Office of the Ombuds for Corrections Statutes

The Minnesota Office of the Ombuds for Corrections (OBFC) was created “to promote the highest attainable standards of competence, efficiency, and justice in the administration of corrections.”

The Ombuds for Corrections is accountable to the Governor and has the authority to investigate decisions, acts, and other matters of the Department of Corrections so as to promote the highest attainable standards of competence, efficiency, and justice in the administration of corrections.

The Ombuds may decide the method for taking, reviewing, and acting on a complaint; and decide on the scope and manner of the investigation process.

• The Ombuds can investigate complaints made by individuals or they may investigate other issues that they decide need to be investigated in order “to promote the highest attainable standards of competence, efficiency, and justice in the administration of corrections.”
• The Ombuds must be given access to facilities and to documents and information needed to complete their investigation.
• The Ombuds cannot be compelled to testify nor can they be sued for actions taken in carrying out their duties.
• The Ombuds can subpoena witnesses.
• The Office of the Ombuds for Corrections has the authority to file suit to invoke its powers.

• Complaints about Department of Corrections’ actions can come from anyone such as incarcerated individuals, staff, advocates, family members, or community members.
• The Ombuds may require an incarcerated person to complete the corrections complaint process before investigating.
• After the investigation is complete, the Ombuds shall inform the complainant, the DOC, and the official or employee of the action taken.
• The DOC or other staff are not allowed to read or intercept complaints nor Ombuds responses. Complaints from incarcerated individuals must be forwarded immediately and unopened to the Ombuds office. 
• It is illegal to retaliate or punish an incarcerated person for a complaint or an investigation.

The Ombuds should particularly address actions that may be:

•  Against the law or rules
• Unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, or inconsistent with policy
• Mistaken in law or arbitrary in the ascertainment of facts, meaning that the DOC has misunderstood the law or applied the law randomly
• Unclear or inadequately explained or inefficiently performed
• The Ombuds can address actions in a way to help build protocols and practices so that the issues do not continue in the future.

The Ombuds can investigate complaints involving adult jails and detention facilities but they must enter into an arrangement with DOC that ensures they are not duplicating services.

If after investigating, the complaint is found valid, the Ombuds may recommend that the DOC should:

• consider the matter further
• modify or cancel its actions
• alter a ruling
• explain more fully the action in question
• take any other step that the Ombuds recommends

If the Ombuds asks for a response, then the DOC must respond with whether they have taken the action that the Ombuds recommends or if not, the reasons why. They must do this in the time frame that the Ombuds requests.

If the Ombuds thinks staff have participated in criminal conduct or their actions warrant discipline, they can refer the matter to the appropriate authorities.

If the Ombuds finds that the law and rules have been followed, but that those laws or rules are unfair or otherwise objectionable, the Ombuds should bring it to the attention of the Governor and the Legislature and make recommendations on how the law should be changed.

The Ombuds may apply for and receive grants from public and private entities for purposes of carrying out the ombudsperson's powers and duties.

The Ombuds can publish their reports through the Office of the Governor, but before making them public they need to consult with the agency or staff who may be criticized in the report and give them a chance to include a response.

In addition to whatever reports the Ombuds may decide to make, they must also provide a report each year to the Governor and the Senate and House Committee Chairs and committee ranking minority members for the committees that have jurisdiction over the Office of the Ombuds for Corrections.

The Ombuds may access corrections and detention data as well as medical data maintained by the DOC including classified and private data when necessary for the Ombuds to carry out their duties.

MN law categorizes data as private, confidential, or public. 

Private Data

Private Data cannot be accessed by the public but is accessible to the individual who is the subject of that data.

The following OBFC data is classified as private:

• All data on individuals pertaining to contacts made by clients seeking the assistance of the ombudsperson, except as what is specified as confidential or public below.
• Data recorded from personal and phone conversations and in correspondence between the Ombuds and OBFC staff and persons interviewed during the course of an investigation

Confidential Data

Confidential data cannot be made public and is inaccessible to the individual subject of the data.

The written summary of the investigation maintained by the ombudsperson is, to the extent it identifies individuals, classified as confidential data.

Public Data

Public Data is accessible to the public (upon a request for information).

The following information is classified as public:

• Client name
• Client location
• DOC Identification Number (DOC OID#)

Essentially this means that the law says that no information shared with the Office of the Ombuds for Corrections can be accessed publicly except for the name, facility location, and OID # of the complaint but that information cannot be tied to any specific complaints or complaint details (unless otherwise authorized by other applicable state or federal law). Nor can there be any retaliation for having made a complaint. Who makes a complaint can be accessed but not what the complaint is or the result of the investigation.