The Beginning of the End: Using Ohio's Plan to Eliminate Juvenile Solitary Confinement as a Model for Statutory Elimination of Juvenile Solitary Confinement

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION I. THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ON JUVENILES A. Physical and Developmental Harm B. Psychological Harm C. Recidivism II. EXISTING FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES AND NATIONAL STANDARDS ON SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES A. State Laws B. Federal Statutes C. National Standards and Best Practices III. CASE LAW CONCERNING SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES A. Courts Describing a Right to Treatment B. Courts Holding There Is No Right to Treatment IV. THE OHIO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND PROPOSED STATUTORY REFORMS A. Ohio's Plan to Reduce and Eliminate Solitary Confinement 1. Prevention Strategies 2. Immediate Intervention Strategies 3. Strategies for the Aftermath B. Proposed Reforms CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION William, a fifteen-year-old boy, was committed to a juvenile correctional facility in New Jersey for 225 days. (1) For 178 of those days, William was placed in solitary confinement in a cell measuring seven feet by seven feet. (2) He had no access to books, auditory stimulation, or any opportunities to interact with others. (3) Just a few days after being placed in solitary confinement, William started experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations and throwing his bodily fluids at the cell walls. (4) After only a week in solitary confinement, William began self-mutilating by cutting himself. (5) Not long after that, he attempted suicide by hanging himself in his cell on five separate occasions. (6) Unfortunately, William's experience is not unique in modern juvenile detention facilities in the United States. Solitary confinement, a controversial practice used nationwide in state juvenile justice systems, can have devastating psychological, physical, and developmental effects on youth. (7) Research has demonstrated that solitary confinement is especially damaging for adolescents, yet juvenile detention facilities often use the practice as a disciplinary measure. (8) Recent efforts at reform, however, provide a framework for ending experiences like William's for adolescents across the country. On May 21, 2014, Ohio's Department of Youth Services entered a landmark settlement agreement with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) to phase out and eventually end the use of solitary confinement in its juvenile correctional facilities, while also agreeing to provide more mental health services in those facilities. (9) After beginning an investigation in 2007 at Ohio's Scioto and Marion Juvenile Correctional Facilities, the DOJ found numerous potentially unconstitutional flaws with Ohio's lack of mental health care and use of solitary confinement in its juvenile correctional facilities. (10) In particular, the DOJ found that the facilities often imposed solitary confinement on juveniles as a "knee-jerk, prolonged first response" to even minor behavioral infractions and that it was frequently used as a means of isolating mentally ill youth instead of providing them with psychological treatment. (11) Although Ohio and the DOJ entered a consent decree in 2008 that aimed to remedy these deficiencies, (12) the DOJ discovered in 2013 that the State was not complying with the terms of the consent decree. (13) By May 2014, Ohio and the DOJ had reached a new, more comprehensive agreement to end entirely the use of solitary confinement in all of the State's juvenile correctional facilities. (14) This settlement agreement was in place until December 2015, when the DOJ and the State agreed to terminate the consent decree as a result of Ohio's substantial compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement. (15) Ohio's promise to end the use of solitary confinement is notable because the State sought to completely end the use of solitary confinement for youth in all of its facilities instead of merely modifying existing policies regarding the practice. …