The following article has been cut and pasted from this link found on the US Department OF Justice's website:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/marion_juve_ind_findlet_8-6-07.pdf
I have highlighted in red areas of specific interest to me, as this is a court document and it is 27 pages long. I hope you find this interesting and disgusting at the same time. Please, comments are encouraged!
DU.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Assistant Attorney General 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW - RFK Washington, DC 20530
August 6, 2007
The Honorable Robert R. Altice, Jr.The Honorable Gary L. Miller The Honorable Tanya Walton PrattThe Honorable Gerald S. Zore Executive Committee Marion County Superior CourtT-1221 City-County Building200 E. Washington StreetIndianapolis, Indiana 46204
The Honorable Monroe GrayPresident Marion County Council241 City-County Building 200 E. Washington StreetIndianapolis, Indiana 46204
Re: Marion County Juvenile Detention Center,
Indianapolis, Indiana
Dear Executive Committee Members and County Council President:
I write to report the findings of the Civil Rights Division’s investigation of conditions at the Marion CountyJuvenile Detention Center (“Marion”). On July 18, 2006, we notified County officials of our intent to conduct an investigation of Marion pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (“CRIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, andthe Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”).
As we noted, both CRIPA and Section 14141 give theDepartment of Justice authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional or federal statutory rights of youth in juvenile justice institutions.
On December 13-15, 2006 and February 20-22, 2007, weconducted on-site inspections at Marion with expert consultants in juvenile justice, special education, custodial sexual misconduct, and environmental health and sanitation. We
- 2
-
interviewed direct-care and administrative staff, youth, and school personnel. Before, during, and after our visits, wereviewed an extensive number of documents, including policies and procedures, incident reports, investigative reports, grievancesfrom youth, staff personnel files, unit logs, orientationmaterials, staff training materials, and school records. In keeping with our pledge of transparency and to provide technical assistance where appropriate, we conveyed our preliminary findings to Marion and Marion County officials at the close ofour on-site visits.
We commend the staff at Marion for their helpful and professional conduct throughout the course of the investigation.We received full cooperation with our investigation andappreciate the County and Court’s receptiveness to our consultants’ on-site recommendations.1 We would also like to recognize the recent addition of Mr. Richard Curry as theSuperintendent of the Marion County Juvenile Detention Center.During his brief tenure, Mr. Curry had already begun to identifyareas of improvement and had identified target dates to address various concerns. We anticipate that Mr. Curry will continue these efforts to improve conditions at Marion.
In addition, we note that Marion is planning to implement a
Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID), an innovative program to monitor staff movement. The facility is also planningto install internal video cameras to supplement the existing external cameras. These changes have the potential to be positive steps toward meaningful change at Marion. Based on reports we received during our investigation, these programs should be underway in the near future.
Consistent with the statutory requirements of CRIPA, we now write to advise you of the findings of our investigation, the facts supporting them, and the minimum remedial steps that are necessary to address the deficiencies we have identified.42 § U.S.C. 1997b. As described more fully below, we conclude that certain conditions at Marion violate the constitutional rights of the youth. In particular, we find that youth confined at Marion are not adequately protected from harm. We also find that deficiencies in the areas of fire safety, general sanitation, and general safety pose a significant risk of disease1
- 3
-
and injury to youth and staff. In addition, the facility failsto provide required education services pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C.A.§§ 1400-1482 (West, Westlaw through July 3, 2006). In the course of our investigation, we also reviewed allegations of custodial sexual misconduct. We find no current systemic constitutional deficiencies in this area, and commendthe County for its commitment to
safeguarding youth at the facility from staff sexual misconduct in the wake of the multiple sexual misconduct charges filed against staff members in 2006.County and Court officials responded vigorously after learning of those criminal charges, and exhibited strong leadership inworking to alleviate the threat of continued sexual misconduct.We applaud the efforts that County and Court officials havealready taken in this regard.
I. BACKGROUND
Marion is a secure juvenile justice facility built in 1989 and located in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Marion is primarily a detention center, receiving youth between the ages of seven and17 who are awaiting adjudication, or who have been adjudicated delinquent and are awaiting placement at a State facility. The facility has a capacity to hold 144 youth, including a population of approximately 30 females. The youth population at Marionfluctuates daily. On December 14, 2006, 116 youth were confinedat the facility. During our tour on February 20, 2007, the facility confined 124 youth.
Our investigation of systemic conditions at Marion began following the criminal indictment of ten former employees of the facility, including Marion’s former superintendent. Those employees had been charged with a total of 52 criminal counts,including child molestation, sexual misconduct with a minor,child solicitation, and official misconduct including concealing evidence and failing to report sexual child abuse.2 We subsequently received information regarding an independent investigative report authored by the National Partnership for Juvenile Services regarding conditions at the facility. That 2 As of this writing, charges have been dismissed against six employees, one employee was convicted, one employee was acquitted, and the two remaining employees are awaiting trial.3
The National Partnership for Juvenile Services is acoalition of four former juvenile advocacy organizations
- 4
-
report, based on a February 14-16, 2006 facility assessment,concluded, among other things, that “residents at the facilityare not safe.”
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Both CRIPA and Section 14141 authorize the Department ofJustice to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conductthat violates the constitutional or federal statutory rights ofyouth in juvenile justice institutions. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997,14141. States and their political subdivisions must providepersons confined in a non-penal context – like the youth confinedin Marion who are either awaiting adjudication or have beenadjudicated delinquent and not convicted of a crime – with reasonably safe conditions of confinement. See Youngberg v.Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315-16 (1982) (recognizing that a personwith mental retardation in State custody has substantive dueprocess rights under the Fourteenth Amendment); Bell v. Wolfish,441 U.S. 520, 535-36 & n.16 (1979) (applying the FourteenthAmendment standard to facility for adult pre-trial detainees);
K.H. v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846, 851 (7th Cir. 1990) (stating“Youngberg v. Romeo made clear . . . that the Constitution requires the responsible state officials to take steps to prevent[youth] in state institutions from deteriorating physically orpsychologically.”); Nelson v. Heyne, 491 F.2d 352, 360 (7th Cir.1974) (recognizing that juvenile detainees have a right under theFourteenth Amendment due process clause to rehabilitativetreatment, and that “[t]he ‘right to treatment’ includes theright to minimum acceptable standards of care and treatment forjuveniles and the right to individualized care and treatment.”).4 Such constitutionally mandated conditions include the right to be
including the National Association for Juvenile CorrectionsAgencies, the National Juvenile Detention Association, theJuvenile Justice Trainers Association, and the Council forEducators of At-Risk and Delinquent Youth.
4
See also, Doe v. Strauss, No. 84C2315, 1986 WL 4108, at*4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 1986) (unreported) (“[Concluding] that what we have here is a long elevated Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment right decisionally recognized in this state and manyothers. It protects juveniles when they are placed by state action in special custody, management and control because of their homeless, their delinquent conduct, and their unmonitored living.
It is a right to care, management and therapy reasonably designed and calculated to effect rehabilitation, moral restoration and proper development.” - 5 - free from undue restraint and the use of excessive force bystaff. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 315-16; Nelson, 491 F.2d at 356.Youth who are placed in disciplinary isolation are entitled tocertain procedural safeguards. Mary and Crystal v. Ramsden, 635F.2d 590, 599 (7th Cir. 1980). Youth in state or local custody also have a constitutional right to be reasonably protected from harm inflicted by third parties. K.H. v. Morgan, 914 F.2d at851.
Youth in state custody also have a constitutional right toadequate fire and occupational safety. French v. Owens, 777 F.2d1250, 1257 (7th Cir. 1985); Duckworth v. Franzen, 780 F.2d 645,655 (7th Cir. 1985) (stating “[p]rison fires . . . are common andboth their hazards and the necessary precautions well known.”)(abrogated on other grounds as noted in Haley v. Gross, 86 F.3d630 (7th Cir. 1996)). In addition, youth in State or Countycustody are constitutionally entitled to “life’s necessities,”including adequate shelter, sanitation, clothing, and hygienicmaterials. Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 493 (7th Cir.2006).
The State and County are also obliged to provide specialeducation services to youth with certain disabilities pursuant tothe IDEA. 20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1400-1482 (West, Westlaw through July3, 2006). As described below, the County has fallen short ofthese constitutional and federal statutory obligations.
III. FINDINGS
We find that Marion fails to adequately protect youth in its care from harm and serious threat of harm, fails to provide adequate fire safety and environmental health conditions, and fails to provide youth with required special education services. A. INADEQUATE PROTECTION FROM HARM Youth at Marion are not adequately protected from harm because youth are subjected to excessive levels of youth violence, excessive and improper seclusion practices, inadequatesuicide prevention measures, a dysfunctional youth grievance process, and an unreliable child abuse reporting and investigations system. 1. Youth Violence Youth in institutions have a constitutional right to be reasonably safe from harm inflicted by other youth. Facilities must maintain sufficient structures, safeguards, and staffing to - 6 - ensure reasonable safety. Our investigation revealed an unacceptably high rate of youth violence, and a serious danger of continuing and intensifying physical harm at the facility. Nearly all of the youth interviewed by our consultants reported that they do not feel safe at Marion. We found unacceptably high levels of youth-on-youth assaults, and grossly inadequate safeguards to prevent and mitigate such violence.Indeed, DOJ staff and consultants witnessed, first hand, three youth assaults during our investigatory tours. Disturbingly,youth are routinely involved in incidents requiring emergency room treatment. Violent incidents at the facility requiring“code blue” or emergency response team intervention occur daily.For example: • On February 11, 2007, two youth [SX]5 and [JN] were involved in a fight in the gym, resulting in lacerations requiring treatment in a local emergency room. The incident report suggests that a lack of staff support may have exacerbated the severity of the injuries. • On January 3, 2007, two youth were involved in a fight.One of the youth, [BN], required medical attention for a bloody nose. After repeated attempts to summon medicalstaff to the unit, a staff person went to the clinic to find the nurse. Both nurses had their coats on and were preparing to depart, without any intention to deliver the requested medical care. Ultimately, the nurses assessed the youths’ injuries, and ordered treatment for [BN] at the local emergency room. A variety of factors contribute to the violent conditions at Marion, including inadequate staffing levels, inadequate staff training, inadequate youth programming, an inadequate behavior management program, and an inadequate housing classification system. a. Inadequate Staffing Levels A significant factor contributing to the high levels of youth-on-youth violence at Marion is the absence of sufficient numbers of staff to adequately supervise youth. Without adequate levels of trained staff on duty, it is not possible to respond in 5 To protect the youths’ identities, we use fictitious initials throughout this letter. We will separately transmit to counsel for Marion County a schedule cross-referencing the fictitious initials with youths’ names. - 7 - a safe and timely manner when violence and other crises occur.Moreover, without adequate numbers of qualified staff, detention officers do not have the time to build the relationships with youth that are necessary to identify and preempt potential conflicts. Of the staffing sampling reviewed by our consultants for2006 and 2007, we determined that during waking hours,approximately 80% of the units were staffed substantially below generally accepted professional standards.6 Specifically, the16-bed units were typically staffed with a single dedicated staff person, or a 1:16 staff-to-youth ratio. Such staffing levels during waking hours are dangerously inadequate, and make it difficult for staff to prevent and quickly intervene in youth assaults. Indeed, incident reports were full of examples in which a single staff person was tasked with separating multiple youth involved in assaultive behavior. In one example from January2007, a lone staff person was required to separate multiple youth involved in a fight. In an example from February 2007, a lone staff person required the assistance of three youth in order to restrain two fighting youth until additional staff assistance arrived. As one staff person so aptly reported to us during an interview, “there are 16 of them, and I only have one set of eyes.” b. Inadequate Staff Training In addition to adequate numbers of staff, generally accepted professional standards require that facilities provide staff with adequate training in behavior management, de-escalation techniques, assault intervention, and use of force. That curriculum should be included in both staff pre-service training,and in the required annual in-service training. A lack of training in these areas hampers the staff’s ability to diffuse tensions, discourage and prevent violent incidents, and safelyand appropriately intervene once an assault has occurred. Staff at Marion do not receive adequate levels of training, and, in fact, receive no pre-service instruction in the use of force 6 Generally accepted professional standards typically require one direct care staff to every eight to ten youth during waking hours, and one direct care staff to every 16 to 20 youth during sleeping hours. At certain facilities, additional factors, such as poor facility layout, may require additional staff. - 8 - continuum. This lack of training contributes significantly tothe violent conditions at the facility. In November 2006, Marion contracted with a private company to provide eight hours of in-service training with all staff on“Critical Movement Intervention.” This program included training on verbal de-escalation, positive interactions, and physical restraint techniques. The program lacked any formal assessment of whether staff had learned the material or techniques, and generally appeared to be inadequate to provide staff with essential skills. The gross inadequacy of training at Marion is highlighted by our interview with several staff who were unable to articulate what they had learned or how they would apply their training in areal-world setting. In addition, a review of incident reports revealed that staff were unable to specify types of interventions, and appeared unfamiliar with basic use of force terminology. The amount and effectiveness of staff training at thefacility is a substantial departure from generally accepted professional standards. Indeed, the paucity of training opportunities means that staff are not adequately equipped to prevent or intervene in physical altercations and to protect youth from harm by others.c. Inadequate Youth Programming
The amount and quality of structured daily programming injuvenile facilities has a significant impact on the rate ofviolent and antisocial incidents. Simply stated, youth who do not have adequate opportunities to engage in programmed activities become bored, and are more likely to become involvedin mischief or assaultive behavior. Generally accepted professional standards mandate that youth in juvenile justicefacilities receive a minimum of one hour of large muscle activityper weekday, two hours of large muscle activity per weekend day,educational programming during weekdays, and other structureddevelopmental and rehabilitative activities.
Inadequate youth programming at Marion contributes to the high levels of youth violence, and departs substantially from generally accepted professional standards.Youth at Marion generally receive only 40 minutes of large-muscle activity per day. Some youth in isolation or in variousother disciplinary categories do not receive educational services
- 9
-
of any kind. Other types of programming are scarce, and youthspend a significant portion of their day watching television.Youth reported that they are bored, particularly on the weekends.Detention officers reported that low staffing levels prevent meaningful programming at the facility.
d.
Inadequate Behavior Management ProgramGenerally accepted professional standards require that facilities confining youth provide effective behavior management systems in order to encourage appropriate behavior and discourage violent or disruptive behavior. Effective behavior management systems generally involve incentive-based programs for promoting appropriate behavior throughout the day, and clearly definedguidelines that are consistently applied within the facility.For youth identified as having behavioral problems, behavior management programs should be coordinated with a treatment plan.The behavior management program should be based on proven techniques and focused on achieving lasting change through theintegration of evidence-based (or scientifically measurable)outcomes. Facilities must continuously track behaviors of their youth with behavior problems and adjust their behavior managemen tprograms, when necessary, to achieve desired results.
The behavior management program at Marion is poorly structured and inadequately implemented. The range of rewards and sanctions under the program are not adequate to deter aggressive youth behavior, and therefore contribute significantlyto the high levels of violence at the facility. In addition,staff are not fully aware of the features of the program, and staff and youth interviews indicate that the program is inconsistently applied. For example, when asked what the maximum number of points they could award a youth on a given day, staff reported vastly different answers. The policy regarding reward points is not clear and comprehensive. In addition, thepenalties available under the system for misbehavior are limitedand ineffective.
e. Inadequate Housing Classification
The absence of an adequate classification system guidingyouth housing assignments contributes to the high frequency ofyouth-on-youth assaults at Marion. Generally accepted professional standards require that youth be housed andsupervised in accordance with their housing classification status. Reliable classification systems take into consideration such information as a youth’s age, committing offense, physical
- 10
-
size, maturity, history of institutional violence and escapeattempts, known enemies or rivals, and gang membership or affiliation. In addition, reliable systems are objective, and validated using historical facility data.
Marion does not use any type of objective classification instrument. Housing at the facility is based primarily on age.Youth of all different sizes, levels of maturity, histories ofaggression and violence or other predatory behavior are allhoused together, with no distinction between those who arepotentially vulnerable and those who are demonstrativelypredatory. The current subjective housing assignment system atMarion is a substantial departure from generally acceptedprofessional standards.
2.
Use of Isolation Marion’s isolation practices substantially depart from generally accepted professional standards. Marion’s use of isolation is excessive and lacks essential procedural safeguards. a. Inappropriate Use of Isolation Isolation at a juvenile detention facility should be used only to the extent necessary to protect youth from harm to themselves or others, or to maintain institutional discipline.Generally accepted professional standards prohibit the use of excessive isolation. Punitive isolation,7 if used at all, should be used in conjunction with a continuum of interventions,beginning with techniques such as verbal re-direction and loss of certain privileges. Facilities are required to provide isolated youth with certain services and programming, such as medical care, mental health care, daily exercise, and to the extent reasonably possible, educational services. The length of 7 Juvenile justice institutions typically place youth in isolation for two different reasons. Punitive or “disciplinary”isolation involves placing a youth alone in a locked room as a sanction or punishment for negative behavior for a pre-determined period of time. A separate form of isolation involves placing youth who pose an immediate and continuing threat to themselves or others alone in a locked room in order to prevent immediate self harm or harm to others. Sometimes this latter form of isolation is called a “cool down” and should only last as long as the youth continues to pose an immediate threat, and is therefore necessarily indeterminate in duration. - 11 - punitive isolation should be proportional to the offen secommitted. Prior to February 15, 2007, Marion used three forms of isolation: “DOE” (an orientation phase requiring an initial three days in isolation upon admission to the facility), “Re-DOE”(essentially a return to the orientation phase), and “2H”(punitive isolation lasting from four to seven days). On February 15, 2007, the new superintendent issued a memo abolishing DOE, Re-DOE, and 2H, replacing them simply with punitive isolation lasting from two to 24 hours and requiring different levels of approval at each increment.8 Regardless of the name used to describe it, the facility excessively relies on isolation as a means of attempting to control youth behavior.Based on the review of housing assignments in January and February 2007, on any given day, approximately 15 to 20 percent of the youth population was in some form of isolation. In addition, staff at Marion have historically failed to distinguish violent and dangerous rule infractions from less serious disruptive or annoying behaviors. For example, our review of incident reports revealed that the vast majority of staff recommended isolation as the sanction for rule violations,together with a reduction in the youths’ behavior management level. These recommended sanctions were generally the same whether the alleged misbehavior included failing to follow instructions, refusing to take a shower, or stealing food, as well as more serious misbehavior such as threatening staff,assaulting another youth, or destroying property. Punitive isolation should never be the sole response to misbehavior in a juvenile detention facility.9 8 At the time of our most recent tour in February 2007,the new isolation policy had been in effect for only three days.Therefore, there was an insufficient sampling to fully evaluate the program’s effectiveness or implementation. However, the new policy appeared to be severely flawed, suffering from illogical,redundant, and overlapping guidelines, a lack of procedural safeguards, lack of staff training in the new policy, and unclear and disproportionate durations of isolation. In addition, the new policy failed to provide meaningful alternatives to the use of isolation. 9Examples of other generally accepted disciplinarysanctions short of isolation include letters of apology, essaywriting, community service, probated sanctions, and loss ofcertain privileges.
- 12
-
The facility also fails to provide isolated youth with certain required services. For example, youth in isolation do not regularly receive mental health care services, special education services, regular access to medical care, or daily large muscle exercise. Failure to provide youth in isolationwith essential services creates an additional impermissible formof punishment.b.
Lack of Procedural ProtectionsGenerally accepted professional standards require that youthplaced in punitive isolation receive notice of the charges, ahearing before an independent decision-maker, and an opportunityto present evidence in their defense. Marion fails to providethese important procedural safeguards in imposing punitive isolation. At the facility, a supervisor is required to review and approve the use of isolation. However, there is no formal process for the youth to be notified of the charges and their rights, to dispute the charges, to present exculpatory evidence,or to receive consideration from a neutral decision-maker. One predictable consequence of this failure is that Marion youth perceive the disciplinary process to be unfair and arbitrary.
3. Suicide Prevention Measures
Juvenile justice facilities must protect youth from self-harm. Youth in detention settings, like the youth at Marion, areat a much higher risk of suicide than their counterparts in thecommunity. For reasons set forth below, Marion fails to provideadequate protections for potentially suicidal youth.
Generally accepted professional standards require facilitiesto screen youth upon intake for suicidality using a validated and developmentally-appropriate suicide risk instrument. In addition, staff must be trained to identify warning signs inyouth after intake, and to make appropriate referrals to aqualified mental health professional (“QMHP”). Youth identified as potentially suicidal must be subject to a number ofprecautions, including heightened staff supervision, recurringcontact with QMHPs, suicide resistant housing, and frequent staffsearches for any restricted or dangerous items.
Generally accepted professional standards also require that,depending on the severity of the risk, QMHPs may order heightenedsupervision from a continuum of close observation, generally fourrandomly-timed (unpredictable) checks per hour, to one-on-one constant supervision. After a youth has initially been
- 13
-
identified as potentially suicidal, only a QMHP may remove thatyouth from precautions, or lower the level of precautions forthat youth. Youth on a high level of suicide precautions should be gradually “stepped-down” to lower levels, rather than being abruptly removed.
Marion’s policies and practices regarding suicide prevention are inadequate to protect youth from self-harm. Staff conduct periodic welfare checks in predictable intervals. Moreover, the existing policy fails to provide for welfare checks during waking hours. Additionally, the facility fails to adequately document or preserve evidence that welfare checks are performed. For example, Marion was unable to produce youth observation forms for any of the 15 youth on suicide precautions we requested.10 Youth Counselors at Marion routinely make decisions regarding precautions and treatment of suicidal youth, rather than QMHPs.In addition, youth on a high level of precautions are sometimes abruptly removed, without any step-down.
Staff at Marion receive only minimal training in suicide prevention and intervention, and staff routinely ignore warning signs and act inappropriately in response to suicidal ideations,gestures, and attempts. Most staff were unable to articulate how they would respond if they observed a youth hanging, and were unaware if the facility had a cut down tool.11 One recent example demonstrates numerous failures to implement an adequatesuicide prevention system over a period of several months:
•
On June 25, 2006, a youth [EL] tied a sheet to the sprinkler head in his room and was attempting to tie it around his neck when staff intervened. [EL] was not assessed by the Youth Counselor until five days later, on June 30th, when he was placed on pink card status,12 but was then removed from suicide precautions on July 5th. On July 7th, [EL] again tried to hang himself using a sheet, and in response he was 10 Although some staff and youth reported that observations were being recorded on observation forms, we were unable to corroborate this with any documentary evidence.11
Cut down tools are specialty blades used incorrectional settings to quickly cut down hanging inmates. These tools are specially designed to minimize the danger that theblade will be used as an improvised weapon.
12
Pink card status requires staff at Marion to recordobservations of the youth every 15 minutes during sleeping hours.
- 14 -
placed back on pink card status.
Despite being on a supposedly enhanced level of supervision, the next day he attempted to tie a sheet around his neck twice, andattempted to place his head in a sink full of water.Finally, he was transferred to a psychiatric hospital on July 8th.Later in the month, [EL] returned to Marion from the hospital. On July 22nd, staff observed him banging his head against the wall on two separate occasions. On July 24th,the youth verbalized a plan to jump off the second tier of the unit.
On July 28th, the youth actually jumped off the tier. The Shift Manager “advised [EL] of the negative consequences of his behavior.” On July 29th, the youth jumped from the second tier again, this time with a sheet tied around his neck, and “was informed he would receive additional discipline.” On July 31st, [EL] tied a shirt around his neck and, in a separate incident, placed his head in a sink full of water. Another round of similar incidents occurred in November 2006. For the July 31st and November2006 incidents, there was no record that [EL] was seen by aQMHP or that a safety plan was created to prevent him from hurting himself. Further, observation forms could not be produced for any of these time periods, and thus the facility cannot demonstrate that the youth received any enhanced supervision in response to these repeated serious gestures.Marion also fails to protect suicidal youth from environmental hazards or contraband. The facility fails to reasonably ensure that the youths’ environment and person arefree of items that could be used in self-harm attempts. Staff do not receive clear instructions on what items a suicidal youth may possess. For example, in February 2007, a youth [UK] was on cautionary status after stating his intent to kill himself. On two different occasions, he was found with a length of string in the padded room in which he had been placed. For a second example, in January 2007, a nurse determined that all of another youth’s [TU] belongings and clothing should be removed to protect the youth’s safety. The nurse returned to the unit two hours later to find that staff had given [TU] all of her belongings back.
4. Grievances
The dysfunctional grievance system at Marion contributes to the facility’s failure to ensure a reasonably safe environment.
- 15
-
An adequately functioning grievance system ensures that youth have an avenue for bringing serious allegations of abuse and other complaints to the attention of the administration. It also provides an important tool in evaluating the culture at thefacility, and alerting the administration about dangers and otherproblems in the facility’s operations.
Youth should have timely access to the grievance system, and grievances should be reasonably confidential. Grievances should be tracked, audited, and periodically reviewed by senior management in order to identify patterns and problems.Grievances should be responded to in a timely manner, and youthshould be informed about how their grievance was resolved.Although Marion has invested in technology to improve thegrievance process at the facility, the system remains asubstantial departure from generally accepted professionalstandards.
First, the Marion grievance system relies heavily on five“Student Concern Phones” located outside of the youth housingunits in certain common areas of the facility. Several youth,particularly those in isolation or restricted housing, complainedthat the Student Concern Phones were not accessible to them, orthat limited staffing in their units inhibited their ability toaccess the phones.
Second, although the Student Concern Phone is an important tool in Marion’s grievance system, youth should also haveadditional avenues for reporting concerns or allegations. For example, youth witness statements in incident reports should provide an additional avenue for reporting staff misconduct or abuse. Youth at Marion do not have the opportunity to provide written statements in connection with an incident.
Currently,staff interview youth involved in an incident, and then write a summary of the youth’s statement on the incident report. This practice creates the possibility that staff may, purposefully or inadvertently, misrepresent or misinterpret the youth’s statements. While the current practice may be appropriate incertain situations where youth lack the ability to write, youthshould first be offered the opportunity to complete their ownstatement.
Third, the Marion grievance system also violates generally accepted professional standards because youth are often not informed of how their particular grievance was resolved. For example, when a grievance is determined by a Marion administratorto be unfounded or not grievable, the administrator fails to
- 16
-
inform the youth. One obvious consequence of the lack of follow-through is that youth lose confidence that their grievance hasbeen reviewed or given serious consideration.
5. Child Abuse Reporting and Investigations
a. Mandated Reporting
Generally accepted professional standards and State law13 require personnel at Marion to report all allegations of child abuse to appropriate external social services and law enforcement agencies. Personnel must report all allegations, and may notfilter reporting of the allegations based on the perceivedcredibility of the youth, or merit of the allegations.14
Professional standards also mandate that once an allegationof child abuse has been received, management must restrict theaccused staff member from contact with youth, pending the outcomeof the referral and investigation.
Marion practices substantially depart from professional standards. Supervisory personnel at the facility routinely fail to report allegations that they subjectively determine not credible.15 In addition, because the allegations are often not determined to be credible, the accused staff are not subsequently placed on non-contact status pending the investigation. For example, the following incidents did not result in any external
13 See Ind. Code §31-33-5-1 (“an individual who has reasonto believe that a child is a victim of child abuse or neglectshall make a report as required by this article.”).
14 Social service and investigative agencies routinely“screen-out” child abuse allegations based on lack of credibilityor evidence. Staff at these agencies provide an objective andnon-involved perspective on the merit of the allegations, and arespecifically trained in investigating allegations of abuse.Conversely, investigations by Marion personnel do not share thesequalities.
15
It is noteworthy that the former facility director has been criminally charged for failing to report allegations that a female youth in his charge was raped by a staff person. The former director has publicly indicated that he did not report theallegations because he did not perceive the allegations to becredible. As of this writing, the former superintendent isawaiting trial.
- 17 -
reporting, and did not result in any attempt to remove theaccused staff from direct youth supervision:
•
During our second tour, a youth reported to us that a Youth Manager had sprayed him in the face with bleach in response to his misbehavior the day before. The youth indicated that one of the facility supervisors talked to him about what had happened and that he [the youth] reported the incident as he reported it to us. The youth also stated that he was not seen by medical staff following the incident. We located the incident report, and indeed, the supervisor recorded the youth’s allegation that he was sprayed in the face with bleach. We were told that the incident
was not forwarded to Child Protective Services because staff did not believe the allegation was true, indicating that because the youth“could open his eyes” after the incident, the episode could not have happened.•
An incident report from mid-February 2007 indicated that a staff person observed a youth with a bloody nose say to another youth, “staff hit me and you are going to be my witness.” The reporting staff felt that the instruction to the other youth was evidence of collusion and that the youth with the bloody nose was lying about what occurred. The youth was disciplined “for trying to get staff in trouble.”
There was no record of the youth receiving any type of medical treatment.•
Two different youth called the Student Concern Phone alleging that a particular staff person threatened to harm them in separate incidents. While a single allegation should have been sufficient to trigger a report to Child Protective Services, the fact that the reported threats were so similar (“I’m going to slap the shit out of you!”) is additional cause for concern. These threats were not reported to Child Protective Services, and disciplinary action amounted to telling the staff person that “she should not play this way with any student as she makes herself an easy target.”b. Facility Internal Investigations
Certain allegations of staff misconduct, including allegations of child abuse screened-out or found unsubstantiated by external agencies, should nevertheless be investigated internally for misconduct that does not rise to a criminal level.Marion recently implemented an internal facility-based
- 18
-
investigatory process to gather evidence and review employee conduct. At the time of our tour in February 2007, the facility had conducted one such investigation.
The resulting investigative report revealed a number of significant inadequacies in the internal investigations process.Specifically:
•
Factual errors (e.g., the report indicates that a single medical staff person received the allegation from the youth,but the various attachments reveal that the youth reported the incident to at least three other staff).•
Failures to interview key witnesses (e.g., the accused staff person provided a written statement but was never interviewed; the youth reported that two other girls, since released from the facility, were also mistreated by the accused staff person, but they were never interviewed; the staff members who received the allegations provided written statements but were never interviewed).
•
Poorly written narrative (e.g., several unclear references,poor grammar, spelling and punctuation errors, not well organized so the flow of information is difficult to discern).
A properly functioning internal investigation system is essential to ensure that staff are held accountable for anypolicy violations or provided with any additional necessary training or re-training, and that youth are treated appropriately.
B.
FIRE SAFETY AND SANITATIONThe environmental health and safety conditions at Marionpose a significant risk of disease and injury to youth and staff.We identified deficiencies in the areas of fire safety, generalsanitation, and general safety.
1. Fire Safety
We identified several deficiencies in Marion’s fire suppression and evacuation systems and procedures. For example,Marion does not adequately conduct or document fire drills. Fire alarm boxes are key activated, as opposed to manually pulled, butnot all employees have keys to the alarm boxes to activate thefire alarm system. Delays in fire notification can have deadly
- 19
-
consequences. We found very heavy lint and dust accumulation on all surfaces in the main laundry room. High concentrations of lint and dust can create explosive fire hazards around electricalequipment, such as washer and dryer motors. Additional fire safety hazards include a blocked emergency exit door; fire extinguishers not properly secured to the wall; an overloadedelectrical receptacle holding nine devices; missing sprinklerheads; and surge protectors connected in a series. These conditions present numerous scenarios for harm to youth andstaff.
2. General Sanitation
The laundry facilities do not adequately clean and sanitize youths’ clothing, which increases the risk of transmitting infectious diseases, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (“MRSA”)16 and scabies, a pruritic rash caused by the skin mite Sarcoptes scabiei. Youths’ laundered clothing often is returned to them wet, which indicates that dryer temperature settings and/or time cycles are insufficient to ensure the destruction of pathogens, including MRSA, and results in an increased risk of disease transmission through the sharing of contaminated clothing. Youths’ laundered clothing is also transported in the same laundry carts that are used for soiled clothing, which further exacerbates the risk of disease transmission. Numerous mattresses, pillows, and safety mats were worn or torn and could not be adequately cleaned and sanitized.Mattresses and pillows in this condition can easily aid in the transmission of bacteria and diseases such as scabies and MRSA.Youth are further at risk of disease transmission through Marion’s practice of requiring youth on most housing units to share a single bottle of roll-on deodorant on the unit. This practice may be contributing to the spread of scabies in thefacility. The Sarcoptes scabiei mite can be transferred person-to-person by sharing the same deodorant bottle.
16
MRSA is a virulent staph infection that thrives inclose populations such as juvenile justice facilities, prisons,and medical facilities. MRSA is resistant to traditional antibiotics, and can cause severe reactions, usually after astrain of bacteria enters the body through an opening or break inthe skin. An untreated infection of MRSA can cause swelling,boils, blisters, fever, pneumonia, bloodstream infections, and eventually loss of limbs and even death.
- 20
-
Marion’s shower areas in the housing units are not adequately clean. Some housing units had fly infestations in the shower drains, which may exacerbate bronchial asthma insusceptible populations and indicate inadequate sanitation. Some shower areas had peeling paint and mold and mildew growths on thewalls. Peeling paint increases the risk of bacteria and moldgrowth. Building dampness or moldiness has been linked with respiratory health problems such as cough, wheeze, and asthma exacerbation. Respiratory health risks may become particularly high when such fungal growth occurs inside a building.
3. General Safety
Chemical safety was also inadequate at Marion. For example,we observed numerous instances of unsecured, unsupervised chemicals, including bleach, in housing and education areas.This poses a significant risk of harm to youth and staff throughaccidental or intentional spills. Additionally, chemicals were not accompanied by accurate Material Safety Data Sheets (“MSDS”),and some chemicals had no MSDS sheets. In one instance, anunidentified chemical in a five-gallon container was being usedto prop open a door. Without MSDS sheets, personnel may not beable to adequately respond in case of chemical exposure or otherchemical-related injury.
Marion also places youth at risk of accidents by creating unacceptable safety hazards. For example, the seats on thesmall, four-seat fixed-metal tables in five housing units werebroken, exposing the sharp metal seat mounts. This poses a veryserious risk of accidental or intentional harm to youth. A tripor fall in the area of the table could produce a fatal injury ifsomeone’s head struck the seat mount. The seat mounts could also be used as weapons to inflict youth-on-youth injury.
C. SPECIAL EDUCATION
Youth with certain disabilities have federal statutory rights to special education services under the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act. In states that accept federal fundsfor the education of youth with disabilities, such as Indiana,the requirements of the IDEA apply to juvenile justicefacilities. See 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(1); 34 C.F.R.§ 300.2(b)(1)(iv). Marion violates the IDEA by failing toadequately deliver required special education services and bydenying access to any educational services to certain youth.
1. Special Education Program
Even when youth have access to the education program, the special education program is inadequate.- 21
-
a. Screening
The facility appears to be under-identifying the number of youth who are eligible for special education services. Of the 124 youth in custody during our February 2007 visit, only 30 were identified as eligible for special education services.17 This is 24 percent of the youth population, which is significantly lower than the 40 to 60 percent which, in our consultant’s experience,are commonly identified in juvenile detention and correctional facilities.
b.
Education StaffingMarion has one special education teacher. Even with the relatively low number of identified eligible youth, it is unlikely that a single special education teacher could provide the services required by their Individualized Education Programs(“IEPs”). Special education youth at Marion are served inRegular Class settings (served in a special education setting for0-20% of the school day), in a Resource setting (served in aspecial education setting for 21-60% of the school day), or in aSeparate Class setting (served in a special education setting formore than 60% of the school day). A single teacher is simply notable to provide for the diversity of needs among the youthpopulation at a relatively large detention facility like Marion.Even with the currently small number of identified eligible youth, at some point, the single teacher’s class size would exceed generally accepted professional standards.18
c. Individualized Education Plans
The IDEA requires that each youth qualified for special education services have an
Individualized Education Plan, anddescribes the IEP components required to ensure that each youthreceives adequate special education services. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.346, 300.347. The 30 youth identified as eligible for special education services at Marion had IEPs that were prepared before their detention at the facility. However, Marion fails to ensure that these IEPs are updated and appropriate for eachyouth. Neither the Director of Alternative Education for Indianapolis Public Schools nor the school principal couldremember a single situation in which a youth’s IEP was outdated
17
Nineteen of these youth were enrolled in school; an additional 11 youth were eligible for special education services,but had not been enrolled.
18
The acceptable class size will vary based on the needs of the youth, but generally ranges from ten to twenty students per class.
- 22
-
and required a case conference to make it current. However, a review of just five randomly selected IEPs revealed several inwhich the IEP appeared to be expired at the time of admission,yet MDJDC had taken no action to review or update the document.
•
One youth [UK] was in custody from January 11 through March8, 2007, or 40 school days. The youth’s previous IEP had expired approximately nine months prior to the youth’sadmission. No current IEP was located among the documents provided by the MDJDC.
•
Another youth [UX] was in custody from January 22 toFebruary 26, 2007, or 26 school days. Her most recent case conference revising her IEP was held on March 23, 2005, andthus had expired well over a year prior to her admission toMarion. Again, no documentation was provided to indicate any action had been taken to update the youth’s IEP.
•
Another youth [CT] was in custody from January 28 toFebruary 27, 2007, or 22 school days. The most recent case conference to update her IEP was held on January 17, 2006.This IEP expired just prior to the youth’s admission toMDJDC, and yet no documentation was provided to indicatethat any action had been taken to update the youth’s IEP.All actions taken on behalf of a youth need to be clearlydocumented in the youth’s file. Even when another school is responsible for the action itself, the school that ispresently serving the youth should receive frequent progressreports to ensure the documents needed to certifyeligibility and to direct service provision are incompliance with State and federal law.
School administrators also indicated that they were unableto provide speech, language, and other types of related services,and could not accommodate youth who required assistive devices ortechnology. Administrators stated that the facility did not haveaccess to qualified consultants or assistive equipment. Services prescribed by a youth’s IEP cannot be denied by the facility.
2. Access to Education
The IDEA requires that all youth with certain disabilitieshave access to free and appropriate public education (FAPE) whichmeets the standard of the State education agency. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(8)(b) [eff. July 1, 2005]; 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(9)(b);1412(a)(1)(A). See also 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(a)(2)(ii). However,Marion routinely fails to provide certain categories of youthwith access to any educational services, including specialeducation. Some youth in isolation are denied any educational services. Similarly, youth who are scheduled to be released tothe Department of Corrections (“DOC”) do not attend any school.
- 23
-
Finally, Marion does not provide any special education services to girls unless at least two girls are eligible for the services. These practices can severely impact a youth’s education.For example:•
We identified 25 youth (20% of the total youth population atMarion) who had been at the facility for more than threedays and who were not enrolled in school.19 Eleven of these 25 youth were eligible for special education services, butwere not receiving them.
•
Two youth, [OB] and [QN], had been at the facility for 19days and 35 days, respectively, and were eligible forspecial education services under the Other Health Impairedcategory, but neither had been enrolled in school.
•
Two youth with learning disabilities, [SC] and [IT], hadbeen at the facility for 21 days and 29 days, respectively,but neither had been enrolled in school.
•
One youth [KI] had resided at Marion for 105 days, yet had never been enrolled in school.Marion’s failure to provide access to any educationalservices for some youth, including special education, violatesyouths’ rights to access to education. Even when youth haveaccess to an educational program, the program is inadequate.Marion provides a total of 260 minutes of academic instructiondaily, which is less that the 360 minutes of instruction requiredby state law. Ind. Code § 20-30-2-2. Marion attempts to rationalize this disparity by claiming that the entire school hasbeen designated as an Alternative School, which requires fewer instructional hours. However, a blanket decision to enroll allyouth in an Alternative Program fails to account for theindividual needs of youth and appears to be a decision madepurely for the convenience of the facility rather than on theneeds of the youth. Indeed, some youth at MDJDC who have been ontrack for high school graduation could be derailed by a stay atMDJDC, as the facility cannot accommodate their course of study.
IV. REMEDIAL MEASURES
In order to rectify the identified deficiencies and protectthe constitutional and statutory rights of youth confined atMarion, this facility should implement, at a minimum, thefollowing remedial measures:
19
Three days is the generally accepted standard for theperiod of time in which youth must be enrolled in schoolfollowing admission to a juvenile justice facility.
- 24
-
A. Protection from Youth Violence
1.
Ensure that youth are adequately protected from physical violence committed by other youth.
2.
Ensure that the facility maintains sufficient levels ofadequately trained direct-care staff to supervise youthsafely.
3.
Ensure that staff receive adequate pre-service and in-service training in behavior management, de-escalationtechniques, assault intervention, and suicideprevention.
4.
Ensure that the facility provides adequate and appropriate structured youth programming.
5.
Ensure that there is an adequate and effective behaviormanagement system in place, and that the system isregularly reviewed and modified in accordance withevidence-based principles.
6.
Ensure that the facility develops and implements a nadequate objective housing classification system to ensure safe housing assignments.
B. Protection from Excessive and Unlawful Isolation
1.
Ensure that youth at the facility are not isolated for excessive periods of time or in an arbitrary or disproportionate manner.
2.
Ensure that youth sanctioned to punitive isolation receive adequate procedural safeguards.
3.
Ensure that youth sanctioned to punitive isolationreceive adequate programming and essential services.
C. Suicide Prevention Measures
1.
Develop adequate suicide prevention policies andpractices.
2.
Perform required observation checks in randomintervals. Record the checks and verify that thechecks are occurring.
3.
Provide cut down tools in all housing units.
- 25
-
D. Protection from General Harm
1.
Ensure that the facility develops and maintains anadequate youth grievance system.
2.
Ensure that all allegations of child abuse andmistreatment are referred to the appropriate externalagency.
3.
Ensure that the facility adequately and timelyinvestigates serious incidents and allegations of staffmisconduct.
E. Fire Safety
1.
Conduct and document adequate fire drills.
2.
Ensure that all employees have keys to the fire alarmboxes.
3.
Ensure that fire hazards are eliminated.
F. General Sanitation
1.
Ensure that youths’ clothing is properly cleaned,dried, and transported.
2.
Ensure that hygiene practices minimize the risk ofdisease transmission (e.g., that youth do not sharedeodorant).
3.
Ensure that all mattresses, pillows and gym pads areadequately cleaned and disinfected.
4.
Ensure regular and periodic cleaning of all housingareas, including toilets and showers. Ensure that regular and periodic insect control measures areperformed.
G. General Safety
1.
Develop and implement proper chemical safety measures.
2.
Ensure that safety hazards are eliminated.
H. Special Education
1.
Ensure timely and appropriate assessment andidentification of youth qualified for special educationservices.
- 26
-
2.
Provide qualified youth with adequate special educationinstruction, by an adequate number of special educationteachers.
3.
Develop, revise as appropriate, and implement adequateIndividualized Education Plans and provide necessaryrelated services.
4.
Provide adequate access to educational services.
* * *
Please note that this findings letter is a public document.It will be posted on the Civil Rights Division’s website. While we will provide a copy of this letter to any individual or entity upon request, as a matter of courtesy, we will not post this letter on the Civil Rights Division’s website until ten calendar days from the date of this letter.
We hope to continue working with the County in an amicable and cooperative fashion to resolve our outstanding concerns regarding Marion.
Assuming there is a spirit of cooperation from the County, we also would be willing to send our consultants’evaluations under separate cover. These reports are not public documents. Although the consultants’ evaluations and work do not necessarily reflect the official conclusions of the Department ofJustice, their observations, analysis, and recommendationsprovide further elaboration of the issues discussed in this letter and offer practical technical assistance in addressing them.
We are obligated to advise you that, in the entirely unexpected event that we are unable to reach a resolutionregarding our concerns, the Attorney General may initiate alawsuit pursuant to CRIPA to correct deficiencies of the kindidentified in this letter 49 days after appropriate officialshave been notified of them. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(1). We note that we are also authorized, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141, toinitiate a suit to address the above described conditions.
We would prefer, however, to resolve this matter by workingcooperatively with you and are confident that we will be able todo so in this case. The lawyers assigned to this investigationwill be contacting the facility’s attorney to discuss this matterin further detail. If you have any questions regarding thisletter, please call Shanetta Y. Cutlar, Chief of the Civil RightsDivision’s Special Litigation Section, at (202) 514-0195.
- 27 -
Sincerely,
/s/ Wan J. KimWan J. Kim Assistant Attorney General
cc: Kobi M. WrightCorporation CounselMarion County, Indiana
Robert Bingham
Chief Probation Officer
Marion County Superior Court
Richard Curry
Director
Marion County Juvenile Detention Center
Roberta Sabin Recker
Counsel
Indianapolis Schools
The Honorable Susan W. Brooks
United States Attorney
Southern District of Indiana
The Honorable Margaret Spellings
Secretary
United States Department of Education
Mr. John H. HagerAssistant SecretaryOffice of Special Education and Rehabilitative ServicesUnited States Department of Education
Ms. Patty Guard
Acting Director
Office of Special Education Programs
United States Department of Education
