Department of Justice Activities
Under the
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act
Fiscal Year 2006

Table of Contents

I.

Introduction and Overview

1

II.

Filing of CRIPA Complaints/Resolution of Lawsuits and Investigations

4

A.

Cases Filed

4

B.

Settlements in Cases Filed in Prior Fiscal Years

7

C.

Out of Court Settlements Addressing Deficiencies
Identified in CRIPA Investigation

7

D.

Court Orders

8

III.

Prison Litigation Reform Act

9

IV.

Compliance Evaluations

9

V.

Enforcement Activities

12

VI.

Termination of CRIPA Consent Decrees and Partial Dismissal
of Complaints

13

VII.

New CRIPA Investigations

13

VIII.

Findings Letters

14

IX.

Investigation Closures

15

X.

New Freedom Initiative

16

XI.

Technical Assistance

17

XII.

Responsiveness to Allegations of Illegal Conditions

18

XIII.

Juvenile Justice Activities

19

I.

Introduction and Overview
The Attorney General has authority to investigate conditions in public residential

facilities1 and to take appropriate action if a pattern or practice of unlawful conditions
deprives persons confined in the facilities of their constitutional or federal statutory
rights, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA),
42 U.S.C. §§ 1997- 1997j.2 With respect to juvenile justice, the Department has
concurrent jurisdiction to conduct investigations pursuant to the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and CRIPA. The Attorney
General has delegated day-to-day responsibility for CRIPA activities (as well as
§ 14141) to the Civil Rights Division and its Special Litigation Section.
Protecting the rights of institutionalized persons is a priority in the Department's
civil rights law enforcement effort. According to Assistant Attorney General of the Civil
Rights Division, Wan J. Kim: “When a state places juveniles under its care, the state
must protect those juveniles from harm. . . . “We applaud [jurisdictions] for working with
us and acting promptly to implement the reforms embodied [by our settlement]
agreement[s].”
The Division’s commitment to the vigorous enforcement of CRIPA is evidenced
by Fiscal Year 2006 activities under that statute: since January 20, 2001, the Division

1

Institutions covered by CRIPA include nursing homes, mental health facilities, facilities
for persons with developmental disabilities, residential schools for children with
disabilities, jails, prisons, and juvenile justice facilities.
2

CRIPA does not cover the federal statutory rights of persons in jails and prisons.
-1-

opened 67 CRIPA investigations, issued 53 findings letters, filed 22 cases, and
obtained 53 substantial agreements.3
From May 1980, when CRIPA was enacted, through September 2006, the
Division investigated conditions in 433 nursing homes, mental health facilities, centers
for persons with developmental disabilities, residential schools for children with
disabilities, jails, prisons, and juvenile justice facilities. As a result of the Department's
CRIPA enforcement, thousands of persons residing in public institutions across our
country no longer live in dire, often life-threatening, conditions.
At the end of fiscal year 2006, the Division was active in CRIPA matters and
cases involving over 175 facilities4 in 34 states, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and
the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands.5 The
Division continued its investigations of 77 facilities, and monitored the implementation of
consent decrees, settlement agreements, memoranda of understanding, and court
orders involving 99 facilities.6 During fiscal year 2006, the Division, accompanied by

3

These figures are for the period from January 2001 through January 2007.

4

This figure does not include the Division’s monitoring of the District of Columbia
community system for persons with mental retardation in Evans and United States v.
Williams (D. D.C.), a pre-CRIPA suit.
5

Fiscal year 2006 began on October 1, 2005, and ended on September 30, 2006. This
report is submitted to Congress to supplement the Attorney General's report on Fiscal
Year 2006 Department activities by providing additional details about CRIPA actions
during the fiscal year pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997f.

6

In addition, the Division is monitoring compliance with court orders that cover persons
who previously resided in institutions, but who currently reside in community based
residential settings in Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
-2-

expert consultants, conducted 123 tours of facilities to evaluate conditions and monitor
compliance.
The Division filed six institutional lawsuits involving 10 facilities while closing 5
cases involving 6 facilities during the fiscal year. The Division initiated 8 investigations
of 12 facilities and issued eight findings letters regarding investigations of eight facilities
during the fiscal year.7 In addition, during fiscal year 2006, the Division closed 2
investigations of 2 facilities.
In keeping with the statutory requirements of CRIPA and the Attorney General’s
initiative, the Division engaged in negotiations and conciliation efforts to resolve a
number of CRIPA matters both before and after filing CRIPA cases. The Division
maximized its impact and increased its efficiency by continuing to focus on multi-facility
investigations and cases, obtaining widespread relief whenever possible. Lastly,
pursuant to Section f(5) of CRIPA, the Division provides information regarding the
progress made in each Federal institution (specifically from the Bureau of Prisons and
the Department of Veteran’s Affairs) toward meeting existing promulgated standards for
such institutions or constitutionally guaranteed minima.
II.

Filing of CRIPA Complaints/Resolution of Lawsuits and Investigations
A.

Cases Filed

1. On November 9, 2005, the Division filed a complaint and settlement
agreement in United States v. State of New Jersey (D. N.J.) regarding conditions at the
Woodbridge Developmental Center in Woodbridge, New Jersey, a state-operated
7

The agreements and findings letters are available on the Division’s website at
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/index.html.
-3-

facility for persons with developmental disabilities. The complaint alleged that the State
engaged in unlawful patterns and practices, including failure to: provide residents with
reasonable safety, protection from harm, and undue restraint; and, provide adequate
medical and mental health care, physical and nutritional management, and therapeutic
treatment. In addition, the complaint alleged that residents are not adequately
evaluated for placement in the most integrated setting appropriate to each resident’s
individual needs. The Settlement Agreement requires that the State ensure timely and
appropriate assessment of the need for medical, restorative, therapeutic, and mental
health treatment to residents; utilize restraints only in accordance with generally
accepted professional standards identified in federal statutes and guidelines; and
provide residents with adequate nutrition, hydration, and mealtime assistance consistent
with their individual needs. The decree requires that residents receive services in the
most integrated setting appropriate to their needs consistent with Olmstead v. L.C. 527
U.S. 581 (1999) ) and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132 et seq. The
Division continues to review the findings of the Compliance Monitor.
2. On February 8, 2006, the Division filed a complaint and settlement
agreement8 in United States v. Indiana (S.D. Ind.) regarding conditions at Logansport
Juvenile Intake/Diagnostic Facility in Logansport, Indiana and South Bend Juvenile
Correctional Facility in South Bend, Indiana. The action resolved the Division’s
investigations into alleged pattern and practice violations involving the adequacy of
protection of the youth from harm, mental health treatment, and special education
8

The Division initiated the investigation of the Indiana juvenile facilities pursuant to
CRIPA and § 14141; court filings were pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
-4-

services. The Settlement Agreement requires the State to provide: (1) a safe and
humane environment and to ensure that youth are protected from harm, abuse and
neglect; (2) adequate behavioral services; and (3) special education services which
meet the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1401
et seq. The Division is monitoring compliance with the Agreement.
3. On February 9, 2006, the Division filed a complaint and settlement agreement
in United States v. Hawai’i (D. Ha.)9 regarding a pattern and practice of inadequate
conditions at the Hawai’i Youth Correctional Facility in Kailua, Hawai’i. This facility is
owned and operated by the Hawai’i Department of Human Services. The Agreement
requires the State to provide adequate protection from harm, specifically addressing
suicide prevention, staff abuse and youth assaults; adequate correctional services
through improved training and supervision of staff; access to timely and appropriate
medical and mental health services; and adequate special education services to youths
with disabilities. The Division is monitoring compliance with the Agreement.
4. On May 2, 2006, the Division filed a complaint and consent judgment in
United States v. State of California (E.D. Cal.) alleging a pattern and practice of
unconstitutional conditions at Metropolitan State Hospital and Napa State Hospital in
Norwalk and Napa, California, respectively. In August 2006, the Division requested to
amend the complaint and agreement to add the Atascadero and Patton State Hospitals

9

The Division initiated the investigation of Hawai’i Youth Correctional Facility
pursuant to CRIPA and § 14141; the court filings were pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
-5-

in Atascadero and San Bernadino, California, respectively.10 The remedies contained in
this agreement will effect more than 5,000 residents of the hospitals. The agreement
requires the State to provide adequate integrated therapeutic and rehabilitative
services, protection from harm, healthcare services, and discharge planning and
community integration. A monitoring team selected by both parties has begun to review
compliance with the substantive terms of this agreement and will prepare written reports
concerning progress toward compliance. The Division continues to monitor compliance
with the settlement.
On July 21, 2006, the Division filed a complaint and settlement agreement in
United States v. Vermont (D. Vt.) regarding conditions at the Vermont State Hospital in
Waterbury, Vermont. The agreement requires the State to provide adequate mental
health assessments, implement integrated therapeutic treatment plans; adequate
psychiatric, psychological and pharmacy treatment services; adequate protection from
harm, including the commitment to use restraint and seclusion only when consistent
with generally accepted standards of professional care; and to provide adequate
discharge planning and community integration for residents. The Division continues to
monitor compliance with the Agreement.
On August 31, 2006, the Division filed a complaint and settlement agreement in
United States v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (E.D. Ky.). The agreement, entered as a
consent decree by the Court on September 13, 2006, addresses unlawful conditions
found by the Division at the Communities of Oakwood, a state-run residential institution

10

The district court entered the amended agreement in February 27, 2007.
-6-

for persons with developmental disabilities in Somerset, Kentucky. The consent decree
requires the State to protect Oakwood residents from harm, to provide improved
services in the areas of psychiatry, neurology, medical, and nursing care, psychology,
and other therapeutic services, adequate individualized care, and to ensure that each
resident is served in the most integrated setting appropriate to his or her needs,
consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act. An Independent Monitor has been
appointed to assess progress toward compliance. The Division continues to review
progress at the facility.
B.

Settlements in Cases Filed in Prior Fiscal Years

On February 18, 2005, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Mercer
County, New Jersey (D. N.J.) regarding conditions at Mercer County Geriatric Center in
Trenton, New Jersey. On October 14, 2005, the Court entered the consent decree as a
judgment of the court with respect to the Division’s claims that the State failed to protect
Mercer residents from harm and provide adequate medical and mental health care.
The agreement provides that the State will ensure adequate therapeutic services, meal
assistance, nutritional management and hydration; and provide services to residents in
the most integrated setting appropriate to their individual needs. The Division will
continue to monitor progress toward compliance in this case.
C.

Out of Court Settlements Addressing Deficiencies Identified by CRIPA
Investigations

1. On November 21, 2005, the Division entered into a settlement agreement with
North Carolina regarding conditions in four state-operated mental health facilities. The
agreement provides that the State will improve the assessment and treatment planning
-7-

processes for residents, ensure that residents with special needs, including persons
with serious suicide risk, self-injurious behaviors, and/or dual diagnoses of mental
illness and mental retardation, will be appropriately evaluated, treated and monitored.
In addition, the State will improve medical and nursing services as well as
pharmacological practices. The Division is monitoring progress toward compliance with
the agreement.
2.

On January 26, 2006, the Division entered into a settlement with the

Nassau Health Care Corporation, owner-operator of the A. Holly Patterson Extended
Care Facility in Uniondale, New York. This facility serves persons requiring chronic and
long-term healthcare. The agreement provides that the Corporation will improve
medical and mental health services to residents; provide adequate restorative and
therapeutic services; provide adequate nutritional services and supports; and use
restraints only when clinically justified or in an emergency, and only pursuant to
generally accepted professional standards and federal law. The agreement also
provides for the appointment of two monitors to review compliance. The Division
continues to review progress in this matter.
D.

Court Orders

1.

The Division filed a complaint in United States v. Terrell County, Georgia

(N.D. Ga.) in May 2004 regarding conditions at the Terrell County Jail in Georgia.
Specifically, the government alleged that Terrell County jail officials failed to protect
inmates from serious harm and undue risk of serious harm by failing to provide
adequate safety, adequate medical and mental health care, adequate fire safety, and
adequate sanitary living conditions. The Division filed a motion for summary judgement
-8-

in November 2005. On September 29, 2006, the Court granted the Division’s motion for
summary judgment, finding that conditions at Terrell County Jail were unconstitutional
and dangerous, and that Jail officials disregarded the risks associated with these
conditions “in more than a negligent manner.”
III.

Prison Litigation Reform Act
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3626, which was enacted

on April 26, 1996, covers prospective relief in prisons, jails, and juvenile justice facilities.
The Division has defended the constitutionality of the PLRA and has incorporated the
PLRA’s requirements in the remedies it seeks regarding improvements in correctional
facilities. For example, the consent decree filed in United States v. Mississippi (S.D.
Miss.) on June 9, 2005, is PLRA compliant in that it contains the requisite admission of
liability and requires only the minimum remedial measures needed to correct
constitutional violations in the areas of protection from harm, and medical and mental
health care.
IV.

Compliance Evaluations
During fiscal year 2006, the Division monitored defendants’ compliance with

CRIPA consent decrees, settlement agreements, and court orders designed to remedy
unlawful conditions in publicly operated facilities throughout the United States. These
facilities are:
A.

Facilities for persons with developmental disabilities: Southbury Training

School (United States v. Connecticut (D. Conn.)); Arlington Developmental Center
(United States v. Tennessee (W.D. Tenn.)); Clover Bottom Developmental Center,
Greene Valley Developmental Center, and Harold Jordan Center (United States v.
-9-

Tennessee (M.D. Tenn.)); Centro de Servicios Multiples Rosario Bellber (United States
v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (D. P. R.)); Ft. Wayne Developmental Center and
Muscatatuck Developmental Center (United States v. Indiana (S.D. Ind.)); Pinecrest
Developmental Center and Hammond Developmental Center (United States v. State of
Louisiana (E.D., La.); New Lisbon Developmental Center (United States v. State of New
Jersey (D. N.J.)); Oakwood Communities, Kentucky (U.S. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
(E.D. Ky.)); Glenwood Resource Center and Woodward Resource Center (United States
v. Iowa (S.D. Iowa)); and, Woodbridge Developmental Center (United States v. New
Jersey.(D. N.J.));
B.

Facilities for persons with mental illness: community mental health

treatment services in Hawaii (United States v. Hawai’i (D. Haw.)); Guam Adult Mental
Health Unit (United States v. Territory of Guam (D. Guam)); John Umsted Hospital,
Dorothea Dix Hospital, Cherry Hospital, and Broughton Hospital (2005 Settlement);
Metropolitan State Hospital and Napa State Hospital (United States v. California (M.D.
Cal.)); Vermont State Hospital (United States v. Vermont (D.Vt.));
C.

Nursing Homes: Nim Henson Geriatric Center (United States v. Breathitt

County, Kentucky (E.D. Ky.)); and Banks-Jackson-Commerce Medical Center in
Commerce, Georgia (2004 Settlement); Reginald P. White Nursing Facility (United
States v. Mississippi (S.D. Miss.)); Mercer County Geriatric Center (United States v.
Mercer County, New Jersey (D. N.J.)); and A. Holly Patterson Geriatric Center (2006
Settlement);

-10-

D.

Juvenile justice facilities:11 30 juvenile justice facilities in Georgia (United

States v. State of Georgia (N.D. Ga.)); Essex County Juvenile Detention Center (United
States v. Essex County (D. N. J.)); 14 juvenile justice facilities in Puerto Rico (United
States v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (D. P. R.)); Kagman Youth Facility (United
States v. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (D. N. Mar. I.)); Alexander
Youth Services Center (United States v. Arkansas (E.D. Ark.)); Nevada Youth Training
Center (2004 Settlement Agreement); Central Juvenile Hall, Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall,
and Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall, California (2004 Settlement Agreement); and Adobe
Mountain School, Black Canyon School, and Catalina Mountain School (United States v.
State of Arizona (D. Ariz.)); Maxey Training School in Lake Whitmore, Michigan (2005
Settlement); Oakley Training School and Columbia Training School (United States v.
Mississippi (S.D. Miss.)); Charles H. Hickey Jr. School and Cheltenham Youth Facility
(United States v. Maryland (D. Md.)); Logansport Juvenile Intake/Diagnostic Facility and
South Bend Juvenile Correctional Facility (United States v. Indiana ( S.D. Ind.)); and,
Hawai’i Youth Correctional Facility (United States v. Hawai’i) (D. Haw.));
E.

Jails: Hagatna Detention Center and Fibrebond Detention Facility (United

States v. Territory of Guam (D. Guam)); Harrison County Jail (United States v. Harrison
County (S.D. Miss.)); Simpson County Jail (Rainier and United States v. Jones (S.D.
Miss.)); Sunflower County Jail (United States v. Sunflower County (S.D. Miss.)); four jails
in the Northern Mariana Islands (United States v. Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (D. N. Mar. I.)); Muscogee County Jail (United States v. Columbus
11

With respect to juvenile justice, the Division has concurrent jurisdiction to conduct
investigations and cases pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and CRIPA.
-11-

Consolidated City/County Government (M.D. Ga.)); McCracken County Regional Jail
(United States v. McCracken County, Kentucky (W.D. Ky.)); Nassau County Correctional
Center (United States v. Nassau County, New York (E.D. N.Y.)); Shelby County Jail
(United States v. Shelby County, Tennessee (W.D. Tenn.)); eight jails in Los Angeles
County, California (2002 Settlement Agreement); Wicomico County Detention Center,
Maryland (2004 Settlement Agreement); Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center (2004
Agreement); and LeFlore County Detention Center (United States v. LeFlore County,
Oklahoma.(E.D. Okla.));
F.

Prisons: Guam Adult Correctional Facility (United States v. Territory of

Guam (D. Guam)); Golden Grove Correctional and Adult Detention Facility (United
States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands (D. V.I.)); Saipan Prison Complex (United States
v. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (D. N. Mar. I.)); and McPherson
Correctional Facility and Grimes Correctional Facility, Arkansas (2004 Settlement
Agreement);
G.

Other Facilities: New Mexico School for the Blind and Visually Impaired

(United States v. New Mexico (D. N. M.)).
V.

Enforcement Activities
1.

On March 23, 2006, the Court in United States v. Virgin Islands (D. V.I.)

found the Territory in contempt of prior court’s orders, including the 1986 consent
decree, 1990 plan of compliance, and the 2003 stipulated agreement, for failing to
improve prison conditions at the Golden Grove Adult Correctional Facility and Detention
Center. The Court found ongoing constitutional violations of the rights of individuals held
at the facility, particularly in the areas of corrections, medical and mental health care, fire
-12-

safety and sanitation. Based upon the Territory’s long standing failure to implement the
court’s orders, the Court ordered the appointment of a Special Master to oversee
compliance. The Division continues to review progress in this case.

VI.

Termination of CRIPA Consent Decrees and Partial Dismissals of
Complaints
When jurisdictions comply with settlement agreements or court orders and correct

unlawful conditions in the institution, the Division joins with defendants to dismiss the
underlying action. During fiscal year 2006, the Division joined with defendants to seek
dismissal of all claims regarding the Southern and Central Developmental Centers
(United States v. Wisconsin (E.D. Wis.); Morgan County Jail (United States v. Morgan
County, Tennessee (E.D. Tenn.); Swanson Correctional Centers for Youth (United
States v. Louisiana (E.D.La.); Memphis Mental Health Institute (United States v.
Tennessee ( (W.D. Tenn.); and the Wyoming State Penitentiary (United States v.
Wyoming (D. Wyo.).
VII.

New CRIPA Investigations
The Division initiated 8 CRIPA investigations during fiscal year 2006. These new

investigations involved the following facilities:
!

Dallas County Jail, Texas;

!

Connecticut Valley Hospital, Connecticut;

!

Delaware Correctional Facilities, including:
Delaware Correctional Center
Howard R. Young Correctional Institution
-13-

Sussex Correctional Institution
John L. Webb Correctional Facility
Delores J. Baylor Womens’ Correctional Facility;

VIII.

!

George W. Herlich Juvenile Detention Center, New Jersey;

!

Evins Regional Juvenile Center, Texas;

!

Oregon State Hospital, Oregon;

!

Marion County Juvenile Detention Center, Indiana; and

!

C.M. Tucker Nursing Care Center, South Carolina.

Findings Letters
During the fiscal year, the Division issued 8 written findings letters12 regarding 8

facilities, setting forth the results of its investigations, pursuant to Section 4 of CRIPA, 42
U.S.C. § 1997b, including:
!

Lanterman Developmental Center, California;

!

Taycheedah Correctional Facility, Wisconsin;

!

Ft. Bayard Nursing Facility, New Mexico;

!

Atascadero State Hospital, California;

!

Patton State Hospital, California;

!

Sebastian County Adult Detention Center, Arkansas;

!

St. Elizabeths Hospital, District of Columbia; and,

!

Baltimore City Juvenile Justice Center, Maryland.

12

The full text of these findings letters may be found at the Division’s website at
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/index.html.
-14-

In these investigations, the Division made significant findings of
constitutional deficiencies. For example, the Division’s investigations of state facilities for
persons with developmental disabilities revealed that inadequate treatment and training
services contribute substantially to poor outcomes for residents, including poor progress
in treating problem behaviors, increased risk of restrictive interventions, increased risk of
injury and abuse and decreased opportunities for placement in the most integrated
setting appropriate to individuals’ needs. We found that facility staff in state juvenile
justice facilities use excessive use of force to harm youth and that youth-on-youth
violence occurs on an almost daily basis, at times resulting in injuries which require
hospitalization. The Division also found systematically inadequate medical and mental
health care, as well as inadequate special educational services in many of the juvenile
justice facilities under investigation. The failure of a publicly operated juvenile facility to
adequately supervise youth with appropriately trained correctional personnel places
youth at risk of significant harm.
As envisioned by Congress, enforcement of CRIPA continues to identify
egregious and flagrant conditions which subjects residents of publicly operated
institutions to grievous harm.
IX.

Investigation Closures
During the fiscal year, the Division did not close any investigations. Although the

Division continued to review the conditions at various facilities under investigation, it did
not find any investigations ripe for closure.
X.

New Freedom Initiative

-15-

The Division also enforces Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 12131 et seq., and its implementing regulations 28 C.F.R.¶ 35.130(d), to ensure that
public officials operating healthcare facilities are taking adequate steps to provide
services to residents in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. In June
2001, President George W. Bush announced the New Freedom Initiative which set as a
high priority for this Administration efforts to remove barriers to community placement for
persons with disabilities. The executive order, “Community-based Alternatives for
Individuals with Disabilities,”13 emphasized that unjustified isolation or segregation of
qualified individuals with disabilities in institutions is a form of prohibited discrimination,
and that the United States seeks to ensure that America’s community-based programs
effectively foster independence and participation in the community. As part of the
mandate to fully enforce Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Division took
steps to secure increased access to residential, day, and vocational services where
appropriate in fiscal year 2006 in the following facilities:
!

Woodbridge Developmental Center, New Jersey;

!

Connecticut Valley Hospital, Connecticut;

!

Lanterman Developmental Center, California;

!

Atascadero State Hospital, California;

!

Patton State Hospital, California;

!

Reginald P. White Nursing Facility, Mississippi;

!

Glenwood and Woodward Resource Centers, Iowa;

13

Exec. Order No. 13217, 66 Fed. Reg. 33155 (June 18, 2001).
-16-

!

Mercer Geriatric Center, New Jersey;

!

Lubbock State School, Texas;

!

Ft. Bayard Medical Center, New Mexico; and,

!

St. Elizabeth Hospital, District of Columbia.
In the fiscal year, the Division monitored community placements or the community

systems for persons with developmental disabilities in a number of states, including the
District of Columbia (in a pre-CRIPA lawsuit), Indiana, Iowa, Puerto Rico, Tennessee,
and Wisconsin, and for persons with mental illness in Hawai’i.
XI.

Technical Assistance
Where federal financial, technical, or other assistance is available to help

jurisdictions correct deficiencies, the Division advises responsible public officials of the
availability of such aid and arranges for assistance, where appropriate. The Division
also provides technical assistance largely through the information provided to
jurisdictions by the Division’s expert consultants. After the expert consultants complete
on-site visits and program reviews of the subject facility, they prepare detailed reports of
their findings and recommendations which provide important information to the facilities
on deficient areas and possible remedies to address such deficiencies. In light of
jurisdictions’ cooperation, the Division routinely provides such reports to the jurisdiction.
In addition, during the course of the investigatory tours, the Division’s expert consultants
provide helpful information to jurisdictions regarding specific aspects of their programs at
no costs to the local or state government. These reports permit early intervention by
local jurisdictions to remedy highlighted issues before a Findings Letter is forwarded.

-17-

In fiscal year 2006, the Division provided technical assistance in the process of
enforcing CRIPA. For example, as part of the Division’s investigation of the Shelby
County Jail in Tennessee, the National Institute of Correction of the Department of
Justice provided slots for training three Jail staff in gender-responsive corrections. In
addition, to ensure timely and efficient compliance with settlement agreements, the
Division issued numerous post-tour compliance assessments letters (and in some cases
emergency letters identifying emergent conditions) to apprize jurisdictions of its
compliance status. These letters routinely contain technical assistance and best
practices recommendations.
XII.

Responsiveness to Allegations of Illegal Conditions
During fiscal year 2006, the Division reviewed allegations of unlawful conditions of

confinement in public facilities from a number of sources, including individuals who live at
the facilities and their relatives, former staff of facilities, advocates, concerned citizens,
media reports, and referrals from within the Division and other federal agencies. The
Division received approximately 5,000 CRIPA-related citizen letters and hundreds of
CRIPA-related telephone complaints during the fiscal year. In addition, the Division
responded to over 135 CRIPA-related inquiries from Congress and the White House.
The Division prioritized these allegations by focusing on facilities where
allegations revealed systemic, serious deficiencies. In particular, with regard to facilities
for persons with mental illness or developmental disabilities and nursing homes, the
Division focused on allegations of abuse and neglect; adequacy of medical and mental
health care; use of restraints and seclusion; and services to institutionalized persons in
the most integrated setting appropriate to meet their needs as required by Title II of the
-18-

Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, 42 U.S. C. §§ 12132 et
seq.; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d). With regard to juvenile justice facilities, the Division focused
on allegations of abuse, adequacy of mental health and medical care, and provision of
adequate rehabilitation and education, including special education services. In jails and
prisons, the Division placed emphasis on allegations of abuse including sexual abuse,
adequacy of medical care and psychiatric services, and grossly unsanitary and other
unsafe conditions.
XIII.

Juvenile Justice Activities
The welfare of our nation’s youth confined in juvenile justice facilities has been a

high priority for the Division. During Fiscal Year 2006 there were three investigations of
juvenile justice facilities involving three facilities initiated, one findings letter issued, two
settlement agreements approved, and two complaints filed. Through September 2006,
this Administration has authorized 20 investigations of 23 juvenile justice facilities, issued
14 findings letters regarding 23 facilities, and obtained thirteen substantial agreements.
For investigations alone, this represents a greater than 100 per cent increase in
investigations than were authorized in the preceding six years.
The conditions in juvenile justice facilities is documented in the Division’s work: A
findings letter in one jurisdiction disclosed frequent instances of youth-on-youth violence,
inadequate mental health services, and inadequate special education. The Division will
sharpen its focus even more on conditions of confinement in juvenile justice facilities in
the new fiscal year, seeking to implement remedial measures to protect and habilitate
confined youth.

-19-