September 9, 2005

The Honorable Mitch Daniels
Governor, State of Indiana
Office of the Governor
State House, Room 206
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2797
Re: 	 Investigation of the Plainfield Juvenile

Correctional Facility, Indiana 

Dear Governor Daniels:
I am writing to report the findings of the Civil Rights
Division’s investigation of conditions at the Plainfield Juvenile
Correctional Facility (“Plainfield”), Plainfield, Indiana. On
February 10, 2004, we notified you of our intent to conduct
investigations of Plainfield and two other juvenile correctional
facilities, the Logansport Juvenile Diagnostic/Intake Facility
(“Logansport”), and the South Bend Juvenile Correctional Facility
(“South Bend”) pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized
Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (“CRIPA”) and the pattern or
practice provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141").1
As we noted, both CRIPA and Section 14141 give the Department of
Justice authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of
conduct that violates the constitutional or federal statutory
rights of children in juvenile justice institutions.
On June 8-11 and June 30-July 2, 2004, we conducted on-site
inspections of Plainfield. We were accompanied by expert
consultants in mental health care, juvenile justice, sanitation,
and education. We interviewed staff, youth residents, mental
health care providers, teachers, and administrators. Before,
during, and after our visits, we reviewed an extensive number of
documents, including policies and procedures, incident reports,
youth detention records, mental health records, grievances from
youth residents, unit logs, orientation materials, staff training
materials, and school records. Consistent with our commitment to

1

Our findings regarding South Bend and Logansport are
provided separately, but are referenced in this letter.

- 2 
provide technical assistance and conduct a transparent
investigation, at the conclusion of each tour, we conducted exit
conferences with facility and Indiana Department of Correction
(“IDOC”) officials, during which our consultants described their
initial impressions and concerns.
At the outset, we commend the staff of Plainfield for their
helpful, courteous, and professional conduct throughout the
course of the investigation. We also wish to express our
appreciation for the cooperation of IDOC officials.
Consistent with our statutory obligation under 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. As
described more fully below, and in the findings letters also
issued today in regard to Logansport and South Bend, we conclude
that certain deficiencies at Plainfield violate the
constitutional and federal statutory rights of the youth
residents.
I.

BACKGROUND

Plainfield is a facility for male juveniles. It primarily
houses juveniles between the ages of 12 and 18 years who are
committed to IDOC’s Juvenile Services Division, although
juveniles can be held until age 21. During the time of our
visits, the population was approximately 300 juveniles. The
average length of stay at Plainfield is 17 months.
Originally built in the 1800's, the campus includes 12
housing units as well as a school, health unit, central dining
hall, vocational building, and chapel. The residential units
consist of duplex cottages with either single cells or
dormitories. The campus also includes “Cottage 13,” which is a
maximum security, self-contained building used to house residents
who need to be separated from the general population on a shortor long-term basis.
Most male juveniles in the IDOC who have committed sexual
offenses are sent to Plainfield. Generally, these youths are
housed together in specific units. In most of these sex offender
units, residents sleep on bunk beds in large dormitories.
Plainfield utilizes a level program that is mandated by the
IDOC as part of its comprehensive case management system. The
program consists of several levels that a youth is required to
complete in order to qualify for release. A youth’s progress

- 3 
through the levels is measured against his “Individual Growth
Plan,” which is a set of long-term and short-term cognitive and
behavioral goals specifically designed for the youth by his
interdisciplinary treatment team, as well as interventions to be
utilized to achieve those goals. The youth’s treatment team,
which includes custody, mental health, and educational
professionals, decides when a youth has successfully completed a
level; unanimous approval by the team is required for a youth to
move to the next level.
All male juveniles entering the IDOC, including those who
ultimately are committed to Plainfield, are initially sent to
Logansport for a 13-day intake period. According to Logansport
officials, during this intake period each youth undergoes a
physical examination; dental, vision and hearing screenings; an
intellectual and educational assessment; a risk and needs
assessment; a substance use assessment; a crimino-psychosocial
history; and, if deemed necessary, is referred to a psychiatrist
and/or psychologist. See Logansport Findings Letter at 2. At
the conclusion of the 13-day intake process, juveniles are
classified and transferred to one of seven IDOC operated juvenile
treatment facilities (which include Plainfield), or to one of
four privately-operated facilities.
II.

FINDINGS

We find that Plainfield fails to adequately protect the
juveniles in its care from harm. We also find constitutional
deficiencies in the facility’s mental health care. Finally,
Plainfield fails to provide juveniles with disabilities the
education services required by the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1401.
A.

PROTECTION FROM HARM

As a general matter, the State must provide confined
juveniles with reasonably safe conditions of confinement.
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982); Nelson v. Heyne,
491 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1974). Such constitutionally mandated
conditions include the right to be free from undue restraint and
the use of excessive force by staff. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 31516; Nelson, 491 F.2d at 356. Juveniles in state custody also
have a constitutional right to be reasonably protected from harm
inflicted by third parties. K.H. v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846, 851

- 4 -

(7th Cir. 1990). Neither the Supreme Court2 nor the Seventh
Circuit3 has determined definitively whether the Eighth Amendment
or the Fourteenth Amendment provides the governing constitutional
standard for conditions in juvenile facilities. For purposes of
this letter, we need not resolve which standard governs because
we find that the conditions at Plainfield violate even the more
stringent Eighth Amendment standard.
Throughout our tours, youth residents repeatedly informed us
that they are not safe at Plainfield. Our investigation
confirmed that juveniles in Plainfield live in a violent culture
where physical assaults between youths occur regularly, overt
sexual behavior among youths is commonplace, and corrections
staff often use excessive physical force when restraining youths.
1.	

Youth Violence and Inadequate Supervision

Juveniles in institutions have a constitutional right to be
reasonably safe from harm inflicted by other juveniles in the
facility. In order for juveniles to be reasonably safe from such
harm, it is essential that a facility provide adequate
supervision to youths in its care. Our investigation revealed
that there are inadequate numbers of staff to meaningfully
supervise the youth residents.
At Plainfield, physical assaults among the youth residents
are commonplace. Moreover, these assaults frequently occur
without intervention – or even awareness – by staff. The
following are examples from facility incident reports:
•	

On or about June 25, 2004, a Plainfield youth attacked
another youth in the recreation area and broke his victim’s
jaw. No officers reported observing this assault. Three
days after the assault, the victim came forward to seek
medical attention for his sore jaw. The victim was
2

See Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 669 n.37 (1977)
(Although holding that the Eighth Amendment is inapplicable to
the paddling of schoolchildren, the Court declines to consider
whether the Eighth Amendment applies to conditions in juvenile
institutions).
3

In Nelson, the Seventh Circuit held that the State
violated the Eighth Amendment rights of confined juveniles by
administering abusive corporal punishment and forced
tranquilizing medication, but violated their Fourteenth Amendment
rights by failing to provide them with minimally acceptable
rehabilitative treatment. 491 F.2d at 357; 360.

- 5 transported to the local emergency room, where it was
confirmed that his jaw was broken and would have to be wired
shut.
•	

On June 12, 2004, three youths attacked another youth while
he was sitting in a staff member’s chair in the unit
dormitory. The three youths beat their victim in the head
and face, ultimately breaking his jaw. No officers reported
observing this assault. The following day, the victim came
forward to seek medical attention for a sore jaw. The
injury report indicates that the youth could open his mouth
only partially and that there was blood in his mouth. He
was referred to a dentist on the following day, June 14.
The dentist then referred the youth to the local emergency
room, where it was confirmed that the youth’s jaw was broken
and would have to be wired shut.

•	

On March 27, 2004, one youth attacked another youth,
ultimately fracturing the victim’s jaw. The victim did not
receive medical attention for his injury until four days
later. At that time, his jaw was x-rayed and the fracture
diagnosed.

•	

On November 11, 2003, a youth was assaulted by another
youth. As a result of this assault, the victim’s mouth was
bleeding and two of his teeth were broken. On December 1,
2003, the same youth was again assaulted. He received
bruises and facial lacerations and was unable to move his
jaw without pain. A dental x-ray on December 4 revealed
several jaw fractures and, therefore, the youth’s jaw was
wired shut.

The examples above reflect a consistent and disturbing
pattern of unchecked violence among Plainfield’s youths resulting
from a lack of adequate supervision of residents. In many cases,
the victims suffer serious injuries as a result of assaults that
are not detected by staff or reported by other residents. In
many of the incidents described above, staff did not learn of the
assault until the victims sought medical attention several days
afterward. Moreover, the actual number of youth assaults is
likely much higher than what is reflected in the incident
reports. During our tour, residents consistently reported that
there are numerous incidents of youth-on-youth violence about
which staff are unaware, resulting in an environment where youth
assaults can and, in fact, often do occur without detection or
prevention.
Another consequence of the inadequate supervision of youths
at Plainfield is an unacceptably high rate of sexual activity.

- 6 
Because Plainfield houses many of the IDOC’s juvenile sex
offenders, the risk of sexual abuse and molestation among the
residents is particularly high. Constitutional standards require
that Plainfield take reasonable measures to protect more
vulnerable residents from abuse and exploitation by more
sophisticated, sexually predatory youths. J.H. and J.D. v.
Johnson, 346 F.3d 788, 791-92 (7th Cir. 2003). The Constitution
also obligates Plainfield to provide a rehabilitative environment
for all young sex offenders. Nelson, 491 F.2d at 360.
Unfortunately, we found that Plainfield fails to provide
supervision adequate to accomplish either of these legally
required objectives.
Sexual activity among youth residents, referred to at
Plainfield as “overt sexual behavior,” or “OSB,” is rampant at
Plainfield. We reviewed numerous reports involving scores of
incidents of OSB among youths at Plainfield. These incidents are
not limited to a particular area within the facility. Rather,
OSB occurs throughout the campus, for example, in the
dormitories, day rooms, bathrooms and shower areas, and even in
the campus security van. An April 2004 critical incident report,
submitted by the facility’s acting superintendent to IDOC’s
Deputy Commissioner of Juvenile Services, describes a series of
incidents of OSB involving over 20 youths on the same unit over
the course of several months. The OSB among these youths was so
pervasive and elaborate that the report includes a flow chart
identifying each youth involved and the specific sexual acts each
youth performed with each other youth. A March 2004 critical
incident report to the Deputy Commissioner describes a similar
series of OSB incidents involving eight youths from the same
unit. In an October 2003 critical incident report to the Deputy
Commissioner, over 14 different youths on the same unit are
reported to have engaged in a variety of sexual acts occurring
throughout the facility, including in the movement lines, the day
room, restroom, recreation area, and storage closet.
Moreover, the age and size disparity between many of the
youths involved in these incidents is alarming. For example, the
incidents described above involved many 13-year-old youths
engaged in sexual acts with youths as old as 16 years. Likewise,
we found significant weight disparities between involved youths,
for example, youths weighing under 70 pounds who engaged in
sexual acts with youths who weighed as much as 100 pounds more
than them. When older, bigger, and/or more sophisticated youths

- 7 
have access to younger and/or smaller youths, the risk of abuse
and exploitation is particularly high.4
Two particularly disturbing incident reports we reviewed
involved 12-year-old boys with significantly older youths. An
incident report dated February 8, 2004, describes an incident in
which a 16-year-old youth gave a 12-year-old youth articles of
clothing as enticement to perform sexual acts with the 16-yearold while in the unit day room. A report dated July 31, 2003,
describes two separate incidents in which an 18-year-old youth
attempted to force a 12-year-old youth to perform sexual acts on
the older youth in the bathroom area. It is not appropriate for
12-year-old boys to be housed with older, more sophisticated
juveniles, nor is it appropriate that these older youths have
such apparently easy access to the younger residents. Moreover,
for both the victims and the aggressors, these experiences are
likely to inhibit whatever rehabilitative efforts have been made
in the past or that will occur in the future.
The most obvious and glaring reason for the frequency of
physical assaults and OSB among juveniles at Plainfield is that
there are not enough staff to supervise the residents adequately.
Constitutional standards require that juvenile facilities staff
every shift with a number of qualified staff members sufficient
to ensure the safety and security of its youth residents.
Without an adequate number of officers on duty, existing staff
cannot respond in a safe and timely manner when assaults occur.
Moreover, without adequate numbers of staff on duty, correctional
officers do not have the time to establish relationships with the
youth residents that would enable staff to identify when tensions
are rising between youths and to prevent violent incidents from
occurring.
At Plainfield, the staffing ratio varies among the units,
from one staff to between 30 to 48 youths. One adult simply
cannot provide supervision to 30-48 delinquent juveniles
sufficient to keep them safe, much less establish relationships
with and provide a rehabilitative environment for the youths.
The physical design of the cottages in which most of the sex
offenders are housed exacerbates the inadequacy of nighttime
staffing ratios. Typically, in facilities that house sex
4

In fact, the incidents involving juveniles under the
age of 14 years implicate Indiana’s child molestation law. See
IN. CODE § 35-42-4-3 (defining criminal molestation to include
sexual acts committed by any person with children under the age
of 14 years).

- 8 
offenders, residents sleep in individual rooms in order to
prevent sexual activity among the residents. In contrast, most
of Plainfield’s sex offenders sleep in large dormitories in bunk
beds. Housing sex offenders in dormitories with bunk beds is a
questionable practice regardless of staffing ratios. Doing so
when staffing ratios are significantly deficient places youth
residents at clear risk of serious harm and is particularly
inappropriate.
2.

Use of Physical Force

Juveniles at Plainfield have a right to be free from
unnecessary restraint and the use of excessive force. Youngberg,
457 U.S. at 315-16; Nelson, 491 F.2d at 356. See also H.C. v.
Jarrad, 786 F.2d 1080, 1089 (11th Cir. 1986); Milonas v.
Williams, 691 F.2d 931, 942 (10th Cir. 1982). We were pleased to
learn that, for the most part, Plainfield takes strong
disciplinary action, including termination of employment, against
employees when an inappropriate use of force is identified.
Additionally, some youths identified specific members of the
corrections staff who they felt were fair and conscientious in
executing their duties.
Nevertheless, we found a disturbing consistency in the
youths’ accounts of the use of unnecessary physical restraint and
excessive force by many staff at Plainfield. For example, a
number of youths reported incidents where staff “slammed” a youth
into a wall or onto the floor for a minor rule infraction,
sometimes after the youth was already in handcuffs. Many other
youths described incidents in which corrections staff provoked a
youth in order to justify use of force on him.
Use of force reports at Plainfield support the accounts we
received from youths and reveal a pattern of youth injuries
resulting from physical restraints by staff. In many of these
incidents, the use of physical force, or the amount of force
used, was not warranted by the situation. For example, in one
incident in January 2004, an officer grabbed a youth by his face
and pushed him into a wall after the youth was “verbally
disrespectful and threatening” to the officer. The officer
involved ignored a direct order by his sergeant to let the youth
go, and the sergeant ultimately had to physically remove the
officer from the youth and help the youth up. The youth was
treated in the health care unit, which reported that the youth
sustained bruises and cuts across his neck and shoulder.5
5

The sergeant appropriately reported this incident to
(continued...)

- 9 
In another incident in November 2003, an officer restrained
a youth for not following the officer’s directions to return to
the day room. The report identifies a number of injuries the
youth received during this physical restraint, including several
cuts on and around his ear, back and lips, a contusion on his
forehead, and scrapes and bruises across his chest and back.
Although the officer involved reported that these injuries
occurred when he “wrapped his arms around [the youth] and took
him to the ground,” several youth residents who were present at
the time reported that the officer grabbed the youth and “hit his
head into the wall, kicked him, and used his knee on the
student’s back to hold him down.”
Interviews with Plainfield staff indicate that poor staffing
ratios likely contribute to the use of more force than necessary
in many incidents of physical restraint. Virtually every
correctional officer that we interviewed expressed his/her
concern about maintaining control of the facility. Moreover,
several youths told us that the “residents control the facility,”
indicating that staff were outnumbered and not consistently able
to maintain order in the facility. When staff feel outnumbered
and stretched too thin, they are more likely to apply extra force
during a restraint to emphasize to the youth that non-compliant
behavior will not be tolerated. This is not an acceptable
practice.
Also troubling is the IDOC’s inclusion of a provision
regarding “Lethal Physical Intervention” in its use of force
policy. The provision appears in a section entitled, “Juvenile
Facilities Step Definitions,” and appears to be the final measure
in a series of graduated steps to be taken by staff in the event
of an incident that might result in the use of force on a youth.
“Lethal Physical Intervention” is not defined in this policy,
although a separate definition section of the policy includes
“deadly force,” which is defined as “any force which creates a
substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death or which the
person using the force reasonably believes creates a substantial
risk of causing serious bodily harm or death.” In any case, the
policy includes no guidelines or limits as to when the use of
lethal force is permissible. A policy that permits the use of
lethal force, in any setting but particularly in a juvenile
facility, without clear limits and guidelines is not appropriate,
places youth residents at significant and obvious risk of serious
harm or death.
5

(...continued)
the administration and child protection services.
of the outcome of this investigation.

We are unaware

- 10 
3.

Grievances

The dysfunctional grievance system at Plainfield
contributes to the State’s failure to ensure a reasonably safe
environment. An adequately functioning grievance system ensures
that youth residents 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 the facility, and alerting the administration
about dangers and other problems in the facility’s operations.
Plainfield’s grievance system is inadequate and our investigation
revealed that very few youths bother to utilize the grievance
process. Almost every youth we interviewed stated that they have
no confidence in the grievance system and see little point in
using it.6
Several factors contribute to the inadequacy of Plainfield’s
grievance process. First, physical access is unnecessarily
restricted. Grievance boxes, where residents can submit their
written grievance forms, are available only in the school and the
cafeteria, and not in any of the regular living units. Thus,
access to initiate the grievance process is not readily
available.
When youths do attempt to initiate the grievance process,
their substantive complaints are often not addressed, even when
the grievance contains serious allegations of staff misconduct.
For example, in a May 15, 2004 grievance, a youth alleged that a
staff member hit him with a basketball. The youth further
alleged that when he questioned the staff’s actions, the staff
member handcuffed him. The May 26 response to this grievance
states only, “Rejected. A complaint step 1 was not submitted.”7
6

In an interview, Plainfield’s grievance coordinator
informed us that she believes that youths do not use the
grievance system because the youths have access to a campus mail
system that enables them to communicate with staff members in
writing. While it is commendable that residents at Plainfield
are able to use the campus mail to communicate with staff, this
cannot replace a formal grievance system that includes a
coordinator who is authorized to resolve identified problems, a
response memorialized in writing, a process for appealing the
resolution of a grievance, established time frames for responding
to grievances, and a mechanism for tracking the substance and
resolution of grievances.
7

“Complaint Step 1" refers to a specific form that
(continued...)

- 11 
In another example, a youth filed a grievance on May 16, 2004,
alleging that an officer had informed him that two other
corrections staff had successfully “set up” another youth in
order to extend the youth’s time at Plainfield. The May 26
response said only “Rejected. A student may not file a complaint
on another student’s behalf.”
Plainfield’s grievance process policy also provides that a
youth’s access to the grievance process may be denied if it is
determined that the youth is “attempting to flood the procedure
with frivolous complaints.” See Section XX of Plainfield’s
“Offender Grievance Process.” Plainfield’s grievance coordinator
informed us that it was within her discretion to suspend a
youth’s access to the grievance process, and to lift the
suspension.
Access to the mechanism through which youth residents can
communicate serious allegations and concerns to the
administration is a critical element of ensuring that youths’
rights are protected and suspension of this access is
inconsistent with generally accepted standards. The experience
of one Plainfield youth illustrates the potential problems in
permitting suspension of access. This particular youth filed 13
grievances within a three-week period in 2004, eight of them
filed on one day. Plainfield’s grievance coordinator determined
that the youth’s grievances were excessive and, therefore,
suspended the youth’s access to the system. The youth’s
grievances included the following allegations:
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	
•	

He witnessed an officer strike another youth in the face and
improperly restrain the youth;
An officer verbally abused him and yanked his arm fiercely;
He heard an officer threaten to “beat the s— [expletive
deleted]” out of another youth;
He requested to go to the health care unit and was refused;
He witnessed an officer strike another youth with a notepad;
He requested a grievance form from an officer and the
officer told him to “leave him the f--- alone [expletive
deleted];”

7

(...continued)
youths must first submit, notifying the Grievance Specialist of
his desire to file a Grievance, which is defined in IDOC’s policy
as “a legible, formalized version of a complaint...that has been
signed and dated by a student and the Grievance Specialist.”

- 12 All but one of the responses to these grievances stated,
“Complaint rejected. Student continues to flood the grievance
system,” or similar language.
Clearly, this youth’s use of the grievance system presents
challenges to Plainfield’s staff. And to be sure, there are
appropriate limitations that may be placed on repetitive and
frivolous filers. Nevertheless, many of his grievances contain
allegations of serious misconduct that should have prompted
further investigation. Suspending this youth’s access to the
grievance process altogether leaves him without an avenue through
which to communicate potentially serious allegations and
complaints in the future. Disregarding his concerns and fears
also ignores an opportunity to evaluate how to meet the treatment
needs of this youth and to possibly address systemic harm to
other youths. Moreover, the mere existence of a provision
permitting the denial of access to the grievance system, without
any guidance for staff, may inhibit the filing of grievances and,
therefore, undermines the purpose and effectiveness of the
process.
B.

MENTAL HEALTH CARE

The Constitution requires that youths in juvenile justice
institutions receive adequate mental health care. Youngberg,
457 U.S. at 323, n.30.; Nelson, 491 F.2d at 360; see also K.H.,
914 F.2d at 851; A.M., 372 F.3d at 585 n.3. We find that certain
aspects of the mental health care at Plainfield are
constitutionally inadequate. Specifically, we find that
Plainfield fails to provide adequate (1) mental health screening
and assessment services, and (2) psychopharmacological services.
1.

Screening and Assessment Services

We were pleased to learn that all juveniles entering
Plainfield are assessed by a psychologist upon arrival. Thus,
the framework exists for identifying youths with serious mental
health issues. Unfortunately, we found that the mental health
assessments conducted at Plainfield are not sensitive enough to
identify serious mental illnesses where the youths’ symptoms are
internalized, as can be the case with depression, post-traumatic
stress disorder, and psychosis. For example, one youth we
interviewed described a variety of hallucinations that he was
experiencing, but his hallucinations had not been identified or
treated by Plainfield’s mental health staff. Another youth we
interviewed exhibited clear signs of depression, however, this
had not been detected through screening and assessment at
Plainfield. In fact, approximately half of the youths

- 13 
interviewed by our mental health consultant during our visit to
Plainfield exhibited clear symptoms of depression and/or
psychosis which had not been identified or treated by
Plainfield’s mental health staff.
2.

Psychopharmacological Services

As stated above, juveniles placed at Plainfield first spend
13 days at Logansport, purportedly for evaluation and assessment.
And, as we explain in our letter issued today regarding mental
health services at Logansport, when a youth is admitted to
Logansport and reports that he is currently receiving
psychopharmacological treatment,8 he is typically permitted to
finish whatever medication he has with him at the time of intake.
If the youth reports that he is currently receiving
psychopharmacological treatment but does not have any medication
with him, then Logansport’s intake nurse will refer him to the
psychiatrist, who will meet with the youth within seven days. In
either scenario, however, unless the youth is overtly exhibiting
the symptoms the medication purports to treat, medication is
automatically discontinued once the youth’s personal supply has
been exhausted.9 Logansport’s psychiatrist reports that the
purpose of this discontinuation practice is to institute a “washout” period. A wash-out period is a medication-free time during
which, in theory, the mental health professional will monitor the
youth’s behavior and assess whether any psychopharmacological
treatment is appropriate.
A wash-out period, if implemented appropriately, can be a
useful diagnostic tool for ensuring the appropriate use of
psychotropic medications. However, in order to meet generally
accepted professional standards of care,10 a youth who undergoes
8

Psychopharmacological treatment refers to the use of
psychotropic medications to control symptoms of mental illness.
9

In interviews during our visit, Logansport’s
psychiatrist stated that it was his understanding that the
discontinuation of psychotropic medications once a youth exhausts
his personal supply is mandated by IDOC policy. IDOC’s medical
director, however, stated that no such policy exists. Thus, the
origin of this practice remains unclear.
10

In assessing the constitutional adequacy of mental
health care practices at Plainfield, we must consider whether
professional decisions substantially depart from accepted
professional judgment. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323; Estate
(continued...)

- 14 
a wash-out period must be carefully monitored and assessed by a
qualified mental health clinician before, during, and after
discontinuation of the medication in order to determine whether a
return to medication is warranted. Without adequate monitoring
and assessment throughout this time, juveniles are exposed to a
number of potential harms. Most obviously, youths whose mental
health needs are not adequately identified and treated may suffer
mental distress and anguish, as well as an increased risk of
suicidality. Additionally, such youths are less likely to be
able to successfully complete the rehabilitation program, a
requirement for release from the treatment facility. Moreover,
juveniles with unmet mental health needs are more likely to
demonstrate unacceptable behaviors that elicit punitive responses
from staff.
Because residents are transferred out of Logansport shortly
following the discontinuation of medication, the bulk of the
requisite monitoring and assessment should occur at the treatment
facility to which a youth is transferred, in this case, at
Plainfield. In our review of Plainfield’s mental health
services, however, we found that youths whose medications are
discontinued11 at Logansport are not provided with adequate
monitoring and assessment at Plainfield to determine whether
there is a need to resume the psychopharmacological treatment.
In fact, a significant number of the youths we identified as
experiencing symptoms of serious mental illness had been
receiving psychopharmacological treatment at the time they
entered Logansport. The medication was discontinued while the
youths were at Logansport, purportedly to institute a wash-out
10

(...continued)
of Cole v. Fromm, 94 F.3d 354, 262-63 (7th Cir. 1996) (deriving
the standard for assessing the adequacy of mental health care
provided to pretrial detainee from Youngberg).
11

We also find the characterization of IDOC’s medication
discontinuation policy as a diagnostic wash-out period to be
problematic. The fact that youths entering Logansport are
permitted to finish whatever quantity of medication they may
happen to bring in with them before the prescription is
discontinued suggests that the subsequent discontinuation is not
driven by medical considerations. Indeed, if the driving force
for discontinuing a medication is truly a lack of need for that
medication, then it should be discontinued regardless of whether
the juvenile brought in a supply of his own. And, in fact, when
we asked Logansport’s psychiatrist what the rationale is for
permitting residents to finish medications they have with them,
he stated that it was to avoid the medication going to waste.

- 15 
period. Without adequate monitoring, this is not an acceptable
practice.
C.

SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES

Students with disabilities have federal statutory rights to
special education services under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq.12
Plainfield violates these rights by failing to provide adequate
special education at its school program13 in violation of the
IDEA. At the time of our tour, over half of Plainfield residents
had been identified as qualifying for special education services
under the IDEA.
At the outset, we note that there are several positive
aspects of the educational program at Plainfield. For example,
Plainfield’s teachers are dedicated and enthusiastic and, for the
most part, are licensed in the subject area they teach.
Additionally, there is a basic system to address student behavior
which, although requiring some modifications, encourages
discussion between educators, custody staff, and mental health
professionals.
We were also pleased to see that students with disabilities
spend most of their school day in general education classes, as
envisioned under the IDEA. 34 C.F.R. § 300.550(b)(1)(requiring
that “to the maximum extent appropriate, children with
disabilities, including children in public or private
institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children
who are nondisabled”). Nevertheless, we find that Plainfield
fails to provide special education services required under IDEA.
1.

IEPs

The IDEA requires that each student with a disability have
an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”), and describes the
IEP components required to ensure that each student receives
adequate special education services. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.346,
300.347. The IEPs developed at Plainfield do not ensure that
12

We note that the IDEA was reauthorized and amended by
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004, PUB. L. NO. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004), effective July
1, 2005. The IDEA provisions cited herein are substantively the
same as those in force at the time of our tour.
13

Plainfield’s school program is called the Charlton
Jr./Sr. High School.

- 16 
students with disabilities receive required special education
services.
In particular, the IEPs developed at Plainfield are not
sufficiently specific or individualized to meet the needs of each
student with a disability. For example, IEPs must identify the
specific location, frequency and duration of the special
education services that each student requires. 34 C.F.R.
§ 300.347 (a)(6). Yet, nearly half of the 36 Plainfield IEPs
that we randomly reviewed contained only a vague statement that
the student would be involved in “a 10-12 month educational
program, 4-6 times daily up to five hours with recreation (and
treatment).” This statement generally describes the education
program at Plainfield but does not reflect an adequately
developed individualized education plan as required under the
IDEA. Moreover, the repetition of this language in so many IEPs
indicates that students are not being evaluated for and provided
with services specific to their individual needs. Additionally,
it is impossible to identify whether students are actually
receiving services noted in their IEPs because the criteria
listed are too vague to measure.
The majority of the IEPs we reviewed also contain
“boilerplate” language regarding the instructional adaptations
and assessment accommodations needed by each student. For
example, two-thirds of the IEPs we reviewed stated that the only
effect the students’ disability will have on his involvement in
the general education curriculum is that he will need textbooks
at his grade level. Similarly, 14 IEPs listed, “May need extra
time to complete assignments and tests,” as the only
accommodation needed by the student. While not problematic on
their face, the repetition of these accommodations in so many
IEPs strongly suggests that students are not being provided with
special education services specific to their individual needs, as
required by the IDEA.
We also found several instances where a youth’s individual
services were dramatically lower than what he had received in his
previous educational setting. For example, in four of the
records we reviewed, students’ direct special educational
services were reduced from 100 percent in their prior educational
setting to no direct special education services whatsoever at
Plainfield. Drastic reductions in services without adequate
justification suggest that Plainfield is tailoring IEPs to what
is available, rather than the students’ individualized needs.
Our review of Plainfield’s IEPs also reveals serious
deficiencies in services to students with disabilities who need

- 17 
behavioral supports to succeed in the classroom. For example, of
the 21 students with emotional disturbances (“ED”) whose IEPs we
reviewed, not one included a behavior intervention plan (“BIP”)
to assist them in accessing the curriculum. One youth was in a
private residential facility prior to incarceration, yet he now
has no BIP. Another student’s previous IEP stressed the need for
a BIP, yet his Plainfield IEP does not contain one. Yet another
student was sent to Cottage 13 (the segregation unit) for getting
into a fight just prior to his IEP meeting, and yet it is noted
in the resulting IEP that “behavior is not an issue” for this
youth and no BIP was implemented.
2.

Instructional Services for Students with Disabilities
a.

Individualized Instruction

The IDEA requires that students with disabilities receive
specially designed instruction in which the content, method,
and/or delivery of instruction is adapted as necessary to meet
the unique needs of the student, and to ensure his access to the
general curriculum. 34 C.F.R. § 300.26(a)(3). For example, a
student with disabilities may require a seating change, more time
on written assignments, oral testing, specific instructional
cues, etc. The general education teacher typically is
responsible for implementing the instructional adaptations
identified in the IEP. During our tour, however, we found that
several general education teachers at Plainfield were unaware of
which students in their classes even required special education
services. Not surprisingly then, even where IEPs listed specific
instructional adaptations for students, such classroom
adaptations were not evident during our tour. In fact, during
the course of visiting 24 classrooms and instructional areas, we
observed only one teacher providing a single instructional
adaptation in all of our classroom observations, despite the fact
that over half of the students at Plainfield qualify for special
education services.
One factor that likely contributes to the inadequate
provision of special education services is the lack of teacher
oversight. At the time of our visit to Plainfield, there was no
formal mechanism in place to observe and evaluate teachers’
practices to ensure that they provide appropriate educational
services. Likewise, there is no procedure in place to evaluate
the performance of the Plainfield principal regarding teacher
compliance with special education or other federal and state
educational requirements. Plainfield must develop procedures to
hold staff accountable for providing special education services
to students.

- 18 -

Plainfield’s rate of teacher absences and lack of a policy
to obtain substitute teachers also contributes to the inadequate
provision of special education services. When a Plainfield
teacher is absent, there is no system in place for obtaining a
qualified substitute teacher to cover his classes. In a sample
six-month period in 2004, Plainfield’s teachers were absent for
an average of 85 hours per week. This interferes with the
teaching staff’s ability to provide students with disabilities
the individualized instruction required under the IDEA.
b.

Curriculum

The IDEA requires that States provide special education and
related services which meet the standards of the State education
agency. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(9)(b); 1412(a)(1)(A). See also
34 C.F.R. § 300.600(a)(2)(ii). At Plainfield, the course
offerings are insufficient for students to earn a high school
diploma. For example, Plainfield does not offer courses in
laboratory sciences (such as biology, chemistry, and physics),
foreign languages, physical education, fine arts,
consumer/economics, or a sufficient number of electives, all of
which are part of Indiana’s minimum curriculum.14
Furthermore, students with disabilities do not have
sufficient access to courses needed to obtain a high school
diploma. For example, out of 35 randomly selected course
schedules of students with disabilities, 81 percent were not
enrolled in any history, geography, or science class; 12 percent
were enrolled in a life skills class for the entire day; half of
this sample of students were not enrolled in any mathematics
course; and 42 percent were not enrolled in a language arts
course.
c.

Access to Instruction

The IDEA requires that all students with disabilities have
access to free and appropriate public education which meets the
standard of the State education agency. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(9)(b);
1412(a)(1)(A). See also 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(a)(2)(ii). It is
critical that students with disabilities receive adequate
instructional time in order to access the general education
curriculum and achieve academic success. Plainfield unacceptably
limits access to instructional time in a number of ways.

14

511 IN. ADMIN. CODE § 6.1-5-4(c) (listing the minimum
curriculum for high schools).

- 19 
First, Plainfield only provides class instruction four days
per week. On Wednesdays, certain students attend a multidisciplinary conference (known as “Team”) regarding their
progress. Students on units having Team on Wednesday spend the
day watching videos as they wait for their meeting. Students not
scheduled for Team go to school, but their teachers and classes
are different than usual, and little or no instruction takes
place. While we appreciate Plainfield’s dedication to
implementation of its rehabilitation program, this progress
review cannot be at the expense of required education services to
students with disabilities.
Second, on the four days per week that Plainfield provides
class instruction, actual instructional time is limited to three
hours per day, half of the daily amount required under Indiana
law.15 The other half of each day is devoted to 90-minute
sessions each of recreation and skill groups, neither of which is
taught by a certified teacher.
Additionally, Plainfield’s policy regarding student
orientation unnecessarily delays special education students’
access to instruction. Upon arrival at Plainfield, all students
spend approximately two weeks in “orientation” before they are
enrolled in school. During this time, they are given a packet of
facility information to review. Once the student is finished
with the packet (an exercise that takes no more than a few hours
to complete), he essentially sits in study hall with nothing to
do for the remainder of the two weeks. Significantly, this twoweek delay in school enrollment follows the student’s 13-day stay
at Logansport, during which time no special education services
are provided. Thus, students with disabilities spend their first
four weeks in the IDOC without access to any special education
services.
Finally, segregated juveniles with disabilities do not have
adequate access to special education services. According to
Plainfield officials, youths who are sent to the facility’s selfcontained segregation unit, Cottage 13, for a short-term stay
(e.g., a few days for disciplinary reasons) are supposed to
attend classes with the general population at the school.
However, both correctional officers and the school principal
15

See 511 IN. ADMIN. CODE § 6.1-3-1(1) (requiring that
schools serving 7-12th grade students provide a minimum of six
hours per day of instructional time). See also 20 U.S.C.
§§ 1401(9)(b); 1412(a)(1)(A) (requiring that students with
disabilities receive free and appropriate education which meets
the standards of the state education agency).

- 20 
acknowledged to us that this does not actually happen and,
instead, youths remain on the unit all day with no school work or
instruction.
Students with disabilities who are sent to Cottage 13 on a
long-term basis, referred to at Plainfield as the “Intensive
Treatment Unit (ITU),” likewise do not have access to special
education services. Depending on the reason for placement there,
a youth can remain in Cottage 13's ITU for the entire length of
his stay at Plainfield (which is, on average, 17 months).
According to Plainfield officials, a teacher from the school is
supposed to come to Cottage 13 to provide services to students
who are in the ITU program. Likewise, we reviewed numerous IEPs
that stated that “If a student is assigned to Cottage 13 (long
term) intensive unit, he will receive educational services daily
by a licensed teacher.” However, administrators and teachers
acknowledged, and we observed, that a certified teacher comes to
Cottage 13 extremely infrequently. As a result, classes in
Cottage 13 are held erratically or not at all, in violation of
IDEA’s guarantee of appropriate education for students with
disabilities.
III.

REMEDIAL MEASURES

In order to rectify the identified deficiencies and protect
the constitutional rights of juveniles confined at Plainfield,
IDOC should implement, at a minimum, the following remedial
measures:
1.	

Ensure that youths are adequately protected from physical
violence from staff and other youths, and sexual abuse and
exploitation from other youths;

2.	

Ensure that there is sufficient, adequately trained staff to
safely supervise the residents at all times;

3.	

Provide safe and appropriate housing for youths, including
sex offenders;

4.	

Develop and implement a use of force policy that provides
clear guidelines and appropriate limits on the use of force;

5.	

Provide adequate training and supervision to correctional
staff regarding safe and appropriate use of force and
physical restraint;

- 21 
6.	

Develop and implement a grievance system that ensures
resident access to a functional and responsive grievance
process;

7.	

Provide adequate screening and assessment services to
identify juveniles with serious mental health needs; at a
minimum, all juveniles should receive a comprehensive mental
health screening and assessment, either during their stay at
Logansport or immediately after admittance to their
treatment facility;

8.	

Provide adequate psychopharmacological treatment to youths.
If a wash-out period is implemented for youths who enter
Logansport on psychotropic medication, IDOC should:

9.	

a.	

Conduct an adequate baseline assessment of the youths
and ensure adequate documentation of the baseline;

b.	

Provide adequate monitoring during the wash-out period;

c.	

Provide timely follow-up assessments to determine
whether a return to treatment with medication is
warranted; and

d.	

Ensure that psychopharmacological treatment is promptly
resumed when necessary;

Develop and implement adequate IEPs for students with
disabilities;

10.	 Provide individualized instructional services to students
with disabilities in accordance with the IDEA;
11.	 Ensure students with disabilities have sufficient access to
an adequate curriculum; and
12.	 Ensure students with disabilities have sufficient access to
instructional services.
*

*

*

As stated above, we appreciate the cooperation we have
received from IDOC officials and facility staff throughout this
investigation. We hope to be able to continue working with the
State in an amicable and cooperative fashion to resolve the
deficiencies found in the operation of this facility. Provided
that our cooperative relationship continues, we will forward our
expert consultants’ reports under separate cover. Although these
reports are the consultants’ work – and do not necessarily

- 22 
reflect the official conclusions of the Department of Justice –
the observations, analyses, and recommendations contained in the
reports provide further elaboration of the issues discussed in
this letter and offer practical assistance in addressing them.
In the unexpected event that we are unable to reach a
resolution regarding our concerns, the Attorney General is
empowered to institute a lawsuit pursuant to CRIPA to correct the
deficiencies of the kind identified in this letter, 49 days after
appropriate officials have been notified of them. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997b(a)(1).
We would prefer, however, to resolve this matter by working
cooperatively with you. We have every confidence that we will be
able to do so in this case. The lawyers assigned to this matter
will be contacting your attorneys to discuss this matter in
further detail. If you have any questions regarding this letter,
please call Shanetta Y. Cutlar, Chief of the Civil Rights
Division’s Special Litigation Section, at (202) 514-0195.
Sincerely,
/s/ Bradley J. Schlozman

Bradley J. Schlozman
Acting Assistant Attorney General
cc:	 The Honorable Steve Carter
Office of the Indiana Attorney General
J. David Donahue, Commissioner
Indiana Department of Correction

Dawn Buss, Superintendent

South Bend Juvenile Correctional Facility

Curtis Correll, Superintendent

Plainfield Juvenile Correctional Facility

Kellie Whitcomb, Superintendent

Logansport Juvenile Intake/Diagnostic Facility

The Honorable Joseph S. Van Bokkelen

United States Attorney

Northern District of Indiana

The Honorable Susan W. Brooks

- 23 United States Attorney
Southern District of Indiana
John H. Hager
Assistant Secretary
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
United States Department of Education
Troy Justeson
Acting Director
Office of Special Education Programs
United States Department of Education