censored email has been released and available as the prisoner has no idea when - or from whom - the censored email originated.
Days after receiving the electronic "Notice" of confiscation, when there has been no required (paper) Notice provided (or prisoners have no idea that the affected email has been released), prisoners are forced to write a Concern Form to the Investigations Department in their facility, inquiring as to the status of the unidentified censored ECM. Investigators then have to find the email, match the electronic notice to the censored ECM, respond to the Concern Form and provide the proper (paper) Notice as required by SOP. Often, investigators will not respond to the Concern Form within the time allotted (7 days) and the prisoner has no option then but to file a grievance due to SOP deadlines on grievance filings
In many instances, the Concern Form (Reply from investigations) will arrive days after the grievance has been filed - and whether the Concern Form reply answers the question or not (or the ECM has been unknowingly released) the grievance must go through the process, wasting many hours of staff time per week... it cannot be withdrawn once filed.
Institutional staff are able to communicate with individual prisoners via the JPay email system - at no cost to the state or prisoner. With this ability, there is absolutely no reason staff cannot use this method to notify a prisoner that an ECM has been censored AND provide the data necessary to the prisoner that would constitute legitimate Notice as required by both SOP and law rather than simply telling a prisoner... 'hey, we took your stuff'. Thirty seconds spent by staff who are censoring the ECM providing the required data the first time in the electronic notice will save many staff work hours later.
This method of proper Notice would prevent the need for most Concern Form inquiries to the investigators regarding censored ECMs, would prevent grievances due to late Concern Form replies and save staff dozens of manhours (or is it "personhours" these days?) per month - hours which can then be used to investigate things that have for too long been ignored