During Fiscal Year 1996, the Department continued to protect and promote
the rights of people confined in publicly operated facilities throughout
the nation pursuant to its authority under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized
Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.(1)
This statute gives the Attorney General the authority to investigate conditions
in public facilities and to take appropriate action where there is a pattern
or practice of unlawful actions that deprive persons confined in the facilities
of their constitutional or federal statutory rights. From May 1980, when
CRIPA was enacted, through September 1996, the Department investigated
conditions in 246 jails, prisons, juvenile correctional facilities, mental
retardation and mental health facilities, and nursing homes. As a result
of the Department's CRIPA efforts, tens of thousands of institutionalized
persons who were living in dire, often life-threatening, conditions now
receive adequate care and services.
The Attorney General has delegated day-to-day responsibility for CRIPA
activities to the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division.
Throughout Fiscal Year 1996, the Section continued its efforts to enforce
CRIPA by initiating a number of new investigations, filing CRIPA complaints
when warranted, entering into settlements to remedy unlawful conditions
in institutions, and monitoring jurisdictions' compliance with the decrees.(2)
During the fiscal year, the Section was active in CRIPA matters and
cases involving 128 facilities in twenty-seven states and the District
of Columbia, as well as Guam, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The
Section initiated new investigations of seventeen facilities in six states
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, monitored the implementation of consent
decrees involving sixty-five facilities, and obtained ten contempt orders
where jurisdictions failed to meet their responsibilities under consent
decrees and other court orders. In addition, the Attorney General filed
and settled four new CRIPA suits and moved to intervene in a fifth case.
By focusing on statewide investigations and relief where warranted, the
Section maximized its impact and increased its efficiency. In keeping with
the Department's alternative dispute resolution initiative, the Section
also increased its use of mediated settlement negotiations to resolve CRIPA
matters.
SPECIFIC ACTIONS UNDER CRIPA
Filing of CRIPA Complaints/ Resolution of Lawsuits
The Department filed four new CRIPA complaints during Fiscal Year 1996
that were resolved through settlement. The Department also settled a fifth
case in which the United States intervened during Fiscal Year 1995. In
addition, the Department filed a motion to intervene under CRIPA during
Fiscal Year 1996 in an on-going class-action case but the court did not
rule on this motion before the end of the fiscal year.
On November 13, 1995, the Department filed a complaint together with
a consent decree in United States v. Commonwealth of Kentucky,
Civ. No. 3:95CV-757-S ((W.D. Ky.). This action was based on a CRIPA investigation
of juvenile correctional facilities in Kentucky in which the Department
found violations of the constitutional and federal statutory rights of
juveniles.(3) To resolve this matter, Kentucky
agreed to a consent decree that details the steps the State will take in
all thirteen of its juvenile correctional facilities to protect the more
than 400 juveniles confined to these facilities from abuse and injury;
to provide adequate mental health treatment, medical services and education;
to eliminate fire safety and sanitation hazards; to ensure adequate staffing,
operational, and security procedures; to correct inappropriate isolation
practices; and to provide adequate classification and segregation of juveniles,
as well as post-discharge follow-up and aftercare. The United States District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky approved the consent decree
and entered it as an order on December 4, 1995; the court subsequently
appointed a Court Monitor selected by the parties to monitor Kentucky's
compliance with the consent decree.
On March 15, 1996, the Department filed a complaint together with a
proposed consent decree in United States v. Tennessee, Civ.
No.96-2312 GV (W.D. Tenn.), involving conditions at Memphis Mental Health
Institute. The United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee approved the consent decree and entered it as an order on March 27, 1996. This action resolved the United States' findings, during the course of its CRIPA investigation of Memphis Mental Health Institute, that Tennessee was violating the constitutional and federal statutory rights of patients confined in the facility. The consent decree requires Tennessee to provide patients with adequate assessment, diagnosis, mental health treatment, medical care, discharge planning and aftercare services; and to maintain a sufficient number of qualified professional and direct care staff at the facility to carry out these requirements. The United States agreed to provide technical assistance through its experts during the early remedial phases to ensure that Tennessee achieves compliance with the decree. On March 4, 1996, the Department filed two lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Commonwealth of Virginia. One of the cases involved unlawful conditions of confinement at Northern Virginia Training Center, a mental retardation facility in Fairfax, Virginia. United States v. Virginia, Civ. No. 96-283-A (E.D. Va.). The other case involved unlawful conditions at Eastern State Hospital and Hancock Geriatric Facility, facilities for persons with mental illness in Williamsburg, Virginia. United States v. Virginia, Civ. No. 96-2834-A (E.D. Va.). Both complaints were based on the Section's findings during its CRIPA investigation that Virginia was violating the constitutional and federal statutory rights of the individuals living in these facilities by, inter alia, failing to protect the residents from harm, failing to provide them with adequate medical and mental health care, failing to provide them with needed treatment and habilitation, using undue restraints, and failing to serve residents in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The Department filed suit because Virginia failed to correct these deficiencies voluntarily over a protracted period of time and it was unwilling to enter into a judicially enforceable settlement agreement to correct them. After the suit was filed, the Commonwealth agreed to resume settlement discussions that were mediated by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. These mediated negotiations produced a settlement several months later in both cases. Under the terms of the settlement, Virginia has agreed to implement comprehensive plans to address each of the deficient areas of care at the facilities. The suits were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on July 18, 1996, with the court retaining jurisdiction
to enforce the State's compliance with the plans. The United States also
agreed to provide technical assistance during the early remedial phases
to ensure that Virginia achieves compliance with its corrective action
plans.
The United States District Court for the District of Southern Mississippi
approved a consent decree on November 9, 1995 in Ranier and Unites States
v. Jones, Civ. No. J78-0135(N) (S.D. Miss.), involving conditions
of confinement at the Simpson County Jail in Mendenhall, Mississippi. The
court granted the United States' motion to intervene in this class action
on April 25, 1995, based upon the United States' findings during a CRIPA
investigation that conditions at the jail violated inmates' constitutional
rights. The consent decree requires Simpson County to take remedial steps
to address deficiencies in the areas of fire safety, sanitation, medical
care and suicide prevention.
Finally, on July 10, 1996, the United States moved to intervene in Johnson
v Kurtz, Civ. No. 87-369-Civ-T-24-A (M.D. Fla.), a case involving
G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, a psychiatric hospital housing approximately
450 persons with mental illness in Arcadia, Florida. The Department initiated
a CRIPA investigation of the hospital in May 1995, based upon allegations
that patients were suffering serious harm. The State denied the Department
access to inspect the facility and refused to turn over requested documents.
The Department conducted its investigation by collecting information available
within the public domain, including an August 1995 report conducted by
the Florida State Inspector General that acknowledged serious problems
at G. Pierce Wood and surveys by the Health Care Financing Administration
that identified similar deficiencies. On November 9, 1995, the Department
issued a findings letter setting forth the supporting facts for its conclusion
that conditions at the facility violate the constitutional and federal
statutory rights of residents and specifying the minimum remedial measures
to correct these violations. In the face of the State's continued refusal
to grant access to the facility or to settle the matter, the Attorney General
signed a motion to intervene in Johnson v. Kurtz. The court
did not rule on this motion by the end of the fiscal year.
Compliance Evaluations and Enforcement Activities
During Fiscal Year 1996, the Special Litigation Section monitored defendants'
compliance with CRIPA consent decrees and court orders designed to remedy
unlawful conditions in sixty-five publicly operated facilities throughout
the United States. These facilities included:
1. Mental retardation facilities: Southbury Training School (United
States v.
Connecticut (D. Conn.)); Howe Developmental Center
(United States v. Illinois (N.D. Ill.)); Los Lunas Training
School (United States v. New Mexico (D.N.M.)); Boswell Regional
Center (United States v. Mississippi (S.D. Miss.)); Fairview
Training Center (United States v.
Oregon (D. Or.)); Embreeville
Center (United States v. Pennsylvania (E.D. Pa.)); Arlington
Developmental Center (United States v. Tennessee (W.D. Tenn.));
and Northern Virginia Training Center (United States v. Virginia
(E.D. Va.)).
2. Mental health facilities: Guam Adult Mental Health Unit (United
States v. Guam (D. Guam)); Hawaii State Hospital (United
States v. Hawaii (D. Haw.)); Northville Regional Center (United
States v. Michigan (E.D. Mich.)); Pilgrim Psychiatric Center
(United States v.
New York (E.D.N.Y.)); Memphis Mental Health
Institute (United States v. Tennessee (W.D. Tenn.)); and
Eastern State Hospital (United States v. Virginia (E.D. Va.)).
3. Nursing homes: D.C. Village (United States v. District
of Colombia (D.D.C.)); and Hancock Geriatric Facility (United States
v. Virginia (E.D. Va.)).
4. Juvenile Correctional Facilities: Essex County Youth House (United
States v.
Essex County (D.N.J.)); thirteen Kentucky correctional
facilities (United States v. Kentucky (W.D. Ky.)); and eight
Puerto Rican juvenile correctional facilities (United States v.
Puerto
Rico (D.P.R.)).
5. Jails: Crittenden County Jail (United States v. Crittenden
County (E.D. Ark.)); Conecuh County Jail (Rooks and United States
v. Herring (S.D. Al.)); Rosario Detention Center (United States
v. Guam (D. Guam)); Alcorn County Jail (United States v.
Alcorn
County (N.D. Miss.)); Corinth City Jail (United States v. Corinth
City (N.D. Miss.)); Grenada County Jail (United States v. Grenada
County (N.D. Miss.)); Grenada City Jail (United States v. Grenada
City (N.D. Miss.)); Tupelo City Jail (United States v. Tupelo
City (N.D. Miss.)); Forest City Jail (United States v. Forest
City (S.D. Miss.)); Forrest County Jail (United States v. Forrest
County (S.D. Miss.)); Harrison County Jail (United States v.
Harrison County (S.D. Miss.)); Jones County Jail (Crosby and
United States v. Jones County (S.D. Miss.)); Neshoba County
Jail (United States v. Neshoba County (S.D. Miss.)); Scott
County Jail (United States v. Scott County (S.D. Miss.));
Simpson County Jail (Ranier and United States v. Jones (S.D.
Miss.)); and Sunflower County Jail (United States v. Sunflower
County (S.D. Miss.)).
6. Prisons: California Medical Facility (United States v. California
(E.D. Ca.)); Michigan Reformatory, Marquette Branch Prison, State Prison
of Southern Michigan, Engler Correctional Facility, Riverside Psychiatric
Center, Huron Valley Mental Health, Huron Valley Men's Facility, and Western
Wayne Correctional Facility (United States v. Michigan, (W.D.
Mich.)); Guam Adult Correctional Facility (United States v. Guam
(D. Guam)); and Golden Grove Adult Correctional Institution (United
States v. Virgin Islands (D.V.I.)).
Enforcement Activities
The Department took enforcement action where state and local officials
failed to meet their legal obligations under consent decrees and other
court orders in CRIPA cases to improve conditions of confinement in the
institutions they operate. As a result of the Department's enforcement
actions, courts found jurisdictions in contempt in three cases during the
fiscal year. Multiple contempt findings were entered in United States
v. District of Columbia, Civ. No. 95-948(TFH) (D.D.C.), the Department's
CRIPA case against the District of Columbia concerning conditions at D.C.
Village, a nursing home housing approximately two hundred persons. In response
to the Department's motion for a preliminary injunction, the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia approved a stipulation between
the parties in July 1995 that specified the corrective actions the District
agreed to undertake. The court also appointed a Court Monitor to oversee
the improvements. When the District failed repeatedly to carry out the
remedial measures, the court held the District in contempt eight times
during a seven month period between December 1995 and July 1996. When the
District decided to close the nursing home, the court entered orders for
further relief to ensure that all residents were transferred to alternative
facilities or community placements based upon professional assessments
of individuals.
In Evans and United States v. Barry, Civ. No. 76-293(SSH))
(D.D.C.), another action involving the District of Columbia, the court
issued contempt findings on October 11, 1995.(4)
The court also appointed a Special Master to address the District's continuing
failure to comply with court orders designed to provide adequate services
to former residents of Forest Haven (a mental retardation facility operated
by the District), who were moved to community settings. On August 2, 1996,
the court adopted the Special Master's Findings of Fact regarding the District's
continuing violation of the court's orders and issued a remedial order
detailing the steps the District must take to come into compliance with
the orders.
In a CRIPA action involving Southbury Training School in Connecticut,
the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut held the
State in contempt on June 19, 1996 for failing to comply with remedial
requirements in a consent decree and subsequent court orders for further
relief in United States v. Connecticut, Civ. No. 3:86CV-252(EBB)
(D. Conn.). The court determined that a Special Master was necessary to
evaluate conditions at the facility in which approximately 800 persons
with mental retardation live, and to suggest ways to correct continuing
deficiencies.(5)
The Department also filed a motion for contempt on December 14, 1995
in United States v. Tennessee, Civ. No. 92-2062-ML/A (W.D.
Tenn.), involving the Arlington Developmental Center, based upon the State's
continuing failure to comply with a consent decree and various court orders.(6)
The Department subsequently resolved the motion by entering into a stipulation
with Tennessee in which the defendants admitted they were in contempt and
agreed to additional remedial measures to remedy their contempt. The United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee approved the
stipulation and entered it as an order on June 21, 1996.
The Department avoided filing enforcement actions in three additional
CRIPA cases where jurisdictions agreed to stipulations to take additional
steps to comply with outstanding court orders. On April 4, 1996, the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey approved and ordered
a stipulation in United States v. Essex County, Civ. No.
874829 (D.N.J.), involving the Essex County Youth House in Newark, New
Jersey. The county agreed to provide adequate staffing, medical care, and
basic supplies (such as clothing, sheets, blankets, and soap) to juveniles
confined in the facility. On June 28, 1996, the United States District
Court for the District of Hawaii entered a stipulated order for further
relief in United States v. Hawaii, Civ. No. 91-00137 DAE
(D. Hi.), involving Hawaii State Hospital, a psychiatric hospital in Oahu.
The State agreed to employ additional staff and to take measures to protect
patients from harm. The State also agreed to hire independent experts to
assist the hospital to address continuing problems with abuse, use of restraints
and seclusion, and treatment and discharge plans. On June 28, 1996, the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved
and ordered a stipulation for further relief in United States v.
New
York, Civ. No. 93-4807 (SPATT) (E.D.N.Y.), involving Pilgrim Psychiatric
Center in Brentwood, New York. The State agreed to enhance patient safety
and supervision, and to hire independent experts to assist the hospital
in remedying continuing deficiencies in treatment plans and staffing.
Prison Litigation Reform Act
The Prison Litigation Reform Act [PLRA], 18 U.S.C. § 3626, which
was enacted on April 26, 1996, affects the Section's activities in prisons,
jails, and juvenile correctional facilities. In particular, it establishes
standards governing prospective relief involving these facilities. The
Department has defended the constitutionality of the PLRA and has incorporated
the PLRA's requirements in its CRIPA activities. In addition to applying
the PLRA in new CRIPA decrees and court orders, the Special Litigation
Section has evaluated its on-going CRIPA investigations and consent decrees
in light of the statute.
Termination of CRIPA Consent Decrees
When jurisdictions comply with consent decree requirements and correct
unlawful conditions in the institution, the Section joins defendants in
a motion to dismiss the consent decree. During Fiscal Year 1996, courts
dismissed four CRIPA cases based upon joint motions of the parties and
partially dismissed a fifth case. The court dismissed United States
v. Illinois (N.D. Ill.), involving conditions at Howe Developmental
Center in Tinley Park, Illinois on February 14, 1996. United States
v. Michigan (E.D. Mich.), involving Northville Regional Psychiatric
Center in Northville, Michigan, was dismissed on April 11, 1996. Rooks
and United States v. Herring (S.D. Al.), involving conditions
at the Conecuh County Jail, was dismissed on July 23, 1996 and Crosby
and United States v. Jones County (S.D. Miss.), involving conditions
at the Jones County jail, was dismissed on July 26, 1996. In addition,
on July 3, 1996, the court granted a joint motion to dismiss major portions
of the consent decree in United States v. Michigan (W.D.
Mich.), involving eight prisons.
Responsiveness to Allegations of Illegal Conditions
During Fiscal Year 1996, the Special Litigation Section reviewed allegations
of unlawful conditions of confinement in public facilities from a number
of sources including individuals who live at the facilities and their relatives,
staff and ex-staff of facilities, advocates, concerned citizens, media
reports, and referrals from within the Department and other federal agencies.
The Section reviewed 2740 incoming citizen letters and 360 incoming telephone
complaints during the fiscal year. In addition, the Division responded
to 110 inquiries from Congress and the White House.
The Section prioritized these allegations by focusing on facilities
where allegations revealed systemic, serious deficiencies. In particular,
with regard to mental health and mental retardation facilities, nursing
homes, and juvenile correctional facilities, the Section focused on allegations
that individuals were being abused and neglected; were not receiving adequate
basic care and medical treatment or appropriate training and treatment
programs; and were not being served in the most integrated setting appropriate
to meet their needs as required by the ADA. With regard to jails and prisons,
the Section placed emphasis on allegations of abuse (particularly sexual
abuse in women's prisons), inadequate medical care and psychiatric services,
and grossly unsanitary and other unsafe conditions. In accordance with
the procedures established at the inception of the Section's CRIPA enforcement
program, which were previously submitted to Congress, the Section prepared
a justification memorandum for each new investigation and submitted it
for approval by the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights before
initiating a formal investigation of a facility.
New CRIPA Investigations
The Department initiated CRIPA investigations of seventeen institutions
during the fiscal year. These new investigations involved the following
facilities:
-
Four Louisiana secure juvenile correctional facilities (Jetson Correctional
Center for Youth in Baton Rouge, Louisiana Training Institute in Monroe,
Louisiana Training Institute in Bridge City, and Tallulah Correctional
Center for Youth in Tallulah);
-
Eight facilities in the Los Angeles County Jail system (Sybil Brand Jail,
Men's Central, North Facility, South Facility, East Facility, North County
Correctional Center, Twin Towers Correctional Facility and Century Regional
Detention Center);
-
Beaumont Juvenile Correction Center, Powhattan, Virginia;
-
Orleans County Jail, Albion, New York;
-
Mercer County Detention Center, Trenton, New Jersey;
-
Washington County Detention Center, Hagerstown, Maryland; and
-
Central for Integral Services, a facility for people with mental retardation
in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.
Findings Letters and Investigation Closures
The Department issued written findings of the results of its investigations,
pursuant to Section 4 of CRIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997b, in nineteen facilities,
including: five Arizona Women's Prisons in Phoenix, Arizona; five Maricopa
County Jails in Phoenix, Arizona; G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital in Arcadia,
Florida; Landmark Learning Center in Opa-Locka, Florida; Coffee County
Jail in Douglas, Georgia; Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center in Baltimore,
Maryland; Chesapeake City Jail in Chesapeake, Virginia; Hampton City Jail
in Hampton, Virginia; Newport News City Jail in Newport News, Virginia;
Virginia Beach City Jail in Virginia Beach, Virginia; and Northern Virginia
Mental Health Institute in Fairfax, Virginia.
During the fiscal year, the Department closed investigations involving
eleven facilities. The Department closed its CRIPA investigation of the
Virginia Beach Jail when city officials achieved voluntary compliance with
the remedial measures suggested by the Department. Four of the investigations
were terminated when the jurisdiction closed the facility: Ashburn City
Jail, Ashburn, Georgia; Great Oaks Center, Silver Spring, Maryland; Jackson-Hinds
County Youth Detention Center, Jackson, Mississippi; and Marion County
Jail, Marion, Mississippi. The Department terminated its investigation
of six San Diego jails when authorities agreed to a consent decree in a
private suit that resolved the concerns raised in the CRIPA investigation.
Technical Assistance
Where federal financial, technical, or other assistance is available
to help jurisdictions correct deficiencies, the Department advises responsible
public officials of the availability of such aid and arranges for such
assistance, where appropriate. For example, the Department provided assistance
through the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Programs (OJJDP) to
officials operating juvenile detention facilities in Puerto Rico. As part
of OJJDP's official auditing responsibilities, an evaluator reported on
Humacao Detention Center and found filthy, overcrowded, and dangerous conditions
of confinement for the children confined there. OJJDP offered to provide
training to the Commonwealth's juvenile court judges to help them divert
children, where appropriate, from detention facilities to group or foster
homes and thereby alleviate some of the overcrowding. As part of the investigation
of the Department's CRIPA investigation of the Wayne County Juvenile Detention
Facility in Detroit, Michigan, the Department provided technical assistance
to Wayne County officials to assist them in correcting deficiencies. The
Special Litigation Section contacted OJJDP and arranged to have a juvenile
justice expert review the programmatic plans proposed by Wayne County.
In addition, the Department's Justice Management Division provided an architect
to review proposed construction plans for a new juvenile detention facility
in Wayne County.
The Department arranged to have experts from the National Institute
of Correction provide jail officials with technical assistance and information
about federal funding available to address deficiencies identified in CRIPA
investigations of three Georgia jails, four Virginia jails, and a jail
in New York. As a result of the Department's efforts, one of the Virginia
jails achieved voluntary compliance. The Department also paid for an expert
to provide technical assistance to a Georgia jail to assist the jail in
correcting unlawful conditions identified in a CRIPA investigation. Similarly,
the Department paid for a consultant to visit Tulsa County Jail in Oklahoma
to review proposed new jail plans and provide recommendations to correct
deficiencies. Other Departmental consultants have continued to provide
technical information and consultation to institutional directors and their
counsel regarding necessary improvements in a number of CRIPA investigations
and consent decrees.
1. Fiscal year 1996 began on October
1, 1995 and ended on September 30, 1996. This report is submitted to Congress
to supplement the Attorney General's report on Fiscal Year 1996 Department
activities by providing additional details about CRIPA actions during the
fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997f.
2. On September 6, 1996, the United States
General Accounting Office released its report entitled Medicaid: Oversight
of Institutions of the Mentally Retarded Should Be Strengthened to
Senator Ron Wyden, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Post Office
and Civil Service, Committee on Governmental Affairs. The General Accounting
Office found that the Department has been more effective in identifying
and addressing serious deficiencies in large public mental retardation
facilities through its CRIPA program than state agencies have been through
their Medicaid monitoring programs.
3. Based upon the systemic nature of the problems,
the Department also found violations of Section 210401 of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141. This provision
gives the Department authority to seek declaratory and equitable relief
for a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct by, inter alia,
"any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of
juvenile justice."
4. The Department is plaintiff-intervenor in
this case, which was filed before CRIPA was enacted.
5. The Special Master was not appointed before
the end of the fiscal year. The State has appealed the contempt finding.
6. This was the fourth contempt motion that
the United States filed in this case.
