Gladiators, War, and the PREA

Chapter 3

“Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind”

John F. Kennedy

     The late nineties saw a huge spike in prison populations, and later became known as the prison boom of Texas.  The War on Drugs had increased the number of individuals remanded to custody in significant numbers, specifically targeting the disadvantaged, poor, and ethnic.  The issues faced in today's correctional systems were built on the prison boom of the 1990's, specifically the so called "War on Drugs," which targeted low-income and minority offenders.  Make no mistake, however, white middle class kids were also caught in the broad net of "reformation," although in vastly disproportionate numbers to that of inner city black kids and adults.  Prison was no place for many of these drug offenders, but education and opportunities were not popular with the mainly white upper-class voters of the era.  Our country was built on the Puritanical ideals of severe retribution as the choice of punishment and misguided "reformation."  Prisons became the place to send undesirables.  Lock them away for lengthy sentences and make them someone else’s problem was the general thought process.  Enough time has now passed to know this was destroying not only the offenders' lives, but that of millions of lives to follow, including generations of parentless children, spouses, and the communities from which they came.  Ghettos and clusters of rural communities were the hardest hit, with no viable resources to overcome the effects of mass incarceration. Furthermore, the prisons offenders were remanded to were often fight or die facilities, with little to no oversight from even those charged with running them.  Guards left inmates to generally regulate themselves, allowing for rampant abuse, violence, rape, and murder.  Some of the most notorious gangs developed during this time, and have since filtered out into the free-world communities from which the offenders came.  Disproportionate drug policies became certain death sentences to entire families and communities, issues only now making it to the media headlines and politicians' election platforms.  Still yet, these same politicians are scared to tackle the reality of much needed legislative reform for fear their voting constituents (often white middle/upper-class voters) might not support them or re-elect them into office.  Despite the copious amounts of research available supporting criminal justice, sentencing, and drug policy reforms, our legislators still fear only for their own agendas.  This sincerely disheartening truth in an era of persecution over reform remains an issue even today.     

     Old School gladiator farms existed before the prison boom of the late 90’s, with some still operating today.  They were considered gladiators because of the general type of inmate classified there, and the actions offenders were required to undertake to survive.  As, memory serves, approximately 80% were there with eighteen to twenty five year sentences, often behind disproportionate drug sentencing laws.  This furthered an environment of violence, gang-activity, extortion, rape, addiction, and corruption.  These units were run by the gangs held inside.  Anyone arriving on these units was initiated with a “heart check,” a one on one fight between the “rookie” and another member of your own race.  The “check in” usually lasted for one to two minutes, though some might last longer to establish the true conviction of the newly arrived offender.  Occasionally there might be a second fight.  The second fight, or “backdoor,” might be ordered in the event the first one didn’t satisfy the “speaker,” who was often speaking on behalf of the gang shot-caller.  If a rookie refuses a heart check they are automatically assigned the title “Hoe,” meaning if they don’t “fuck, fight, or bust a $60” they are screwed.  You will do one of the three to survive. 

     You couldn’t sit down in the day-room at any of the tables or benches if you carried the Hoe label (placing you among the lowest of the low in prison hierarchy). If you couldn’t pay for protection your option was to provide a sexual favor in return. Hoes who could not defend themselves were distributed among their own races to be used at the discretion of their peers, or sold to the highest bidder. 

     Then there are the real “punks” (LGBT) who were almost always ready to promote their own brand of action. Some of these “sugar-foots” (males acting as females) were as close to real women as possible complete with breasts and make up. This caused a great deal of drama between some of the convicts. Some fell in love and got jealous, instigating violence and trouble. Sometimes they were bought and sold in sexual slavery between races. Messing with punks mostly considered bad luck or “janky” by those known as true convicts. Gangs, however, had no qualms with buying and selling other inmates like cargo for the right price, despite race affiliation.

     These gladiator units were full of drugs, hooch, and gambling. The day-rooms were where the general population congregated, although segregated by race.  Each race had specific tables and benches.  Field squads (much like chain gangs and slave labor) still existed at this time, tending to the crops grown on the unit’s surrounding property.  While backbreaking work it was a way to may each unit somewhat self-sufficient.  All kinds of crops were cultivated including cotton, beans, potatoes, okra, watermelon, and more.  The “hoe squads” tending field were overseen by armed field bosses on horseback.  It was back breaking slave-labor in the “cuts,” were fights were commonplace.  Over time these self-sustaining prison crop farms have been shut down, with units choosing to lease the land out for additional profits, private contracting sub-par food sources instead.  Much of the food at this time was found to have contaminates such as maggots and rotting meat.  Inmates ate what they were fed, or if fortunate enough to have support from the outside, ate foods provided through purchased commissary.

     Being on the units back in the day was tough and violent, and remain so at many of the still existing “gladiator” units. Fights were daily occurrences, and stabbings were frequent. Compared with current conditions, disciplinary action at this time was considered extremely lenient on newly acquired cases. Once a person “went down that hallway” (going to closed custody, medium security, or administrative segregation) it became extremely difficult to come back out to general population. You could expect at least a minimum of a year before you could get re-classified to a lesser security risk, provided you hadn’t also obtained any new or serious cases against you. Many times the use of segregation practices were for minor infractions, or used under the guise of protecting a weaker inmate from predators. 

     The majority of these gladiator units were built with three or four tiers and long hallways of cell blocks. Each cell was small with two bunks, a toilet, and sink. There wasn’t, and currently still isn’t, any air conditioning in inmate housing portions of almost all the Texas prison units, regardless of dangerously high summer temperatures experienced by all portions of the state. Even now there are annual deaths directly related to the excessively high temperatures experienced in these units, and the state now faces a federally approved civil lawsuit behind the loss of lives due to these inhumane conditions.  Most “farms” (prison units) had/has two sides, one for less violent offenders, and one for high risk offenders, also with separate chow halls on each side. The showers were separated from the cell blocks, and inmates were run through them like cattle. At the time there were big recreation yards with weights, handball, basketball, and some kinds of track and field. For cited safety concerns these provisions have since been eliminated in the majority of units. On bad weather days the indoor gym was used for recreation. When these units weren’t on “lock down” there was a lot of free movement among the inmates. Inmates going to work, chow (meals), school (although education has largely come to a complete halt due to claimed budget limitations), commissary, recreation, and other “lay-ins,” such as medical. During count-time all movement was/is restricted.

     While these units are considered old school much of the activity remains the same. The demographic changed somewhat after the late nineties boom. As the age bracket went up the drama went down, a confirmation of the long held knowledge of educators and researchers who long ago concluded an ageing out process of deviant/criminal behavior correlates with a reduction in hormones. More influential, though was the PREA.

     Additional to the changing demographic of the prison population was the implementation of Prison Rape Elimination Act, which was directly aimed at mitigating the rampant violence of the late nineties prison boom. The PREA, as will be discussed shortly, theoretically cut down on rape, violence, and extortion. In the social hierarchy of prison, there was still “honor among thieves.” Predators of children have, and continue to be viewed as particularly heinous, warranting a sex offender a glowing target on his back. The PREA was a God send for the sex offenders, who used it as a safety blanket to crawl under, though many in the system view its enforcement as a running joke. The correctional officers or “laws” began to offer protection to child molesters or “chomos,” using them to gain information on anyone involved in questionable conduct. Sex offenders, who up until this point had been housed independently from general population due to their safety risk, were now being reintegrated with general populations and used as “snitches.” This reintegration of sex offenders into general population created a significant amount of confusion and suspicion. It made all “convicts” start checking “paperwork,” like commitment and legal paperwork. Ultimately it took the tragedy of escape of the Texas Seven, https://www.prisonoffenders.com/prison_texas_seven.html, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/texas-seven-prison-break, to elicit significant change in the Texas prison system….  (The Prison Rape Elimination Act will be covered at the end of this article, for those who are not familiar with it).

 Old School gladiator Units (Many of which still exist and operate much like they did before the PREA):

 Ferguson Unit, found in Midway Texas. The Ferguson Unit was called “Fuck or Fight Fergy” which was meant to imply that there was no protection or safety for anyone. You were on your own, fight or die. This unit held approximately 2500 inmates at any given time during this period.

Coffield Unit, found in Tennessee Colony Texas. The Coffield Unit was referred to as “The Glasshouse,” and the deadliest of all gladiator farms. This is where bad actors with serious amounts of time traditionally got sent. Most of the sentences for convicts housed on this unit were for fifteen or more years. This, as a result, often meant a more serious population of men.

Clements Unit, found in Brazoria Texas. The Clements Unit was known as “Burning Hell” due to the extreme temperatures and violence alike. The population of Clements was extremely young serving long sentences. It still remains one of the deadliest prison units in Texas, including deaths directly caused by medical malpractice, ambivalence, and corruption. The most recent example can be found at https://theintercept.com/2017/01/24/malnourished-prisoners-death-reveals-horrific-conditions-in-a-texas-prison/

Beto I Unit, found in Tennessee Colony Texas. Long before Chicago’s “Chiraq” was Texas’ prison “Little Iraq.” This particular unit was a straight up warzone, with casualties damn near daily. This prison was, and still is today, one of the largest units in the state. It’s sheer size and depth is amazing. The main hallway is big enough to drive two semi-trucks side by side down the middle. There were “crash gates” separating the different sections of the hallway, where rows of bars ran three stories high. Each cell block had three stories with twenty eight cells per run. Each block had a dayroom with benches, tables, and television sets. Beto I was divided into two sides: North and South. The north-side was renowned for its super violence throughout the system. In December of 1992, at seventeen years old, he landed on I-Wing. It was the worst culture shock of life, to this day. He was checked in and accepted, and “allowed” to go independent for a period of time. Some became “family” with their race gang of choice, others attempted to maintain independence. The stay on Beto I was almost a year. Violence was experienced on a daily basis, with the exception of lock-downs. Drugs, homosexual activity, gang violence, and assaults were ever present… 

 While the policies set forth in the Prison Rape Elimination Act have made a difference in reducing some victimization, as apparent in current media exposure, it has simply shifted the responsibility of reporting to the inmate, placing the responsibility of further action squarely on the shoulders of the overburdened, underpaid, and often under-educated correctional staff.  To incarcerated offenders PREA remains largely a joke.  This is an issue in part because the CO's should be well trained and watching for signs of abuse, as well as disengaging from it themselves, but they still operate with the “us versus them” mentality.  Many, though not all, CO's see all inmates as being one and the same, trash who deserve any maltreatment they receive.  This is not a general assumption but comes directly from the mouths of many correctional staff, and is said to visitors, program volunteers, and general community members.  I have born witness to these ignorant statements on many occasions, yet I will also fully stand behind those correctional staff who make it their duty to treat their offenders with respect and dignity.  There are bad apples in every bunch, and it would be wrong to lump all CO's together, just as it is wrong to lump all offenders together.  

Make no mistake, without question correctional officers and staff carry out difficult and dangerous jobs, and are vastly underpaid for the types of abuses they face while on the job. They carry out daily tasks most would never dream of doing. This is why it is that much more important training be conducted at high levels, and continuing education in emotional intelligence and progressive tactics be required annually. This requires money the State is either unwilling or unable to provide. Additionally, given the sheer size of the state and the stigma attached to placing prisons close to urban populations, prisons in Texas are often located in small rural towns, under the guise of job creation, and their staff run by locals who are given little training and virtually no education on the psychology of incarceration or emotional intelligence (both for themselves and the wards in their care).  I make this claim based on many personal and educationally insightful experiences, and as can be seen in the Stanford Prison Experiment, which has been repeated multiple times with similar results.  Follow the link provided for further information: https://www.prisonexp.org/. Our correctional officers are often ill-equipped to mentally and physically to handle the jobs they have been tasked with, yet they face a similar form of institutionalization themselves.  This causes problems in their personal lives, extending to the communities in which they live, and creating a cycle of ignorance and abuse all its own.  These men and women are often wholly unprepared for the jobs they step into, through no fault of their own, and are provided little to no mental health support to help them cope, or to overcome the abuses they themselves face, as a stigma is placed on those who would seek out help.  Some CO’s even view it as their personal mission to make an offender’s incarceration as difficult as possible, when their job is simply to mediate conflict and guarantee a standard level of human care for those whom they are responsible.  This simply feeds into the institutionalized abuses now commonplace in America's prisons, and furthers the cycle of recidivism and hatred of a long broken system, where reform has become a public joke. 

The Prison Rape Elimination Act: (General overview directly lifted from the PREA website)

     The Prison rape elimination Act was developed and implemented on September 4, 2003, and is intended to protect all incarcerated individuals, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or crime committed. While it has helped to significantly reduce crimes against certain populations, it has also been utilized to create new charges against inmates who were not engaging in violence, sexual assaults, or extortion. It has ultimately become a snitch program used by those unable/unwilling to defend their actions, and to reduce their own sentences... 

General outlines in the PREA include but are not limited to the following: 

A.   An agency shall have a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse and sexual harassment and outlining the agency’s approach to preventing, detecting, and responding to such conduct.

B.    The agency shall ensure that each facility it operates shall develop, document, and make its best efforts to comply on a regular basis with a staffing plan that provides for adequate levels of staffing, and, where applicable, video monitoring, to protect inmates against sexual abuse.

C.   Each agency operating a facility shall implement a policy and practice of having intermediate-level or higher-level supervisors conduct and document unannounced rounds to identify and deter staff sexual abuse and sexual harassment. Such policy and practice shall be implemented for night shifts as well as day shifts. Each agency shall have a policy to prohibit staff from alerting other staff members that these supervisory rounds are occurring, unless such announcement is related to the legitimate operational functions of the facility.

D.   A youthful inmate shall not be placed in a housing unit in which the youthful inmate will have sight, sound, or physical contact with any adult inmate through use of a shared dayroom or other common space, shower area, or sleeping quarters.

E.    The facility shall not conduct cross-gender strip searches or cross-gender visual body cavity searches (meaning a search of the anal or genital opening) except in exigent circumstances or when performed by medical practitioners. The facility shall document all cross-gender strip searches and cross-gender visual body cavity searches, and shall document all cross-gender pat-down searches of female inmates.

F.    The facility shall not search or physically examine a transgender or intersex inmate for the sole purpose of determining the inmate’s genital status. If the inmate’s genital status is unknown, it may be determined during conversations with the inmate, by reviewing medical records, or, if necessary, by learning that information as part of a broader medical examination conducted in private by a medical practitioner.

G.   The agency shall have in place a policy to ensure that allegations of sexual abuse or sexual harassment are referred for investigation to an agency with the legal authority to conduct criminal investigations, unless the allegation does not involve potentially criminal behavior. The agency shall publish such policy on its website or, if it does not have one, make the policy available through other means. The agency shall document all such referrals.

H.   The agency shall train all employees who may have contact with inmates on:

(1)  Its zero-tolerance policy for sexual abuse and sexual harassment;

(2)  How to fulfill their responsibilities under agency sexual abuse and sexual harassment      prevention, detection, reporting, and response policies and procedures;

(3)  Inmates’ right to be free from sexual abuse and sexual harassment;

(4)  The right of inmates and employees to be free from retaliation for reporting sexual abuse and sexual harassment;

(5)  The dynamics of sexual abuse and sexual harassment in confinement;

(6)  The common reactions of sexual abuse and sexual harassment victims;

(7)  How to detect and respond to signs of threatened and actual sexual abuse;

(8)  How to avoid inappropriate relationships with inmates;

(9)  How to communicate effectively and professionally with inmates, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, or gender nonconforming inmates; and how to comply with relevant laws related to mandatory reporting of sexual abuse to outside authorities.

I. During the intake process, inmates shall receive information    explaining the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and sexual harassment and how to report incidents or suspicions of sexual abuse or sexual harassment. Within 30 days of intake, the agency shall provide comprehensive education to inmates either in person or through video regarding their rights to be free from sexual abuse and sexual harassment and to be free from retaliation for reporting such incidents, and regarding agency policies and procedures for responding to such incidents. Current inmates who have not received such education shall be educated within one year of the effective date of the PREA standards, and shall receive education upon transfer to a different facility to the extent that the policies and procedures of the inmate’s new facility differ from those of the previous facility. The agency shall provide inmate education in formats accessible to all inmates, including those who are limited English proficient, deaf, visually impaired, or otherwise disabled, as well as to inmates who have limited reading skills. The agency shall maintain documentation of inmate participation in these education sessions. In addition to providing such education, the agency shall ensure that key information is continuously and readily available or visible to inmates through posters, inmate handbooks, or other written formats.

J. All inmates shall be assessed during an intake screening and upon transfer to another facility for their risk of being sexually abused by other inmates or sexually abusive toward other inmates. Intake screening shall ordinarily take place within 72 hours of arrival at the facility. Such assessments shall be conducted using an objective screening instrument. The intake screening shall consider, at a minimum, the following criteria to assess inmates for risk of sexual victimization: whether the inmate has a mental, physical, or developmental disability; the age of the inmate; the physical build of the inmate; whether the inmate has previously been incarcerated; whether the inmate’s criminal history is exclusively nonviolent; whether the inmate has prior convictions for sex offenses against an adult or child; whether the inmate is or is perceived to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, or gender nonconforming; whether the inmate has previously experienced sexual victimization; the inmate’s own perception of vulnerability; and whether the inmate is detained solely for civil immigration purposes. The initial screening shall consider prior acts of sexual abuse, prior convictions for violent offenses, and history of prior institutional violence or sexual abuse, as known to the agency, in assessing inmates for risk of being sexually abusive. Within a set time period, not to exceed 30 days from the inmate’s arrival at the facility, the facility will reassess the inmate’s risk of victimization or abusiveness based upon any additional, relevant information received by the facility since the intake screening. An inmate’s risk level shall be reassessed when warranted due to a referral, request, incident of sexual abuse, or receipt of additional information that bears on the inmate’s risk of sexual victimization or abusiveness. Inmates may not be disciplined for refusing to answer, or for not disclosing complete information in response to questions asked. The agency shall implement appropriate controls on the dissemination within the facility of responses to questions asked pursuant to this standard in order to ensure that sensitive information is not exploited to the inmate’s detriment by staff or other inmates.

K. Inmates at high risk for sexual victimization shall not be placed in involuntary segregated housing unless an assessment of all available alternatives has been made, and a determination has been made that there is no available alternative means of separation from likely abusers. If a facility cannot conduct such an assessment immediately, the facility may hold the inmate in involuntary segregated housing for less than 24 hours while completing the assessment. Inmates placed in segregated housing for this purpose shall have access to programs, privileges, education, and work opportunities to the extent possible. If the facility restricts access to programs, privileges, education, or work opportunities, the facility shall document said reasons.

L. The agency shall provide multiple internal ways for inmates to privately report sexual abuse and sexual harassment, retaliation by other inmates or staff for reporting sexual abuse and sexual harassment, and staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to such incidents. The agency shall also provide at least one way for inmates to report abuse or harassment to a public or private entity or office that is not part of the agency, and that is able to receive and immediately forward inmate reports of sexual abuse and sexual harassment to agency officials, allowing the inmate to remain anonymous upon request. Inmates detained solely for civil immigration purposes shall be provided information on how to contact relevant consular officials and relevant officials at the Department of Homeland Security.

M. The facility shall provide inmates with access to outside victim advocates for emotional support services related to sexual abuse by giving inmates mailing addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers where available, of local, State, or national victim advocacy or rape crisis organizations, and, for persons detained solely for civil immigration purposes, immigrant services agencies. The facility shall enable reasonable communication between inmates and these organizations and agencies, in as confidential a manner as possible.

N. The agency shall establish a method to receive third-party reports of sexual abuse and sexual harassment and shall distribute publicly information on how to report sexual abuse and sexual harassment on behalf of an inmate. TDCJ: Family members or other individuals may report verbally or in writing to unit administration, the TDCJ Ombudsman office, OIG (Office of Inspector General), or PREA ombudsman office any time they have knowledge of or suspect an offender has been sexually abused, sexually harassed, or requires protection.

O. The agency shall require all staff to report immediately and   according to agency policy any knowledge, suspicion, or information regarding an incident of sexual abuse or sexual harassment that occurred in a facility, whether or not it is part of the agency; retaliation against inmates or staff who reported such an incident; and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident or retaliation. Apart from reporting to designated supervisors or officials, staff shall not reveal any information related to a sexual abuse report to anyone other than to the extent necessary, as specified in agency policy, to make treatment, investigation, and other security and management decisions. Unless otherwise precluded by Federal, State, or local law, medical and mental health practitioners shall be required to report sexual abuse pursuant to paragraph of this section and to inform inmates of the practitioner’s duty to report, and the limitations of confidentiality, at the initiation of services.

P. The agency shall establish a policy to protect all inmates and staff who report sexual abuse or sexual harassment or cooperate with sexual abuse or sexual harassment investigations from retaliation by other inmates or staff, and shall designate which staff members or departments are charged with monitoring retaliation.

Q. The agency shall impose no standard higher than a preponderance of the evidence in determining whether allegations of sexual abuse or sexual harassment are substantiated. 

R. All terminations for violations of agency sexual abuse or sexual harassment policies, or resignations by staff who would have been terminated if not for their resignation, shall be reported to law enforcement agencies, unless the activity was clearly not criminal, and to any relevant licensing bodies.

S. Inmates shall be subject to disciplinary sanctions pursuant to a formal disciplinary process following an administrative finding that the inmate engaged in inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse or following a criminal finding of guilt for inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse. Sanctions shall be commensurate with the nature and circumstances of the abuse committed, the inmate’s disciplinary history, and the sanctions imposed for comparable offenses by other inmates with similar histories. The disciplinary process shall consider whether an inmate’s mental disabilities or mental illness contributed to his or her behavior when determining what type of sanction, if any, should be imposed. If the facility offers therapy, counseling, or other interventions designed to address and correct underlying reasons or motivations for the abuse, the facility shall consider whether to require the offending inmate to participate in such interventions as a condition of access to programming or other benefits. The agency may discipline an inmate for sexual contact with staff only upon a finding that the staff member did not consent to such contact. For the purpose of disciplinary action, a report of sexual abuse made in good faith based upon a reasonable belief that the alleged conduct occurred shall not constitute falsely reporting an incident or lying, even if an investigation does not establish evidence sufficient to substantiate the allegation. An agency may, in its discretion, prohibit all sexual activity between inmates and may discipline inmates for such activity. An agency may not, however, deem such activity to constitute sexual abuse if it determines that the activity is not coerced.

T. If the screening pursuant to § 115.41 indicates that a prison inmate has experienced prior sexual victimization, whether it occurred in an institutional setting or in the community, staff shall ensure that the inmate is offered a follow-up meeting with a medical or mental health practitioner within 14 days of the intake screening. If the screening pursuant to § 115.41 indicates that a prison inmate has previously perpetrated sexual abuse, whether it occurred in an institutional setting or in the community, staff shall ensure that the inmate is offered a follow-up meeting with a mental health practitioner within 14 days of the intake screening.

U. Inmate victims of sexual abuse shall receive timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention services, the nature and scope of which are determined by medical and mental health practitioners according to their professional judgment. If no qualified medical or mental health practitioners are on duty at the time a report of recent abuse is made, security staff first responders shall take preliminary steps to protect the victim pursuant to § 115.62 and shall immediately notify the appropriate medical and mental health practitioners. Inmate victims of sexual abuse while incarcerated shall be offered timely information about and timely access to emergency contraception and sexually transmitted infections prophylaxis, in accordance with professionally accepted standards of care, where medically appropriate. Treatment services shall be provided to the victim without financial cost and regardless of whether the victim names the abuser or cooperates with any investigation arising out of the incident.

V. The facility shall offer medical and mental health evaluation and, as appropriate, treatment to all inmates who have been victimized by sexual abuse in any prison, jail, lockup, or juvenile facility. The evaluation and treatment of such victims shall include, as appropriate, follow-up services, treatment plans, and, when necessary, referrals for continued care following their transfer to, or placement in, other facilities, or their release from custody. The facility shall provide such victims with medical and mental health services consistent with the community level of care. Inmate victims of sexually abusive vaginal penetration while incarcerated shall be offered pregnancy tests. If pregnancy results from the conduct described, such victims shall receive timely and comprehensive information about and timely access to all lawful pregnancy-related medical services. Inmate victims of sexual abuse while incarcerated shall be offered tests for sexually transmitted infections as medically appropriate. Treatment services shall be provided to the victim without financial cost and regardless of whether the victim names the abuser or cooperates with any investigation arising out of the incident. All prisons shall attempt to conduct a mental health evaluation of all known inmate-on-inmate abusers within 60 days of learning of such abuse history and offer treatment when deemed appropriate by mental health practitioners.