UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF

)

COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

)

et a,L_,

)

)

Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action

) No. 93-2052 JLG

)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

)

et al¿.,

)

)

Defendants. )

)

[REVISED PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Based upon the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby ORDERED that, 1. Defendants' actions and inactions violated and continue to violate the Plaintiff class members' rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (1988), and the District of Columbia Code §§ 24-442 and 24-425; and 2. Defendants are enjoined from engaging in any action or conduct, or from failing to act in any way, that violates the Plaintiffs' above-mentioned rights; and 3. Plaintiffs are awarded the costs of this suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees; and 4. Defendants are ordered to take all action necessary to remedy and prevent the violations of the Plaintiffs' above-mentioned rights. Defendants are ordered to

- 2take the following specific measures in the areas of sexual misconduct, medical care, programs and opportunities, and environmental and fire safety. All measures shall be completed and in effect within 6 months of the date of this Order, unless otherwise specified.

/ J
/ M , v,0>

I. SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

Department Order

5. Within 60 days, Defendants shall write and

follow a Department Order prohibiting sexual harassment and

sexual misconduct involving District of Columbia Department of

Corrections (DCDC) employees and women prisoners. Defendants

shall post and circulate the Department Order in accordance

with departmental policy.

6. Under this policy the Department of Corrections

has the obligation to take appropriate steps to prevent and

remedy sexual harassment and sexual misconduct committed by

its own employees) its contractors, and by other inmates.

7. Defendants shall appoint one person j^o monitor

allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct at each

facility in which women prisoners are housed, subject to

\

approval by Plaintiffs' counsel. The monitor shall log in

each allegation of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct,

monitor the investigations of the allegations, and keep

records of the resolution, including disciplinary actions, of

such claims. The monitor shall submit monthly reports

' f¡

- 3-

containing this information to the Administrator of the

facility.

8. Prohibited conduct under the policy shall be

defined as:

a. Sexual harassment and sexual misconduct,

including:

„--"

(1) all sexual activity between an

employee and an inmate including any act of sexual

intercourse, oral sex, or sexual touching and any attempt to

/ commit these acts, regardless of whether the conduct is

\unwelcome by the inmate;

,...?

(2) all sexual advances, requests for

, )l· ~\r sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a

,

sexual nature by any DCDC employee, regardless of whether the

conduct is unwelcome by the inmate; and

(3) all unwelcome sexual advances,

requests for sexual favors, añcTatner verbal or physical

conduct of a sexual nature by another inmate.

b. Gender-based harassment, including:

(1.) verbal or physical conduct by either

DCDC employees or other inmates that denigrates, shows

hostility or aversion toward an inmate because of her gender,

including: epithets; slurs; negative stereotyping; hostile or

intimidating acts that relate to gender; and

(2) written or graphic material that

denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward an individual

r
`v • y

- 4or group because of gender and that is placed on walls, bulletin boards, or otherwise publicized within the correctional environment.
c. Invasions of women prisoners' privacy by male employees, including the failure of any male employee to announce his presence when entering a female housing unit.
d. Retaliation for reporting complaints of, assisting any individual in making a report of, or cooperating in an investigation of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, regardless of the merits or the disposition of the underlying complaint. Retaliatory conduct includes:
(1) disciplining, changing work or program assignments of, transferring to another facility of, or placing under involuntary protective custody any inmate; and
(2) any breach of confidentiality by any employee concerning any report of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct.
e. Any interference with investigations of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct.
9. Penalties for prohibited conduct under the policy shall be administered as follows:
a. A written record of each disciplinary
action taken pursuant to this policy will be placed in the
offending employee's personnel file and will also be sent to the monitor and to the Administrator of the facility. A

- 5written record of each allegation shall also be sent to the monitor and to the Administrator of the facility.
b. An employee's first alleged violation of this policy will result in non-disciplinary oral counseling, as recommended by Defendants' expert penologist.
c. An employee's first proven offense of actual or attempted sexual contact with an inmate will result in permanent dismissal.
d. Discipline for successive violations, other than actual or attempted sexual contact with an inmate, shall be progressive in that each separate instance of proven sexual harassment or sexual misconduct by the offending employee shall result in increasingly severe disciplinary action.
e. An employee's commission of acts of gender-based harassment, invasions of privacy, or acts of sexual harassment or misconduct other than actual or attempted sexual activity will result in a written warning, suspension without pay, or permanent discharge upon the first proven offense, depending on the nature and severity of the misconduct, and suspension without pay or permanent discharge upon the second proven offense.
f. Any form of retaliation or interference with investigation will result in suspension without pay or permanent discharge upon the first proven offense, depending

- 6on the nature and severity of the retaliatory acts, and permanent discharge upon the second proven offense.
g. In the event that reinstatement is required by law, under no circumstances shall the reinstated employee be assigned to any facility that houses women.
10. Women prisoners shall be able to report instances of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct through the existing Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP). Defendants shall strictly adhere to the Inmate Grievance Procedure and shall establish an Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee (IGAC) as specified in Department Order 4030.ID.
11. Women prisoners shall also be able to submit IGPs or complaints concerning sexual harassment or sexual misconduct in any form, orally or in writing, to any DCDC employee, who must submit the information, in writing, to the monitor and to the Administrator of the facility within 24 hours of receiving the information. Women prisoners may also submit IGPs or complaints to an inmate representative to the IGAC.
12. Defendants shall establish a confidential hotline, under the supervision of the monitor, through which women prisoners can report allegations of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. Anonymous complaints, regardless of how they are reported, will be taken seriously and investigated.
13. Defendants shall arrange for an Inmate Advocate System to assist women prisoners in all stages of reporting

- 7and investigating allegations of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. The Inmate Advocate shall be a person or agency with experience representing inmates such as the Prisoners' Rights Program of the Public Defender Service. The Inmate Advocate System shall be implemented subject to the approval of Plaintiffs' counsel.
14. Each employee shall be required to report any information, from any source, concerning sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, in writing, to the Administrator of the facility and to the monitor within 24 hours of receiving the information. ~ Employees are required to report all information concerning sexual harassment or sexual misconduct regardless of whether an inmate or another employee files an independent report. f.t an inmate so requests, the inmate shall be treated as an anonymous informant. Failure to report any suspected incident of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct by any employee shall subject the employee to discipline.
15. The monitor shall ensure that each reported violation of the policy is thoroughly investigated and documented, \lf the monitor determines that an outside investigation is warranted, and in all instances alleging actual or attempted sexual contact, the allegation shall be referred to a fact finding committee comprised of three trained outside investigators within 24 hours of receipt of an allegation. The members of the fact finding committee may be selected from the external investigators used by the

- 8Department to investigate sexual harassment of employees. In the event that an outside investigation does not occur, the monitor must state, in writing, the reasons for using an internal investigation. The allegation must then be fully investigated by a department employee who has received training in the investigation of sexual misconduct. Both internal and outside investigations must comply with the following procedures:
a. All investigators shall conduct a thorough investigation, including interviewing the accuser, the accused, all potential witnesses, and anyone who may have knowledge of the incident. All persons contacted in the course of an investigation shall be informed of the confidentiality of the investigation and the penalty for breach of confidentiality. All investigations shall include detailed documentation, including written witness statements or written transcripts or summaries of witness interviews.
b. All investigators shall consider any past allegation of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct against the employee.
c. The committee shall consider any medical or physical evidence in appropriate cases. The absence of medical or physical evidence or corroborating witnesses in no way relieves the committee of its duty to investigate.
d. During the course of any investigation, the accused employee shall be ordered to have no contact of

- 9-

any kind with the complaining woman prisoner. In all

allegations of actual or attempted sexual contact, the accused

employee shall have no contact of any kind with any women

prisoners.

e. The committee shall submit a final written

report, which shall include factual findings by each member,

to the monitor and to the Administrator of the institution no

later than 14 days after receipt of the allegation. The final

written report will include a finding of whether it is more

likely than not that the alleged conduct occurred. An

investigator in an internal investigation shall also submit a

written report.

f. The monitor will determine, based upon the

facts as found by the committee or the investigator, whether

it is more likely than not that a violation of the policy

occurred. The monitor shall forward the committee report or

the investigative report and her/his conclusion regarding

whether the policy was violated to the Administrator of the

institution. The Administrator shall take appropriate action

as detailed in the schedule of penalties.

g. The complaining woman prisoner shall be

' informed, in writing, of the outcome of the investigation,

within 48 hours of the monitor's findings.

j?3 , p'

16. Upon receipt of any allegation of an act of

sexual intercourse or any allegation of nonconsensual sexual !'\ touching, the monitor must notify the proper law enforcement

- 10 agency. This reporting in no way relieves the institution of their duty to investigate internally.
a. The monitor shall have responsibility for communicating with the law enforcement agency concerning the status of any external investigation. The monitor must make weekly inquiries into the status of the investigation, and document these status findings in writing at weekly intervals.
b. A determination by the law enforcement agency not to bring charges shall not be a determinative factor in the internal investigation of whether it is more likely than not that the Department Order has been violated.
17. The identity of the target of the alleged contact shall be revealed only to those who have an immediate need to know, including the fact finding committee, the alleged harasser(s) or retaliator(s) and any witnesses. All parties contacted in the course of an investigation will be advised that any retaliation, reprisal, or breach of confidentiality is a separate actionable offense as provided in the schedule of penalties.
18. Any inmate who is dissatisfied with any investigation or resolution of an allegation of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct may appeal to the Director of the Department of Corrections within 15 days of receiving written notice of the outcome of an investigation. The Director must respond within 15 days.

Training

- 11 -

19. Within 60 days, Defendants shall choose a

trainer from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC),

mutually agreed upon by the parties, to conduct mandatory

training on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct for DCDC

employees. Within 90 days of selection, the NIC trainer shall

commence training on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct

for all DCDC employees who work with women prisoners.

a. The training shall include education

concerning the Defendants' policies regarding reporting,

investigating, and preventing sexual harassment and sexual

misconduct, and the consequences for violating any policy

concerning sexual harassment and sexual misconduct.

b. In addition to roll call training, formal

training sessions on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct

shall be conducted on a monthly basis for the first year

succeeding entry of the consent decree, and on a quarterly

basis in all years thereafter that this decree shall remain in

effect.

c. Defendants must maintain a minimum number

of trained investigators, to be determined by the monitor,

throughout each institution in which women are housed.

Investigators will attend additional full-day training

seminars conducted annually by the trainer.

20. Within 60 days, Defendants shall choose an

outside consultant, mutually agreed upon by the parties, to

- 12 conduct training on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct for women prisoners. Within 90 days of selection, the trainer shall develop a training program and materials and commence training to inform and educate women prisoners about how to recognize and report sexual harassment and sexual misconduct.
a. The training materials must be included in the orientation that each woman receives upon intake or classification at each facility.
b. Formal training sessions for women prisoners on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct shall be conducted on a monthly basis for the first year succeeding entry of the consent decree, and on a quarterly basis in all years thereafter that this decree shall remain in effect.
Task Force 21. Within 60 days, Defendants shall establish a Task Force at each institution in which women prisoners are housed to review and investigate all outstanding allegations of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. The members of the Task Force must be comprised of trained outside investigators and may be selected from the external investigators used by the Department to investigate sexual harassment of employees. The Task Force shall make every effort to resolve each outstanding allegation of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, and shall submit s report on each allegation to the monitor, to the Administrator of the facility, and to the Director of the D.C. Department of Corrections.

- 13 Recruitment and Employment 22. Defendants' employee recruitment and selection process shall include background checks on all prospective employees to ensure that no one with a background of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct is hired by the Department of Corrections. Privacy 23. Defendants shall make necessary alterations at both the Correctional Treatment Facility and the Minimum Security Annex within 60 days to ensure that women have privacy in their living, sleeping and shower areas. These steps include providing shades, curtains or special coating for outside windows at CTF to prevent male inmates from seeing into women's cells.
II. OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL CARE General 24. Defendants shall hire within 60 days: a. a nurse midwife in a half-time position
who shall provide clinical and health educational services to the entire female inmate population.
b. an additional nurse practitioner or physician's assistant with special training in obstetrics and gynecology to provide clinical services to women prisoners at CTF.

- 14 25. The CTF OB/GYN Clinic shall maintain its current regularly-scheduled hours. 26. Defendants shall establish a prenatal clinic at CTF for women who receive their primary prenatal care at CTF. This clinic shall operate at least one half-day each week. Pregnant women shall not be required to make appointments for the prenatal clinic through the sick-call process, but rather, shall have scheduled appointments for the clinic. A pregnant woman may also receive prenatal care in addition to care received in a scheduled appointment. 27. Defendants shall maintain statistics on the number of pregnant women and the birth outcomes of infants whose mothers delivered while incarcerated. Intake Screening 28. In addition to the general health interview and observation performed for male prisoners, the intake screening for all women prisoners shall include specific inquiry about her use of contraceptives or intrauterine devices, history of pregnancy, last known menstrual period, current likelihood and history of sexually transmitted diseases (including syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, vaginitis, herpes, and HIV), and pattern of drug use, including injection drug use. 29. In accordance with Department of Corrections policy, Defendants shall inform all women prisoners of the procedure to access health services while incarcerated.

,-^""¯¯)

- 15 3 0 . Women shall be informed of pregnancy test

results in a confidential manner by appropriate medical

/

i

personnel and provided with access to information and

¡

i
counseling about the options for carrying the pregnancy to j

I

term or for termination. Routine prenatal care shall be

;

initiated immediately for pregnant women.

` y

31. Pregnant women who are chemically addicted to narcotics or barbiturates shall be evaluated by an

obstetrician trained in the treatment of pregnant women with

addictions. Treatment of the chemical dependency shall not be

undertaken without informing the woman of the medical risks

that such treatment may pose to her health, the maintenance of/

the pregnancy, and to the fetus and obtaining her informed

consent.

Health Appraisal

32. In addition to the health appraisal conducted

for male prisoners, Defendants shall conduct a gynecological

examination, including a pelvic examination and evaluation, a

breast examination accompanied by patient education, a Pap

smear, a chlamydia and gonorrhea culture, and a serology for

syphilis. jAny unusual vaginal discharge shall be examined

microscopically at this time. In accordance with the CTF

Operations manual and National Commission on Correctional

Healthcare (NCCHC) and American Correctional Association (AI_A) '

standards, this health appraisal shall occur within fourteen

(14) days of admission into the Department of Corrections,

- 16 unless there is documentation of a complete and comparable health appraisal within the previous 90 days.
33. Defendants shall develop an appropriate health appraisal form to correspond with the aspects of the health appraisal for women noted in paragraph 32.
Routine Gynecological Care 34. Defendants shall develop and implement within 90 days protocols concerning routine and follow-up care for common gynecological problems including syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and pelvic inflammatory disease; pap tests; pelvic examinations; breast examinations; education in family planning, including information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of contraceptive techniques; and mammography for high-risk women, in accordance with standards of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG). 35. Defendants shall provide medical care in accordance with existing gynecological protocols that satisfy ACOG standards. 36. Defendants shall provide gynecological care within the time frames and in a manner consistent with a gynecological protocol unless a physician determines that in his or her medical judgment it is not medically appropriate for such care to be provided in accordance with the protocol, in which case the reasons for this determination shall be entered into the patient's medical record.

- 17 37. At a minimum, the protocol concerning the provision of gynecological care shall provide that Defendants shall offer and make available pap tests to all high-risk women at CTF every 6 months. 38. Defendants shall maintain a list of abnormal pap results and, within 7 days of receipt of an abnormal pap result, shall notify the patient of the abnormal result and develop and initiate a course of treatment. 39. All women who receive an abnormal pap test result shall be scheduled for a repeat pap test at three-month intervals until the pap test results are normal. Once the pap test results are normal, a pap test shall take place every 6 months. If a colposcopy is required, it shall be performed in a manner and within time frames accepted as appropriate by ACOG standards. 40. Defendants shall implement within 60 days a tracking system to insure that all women receive appropriate preventative gynecological care at regular intervals. 41. Defendants shall make available all forms of FDA-approved contraception to women prisoners at CTF as long as CTF remains a co-correctional facility. Defendants shall educate women receiving such contraception regarding the benefits, side effects, and effectiveness of various contraceptive devises.

- 18 Pregnancy 42. If a pregnancy test reveals that a woman is pregnant, Defendants will provide her with information and non-directive counseling regarding the full range of options including carrying the pregnancy to term and abortion. Defendants may provide this counseling themselves or may contract with outside agencies with expertise in this area to provide these services. 43. In accordance with Department of Corrections policy, if a woman expresses interest in obtaining an abortion, Defendants shall immediately make counseling available to her either directly or through referral to family planning services provided in the community. 44. Defendants shall ensure that access to family and friends is available to women who desire consultation on a course of action related to their pregnancies. 45. Defendants shall offer a woman prisoner seeking an abortion assistance in making arrangements for the abortion in timely fashion. The assistance shall include transportation to and from the site of the abortion. 46. Defendants shall provide pregnant women with the same access to educational and vocational education programs, industries, work training, work details, recreation, religious and other services as it allows to other women prisoners.

- 19 -

47. Defendants shall develop and implement a

protocol concerning restraints used on pregnant and postpartum

women which provides that a pregnant prisoner shall be

transported in the least restrictive way possible consistent

with legitimate security concerns. Specifically, the protocol

shall provide:

,

a. Defendants shall use no restraints on any

woman in labor, during delivery, or in recovery immediately

after delivery.

b. At all other times Defendants shall use no

restraints when transporting a pregnant woman prisoner unless

the woman has demonstrated a history of assaultive behavior or

has escaped from a correctional facility, in which case

handcuffs only shall be allowed.

c. Under no circumstances shall shackles, leg

irons or waist chains be used for postpartum women within six

weeks of delivery or later if medically indicated.

48. Because of the logistical difficulties in

transporting prisoners, D.C. General Hospital must keep all

pregnant women at D.C. General Hospital who have started labor

and who have been referred to D.C. General Hospital by

qualified medical personnel.

Prenatal Care

49. Defendants shall prepare a detailed written

prenatal protocol for women who receive their primary prenatal

care at CTF in accordance with ACOG standards. The protocol

- 20 shall also provide guidelines to define "high risk pregnancy." High risk pregnancies shall be considered to include at a minimum those women with histories of alcohol and drug abuse, sexually-transmitted diseases, diabetes or anemia, older women, women with poor obstetrical histories, and women expecting multiple births.
50. Women who are deemed to have a high risk pregnancy shall within 10 days of arriving at CTF be referred to the D.C. General Hospital prenatal high-risk clinic and shall receive their primary prenatal care at D.C. General Hospital.
51. Defendants shall arrange for each pregnant woman prisoner to see an obstetrician at monthly intervals during the first two trimesters of her pregnancy, bimonthly during the seventh and eighth months, and weekly during the ninth month. Defendants shall arrange for women who are experiencing high risk pregnancies to see an obstetrician at shorter than routine intervals until it is determined that the pregnancy is progressing normally.
52. Defendants shall implement a tracking system to insure that all pregnant women are regularly scheduled and seen for prenatal land postpartum care, including those who receive their primary prenatal care at D.C. General Hospital.
53. Pregnancy diets shall be provided to a woman prisoner as soon as it is determined that she is pregnant.

/
{ /
i '–

- 21 54. Special medical diets, such as those required for pregnant diabetics, shall be provided within 72 hours of diagnosing the medical condition for which a special diet is needed. 55. Pregnant prisoners shall receive prenatal vitamins in two-week dosages and shall be allowed to keep their vitamins in their rooms. 56. Defendants shall permit a woman prisoner to feed her baby at D.C. General Hospital while the woman remains at D.C. General Hospital. 57. The Defendants shall develop a routine visiting program for women whose children remain in D.C. General
Hospital. These women shall be allowed to visit their children at D.C. General Hospital every day.
Postpartum Counseling 58. Within two days of delivery, Defendants must determine whether postpartum counseling is needed. If needed, counseling shall begin immediately. 59. Defendants shall provide postpartum counseling in all cases where there has been a still-birth, death of a child shortly after birth, or when a child is critically ill. Social Services 60. In accordance with Defendants' Department
Order, pregnant women prisoners shall receive counseling
regarding child placement as soon as the pregnancy is known.

- 22 61. Defendants shall designate a representative who shall develop and maintain contacts with licensing child placing agencies including the Department of Human Services. Defendants shall provide training to its social workers on the range of options available for child placement including third-party placement with family or friends, foster care placement, and adoption. No one method of placement shall be preferred over the other. Rather, each woman shall be given information about each of the options and encouraged to make the choice that meets her needs and resources. 62. Defendants shall designate a representative who shall attend meetings of the Boarder Baby Project which is coordinated by the Child and Family Services Division of the Department of Human Services. The Defendants shall use the services of the project to prevent or shorten the time during which children of incarcerated women board at D.C. General Hospital. 63. Defendants shall designate a representative who shall develop referral relationships with programs that provide residential treatment for pregnant women, such as St. Ann's Infant Home and New Expectations. The Defendants shall refer appropriate pregnant prisoners to these programs in a timely manner. 64. If a woman is arranging for placement for her child, Defendants shall permit the mother-to-be one leave,

- 23 either by furlough or with escort, to inspect the site in advance of birth.
65. Within 6 months, Defendants shall develop a comprehensive family visiting and counseling program at CTF which provides for structured visitations, developmentally appropriate activities for children of different ages, family counseling, individual counseling, case management and appropriate referrals. Defendants shall consider using existing models such as the PRISON MATCH, TALK, and Community MATCH programs.
Health Education 66. The nurse midwife shall implement within 90 days a health education program that satisfies American Public

¯¯

•

•

—

—

-

Health Assj2j^iaiign(APHA) and NCCHC standards, including but

not limited to health education concerning sexually-

transmitted diseases, and breast and cervical cancer.

Education shall consist of written material, audio-visual

material, and lectures. Education material should also be

made available in the CTF library.

67. Defendants shall maintain adequate

documentation on the program so that it can be evaluated by

the Court 60 days after implementation.

Emergency Care

68. Defendants shall have at least one medical

personnel available at CTF twenty-four hours each day.

- 24 69. CTF medical personnel shall have telephone access to the OB/GYN physician at CTF during evening and weekend hours. 70. If a woman prisoner is in need of emergency obstetrical or gynecological care during evening or weekend hours, she shall be taken immediately to the emergency area in the OB/GYN clinic at D.C. General Hospital, unless employees providing obstetrical and/or gynecological care at D.C. General Hospital determine that the main emergency room at D.C. General Hospital would be more medically appropriate. Continuity of Care 71. Defendants shall provide each woman prisoner who is discharged from custody with the following:
a. a supply of essential medications that is sufficient for several days or until she may be reasonably expected to be able to obtain necessary follow-up in her community;
b. referrals to services in the community to insure continuity of care.
72. If a woman is released prior to the time that results of any gynecological or obstetrical are received by CTF medical personnel, Defendants shall forward the test results to her at her last known mailing address.
Transportation 73. Defendants shall provide sufficient resources to insure that prisoners are transported to medical

- 25 -

appointments in a timely fashion, including a sufficient

number of security staff to transport prisoners, appropriate

and sufficient transport vehicles, and appropriate waiting

areas.

¿-'c_ ° 74. Defendants shall modify their transportation f ^\

procedures so that prisoners are not required to wait for more ,-;,

than one hour at D.C. General Hospital before receiving

medical care.

75. If a woman prisoner misses a medical

appointment for any reason, Defendants shall reschedule the

appointment for the earliest available date. Defendants shall

use best efforts to insure that the rescheduled appointment

occurs no later than two weeks after the originally scheduled

but missed appointment, and sooner if medically necessary.

Coordination of Care

76. Defendants shall comply fully with all

provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding between the

Department of Corrections and D.C. General Hospital.

77. At least one member of the medical staff at CTF

;

shall participate in seventy-five percent of the

j

obstetrical/gynecological grand rounds conducted at D.C.

/

General Hospital.

78. Defendants shall assign a physician, or a

member of the medical staff at CTF, who provides obstetrical

or gynecological care, to serve as a liaison between CTF

medical personnel and D.C. General Hospital.

- 26 -

79. Defendants shall explore the possibility of I I sending all cultures for pap smears taken at CTF directly to

ƒ

D.C. General Hospital for evaluation rather than to an outside

/

i

contractor.

ì

Implementation and Tracking of Physician Orders

80. Defendants shall maintain the content of each

medical record in an orderly and confidential manner.

Defendants shall use a "problem list" or "flow sheet" to

document medical problems and course of treatment.

81. For all pregnant women prisoners, Defendants

shall maintain a medical chart on the POPRAS form pregnancy

chart, or an equivalent form, together with a regular medical

chart. All medical visits to or by the responsible physician

or primary healthcare provider, orders for laboratory tests,

laboratory test results and other notes and orders relating to

the medical care of pregnant women prisoners shall be recorded

on the POPRAS form or shall be reduced to a consult form.

82. Defendants shall develop a new consultation
form that provides adequate clinical information to D.C. General Hospital and insures that adequate information is

X >
' '''•

provided by D.C. General Hospital to CTF medical personnel.

83. Defendants shall institute, maintain and follow

a system to coordinate the implementation and tracking of

physician orders so that gynecological and obstetrical care

will be provided within the time ordered and in any event in a

timely fashion. Such orders include outside consultations,

- 27 specialty care, inpatient stays, x-rays, and diagnostic and laboratory tests and procedures, regardless of whether these orders are to be filled inside or outside the facility. This system shall be reflected in written procedural guidelines, a copy of which shall be provided to counsel for Plaintiffs within 60 days. Orders for medication are not to be tracked under this system.
84. Defendants shall implement procedures to insure that medical and administrative staff follow the advice of D.C. General Hospital medical personnel and that each woman prisoner receives all medications, therapies, and follow-up care as prescribed by D.C. General Hospital medical personnel.
85. Documentation shall be required whenever medical staff elects not to follow the instructions of a consulting physician at D.C. General Hospital or elsewhere. This documentation should include the justification for not providing the therapy ordered. Only medically-based justifications shall be permissible.
86. For all prisoners who are discharged from D.C. General Hospital or other medical facilities to CTF, CTF medical personnel shall promptly obtain a discharge summary and maintain the summary in the prisoner's medical record.
87. The Chief Medical Officer of CTF or physician designee must review all medical paper work which accompanies a woman prisoner back from an outside medical trip, and all results of lab tests or other records of ordered care on the

\ /
\.y

- 28 date that they arrive at CTF. If the Chief Medical Officer or the designee determines that review by the physician who ordered the care is necessary before the next scheduled appointment with this physician, then this physician must review and initial these papers on his or her next day in the facility. If indicated by the results, the Chief Medical Officer or designee shall take immediate action.
88. Defendants shall develop and implement a mechanism for CTF medical personnel and D.C. General Hospital medical personnel to communicate when necessary via telephone to clarify questions concerning a patient's history, condition, or treatment.
89. Inmates shall receive notice of results of laboratory or diagnostic tests which are of no clinical significance within seven calendar days of the receipt in the facility of the results of such test.
90. In the case of non-emergency abnormal laboratory or diagnostic tests results of clinical significance, the inmate will be seen by the ordering physician, or if that physician is unavailable, by the Medical Officer, within 24 hours of the time the facility receives the
results of such test. At such time the physician will explain the result to the patient and order such follow-up care as is appropriate. ^
91. 1 Defendants shall modify the procedure by which a woman prisoner refuses medical care./ Specifically,

- 29 Defendants shall require that a woman prisoner who refuses medical care do so in the presence of licensed medical personnel who can answer the patient's questions and counsel the patient concerning the consequences of a refusal. In accordance with Department of Corrections policy regarding quality assurance, the reasons for refusal shall be analyzed regularly as part of a comprehensive and up-to-date quality assurance program. This quality assurance activity shall be documented.
III. PROGRAM EVALUATION 92. Defendants shall conduct a needs assessment of
all women prisoners to determine their needs, interests, and requirements for increased programs and opportunities in academic education, vocation, work, religion, recreation, parenting, and medical care. I The procedure for the needs assessment shall be done by an approved scientific method, and shall be jsubject to outside consultant auditing. /
`¯¯ 93. Defendants shall provide diagnostic evaluations
\ for women prisoners similar to those currently provided for
men in the Reception and Diagnostic Unit at CTF to determine the needs and interest of women. These evaluations shall be completed within 30-45 days of a female inmate's transfer to CTF or to any other facility where women are initially incarcerated after sentencing. The evaluations shall include educational testing, vocational testing, psychological

C¯"¯

- 30 -

^– ,

testing,/and child care placement counseling./ Defendants

shall provide women with the appropriate programming called

for by this evaluation within 60 days of their arrival at the

facility.

94. Defendants shall coordinate the scheduling of

academic educational classes, higher education classes,

vocational training, recreation time and activities, law

library hours,/substance abuse treatment, psychological

services /and work in prison details for women in such a manner

as t¯5¯¯¯maximize women prisoners' participation in as many areas

as possible simultaneously.

95. Defendants shall provide sufficient program

space so that women prisoners can participate in equal and

adequate programs and services as compared to men prisoners.

Defendants shall provide at least 2 additional trailers at the

Annex (with sanitary facilities) to allow for additional

programming activities; including but not limited to

vocational programs, religious programs, visiting, and

parenting classes. / "

í-*•--' ,( ^

^

96. Defendants shall develop and implement a ¯^y ``·^Jl

quality assurance programs for monitoring program delivery to

ensure the continued provision of equal and adequate programs

to women prisoners.

- 31 IV. PROGRAMS ¯¯ STAFFING
97. Defendants shall increase the number of staff posted or detailed at the women's unit at CTF and at the Annex to ensure that women prisoners are escorted to programs, recreation, employment, and medical care on time as scheduled. Sufficient staff shall be provided so that adequate escorts are provided without detracting programming staff from their responsibilities.
98. Within 30 days, Defendants shall employ an outside consultant to conduct a custody staffing pattern analysis for both the women's unit at CTF and the Annex to ídetermine the appropriate number of security and program staff
¡
^necessary to provide equal and adequate programs and services |to the women prisoners. Defendants shall implement the (Staffing pattern recommended by the outside consultant, unles¯s"'
Court otherwise orders.

V. ACADEMIC EDUCATION.

99. Defendants shall provide women prisoners with a

range of academic education programs in parity with those , , \

provided to men prisoners of similar custody status.

/

100. Women prisoners at any facilitÿ¯sïíäil be
"

K`\ ·`;'

provided with the opportunity for full-time (5 hours per day 5

days per week) basic education to include ABE, GED, and

Special Education classes offered both during the day and in
L·.
the evening to accommodate the maximum number of students.

^ `\ /

- 32 Defendants shall immediately provide 2 full-time basic education teachers for ABE, GED, and Special Education classes during the day at the Annex. Defendants shall provide 1 parttime evening teacher for ABE and GED classes in order to allow women who participate in work training, work details, community action squads or industries to complete basic education instruction.
101. Women prisoners at any facility shall have access to on-site higher education programs which shall include a four-year B.A. and/or B.S. degree program, an A.A.
degree program, a certification program, and a precollege program. The bachelor and associate programs shall be offered in a variety of fields, and at a minimum shall each offer 3 different areas of study leading to a degree.
102. Defendants shall offer women prisoners financial arrangements for these education programs that are the same as those arrangements available to men prisoners. Within 90 days, Defendants shall make the University of the District of Columbia B.A. and A.A. programs available to women prisoners at CTF.
103. Defendants shall immediately provide women prisoners at CTF with at least 40 hours of access per week to the Atlantic Union computers. Women shall be scheduled to access the computer during educational program time and during free time, including evenings and weekends. Women prisoners shall be provided with an equal number of computers as the men
i

- 33 prisoners at CTF enrolled in the Atlantic Union program. Trained inmates shall work as educational aides in the labs to provide the students with computer assistance as needed.
104. Defendants shall immediately process the applications for Atlantic Union in a complete and timely manner. Women shall be provided with all books and course materials at least 2 weeks before the start of a course. The women shall receive substantive tutorial guidance in the course work from qualified educators.
105. Defendants shall immediately provide appropriate, alternative teachers or instructors during absences of regular teachers or instructors for more than 3 working days to ensure continuity of the academic classes, vocational training programs, and work programs. The provision of an alternate teacher or instructor shall not result in consolidating two classes into one or increasing the class size.

VI. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

r '¯f¯^†— ßj ^ ¯~¯`¯^

106. Defendants shall provide women prisoners^ith a ,j/-¯

range of vocational education programs in parity with those \(l

provided to men prisoners of similar custody status.

°

107. Defendants shall provide women prisoners with 2

prevocational programs each to be at least 6 weeks in

duration. Prevocational programs include those courses which

teach personal development skills, living skills, and/or

- 34 -

employment skills and includes such DOC programs as Employment

Techniques, Awareness and Preparation (ETAP) and Lifeskills.
¿3LJ
108. Defendants shall provide women prisoners with a

minimum of 4 vocational education programs, including the one

program currently in place (DocuTech). These programs shall

be available to female inmates of all custody levels. A ·. j`^__ \

vocational education program is any program of/6 to 24 months

of duration that teaches employable skills and contains both a

classroom component and an on-the-job-training component. Two

programs shall be operative within 120 days of the entry of

this Order.

<-— ^

-" "

109. Defendants shall also maintain the 3 vocational

skill-building courses currently in place at CTF in the areas

/

of sewing, computer literacy, and typing. These courses do

/

not satisfy the definition of a vocational education program^,-—'

and shall not qualify as one of the mandatory programs

required in ¶ 119.

110. Defendants shall provide women prisoners with /

non-traditional vocational education programs that are in an /

occupational area traditionally served by men.

111.

Defendants shall provide women prisoners

with at least 2 apprenticeship programs as defined by

department order.

112. All prevocational programs, vocational

programs, and apprenticeships added for women prisoners shall

have the potential for providing women with job skills

- 35 marketable in the local labor market. One consideration for program selection shall be the wage-earning capacity upon completion of the program.
113. Defendants shall conduct affirmative outreach to women during the enrollment period for vocational training. This outreach shall entail DCDC staff meeting with women at least 1 month before the deadline for program enrollment to inform the women that the new programs are available and to offer a full description of the available program. The staff member shall inform the women of any applicable criteria for participation, the work hours, the wage status, the certificate eligibility, and the good time credits that can be earned. The staff shall encourage, and motivate women to participate in all vocational education programs.
114. Defendants shall ensure that all contractual programs used to provide services to women prisoners are compatible with and fulfill the provisions of this Order.

VII. WORK OPPORTUNITIES

-

`¯

"¯ í < > ^ ' ^

115. Defendants shall provide women-prisoners with a

range of work opportunities in parity with~those provided to

men prisoners of similar custody status. ¡Jý 116. Defendants shall employ women prisoners on all

work details available at the facility where women prisoners

are housed. These details shall include maintenance and

trades such as plumbing, carpentry, and electrical.

t`> 5 %`J^Å) V

- 36 -

' • - ¿-i *

117. Defendants shall increase industrial '

' ~ß‰; `)

opportunities for women prisoners at the Annex by employing

women equally in the Furniture Repair shop, the Upholstery

shop, and the industries available at Minimum such as

agriculture. In addition, Defendants shall maintain women

prisoners' employment in the Garment Shop and Print Shop.

118. Defendants will provide at least 3 employment

opportunities for women at CTF that pay an industrial wage.

119. Defendants shall revise the guidelines and

practices for work training eligibility within 30 days to take

into account the different sentence structure of female

offenders and to permit women's maximum participation in work

training.

120. Defendants will immediately provide a work

training program to all women prisoners who are eligible under

the revised guidelines, including those who are housed at CTF

as stated in the CTF Operations Manual.

--'"

121. Defendants shall immediately increase the

number of women participating in work training so that every

eligible woman prisoner is participating in the program.

122. Within 30 days of entry of this Order,

Defendants shall complete and submit work training packets for

each woman prisoner eligible for work training under current

Departmental Order 4920.3C and expedite the approval process.

123. Within 120 days, Defendants shall develop a

tickler system for each woman prisoner identifying critical

- 37 -

dates for eligibility for programs, halfway house release, and

parole. Defendants shall provide each women prisoner with a

form at initial classification identifying these dates.

124. Defendants shall submit required paperwork for

work training approval 45 days prior to a woman prisoner's

eligibility date in order to complete the process by the date

of eligibility. In the event that a woman arrives at the

institution with less than 45 days until she is eligible for

work training, Defendants shall expedite the paperwork.

125. Defendants shall not deny a woman prisoner the

opportunity to participate in work training based on her

arrival at the Annex or classification to minimum custody

status within the last 90 days or because of her impending

eligibility for halfway house placement or parole.

126. Defendants shall provide adequate staff,

including case managers and vocational development

specialists, to enable the women prisoners to be informed of

their work training eligibility and to complete the necessary

paperwork in the^required time frame.

127 .^ Defendants shall increase the number of

^

• L

/ Q \ vocational development specialists at the Annex from 1 to 2

full-time positions. ``One of these specialists shall serve as

an on-site coordinator who conducts testing, classes,

counseling, and completes necessary paperwork. The second

specialist shall serve as an off-site coordinator and shall be

responsible for developing jobs, including non-traditional

<

•'

—

- 38 employment, and transporting women to interviews. Defendants shall provide the off-site coordinator with an appropriate vehicle for transporting women for job interviews and for performing job development activities.
128. Workshops will be conducted for all those eligible for work training to assist women prisoners in their employment pursuit. The workshops will provide information on barriers to employment, motivation, interviewing techniques, resume preparation, and job retention.

VIII. RECREATION

--

^ -

129. Defendants shall provide women prisoners with

recreation in parity with that provided to men prisoners of

similar custody status.

13 0. Defendants shall immediately provide all women

prisoners, including pregnant prisoners subject to medical

approval, with recreation 7 days per week for at least 5 hours

per day. Women shall have the option of going outside or to

indoor recreation facilities during this time period. This

recreation schedule shall be effective at CTF within 30 days

of this Order.

131. Women shall be given access to the same variety

of recreation activities as are available to men, including

large group events/like revivals, family days, and holiday

events; regularly scheduled intermurals/in at least 3 sports;

and concerts and drama ^presentationsJ ( Women shall be given

39 -

access to a'rts and crafts activities during the hours of

recreation. ,\Defendants shall provide women prisoners with

drama activitre¯s¯, such as the Renaissance Drama Troupe

currently available to men.

^ •¯¯`

132. Defendants shall schedule recreation time for

\ women when it will allow for the maximum number of women to
ì
¡ participate, and at least 2 of the hours shall be
Í
/ afterschool/afterwork hours to provide as much recreation time

' as possible to all women.

133. Defendants shall immediately open the

recreation trailer at the Annex for at least 8 hours per day,

7 days a week. At least 3 of these hours shall be during

unscheduled work or program hours. Correctional officers

shall open and supervise the trailer when the recreation

specialist is off duty. The recreation specialist shall not

be assigned or pulled away from her duties as a recreation

specialist for the women at the Annex, except in the case of

an emergency.

134. Defendants shall improve the Annex grounds by

adding a basketball court, volleyball pit, and outdoor tables
~~¯¯) to accommodate the recreational needs of the women at the
Annex./
j
135. Defendants shall improve the recreation yard at

CTF by adding a volleyball pit, outdoor tables, and other

recreational equipment in order to provide increased

recreational opportunities for women prisoners.

- 40 136. Defendants shall provide women prisoners with the same smoking privileges as are provided to men prisoners of similar custody status.
IX. RELIGIOUS SERVICES AND PROGRAMS 137. Defendants shall provide women prisoners with a
range of religious programs and services in parity with that provided to men prisoners of similar custody status.
138. Within 60 days, Defendants shall provide fulltime chaplaincy services to all women prisoners 5 days per week through a staff chaplain, volunteer chaplain, or a combination of staff. Chaplain hours shall include evening hours during the week to accommodate those women working on details, industry, or in the community.
13 9. Defendants shall adhere to the Department Order which requires that the chaplain deliver all notices of death or family illness to the women.
140. The women at each facility shall have the same range of different religious services available to them as are provided to male inmates of similar custody levels. This requires that the women at the Annex immediately be provided with Muslim religious services and additional religious study, and be permitted to fully participate in all group religious activities such as revivals or mass communions.

- 41 -

X. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

The Annex

141. Within one year, Defendants shall reduce the

population of Dormitory 6 and Dormitory 7 so that no more than

90 women are housed in the two dormitories combined.

142. Within one year, Defendants shall repair or

replace the roofs of Dormitory 6 and Dormitory 7 and retain

them in a watertight condition.

143. Within ninety days, Defendants shall make the

necessary repairs to make the Annex dormitories resistant to

V /

entry and refuge of vermin and shall conduct a vermin

eradication program to eliminate the present infestation of

vermin. Defendants shall thereafter promulgate and follow an

effective vermin eradication program.

144. Within sixty days, Defendants shall provide

each woman prisoner housed in the Annex dormitories at least

one vertical locker and one footlocker.

145. Within thirty days, Defendants shall replace

all torn mattresses and pillows with clean, untorn, fire-

retardant mattresses and pillows. Defendants shall conduct a

weekly inspection of all mattresses and pillows on the day

when bedding is removed for laundering and shall at that time

immediately replace any mattresses that are torn.

146. For sanitary purposes, the bed linen provided

to all women prisoners, wherever they are housed, shall

include a washable mattress cover.

- 42 -

y j

147. For as long as the Annex dormitories are\

double-bunked, Defendants shall provide a minimum ofvJ3_O,yroot

candles of inmate-controlled light to each bunk for reading

purposes.

148. Effective immediately, Defendants shall ensure

that all housing units are issued a timely, adequate and

appropriate amount of cleaning supplies, laundry detergent,

sanitary napkins, and toilet paper.

14 9. Within sixty days, Defendants shall connect the

toilets and handsinks in ¯fc·h"e Anrìex trailers'' used for

recreation and the substance abuse program.,

150. Defendants shall continue their current policy

of providing sufficient and readily accessible sanitary

facilities for women in the industries at Central.

151. Effective immediately, Defendants shall provide

the women working at Central industries with a sanitary

location separate from their work station for eating meals.

152. Defendants shall promulgate and follow a

written preventive maintenance plan for the Annex dormitories,

the Annex trailers, and the Annex grounds^

, ½r

153. Not less frequently than/quarterly, Defendants

shall cause the District of Columbia Department of Consumer

and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) to inspect the Minimum Security

Annex for compliance with the requirements of environmental

sanitation and maintenance and food service delivery (at the

main Minimum compound). The first such inspection shall be

- 43 -

conducted within 45 days of the date of this Order. Following

each quarterly inspection, DCRA shall submit its findings

within 30 days to the Administrator of the Minimum Security

Facility. The Administrator shall within 30 days thereafter

repair, clean, or otherwise remedy any unsanitary, unsound, or

unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA, provided

that, following the first inspection, Defendants shall repair

all deficiencies noted by DCRA within 30 days if feasible, but

in no event later than 90 days following the receipt of the

DCRA report. In subsequent reports, DCRA shall note whether

any unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition

previously identified by DCRA remains unremedied, and shall

make such recommendations to the Administrator as shall aid

the Administrator in improving environmental health and

sanitation at the facility.

CTF

154. Within ninety days, Defendants shall hire a

qualified air balancing contractor to service the air handling

system so that it provides fresh or recirculated filtered air

to all areas of the facility inhabited by inmates and complies

with the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62-89, as updated.

.—

155. In the event that the air balancing fails to

reduce the noise level produced by the air handling system to

an acceptable level, Defendants shall propose to the Court

-remedial measures to be taken with respect to such noise. ^,..

- 44 -

156. In the event that the air balancing and other

recent repairs to the heating system fail to maintain a

minimum cell temperature of 65°F in every cell, measured at

the perimeter wall, Defendants shall immediately:

a. cease housing women in the end cells of

each tier;

b. provide each woman prisoner with 2 extra

blankets, 2 pairs of thermal underwear, and 2 pairs of wool

socks; and

c. explore means of insulating or heating the

perimeter walls of the cells, and report back to the Court.

157. Defendants shall continue their efforts to

maintain a temperature of 100° or higher for the hot water at

CTF.

158. Defendants shall maintain their efforts to

install metal skirting under the doors in the stairwells at

CTF to prevent rodents from travelling from the stairwells to

the housing uni¡sT

pJi ' * l ¿ ^^$*fý

159. Effective immediately, Defendants shall ensure ¡

that all housing units are issued a timely, adequate and

appropriate amount of cleaning supplies) laundry detergent,

sanitary napkins, and toilet paper. ¡

160. For sanitary purposes, the bed linen provided
to all women prisoners shall include a washable mattress

cover.

- 45 -

161. Defendants shall use cart liners or disposable

or washable laundry bags to transport laundry between CTF and

the Jail.

162. Effective immediately, Defendants shall monitor

the food temperature and delivery times of all foods,

including special diet meals, delivered to the satellite

kitchens.

163. Defendants shall promulgate and follow a

written preventive maintenance plan for the CTF that includes

maintenance of structures, systems, and equipment.

164. Defendants shall ensure that the correctional

officers inspect all plumbing fixtures on each shift, and

shall ensure that any plumbing fixture that requires repair

will be reported immediately upon discovery, and repaired

within 24 hours in all but exceptional cases, and in any event

within 48 hours. Defendants shall maintain logs demonstrating

compliance with this requirement.

__„._ <;,`¯ `J^¿>

165. Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia

DCRA to conduct quarterly inspections of the CTF for

compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation,

``y maintenance and food service delivery. The first such

inspection shall be conducted within 45 days of the this

Order. Following each quarterly inspection, DCRA shall submit

its findings within 30 days to the Administrator of the CTF.

The Administrator shall within 30 days thereafter repair,

clean, or otherwise remedy any unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe

- 46 practice or condition identified by DCRA, provided that, following the first inspection, Defendants shall repair all deficiencies noted by DCRA within 30 days if feasible, but in no event later than 90 days following the receipt of the DCRA report. In subsequent reports, DCRA shall note whether any unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition previously identified by DCRA remains unremedied, and shall make such recommendations to the Administrator as shall aid the Administrator in improving environmental health and sanitation at the facility.
XI. FIRE SAFETY The Annex 166. Within 120 days, Defendants shall install and
maintain a fire alarm system and fire detection system at the Minimum Security Facility, including Dormitories 6 and 7. Said system shall conform with the requirements of the Natiojia_l^_Fire__Protection Association Standards No. 101. This would include:
a. a manual fire alarm system; b. a fire detection system with smoke detectors in all sleeping and dayroom areas, and either smoke or heat detectors in all other areas, including offices, bathrooms, boiler rooms, etc.;

- 47 -

c. an automatic retransmission of the above

systems to a constantly attended location outside of the

dormitory buildings; and

d. repair or replacement of the fire alarm

system in the kitchen, dining room, and gymnasium at the main

compound.

(

167. Defendants) have the option of_^Lnstalling

sprinklers in the Annex dormitories, *``¾f Defendants choose to

install sprinklerj3/-"i:hey shall;also provide a 20-minute fire-

`~—-~~~—•-- `

*^^`

rated enclosure of storage rooms located in both dormitories.

If Defendants choose not to install sprinklers, they shall:

a. provide a 20-minute fire-rated enclosure

of the offices located in both dormitories;

b. provide a 1-hour fire-rated enclosure of

the storage rooms in both dormitories;

c. remove any storage lockers containing

cleaning and paper supplies from the sleeping and dayroom

areas to the storage room; and

d. remove all wood panelling and planking

used as interior finishes on the walls of the dormitory

buildings.

168. Defendants shall ensure that all bed linens,

blankets, and curtains or draperies in the dormitories are of

fire-retardant material.

- 48 169. Effective immediately, Defendants shall maintain clear aisles of at least three feet in width between the sleeping areas and the exits of the dayroom. 170. Defendants shall maintain the exit doors in the gymnasium in good working condition. 171. Effective immediately, in each dormitory building, Defendants shall conduct fire drills twelve (12) times per year, four (4) times per shift, and shall keep written documentation of all such drills. 172. Defendants shall develop and document mandatory semi-annual training on fire safety procedures for all `' correctional officers. 173. Effective immediately, and in accordance with Minimum Division Operation Procedure (DOP) No. 2910.1, \ / Defendants shall:
a. conduct weekly inspections of all building and grounds for fire hazards, and document such inspections;
b. conduct monthly inspections of all fire safety equipment, and document such inspections;
c. ensure that the Department Fire Marshal conducts quarterly inspections of the Facility.
174. Effective immediately, and in accordance with Department Order No. 2920.1A, the District of Columbia Fire Department shall conduct fire safety inspections of the Minimum Security Annex not less frequently than every twelve months. The Fire Department shall furnish its report to the

- 49 defendant Administrator of the Facility and Plaintiffs' counsel within 10 days. Thereafter the Administrator shall cause any fire safety deficiencies identified in the Fire Department's report to be remedied within 3 0 days, or shall provide a report to the Fire Department as to why the deficiency cannot be so remedied and provide a plan to remedy the deficiency within a further period of time not to exceed 90 days.
CTF 175. Within thirty days, Defendants shall repair the water leakage from rain, particularly in the vicinity of the high-voltage electrical conduit in the culinary storage room located in the CTF basement. 176. Defendants shall maintain the storage in the culinary storage room at- ±¾ã¾IT^rgHïè¾ìr¯Tr8T^nTrtrers below the

I
177. Defendants shall institute and carry out a

` '

••'•/

testing and maintenance program for the standpipe, sprinkler

X``;' .-••

i•///;,j)system, and fire pump at CTF, in accordance with the National

• ¡ir

Fire Protection Association Standard No. 25 ("Inspection,

Testing, & Maintenance of Water-Based Extinguishing Systems").

178. Defendants shall conduct fire drills twelve

\ /

(12) times per year, four (4) times per shift, and shall keep

v

written documentation of all such drills.

- 50 -

/•

179. In all other respects, Defendants shall

/ maintain their current fire safety program and fire evacuation

• procedures, as set forth in CTF DOP No. 2910.1A.

XII. REPORTING

\J_J

180. Defendants shall file monthly reports with the

Court concerning compliance with the foregoing ordered

measures.

fy 0

181. The Court may request that Defendants provide

special reports or information concerning compliance with this

Remedial Order, and Defendants shall provide such information, y

-promptly within 10 business days.

182. This Order shall continue in full force and

effect, absent modification by the Court, until all provisions

have been complied with for 5 years.

SO ORDERED THIS

DAY OF

, 1994.

June L. Green United States District Judge

Women Prisoners of DC Department of Corrections v. District of Columbia
PC-DC-0011-0001

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

T

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT :

OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al..

:

Plaintiffs

: Civil Action No. 93-2052 (JLG)

v.

:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.. :

Defendants

:

DEFENDANTS' TRIAL BRIEF

FILED
JUL - 5 TO
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs have invited this Court to replicate the holding in

Klinaer v. Nebraska Dep't. of Corrections. 824 F. Supp. 1374 (D.

Neb. 1993). See Plaintiffs' Proposed Conclusions of Law and

I

Pretrial Brief. The Court should decline the invitation.

Klinger*s determination that the female and female prisoners

in that case were similarly situated omitted consideration of the

inherent differences between male and female prisoners, which is

vital to the "similarly situated" inquiry. "Parity" scrutiny, as

applied in Klinaer. is dubious as a matter of equal protection

jurisprudence and utterly contrary to common sense. It completely

usurps the discretion which federal courts have traditionally

reserved to prison administrators, so as to permit them to tailor

programs and services which, they believef meet the unique needs of

their inmate populations. This Court must reject Klinger's

T

approach to equal protection and Title IX 1/ claims.
T
ARGUMENT

I. THE WOMEN PRISONERS IN THIS CASE ARE NOT SIMILARLY SITUATED TO THE MALE PRISONERS TO WHOM THEY HAVE COMPARED THEMSELVES

The Court's consideration of the equal protection claims

begins with a threshhold inquiry. Before any equal protection

scrutiny is appropriate, the Court must determine whether the women

prisoners at the Correctional Treatment Facility ("CTF") are

"similarly situated" to male prisoners at Medium Security Facility,

Occoquan Facility and Central Facility ("the medium facilities")

and whether the women prisoners at Minimum Security Annex ("Annex")

/jp

are "similarly situated" to the male prisoners at Minimum Security

Facility ("Minimum"). These are comparisons chosen by the

plaintiffs. If the Court finds that the groups of male and female

prisoners compared are not similarly situated, its equal protection

and Title IX analysis is complete and judgment must be entered for

defendants on these claims.

If the Court finds that one of the groups of male and female

prisoners compared is similarly situated, it must then determine

whether the needs of women prisoners are being met in a manner

which is comparable to the way in which the needs of male prisoners

are being met. If the Court finds that these needs are being met

1

Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 42 U.S.C.

*-

§ 2000d-7.

in such a manner, its equal protection analysis is at an end and judgment must be entered for defendants on these claims. If the Court finds otherwise, it must apply rational relationship scrutiny to determine whether the failure to provide programs and services in a comparable manner violates the equal protection guarantee of women prisoners. 2/
Even if the Court were to look only at custody level, length of sentence and purpose of incarceration, which it should not do, the evidence clearly shows that the male and female prisoners are not similarly situated in this case. If the Court reaches a contrary conclusion, it is equally clear that there is no disparity in overall treatment between the male and women prisoners, since their treatment is generally equivalent. Defendants respond to the unique needs and characteristics of women prisoners in a manner which is equivalent to the way in which they respond to the unique needs and characteristics of male prisoners. They are able to do this despite the gender-segregation which exists in the prison system, a separation which plaintiffs do not challenge. 3/

2

See infra part IC.

3

Plaintiffs' Pretrial Brief, at 20, suggests that the

gender-segregation is evidence of the District of Columbia's intent

to discriminate against women. There is no facial gender

discrimination as a matter of law in this case, because men are

included in the set of persons denied access to certain programs at

both the three medium facilities and at Minimum. See infra note 15

(discussing lack of facial gender discrimination as a matter of law

where men included in group denied benefits) and Defendants' Trial

Exhibit 130 which lists the programs females receive at CTF and

males at Central, Occoquan and Medium Security Facilities and at

Minimum and Minimum Annex. Additionally, Defendants' Trial Exhibit

131 indicates that female inmates have significantly greater

.-~-

(continued. . .)

~nr

3(...continued) participation in programs than males at all the facilities.

There is also no evidence of "invidious" discriminatory intent in this case. If there is any differential treatment afforded to male as compared to female prisoners, which defendants deny, it is based not on traditional notions of women's place in society, but on inherent differences between these populations. See infra part IB.

Further, plaintiffs have not challenged their gender-based segregation from male prisoners, but, rather, strongly assert their need for different and unique programming and services due to their own special characteristics. Much of this evidence comes from the plaintiffs themselves, in support of their Eighth Amendment claims. With this evidence in mind, plaintiffs can hardly contend they are treated differently solely on the basis of their gender and not for other reasons. Cf. Pitts. 866 F2d at 1458 (stating that because challenged differential treatment of inmates "responds directly" to segregation by gender "strongly suggests that the [challenged treatment] does not employ gender as an inaccurate proxy for other, more germane bases of classification") (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Although administrative convenience or cost alone cannot justify the differing treatment of men and women under equal protection principles, such factors are, obviously, proper considered in deciding whether the differing treatment amounts to invidious discrimination; the caselaw supports this conclusion. See, e.g.« Pitts v. Thornburah. 866 F.2d at 1461-63; Rostker. 453 U.S. at 81-82; Smith v. Binqham. 914 F.2d 740, 742-43 (5th Cir. 1990).

"Invidious," according to the Webster's New World Dictionary, (Modern Desk Ed. 1979), means "such as to excite ill will; giving offense, as by discriminating unfairly." In gender discrimination cases, the term "invidious" has been used to describe differences in treatment which reflect outmoded conceptions of the proper roles of women and men in contemporary society, usually suggesting an insult toward women. Id. at 72-74; Schlesinaer. 419 U.S. at 50610.

The sizes of the inmate populations at the facilities are

different, and the characterisitics and needs of the inmate

populations at the facilities are different, and the average

lengths of stay for inmates at CTF and the medium facilities are

different, it is entirely appropriate (and not insulting or

demeaning to women) to establish different priorities for

programming and services at these institutions. It is entirely

r

(continued...)

T
li ••

Even if the Court finds that the male and female prisoners are
both "similarly situated" and receive differential treatment, any disparity is rationally related to one or more legitimate interests of the District of Columbia, such a security or safety.
A. Whether two groups are "similarly situated" is a question of factual circumstances, not one of political or social preferences

Sometimes the grossest discrimination can lie in treating things that are different as though they were actually alike ....

Jenness v. Fortson. 403 U.S. 431, 442 (1971).

It is clear that equal protection principles prohibit the

District of Columbia from making overbroad generalization based on

sp

sex which are entirely unrelated to any differences between men and

women or which demean the abilities of or the social status of

women. See Parham v. Hughes. 441 U.S. 347, 354 (1979). Where men

and women are not similarly situated, however, and differences in

their treatment are true differences. reflective of their

situations, a challenged classification which responds to those

differences is upheld, without receiving equal protection scrutiny.

See id. at 354.

Thus in Parham. the Supreme Court upheld a Georgia statute

barring fathers of illegitimate children from maintaining wrongful

3(...continued) contrary to the evidence to suggest that there invidious or discriminatory about the manner in prisoners are treated by the defendants.

is anything which women

f

death suits for the loss of their children, based on the reality
T

i'•

that the identity of an illegitimate child's father is often

unknown and may be difficult to determine after the child's death.

The message of Parham is clear: if there are significant real

differences between the sexes, those differences may make a

comparison between the sexes inappropriate, even if some may find

the result offensive.

The case which controls this Court's "similarly situated"

analysis follows Parham precisely — Pitts v. Thornburqh. 866 F.2d

1450 (D.C. Cir. 1989). In that case, plaintiffs, female prisoners

of the District of Columbia sentenced to terms of more than one

year, appealed from a district court grant of summary judgment to

defendants. They alleged that by housing female prisoners

^p

convicted of non-federal crimes in a federal prison far from the

District, in Alderson, West Virginia, while incarcerating those

who, they contended, were similarly situated male offenders in

local facilities, the United States and District of Columbia

governments were violating their equal protection guarantees,

solely on the basis of their sex. Id. at 1451-52. Like the

plaintiffs in this case, they did not challenge the District's

policy of segregating facilities by gender. Id. at 1458.

The Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's award of summary

judgment to defendants, holding that the male and female prisoners

which the plaintiffs compared were not "similarly situated." See

r

id. at 1458-59. 4/ The court stated that:

T

[t]he fact that District prison officials must make

decisions within a larger context that includes gender-

based separation bears upon and in part justifies the

policy itself. In a variety of contexts, the existence

of a classification which employs gender is justified

when it is constructed with regard for some more

pervasive institutional or social differentiation between

the sexes. As the late Justice Stewart characterized the

issue, members of different sexes, unlike members of

different races, can under certain circumstances be

situated differently for constitutional purposes. " [I]n

certain narrow circumstances men and women are not

similarly situated; in these circumstances a gender

classification based on clear differences between the

sexes is not invidious, and a legislative classification

realistically based upon those differences is not

unconstitutional."

Id. (some emphasis added, citations and quotation marks omitted).

The court concluded that

the classification at issue does not use gender "as an

r

inaccurate proxy for other, more germane bases of classification," Craig v. Boren. 429 U.S. [190, 198 (1976)], but rather responds to and entirely correlates

with the more pervasive gender classifcation existing in

both federal and state prison systems. Cf. Dothard v.

Rawlinson. 433 U.S. [321, 335 (1977)], ("A woman's

relative ability to maintain order in a male, maximum

security, unclassified penitentiary of the type Alabama

now runs could be directly reduced by her womanhood.").

Id. at 1459.

Pitts cites two significant Supreme Court cases — Rostker v.

4

It is clear that the court so held. The reasoning in the

opinion, however, appears in an unsual sequence; the "similarly

situated" analysis appears after the court states, in what is

essentially dicta, that it disagrees with plaintiffs' equal

protection contentions. Obviously, since the court found the men

and women not to be similarly situated, it was unnecessary for it

to reach the merits of the equal protection challenge. In any

case, to the extent that Pitts's application of heightened

scrutinty constitutes the holding of the case, it has been

overruled. See infra part IC, (discussing Turner v. Saflev. 482

U.S. 78, 89 (1987), and Washington v. Harper. 494 U.S. 210, 223-24

f

(1990)).

' -p
t'

Goldberg. 453 U.S. 57 (1981), and Schlesinger v. Ballard. 419 U.S. 498 (1975). In Goldberg. 453 U.S. 57 (1981), the district court found that draft registration requirements which excluded women violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In doing so, the court refused to consider the fact that women were not eligible for combat duty, id. at 79, which, like the gender segregation in this case, was not challenged by the plaintiffs, id. at 63. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that male and female registrants were not similarly situated. It found that the differing treatment was not "the accidental by-product of a traditional way of thinking about females," id. at 74, but was merely a reflection of the fact that women were not eligible for combat duty, id. at 78. Whether the fact that women were not eligible for combat was objectionable or not was not an issue.
In Schlesinger v. Ballard. 419 U.S. 498 (1975), the Supreme Court held that male and female naval officers were not similarly situated for purposes of the Navy's so-called "up or out" promotions policy. The policy gave male officers less time than females to serve without promotion before being automatically discharged. The court opined that the differential treatment was based on the women officers' exclusion from combat and sea duty, which, like the gender segregation here, was not challenged. Id. at 508. Consequently, the Navy's differing treatment of males and females for promotional purposes was not based exclusively on gender or administrative convenience, id. at 501, 506-507, 510, nor
8

was it reflective of archaic and overbroad generalizations about
T

I

women, id. at 508.

Parham. Rostker. Schlesincrer and Pitts provide the methodology

which controls the disposition of the equal protection claims in

this case. The plaintiffs, however, would have this Court follow

the equal protection analysis in Klinqer v. Nebraska Dep't. of

Corrections. 824 F. Supp. 1374 (D. Neb. 1993).

Klinqer contains no "similarly situated" analysis. In lieu of

the proper considerations, the court offered three superficial and

conclusory observations: (1) that male and female prisoners are

both incarcerated (which is a tautology), id. at 1389-90, (2) that

the populations of the two chosen facilities were "roughly

comparable," (which begs the question), id. at 1390, and (3) that

^p

the "purposes" of incarcerating male and female prisoners are the

same (which may be said of any two prisons), id..

Most significantly, Klinqer refused to consider whether there

were "relevant differences between the [male prisoners and female prisoners]." Id. at 1390 (emphasis added). 5/ As explained,

relevant differences between male and female prisoners are central

to the "similarly situated" determination. See, e.g.. Pitts. 866

F.2d at 1458-59; Rostker. 453 U.S. at 76-78; Parham. 441 U.S. at

354-57; Schlesinqer. 419 U.S. at 506-508. The holding in Klinqer

5

The trial judge made it clear why he wished to defer

consideration of such differences to a later portion of his

analysis: he believed that any such consideration would validate

stereotypical notions about "appropriate" gender roles. 824 F.

Supp. at 1390 & n. 20.

r

is entirely undercut by its omission of this vital consideration

early in the opinion. The other cases cited by plaintiffs 6/ do not use the Parham

approach to the "similarly situated" determination. They either

give scant weight to real differences between male and female

prisoners, or they essentially ignore the "similarly situated"

issue altogether. See, e.g.. Glover v. Johnson. 478 F. Supp. 1075

(E.D. Mich. 1979); Canterino v. Wilson. 546 F. Supp. 174 (W.D. Ky.

1982); Wishon v. Gammon. 978 F.2d 446 (8th Cir. 1992); Divers v.

Department of Corrections. 921 F.2d 191 (8th Cir. 1990); McKoy v.

Nevada Dep't. of Prisons. 776 F. Supp. 521, 523-28 (D. Nev. 1991).

The holdings in these cases are of little value in this case

because of such deficiencies.

T~

This Court must consider the effects of gender segregation on

all the equal protection claims made by plaintiffs — segregation

which they do not challenge. The Court must also consider the

real, non-stereotypical differences between male and female

prisoners which are a relfection of their unique needs and

characteristics. This is the heart of a "similarly situated"

inquiry. It must focus on real and relevant differences, even if

such differences are undesirable or objectionable. Whether two

groups are "similarly situated" is not a political or social

question — it is a question of factual circumstances.

P

See Plaintiffs' Proposed Conclusions of Law.

10

'"T

B. The factual circumstances of the women

1

prisoners in this case show that they are not

"similarly situated" to the male prisoners

The evidence will show that women prisoners are inherently,

apart from any action or inaction of defendant, different from male

prisoners. These differences are a reflection of the unique needs

and characteristics of these two groups. The differences require

that defendants provide specific programs and services which are tailered to meet these needs. 7/

Women prisoners have special security needs because they tend

to be less violent, assaultive and predatory than men and thus

demand greater visual supervision, with more officers supervising them both in their programs and in their industries. 8/ Women

-*r

prisoners have special programming needs because they are more

likely to be victims of past physical, emotional and sexual abuse

and many of them suffer from low self-esteem and are more dependent than men. 9/ Women prisoners have special psychological needs

because they tend to have more more acute problems regarding

7

The list which follows is not intended as exhaustive or

fully developed. Indeed, plaintiffs put on substantial evidence of

their special needs in their case and defendants anticipate

offering additional evidence in theirs.

8

The security differential between men and women requires

both single sex programming and the use of escorts in co-

correctional facilities, such as CTF.

9

These inherent characteristics are addressed by programs

in lifeskills, ETAP, violence reduction and conflict resolution,

therapeutic community, as well as the provision of social workers

~p

and psychologists.

11

r

substance abuse than male prisoners and often have histories of

substances abuse. 10/ Women prisoners have special parenting

needs because many are single parents who must resume caring for

their children immediately upon release and show a clear deficiency

in their parenting skills. 11/ Women prisoners have special

employment needs because, among other things, they lack support in

the community and many have a history of low earnings, being on welfare and being under or unemployed prior to incarceration. 12/

10 They are given a variety of substance abuse programs, ranging from short term intensive programming to intensive 18 month programs to address these needs.

11 To address these needs, women inmates are provided with classes in the American Family Literacy Project where females read to their visiting children. Female inmates may also visit ther sick children in the hospital which are arranged through the social workers. Females have three socal workers who assist in child placement for pregant inmates. Females have full contact visits with their children, learn coping and parenting skills in group and individual sessions with their psychologists and social workers and receive special prenatal and parenting classes on the preggnancy unit.

12 The ETAP, lifeskills and use of social workers provided to the women responds to the problems created by their lack of support in the community. The jobs for which they are trained would allow flexible work hours which would accommadate their children's school day.

To address their specific employment needs, women receive job

skills training in fields that they themselves prefer according to

studies which will render them employable immediately upon release

and which are resistant to economic recessions. Because female

inmates tend to have shorter sentence ctructures, the training

which they receive provides them with marketable skills during the

shorter periods of their incarceration. Females receive programs

such as computer literacy which can be completed quickly as opposed

to apprenticeship programs which require six years to complete.

Moreover, females receive programming which will render them

employable in the District of Columbia market, which emphasizes

office support, culinary and retail services and printing. The

r

programs offered female inmates to render them employable in this (continued...)

12

The unique needs of prisoners make them inherently different from male prisoners, a position which has not only been conceded by plaintiffs but advocated by them. The women prisoners are, therefore, not similarly situated to the male prisoners whom plaintiffs have chosen for comparison both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law.

C. The custody level, sentence structure and purposes of incarceration of the women prisoners shows that they are not "similarly situated" to the male prisoners

Plaintiffs ask the Court, in reaching its "similarly situated"

finding, to look only at such broad factors as comparable custody

level, sentence structure and purposes of incarceration. See

Plaintiffs' Pretrial Brief at 9-13. Were the Court to follow this
T

I

suggestion, the result would be an improvident departure from

established principles of equal protection, which, at most, would

permit the Court to consider these factors as several of many.

Defendants would welcome a consideration of these factors, among

the others already discussed, however, because, like the other

factors, they show that the male and female prisoners are not
similarly situated in this case. 13/
12(. ..continued) market include programs such as typing/word processing, computer literacy and docutech, graphic arts and printing. Boilerhouse repair, farming and other programs available to some men would not meet the special needs of female inmates.
13 Although the Court should also consider the factors already discussed, even if the Court were to focus solely on the broad factors discussed in this section, it is clear that the men and women prisoners are not similarly situated.

13

_

In the leading prisoner gender discrimination cases, the

plaintiffs did not challenge gender-segregation. See, e.g.. Glover

v. Johnson. 478 F. Supp. 1075; Pitts v. Thornburgh. 866 F.2d 1450.

The same is true here. Instead, the plaintiffs have demanded

programs, services, or conditions which they contended were

available solely, or in a more extensive manner, to prisoners of

the other gender. Plaintiffs in these cases, however, have not

been permitted to select as a comparison group the prisoners in one

or more facilities who did not comprise the full spectrum of

prisoners of the other gender having the same custody

classifications or sentences as the plaintiff class. But see

Klinger. 824 F. Supp. 1374. Rather, the courts in these cases

required that the plaintiffs compare themselves to prisoners of the

"P

other gender in all facilities under the jurisdiction of the

defendants which housed prisoners of comparable custody

classification. See, e.g.. Glover, 478 F. Supp. at 1076; Pitts.

866 F.2d at 1453; Canterino. 546 F. Supp. at 206; McKoy, 776 F.

Supp. at 533. The major exception to this rule is Klinger.

The Klinger plaintiffs selected a population of men which

excluded minimum-custody prisoners from comparison with the

plaintiffs, who were women of all custody levels. 824 F. Supp. at

1381. Plaintiffs here have compared female prisoners of minimum-

and medium-custody levels at CTF to male prisoners at Medium (low-

medium) , Central (medium-medium) and Occoquan (high-medium) (the

"CTF/medium facilities comparison"), and female prisoners of

r

minimum-custody level at Annex to male prisoners of minimum-custody

14

level at Minimum (the "Annex/Minimum comparison").

I

As to custody level, the evidence has shown that the

CTF/medium facilities comparison is inappropriate. The CTF houses

minimum, medium and maximum female inmates. The medium facilities

do not include all or even any minimum- or maximum-custody men.

What's more, the medium facilities do not even include all the medium-custody male prisoners. 14/ These men, like the women at

CTF, are denied access to many of the programs and services

available to the men at the three medium facilities. The evidence

will also show that the Annex/Minimum comparison only appears to be

appropriate because both male and female prisoners cohabit the same

facility. The comparison, however, is difficient in the same way

as the CTF/medium facilities comparison — not all minimum

^_.

security men are housed at Minimum. The missing men are housed at

CTF, where they, like the women at Annex, are denied access to

certain programs and services available to the men at Minimum.

More importantly, the evidence will show that the

classifications of women at Annex are vastly different from those

of men at Minimum. Classification is the most important aspect of

determining the proper mix of programs and services for an inmate.

The Court should consider classification, along with custody,

length of sentence and purposes of incarceration, because it

directly reflects the genuine needs of the population. Custody

level, medical, psychological and social needs, vocational and

educational requirements, and prerelease factors all contribute to

14 Some of these men are at the Modular Facility and CTF. 15

T
1
<r~.

classification. As the evidence will show, the classification of
women at Annex is vastly different from that of men at Minimum. Finally, the Annex/Minimum comparison is inappropriate because
the purposes for which men are incarcerated at Minimum are different from the purposes for which women are incarcerated at Annex. Accordingly, even if the Court follows plaintiffs' suggestion to base its "similarly situated" finding upon a few general criteria, it should still find that the male and female prisoners chosen by plaintiffs are not similarly situated.
D. The women prisoners in this case are not similarly situated to the male prisoners to whom they have compared themselves
Plaintiffs would like very much for this Court to follow most every facet of the Klinqer decision. See Plaintiffs' Proposed Conclusions of Law and Pretrial Brief. They clearly believe that the facts of the two cases are similar. To '"-•• fair, the facts are, similar in one respect: the plaintiffs in both cases chose their male prisoner comparison groups very poorly. It is clear that the female prisoners in this case are not similarly situated to the male prisoners to whom they have compared themselves.
Accordingly, all of plaintiffs' equal protection and Title IX

T
16

r

claims must fail. 15/ The Court should hold (1) that the women

15 This would include plaintiffs1 allegations of sexual harassment by Department of Corrections employees and male inmates is sex discrimination. Equal protection scrutiny always requires proof that the plaintiff is "similarly situated" to others to whom she desires comparison and who are, improperly, receiving better treatment. Plaintiffs do not allege, have never argued and have not offered any evidence to prove that, with regard to sexual harassment, women at CTF and Annex are similarly situated to men at the three medium facilities and Minimum. Rather, they have expressly limited their discussion of the Court's "similarly situated" determination to their claim regarding programs and services. See Plaintiffs' Pretrial Brief at 9-13.

The lack of evidence is not surprising; not one of the cases

cited by plaintiffs even considered this issue. See Pontarelli v.

Stone. 930 F.2d 104 (1st Cir. 1991); Starett v. Wadlev. 876 F.2d

808 (10th Cir. 1989); Bohen v. City of East Chicago. 799 F.2d 1180

(7th Cir. 1986); Poulsen v. City of North Tonawanda. 811 F. Supp.

884 (W.D.N.Y. 1993). Those cases erroneously failed to require

proof of the existence of and differential treatment of a

"similarly situated" class. Rather, they simply missed the issue

altogether or acknowledged its relevance but implicitly assumed

that its proof was unnecessary. Thus, in Bohen. the court stated

T

that "[f]orcing women and not men to work in an environment of sexual harassment is no different than forcing women to work in a

dirtier or more hazardous environment than men simply because they

are women." 799 F.2d at 1185 (emphasis added). Pontarelli said

that "[h]ostile environment sex discrimination obtains when ...

supervisors or co-workers create an atmosphere so infused with

hostility towards members of one sex that they alter the conditions

of employment." 930 F.2d at 112 n.14 (citation omitted).

There is no reason in law or common sense to assume that if women prisoners are victims of sexual harassment that either they are victims solely because they are women or that there are no male prisoners who are also victims of sexual harassment. Plaintiffs have not offered any justification, legal or factual, why they should be relieved of their burden of showing that the women prisoners are "similarly situated" to the male prisoners for sexual harassment purposes. Evidence of the circumstances of male prisoners is critical, since if some male prisoners also do not receive adequate protection from sexual harassment, then, as a matter of law, the failure to provide such protection could not be traced to invidous gender discrimination. Canterino v. Wilson. 869 F.2d 948; Geduldia v. Aiello. 417 U.S. 496; Jackson v. Thornburgh. 907 F.2d 194.

There is no evidence in this case to show that the male

T

(continued...)

17

i r

at CTF are not similarly situated to the men at Medium, Central and

I

Occoquan facilities and (2) that the women at the Annex are not

similarly situated to the men at the Minimum Facility.

B. ALTERNATIVELY, THERE IS NO DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TREATMENT OF THE MALE AND FEMALE PRISONERS AS THESE GROUPS ARE TREATED IN A MANNER WHICH IS ROUGHLY COMPARABLE AND WHICH SHOWS EQUAL CONSIDERATION OF THEIR SPECIAL NEEDS AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES

Defendants are required by the equal protection component of

the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to provide programs

and services to women prisoners in a way which is comparable to the

way in which they do this for male prisoners. If any comparison of

the programs and services offered to male prisoners versus those

offered to the female prisoners is warranted, the Court should

[

review those programs and services generally. It should then

determine whether the programs and services offered to the women at

CTF meet their needs in a manner which is comparable to the manner

in which the programs and services offered to the men at the three

medium facilities meet their needs; a similar inquiry should be

conducted for the women at Annex and the men at Minimum.

The judgment exercised by prison administrators in striking a

15(.. .continued) prisoners are susceptible to and are victims of sexual harassment
which might show that the male and female prisoners are similarly situated. There is no evidence to show that defendants give the male prisoners greater protection from such harassment by other inmates or by Department employees, as compared with the women prisoners — which might show differential treatment based on gender. Accordingly, the sexual harassment claims must fail.

T

'

18

balance between the rights of prisoners and important and
T

I

legitimate institutional concerns should be given substantial

deference by the federal courts. Bell v. Wolfishr 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1978); Turner v. Saflev. 482 U.S. 78. 84-85 (1987); Timm v.

Gunter. 917 F.2d 1093, 1099 (8th Cir. 1990). The evidence will

demonstrate that defendants provide women prisoners with programs

and services that are comparable to the programs and services which

defendants provide to male prisoners, taking into account the

special and unique needs and characteristics of these groups and

the fact that they are segregated by gender.

Defendants are not required to provide the exact same programs

and services to both men and women, to the same extent, under all

circumstances. Klinaer essentially holds the opposite to be true.

,-p

See also McKov v. Nevada Dep't. of Prisons. 776 F. Supp. 521.

Plaintiffs would have this Court use Klinger's "parity" scrutiny,

comparing each and every program and service offered to male

prisoners to each and every program and service offered to women

prisoners to ensure precise and identical treatment of the groups.

Parity scrutiny requires the Court to ask "is the delivery of that program or service to the men group 'substantially equivalent1

to the delivery of that program or service to the plaintiffs' group

of women?" Id. at 1392. Greater expenditure of money due to

"natural differences in the sexes or in the conditions of

confinement." as well the fact that per capita expeditures for

female prisoners tends to be significantly higher than for men, are

unimportant. Id.. If there is substantial equivalence between the

delivery of a particular program or service, there is parity; if

'

not, then each such distinction in each and every program or

service must be individually shown to "directly respond[] to and

entirely correlate[] with the more pervasive gender classification

existing in both federal and state prison systems." Id. at 1391.

Though Klinaer paid lipservice to the notion that programs and

services need to be only "roughly comparable," the holding in

Klinger belies its relentless micro-scrutiny of the minutiae of

prison operations. Under Klinger. if the men have a better

computer system, that violates equal protection. If the men have

longer hours at their law library, that violates equal protection.

If the men's gymnasium is open more frequently, that violates equal

protection.

/"p

Klinaer totally eviscerates the deference which federal courts

have traditionally given prison adiminstrators. It substitutes the

judgment of federal courts for the judgment of administrators.

Parity scrutiny finds no support in the precedent binding on this Court. 16/ Klinaer is a well-intentioned but misguided decision.

Its methodology should be rejected by the Court.

Alternatively, if the Court finds that parity scrutiny is

appropriate, then it should, for each proaram-to-proaram or

service-to-service comparison which it chooses to make, first

determine that the female group is similarly situated to the male

16 Plaintiffs suggest that parity scrutiny was applied in the Pitts case, in that portion of the court's analysis appearing in 666 F.2d at 1461-63. They are wrong. That portion of the Pitts decision was a straightforward application of heightened scrutiny.
r
20

group for purposes of each such comparison.
T
C. THE ONLY SCRUTINY WHICH THE COURT MAY APPLY IN THIS CASE IS RATIONAL RELATIONSHIP JUDICIAL SCRUTINY

The Supreme Court has recognized three levels of judicial

review in equal protection analysis, which are, in increasing order

of severity: rational relationship scrutiny, heightened scrutiny

and strict scrutiny. Heightened scrutiny is frequently applied to

cases of gender discrimination. See, e.g.. J.E.B. v. Alabama.

U.S.

, 114 S. Ct. 1419 (1994); Personnel Admin'r. of Mass, v.

Feeney. 442 U.S. 256 (1979); Jackson v. Thornburgh. 907 F.2d 194

(1990). Klinger essentially embraces a fourth, even higher,

parity scrutiny.

,-p

Plaintiffs urge that, assuming the Court finds that the women

prisoners are similarly situated to the male prisoners and that

gender-based disparities in programs and services are found,

heightened scrutiny must be applied. They are wrong.

In cases dealing with prisoners, the only level of scrutiny available to the Court is rational relationship scrutiny. 17/ The

Supreme Court has made it absolutely clear that a violation of a

prisoner's constitutional right never receives more than the

protection of rational relationship scrutiny, even if that same

violation in a non-prison setting would receive greater scrutiny.

Turner v. Saflev. 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987); Washington v. Harper. 494

.p

17 But see 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb (free exercise of religion).

21

r

U.S. 210, 223-24 (1990).101/8,

Respectfully submitted,

VANESSA RUIZ

Acting Corporation Counsel, D.C.

MICHAEL E. ZIELINSKI

Assistant Deputy Corporation Counsel

Civil Division

RICHARD S. LOVE

Assistant Corporation Counsel

Chief, Correct ionarT

ation Section

By: Maria Amato, BarNo. 414935 Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. Office of the Corporation Counsel 441 Fourth St., N.W., 6th Fl., So. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 727-6295
r

18 Defendants also note that District of Columbia Code
§ 24-425 does not impose a duty upon any defendant. D.C. Code
24-425.
r 22

T
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that one copy of the attached Defendants1 Trial Brief was hand-delivered on the 5th day of July, 1994, to:

Peter J. NicJcles, Esq. Caroline M. Brown, Esq. Tracy A. Thomas, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W, Washington, D.C. 20044

Brenda V. Smith, Esq.

Deborah L. Brake, Esq.

NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER

1616 P St., N.W.

r

Washington, D.C. 20036

Maria Amato, Bar No. 414935 Assistant Corporation Counsel

f'

23

Women Prisoners/DC v. DC

• ••I M •• • • • • • • •

• •

•

PC-DC-011-003

 
 Women Prisoners/DC v. DC

PC-DC-011-004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.•
Plaintiffs,

v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et aLs.,

Defendants

Civil Action No. 93-2052 JLG
FILED
FEB 1 4 1995
Clerk, U.S. District Court D:strict of Cc!u;7ibiu

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION REQUESTING IMPLEMENTATION OF MONITORING PROCEDURES
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter the attached order requiring Defendants to submit reports detailing the status of their compliance with this Court's Order of December 13, 1994. The attached memorandum in support of this motion details the current status of the Court's ordered relief.
Respectfully submitted, COVINGTON & BURLING

By: ^1/DM Petet/J. Nickles # 53447 Caroline M. Brown # 438342 Tracy A. Thomas # 435742
COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (202) 662-6000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: February 14,1995

2 -
Co-counsel:
Brenda V. Smith # 404979
Deborah L. Brake # 43 50 06
NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER 1616 P Street, N.W. Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-5160

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF

)

COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

)

et )
Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action

) No. 93-2052 JLG

V.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

)

et ai^,

)

) Defendants. )

PLAINTIFFS' STATUS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION REQUESTING
IMPLEMENTATION OF MONITORING PROCEDURES On December 13, 1994, this Court issued an Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. In that Order, the Court required Defendants to take certain actions immediately, within 30 days of the entry of the Order, or within 60 days of the Order. That Order has not been stayed and is in full effect. In connection with the District of Columbia Department of Corrections' plan to double bunk the cells at the Correctional Treatment Facility ("CTF"), Special Officer Grace M. Lopes and her expert, Jim Henderson, inspected the CTF. Ms. Lopes' report, see Attachment A, reveals that many provisions of the Court's required relief have not been implemented as ordered. Specifically, Plaintiffs point to the Special Officer's concerns with security, heating, and sanitation at

- 2the CTF. The Special Officer noted that security is a major concern at the CTF, that staffing levels and deployment are inadequate, and that escorts are not timely. With respect to the heating problems, she noted that ice forms on the inside of many of the cell walls at CTF, that there are no extra blankets for the inmates, and that infirmary rooms are freezing cold. Ms. Lopes also identifies the significant sanitation problems including unsafe, cold food, a lack of cleaning supplies and detergent, the lack of hot water, and the failure of the kitchen to pass the DCRA inspection.
In addition to these specific areas, there are other areas in which the Court ordered relief, but no action has been taken. For the Court's convenience, Plaintiffs have attached a chart as Attachment B outlining the provisions that were ordered to be in place by February 10, 1995, and indicating the status of Defendants' compliance with each of those provisions.
Despite this Court's Order to remedy these deficiencies, Defendants have not yet taken the necessary action to implement the ordered relief. Nor have Defendants filed motions to amend the Court's order or to extend their time for compliance for any of the operative provisions (with the exception of those few provisions under the purview of the Special Officer).
In light of the Special Officer's findings and the continuing failure of the Defendants to follow this Court's

- 3orders, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter the attached order providing for monitoring of the status of the Court's ordered relief. The suggested order requires Defendants to submit the appropriate reports to Plaintiffs' counsel so that counsel can monitor the status of the conditions of the women prisoners.
Respectfully submitted, COVINGTON & BURLING

Dated: February 14, 1995

Peter[B. Nickles # 53447 Caroline M. Brown # 438342 Tracy A. Thomas # 435742
COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (202) 662-6000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Co-counsel:
Brenda V. Smith # 404979 Deborah L. Brake # 435006
NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER 1616 P Street, N.W. Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-5160

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 14, 1995 I caused
a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Motion Requesting
Implementation of Monitoring Procedures and the accompanying
Status Memorandum to be delivered by hand to:
Richard S. Love, Esq. Office of the Corporation Counsel 441 4th Street, N.W. 6th Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001
Maria Amato, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel 441 4th Street, N.W. 6th Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001
Grace M. Lopes Special Officer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1130 17th Street N.W. Suite 400 Washington DC 20036
m, A

l' KKUK1VED 8 2 / 0 7 2 0 : 3 1 J 9 9 5 ftT f*26Z91

PAGE Z <PRIMTED PflGE S»»

F B B - 0 7 - S 5 2 0 . 2 8 PROM' OECLIB & WALSH

ID.2'

PACE 2 / 6

Q#icer ofthe U.S. District Court c

Q ,

for the District of Columbia

<y Oder ofJudgt Jim L Grwn

1130 17*Strut, N.W. - &ftr 400 Wmkln&m. A C20036 Qfftc* (iO2) 779-1169 Fax (202) 396- 9644

Special Offkxr
Ttmodv J. Realm Karm M. Scfmtidtr

February 7, 1995 Via **l*eop£«r
B, Lova, Bsq. Chief, Correctional Litigation 441 - 4tH Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001

FiLED
FEB 14 1995
Cio-k, U.P District Court D:-i-t; • of Columbia

Re* woaan Prisoners of the District of Colnabia Departaextt of Correetioas T . District of Golwbia; Tnaatre of theKo4x»lar Tacility y. Di»triet of colvnabia

Dear RiOc:
As you knov, porsuant to the intaria agreemant reached between the parties and approved by Judge Green, Jia Henderson and I inspected the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) and intervieved staff and inaates on February 1 and 2, 1995 in order to assess the Department's plan to double-cell this facility. Our evaluation of the double-calling proposal cnlninated in a February 3, 1995 meeting with you, John Thomas, William Plaut, John Kobie, Adrienne Poteat and Michael Hagstad. This letter sets forth the concerns Jia and I have with regard to the double celling plan. These concerns were explained to your clients at the February 3, 1995meeting and are only presented in summary fashion herein.

Jim and I toured the CTF for almost twenty-two hours during a two day period. We inspected every housing unit (c, D & E Buildings) (including random cells, toilet and shower facilities, television rooms, triage rooms, day rooms, and the satellite kitchens in D & 5 buildings) as veil as the administration building (A Building) (including the institutional records office, receiving and discharge, handicapped unit, the medical clinic, the infitaary and the pharmacy), program building (B Building) (including the school, canteen, graphic arts center, leisure skills area, gymnasium, law library, chapel and aosque), culinary facilities, behavior management unit, recreation yard

2 B - a i 1995 AT «»26291

PABE 3 (PRINTED PAGE ~ 1

a ? . " ! * WMJIT ^ B O L I B ft WAL8H

ID.S

iBSB3B

PAGE 3 / 8

Richard &ove, February 7, IMS
Two
for the behavior management unit,1 command center, central
control/ vail room, facilitiesfeanagenent,and th.& visiting ball. We also interviewed corraational, program and administrative staff as well as inmates.
As Ji» and x stated during our February 9 meeting, based on
our observations andthe interviews we conducted, we cannot endorse the Department's plan to double oaii the C T F forthe
following
security issues: There are substantial deficiencies in the
physical plant which compromise the security of the institu explained tnese deficiencies to your clients.
Heating, i£r Conditioning and ventilation* There is evidence of
a significant probien with the operations of the HVAC system. In the housing units some of the day rooms appear to be maintained at appropriate temperatures. However, virtually all of the cells we entered were very cold and the cells in proximity to the exterior walls of the building were frigid. He received corroborated reports of ice on the interior windows of some colls. He were advised that a mznber of infirmary rooms are so cold that the staff makes an effort not to house inmates in those rooms. However, due to the scarcity of infirmary bed space, the rooas are often occupied. The infirmary room that I entered was occupied by four inmates one of whom was recuperating from pneumonia. The room was very cold and staff confirmed that the temperature in other infirmary rooms was at least as cold as the room I entered.
1 We did not physically inspect each of the. recreation yards although we did observe the outdoor recreations yards.
2 As I mentioned, X contacted the Department of consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) about whether space heaters could be used in the infirmary rooas. I was advised that even if the electrical system in the facility could support the use of at least 40 space heaters, they constitute an unacceptable fire hazard.
3 I was advised by Bill Plaut yesterday that your clients were considering the evacuation and temporary relocation (to Lorton facility gymnasium floors) of male prisoners from the CTF due to the fact that the temperature in many of the cells had fallen to unacceptable levels. I understand that the cell temperature was generally in the 50 - 60 degree range. I was also advised that your clients were considering the temporary double celling of the women in the CTF in order to house them in

T-XTI

I RECEIVED B2/B7 ZB: 32 I M S AT *«-6Z91

PAGE H {PRINTED PftGE « \ M M « ,

F E B - 0 7 - B 6 2 0 - 2 1 FROMW "EGLIB & WALSH

ID.2f

JSS3S

_.„> PACE

Richard Love, Esq. February 7, 1995 Paga Three
Bet Watar: We randomly tested water in the stany of the showars and sinks in each of the housing units and found that, at bast, ths water la lukewarm.
sic* Call» Zntazviaws vith inmates aswell aswith administrative and correctional staff established that sick call has not been conducted vith any regularity. In fact, at best,it appears sick call is only conducted in each housing unit once per week. A random review of log books corroborated this problem. Even on those occasions when sick call is performed, it is performed in sooae units by practitioners who do not utilize the triage rooms. In fact, none of the triage rooms we inspected had examination tables or medical supplies. Many inmates and correctional officers reported that sick call is conducted through the cell doors. Extended delays in access to dental sick call were also reported.
Phaxmaoyt There is evidence of long delays in receiving prescription medication. Pharmacy staff acknowledge some shortages of necessary medications.
Bealth/Sa&itations There are critical shortages of toilet paper, sanitary napkins, cleaning supplies, disinfectants, detergent for washing clothes, trash bags and clothing, on at leastone housing unit, when detergent was finally provided, a floor cleaner was issued for washing clothing. There is a demonstrable scarcity of towels and bed linens. In fact, because there are no extra linens, all bedlinens must be collected, washed and returned to the unit in one day. Although not filthy, there is a build-up of dirt inmany of the common areas, includingthe showers and communal toilets, that is attributable to the scarcity of cleaning supplies,
Xaintenanoe Problems: There were innumerable inoperable showers, telephones, andclothes dryers throughout th« facility. We observed wet clothes hanging over the railing to dry inmanyof the housing units. The washing machines only appear to emit cold
cells within the 68 degree range* Bill also mentioned that the Department was attempting to secure 800 blankets throughthe Mayor's Command Center for distribution to CTF inmates.
* Women who had recently given birth advised me that they were unable to obtain sanitary napkins.
5 The D.C. Jail laundry personnel are paid overtime from the CTF budget in order to accomplish this task.

MSUEIVBS BZ/B7 2 0 : 3 2 199S AT A426Z91

PAGE 5 (PRINTED PAGE *" 1

F E B - e 7 - B 6 2 0 . 2 1 FROM. ^CEGLIE & WALSH

ID. 2 ,BS63B

PAGE 6 / 8

Richard Love, Bsq. February 7, 1995 Page Four
water* The water temperature combined with the lack of access to detergent and a fresh change of clothing/ severely compromises an inmate's ability to properly sanitize her/his clothes. There was also substantial evidence of leaking shower beds. In addition, the nurse-call system in the infirmary has been broken for several months.
Physical Plant Limitationst There are many limitations in the physical plant which are impediments to double celling. For example, in o (drag program) and S (woman) Buildings there are currently four showers, eight sinks and eight toilets for 32 inmates. If doable celled, assuming all maintenance problems are remedied and continuously maintained, there would be four showers, eight sinks and eight toilets for 64 inmates, in C (diagnostics) Building although each cell has a sink and toilet, there are four showers for 49 inmates and if double celled there would be four showers for 96 inmates.
According to measurements supplied by facilities maintenance, if double celled we calculate that the day room space per inmate in D and s Buildings would be 17.5square feet per inmate. This is far below the 35 square feet per inmate required under AGA Standards* Although the day rooms in C building aremuch larger, we visited a unit in c building that had already been double celled and had a count of 95 inmates. The day room wasvery noisy, tense, and crowded.
legal Mail/xegal calls/Law Library: According to the official schedule, each housing unit is scheduled for the law library for ninety minutes per week. There is no free legal mail available at the facility. The postage meter was confiscated from the mail room due to the failure to pay an outstanding bill in late November or early December of 1994. Christmas cards and other mail written by inmates in late November and December has been returned^ and inmates have been told that due to budgetary constraints there is no longer any free mail. There is little, if any, access to legal calls. Xt appears that all telephones are monitored and case workers are generally unavailable to process requests for legal calls.
Programs: There are no work opportunities available for the men and inadequate work opportunities available to the women. The educational and vocational training programs are inadequate and do not meet the needs of the current population. Zn fact, the

6 We saw several boxes of mail that could not be returned because the letters did not have a return address.

nbUKlVKU B2/B? EB*.33 1995 AT JW26231

PAGE 6 (PRINTED PflBE r 1

F E B - 0 7 - S S 2 0 > S 2 FROM. CEGLIE & WALSH

ID=2' BSB3B

PAGE B / e

Richard Lav*, Esq. February 7, 1995 Page Five
male population of the facility is essentially idle.7 Even if there was space available to expand programing, the physical plant and controlled elevators vould severely limit access. For example, in order to move 96 inmates from a housing unit in c building to the gymr it would take at least six separate elevator rides sine* the elevators have a 15 person capacity. Given the delays in accessing the elevators, the recreation period could be over before all instates assigned to the housing unit even arrive at the gym.
The recreation yards cannot accommodate the inmates who are currently housed in the facility. In fact, the instates in c Building (diagnostics and general population) do not have any
to outdoor recreation notwithstanding the fact that they may remain in the Diagnostic Unit forup to sixmonths,
officer staffing* The facility reportedly uses an average of 4000 hours of overtime per pay period. It is substantially understaffed and thewarden is forced to rely on overtime in order to provide coverage in the housing units as veil as the necessary escort coverage that is required for hospital trips and all inmate movement* Beyond the inadequacy of the authorized staffing level, we have concerns about current staff deployment. For example, we spent a substantial period of time on a partially double celled unit with 56 inmates that had only one officer and no civilian staff. The cellblock across the hall had a count of 20 inmates, two officers, and two civilian staff members.
Diagnostic units The inmates in the diagnostic unit are locked in their cells tventy->three hours per day. They do not have access to programs and remain locked down, on average, for four to six months. It does not appear that these inmates have any meaningful access to their caseworkers. This situation implicates Judge Green's orders in Twelve John Dpa« and must be remedied as soon as possible. As you know, the entire diagnostic process should take no more than 21 to 30 days and during this time period the inmates should have access to outdoor recreation.

This excludes inmates in the drug program who are productively engaged in various therapeutic programs throughout the day.
* Staff and inmates report significant delays of up to 15 to 20 minutes in access to elevators. The elevators are used to access program space from most of the housing units.

nr.us.lVtU 82/87 ZB',33 199S AT **Z6Z9l

PAGE 7 (PRIMTBD PftBE ' 1

PBB-87-B5 2 © . 2 2 FROM. CBGLIE & WAL6H

ID.2

SSB38

PACE 7X8

Richard Love, Esq. February 7, 1995 Pag* six
foods There are substantial delays in accessing the elevators front the culinary unit. These delays combined with the inadequacy of the current method of food distribution, results in food being delivered to the housing units and satellite kitchens at temperatures far below acceptable levels. Sanitation levels in the kitchen appear inadequate, we observed innate workers and a food steward handling and preparing food vithout gloves or hairnets. It is my understanding that the kitchen failed the DCRA inspection and is scheduled for re-inspection this Friday. There is a scarcity of eating utensils and thus food is delivered without utensils. Inmates are forced to re-use single-use plastic utensils and do not have the supplies to properly clean them between steals.
We received many complaints about the inadequacy of the portions that are currently being served to inmates. Kany inmates are also angry about the "Desert Storm11 entrees that have been served with increasing frequency due to the reported failure to pay vendors. In addition, the canteen has not received any new stock of food items since the beginning of the fiscal year (October 1994) and the inventory is severely depleted. Thus, even those inmates who have money in their accounts cannot supplement their diets by relying on the canteen.
Aooes* to Case Workers: This problem is in evidence throughout the institution. There appear to be many inmates who are eligible for halfway house placement but remain in the institution because their "paperwork" has not been processed in a timely manner. This problem, combined with recent restrictions on halfway house eligibility, has resulted in an entire unit in the drug program housing inmates who actually completed the program months ago. It iosunclear to what extent the access,to caseworker issue is attributable to staffing shortages and the crisis in the Diagnostic unit.
Visitation: The current facilities for visitation do not adequately accommodate the population and as a result the men housed at the facility receive fifty percent less visitation time than the women.
Drug Programs The double celling of the CTF would result in the elimination of the residential drug treatment program that is currently housed in D Building, we were very impressed with this
As you knew the failure to maintain oold food below 44 degrees and hot food above 140 degrees can result in a variety of serious food borne illnesses.

199S flT 662&291

Pflcij

FROM 8 C B G L I E & WA^SH

IHTED PflGB
«•'

" 3 BS8B3B

Love, B * O . y 7, X9» Seven
highly acclaimed program which represents one of the few positive programming options available to the District's prisoners. Tensions There is a high degree of tension exhibited by inmates and staff. We spoke with many inmates who are very angry about the failure of the Department to provide very basic and necessary services and supplies. In the three units that are double celled, the tension is palpable. Indeed, one night several weeks ago the inmates in three housing units refused to go back in their cells after a recreation period, claiming their cells were too cold. Luckily, the supervisory correctional staff was able to diffuse the situation.

* ***
As we explained, the limitations of the physical plant that are a result of the design of the building, combined with the scope and gravity of the above-described deficiencies, as well as the impact double celling would have on the operation of the CTF drug treatment program, have led Jim and I to conclude that we cannot endorse the planned double celling of the CTF. I look forward to being advised about whether your clients agree with Jim and I and expect to hear from you about this matter by no later than February 10, 1995 — the date by which your client's plan mast be produced.

me. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Sincerely,

ocx Maria Amato, Esq.
J a m s 0* Henderson John Tboaas William Plaut Adrienne Poteat Peter J. NNiickkles, Esq. Alan Pemberton, Bsg. Jonathan Smith, Esq. Brenda smith, Esq.

Grace M. Lopes

WOMEN PRISONERS: COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST

DATE

RELIEF

COMPLIANCE

IMMEDIATELY

12/13/94

Environmental Use cart liners or laundry bags to transport laundry at Annex and CTF (Order 11 107 & 120)

NO. See Letter of Special Officer, Grace M. Lopes, Feb. 7, 1995

12/13/94

Ensure timely, adequate, and appropriate amount of cleaning supplies at both Annex and CTF (Order 11 109 & 119)

NO. See Letter of Special Officer, Grace M. Lopes, Feb. 7, 1995

12/13/94

Provide sufficient and accessible sanitary facilities to women working at Central (Order 1111)

12/13/94

Monitor food temperature and delivery times of all meals at NO. See Letter of Special

CTF (Order 1 121)

Officer, Grace M. Lopes,

Feb. 7, 1995

12/13/94

Conduct fire drills at Annex 12 times per

NO

year, 4 times per shift, and keep written

documentation of drills (Order 1 129)

12/13/94

Conduct weekly inspections of all buildings

NO

and grounds for fire hazards; conduct quarterly inspections

o

of all fire safety equipment; and ensure that Institutional

Fire Marshal conducts quarterly inspections of facilities

(Order 1 131)

12/13/94

D.C. Fire Department must conduct annual fire safety inspections of Annex (Order 1 132)

rr~\ u-4
<—

DATE 12/13/94 12/13/94 12/13/94 12/13/94 12/13/94 12/13/94 12/13/94
30 DAYS 1/12/95

-2-

RELIEF
Programs Access to Atlantic Union computers at CTF - 30 hrs/week (Order 1 73)
Process applications for Atlantic Union at CTF in complete and timely manner (Order 5 74)
Provide women with appropriate substitute teachers during absences of regular teachers more than 3 working days (Order 1 75)
Open recreation trailer at Annex 8 hours/day, 7 days/week (Order 1 98)
Provide 2 full-time basic education teachers for ABE, GED, Special Education classes at Annex (Order 5 70)
Medical Initiation of routine prenatal care if pregnancy test reveals that a woman prisoner is pregnant (Order 1 34)
If woman is in need of emergency obstetrical or gynecological care during evening or weekend hours, she shall be taken immediately to emergency area of OB/GYN clinic at DC General Hospital (Order ^ 46)

COMPLIANCE
NO - no college classes or access since Nov. NO
Yes
NO ~ has been closed for several weeks Yes, as of 2/6/95
No routine sick call for a week at a time at CTF. See Letter of Special Officer, Grace M. Lopes, Feb. 7, 1995 Yes

Sexual Misconduct Penalties for Department Order on Sexual Harassment (Order 1 8).

enlargement of time agreed to by parties until 2/13/95; second enlargement agreed to 3/13/95

DATE 1/12/95 1/12/95 1/12/95
1/12/95 1/12/95 1/12/95 1/12/95
45 DAYS 1/27/95

-3-

RELIEF
Environmental Replace torn mattresses and pillows at Annex; conduct regular inspections of bedding (Order 1 106)
Repair water leakage from rain at Annex (Order 1 133)
Programs Revise work training guidelines and practices re: work training eligibility (Order 1 87)
Provide work training to all eligible women under the revised guidelines (Order 1 88)
Submit work training packets for each women eligible under new guidelines for work training (Order 1 89)
Recreation at CTF for women: 7 days/week, 5 hours/day. Women have option of inside or outside (Order 1 96)
Defendants submit alternative plans to Court's required provision of 2 additional program trailers at Annex (Order 1 65)

COMPLIANCE Partial: 1 inspection in Jan.; no replacements
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO - max 12 hours per week scheduled NO - Defendants did not submit plan. Two trailers must be in place by 6/13/95.

First DCRA inspection of CTF, Annex, and food service delivery at main Minimum (Order M 115 & 124)

Yes - first inspection conducted at CTF. DCRA submitted letter proposing to conduct inspections two times per year and in "sampling" format

PATE 60 DAYS 2/10/95
2/10/95
2/10/95 2/10/95
2/10/95 2/10/95
2/10/95 2/10/95

-4RELIEF

COMPLIANCE

Sexual Misconduct Develop, post and circulate DO prohibiting sexual harassment involving DCDC employees and women prisoners (Order 1 3)

enlargement of time agreed to until 3/13/95

Selection of mutually agreed upon sexual harassment trainer(s) from NIC for employees and women prisoners (Order 11 17 & 18)

NO (Defendants orally requested extension of time on 2/10/95)

Alterations at CTF and Annex to ensure privacy for women NO in living, sleeping, and shower areas (Order 1 190

Environmental

Yes

Provide vertical locker and one footlocker to each woman

at Annex (Order 1 105)

Provide 20 foot candles of light to double bunks at Annex No, Defendants claim project

(Order 1 108)

will take 135 days

Connect toilets and handsinks in Annex trailers

NO

(Order 1 110)

Programs Provide Court with plans for the implementation of an industrial program for CTF women prisoners (Order 1 86)

Stayed for 30 days (2/9/95) by order of the Court pending amendment by the parties

Provide chaplaincy services at the Annex for 5 days/week NO (must include evening hours) (Order 1 101)

DATE 2/10/95
2/10/95 2/10/95
75 DAYS 2/25/95

-5-

RELIEF
Medical Hire half-time nurse midwife and full-time nurse practitioner or physician's assistant w/OB/GYN training (Order 1 20)
Implement tracking system to insure all women receive preventive gynecological care at regular intervals (Order 1 33)
Develop written procedural guidelines to institute, maintain and follow a system to coordinate the implementation and tracking of physician orders (copy of guidelines to be provided to Plaintiffs' counsel) (Order 1 57)

COMPLIANCE "Soon" to be employed (Defendants' report of 1/20/95)
Yes
NO

Environmental

?

Findings of first DCRA inspections due to Wardens of

Minimum and CTF (Order 11 115 & 124)

- CLERK'S OFFICE UNIIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 3RD & CONSTITUTION AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001

February 14, 1995

INMATES OF MODULAR FACILITY, ET AL
v.

CA No. 90-727

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL

and

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DIST. OF COL. DEPT OF OF CORRECTIONS
v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL

Please be advised that the above entitled case is set for: HEARING

MARCH 9, 1995 on

10:30 A.M. ,at

before Judge JUNE L. GREEN in Courtroom 7, SECOND Floor.

cc:Peter Nickles, Esq. Richard Love, Esq. Grace Lopes, Esq. Alan Pemberton, Esq. file chambers

NANCY MAYER-WHITTINGTON, Clerk
BARBARA LINEVSKY By:
Deputy Clerk

 
 Women Prisoners/DC v. DC

PC-DC-011-005

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMENS PRISONERS OF THE D.C. DEPARTMENT : OF CORRECTIONS, et al.;
Plaintiffs

v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.;
Defendants

Civil Action No. 93-2052 (JLG)
FILED -

INMATES OF MODULAR FACILITY, et al.,

FEB 1 7 1995
CLERK, U.S. DlSTKiC"! COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Plaintiffs,

v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,

Civil Action No. "90-727 (JLG)

Defendants

NOTICE OF FILING
At a hearing before the Court on February 14, 1995, defendant
indicated it would submit to the Court a status report addressing
the issues raised in Ms. Lopes' letter to undersigned counsel dated
February 7, 1995. The attached memorandum from Adrienne R.
Poteat, Warden, Correctional Treatment Facility, is hereby
submitted in response to the issues raised in Ms. Lopes' letter.
GARLAND PINKSTON, JR. Acting Corporation Counsel, D.C. MICHAEL E. ZIELINSKI
Assistant Deputy Corporation Counsel, D.C. Civil Division

RICHARD S. LOVE (#340455)
Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. Chief, Correctional Litigation Section 441 Fourth Street, N.W.

6th Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 727-6295
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing was mailed postage prepaid to Tracy A. Thomas, Esquire, Covington & Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., P.O. Box 7566, Washington, D.C. 20044, Brenda V. Smith, Esquire, National Women's Law Center, 1616 P. Street, N.W., Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20036 and Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer of the Court, 1130 17th Street, N.W. , Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036 on this **-' day of February, 1995.
RICHARD S. LOVE (#340455) Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C.

Government of the District of Columbia
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 1901 E Street, Southeast Washington, D.C. 20003

Office of th« Warden

February 17, 1995

MEMORANDUM

TO

*

ional Litigation

Leflnu It. PuLwaUWarden

FILED
FEB 1 ? 1995
CLERK, US DtSTP-.C': COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SUBJECT: Response to Questions

RE

: Special Officer of the U.S. District Court

Pursuant to your request are the responses to questions raised by the Special Officer of the U.S. District Court, Grace Lopes and her Consultant, Jim Henderson as a result of a walk through inspection of the Correctional Treatment Facility.

Heatingr Air Conditioning, and Ventilation; Seneca Baianc* of Maryland reported to the facility to survey the problem of the said system on Wednesday, February 8, 1995, in accordance with a time and material Purchase Order, Fl 91086M, authorizing then to adjust the air flow to include replacement of minor parts to bring the air flow circulation flow up per minute. Also attached is a Purchase Order for the Landis and Gyr Power Company for a full service agreement contract to provide emergency repair of the Energy Management Controller Card located in the C-Building. A representative was called to see if there was any way the system could be manipulated to get more benefit of the system. (See Attachments)
In reference to the cells being cold, our first plan of action included locating and utilizing portable cots to be placed in the day room areas for inmates to sleep during inclement weather. However, we were not able to locate any, even with the assistance of the Supply Management Unit. Therefore, our next option included allowing inmates to remove their mattresses from their respective cells and place them in the day room areas for sleeping purposes. Those units occupied by females were staffed only with female correctional or substance abuse staff during the midnight shift. Inmates were receptive to the idea and no incidents were reported.
In regards to the Infirmary, Dr. Hall was in conversation with the Director of D.C. General Hospital to develop a plan to house our infirmary patients on a vacant ward at D.c. General in which we would be responsible for providing medical and correctional staff coverage. We Identified approximately ten (10) patients who were terminally ill whom we wanted to move first. There have been no inmates who have suffered adverse medical effects from the low temperature. In as much as there was not a confirmation to this proposal, in the interim, each inmate was provided four to five blankets, thermal underwear and socks. We closed the last room on the ward which was extremely cold. Additionally, we allowed the inmates to leave their doors open which generated some heat in the rooms. Additional coverage was provided by correctional staff and constant monitoring by the Shift Supervisors since both men and woman were housed on the ward.
Sick Call: Provided for your review are the sick call and dental call list for the Correctional Treatment Facility from Friday, February 3, 1995, to present that will show that the Medical Staff and Dental Staff are actively making rounds for sick calls and dental services to each unit of the inmate population. At the time of Ms. Lopes visit, the contract for Physician Assistants had expired and therefore, sick call was being provided on an emergency basis only. At the present time, we are providing Sick call, either on days or evenings, to the inmatea at this facility. The procedure for sick call requires that the

sick call request forms be submitted to the Command Center to be picked up by 7:30 p.m. daily, by the Medical Records Staff. Any forms not available at this time are not included for the next day. Once the Medical Record's clerk pick them up, there is a process whereby units submitting sick call slips are listed as well as those that have not submitted. An exception to this rule is the Behavior Management Unit in which sick call is provided on a daily basis without request. Urgent medical complaints are evaluated and determined by Medical Staff after notification is received.
Pharmacy: At the time of Ms. Lope's visit, there was no provisions for blanket agreements in place for purchasing medications. However, there is currently a Blanket Agreement # FL 58338C in place to address the Medications needed for the Correctional Treatment Facility. This same Purchase Order will address any emergency ordering of medications that are requested but are not on hand- at the time of the request. There is currently an adequate supply of medications on hand.( See attachments of recent medications received).
Health/Sanitation: provided for your review are copies of Receiving Reports to display that we have received both detergent and other cleaning supplies, linen and towels, clothing and other supplies ordered by this facility (See attached).
Maintenance Problems! Attached for you review are copies of work order by the Facilities Management Team to show repairs were made -to the Washers and Dryers in the housing units. To date, it is my understanding that there is only one washing machine that is inoperable due to the unavailability of the part on the vendor. The necessary repairs will be made the moment the part becomes available. Their are a number of Blanket Agreements in place to help assist with the problem. (See attached).
In regards to the nurse call system, this is an annually awarded contract through the Department of Public Works. At the time it was discovered the system was not working, a call was made to the last known contractor at which time it was discovered that the old contract was no longer valid and that a new one had not been awarded by the Department of Public Works. Since that time Mr. White, Acting Chief of Facilities Management forwarded a memorandum of concern and has identified a contractor A-COM who can provide him with the part needed to repair the system on sight. This company has a blanket agreement in place. As soon as the parts are received, repairs will be made.
The leaking shower beds have not been repaired. See attached response dated January 24, 1995, which provides a solution to

this problem.
Physical Plant Limitations; The ratio of sinks, toilets, showers reflected in this report are accurate if we were to double bunk the facility. If additional bathroom equipment is added, it vould require major structural modifications. This would b« a major capital project.
The day room configurations are oorreot.
Legal Mail/LcypI Calls/ J^yf library! on Friday, February 10, 1995 a check in the amount of $ 5,000.00 was received by this office and than issued to the Mail Room Officer. On the same date, the postage meter was removed and carried to the Post Office and the funding was placed on the mater. A memorandum has been generated to the population advising the* that free and legal mail are available in accordance with Department order regulations. (See attached).
Casemanagers response to inmate requests for legal calls is being monitored.
Each unit is scheduled for the law library for ninety (90) minutes per week. This limited time is to accommodate the entire inmate population. Those inmates who have pending cases utilize the Law Library clerks for assistance.
Programs; Presently, there are limited work opportunities for the men due to the efforts to ensure that there is limited contact between male and female prisoners. Male inmates are assigned some paid detail opportunities on their assigned housing units and are also assigned limited work details in the Culinary Unit. Based on the conditions outlined in the recent Woman's Prisoners' Class Action Consent Decree and the Katrina Kouser Consent Decree, there are inadequate education and vocational programs for the current population. The male population of the facility is essentially idle and are provided inadequate recreational outlets as well as inadequate access to the law library while the Institution attempts to comply with the referenced Court Orders. As per the Special Officer of the Court's report, the recreation yards cannot accommodate all of the inmates who are currently housed at the facility. However, I have attached for your review the Purchase Order forwarded for approval to install a security fence in the recreation yard to adequately address security concerns (See attached).
Officer Staffing* This facility does not have an authorized officer compliment and will need to appear before the Human Resource Management Team to evaluate and determine appropriate staffing. We are currently utilizing overtime as necessary to provide coverage.

Units As a result of a r«c*ivt oonfer«no« oall ayself, Grace Lopes and Rick Love, a plan of action is being prepared to evaluate and revise procedures currently operating in the Reception and Diagnostic Unit with special emphasis on accessing the ability of the Reception and Diagnostic Unit to comply with the stipulations outlined in the 12 John Doe Consent Decree.
Provided for you review are copies of several Receiving Reports to reflect that food products are being received at the Correctional Treatment Facility. With adequate food levels I have
directed the Culinary Staff to discontinued using the "Desert
Storm N entrees and that is to remain in place until further notice from this office. Also attached is a invoice from Crown Supply Company to show that we have received both bulk forks and spoons to meet the needs of the inmate population. Additionally, I have appointed Ms. Dorothy Martin, Sanitarian, as the Supervisor for Food Services. Ms. Martin has expertise in the area of food, safety, fire and sanitation and thus will be a valuable asset to this process. We have implemented the use of new monitoring forms for food delivery, storage and temperature control which are attached. Lastly, we passed the inspection from DCRA in the culinary Unit. (See attachment)
Access to Case Workersi This office has recently re-issued the Department Order which address casemanagement procedures and most particularly processing parole progress reports. Casemanagers and Unit Managers have signed receipt of same. Recent visits to the inmate housing units by the Warden and Deputy Warden reveal there has been some inconsistency in regard to prompt attention t o casemanagement issues. As a result, a re-audit has been directed to determine eligibility status of all inmates currently assigned to the Woman's Program and Reception and Diagnostic Unit. Additionally, supervisory staff have been directed to conduct periodic audits of at least ten(10) percent of cases on a monthly basis varying selection each month so that all cases in the unit are reviewed annually (see attached). The Deputy Warden for Programs/Support will be responsible for visiting housing units on a weekly basis to monitor casemanagement issues. Inmate complaints shall be recorded and forwarded to this office for investigation and appropriate action.
Visitation! in order to provide equal visiting privileges for males and female prisoners, two additional visiting days will be required and additional correctional coverage as well.
Drug Programs: The double celling of the Correctional Treatment Facility would result in the elimination of the current intensive Substance Abuse Treatment Services. The existing standards for treatment would be greatly impacted by the escalation of service demands.

 
 Women Prisoners/DC v. DC

PC-DC-011-006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA
WOMEN PRISONERS OP THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Plaintiffs,

v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 93-205.3 JLG

INMATES OP THE MODULAR FACILITY,

v. ,.

Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No. 90-0727 JLG

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, fit fiLL.»

Defendants.

FILED
MAR 1 0 1995

CONSENT ORDER

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Upon consideration of the parties' Joint Motion For

Entry of Consent Order Regarding Status of Mass Transfer of

Inmates to Corretctional Treatment Facility and Compliance

with the Women Prisoners Order, and based on Defendants'

representations that they have decided against the mass

transfer of inmates at the Modular Facility to the

Correctional Treatment Facility under the CTF Double-Bunking

Plan, the parties consent, and it is hereby

ORDERED that 10 days in advance of any mass transfer

of inmates and staff from the Modular Facility, Defendants

se

Sfr :8 I £66

will provide Plaintiffs with a plan demonstrating that such mass movement and staff transfers will not impede Defendants' ability to comply with the Court's Orders entered in Inmates of Modular Facility v. District of Columbia. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants will submit to Plaintiffs' counsel monthly status reports, beginning on April 1, 1995, detailing the status of compliance with the Woro^n. Prisoner^ Court Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief dated December 13, 1994.
SO ORDERED.

cc: Alan A. Pemberton COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Ave, N.w. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566
Richard S. Love Office of the Corporation Counsel 441 4th Street NW Suite 400 6th Floor South Washington DC 20001

June L. Green United States District Judge

Dateds

8

98-d

S * : 8 T £ 6 6 1 7 1 'Z

ll

III

9Ni-iana

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
•t
Plaintiffs,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ftt al..
D«f«ndants.

C.A. NO. 9 3 - 2 0 5 2 (JLG)
FILED
IW 15 1995

Upon consideration of the Defendants' Motion for an

Enlargement of Time to Comply with Paragraph 17 of the Order for

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, the Plaintiffs' Opposition, the

Defendants' Reply and the entire record herein, it is this 15th day

of March 1995,

ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED; it is further

ORDERED that by April 13, 1995, a trainer from the National

Institute of Corrections, mutually agreed upon by the parties,

shall conduct mandatory training on sexual harassment for all

District of Columbia Department of Corrections employees who work

with women prisoners; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall send copies of this Order to:

Peter J. Nickles, Esq. Caroline M. Brown, Esq. Tracy A. Thomas, Esq. Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. P.O. BOX 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566

Richard Love, Esq. Maria Amato, Esq. Office of the Corporation
Counsel 441 4th St., N.W. 6th Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001

Brenda V. Smith, Esq. Deborah L. Brake, Esq. National Women's Law Center 1616 P Street, N.W., Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20036

Grace M. Lopes, Esq. Special Officer of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia
1130 17th St., N.W., Suite 400 WWaashington, D.C. 20036

JUNE L. GRE UJS. DISTRICT

Women Prisoners/DC v. DC
HI •• • » VHIHI • • • • •
'C-DC-011-007

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.. Plaintiffs
v.

Civil Action No. 93-2052 (JLG)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.. Defendants

FILED MAR 16; 1995

CLERK US DISTRICT CO. iR' DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEFENDANTS' SUBMISSION OF THE D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS' DEPARTMENT ORDER REGARDING SEXUAL HARASSMENT AGAINST INMATES

Defendants, by and through counsel, submit the attached Department Order regarding sexual harassment as mandated by paragraph three (3) et seq. of this Court's Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief dated December 13, 1994. The Department Order was approved by plaintiffs and the Special Court Monitor and "signed by the Director of the D.C. Department of Corrections on

Women Prisoners/DC v. DC
PC-DC-011-008 1

March 10, 1995. The Department Order is submitted by the
defendants for the record.
Respectfully submitted,
GARLAND PINKSTON Acting Corporation Counsel, D.C. MICHAEL E. ZIELINSKI Assistant Deputy Corporation Counsel Civil Division RICHARD S. LOVE Assistant Corporation Counsel Chief, Correctional Litigation Sepjti'
By: Mar4ra Amato, Bar No. 414935 Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Corporation Counsel 441 Fourth St., N.W., 6th Fl., So. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 727-6295

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that one copy of the attached Defendants' Submission
of the D.C. Department of Corrections Department Order Regarding
Sexual Harassment of Inmates was mailed, postage pre-paid, on the
16th day of March, 1995, to:
Peter J. Nickles, Esq. Tracy A. Thomas, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20044
Brenda V. Smith, Esq. Deborah L. Brake, Esq. NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER 1616 P St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
Grace M. Lopes, Esq. Special Officer for the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia 1130 17th Street., N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036
Maria AmatoT-Ba-fNo. 414935 Assistant Corporation Counsel

in
Department Order Subject: Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates

Department Order Number: 3350.2

OPI Code: Sigpdture:

Chapter:

Effective Date:

Personnel Management

March 20, 1995

Related ACA Standards:

T-H-

re.

3-4268

M/vfr ] h

I.

purpose; The purpose of this directive is to estaBti^h"'""

p.C. Department of Corrections (DCDC) policy regarding sexual

misconduct against inmates; to discourage and prevent sexual

misconduct against inmates; and, to establish uniform procedures

for reporting, investigating, and adjudicating incidents of

sexual misconduct in the DCDC.

II. Policy; It is the policy of the DCDC to prohibit acts of sexual misconduct against inmates and to fully investigate and discipline persons who violate this directive. Furthermore, the DCDC prohibits retaliation against inmates who file sexual misconduct complaints.

III. Applicability: This directive applies to employees, volunteers, visitors, and inmates under the purview of the DCDC.

IV. Authority? The Deputy Directors, Wardens, Deputy Wardens, Office Chiefs, Managers, and Supervisors are delegated authority to enforce the requirements of this directive.

V.

pefinitions: For the purpose of this directive, the

following definitions shall apply:

A. Monitor - One or more members from the Office of the Special Officer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia who shall monitor and investigate allegations of sexual misconduct against women inmates.

B. Respondent - The person accused of sexual misconduct.

C. Retaliation - An act of vengeance, covert or overt action, or threat of action, taken against an inmate in response to the inmate's complaint of sexual misconduct or cooperation in the reporting or investigation of sexual misconduct, regardless of the merits or the disposition of the complaint. Examples of acts of retaliation are unnecessary discipline; intimidation; unnecessary changes in work or program assignments; unjustified

i in

Page 2 of ll D.O. 3350.2 March 20, 1995
transfers to other institutions or unjustified placement in involuntary protective custody; unjustified denials of privileges or services.
D. Sexual Misconduct - Sexual behavior which is directed toward inmates under the purview of the DCDC. This inappropriate behavior may be directed at inmates by a DCDC employee, volunteer, visitor, agent or individual working on behalf of the DCDC. Sexual misconduct toward inmates includes acts or attempts to commit acts of sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, inappropriate physical contact, sexual obscenity, and consensual sex. Furthermore, sexual misconduct includes conversations or correspondence which demonstrates or suggests a romantic or intimate relationship between an inmate and employee. Sexual contact between an inmate and employee is sexual misconduct even if the inmate consents.
1. Sexual Abuse - Any sex act or sexual touching between a DCDC employee and an inmate under the purview of the DCDC; any sexual act in which a DCDC employee participates in, compels, or forces an inmate into engaging in sexual activity.
2. Sexual Assault - Forced, nonconsensual or coerced sexual conduct, e.g., rape, sodomy, sexual touching as defined by D.C. Statute.
3. Sexual Harassment is defined as:
a. making sexually offensive comments or gestures, or engaging in inappropriate physical contact with an inmate; or
b. influencing, promising or threatening an inmate's safety, custody, privacy, housing, privileges, work detail or program status in exchange for sexual favors; or
c. creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment to an individual or to others who observe sexually offensive behavior and/or sexually offensive language.
4. Invasion of Privacy - The actual or attempted action of observing an inmate or interfering in an inmate's personal affairs without a sound penological reason. Invasion of privacy includes failure of an employee of the opposite sex to announce his/her presence when entering an inmate's housing unit.
VI. Procedures;
A. Responsibilities

Page 3 of 11 D.O. 3350.2 March 20, 1995
1. DCDC Employees - Each employee shall strictly adhere to this directive by ensuring that his/her conduct does not constitute or promote sexual misconduct.
2. Managers and Supervisors - Managers and supervisors shall report each instance of alleged sexual misconduct that is brought to their attention, including allegations that are not brought by a specific complainant. Failure to report alleged sexual misconduct shall subject the manager or supervisor to sanctions under District Personnel Manual (DPM) Chapter 16. -~~"~?
B. General Sexual Misconduct Procedures
1. Each employee who receives any information, from any source, concerning sexual misconduct is required to report the information in writing to the affected Warden or Office Chief. Each employee shall make the his/her report of sexual misconduct within twenty-four (24) hours of receiving the information.
2. Failure of an employee to report any known or suspected incident of sexual misconduct shall subject^hj employee to disciplinary action.
3. An inmate may file a sexual misconduct complaint to the Warden utilizing the DCDC's inmate grievance procedure (IGP) system, as described in Department Order 4030.ID, "Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP)," dated May 4, 1992. The inmate may -file the complaint as an "emergency," as defined in Department Order 4030.ID, and forward it directly to the Director.
4. Confidentiality
a. The sexual misconduct complaint, including all information and documents pertinent to the complaint, shall be handled in a confidential manner and shall only be revealed on a need to know basis, to include the Monitor(s), appropriate DCDC officials, and the respondent.
b. If an inmate so requests, he/she shall be treated as an anonymous informant.
c. Each party contacted in the course of an investigation shall be advised that any intimidation, retaliation, or breach of confidentiality is a separate actionable offense.

Page 4 of 11 D.O. 3350.2 March 20, 1995
5. interim Procedures Pending Investigations
a. Under appropriate circumstances and with the Director's approval, the Deputy Director may transfer or place a respondent on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation.
b. Employees who have been transferred during investigations shall not be permitted to work overtime, or work for any other reason, at the institution where the complainant is housed. Employees who have been transferred during investigations shall not be permitted to work at any institution housing women if the alleged sexual misconduct affects a woman inmate.
c. Whenever the decision is made not to transfer or place a respondent on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation, the respondent shall not be assigned to work in any area where he/she may come into contact with the complainant.
d. Transportation Officers who are under investigation, or who have been implicated in a sexual misconduct complaint, shall not be assigned to escort the complainant or escort other inmates.
e. When appropriate and necessary and with the Director's approval, the Deputy Director may transfer an inmate to another institution or make other appropriate housing accommodations. It is strictly prohibited to transfer an inmate involuntarily or place an inmate in involuntary protective custody in retaliation for reporting sexual misconduct. Each inmate shall be placed in protective custody in accordance with the Lorton Regulations Approval Act (LRAA). In addition, every effort shall be made to minimize any disturbance of the inmate's program activities.
6. Employee Discipline
a. When probable cause is determined by an investigation committee, within fifteen (15) calendar days receipt of the investigation's findings, the authorized management official shall take appropriate disciplinary action against culpable employees.
b. The authorized management official imposing discipline shall ensure that disciplinary action is proposed within the mandatory forty-five (45) day period, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, from the date the DCDC

Pag* 5 of 11 D.O. 3350.2 March 20, 1995
became aware of the offense.
7. Inmate Appeals
a. An inmate who is dissatisfied with the investigation or resolution of an allegation of sexual misconduct may appeal to the Director of the DCDC within five (5) calendar days of receiving written notice of the outcome of the investigation.
b. The Director shall respond in writing to the inmate within ten (10) calendar days. The Director shall notify the Monitor of each appeal and notify the Monitor of the response to each appeal.
c. An appeal shall not delay the implementation of authorized management actions.
8. Sexual Assaults
a. Sexual assaults shall be handled in accordance with DCDC policy and applicable laws and regulations. A sexual assault committed against an inmate shall be immediately reported to a DCDC supervisor and the Warden or Office Chief. Sexual assaults shall also be reported immediately to the appropriate law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction where the crime was committed.
b. When a sexual assault is alleged, the immediate supervisor on duty shall secure the crime scene pending action by the appropriate law enforcement agency. The affected inmate shall be immediately given the necessary emergency medical treatment, without compromising the integrity of available physical evidence, and transported for appropriate medical attention. The Monitor shall be notified by the Warden within twenty-four (24) hours of a sexual assault incident against a female inmate.
9. Counseling - Based upon an inmate's request, an inmate who has been the victim of sexual misconduct shall be provided psychological counseling by a mental health professional. Any employee who receives a report of sexual misconduct from an inmate shall advise the inmate that psychological counseling is available.
C. Sexual Misconduct Complaint Procedures (Female Inmates) [Note: The following procedures for female inmates shall be in effect if required by court order. Civil Action 93-2052 (Women Prisoners v. D.C.). if this court order is not implemented the

Pag* 6 of 11 D.O. 3350.2 March 20, 1995
procedures established in this directive for male inmates shall apply to female inmates also.]
1. Each employee is required to report alleged incidents of sexual misconduct against female inmates to the appropriate Warden and Monitor within twenty-four (24) hours.
2. The Monitor will thoroughly investigate each allegation of sexual misconduct and report the findings to the affected Warden or other appropriate DCDC official.
3. A female inmate may make a confidential report of sexual misconduct through the established twenty-four (24) hour telephone hotline. The telephone hotline shall be supervised by the Monitor.
4. A female inmate may also file a sexual misconduct complaint by filing an IGP or forwarding a written letter to the Warden, appropriate Office Chief, or the Monitor.
5. Investigations
a. The Monitor will ensure that each reported sexual misconduct complaint is thoroughly investigated and documented. The Monitor will submit a final written report to the affected Warden, or other appropriate management official, within thirty (30) calendar days of the Department's knowledge of the incident. The report will include the investigation's factual findings and a conclusion as to whether a preponderance of evidence shows that sexual misconduct occurred. Each female inmate shall be advised of her right to counsel during interviews with any investigation committee member.
b. If the Monitor cannot complete a final written report within the thirty (30) calendar day due date, the Monitor will notify the Director of this fact. The Monitor will notify the Director within eight (8) calendar days from the written report's due date, if unusual circumstances necessitate additional time for an investigation or submission of the final written report.
o. Within forty-eight (48) hours after the receipt of the Monitor's written report, the Warden or other appropriate DCDC official, shall inform the inmate complainant in writing of the outcome of the sexual misconduct investigation.
d. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of the Monitor's written report, the Warden or appropriate management official shall take appropriate disciplinary action

Pag* 7 of 11 D.O. 3350.2 March 20, 1995
against employees or inmates who are determined guilty of sexual misconduct. The Warden or appropriate management official responsible for employee discipline shall ensure that disciplinary action is proposed within the mandatory forty-five (45) day period, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, from the date the offense was known by the DCDC.
D. Sexual Misconduct Complaint Procedures (Mala Inmates)
1. Each employee is required to report alleged incidents of sexual misconduct by male inmate complainants to the appropriate Warden, Office Chief, or Supervisor within twentyfour (24) hours.
2. Each sexual misconduct complaint by male inmate complainants shall be forwarded through the appropriate chain-ofcommand to the appropriate Deputy Director. The Deputy Director shall appoint an investigation committee to review the complaint and present written findings and recommendations.
3. Investigation Committee
a. The investigation committee shall be comprised of managers who are not assigned to the institution where the sexual misconduct complaint originated. The investigation committee members shall not have been involved in any form in the preliminary investigation of the subject sexual misconduct incident or shall not have knowledge of the alleged sexual Misconduct, with the exception of hearsay. Any person who has a pending sexual misconduct complaint or any person who has been found guilty of sexual misconduct shall not participate on an investigation committee.
b. The investigation committee shall conduct a thorough and objective investigation of all allegations. The investigation may include interviewing the complainant, respondent, witnesses, and shall include reviewing all documents and physical evidence. Each inmate shall be advised of his right to have counsel present during interviews with any investigation committee member.
c. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the DCDC's knowledge of a complaint of sexual misconduct, the investigation committee shall submit its written report of findings and recommendations to the Deputy Director.
d. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of the investigation committee's report, the Warden or appropriate management official, shall take appropriate

Page 8 of 11 D.O. 3350.2 March 20, 1995
disciplinary action against employees or inmates who are determined guilty of sexual misconduct. The Warden or appropriate management official responsible for employee discipline shall ensure that disciplinary action is proposed within the mandatory forty-five (45) day period, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, from the date the offense was known by the DCDC.
E. Training - The Administrator, Training Academy, shall ensure that training is conducted for each employee who works with women inmates, and as follows:
1. Each correctional employee assigned to an institution where women inmates are housed, shall receive comprehensive instruction in the prohibition, identification, reporting and prevention of sexual misconduct against inmates. This training shall also include emphasis on the consequences for violating DCDC policy concerning sexual misconduct. This training shall be provided on a quarterly basis.
2. Nonsupervisory, uniform and nonuniform correctional employees, who are not assigned to a correctional institution, shall receive training during in-service training period regarding the prohibition, identification, reporting, and prevention of sexual misconduct of inmates and the consequences for violating DCDC policy concerning sexual misconduct.
3. The orientation and training program for new employees shall include scheduled instruction on the prohibition, identification, reporting, and prevention of sexual misconduct of inmates and the consequences for violating policy concerning sexual misconduct.
4. Wardens shall ensure that this directive is reviewed at roll call instruction for three (3) consecutive days on a quarterly basis. The review of this directive shall be incorporated in the Warden's staff meeting agenda on a biannual basis and managers shall subsequently conduct biannual training with subordinates.
5. Sexual misconduct training shall be developed for women inmates so that they know how to recognize and report sexual misconduct. Formal training sessions shall be conducted monthly for the first year succeeding the court order (Women Prisoners v. District of Columbia) and on a quarterly basis thereafter.

Pag* 9 of 11 D.O. 3350.2 March 20, 1995
F. Disciplinary causes
1. The DCDC shall impose stringent disciplinary action against persons found in violation of the directive on inmate sexual misconduct in accordance with Chapter 16 of the DPM. Cause for such violations shall be cited as provided in DPH Section 1603.1 (d); "Inexcusable Neglect of Duty11 and/or 1603.1 (p) "Other conduct during and outside of duty hours that would affect adversely the employees's or the agency's ability to perform effectively." One or both of these causes shall be cited depending on the nature and severity of the offense.
2. Managers and supervisors who fail to report or take appropriate actions when instances or complaints of sexual misconduct against inmates are brought to their attention shall also be subject to disciplinary action. DPM Section 1603.1 (d) shall be cited as cause for such failure to abide by this directive or take appropriate action. Failure to follow a direct order to initiate appropriate action by a supervisor/manager may also be grounds to charge the supervisor/manager for cause under DPM Section 1603.1 (e), "Insubordination." Further, failure by any employee to refuse to answer questions during an official investigation may also be grounds to charge the employee for cause under DPM Section 1603.1 (m), "Willful disobedience except as authorized by law." Penalties for causes not specifically listed under the Table of Penalties contained herein, shall be taken consistent with DPM Section 1618.
3. The DCDC shall impose discipline for cause as cited above, based on an administrative determination that inmate sexual misconduct has occurred. However, this does not preclude the DCDC from taking separate and distinct disciplinary measures against an employee who has later, under separate proceedings, been found in violation of DPM Sections 1603.1 (j), "Conviction of a Felony"; or, 1603.1 (t), "A finding by the Office of Employee Appeals, the Office of Human Rights, the Commission on Human Rights, or a court of competent jurisdiction in the District of Columbia that the employee has violated the guaranties in D.C. Code Title 1, Chapter 6, Subchapters I and VII, in the performance of that employee's official duties"; or, 1603.1 (v), "Conviction of a misdemeanor, when the conviction is based on conduct that would affect adversely the employee's or the agency's ability to perform effectively."
6. Table of Penalties
1. The "Table of Penalties" (Attachment) shall be used by supervisors and managers in assessing disciplinary penalties for each of the listed instances of misconduct. In selecting the

Page 10 of 11 D.O. 3350.2 March 20, 1995
appropriate penalty from the range of penalties specified, consideration shall be given to the severity and nature of the offense as well as mitigating or aggravating circumstances as appropriate. Time limits for citing prior infractions are governed by DPM Section 1608.2.
2. The "Table of Penalties'* shall not be considered to be all-inclusive. A specific instance of sexual misconduct which is not listed in the "Table of Penalties" may be the basis for disciplinary action if it is shown to be an instance of one or more of the causes listed in DPM Section 1603.1. In any instance where an offense is not specifically listed, the determination of an appropriate penalty shall be made through a comparison with the offenses/penalties listed herein.
VII. Notifications:
A. inmate Notifications
1. Each inmate shall be notified of the prohibition against sexual misconduct and of this directive. Each inmate shall be provided information on sexual misconduct and how to report sexual misconduct during the inmate's intake and orientation period.
2. This directive shall be read, explained and appropriately communicated to inmates with reading or physical limitations and shall be interpreted to Limited English -Proficient (LEP) inmates in their own language.
3. This directive shall be posted on inmate bulletin boards, placed in Law Libraries, and as appropriate, in inmate publications.
B. staff Notifications
1. This directive and any other written directives pertaining to procedures for handling allegations of sexual misconduct against inmates shall be given to and thereafter made readily available to each DCDC employee.
2. This directive shall be thoroughly reviewed and/or explained to all volunteers, agents, individuals who conduct business in DCDC facilities.
3. This directive shall be posted on employee bulletin boards.

Page 11 of 11 D.O. 3350.2 March 20, 1995
VIII. Dissemination:
A. Deputy Directors, Wardens, and Office Chiefs shall issue a copy of this directive to each supervisor and manager under their authority.
B. Each manager or supervisor shall issue a copy of this directive to each employee under his/her authority.
IX. Referencesi
A. Court Order in Civil Action 93-2052 (JLG), Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections vs. D C , dated December 13, 1994.
B. District of Columbia Government Integrity Standards.
C. District of Columbia Personnel Manual (DPM) Chapter 16.
D. Manual of Regulations and Orders (July, 1960) "Basic Regulations for All Employees,1* Chapter I.
E. Department Order 3350.1, "Employee and Inmate Relationships," dated June 29, 1992.
F. Department Order 4030.ID, "Inmate Grievance Procedures (IGP)," dated May 4, 1992.
O. Department Order 5410.1, "Procedure for Handling Institutional Persons Suspected of Committing Crimes in Institutions," dated November 14, 1969.
H. Department Order 5410.3A, "Reporting Assaults Committed on or by Residents," dated June 23, 1978.
Attachment

Attachment O.O. 3350.2

TABLE OF PENALTIES

0FFZN8E
1. A sexual assault and/or sexual abuse by any employee directed to any inmate as defined in Department Order 3350.2, Sec. V (Dl) and (02). •
2. Sexual harassment, as defined in Department Order 3350.2, Sec. V(D3) by any employee and directed at an inmate.
3. Invasion of an inmate's privacy by an employee without sound penological reasons or failure to follow appropriate penological procedures as defined in Department Order 3350.2, Sec. V(D4).

PENALTIES 1st Offense 2nd Offense Termination N/A

3rd Offense
N/A

Reprimand to Termination
Reprimand to 15-Day Suspension

30-Day Suspension to Termination
15-Day to 30-Day Suspension

Termination
30-Day Suspension to Termination

| 4. Retaliation by any employee against

15-Day

Termination N/A

| another employee or an inmate for reporting Suspension

1 complaints of sexual misconduct, assisting in to

| making such a report, or for cooperating in Termination

the investigation of such a complaint

regardless of the merits/disposition of the

complaint.

Examples of retaliation against an inmate include, but are not limited to: disciplining, changing work or program assignments, denying privileges, transferring to another facility or placing under involuntary protective custody for other than sound and supportable penological reasons.

btachaent (Continued) .0. 3350.2

TABLE OF PENALTIES

OFFENSE

1st Offense

PENALTIES 2nd Offense

3rd Offense

5(a). Any interference with investigations

of sexual misconduct.

Termination N/A

N/A

5(b). Unjustified refusal to testify or answer proper questions in an official District or Federal Government investigation, inquiry or proceeding, including the Monitor's investigation, as defined in Department Order 3350.2, Sec. VI(F)2. [Cause for charge 6(b) will be cited as a violation of DPM Section 1603.1(m).]
6. Any breach of confidentiality by any employee concerning any report of sexual misconduct.
7(a). Failure by any employee to report any suspected incident of sexual misconduct against an inmate.

Reprimand to 15-Day Suspension
Reprimand to 15-Day Suspension

15-Day to 30- 30-Day

Day

Suspension

Suspension

to

Termination

15-Day to 30- 30-Day

Day

Suspension

Suspension

to

Termination

7(b). Failure by any employee to report any 15-Day

Termination N/A

witnessed incident of sexual misconduct

Suspension

against an inmate.

to

Termination

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.. Plaintiffs
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.. Defendants

Civil Action No. 93-2052 (JLG)
FILED
MAR 2 7 1995

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendants' Submission of an Alternative

Plan to Paragraph Sixty Five of this Court's Order dated December

13, 1994, it is, this Cll day of N\TA\ r* V>

, 1995.

ORDERED: That the Defendants' alternative plan be and hereby

is adopted, and it is,

FURTHER ORDERED: That paragraph 65 of this Court's Order

dated December 13, 1995 shall substitute the term "trailers" with

"pre-engineered units"; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED: that the deadline for the completion of the

additional programming space as delineated in paragraph 65 of the

Order and the attached plan marked Exhibit A shall be extended up

to and including August 21, 1995.

'GREE DISTRICT JUDGE

Women Prisoners/DC v. DC
PC-DC-011-009

'DA
TO: Clerk, U.S.Court of Appeals RE: Cri^iHal/Civil/Migseiiaaeeua^No. #?> -.A}£)&-TITLE:
USCA No.

1. ( ) Attached are copies of the notice of- appeal and docket . f.

entries in the above captioned case pursuant to Rule F H c -J

3(d), Fed.R.App.P.

MAR 27 ft*

2. ( ) The Court of Appeals docketing fee was paid on

CLERK, U.S DISTRICT ;

3.

( ) The Court of Appeals docketing f e e was n o t paid because:DISTRICT0PC LUKit

(check one)

Appeal by the Government ' In Forma Pauperis
The fee remains to be paid and another notice will be transmitted when the fee has been paid in the District Court or Motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis has been filed.
This case was proceeding on a paid basis in the District Court but a motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis was filed and is now pending; another notice will be transmitted when the judge issues a ruling No fee required pursuant to Rule 4(a)(4), Fed.R.App.P. The fee was previously paid in USCA No.

4. (v. ) In forma pauperis motion or request was GRANTED. (See * attached)

5. (g-r) In Forma Pauperis motion was DENIED or In Forma Pauperis

status was REVOKED. (See Attached)

6. ( ) Transcript was ordered. (See attached)

7. ( ) Expedition of this case is requested by District Court

Judge. (See attached)

8. ( ) Motion to dismiss appeal . (Attached)

9. ( ) Other

United States Court of Appeals
For the District of Columbia Circuit c l e r k , , U . S . D i s t r i c - f c ; , C o u r t
MAR 2 ^ TO By-"7ft 4fj/#,/IW/WA*fs?M£\

USCA Form D USDC CO-940 Rev 6/89 e

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et aL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, e£ al. Defendants.

)
) Civil Action ) NO. 93-2052 (JLG)
FILED 1 u 1995
DISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA

THE SPECIAL OFFICER'S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE DECEMBER 13, 1994 ORDER. AS AMENDED

y-
0

VOLDHE I

Women Prisoners/DC v. DC PC-DC-011-010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF

)

COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )

et

fil*.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Civil Action

) No. 93-2052 (JLG)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.

)

)

FSLED

Defendants.

)

MAY '(1 1995

THE SPECIAL OFFICER'S REPORT O N COMPLIANCE CLERK us DISFC:oi WITH THE DECEMBER 13, 1994 ORDER. A S AMENDED DISTRfCT OFCOLUMB./

This report addresses whether the defendants are in

compliance with this Court's December 13, 1994 Order insofar as

the Order relates to the defendants' operations at the

Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF).1 In summary, the

defendants have made appreciable progress toward developing a

sexual misconduct policy but have experienced some difficulty

investigating sexual misconduct complaints from women prisoners.

The Special Officer finds far less progress in the area of

obstetrical and gynecological care where, in some instances,

defendants have not attempted to implement the Court's Order and

have made inaccurate representations about their compliance. The

defendants have made a serious attempt to comply with some of the

1 This report provides only limited narrative discussion of defendants' compliance. As such, the Court and the parties are encouraged to review the cited exhibits. In most instances, they contain detailed memoranda and records supporting this report's findings. All inmate names, and other identifying information, have been redacted from the exhibits. Upon request, the parties will be provided with this identifying information in a separate document that shall not be filed in the public record.

programming requirements in the Order but have had difficulty with implementation because of the significant limitations imposed by the CTF's physical plant and the shortage of correctional staff. Defendants' efforts to address deficiencies in environmental health and safety have been ineffective. Essential supplies frequently are not in stock, the heating and ventilation system remains grossly inadequate, and a dysfunctional fire safety program creates a major life safety hazard.
I. Background On December 13, 1994 this Court issued an Order requiring defendants to remedy constitutional and statutory violations related to sexual misconduct, obstetrical and gynecological care, programs, and environmental health and safety. Shortly after the Order was entered, the defendants announced a cost-saving plan premised on the closure of the Modular Facility at Lorton2 and the double-celling of the CTF, a facility that houses male and female prisoners and falls within the purview of the December 13, 1994 Order. On January 26, 1995, plaintiffs in this case and the Modular case filed an emergency motion requesting that the defendants be enjoined from implementing this cost-saving plan until they
2 This Court has jurisdiction of Inmates of the Modular Facility v. District of Columbia. Civil Action No. 90-0727, and oversees implementation of the Consent Decree that relates to the conditions of confinement at the Modular Facility.
- 2-

demonstrated that it would not threaten the safety and well-being
of the women prisoners at the CTF, impede the implementation of
the December 13, 1994 Order or result in a violation of the Modular Consent Decree. Pursuant to an interim agreement between
the parties and approved by the Court, the Special Officer
evaluated defendants' double-celling plan and concluded that she could not endorse it. She determined that there are substantial
deficiencies in conditions of confinement at the CTF and that its
physical plant cannot safely accommodate double-celling.3 Some of the deficiencies in the conditions of confinement that the Special Officer noted relate to the December 13, 1994 Order.
After the defendants withdrew their double-celling plan,4 plaintiffs moved for a hearing on defendants' compliance in this case. On March 15, 1995 the Court issued an Order instructing the Special Officer to determine whether operations at the CTF comport with the requirements of the December 13, 1994 Order.

II. Methodology This report is based on an investigation that began in March of 1995, including multiple unaccompanied tours of the CTF housing units, program facilities, recreational areas, infirmary, culinary unit, satellite kitchens, and medical facilities as well

/)

3 The Special Officer's conclusions are set forth in a

letter to defendants' chief counsel which is attached as Ex. 1.

4 The defendants still plan to close the Modular Facility. Negotiations related to the terms of a consent agreement have been protracted.

- 3-

as a tour of holding areas located at D.C. General Hospital (DCGH). The Special Officer and her assistants interviewed, among others, correctional officers, correctional supervisors, the warden, the deputy wardens, members of the executive staff of the Department of Corrections (DOC), the sanitarian, case workers, counselors, medical staff members, facilities maintenance supervisors and staff, recreational therapists, law library clerks, culinary staff, and members_o.f the plaintiff class. Documents and memoranda such as logbooks, complaints, medical records, institutional records, correspondence files, policies, and sexual misconduct complaint files were reviewed. The Special Officer's expert on correctional health care5 as well as the Special Officer's security and staffing expert were consulted about medical and operational issues relevant to the evaluation of defendants' compliance with the Orders issued in this case.6
III. Findings The December 13, 1994 Order sets forth various deadlines by which defendants are required to take remedial action. The Special Officer has not made findings regarding compliance in those situations in which deadlines have not lapsed.
5 The Special Officer's correctional health care expert, Dr. Robert L. Cohen, is well known to the parties and to the Court.
6 Most of the consultations with the Special Officer's security expert, James D. Henderson, occurred during and shortly after the audit referred to in Ex. 1. Like Dr. Cohen, Mr. Henderson is also well known to the parties and to the Court.
- 4-

A. Findings Related to Sexual Harassment
S3.7 Within 60 days, the Defendants shall write and follow a Department Order prohibiting sexual harassment involving District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DCDC) employees and women prisoners. The Defendants shall post and circulate the Department Order in accordance with departmental policy.
Finding; Partial compliance.
The defendants have collaborated with plaintiffs' counsel
and the Special Officer8 on the development of a Department
Order (D.O.), a version of which was filed on March 16, 1995.9
The D.O. that defendants filed did not contain all of the
revisions that had been agreed upon by the parties and the
Special Officer and did not fully conform to the terms of the
December 13, 1994 Order.10 After the defendants were advised of
this problem, they proposed additional revisions. In late April,
7 All paragraph numbers correspond to the paragraph numbers in the December 13, 1994 Order.
8 This collaboration was not required by the December 13, 1994 Order which merely instructed the defendants to collaborate with the Special Officer on the development of a schedule of penalties. The defendants willingness to work with plaintiffs and their experts on the development of this policy is commendable.
9 A copy of the D.O. and the accompanying filing is attached for the Court's convenience as Ex. 2.
10 Defendants advised the Court that both the Special Officer and plaintiffs' counsel approved the D.O. that was filed. Although the version that was filed closely mirrored the version that the Special Officer and plaintiffs' counsel approved, there were two provisions contained in the March 16, 1995 version that were not fully consistent with this Court's December 13, 1994 Order and had not been endorsed by the Special Officer and plaintiffs' counsel. See Exs. 3A and 3B.
- 5-

after further collaboration,11 an agreement was reached
regarding the terms of the revision. The defendants have not yet
submitted a revised draft. Absent the filing of a version that
conforms to the terms of the December 13, 1994 Order, the Special
Officer cannot find the defendants in compliance.
The defendants have posted the March 16, 1995 version of the
D.O. and distributed it to all employees who are assigned to the CTF.12 The Special Officer has been advised that the defendants
do not intend to circulate the D.O. to the inmates housed at the
CTF until the inmate training required under the terms of 118 of the December 13, 1994 Order has commenced.13
J4. Under this policy the DCDC has the obligation to take appropriate steps to prevent and remedy sexual harassment committed by its own employees.
Finding; No finding.
Four complaints regarding sexual misconduct at the CTF have
been filed since the issuance of this Court's December 13, 1994
Order. Three of these complaints, which were filed after the
11 See Exs. 4A, 4B and 4C. 12 The Special Officer observed at least one posted copy of the D.O. on the bulletin board at the staff entrance to the CTF. In addition, the defendants have required all staff to read and acknowledge receipt of a copy of the D.O. The Special Officer has reviewed the certifications that have been signed by CTF staff. A sample is attached as Ex. 5A. The warden has also advised staff about the D.O. at a series of staff meetings. The minutes from those staff meetings are attached as Ex. 5B. 13 The D.O. that was filed on March 16, 1995 requires the defendants to inform prisoners about the content of the policy and post it on inmate bulletin boards, in the law library, and in inmate publications. Ex. 2 at 10.
- 6-

D.O. became effective, are currently under investigation.14 The Special Officer has been unable to determine the status of the fourth complaint and will supplement this submission as soon as this information is obtained from the defendants. Because of the small number of complaints, and the on-going investigations, there are insufficient data to assess defendants' compliance with this provision at this time.
J5. One or more members from the office of Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, will monitor allegations of sexual harassment at each facility in which women prisoners are housed. The monitor(s) shall log in each allegation of sexual harassment, investigate the allegations, submit the results of the investigation to the Warden of the relevant facility and the Director of the DCDC and keep records of the Defendants' resolution of the matter, including disciplinary actions, of such claims.
56. The monitor(s) shall investigate all outstanding allegations of sexual harassment and shall submit a report on each allegation to the Warden of the relevant facility, and to the Director of the DCDC. Finding; No finding. The Special Officer cannot and should not evaluate her own compliance with this Court's Order. In addition, the role of the Special Officer regarding these issues is contingent upon the resolution of whether this Court's Order will be stayed pending
u Redacted copies of each of these complaints, and related documents provided by the warden of the CTF, are attached as Exs. 6A, 6B, 6C and 6D.
- 7-

appeal.15 However, the Special Officer has addressed ?5 and 56
of the December 13, 1994 Order in order to inform the Court of
the current status of sexual misconduct investigations generated
by complaints from women prisoners at the CTF.
It has been the Special Officer's understanding that
defendants have been conducting their own investigations of
sexual misconduct complaints concerning women prisoners. In
fact, during negotiations with the parties concerning the content
of the sexual misconduct policy, the defendants advised the
Special Officer that complaints related to women prisoners would
be investigated in the same manner prescribed in the policy for
investigating complaints related to male prisoners.
During the first week of May 1995, in an effort to determine
the disposition of four sexual misconduct complaints lodged by
women prisoners housed at the CTF since the December 13, 1994
Order was issued, the defendants advised the Special Officer that
15 On December 28, 1994 the defendants moved to stay this Court's December 13, 1994 Order in toto. Following the filing of the motion to stay, the Special Officer moved to enlarge the time within which she was required to perform the investigative functions set forth in the December 13, 1994 Order because the expenses associated with hiring staff and leasing office space could not be justified absent resolution of the question whether a stay pending appeal would be ordered by this Court or the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The parties did not object to the motion to enlarge and in an Order dated January 18, 1995, the motion was granted. On February 9, 1995, this Court denied defendants' motion to stay and thereafter defendants noted an appeal and moved to stay the December 13, 1994 Order pending appeal. The determination of whether a stay will be granted during the pendency of this appeal has not yet been resolved. On April 4, 1995 the Court of Appeals deferred ruling on defendants' motion to stay and remanded the case for further briefing. A hearing on this matter is scheduled before this Court on May 11, 1995.
- 8 -
1 I

they have experienced substantial difficulty investigating inmate complaints. Approximately 24 employees system-wide have been trained by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to conduct sexual harassment investigations regarding employee complaints. They have not been trained in investigating inmate complaints. The Special Officer has been advised that these employeeinvestigators are required to perform their regular job responsibilities, investigate employee sexual harassment complaints16 and investigate inmate sexual misconduct complaints.
The assignment of employee-investigators to inmate sexual misconduct complaints has not been centralized. Under the D.O. each warden is required to forward the inmate complaint to the deputy director responsible for her/his institution and in turn the deputy director assigns the complaint to a committee selected from the pool of 24 employee-investigators. Because assignments are not centralized, investigators are arbitrarily assigned to cases without regard to other pending investigative assignments. This has contributed to the delays experienced in resolving these investigations. Indeed, although the D.O. filed on March 16, 1995 requires the investigative committees to submit their findings within 30 calendar days of the Department's "knowledge of a complaint",17 none of the investigations of the three
16 The Special Officer has been informed that complex employee sexual harassment complaints are assigned to OPM investigators on a case-by-case contractual basis.
17 Ex. 2 at 7.
— Q —

complaints related to women prisoners that arose subsequent to
the issuance of the March 16, 1995 D.O. is even required to be
completed within this 30 calendar day period. This is
significant because District of Columbia personnel law requires
the defendants to take adverse action against employees within a
45-day time period.
J7. Prohibited conduct under the policy shall be defined as:
a. Sexual harassment which includes:
(1) all unwelcome sexual activity directed by any DCDC employee at a prisoner including acts of sexual intercourse, oral sex, or sexual touching and any attempt to commit these acts; and
(2) all unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature directed by any DCDC employee at a prisoner; and
b. Invasions of women prisoners' privacy by male employees without a valid penological reason, including the failure of any male employee to announce his presence when entering a female housing unit.
c. Retaliation for reporting complaints of, assisting any individual in making a report of, or cooperating in an investigation of sexual harassment, regardless of the merits or the disposition of the underlying complaint. Retaliatory conduct includes the following actions taken against a prisoner in response to that prisoner's complaint of sexual harassment or cooperation in the reporting or investigation of sexual harassment: disciplining, changing work or program assignments of, transferring to another
- 10 -

facility of, or placing under involuntary protective custody any prisoner. d. Any breach of confidentiality by any employee concerning any report of sexual harassment. e. Any interference with investigations of sexual harassment. Finding: No finding. Although the defendants addressed this provision in the D.O. filed on March 16, 1995, until the defendants file a final version that incorporates the revisions agreed to by the parties, the Special Officer cannot find the defendants in compliance with this provision. The Special Officer recommends that defendants.,. advise the Court of the date by which 4 final versioinj) of the D.O. will be filed and that the Court enter an appropriate order requiring submission of a revised and corrected copy by that date. '
J8. Penalties for prohibited conduct under the policy shall be worked out by the Director of the DCDC and the Court's Special Officer Ms. Grace Lopes within 30 days of this Order. Finding: Partial compliance. The parties successfully collaborated with the Special Officer on the development and drafting of a schedule of penalties appended to the D.O. filed on March 16, 1995. However, until the defendants file a final version of the schedule of penalties incorporating minor revisions agreed to by the Special Officer and the parties, a finding of compliance cannot be made.
- 11 -

59. Women prisoners shall be able to report instances of sexual harassment through the existing Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) as specified in Department Order 4030.ID. The Defendants shall strictly adhere to the Inmate Grievance Procedure and shall establish an Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee (IGAC) as required by Section VII(C) of Department Order 4030.ID.
Finding: No finding.
The defendants are not required to comply with this
provision until June 13, 1995. Interviews with the IGAC chairperson, corroborated by the attached memoranda,18
demonstrate the defendants' substantial progress toward compliance.19
flO. Women prisoners shall also be able to submit IGP's or complaints concerning sexual harassment in any form, orally or in writing, to any DCDC employee, who must submit the information, in writing, to the monitor(s) and Warden of the facility within 24 hours of receiving the information. Women prisoners may also submit IGP's or complaints to an prisoner representative to the IGAC.
Finding: No finding.
The defendants are not required to comply with this
provision until June 13, 1995. However, based on interviews with
the CTF administrative staff as well as with the CTF's IGAC
chairperson, defendants apparently have not begun to develop a
18 See Exs. 7A, 7B and 7C. A copy of the "Inmate Grievance Procedure" policy is attached for the Court's convenience as Ex. 7D.
19 This provision was also incorporated in the sexual misconduct D.O. that was filed on March 16, 1995. See Ex. 2 at 3
- 12 -

procedure for inmates to submit complaints to prisoner
representatives.
111. The Defendants shall establish a confidential hot line, under the supervision of the monitor(s), through which women prisoners can report allegations of sexual harassment.
Finding; No finding.
The defendants are not required to comply with this
requirement until June 13, 1995. The hot line has not been established.20
fl2. Each employee shall be required to report any information, from any source, concerning sexual harassment, in writing, to the Warden of the facility and to the monitor(s) within 24 hours of receiving the information. Failure of an employee to report any suspected incident of sexual harassment shall subject the employee to discipline. If a prisoner so requests, the prisoner shall be treated as an anonymous informant.
Finding; No finding.
The defendants are not required to comply with this
requirement until June 13, 1995.
J13. The monitor(s) shall ensure that each reported violation of the policy is thoroughly investigated and documented. The monitor(s) shall submit a final written report to the Warden of the institution; the report shall include factual findings and a conclusion as to whether a preponderance of evidence shows that a violation of the sexual harassment policy occurred. Within 48 hours after the Warden receives the monitor(s)' report, the Defendants shall inform the complaining woman prisoner, in writing, of the outcome of the investigation. The
20 See discussion regarding the Special Officer's role in 55 and J6, above.
- 13 -

Warden shall take appropriate action as detailed in the schedule of penalties.
Finding; No finding.
J14. Upon receipt of any allegation of an act of unwelcome sexual intercourse or any allegation of unwelcome sexual touching, the monitor(s) and the institution must notify the proper law enforcement agency. The monitor(s) shall communicate with the law enforcement agency concerning the status of any investigation. The monitor(s) must periodically document the status of police investigations. The occurrence of a police investigation does not relieve the monitor(s) of the duty to investigate.
Finding: No finding.
The defendants are not required to comply with this
provision until June 13, 1995. The Special Officer has been
advised that none of the complaints attached as Exs. 6A through
6D has been reported to a law enforcement agency, notwithstanding
the fact that at least some of them constitute allegations of
unwelcome sexual intercourse and unwelcome sexual touching.
J15. The identity of the target of the alleged sexual harassment shall be revealed only to those who have an immediate need to know, including the monitor (s) , the alleged harasser(s) or retaliator(s) and any witnesses. All parties contacted in the course of an investigation will be advised that any retaliation, reprisal, or breach of confidentiality is a separate actionable offense as provided in the schedule of penalties.
Finding: No finding.
The defendants are not required to comply with this
provision until June 13, 1995. However, it does not appear that
the defendants have developed a protocol for conducting
- 14 -

investigations of inmate complaints. Even if a stay of the December 13, 1994 Order is not issued, and the Special Officer assumes the role of the Monitor, the defendants would still be obligated to investigate complaints lodged by male inmates. The Special Officer recommends that the defendants develop investigation protocols and conduct appropriate training of investigators as soon as possible.

516. Any prisoner who is dissatisfied with any investigation or resolution of an allegation of sexual harassment may appeal to the Director of the DCDC within 15 days of receiving written notice of the outcome of the investigation- The Director must respond within 15 days.
Finding: No finding.
The defendants are not required to comply with this
provision until June 13, 1995. Appellate procedures are set
forth in the D.O. filed on March 16, 1995.21

117. Within 90 days, a trainer from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall conduct mandatory training on sexual harassment for all DCDC employees who work with women prisoners. The trainer shall be selected within 60 days. The monitor (s) if they so choose, may attend this training.
a. The training shall include education concerning the Defendants' policies regarding reporting, investigating, and preventing sexual harassment, and the consequences for violating any policy concerning sexual harassment; and
b. In addition to roll call training, formal training sessions on sexual harassment shall

21 Ex. 2 at 5.

- 15 -

be conducted on a quarterly basis for all years succeeding entry of this Court Order. rindingi Non-compliance. On March 15, 1995 this Court extended the deadline for compliance with this requirement to April 13, 1995. No further requests for enlargement of time have been filed. The parties have agreed on a trainer who has received a technical assistance grant from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). However, the $6,000.00 grant awarded by NIC will not subsidize the cost of the training required under the Order. The trainer made an onsite visit to the DOC for a three-day period beginning on April 26 and ending on April 28, 1995. She met with the executive staff of the DOC and conducted inmate interviews. The trainer is expected to return to the DOC during the latter part of May in order to continue to develop the training program. In addition to the development of this NIC-sponsored training program, the defendants have conducted roll call training on sexual misconduct.22
J18. Within 90 days, an outside consultant, mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall develop a sexual harassment training program and materials and conduct training on sexual harassment for women prisoners so that women prisoners know how to recognize and report sexual harassment. The trainer shall be selected within 60 days.
22 Copies of the shift reports evidencing the roll call training are attached as Ex. 8. The Special Officer corroborated the representations in the shift report through interviews with correctional and administrative staff.
- 16 -

a. The training materials must be included in the orientation that each woman receives upon intake or classification at each facility; and
b. Formal training sessions for women prisoners on sexual harassment shall be conducted on a monthly basis for the first year succeeding entry of the consent decree, and on a quarterly basis in all years thereafter that this decree shall remain in effect.
Findinqt Non-compliance.
The trainer described in the narrative that accompanies 517
was also hired to assist with the training of women prisoners.
Like the staff training, the inmate training is still in the developmental stage.23
119. The Defendants shall make necessary alterations at both the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) and the Minimum Security Annex (Annex) within 60 days to ensure that women have privacy in their living, sleeping and shower areas.
Finding: Non-compliance.
As far as the Special Officer has been able to determine,
women housed at the CTF have not had privacy in their living,
sleeping and shower areas because the day rooms and cell windows on the B side of E Building24 face a building which houses male
inmates who can look from a distance into the day room and cell
23 The defendants have raised significant objections to the terms of both the staff and employee training requirements of the Order. The Special Officer recognizes the defendants7 concerns and can work with the parties on the terms of a stipulated modification if her assistance would be helpful.
24 The women inmates are housed in E Building which has both an A and B side.
- 17 -

windows; male prisoners in some of the recreation yards have been able to look through some day room and cell windows into some of the womens' living and sleeping areas,25 and there has been an insufficient supply of shower curtains so that anyone walking past the shower area, or looking into the door of the shower area, can readily observe an inmate while she is taking a shower.
The defendants have corrected the problem in the recreation yard by using fencing to block visibility and access to the windows. However, in the housing units on the B side of the building, women prisoners still do not have privacy in the day rooms and sleeping areas. As an accommodation, the defendants now permit women to hang paper on their cell windows when they are changing their clothing.26 Many showers in the E building do not have shower curtains.27 After discussing this issue with the Special Officer, the defendants attempted to order shower curtains from the General Services Administration (GSA),28 Unfortunately, GSA refused to honor the purchase request because
25 This was the case in the Behavior Modification Unit (BMU) which is used for administrative and punitive segregation.
26 The Special Officer has repeatedly observed male prisoners peering through their windows into the windows of E building and women prisoners peering through their windows at the men.
27 Some o f t h e showers have m a k e - s h i f t curtains fashioned out of plastic garbage bags and cloth sheets. These curtains are unsanitary and affixed to the equivalent of a shower curtain rod with pointed metallic hooks. The hooks raise substantial security concerns.
28 A copy o f t h e procurement request is attached a s E x . 9.
- 18 -

the defendants had a substantial outstanding balance which had not been paid.

B. Findings Related to Obstetrical and Gynecological care
J20. The Defendants shall hire within 60 days:
a. a nurse midwife in a half-time position who shall provide clinical and health educational services to the entire female prisoner population; and
b. an additional nurse practitioner or physician's assistant with special training in obstetrics and gynecology to provide clinical services to women prisoners at CTF.
Finding: Non-compliance.
Defendants have not hired any additional staff and have
advised the Special Officer that they do not intend to comply
with this requirement. The Special Officer has substantial
concerns about the adequacy of the current OB/GYN staffing at the
CTF, given the findings addressed in this section of the report.

The CTF OB/GYN Clinic shall maintain its current regularly scheduled hours. Finding: No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. A clinic schedule29 that was provided to the Special Officer states that the OB/GYN clinic is held four hours per day, four days per week and that patients who need gynecological care are seen in clinics on Monday, Tuesday

29 See Ex. 10A.

- 19 -

and Thursday. Obstetrical patients are seen during the Wednesday
clinic. However, a review of the OB/GYN clinic schedule logs
from January of 1995 through April of 199530 reveals that the clinic has only operated sporadically.31 The number of clinics
held per month has ranged from three clinics in February of 1995
to 10 clinics in January of 1995. The clinic nurse informed
Karen Schneider, the Special Officer's assistant, that the clinic
was often not held due to the physician's other administrative
responsibilities.
522. The Defendants shall establish a prenatal clinic at CTF for women who receive their primary prenatal care at CTF. This clinic shall operate at least one half-day each week. Pregnant women shall not be required to make appointments for the prenatal clinic through the sick-call process, but rather, shall have scheduled appointments for the clinic.
Finding: No finding.
The defendants are not required to comply with this
requirement until June 13, 1995. However, the defendants have
reported that it is their current practice for all pregnant women
to receive their primary prenatal care at DCGH's prenatal clinic
rather than CTF's OB/GYN clinic.
30 See Ex. 10B. These logs were provided to the Special Officer's assistant, Karen Schneider, by Mary dot Thomas, the licensed practical nurse (L.P.N.) who runs the OB/GYN clinic. Ms. Schneider, who is a registered nurse (R.N.) and an attorney, questioned Ms. Thomas about whether these logs accurately reflected actual clinic operations and was assured that they do.
31 See May 5, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes relating to OB/GYN clinic hours attached as Ex. IOC.
- 20 -

A review of the medical records of six pregnant women established that all of them were regularly seen for primary prenatal care at DCGH. Although defendants have reported that each pregnant woman is also seen at the CTF OB/GYN clinic every other week, the documentation in the medical records of these six pregnant inmates does not corroborate this representation.32 There have been numerous instances when prenatal vitamins are renewed through the sick call process. This violates the Court's order and is of particular concern due to the irregularity of sick call. Review of the housing unit visitor logs in unit E-3-A, the unit which houses the pregnant women, and unit E-3-B, the adjacent women's unit, establishes that sick call is not held with any regularity and has averaged four to eight times per month since January of 1995.33
123. The Defendants shall maintain statistics on the number of pregnant women and the birth outcomes of infants whose mothers delivered while incarcerated. Finding: Compliance.
32 S e e M a y 5, 1995 m e m o r a n d u m from K a r e n Schneider t o G r a c e Lopes regarding prenatal care at theCTF attached as Ex. 11.
33 See May 6, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes and accompanying documentation attached as Ex. 11B. Interviews with correctional staff and inmates corroborated these deficiencies in access to sick call. However, the medical staff generally maintains that sick call is currently held on a daily basis in each of the housing units.
- 21 -

Although the defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995, monthly statistics have been maintained since April of 1995.34

J24. In addition to the general health interview and observation performed for male prisoners, the intake screening for all women prisoners shall include specific inquiry about her use of contraceptives or intrauterine devices, history of pregnancy, last known menstrual period, current likelihood and history of sexually transmitted diseases and pattern of drug use (if applicable).
Finding: No finding.
Defendants are not required to comply with this requirement
until June 13, 1995. In the memorandum defendants filed in
support of their renewed motion to stay and/or modify, defendants
maintained that the required information is contained in the
Health Services Intake Screening Form which is completed upon intake at the D.C. Jail35 (Jail) and the Intra-System Health Screening Form which is completed upon intake to the CTF.36
However, the inquiry about contraceptives is only contained in
the CTF intake form and is rarely completed. Both forms contain
information about the other requirements except that questions
regarding the likelihood of sexually transmitted diseases are not
contained on either intake form. Both forms contain questions
designed to elicit patient histories of sexually transmitted

34 See Ex. 12. 35 S_eg E x . 1 3 A . 36 £ee_ Ex. 13B.

- 22 -

diseases. A review of 21 intake forms for patients transferred to the CTF during the past five months establishes that there is substantial compliance regarding all inquiries except contraceptives or intrauterine devices. Only five of the 21 records noted any response to the inquiry about contraceptives or intrauterine devices.37
525. In accordance with DCDC policy, the Defendants shall inform all women prisoners of the procedure to access health services while incarcerated. Finding: No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this provision until June 13, 1995. The Chief Medical Officer at the CTF advised Ms. Schneider that a statement regarding access to health services has not yet been developed. Dr. Charles Hall, the CTF's OB/GYN physician, submitted a statement to the Special Officer regarding access to OB/GYN care and self-breast examination.38 According to Dr. Hall this statement will be included in a pamphlet distributed at the time of intake.
526. In addition to the health appraisal conducted for male prisoners, the Defendants shall conduct a gynecological examination, including a pelvic examination and evaluation, a breast examination accompanied by patient education, a PAP smear, a chlamydia and gonorrhea culture, and a serology for syphilis. In accordance with the CTF Operations manual and National Commission on Correctional Healthcare (NCCHC) and American Correctional Association (ACA) standards, this health appraisal shall occur within 14 days of admission into the DCDC, unless
37 See Chart for f24 and the accompanying intake forms for each patient, attached as Ex. 13C.
38 §ee Ex. 14.
- 23 -
•FT

there is documentation of a complete and comparable health appraisal within the previous 90 days. Finding: No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. However, in their memoranda in support of their renewed motion to stay, defendants claim that they are in compliance with this provision since the required examination and tests are completed during intake at the Jail and documented on the Jail's Health Services Intake Screening Form.39 Of the 21 intake forms reviewed, 17 inmates were new intakes to the Jail who were subsequently transferred to the CTF. Three of these patients did not receive a gynecological examination or the required laboratory tests at the Jail, nor did they receive the required examination and laboratory tests within 14 days of their entry into the CTF.40 In addition, none of these four medical records document patient education regarding breast examinations. As noted in the discussion concerning 925, above, the defendants intend to incorporate a statement regarding breast examination education into an intake pamphlet.
39 £££ Ex. 13A. 40 See Chart for J26 attached as Ex. 15 and intake forms attached at Ex. 13C. The remaining four of the 21 medical records reviewed were records of inmates who were originally admitted to the DOC in 1993 or 1994 and transferred to the CTF in 1995. Although it had been approximately one year or longer since a gynecological examination or laboratory tests had been performed, review of the medical records of these four women establishes that examinations were not performed upon admission to the CTF.
- 24 -
T r

527. The Defendants shall develop and implement within 90 days, an appropriate health appraisal form to correspond with the ordered health appraisal for women noted in 526.
Finding; Partial compliance.
The Health Services Intake Screening Form used at the Jail
contains the requirements of 526, except that it does not address
patient education regarding breast examinations.

528. The Defendants shall develop and implement within 90 days, detailed written protocols concerning routine and follow-up care for common gynecological problems including syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and pelvic inflammatory disease; PAP tests; pelvic examinations;• breast examinations; education in contraception and mammography for high-risk women, in accordance with the standards of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG).
529. The Defendants shall provide gynecological care within the time frames and in a manner consistent with gynecological protocols that satisfy ACOG standards unless a physician determines that in his or her medical judgment it is not medically appropriate for such care to be provided in accordance with the protocol, in which case the reasons for this determination shall be entered into the patient's medical record.
Finding: Non-compliance.
The defendants provided the Special Officer with a copy of
the gynecology protocol for the CTF on April 3, 1995 and
treatment guidelines for syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and
acute pelvic inflammatory disease on May 2, 1995.41 Protocols
for PAP tests, pelvic examinations, breast examinations and
education in contraception and mammography for high-risk women

41 See Ex. 16.

- 25 -

ill

have not been provided. Upon receipt of the remaining protocols, the Special Officer can retain her correctional health care expert to assist her in evaluating compliance.42
f30. At a minimum, the protocol concerning the provision of gynecological care shall provide that the Defendants shall offer and make available PAP tests to all high-risk women at CTF every six months. Finding; Non-compliance. The protocol regarding gynecological care does not contain this provision. The defendants' current practice is to refer all patients with abnormal PAP tests to DCGH's GYN/Oncology clinic. All subsequent PAP tests are conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the GYN/Oncology clinic.
531. The Defendants shall maintain a list of abnormal PAP results and, within seven days of receipt of an abnormal PAP result, shall notify the patient of the abnormal result and develop and initiate a course of treatment. Finding; No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. Although Ms. Thomas currently maintains a list of all patients who have had an abnormal PAP test and are being seen in the GYN/Oncology clinic at DCGH, she does not maintain a list of any subsequent abnormal test
42 In the Special Officer's view it would be more cost effective to hire an expert to evaluate all the protocols at the same time instead of on a piece-by-piece basis.
- 26 -

I T

ITT

results.43 Notification to the patient of the abnormal test result is not documented.
A review of five medical records of patients who had abnormal PAP test results was conducted. The shortest time period between the date of the abnormal PAP test results and the consult at DCGH's GYN/Oncology clinic was three months. One patient was not seen at DCGH's GYN/Oncology clinic until 11 months after the initial abnormal test result.44 This evidences significant deficiencies which require prompt corrective action.
132. All women who receive an abnormal PAP test result shall be scheduled for a repeat PAP test at threemonth intervals until the PAP test results are normal. Once the PAP test results are normal, a PAP test shall take place every six months. If a culdoscopy is required, it shall be performed in a manner and within time frames accepted as appropriate by ACOG standards. Finding; No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this provision until June 13, 1995. However, as noted in the discussion regarding f30, above, follow-up PAP tests are scheduled in accordance with the recommendation from the DCGH GYN/Oncology clinic.
533. The Defendants shall implement within 60 days a tracking system to insure that all women receive
43 See list attached as Ex. 17A. 44 See May 5, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes regarding abnormal PAP test results and supporting medical records attached as Ex. 17B.
- 27 -

appropriate preventive gynecological care at regular intervals.
Finding» Non-compliance.
The defendants were unable to show the development of a
tracking system to insure that all women receive appropriate
preventive gynecological care at regular intervals.
134. If a pregnancy test reveals that a woman is pregnant, routine prenatal care shall be initiated immediately.
Findingi No finding.
The defendants are not required to comply with this
requirement until June 13, 1995. However, we reviewed the
medical records of five women whose prenatal care commenced at
the CTF in 1995. Of those five records reviewed, some type of
prenatal care (i.e., sonogram or examination by Dr. Hall) was initiated within eight days.45
f35. The Defendants shall develop and implement a protocol concerning restraints used on pregnant and postpartum women which provides that a pregnant prisoner shall be transported in the least restrictive way possible consistent with legitimate security reasons. Specifically, the protocol shall provide:
a. The Defendants shall use no restraints on any woman in labor, during delivery, or in recovery immediately after delivery.
b. During the last trimester of pregnancy up until labor, the Defendants shall use only leg shackles when transporting a pregnant woman prisoner unless the woman has demonstrated a history of assaultive behavior or has escaped from a correctional facility.
45 See May 5, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes regarding prenatal care previously cited as Ex. 11.
- 28 -

Findingi No finding.
The defendants are not required to comply with this
provision until June 13, 1995. However, in their memoranda in
support of their renewed motion to stay, defendants claim that
they are in compliance with the Court's Order. Interviews with
three pregnant inmates who recently gave birth at DCGH indicate
that restraints were used during labor and immediately after delivery.46 This practice is also contrary to the CTF's draft policy, DOP No. 4950,47 which provides that only wrist
restraints shall be used on pregnant women.
The Special Officer's correctional medical expert, Dr.
Robert L. Cohen, has expressed significant concern about the use
of leg shackles during the last trimester of pregnancy. In his
view, such a practice may be ill-advised given the balance
deficits experienced during the latter part of pregnancy. The
Special Officer recommends that the Court reconsider the leg
shackling requirement.
J36. The Defendants shall develop and implement within 90 days, a detailed written prenatal protocol for women who receive their primary prenatal care at CTF in accordance with ACOG standards. The protocol shall also provide guidelines to define "high-risk pregnancy." High-risk pregnancies shall be considered to include at a minimum those women with histories of alcohol and drug abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, diabetes or anemia,
46 S e e M a y 5, 1 9 9 5 m e m o r a n d u m from K a r e n S c h n e i d e r t o G r a c e Lopes regarding use of restraints on pregnant women attached as Ex. 18A.
47 See May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes and draft DOP attached as Ex.18B.
- 29 -

older women, women with poor obstetrical histories, and women expecting multiple births.
Finding: Non-compliance. The prenatal protocol submitted by the defendants48 does
not address high-risk pregnancies.
137. The Defendants shall arrange for each pregnant woman prisoner to see an obstetrician at monthly intervals during the first two trimesters of her pregnancy, bimonthly intervals during the seventh and eighth months, and weekly intervals during the ninth month. The Defendants shall arrange for women who are experiencing high-risk pregnancies to see an obstetrician at shorter than routine intervals until it is determined that the pregnancy is progressing normally.
Finding; No finding.
The defendants are not required to comply with this
requirement until June 13, 1995. The records of six women who
were pregnant during 1995 were reviewed. All received their
primary prenatal care at the DCGH prenatal clinic. Except for
one occasion when an inmate missed an appointment during her ninth month, all were seen at the required intervals.49
138. The Defendants shall implement a tracking system to insure that all pregnant women are scheduled and seen regularly for prenatal care.
Finding: No finding.
The defendants are not required to comply with this
requirement until June 13, 1995. The pregnant women at CTF are
48 See Ex. 19. 49 See memorandum referenced in discussion regarding compliance with 522, attached as Ex. 11.
- 30 -

seen in accordance with appointments scheduled by DCGH's Prenatal Clinic. The DOC does not have a formal tracking system. When the trip ticket is returned to the DOC after a woman is sent to the DCGH Prenatal Clinic, Ms. Thomas notes the date DCGH has scheduled for the next appointment in her calendar. She is responsible for completing the trip tickets for all visits.
139. The Defendants shall permit a woman prisoner to feed her baby at D.C. General Hospital while the woman prisoner and baby remain at D.C. General Hospital. Finding; No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. However, interviews with inmates and DOC staff suggest that it is likely defendants will be in non-compliance with this requirement.50 Non-incarcerated women who give birth at DCGH are permitted to leave their rooms, go to the nursery, retrieve their infants, and bring their infants into their rooms for feeding. In situations where a non-incarcerated woman is physically unable to get her infant, nurses bring the infant to the woman's room for feeding. Incarcerated women cannot leave their rooms unescorted. According to one of the deputy wardens at the CTF who is
50 See May 5, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes regarding postpartum feeding of babies at DCGH attached as Ex. 20A.
- 31 -
1 r

responsible for security,51 two officers must be present when a woman feeds her baby because her handcuffs are removed and DCGH requires that two officers be present when an inmate is not handcuffed. Because the CTF has a substantial shortage of correctional officers, and because of the refusal of most DCGH nurses to bring infants to the rooms of incarcerated women for feeding, it appears that new mothers are rarely permitted to feed their infants during the postpartum period.
The draft policy regarding Pregnant & Postpartum Inmates52 cited in the narrative concerning f35 of the Order is inconsistent with current practices. It states that "[h]andcuffs shall be removed only if the medical staff requests for postpartum inmate in order to hold and feed her baby." Substantial coordination with DCGH will be necessary in order for the defendants to achieve compliance with this provision.
J40. The Defendants shall develop a routine visiting program for women whose children remain in D.C. General Hospital. These women shall be allowed to visit their children at D.C. General Hospital every day. Finding: No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. However, interviews with inmates and DOC staff indicate that defendants will be in noncompliance with this requirement. Of the three postpartum
51 See May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes attached as Ex. 2OB.
52 £ge Ex. 18 B. - 32 -

inmates interviewed, only one inmate visited her baby and this visit took place on the baby's tenth and last day at DCGH.53 It appears that the defendants do not intend to comply with this requirement.
The draft policy regarding Pregnant & Postpartum Inmates54 states that H[t]he postpartum inmate shall be allowed to visit with her baby several days a week as follows: 9:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 6:00 p.m." This time schedule is inconsistent with the rationale regarding security-based objections that is present in the Declaration submitted in support of defendants renewed motion to stay this Court's Order. Contrary to defendants' protestations, the Special Officer's security expert does not believe that daily transport of women to DCGH in order to feed their babies presents insurmountable security problems.
541. In accordance with the Defendants' Department Order, pregnant women prisoners shall receive counseling regarding child placement as soon as the pregnancy is known. Finding; No finding. Defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. The social worker responsible for child placement counseling is the sole case worker for all women housed at the CTF, all inmates housed in the BMU, all infirmary
53 See May 5, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes regarding postpartum visitation of babies at DCGH attached as Ex. 21.
54 See Ex. 18B. - 33 -
T r

patients, and all inmates with special mental health needs. In
the Special Officer's view, it is unlikely that this case worker
can meaningfully discharge all of her assigned responsibilities.
The inmates interviewed indicated that they had not received
meaningful child placement counseling because they were
approached by a counselor after they had made arrangements for
child placement.
J42. The Defendants shall designate a representative who shall develop and maintain contacts with licensed child-placing agencies, including the Department of Human Services. The Defendants shall provide training to its social workers on the range of options available for child placement, including third-party placement with family or friends, foster-care placement, and adoption. Each woman shall be given information about each of the options.
Finding: No finding.
Defendants are not required to comply with this requirement
until June 13, 1995. The social worker who is responsible for
child placement counseling has been designated as the
representative. A formal training program has not been
developed.
J43. The nurse midwife shall implement within 90 days an obstetrical and gynecological health education program that satisfies a recognized national medical standard. Education material should also be made available in the CTF library. The Defendants shall maintain adequate documentation on the program so that it can be evaluated by the Court within 60 days after implementation.
Finding; Non-compliance.
- 34 -

The defendants have not hired a nurse midwife to implement a health education program. There are no health education materials available in the CTF library.
544. The Defendants shall have at least one medical staff member available at CTF 24 hours each day. Finding: No finding. Defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. The physician and physician assistant schedules provide for at least one staff member on each shift.55 The Chief Medical Officer at the CTF, Dr. Taylor, has advised us that during 1995 there have not been any uncovered shifts.
145. CTF medical personnel shall have telephone access to the OB/GYN physician at CTF during evening and weekend hours. Finding: No finding. Defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. Dr. Hall, the obstetrician/gynecologist assigned to the CTF, works 20 hours per week. He is on call at all other times unless he is out of town. His beeper number is posted in the doctors' office. There is no system for coverage when he is out of town.
546. If a woman prisoner is in need of emergency obstetrical or gynecological care during evening or weekend hours, she shall be taken immediately to the emergency area in the OB/GYN clinic at D.C. General Hospital, unless employees providing obstetrical and/or gynecological care at D.C. General Hospital determine
55 See Exs. 22A and 22B.
- 35 -

that the main emergency room at D.C. General Hospital would be more medically appropriate. Finding: No finding. Defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. According to the defendants, the current procedure is to take pregnant women in need of emergency care to the emergency room if a woman is pregnant less than 20 weeks and to the OB admitting office if a woman is 20 weeks pregnant or more.
547. The Defendants shall provide each woman prisoner who is discharged from custody with the following:
a. a supply of essential medications that will last until she may be reasonably expected to obtain necessary follow-up care in her community; and b. referrals to services in the community to insure continuity of care. rindingt No finding. Defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. The Chief Medical Officer advised us that the physician assigned to medically clear an inmate prior to release is responsible for medication and referrals. She also told us that this physician completes the Community Correctional Center Medical Referral form56 which is filed in the medical record.

56 See Ex. 23A.

- 36 -

The defendants have had substantial difficulty maintaining their inventories of prescription medication.57 If these difficulties continue, it is likely the defendants will not be able to achieve compliance with this provision.

148. If a woman is released prior to the time that results of any gynecological or obstetrical tests are received by CTF medical personnel, the Defendants shall forward the test results to her last known mailing address.
Finding; No finding.
The defendants are not required to comply with this
requirement until June 13, 1995. From conversations with medical
records staff, it appears as if a procedure has been designed to
comply with this requirement.58

f49. The Defendants shall provide sufficient resources to insure that prisoners are transported to medical appointments in a timely fashion, including a sufficient number of security staff to transport prisoners, appropriate and sufficient transport vehicles, and appropriate waiting areas.

150.

The Defendants shall modify their

transportation procedures so that the transportation

system alone does not cause women prisoners to wait for

more than one hour at D.C. General Hospital before

receiving medical care.

Findingt No finding.

57 See Ex. 23B.
58 See May 8, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes attached as Ex. 24.
- 37 -

The defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. By defendants' own admission, CTF has insufficient staff to accommodate defendants' medical transport needs.59
151. If a woman prisoner misses a medical appointment for any reason, the Defendants shall reschedule the appointment for the earliest available date. The Defendants shall use their best efforts to insure that the rescheduled appointment occurs within a medically appropriate period of time. Finding: No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. The staff member at the CTF responsible for scheduling the DCGH appointments has advised us that it has not been difficult to promptly reschedule clinic appointments.^
552. The Defendants shall comply fully with all provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding between the DCDC and D.C. General Hospital. Finding; No finding.
59 See memorandum regarding prenatal care attached as Ex. 11 which notes a situation in which an inmate refused to be transported to DCGH after waiting in the Receiving and Discharge holding cells for two hours.
60 See May 8, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes regarding rescheduling of clinic appointments attached as Ex. 25. See also OB/GYN clinic log of April 19, 1995 attached as Ex. 10B. The log indicates that all clinic visits were canceled due to a lockdown. Ex. 10B contains all clinic log sheets from April of 1995. A review of the subsequent log sheets shows that the eight women whose appointments were canceled were not rescheduled during the month of April 1995.
- 38 -
II

Defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. A review of the Memorandum of Understanding and the security agreement and hospital regulation,61 which appear to be incorporated into the Memorandum, raises several concerns regarding access to information, use of restraints and patient confidentiality.
Section II A 3 of the Memorandum of Understanding requires that the agencies establish an access system for medical information. Interviews with CTF staff and review of medical records establish that there is no actual system in place.62
Section A 2 of the document entitled "Security Agreement" requires that escorted prisoners inside DCGH must be held in full restraints (leg irons, waist chain and handcuffs) at all times except when an extreme medical necessity requires removal or restraints are reduced by DCGH, the on-site supervisor for the Lorton Transport Unit or a higher authority within the DOC. This agreement is inconsistent with the Order of December 13, 1994 and the defendants' draft policy regarding pregnant and postpartum inmates.a
Section A 4 of the "Security Agreement" requires that escort personnel remain with the prisoner at all times at DCGH. Interviews with CTF staff and inmates confirm that a correctional
61 Attached as Ex. 26A. 62 See May 8, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes regarding obtaining medical information regarding DOC patients from DCGH attached as Ex. 26B. 63 A t t a c h e d a s E x . 1 8 B .
- 39 -

officer remains in the room with an inmate during all medical interviews, treatments and procedures, including labor and delivery. This practice creates a substantial violation of confidentiality which should be promptly resolved.64
553. The Defendants shall assign a physician, or a member of the medical staff at CTF, who provides obstetrical or gynecological care, to serve as a liaison between CTF medical personnel and D.C. General Hospital. Finding: No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. However, defendants claim Ms. Thomas is the nursing liaison and Dr. Charles Hall is the medical liaison.
554. The Defendants shall maintain the content of each medical record in an orderly and confidential manner. Finding: No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. The medical records we reviewed appeared to be maintained in an orderly fashion. The Special Officer was unable to confirm the reported practice that the medical records are secured in a plastic bag prior to transfer. However, a review of medical records showed that the old consult form65 is used for off-site specialty referrals. This form fails to provide confidentiality. Medical information appears on
64 The Special Officer was unaware of this practice which violates orders in related litigation before this Court.
65 Sse J56. - 40 -

the face of the form, fully visible by non-medical correctional personnel during innate transfers.

J55.

For all pregnant women prisoners, the

Defendants shall maintain a medical chart on the POPRAS

form pregnancy chart, or an equivalent form, together

with a regular medical chart. All medical visits to or

by the responsible physician or primary healthcare

provider, orders for laboratory tests, laboratory test

results and other notes and orders relating to the

medical care of pregnant women prisoners shall be

recorded on the POPRAS form or consultation form.

Finding: No finding.

The defendants are not required to comply with this

requirement until June 13, 1995. In their renewed motion to

stay, defendants have claimed that the method of charting used by

the DOC, i.e., the master problem list and the problem oriented SOAP method, was comparable to the POPRAS forms.66 However, on

May 2, 1995, Dr. Hall advised Ms. Schneider that defendants were using the ACOG form.67 Dr. Cohen, the Special Officer's

correctional medical expert, reviewed both the POPRAS form and

the ACOG form. It is his opinion that the POPRAS and ACOG forms

are equivalent. However, Dr. Cohen has advised the Special

Officer that the POPRAS and the problem oriented system are not

equivalent.

556. The Defendants shall develop and implement within 90 days, a new consultation form that provides adequate clinical information to D.C. General Hospital
66 T h e PROPRAS forms a r e attached a s E x . 2 7 A . 67 A t t a c h e d a s E x . 2 7 B .
- 41 -

• •,

and insures that adequate information is provided by D.C. General Hospital to CTF medical personnel.
Finding: Non-compliance. Although a new consultation form68 is used at other DOC
facilities, it is not being used at the CTF, according to medical staff.69 Review of numerous medical records verified this
practice.
157. The Defendants shall institute, maintain and follow a system to coordinate the implementation and tracking of physician orders so that gynecological and obstetrical care will be provided within a timely fashion. The system shall coordinate all orders regardless of whether the physician orders are to be filled inside or outside the facility. This system shall be reflected in written procedural guidelines, a copy of which shall be provided to counsel for Plaintiffs within 60 days. Orders for medication are not to be tracked under this system.
Finding: Non-compliance.
According to the CTF's OB/GYN nurse, there is no tracking
system for physician orders. Written procedural guidelines have
not been developed.
558. Documentation shall be required whenever CTF medical staff elect not to follow the instructions of a consulting physician at D.C. General Hospital or elsewhere. This documentation should include the justification for not providing the therapy ordered. Only medically-based justifications shall be permissible.
Finding; No finding.
68 Attached as E x .28A.
69 T h e o l d form t h a t is c u r r e n t l y u s e d a t C T F i s a t t a c h e d a s Ex. 28B.
- 42 -

The defendants are not required to comply with this provisions until June 13, 1995. According to the CTF staff, orders from a consulting physician are not followed primarily because of shortages of recommended medication in the DOC pharmacy.n
J59. For all women prisoners who are discharged from D.C. General Hospital or other medical facilities to CTF, CTF medical personnel shall promptly obtain a discharge summary and maintain the summary in the prisoner's medical record. Finding: No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. As noted in the discussion regarding compliance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the DOC and DCGH in J52, there are significant deficiencies with access to information.71
560. Prisoners shall receive notice of results of laboratory or diagnostic tests which are of no clinical significance within seven calendar days of the date the facility receives the results of such test. Finding; No finding.
70 See May 8, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes and supporting medical records attached as Ex. 29.
71 See May 8, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes attached as Ex. 26B.
- 43 -

Defendants are not required to comply with this requirement
until June 13, 1995. It does not appear that defendants intend
to comply with this requirement.72
J61. In the case of non-emergency abnormal laboratory or diagnostic test results of clinical significance, the prisoner will be seen by the ordering physician, or if that physician is unavailable, by the Medical Officer, within 24 hours of the time the facility receives the results of such test. At such time the physician will explain the result to the patient and order such follow-up care as is appropriate.
Finding: No finding.
Defendants are not required to comply with this requirement
until June 13, 1995. It does not appear that defendants plan to
comply with this requirement.73
562. The Defendants shall require a woman prisoner who refuses medical care to do so in the presence of a licensed medical staff member who can answer the patient's questions and counsel the patient concerning the consequences of a refusal. In accordance with DCDC policy regarding quality assurance, the reasons for refusal shall be analyzed regularly as part of a comprehensive and up-to-date quality assurance program. This quality assurance activity shall be documented.
This paragraph was modified on March 15, 1995 as follows:
562. The Defendants shall require a woman prisoner who refuses medical care relating to obstetrical and/or gynecological care to be referred by two business days to a licensed medical staff member who can answer the
72 See May 8, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes attached as Ex. 30. The defendants have raised significant concerns about this provision which should be addressed. The Special Officer is available to work with the parties in an effort to resolve defendants7 concerns.
73 See Ex. 30.
- 44 -

patient's questions and counsel the patient concerning the consequences of refusal. If the prisoner refuses in the presence of an appropriate medical staff member, the prisoner will be counseled immediately by that health care provider. Medical care, for the purposes of this paragraph, shall be defined as treatment, procedures, test or consultations ordered or referred by a health care provider. Until such time that a comprehensive and up-to-date quality assurance program is implemented for the D.C. Department of Corrections system-wide, Defendants will maintain a record of the refusals, that shall include the basis for the refusal, and follow-up consultation. The reasons for refusal shall be analyzed as part of the monthly reporting procedures by the Chief Medical Officer. When the system-wide quality assurance program is in place, the reasons for refusal shall be analyzed regularly as part of this comprehensive and up to date quality assurance program. This quality assurance activity shall be documented.
Finding; No finding.
Defendants are not required to comply with this requirement
until June 13, 1995. The defendants have admitted that there are
no written guidelines for the medical staff74 or the
correctional staff75 regarding the procedure to be followed when
an inmate refuses medical care. The defendants have also
admitted that they do not currently maintain the required record
of refusals.
C. Findings Concerning Program Evaluation
f 163.\ The Defendants shall provide diagnostic evaluations for women prisoners similar to those currently provided for men in the Reception and Diagnostic Unit at CTF to determine women prisoners' needs, interests, and requirements for increased programs
74 See May 8, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes attached as Ex. 31A.
75 See May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes attached as Ex. 3IB.
- 45 -

and opportunities in academic and higher education, vocation, work, religion and recreation. The procedure for the needs assessment shall be done by an approved scientific method. These evaluations shall be completed within 30-45 days of a female prisoner's transfer to CTF or the Annex. The evaluations shall include educational testing, vocational testing and psychological testing. The Defendants shall provide women with the appropriate programming called for by this evaluation within 60 days of their arrival at the facility.
The parties jointly moved to modify this provision and on
March 15, 1995 an Order modified this requirement as follows:
f63. The Defendants shall provide diagnostic evaluations for adult women prisoners who are sentenced felons and at least one year from their parole eligibility date, equivalent to those currently provided for men held in the Reception and Diagnostic Unit at the CTF, to determine women prisoners7 needs, interest, and requirements for increased programs and opportunities in academic and higher education, vocation, work, religion and recreation. The procedure for the needs assessment shall be done by an approved scientific method. These evaluations shall be completed in a manner and time frame equivalent to the males in the diagnostic unit, but shall not exceed 120 days from the date of the female prisoner's transfer to CTF or the Annex. The evaluations shall include educational, vocational and psychological testing. The Defendants shall provide women with the appropriate available programming called for by this evaluation within 30 days of completion of the Diagnostic Evaluation.
Finding: No finding.
The defendants are not required to comply with this
provision until June 13, 1995.76 There have been well-
documented and long-standing delays in processing inmates in the

76 In their most recent compliance report, defendants claim they are non-compliant. The relevant pages from this report are attached as Ex. 32A.
- 46 -

l T

rrr

Reception and Diagnostic Unit.77 Many of these deficiencies
touch on the Court's orders in related litigation.78 In an
effort to address some of the staffing deficiencies that have
contributed to the backlog in the Diagnostic Unit,79 the
defendants recently authorized overtime for psychologists. They
have also attempted to recruit psychologists throughout the
system to work in the Diagnostic Unit on an overtime basis.80
In addition, short-term contracts for two psychologists have also
been authorized.81
f64. TheDefendants shall coordinate the scheduling of academic educational classes, higher education classes, vocational training, recreation time and activities, lawlibrary hours, andwork in prison details for women in such a manner as to maximize women prisoners' participation in as many areas as possible.
Finding: No finding.
77 S e e E x . 1. Various memoranda addressing t h e backlog problem and describing the Diagnostic Unit as "in crisis" are attached as Exs. 32B,32C and 32D.
78 See Ex. 32E which sets forth the Special Officer's concerns about violations of the Twelve John Does Decree directly related to the deficiencies in the operation of the Reception and Diagnostic Unit. Over two months have elapsed and the Special Officer has not yet been provided with a corrective action plan.
79 T h e r e is e v i d e n c e w h i c h suggests that t h e d e f e n d a n t s have focused their attention on evaluating the deficiencies in the Diagnostic Unit after the issuance of the Special Officer's February 7, 1995 recommendations on double-celling (Ex. 1) which identified serious deficiencies in the operation of the Diagnostic Unit. See Exs. 32F and 32G.
80 S e e t h e April 1 4 , 1995 memorandum from t h e Acting Executive Deputy Director to all DOC wardens attached as Ex. 32H.
81 gee Ex. 321.
- 47 -

The defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. They have contracted82 for two core introductory higher education classes through the University of the District of Columbia. These classes are scheduled to begin on May 30, 1995 and will be held on Monday, Wednesday and Friday evenings from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. According to CTF educational staff, approximately 120 women were screened for the higher education program and only 30 were eligible to enroll in these higher education classes. There are currently 140 women enrolled in the academic school which offers adult basic education (ABE) and general equivalency high school certification (GED). ABE and GED classes are scheduled five days per week from 8:00 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. for women and in the afternoons for men.83 The vocational classes,84 which have a total enrollment of approximately 80 women, are also offered during weekday mornings for the women85 and during the afternoons for the men.86 The women are scheduled for the law library twice per week. Library sessions are two hours each.87 Outdoor and
82 The Special Officer has been unable to obtain a copy of the contract.
83 The academic school schedule is attached as Ex. 33A. 84 This includes sewing, typing, graphic arts, computer literacy, and professional housekeeping. 85 Graphic arts is the only vocational class that is offered for the women in the afternoons. 86 T h e v o c a t i o n a l schedule is attached a s E x . 3 3 B . 87 A copy of t h e library schedule is attached a s E x . 3 3 C .
- 48 -

indoor recreation for the women is scheduled in the afternoons.88 The scheduling of details varies according to the nature of the position.
166. The Defendants shall develop and implement quality assurance programs for monitoring program delivery to ensure the continued provision of equal and adequate programs to women prisoners. Finding: No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. The Special Officer has been unable to identify a DOC staff member who is responsible for the implementation of this provision.
167. The Defendants shall increase the number of staff posted or detailed at the women's unit at CTF and at the Annex to ensure that women prisoners are escorted to educational programs, recreation, employment, and medical care as scheduled. Sufficient staff shall be provided in a manner that does not prevent the programming staff from performing any of their duties. Finding; No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this provision until June 13, 1995. However, the Special Officer has substantial concerns about whether the defendants can achieve timely compliance. In response to this litigation the CTF warden created security posts to facilitate escorts for programming as well as hallway surveillance. In addition, she has dedicated an elevator to inmate programming activity during program hours,
88 The recreation schedules are attached as Ex. 33D. - 49 -

creating an elevator operator post. These posts have not been authorized and are filled by officers working on overtime status.89 Many of these officers are from other DOC institutions and are unfamiliar with operations at the CTF. They are not required to participate in an orientation program prior to working on overtime status at the CTF. The chronic use of overtime to fill these posts raises significant security issues. The warden of the CTF has been under substantial pressure to reduce the use of overtime by correctional officers at the facility.90 She has advanced proposals to establish an authorized complement at the CTF which, if implemented, would reduce overtime usage at the facility.91 Nonetheless there has been a decrease from 162 officers to 160 officers assigned to the CTF92 since the December 13, 1994 Order was filed.
Educational, correctional and administrative staff, as well as inmates, have advised the Special Officer that notwithstanding the modifications in officer staffing and elevator operations implemented in the wake of this Court's Order, substantial delays in access to programming are common. Indeed, there is a high
89 T h e C T F r e l i e s heavily on overtime for correctional coverage as evidenced by the May 1, 1995 "Correctional On Duty and Leave Utilization Report" which is attached hereto asEx. 34A.
90 Ses Exs. 34B and 34C. 91 Copies of the warden's proposals are attached as Exs. 34D and 34E. 92 Two officers were fired and the vacancies they created have not been filled.
- 50 -

level of absenteeism for educational and vocational programs. Correctional and educational staff attribute the absenteeism to shortages of escorts and the severe limitations in movement that are imposed by the physical plant.93 Even if adequate escort staff was available, the Special Officer has substantial concerns about whether this would result in efficient movement of inmates to programming areas given the limited elevator accessibility at the CTF.
f69. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a range of academic education programs that is equivalent to the range of academic programs provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities. Finding: No finding. The defendants are not required to implement this requirement until June 13, 1995. The academic school offers ABE and GED classes which appear to be equivalent to the ABE and GED programs offered at the Central, Medium and Occoquan facilities.
J70. Women prisoners at the Annex and CTF shall be provided with the opportunity for full-time (five hours per day, five days per week) basic education to include ABE, GED, and Special Education classes. The Defendants shall immediately provide two full-time basic education teachers for ABE, GED, and Special Education classes at the Annex. Finding; No finding.
93 At times the Special Officer and her assistants have waited over 30 minutes for an elevator to transport them from one floor to the next in the CTF.
- 51 -

The defendants are not required to implement this
requirement until June 13, 1995. They have, however, advised the
Special Officer that they will not be in compliance with this provision.94
571. Women prisoners at CTF shall have access to on-site higher education programs which shall include a four-year B.A. and/or B.S. degree program, an A.A. degree program, a certification program, and a precollege program. The bachelor and associate programs shall be offered in a variety of fields, and at a minimum shall each offer three different areas of study leading to a degree. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall at least make the University of the District of Columbia B.A. and A.A. programs available to women prisoners at CTF.
Finding: Non-compliance.
The defendants have contracted with the University of the
District of Columbia to provide two core introductory college
classes for the women at the CTF. These classes are not
scheduled to begin until May 30, 1995. The Special Officer
assumes that the "certification program" required by the Order
refers to a vocational apprenticeship program. There are no
vocational apprenticeship programs that provide certification
operating at the CTF and available documentation suggests that the defendants do not plan to offer such programs at the CTF.95
94 The defendants have raised significant concerns about this provision which should be addressed. The Special Officer is available to work with the parties in an effort to resolve defendants' concerns.
95 S e e E x . 3 5 . Indeed, t h e d e f e n d a n t s a r e c u r r e n t l y in violation of the Twelve John Does Consent Decree because they have dismantled the apprenticeship program that had operated at Lorton's Central Facility.
- 52 -

572. The Defendants shall offer women prisoners financial arrangements for these education programs that are the same as those arrangements available to similarly situated male prisoners.
Finding! No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this
provision until June 13, 1995. However it appears defendants will be in compliance because there are no financial arrangements currently available to male prisoners.
573. The Defendants shall immediately provide women prisoners at CTF with at least 30 hours of access per week to the Atlantic Union computers. Women shall be scheduled to access the computer during educational program time and during free time, including evenings and weekends. Women prisoners shall be provided with an amount of computers sufficient to meet their needs.
174. The Defendants shall immediately process the applications for Atlantic Union in a complete and timely manner. Women shall be provided with all books and course materials before the start of a course. The women shall receive substantive tutorial guidance in the course work from qualified educators.
Finding: Non-compliance. The Special Officer has been advised that Atlantic Union
College canceled the contract with the DOC before the December 13, 1994 Order was issued.
575. The Defendants shall immediately provide appropriate substitute teachers or instructors during absences of regular teachers or instructors of more than three working days. The provision of a substitute teacher or instructor shall not result in consolidating two classes into one or increasing the class size.
Finding: Non-compliance.
- 53 -
T T

The defendants have not complied with this provision.96
J76. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a range of vocational education programs that is equivalent to the range of vocational education programs provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities. Finding: No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this provision until June 13, 1995. However defendants currently offer the following five vocational programs to women incarcerated at the CTF: professional housekeeping, graphic arts, computer literacy, business typing, and sewing. It does not appear that defendants plan to expand this offering. The following vocational programs are provided at the Central Facility: autobody, dental technology, carpentry, electrical, culinary arts, brick masonry, auto mechanics, digital electronics, graphic arts, and printing. At the Medium Security Facility the defendants offer dry wall, brick masonry and word processing. The Occoquan prison offers photography, boiler house operations, graphic arts and digital electronics.
J77. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with two prevocational programs each to be at least six weeks in duration. Prevocational programs include those courses which teach personal development skills, living skills, and/or employment skills such as Employment Techniques, Awareness and Preparation (ETAP) and Lifeskills.
96 The defendants have raised some important concerns related to compliance. The Special Officer is available to assist the parties with the resolution of these concerns.
- 54 -
II

Findingt No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this
requirement until June 13, 1995. Beginning on May 29, 1995, they plan to offer two eight week sessions per trimester of ETAP and Lifeskills.
578. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a minimum of four vocational education programs, including the one program currently in place (DocuTech). These programs shall be available to female prisoners of all custody levels. A vocational education program is any program of 12 to 24 months of duration that teaches employable skills and contains both a classroom component and an on-the-job-training component. Two programs shall be operative within 120 days of the entry of this Order. Finding; Non-compliance. Except for the graphic arts program (Docutech), none of the other vocational programs offered at the CTF is of 12 months duration.97 In addition, because the location of the graphic arts program raises a valid security justification,98 it is not open to inmates of all custody levels.
J79. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with at least two apprenticeship programs as defined by Department order. Finding; No finding.
97 Professional housekeeping and sewing are four-month courses and computer literacy and business typing are six-month courses.
98 T h e Special Officer concurs with the security justification which will not be described in the public record. Information about this issue will be provided to the Court and the plaintiffs upon request.
- 55 -
II

The defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. However, as addressed more fully in the discussion under 571 of the Order, it does not appear that defendants plan to operate any apprenticeship programs at the CTF.
580. All prevocational programs, vocational programs, and apprenticeships added for women prisoners at CTF shall have the potential for providing women with job skills marketable in the local labor market. An important consideration in the Defendants' selection of programs shall be the wage-earning capacity upon completion of the program. Finding: No finding. It does not appear defendants will be in compliance with this provision by June 13, 1995 since they do not have vocational or apprenticeship programs that meet the requirements set forth in the Order.
581. The Defendants shall conduct affirmative outreach to women during the enrollment period for vocational training. This outreach shall entail DCDC staff meeting with women at least one month before the deadline for program enrollment to inform the women that the new programs are available and to offer a full description of the available programs and any applicable criteria for participation. Finding; No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995. They have, however, developed outreach materials" although the Special Officer has received
99 A copy of the hand-out used by the educational unit is attached as Ex. 36.
- 56 -
T r

contradictory information about the procedure for conducting affirmative outreach that the defendants intend to use.
J82. The Defendants shall ensure that all contractual programs used to provide services to women prisoners are compatible with and fulfill the provisions of this Order. Finding: No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this provision until June 13, 1995. The Special Officer has been unable to determine whether the defendants have developed the contract review process required by the Order.
584. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a range of work opportunities that is equivalent to the range of work opportunities provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.
585. The Defendants shall employ capable women prisoners on all work details available at the facility where women prisoners are housed. These details shall include maintenance and trades, such as plumbing, carpentry, and electrical. Finding: No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with these requirements until June 13, 1995. A review of non-industrial pay records100 establishes that women at the CTF participate in work details that are equivalent to the work details at the Occoquan, Central and Medium Security Facilities. However, unlike the situation at the Lorton Facilities, there are currently no
100 Copies of these records are attached as Ex. 37. - 57 -

industrial opportunities for women at the CTF. The staff at the
CTF had hoped to expand the current sewing program into an
industrial service program, but their proposal appears to have been rejected.101
586. The Defendants shall offer equivalent industrial opportunities by establishing at least two industries at CTF or by transporting women prisoners from CTF to the industries at the Central Facility to perform industrial work. Within 60 days, the Defendants shall submit to the Court plans for the implementation of an industrial program for CTF women prisoners.
Finding; Non-compliance.
The defendants have failed to submit a plan to the Court for
the implementation of an industrial program for women housed at
the CTF. The Director of Industries at Lorton, Raymond Sullivan,
has not endorsed the CTF warden's request to develop an industrial sewing program at the CTF.102 In addition, the
defendants have raised a number of security-related concerns about transporting women prisoners from the CTF to Lorton.103
587. The Defendants shall revise the guidelines and practices for work training eligibility within 30 days to take into account the different sentence structure of
101 Q^p administrative staff provided the Special Officer with a description of their efforts to institute a limited industrial program at the CTF. This description is attached as Ex. 38.
102 See the memorandum attached as Ex. 38. 103 The Special Officer recognizes the security issues that the defendants have identified and is available to work with the parties to resolve this matter.
- 58 -

female offenders and to permit women's maximum participation in work training. Findingi Non-compliance. The defendants have not yet revised their work training guidelines or practices. However, they have provided plaintiffs and the Special Officer with a helpful assessment of the steps that must be undertaken in order to make work training accessible to female offenders.104
188. The Defendants will immediately provide a work training program to all women prisoners who are eligible under the revised guidelines, including those who are housed at CTF as stated in the CTF Operations Manual. Finding: Non-compliance. Work training is not provided to women housed at the CTF.
589. Within 30 days of entry of this Order, the Defendants shall complete and submit work training packets for each woman prisoner eligible for work training and expedite the approval process. Finding: Non-compliance. According to the defendants' analysis, 71 women were eligible for work training as of April 3, 1994. However, during the preceding six-month period, only one woman has participated in the work training program.105 Work training packets have not been submitted for women who are eligible for this program.
104 A copy of defendants' assessment is attached as Ex. 39. 105 S_ge. E x . t o f 8 7 .
- 59 -

190. The Defendants shall submit required paperwork for work training approval 45 days prior to a woman prisoner's eligibility date in order to complete the process by the date of eligibility. In the event that a woman arrives at the institution with less than 45 days until she is eligible for work training, the Defendants shall expedite the paperwork. Finding: No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995.
592. The Defendants shall provide adequate staff, including case managers and vocational development specialists, to enable the women prisoners to be informed of their work training eligibility and to complete the necessary papesrwork in the required time frame. Finding: No finding. The Special Officer has not had an opportunity to assess the defendants' compliance with this provision.
595. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with recreational opportunities that are equivalent to the recreational opportunities provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities. Finding: No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this provision until June 13, 1995. Because of the serious limitations in the CTF's physical plant, which is not designed for long-term housing of sentenced inmates, it does not appear that defendants will achieve timely compliance with this provision.
- 60 -
Mil

596. The Defendants shall immediately provide all women prisoners at CTF, including pregnant prisoners subject to medical approval, with recreation seven days per week for at least five hours per day. Women shall have the option of going outside or to indoor recreation facilities during this time period. This recreation schedule shall be effective at CTF within 3 0 days of this Order.
Finding: Non-compliance. The design of the CTF creates substantial physical plant
limitations. These limitations, combined with the fact that other inmates housed at the CTF require access to the building's limited recreational facilities, suggest that defendants will be unable to achieve compliance with this requirement.
597. Women shall be given access to the same variety of recreation activities as are available to men, including large group events, intramurals, arts and crafts and drama activities.
Finding: No finding.
The defendants are not required to comply with this provision until June 13, 1995. Currently women inmates participate in large group events, including intramurals. They have access to the gym on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and have access to the outdoor recreation yard and the gym during the spring and summer months each weekday from 1:30 to 2:45 p.m. The women do not participate in arts and crafts. There is an informal drama program available to the women that is project-based and staffed by various volunteers. Although it appears that women at the CTF have equal access to recreational activities as compared to men housed at the CTF,
- 61 -

they do not have access to the same range of recreational
activities as medium custody male prisoners at the Central
Facility.
D. Findings Concerning Environmental Health
S116. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall hire a qualified air balancing contractor to service the CTF air handling system so that it provides an acceptable level of air quality to all areas of the facility inhabited by prisoners.
Finding; Non-compliance.
Although the defendants hired an air balancing contractor, who performed an assessment and some minor servicing, the deficiencies in the air quality and temperature at the CTF have not yet been remedied.106
5117. In the event that the air balancing and other recent repairs to the heating system at CTF fail to maintain a minimum cell temperature of 65 °F in every cell, measured at the perimeter wall, the Defendants shall immediately
a. cease housing women in the end cells of each tier; b. provide each woman prisoner with two extra blankets, two pairs of thermal underwear, and two pairs of wool socks;
c. explore means of insulating or heating the perimeter walls of the cells; and
d. report back to the Court.
Finding; Non-compliance.
106 See the May 4, 1995 memorandum to Grace Lopes from Timothy Roche, and the supporting documents, attached as Ex. 40A.
- 62 -

Interviews conducted by the Special Officer and her assistants107 with correctional staff, counselors, administrative staff and inmates have established that the defendants did not cease housing inmates in the end cells of each tier when the temperature dropped below 65 degrees. Instead, the defendants permitted women housed in the end cells to sleep in the day rooms at nighttime.108 The defendants have not provided two pairs of wool socks, two extra blankets or two pairs of thermal underwear to each woman prisoner at the CTF when the temperature has reached unacceptable levels. The defendants have considered heating the perimeter walls but have not addressed whether the insulation of the walls can be bolstered.109
5118. The Defendants shall develop and implement an effective rodent prevention program. finding: No finding. Evidence suggests that the defendants are attempting to implement a rodent control program.110 However, in their March 22, 1995 report, based on inspections conducted in January and February of 1995, the Department of Consumer and Regulatory
107 See the May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to the Grace Lopes, attached as Ex. 4OB.
108 The defendants' well-intentioned practices create security and fire safety problems.
109 See the May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes, attached as Ex. 40C.
110 See the May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes and accompanying documents, attached as Ex. 41A.
- 63 -

Affairs (DCRA) found evidence of a serious mouse infestation problem.111 Because defendants apparently have just begun to implement a rodent control program, the effectiveness of the current program cannot be assessed.
5119. Effective immediately, the Defendants shall ensure that all housing units at CTF are issued a timely, adequate and appropriate amount of cleaning supplies. Finding: Non-compliance. Interviews with unit counselors, correctional officers, members of the administrative staff, the facility sanitarian, the materials handler supervisor, and the environmental officer confirm that the CTF does not receive an adequate, timely or appropriate amount of cleaning supplies. Although staff at the CTF have instituted inventory monitoring procedures, the facility is unable to obtain supplies in a timely fashion. Significant shortages of basic and essential supplies such as disinfectant, laundry detergent, and soap have been intermittent since at least January of 1995.112 A recent survey of the housing units conducted by one of the Special Officer's assistants confirmed these deficiencies.113 As the recent DCRA report demonstrates,114 the failure to provide cleaning supplies
111 The DCRA report is attached as Ex. 4IB.
112 gee Ex. 1 a t 3 . 113 £ee. Ex. 42. 114 See Ex. 41B.
- 64 -

increases the risk of serious unsanitary conditions that can, if unabated, imperil the health and safety of the inmate population.
)120. The Defendants shall use cart liners or disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry between CTF and the Jail. Finding: No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this provision until June 13, 1995. Currently laundry is transported in canvas laundry carts which cannot be sanitized. The carts are sometimes lined with a clean sheet. The CTF sanitarian has identified a cost-effective alternative115 for transferring laundry between the CTF and the Jail.116 It does not, however, appear that the defendants will able to obtain the alternative carts proposed by the sanitarian before June 13, 1995.
1121. Effective immediately, the Defendants at CTF shall monitor the food temperature and delivery times of all foods, including special diet meals, delivered to the satellite kitchen. Finding; Non-compliance. While defendants have taken some steps to comply, significant shortcomings remain evident. The defendants have developed a system for monitoring food temperatures and have trained staff in the monitoring process. They have also modified
115 The sanitarian has proposed buying washable carts with lids which can be cleaned and sanitized after each use.
116 See the May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes, attached as Ex. 43.
- 65 -
7 r

food distribution procedures in an effort to ensure that food is delivered to the housing units in a timely fashion.117 However, as the attached memoranda demonstrate,118 among other
deficiencies, a review of temperature logs for a recent five-day
period indicates that culinary staff took the temperature of cold food on only two of 27 occasions.119
5122. The Defendants shall promulgate and follow a written preventive maintenance plan for the CTF that includes maintenance of structures, systems, and equipment.
Finding: No finding.
The defendants are not required to comply with this
requirement until June 13, 1995. A written preventive maintenance plan for the CTF has not been developed.120
J123. The Defendants shall ensure that the correctional officers inspect all plumbing fixtures on
117 In the past, to get to the housing units from the kitchen, employees had to use a series of elevators. To expedite the process, the defendants dedicated an elevator to food delivery during the latter part of 1994, which significantly improved food distribution. However, the DCRA report (Ex. 41B) evidences deficiencies in food preparation regarding the ability to achieve as well as to maintain food at an appropriate temperature. The defendants have instituted corrective action in an effort to address the deficiencies in food preparation that are identified in the DCRA report.
118 gee Ex. 44. 119 Cold food maintained at a temperature above 44 degrees poses a significant risk for growth of microorganisms which can cause serious food-borne illnesses.
120 See the May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes, attached as Ex. 45.
- 66 -

T

TBD

TlTill

I I H I III I

[ IT

each shift, and shall ensure that any plumbing fixture that requires repair will be reported immediately upon discovery, and repaired immediately. The Defendants shall maintain logs demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
Finding: No finding.
The defendants are not required to comply with this
requirement until June 13, 1995.121 Interviews with maintenance
staff, correctional officers, and counselors demonstrate that
defendants have not yet taken steps to implement this
requirement.122
J124. Three times per year, the Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia DCRA to conduct inspections of the CTF for compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation, maintenance and food service delivery. The first such inspection shall be conducted within 45 days of the date of this Order. Within 30 days of each inspection, the Warden of CTF shall obtain the DCRA findings. The Warden shall repair, clean, or otherwise remedy any unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA as soon as feasible but in no event later than 30 days following the receipt of the DCRA report.
Finding; Non-compliance.
The DCRA inspected the CTF on January 23 and 27 and
February 10, 1995. As of May 8, 1995 the warden of the CTF had
not yet received the report from DCRA. In late April the Special
Officer contacted the DCRA Inspection Coordinator, Sheryl Watson,
in order to obtain a copy of the inspection report of the CTF.
121 The defendants have raised a number of concerns about this requirement and the Special Officer is available to work with the parties on resolving these issues.
122 See the May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes, attached as Ex. 46.
- 67 -

Ms. Watson agreed to send the Special Officer a copy of the report but advised that she had not yet sent the report to the DOC because the electrical, construction and plumbing assessments had not been incorporated into the report. The report that Ms. Watson provided to the Special Officer does not contain these three assessments and is dated March 22, 1995.123
The inspection and abatement process is predicated on the timely receipt of the DCRA reports. If DCRA is unable to produce the inspection reports required under this Order in a timely fashion,124 it may be appropriate for the Court and the parties to explore alternatives to the DCRA inspection process.
E. Fire Safety 1133. Within 30 days, the Defendants at CTF shall
repair the water leakage from rain, particularly in the vicinity of the high-voltage electrical conduit in the culinary storage room located in the CTF basement. Flndinat Partial compliance.
123 This report was previously attached as Ex. 4IB. 124 The DCRA conducts inspections ordered by this Court in the Twelve John Does. John Doe, and Inmates of Modular cases as well as inspections ordered by the Honorable William B. Bryant in Campbell v. McGruder. The agency has repeatedly failed to meet court ordered report production deadlines in those cases and has advanced a preliminary proposal for modification of the inspection schedules. The Special Officer, the DOC, and plaintiffs' counsel are currently waiting for a formal modification proposal from DCRA in those cases. It appears that a similar proposal may be made in this case as well.
- 68 -

Although the defendants repaired the area in the vicinity of the high-voltage electrical conduit,125 leaks in the medical unit hallway have not been effectively repaired.
S134. At CTF, the Defendants shall maintain the storage in the culinary storage room in a manner that does not prevent the sprinkler heads from functioning adequately. Finding; Compliance.126 Although defendants are not required to comply with this requirement until June 13, 1995, they are in compliance.
^135. At CTF, the Defendants shall maintain the sprinkler system and test it quarterly and they shall test the fire pump annually. Finding; No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this provision until June 13, 1995. Based upon interviews with the facilities maintenance supervisor and the CTF "Fire Marshal11,127
125 See the May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes, attached as Ex. 47.
126 See the May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes, attached as Ex. 48.
127 The Fire Marshal, Ms. Martin, is also employed as the CTF sanitarian and the culinary supervisor. Even if she was appropriately trained and competent to perform the duties of a fire marshal, Ms. Martin could not perform those duties effectively while also working as the sanitarian and as the culinary supervisor.
- 69 -

it does not appear that defendants have the current capability to achieve compliance with this provision.128
5136. At CTF, the Defendants shall conduct fire drills 12 times per year, 4 times per shift, and shall keep written documentation of all such drills. Finding: No finding. The defendants are not required to comply with this provision until June 13, 1995. Interviews with the "Fire Marshal" indicate that defendants do not have the current capability to achieve compliance with this provision.129 The defendants failure -to make progress toward implementation of an appropriate fire safety program is a serious concern which implicates critical life safety issues, particularly in a building that is designed like the CTF.
IV. Conclusion The defendants have housed sentenced women prisoners in the CTF, a facility that is not designed for this purpose. Physical plant limitations, staff shortages, and the fact that male inmates are housed at the CTF, complicate the compliance effort. During our investigation, we inadvertently identified three women prisoners who became pregnant while recently housed at the CTF.
128 See the May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes, attached hereto as Ex. 49.
129 See the May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes and the May 2, 1995 memorandum from Dorothy Martin to Warden Poteat, attached as Ex. 50.
- 70 -
T r

These pregnancies underscore the significant problems that arise from housing women at the CTF.
The differences between the parties are not irreconcilable. The Special Officer is available to work with the parties on resolving the challenges presented by the remedial effort, and is hopeful that these challenges can be overcome.
GRACE M. LOPES Bar No. 358650 Special Officer of the Court 1130 17th Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 778-1168
- 71 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I hand-delivered this report on the

| Qft-day of MLJA

/ 1995, to the following counsel

of record in this matter:

Peter J. Nickles, Esq. Caroline M. Brown, Esq. Tracy A. Thomas, Esq. Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566
Brenda V. Smith, Esq. Deborah L. Brake, Esq. National Women's Law Center 1616 P Street, N.W., Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20036
Richard Love, Esq. Maria Amato, Esq. Office of the Corporation Counsel 441 4th St., N.W., 6th Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001

V
GRACE M. LOFES

- 72 -

Ex. 1 Ex. 2 Ex. 3A Ex. 3B Ex. 4A Ex. 4B Ex. 4C Ex. 5A Ex. 5B Ex. 6A Ex. 6B Ex. 6C EX. 6D EX. 7A EX. 7B

Index to Exhibits
February 7, 1995 correspondence from Grace Lopes to Richard Love regarding impact of doublecelling and deficiencies at the CTF
Defendants' March 16, 1995 Notice and Filing and Department Order 3350.2, "Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates'*
March 22, 1995 correspondence from Grace Lopes to Maria Amato regarding deficiencies in defendants' March 16, 1995 filing
March 22, 1995 correspondence from Julie Abbate to Maria Amato regarding revisions to Department Order 3350.2
April 11, 1995 correspondence from Julie Abbate to Maria Amato regarding revisions to Department Order 3350.2
April 20, 1995 correspondence from Julie Abbate to Maria Amato regarding revisions to Department Order 3350.2
April 27, 1995 correspondence from Julie Abbate to Maria Amato regarding revisions to Department Order 3350.2
Sample certification of review and receipt of Department Order 3350.2
Minutes of staff meeting conducted by CTF Warden Poteat
Redacted memoranda regarding sexual misconduct complaint of January 13, 1995
Redacted memoranda regarding sexual misconduct complaint of April 7, 1995
Redacted memoranda regarding sexual misconduct complaint of April 7, 1995
Redacted memoranda regarding sexual misconduct complaint of April 10, 1995
February 21, 1995 memorandum to CTF inmates regarding IGPC formation
March 14, 1995 memoranda to IGPC members

Ex. 7C Ex. 7D Ex. 8 Ex. 9 Ex. 10A Ex. 10B Ex. IOC Ex. 11A Ex. 11B
Ex. 12 Ex. 13A Ex. 13B Ex. 13C Ex. 14
Ex. 15 Ex. 16 Ex. 17A Ex. 17B
EX. 18A
Ex. 18B

April 17, 1995 memorandum to I6PC members from IGPS chairperson
Department Order 4030.ID, "Inmate Grievance Procedure"
Shift reports documenting roll call training on sexual misconduct and sexual harassment
Purchase Order request to GSA for shower curtains
OB/GYN clinic schedule provided by defendants
OB/GYN clinic logs
Hay 5, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes regarding frequency of OB/GYN clinic May 5, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes regarding prenatal care
May 6, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes regarding sick call entries in housing unit visitor logs
OB/GYN clinic monthly statistics
Health Services Intake Screening Form
CTF Medical Intake Form
Chart and supporting documentation regarding intake screening form Form provided by defendants regarding access to OB/GYB care
Chart regarding intake screening form
Defendants1 GYN Protocol and Treatment Guidelines
List of abnormal PAP results
May 5, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes regarding abnormal PAP tests and supporting documentation
May 5, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes regarding use of restraints
May 4, 1994 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes regarding use of restraints

Ex. 19 Ex. 20A Ex. 2OB Ex. 21
Ex. 22A Ex. 22B Ex. 23A Ex. 23B
Ex. 24
EX. 25
Ex. 26A Ex. 26B
Ex. 27A Ex. 27B Ex. 28A
EX. 28B
Ex. 29
Ex. 30

Prenatal Protocol
May 5, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes regarding postpartum feeding
May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes regarding postpartum feeding
May 5, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider
to Grace Lopes regarding postpartum visitation
Monthly Physician Schedules
Monthly Physicians' Assistant Schedules
Community Correctional Center Medical Referral Form April 24, 1995 correspondence from Grace Lopes to Richard Love and April 28, 1995 correspondence from Richard Love to Grace Lopes regarding pharmacy
May 8, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes regarding abnormal lab results
May 8, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes regarding rescheduling of missed clinic appointments
Memorandum of Understanding
May 8, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes regarding obtaining medical information from DCGH
POPRAS Form
ACOG Form
New Consult Form
Old Consult Form
May 8, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes regarding documentation where DCGH recommendation is not followed
May 8, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes regarding notification of laboratory test results

Ex. 31A Ex. 3IB Ex. 32A Ex. 32B Ex. 32C Ex. 32D Ex. 32E
Ex. 32F Ex. 32G Ex. 32H Ex. 321
Ex. 33A Ex. 33B Ex. 33C Ex. 33D Ex. 34A Ex. 34B
Ex. 34C

May 8, 1995 memorandum from Karen Schneider to Grace Lopes regarding medical refusals
May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes regarding medical refusals
Excerpt from defendants1 compliance report regarding Diagnostic Unit
July 15, 1994 memorandum from Gloria Nelson to Warden Poteat regarding Diagnostic Unit
Redacted correspondence from Warden Poteat to Superior Court regarding Diagnostic Unit
July 27, 1994 memorandum from Gerald Westin to Warden Poteat regarding the Diagnostic Unit
February 28, 1995 correspondence from Grace Lopes to Richard Love and Warden Poteat regarding the Diagnostic Unit
February 17, 1995 memorandum from Warden Poteat to John Thomas regarding the Diagnostic Unit
March 10, 1995 memorandum from Warden Poteat to John Thomas regarding the Diagnostic Unit
April 14, 1995 memorandum from John Thomas to all wardens regarding overtime for psychologists
April 14, 1995 request for contract for two
Diagnostic Unit psychologists
Academic School Schedule
Vocational Class Schedule
Law Library Schedule
In-Door and Outdoor Recreation Schedules
Correction Officer On-Duty and Leave Utilization Report for Pay Period Ending May 1, 1995 March 8, 1995 memorandum to John Thomas from Warden Poteat regarding justification for increase in overtime
April 13, 1995 memorandum to Margaret Moore from Warden Poteat regarding overtime usage

Ex. 34D Ex. 34E
Ex. 35
Ex. 36
EX. 37
Ex. 38 Ex. 39 Ex. 40A Ex. 40B
Ex. 40C
EX. 41A
Ex. 4IB Ex. 42
Ex. 43 Ex. 44
Ex. 45

March 2, 1995 memorandum to John Noble from Warden Poteat regarding authorized complement
April 20, 1995 memorandum to Margaret Moore from Warden Poteat regarding resolutions to reduce overtime
March 6, 1995 memorandum from Cuthbert Jacobs to Warden Poteat regarding educational programs
Educational outreach materials
Redacted Copy of Non Industrial Pay (NIPS) payroll records
Description of status of industries proposal regarding expansion of sewing vocational program
April 3, 1995 Impact Statement from Edmund Walsh to William Plaut regarding work training
May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes regarding HVAC system and supporting documentation
May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes regarding end cells and extra clothing
May A, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes regarding perimeter walls
May A, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes regarding rodent control and supporting documentation
March 22, 1995 report of inspection from DCRA
May 6, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes regarding cleaning supplies
May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes regarding transfer of laundry
May A, 1995 memorandum and supporting documentation from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes regarding monitoring of food temperature
May A, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes regarding preventative maintenance

T

r«HI

ul

I • •• m

I III

Ex. 46 EX. 47 EX. 48 Ex. 49
Ex. 50

May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to
Grace Lopes regarding inspection of plumbing
May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes regarding repair of water leak
May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes regarding culinary storage
May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes regarding fire pump and testing of sprinkler system
May 4, 1995 memorandum from Timothy Roche to Grace Lopes regarding fire drills and supporting documentation

T r

TIT

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF

)

COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

)

Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action

) No. 93-2052 JLG

)

v.

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al..

Defendants.

)

FILED

)

)

JLJN

) „. _„

I

DISTRICT Or Cc

PLAINTIFFS' STATUS REPORT

Plaintiffs submit this status report pursuant to

this Court's order of May 16, 1995 detailing the status of the

30 provisions. Pursuant to that order, the parties met on

June 5, 1995, June 7, 1995, and with Grace Lopes on June 9,

1995, to discuss the 30 specific provisions that were stayed

for 3 0 days by order of the Court.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle

with respect to 21 provisions. Defendants are awaiting final

approval from those officials with authority to authorize the

modification of these 21 provisions. There are 2 paragraphs,

If 20 and 43, on which the parties have tentatively agreed on

language, but which the Defendants still intend to seek a

stay. The parties have likely reached agreement with respect

to another 5 paragraphs, but require ten additional days to

resolve the details of these provisions. Finally, there are 2

paragraphs, paragraphs 79 and 96, on which the parties are

- 2unable to reach agreement. Plaintiffs will file a status report detailing their position on these two paragraphs, and any of the other provisions that cannot be resolved, at the end of the ten-day period.
Respectfully submitted,
COVINGTON & BURLING

Dated: June 15, 1995

Peter M. Nickles # 53447 Caroline M. Brown # 43 8342 Tracy A. Thomas # 435742 Julie Abbate
COVINGTON Sc BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (202) 662-6000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Co-counsel:
Brenda V. Smith # 404979 Deborah L. Brake # 435006
NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER 1616 P Street, N.W. Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-5160

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 15, 1995,
I caused a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Status Report to
be hand-delivered to:
Maria Amato, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel 441 4th Street, N.W. 6th Floor South Washington, D.C. 2 0001 Grace M Lopes, Esq. Special Officer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1130 17th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington DC 20036
Tracy K.( Thomas

Women Prisoners/DC v. DC PC-DC-011-011

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al. ,

V .
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et a l . ,

Plaintiffs, Defendants.

)

Civil Action

)

No. 93 -2052 (JLG)

)

)

FILED

)

) )

DEC 1 8 1S95

)

)

CLER K. U.S. DISTRICT C C : " 1 STRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATUS REPORTS *

)

On December 4, 1996, the United States Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia issued the mandate for its

decision announced August 30, 1996. The Court of Appeals left

intact substantial portions of this Court's injunctive relief

ordered on December 13, 1994, and August/«!, 1995, vacated some

specific portions of therelief, andremanded other portions of

the Court's Order forfurther proceedings. Specifically, the

Court of Appeals (1) did not disturb this Court's Order as it

affected shackling, sexual misconduct (except for provisions

regarding the special monitor), education and vocation,

environmental conditions, andfire safety at the Annex,and

remanded the provisions to this Court to provide the District

of Columbia with an opportunity to challenge those provisions

under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), if it so

chooses; (2) reversed this Court's decision under local D.C.

law related to thePlaintiffs' medical andfire safety claims

at the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF); (3)reversed this

- 2Court's decision on the Plaintiffs' equality challenge to work, recreation, and religious programs; and (4) vacated a few specific provisions regarding the special monitor and population cap. The following status report details how Plaintiffs intend to proceed in light of the Court of Appeals' decision.
A. Local Law Claims--Obstetrical/Gynecological Care and Fire Safety at CTF The Court of Appeals vacated the provisions of this
Court's Order premised on D.C. Code § 24-442 related to medical care and fire safety at CTF.iX The Court of Appeals held that this Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these local law claims because they presented "novel" questions of law that should first be decided by the local D.C. courts. Women Prisoners v. District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 910, 922-23 (D.C. Cir. 1996) .
Accordingly, Plaintiffs will voluntarily dismiss without prejudice their claims based on D.C. Code § 24-442 and § 24-425, including those claims arising out of OB/GYN care and fire safety at CTF. In addition, Plaintiffs will dismiss voluntarily without prejudice their claims under the Eighth Amendment related to OB/GYN care and fire safety at CTF, with the exception of the Eighth Amendment claim regarding the
i7 Order 11 20-34, 36-62, 131-132 (as they relate to CTF), and 133-136.

- 3-

shackling of pregnant prisoners.-' Plaintiffs have prepared a

stipulated Motion for Voluntary Dismissal to file with the

Court. Following dismissal of these claims without prejudice,

Plaintiffs intend to refile the local law claims as to medical

care and fire safety at CTF in D.C. Superior Court, as

suggested by the Court of Appeals.

B. Programs -- Equal Protection and Title IX

The District appealed the Court's Order regarding

recreation, work, and religious programs for women prisoners.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that women prisoners and

men prisoners are not similarly situated for purposes of equal

protection or Title IX comparison. Accordingly, the Court of

Appeals vacated \\ 83-92 and 94-101 in their entirety and

portions of ^\ 63-67, and \ 93.-' Plaintiffs intend to file a

J petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court fro-mmi
the decision of the Court of Appeals by the deadline of

February 12, 1997.

T

C. Specific Provisions

1. Sexual Misconduct

The Court of Appeals expressly upheld paragraphs 7(c)

and 9 of this Court's Order imposing remedies for sexual

-' Paragraph 3 5 regarding shackling of pregnant prisoners was not vacated by the Court of Appeals, and remains in effect.
-' The provisions regarding education and vocation, \\ 68-72 and 75-82 of the Order, remain in effect in their entirety, and \\ 63-67, and 93 of the Order remain in effect as they relate to education and vocation.

- 4misconduct. The Court of Appeals vacated the provisions of the Court's Order related to the appointment and functions of a special officer to monitor and investigate allegations of sexual misconduct brought by women prisoners.47 The Special Officer, Grace Lopes, ceased her duties on December 4, 1996, upon the issuance of the mandate from the Court of Appeals. The Corporation Counsel has indicated that a private contractor, Delany, Siegel, Zorn & A s s o c , will resume responsibility for investigating complaints. See Exhibit A, Letter from Charles Ruff, Corporation Counsel, to Grace M. Lopes (Dec. 5, 1996) .s/
2. Environmental The Court of Appeals vacated f 102 imposing a population cap at the Annex. Plaintiffs do not intend to pursue this relief on appeal or on remand. D. Other Relief The District did not appeal from the Court's legal or factual findings regarding sexual misconduct, environmental conditions, fire safety at the Annex, or education and vocation programs for women prisoners. The District merely argued in
-1 Paragraphs 5, 6, 13 are vacated in their entirety. Paragraphs 8, 12, 14, and 15 are vacated in part as they relate to the special monitor, but otherwise remain in full effect. The other provisions of the Order related to sexual misconduct, \\ 3-4, 7-11, 16-19, also remain in effect. -1 The Special Officer indicated that a complaint alleging sexual misconduct was received by her office on December 4, 1996. The Special Officer referred the complaint to Rick Love of the Corporation Counsel's office.

- 5its opening appellate brief that the relief granted in light of these findings was "too broad," and in a supplemental brief filed after the case was argued in the Court of Appeals, "directed the attention" of the Court of Appeals to the recently-enacted Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). See Def. Supp. Brief (D.C. Cir. filed May 1996); Def. Reply Supp. Brief (D.C. Cir. filed June 1996). The Court of Appeals did not disturb the relief ordered by this Court related to these findings, but remanded the provisions to this Court to provide the District an opportunity to raise the PLRA arguments to this Court, if it so chooses. Women Prisoners. 93 F.3d at 932. Currently, all relief ordered by this Court remains in effect, with the exception of those provisions vacated by the Court of Appeals based on local law or regarding work, recreation, religion, or the population cap.17
If the District makes a motion pursuant to the PLRA to terminate the provisions of the Court's original injunctive
order that remain in effect, Plaintiffs will oppose that motion. There is no ground for termination of relief under the PLRA here because the findings made by this Court following
-' The effective provisions are: General (11 1-2, 137-138); Sexual Misconduct (11 3-4, 7-12, 14-19); Education and Vocation Programs (11 63-72, 75-82, 93); Environmental (11 103-124); and Fire 11 (125-132). The Court of Appeals did not grant the District's request to stay this ordered relief during the pendency of remand proceedings. See Def. Reply Supp. Brief at 2. The Court of Appeals and this Court have denied the District's previous requests to stay the ordered relief pending appeal. Order (D.D.C. Feb. 9, 1995); Order (D.C. Cir. April 4, 1995) .

- 6trial in this case provide ample support for the relief ordered, and satisfy the standards of the PLRA. Compare PLRA, 18 U.S.C. § 803(a)(1), § 803(b)(3) and Women Prisoners v. District of Columbia, 8 99 F. Supp. 659, 6 72-77 (D.D.C. 1995) (evaluating remedial relief in context of limiting principles of Occoquan v. Barry). Indeed, this Court previously rejected Defendants' claims that the ordered relief was overbroad, not related to specific legal violations, and that other alternative remedies were available. Women Prisoners, 899 F. Supp. at 672-677.
Moreover, the PLRA prohibits termination of prospective relief if the Court makes "written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current or ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation." 18 U.S.C. § 803(b)(3). This Court can make such written findings at this time based on the existing record in this case.
If the District files a motion under the PLRA, it must demonstrate that factual changes have occurred such that the ordered relief is no longer necessary to correct a current or ongoing problem. Similar to a motion to vacate relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, Defendants must demonstrate that the ordered relief should be vacated or

- 7modified. Cf. Women Prisoners, 899 F. Supp. at 675 (Defendants must present evidence of changed circumstances or viable alternative remedial plans to seek modification of Order).
If Defendants satisfy the Court that they have made a facial showing that the ordered relief is no longer necessary to cure a violation, it will be necessary for the Court to conduct hearings. In connection with those hearings, Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 to gather evidence and make factual findings with the assistance of the parties regarding the current situation of women prisoners at CTF, the Annex, and the Jail. Plaintiffs will meet whatever schedule is set by such court-appointed expert. Alternatively, the Court could order that the parties engage in limited, expedited discovery to determine the current situation.
Any motion filed by the District to vacate relief under the PLRA would not stay the ordered relief. Although the PLRA purports to automatically stay any prospective relief 3 0 days after a motion to terminate the relief is filed, 18 U.S.C. § 803 (e) (2), virtually every court which has addressed this provision has declared it unconstitutional or refused to enforce it .-1
n-' United States v. Michigan. No. 1:84 CV 63, Opinion (W.D. Mich. July 3, 1996), stay denied. (6th Cir. Sept. 17, 1996); Hadix v. Johnson. No. 4:92 CV 110, Opinion and Order Denying Stay (W.D. Mich. July 3, 1996), stay denied, (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 1996) ; Gavin v. Ray, No. 4-78-70062, Ruling and Order Staying Automatic Stay Provision (S.D. Iowa Aug. 9, 1996);
(continued...

Plaintiffs are prepared to challenge the
constitutionality of the PLRA's application to this case, if
necessary. However, Plaintiffs believe that a determination of
the constitutionality of the statute is unnecessary here since
the necessary findings have been made, or could easily be made
either on the existing record or after an appropriate hearing.
E. Attorneys' Fees
This Court previously stayed Plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees pending appeal. Plaintiffs are now entitled to
attorneys' fees as prevailing plaintiffs on a substantial
majority of their claims. The PLRA's provisions for attorneys'
fees do not apply retroactively where plaintiffs prevailed or
attorney work was performed prior to the passage of the Act.-7
Moreover, any work performed after the passage of the Act is
directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief
ordered for the violations previously proven at trial. See
2/ (. . .continued) Ruiz v. Scott. No. H-78-987 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 1996); McClendon v. City of Albuquerque. No. 95-24, Memorandum Opinion and Order (D.N.Mex. Oct. 29, 1996).
& Jensen v. Clarke. 1996 WL 498960, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 23219 (8th Cir. Sept. 5, 1996); Cooper v. Casey. 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 26009 (7th Cir. Oct. 2, 1996); Alexander S. v. Boyd, No. 3:90-3062-17, Order Awarding Attorneys Fees (D.S.C. May 29, 1996); Hadix v. Johnson, No. 80-73581, Opinion and Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys Fees (E.D. Mich. May 30, 1996); Weaver v. Clarke. 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9682 (D. Neb. June 18, 1996); Chappell v. Gomez. No. C 93-4421 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 1996); Miller-Bev v. Stiller. No. 93-CV72111-DT (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 1996); Anderson v. Kern. No. F90-0205, Order (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 1996); Webb v. Ada County. No. 91-0204 (D. Idaho Sept. 30, 1996); Browning v. Vernon, 910409, Report and Recommendation (D. Idaho Oct. 2, 1996).

- 9PLRA Sec. 803(d) (amending 42 U.S.C. § 1997e). Plaintiffs' counsel have filed applications for attorneys' fees for work performed through June 1995, and will promptly update those fees through supplemental applications.
F. Summary Based on the decision and mandate of the Court of
Appeals, this Court should vacate the following provisions of the Order:
11 5, 6, 13; 11 8, 12, 14, 15 in part only as they relate to the special monitor's role; 11 20-34, 36-62, 131-132 only as they relate to CTF; 11 133-136; 11 83-92, 94-101; 11 63-67 and 93 in part to the extent they do not relate to education or vocation programs; 1 102.
The remaining relief ordered by this Court remains in effect:
General: 11 1-2, 137-138 Sexual Misconduct: 11 3-4, 7-12, 14-19 Education and Vocation: 11 63-67 (education and
vocation only); 68-72, 75-82, 93 Environmental: 11 103-124 Fire: 11 125-130, 131-132 (Annex only)
Accordingly, the District must comply with this ordered relief. If and when the District chooses to challenge all or part of the Order under the PLRA, pursuant to the Court of Appeals' invitation, Plaintiffs will vigorously oppose any termination or modification of the relief, as set forth above.

- 10 Plaintiffs request that the Court enter the attached order detailing the status of this case as outlined in the foregoing status report.
Respectfully submitted, COVINGTON & BURLING

Dated: December 17, 1996

By:. Peter'J. Nickles # 53447 Caroline M. Brown # 438342 Tracy A. Thomas # 435742 Julie Abbate # 445093 COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (202) 662-6000
Brenda V. Smith # 404979 Deborah L. Brake # 435006 NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER 11 Dupont Circle Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 588-5180
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 17, 1996, I caused
a copy of the foregoing Status Report to be hand-delivered to:
Richard S. Love Esq. Maria Amato, Esq. Office of the Corporation Counsel 441 4th Street NW 6th Floor South Washington, DC 20001
Tracy^A. Thomas

:CN a

ID: DEC OS'36 13:26 ;,o.c:4 P
of tire 91strict of (Eoiumtiia
OFFICK OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL JU0IC1ARV tQUARt 441 rouRTH ST.M w. C XOOOI

I" REPLY tttrtn TO
FILED

December 5, 1996 .
Grace M. Lopes special officer of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia 1130 17th Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036
Re: Women Prisoners v. D.q.

ncp io1Pn«
u«-U I § 193D
CLn^n,~TDISTR1CTCo;jrT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Dear Gracet
I am in receipt of your letter dated December 3, 1996 concerning your role in investigating and monitoring sexual misconduct complaints made by female inmates. Given the Circuit court of Appeals' decision denying plaintiffs' suggestion for rehearing Jn Bane andthe imminent issuance of the court's mandate, any such complaints and/or referrals youmay receive should be rerouted to the institutional warden, with notice also provided to Ms. Amato orme. The Department hasarranged for Delany, Siegel, Zorn & Assoc. to investigate these complaints and a purchase order submitted forthis purpose has recently been approved.1 Assoonas the approved purchase order is returned to the Department, which is expected to occur tomorrow, a copy will be faxed to Delany, Siegel, Zorn & Assoc. who will then be authorized to investigate sexual misconduct matters which are referred to them.
Sincerely,

Bys
cc: Maria Amato, Esq. Tracy Thomas,Esq. Regina Gilmore

Charles F. C.Ruff Counsel, D.C.
!. Love "Special Assistant t o the Corporation counsel

1 Purchase order(s) will be used as an interim measure until a longer tern contract for these services is approved.

Women Prisoners/DC v. DC PC-DC-011-013

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et aL.,
Plaintiffs,

v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
et al.,

Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil Action ) No. 93-2052 (JLG) ) )

)

FILED

)

)

MAY 1 4 1997

)

)

NANCY MAYER-WHITTINGTON. CLERK

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFFS' STATUS REPORT AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER
By this status report, plaintiffs summarize the status of the action before this Court and move for entry of an order to resolve a pending motion before this Court. Several issues in this case were stayed pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court on the plaintiffs' petition for certiorari seeking review of the D.C. Circuit's holding on the equal protection and Title IX issues. The Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition on April 28, 1997.
At this time, the following outstanding issues remain before the Court:
A. Joint Stipulated Motion The parties filed a Joint Stipulated Motion for
Voluntary Dismissal and Entry of Order on January 27, 1997. By this motion, the parties stipulated to the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of plaintiffs' Eighth Cause of Action alleging violations of law under local law, D.C. Code

T r

- 2Ann. §§ 24-442 and 24-425.-^ In addition, the parties jointly requested entry of an order clarifying the provisions of this Court's Orders for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief dated December 13, 1994, March 15, 1995, and August 14, 1995, that remain in effect following the decision of the D.C. Circuit. The parties stipulated to a proposed order setting forth their understanding of each provision that remains in place.
By this motion, plaintiffs request that the Court rule on the joint motion previously submitted by the parties, and a copy of the proposed order stipulated to by the parties is attached for the Court's convenience.
B. Motion for Court-Appointed Expert On January 17, 1997, plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Court Appointed Expert Witness Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. Plaintiffs requested that the Court appoint an expert witness to report to the Court and the parties on defendants' compliance with the effective provisions of this Court's Orders for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
Plaintiffs withdrew this motion on February 11, 1997, pursuant to an agreement with the District. The parties agreed to appoint Ms. Regina Gilmore, a D.C. Department of
-1 Plaintiffs have withdrawn their January 28th motion for partial voluntary dismissal of their first cause of action under the Eighth Amendment as it relates to medical, fire, and environmental claims at CTF. Pi. Amd. Reply & Mot. to Withdraw (Mar. 11, 1997). Those claims remain a part of the case before this Court.

- 3Corrections employee, to conduct an audit of the District's compliance with the Court Orders following the methodology employed by the Special Officer, Grace M. Lopes, in this and other corrections cases.
The parties originally anticipated that Ms. Gilmore would complete her report by May 12, 1997. However, delays caused by the transitioning of the management at the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) to the private corporation, Correctional Corporation of America, have postponed completion of the report. Ms. Gilmore informs the parties that she expects the report to be completed by August 1, 1997, and that it will contain a complete review of the situation at CTF in light of the change in management. Once the report is received and reviewed, plaintiffs will reevaluate their request for a court-appointed expert.
C. Attorneys' Fees On March 3, 1997, plaintiffs filed a Revised
Application for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. This Revised Application superseded plaintiffs' prior applications for fees, which were withdrawn by order of this Court dated March 10, 1997. The Court stayed plaintiffs' revised application for fees and costs pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the plaintiffs' petition for certiorari. That petition was denied on April 28, 1997, and plaintiffs therefore renew their request for attorneys fees and costs in this action.

- 4For the reasons set forth in the parties' Joint Stipulated Motion for Voluntary Dismissal and Entry of Order dated January 27, 1997, plaintiffs request that the Court rule on the joint motion dismissing the plaintiffs' Eighth Cause of Action without prejudice and clarifying the effective remedial provisions in this action.
Respectfully submitted, COVINGTON & BURLING

Dated: May 14, 1997

Peter (p. Nickles # 53447 Caroline M. Brown # 438342 Tracy A. Thomas # 4 3 574 2 Julie K. Abbate # 445093 COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (202) 662-6000
Brenda V. Smith # 404979 Deborah L. Brake # 435006 NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER 11 Dupont Circle NW Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 2003 6 (202) 588-5180
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 14, 1997,
I caused a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Status Report and Motion for Entry of Order to be delivered by first-class mail to:
Maria Amato, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel 441 4th Street, N.W. 6th Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001
Grace M Lopes, Esq. Special Officer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 1130 17th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington DC 20036
Tracy fl Thomas

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF )

COLUMBIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

)

et. al.,

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

) Civil Action No. 93-2052

) (JLG)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et. al.

)

f"ILED

Defendants

)

)

SEP 2 9 1997

DEFENDANTS' STATUS REPORT

Defendants, by and through counsel, submit this status report

regarding the Audit of compliance with the Court Order in this

case.

In order to resolve the differences between the parties

regarding plaintiffs' request to have an audit of compliance with

the Court Order conducted by the Special Officer of the Court at

the defendants' expense, the parties agreed that a D.C. Department

of Corrections employee would conduct the audit. The employee was

selected on the basis of her integrity, knowledge of the Court

Order, correctional experience, experience regarding programs and

services for female inmates and experience with the policies and

procedures regarding sexual misconduct against inmates. Moreover,

the employee was selected because she was appointed the DOC

contract monitor for the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA),

which has purchased and manages the Correctional Treatment Facility

(CTF). The knowledge gained in the audit would be advantagous to

her role as the monitor of the CCA contract.

The CCA assumed management of the CTF in March, 1997. The

parties agreed to begin the audit in June and forward the report by August 1, 1997, to allow the CCA a few months to acclimate itself to the institution and the mandates of the Court Order. However, the deadline was postponed due to a number of unforseen events. The employee assigned to conduct the audit had an accident and was disabled for six weeks this summer. Upon her return to work, she had to participate in the three week immersion training program provided by the Department for all management. Finally, she had to be out of town for one week in September, for a committment made over one year ago.
The interviews, inspections and documents review for the audit have been completed. Defendants have forwarded the first portion of the written report to the plaintiffs on September 1, 1997. The draft of the remainder of the report was returned to the auditor for additional work and clarification. After plaintiffs filed their status report with the Court, the parties agreed that the completed report will be forwarded to plaintiffs no later than October 15, 1997, with the understanding that this deadline is final and no extensions will be allowed.

The DOC and the CCA intend to forward a remedial plan in
response to the audit to address any areas of noncompliance in the
report.
JOHN M. FERREN Corporation Counsel, D.C.
WILLIAM EARL Deputy Corporation Counsel, D.C. Special^Citigation Division
MARIA AMATO (414935) Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. Special Litigation Division 441 Fourth Street, N.W., 6th Floor-South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 727-6295

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Status Report

was mailed postage prepaid to Caroline Brown, Esquire, Covington

and Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., P.O. Box 7566,

Washington, D.C. 20044, and Brenda Smith, Esquire, National Womens

Law Center, 11 Dupont Circle, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C.

20036, on this .^

day of Af^Tf , 1997.

MARIA AMATO (414935) Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. Special Litigation Division 441 Fourth Street, N.W., 6th Floor-South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 727-6295

"

••—•••«.<-•'!•

,

Women Prisoners/DC v. DC

PC-DC-011-016

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF

)

COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

)

et al.,

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
— a—"'

Plaintiffs,
Defendants.

) Civil Action ) No. 93-2052 JLQ ,

] f FILED

)

JUN 2 2 1998

NANCY MAVtH WHinWfiVjN, CLERK

'

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

)

-*• '"

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND TO ENFORCE THE COURT'S ORDER FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs, the women prisoners of the District of Columbia, bring this motion to enforce the Court's Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Rev. Order 6/16/97). Defendants have been under order to remedy constitutional violations since December 1994, but to date, many remedies have still not been implemented in the areas of sexual misconduct, environmental and fire safety at the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF), and programs at CTF. Thus, plaintiffs seek relief from this Court to enforce the relief previously imposed.
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum in support of this motion, plaintiffs request that the Court enter the attached order finding the defendants in violation of the Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. In addition, plaintiffs seek relief in the form of prospective fines, a court-appointed expert, and attorneys' fees for the

- 2defendants' failure to abide by the Court's Order.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 22, 1998

By: Pe^er J. Caroline M.' Brown # 438342 Lisa J. Stevenson # 457628 COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (202) 662-6000
Brenda V. Smith # 404979 Deborah L. Brake # 43 5006 NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER 11 Dupont Circle NW Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 588-5180
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 22, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt to be hand-delivered to:
Maria Amato, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel 441 4th Street, N.W. 6th Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001 Lisva—LT. Stevenson Attorney for plaintiffs
I I

Women Prisoners/DC v. DC PC-DC-011-021

 
 ' FILED

JUN 2 2 1998

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MA"CY & I & « ' W i N » > i M CLERK U.S. tHSTRICT COURT

FILED

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al., Plaintiffs,

JUN 1 61997
NANCY MAY6B-WMITTINGT0N Cl£RK U S OlSTWCT COCI«T

v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, at al., Defendants.

) CA 93-2052 ) Judge June L. Green

ORDER Upon consideration of the Joint Stipulated Motion of the parties filed January 27, 1997; the Plaintiffs1 February 11, 1997 Motion to Withdraw their January 11, 1997 Motion for a Court Appointed Expert Witness Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706; the Plaintiffs' March 3, 1997 Motion for Attorneys* Fees and Costs; the Plaintiffs' May 14, Status Report following the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of their petition for certiorari, and Defendants'
. & response thereto, it is by the Court this }U day of June, 1997,
ORDERED that the parties' Joint Stipulated Motion of January 27, 1997 be GRANTED as follows:
l) the Court STAYS any order an award of attorneys fees and costs as set out in the Plaintiffs' March 3, 1997, request, and orders the parties to engage in negotiations over any amount of attorney fees and costs to be awarded; such negotiations shall take place over the next 60 (sixty) days, and the parties shall report back to the Court no later than August 15, 1997 regarding the resolution of this matter.
Women Prisoners/DC v. DC

PC-DC-011-023

- 2 ORDER m g DECLARATORY AND TNtTONCTIVE
2) By agreement of the parties, other issues that remain before this Court following the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit are addressed as follows:
1. The Defendants' actions and inactions violated and continue to violate the Plaintiff class members' rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. S 1983, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (1988).
2. The Defendants are ordered to take all action necessary to remedy and prevent the violations of the Plaintiffs' above-mentioned rights. The Defendants have been ordered, in the prior Orders identified above, to take specific measures in the areas of sexual harassment-, education and vocation programs, and environmental and fire safety, as set forth below beginning with paragraph 4.
3. All measures ordered by the Court set forth below should have been completed and effective within six months of entry of the Order, dated December 13, 1994, unless otherwise specified, except that 1 19 should have been completed and effective within six months of entry of the Order dated March 15, 1995, and 11 11, 15, 16, 18, 23, 26, 27, 29, 33, SO, 58, and 59 should have been completed and effective

- 3within six months of entry of the Supplemental Order, dated August 14, 1995.
I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT 4. Within 60 days, the Defendants shall write and
follow a Department Order prohibiting sexual harassment involving District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DCDC) employees and women prisoners. The Defendants shall post and circulate the Department Order in accordance with departmental policy.
5. Under this policy the DCDC has the obligation to take appropriate steps to prevent and remedy sexual harassment committed by its own employees.
6. Prohibited conduct under the policy shall be defined as:
a. Sexual harassment which includes: (1) all unwelcome sexual activity directed by any
DCDC employee at a prisoner including acts of sexual intercourse, oral sex, or sexual touching and any attempt to commit these acts; and (2) all unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature directed by any DCDC employee at a prisoner; and b. Invasions of women prisoners' privacy by male employees without a valid penological reason,
"•T

- 4including the failure of any male employee to announce his presence when entering a female housing unit. c. Retaliation for reporting complaints of, assisting any individual in making a report of, or cooperating in an investigation of sexual harassment, regardless of the merits or the disposition of the underlying complaint. Retaliatory conduct includes the following actions taken against a prisoner in response to that prisoner's complaint of sexual harassment or cooperation in the reporting or investigation of sexual harassment: disciplining, changing work or program assignments of, transferring to another facility of, or placing under involuntary protective custody any prisoner. d. Any breach of confidentiality by any employee concerning any report of sexual harassment. e. Any interference with investigations of sexual harassment. 7. Penalties for prohibited conduct under the policy shall be determined by the Director of the OCDC within 30 days. 3. Women prisoners shall be able to report instances of sexual harassment through the existing Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) as specified in Department Order 4030.ID.. The Defendants shall strictly adhere to the Inmate

- 5Grievance Procedure and shall establish an Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee (IGAC) as required by Section VII(C) of Department Order 4030.ID.
9. Women prisoners shall also be able to submit IGP's or complaints concerning sexual harassment in any form, orally or in writing, to any DCDC employee, who must submit the information, in writing, to the Warden of the facility within 24 hours of receiving the information. Women prisoners may also submit IGP's or complaints to prisoner representative to the IGAC.
10. The Defendants shall establish a confidential hot line, under the supervision of the Director of the DCDC, through which women prisoners can report allegations of sexual harassment.
11. Failure of an employee to report any allegation of sexual misconduct or any facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable employee to believe that sexual misconduct is occurring or has occurred shall subject the employee to discipline.
12. Upon receipt of any allegation of an act of unwelcome sexual intercourse or any allegation of unwelcome sexual touching, the Defendants must notify the proper law enforcement agency. The Defendants shall communicate with the law enforcement agency concerning the status of any investigation. The Defendants must periodically document the status of police investigations. The occurrence of a police

- 6investigation does not relieve the Defendants of the duty to investigate.
13. The identity of the target of the alleged sexual harassment shall be revealed only to those who have an immediate need to know, including the alleged harasser(s) or retaliator(s) and any witnesses. All parties contacted in the course of an investigation will be advised that any retaliation, reprisal, or breach of confidentiality is a separate actionable offense as provided in the schedule of penalties.
14. Any prisoner who is dissatisfied with any investigation or resolution of an allegation of sexual harassment may appeal to the Director of the DCDC within 15 days of receiving written notice of the outcome of the investigation. The Director must respond within 15 days.
15. The Department shall conduct mandatory training using certified trainers on sexual misconduct for all DCDC employees. A consultant from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall develop the training plan and material. A "certified trainer" is defined as any person who has completed the "Train-theTrainer" course developed by the NIC consultant.
a. The training shall include education concerning the Defendants' policies regarding reporting, investigating, and preventing sexual harassment, and
•n

- 7the consequences for violating any policy concerning sexual harassment; and b. All staff who work with female prisoners shall be trained by certified trainers within six months commencing no later than August 30, 1995. After the initial training of staff, the training will be included in the pre-service training of all staff. Annual retraining shall be conducted to refresh staff on the Department Order regarding sexual misconduct. c. Within one year, selected employees working with female prisoners shall receive a forty-hour training program on working with female offenders. A semiannual, enhancement training on special issues related to working with female offenders will be offered to selected employees. 16. Commencing no later than August 30, 1995, the Department shall conduct mandatory training on sexual harassment using certified trainers for all women prisoners currently in the DCDC. A consultant from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall develop the training plan and materials which will instruct women prisoners on the Department Order on sexual misconduct and how to recognize and report sexual harassment. Training sessions for women prisoners on sexual harassment shall be provided within a reasonable time upon a woman's entry in the D.C. Department of Corrections.
1:1 !

- 817. The Defendants shall make necessary alterations at both the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) and the Minimum Security Annex (Annex) within 60 days to ensure that women have privacy in their living, sleeping and shower areas.
II. OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL CARS 18. The Defendants shall develop and implement a
protocol concerning restraints used on pregnant and postpartum women which provides that a pregnant prisoner shall be transported in the least restrictive way possible consistent with legitimate security reasons. Specifically, the protocol shall provide:
* a. The Defendants shall use no restraints on any woman in labor, during delivery, or in recovery immediately after delivery; and
b. During the last trimester of pregnancy up until labor, the Defendants shall use no restraints when transporting a pregnant woman prisoner unless the woman has demonstrated a history of assaultive behavior or has escaped from a correctional facility, in which case, only handcuffs shall be used.
III. PROGRAM EVALUATION 19. The Defendants shall provide diagnostic
evaluations for women prisoners similar to those currently provided for men in the Reception and Diagnostic Unit at CTF to

- 9determine women prisoners' needs, interests, and requirements for increased programs and opportunities in education and vocation. The procedure for the needs assessment shall be done by an approved scientific method. These evaluations shall be completed in a manner and time frame equivalent to the males in the diagnostic unit, but shall not exceed 120 days from the date of the female prisoner's transfer to CTP or the Annex. The evaluations shall include educational and vocational testing. The Defendants shall provide women with the appropriate available programming called for by this evaluation within 30 days of completion of the diagnostic evaluation.
20. The Defendants shall coordinate the scheduling of academic educational classes, higher education classes, and vocational training for women in such a manner as to maximize women prisoners' participation in as many areas as possible.
21. The Defendants shall provide sufficient program space so that women prisoners can participate in equal and adequate education and vocation programs and services as compared to men prisoners. The Defendants shall provide at least two additional trailers at the Annex (with functional sanitary facilities) to allow for additional programming activities. Within 30 days, the Defendants may submit for the Court's consideration an alternative to the 2 ordered trailers.
22. The Defendants shall develop and implement quality assurance programs for monitoring program delivery to
T T

- 10 ensure the continued provision of equal and adequate education and vocation programs to women prisoners.
23. The Defendants shall ensure that women prisoners are escorted to and arrive at educational and vocational programs in a timely manner as scheduled in a manner that does not prevent the programming staff from performing any of their duties.
24. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at the Annex with a range of academic education programs that is equivalent to the range of academic programs provided to male prisoners ac the Minimum Security Facility (Minimum).
25. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a range of academic education programs that is equivalent to the range of academic programs provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.
26. Women prisoners at the Annex and CTF shall be provided with the opportunity for full-time (three hours per day, five days per week at CTF and five hours per day, five days per week at the Annex) basic education to include ABE, GED, and Special Education classes.
27. Women prisoners at CTF shall have access to onsite higher education programs which shall include a four-year B.A. and/or B.S. degree program, an A.A. degree program, and precollege program. At a minimum, bachelor programs shall be offered in one area of study, and associate programs in two different areas of study leading to a degree. Defendants shall

- 11 comply with the precollege requirement of this provision within 90 days.
28. The Defendants shall offer prisoners financial arrangements for these education programs that are the same as those arrangements available to similarly situated male prisoners.
29. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall provide appropriate substitute teachers or instructors during absences of regular teachers or instructors of more than three working days. The provision of a substitute teacher or instructor shall not result in increasing the class size beyond acceptable community standards for a period of time exceeding 15 consecutive school days.
30. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a range of vocational education programs that is equivalent to the range of vocational education programs provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.
31. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with two prevocational programs each to be at least six weeks in duration. Prevocational programs include those courses which teach personal development skills, living skills, and/or employment skills such as Employment Techniques, Awareness and Preparation (ETAP) and Lifeskills.
32. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a minimum of four vocational education programs,

- 12 including the one program currently in place (DocuTech). These programs shall be available to female prisoners of all custody levels. A vocational education program is any program of 12 to 24 months of duration that teaches employable skills and contains both a classroom component and an on-the-job-training component. Two programs shall be operate within 120 days of the entry of this Order.
33. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with at least one apprenticeship program as defined by Department order.
34. All prevocational programs, vocational programs, and apprenticeships added for women prisoners at CTF shall have the potential for providing women with job skills marketable in the local labor market. An important consideration in the Defendants' selection of programs shall be the wage-earning capacity upon completion of the program.
35. The Defendants shall conduct affirmative outreach to women during the enrollment period for vocational training. This outreach shall entail DCDC staff meeting with women at least one month before the deadline for program enrollment to inform the women that the new programs are available and to offer a full description of the available programs and any applicable criteria for participation.
36. The Defendants shall ensure that all contractual programs used to provide services to women prisoners are compatible with and fulfill the provisions of this Order.

- 13 37. The Defendants shall staff a sufficient number of vocational development specialists at the Annex in order Co conduct testing, classes and counseling.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 38. Within one year, the Defendants shall repair or
replace the roofs of Annex Dormitories 6 and 7 and retain them in a watertight condition.
39. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall repair the Annex dormitories so as to prevent the entry and refuge of vermin and shall conduct a vermin eradication program to eliminate the present infestation of vermin. The Defendants shall thereafter promulgate and follow an effective vermin eradication program.
40. Within 60 days, the Defendants shall provide each woman prisoner housed in the Annex dormitories at least one vertical locker and one footlocker.
41. Within 30 days, the Defendants shall replace all torn mattresses and pillows at the Annex with clean, untorn, fire-retardant mattresses and pillows. The Defendants shall conduct a regular inspection of all mattresses and pillows and shall, at that time, immediately replace any mattresses that are damaged to a degree that prevents adequate cleaning.
42. The Defendants shall immediately use cart liners or disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry at the Annex.

- 14 -
43. For as long as the Annex dormitories are doublebunked, the Defendants shall, within 60 days, provide a minimum of 2 0 foot candles of prisoner-controlled light to each bunk.
44. Effective immediately, the Defendants shall ensure that all housing units at the Annex are issued a timely, adequate and appropriate amount of cleaning supplies.
45. Within 60 days the Defendants shall connect the toilets and handsinks in every Annex trailer.
46. The Defendants shall continue to provide sufficient and readily accessible sanitary facilities for women in the industries at the Central Facility.
47. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall improve the ventilation at the Annex dormitories, the print shop and the garment shop so that the quality of air in these areas is brought up to an acceptable level.
48. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall install a drainage system at the Annex which will prevent hazardous accumulations of water.
49. The Defendants shall promulgate and follow a written preventive maintenance plan for the Amex dormitories, the Annex trailers, and the Annex grounds.
50. Three times every year, the Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCHA) to inspect the Annex for compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation and maintenance and food service delivery (at the main Minimum

- 15 -
compound). If any area is shown to be in compliance after completion of an inspection, the mid-year inspection may be an abatement inspection rather than a full inspection. At a minimum, DCRA shall conduct full compliance inspections at the Annex two times every year. Within 30 days of each inspection, the Warden of Minimum shall obtain the DCRA findings. The Warden shall repair, clean, or otherwise remedy an unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA as soon as feasible but in no event later than 30 days following the receipt of the DCRA report.
51. Within 90 days, the Defendant shall hire a qualified air balancing contractor to service the CTF air handling system so that it provides an acceptable level of air quality to all areas of the facility inhabited by prisoners.
52. In the event that the air balancing and other recent repairs to the heating system at CTF fail to maintain a minimum cell temperature of 65<>F in every cell, measured at the perimeter wall, the Defendants shall immediately
a. cease housing women in the end cells of each tier; b. provide each woman prisoner with two extra blankets,
two pairs of thermal underwear, and two pairs of wool socks; c. explore means of insulating or heating the perimeter walls of the cells; and d. report back to the Court.
T ' ••I

- 16 53. The Defendants shall develop and implement an effective rodent prevention program. 54. Effective immediately, the Defendants shall ensure that all housing units at CTF are issued a timely, adequate and appropriate amount of cleaning supplies. 55. The Defendants shall use cart liners or disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry between CTF and the Jail. 56. Effective immediately, the Defendants at CTF shall monitor the food temperature and delivery times of all foods, including special diet meals, delivered to the satellite kitchen. 57. The Defendants shall promulgate and follow a written preventive maintenance plan for the CTF that includes maintenance of structures, systems, and equipment. 58. The Defendants shall ensure that the correctional officers inspect all plumbing fixtures daily, and shall ensure that any plumbing fixture that requires repair will be reported immediately upon discovery, and repaired in a timely manner. The Defendants shall maintain logs demonstrating compliance with this requirement. 59. Two times per year, the Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia DCRA to conduct inspections of the CTF for compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation, maintenance and food service delivery. Within 30 days of each inspection, the Warden of CTF shall obtain the

- 17 DCRA findings. The Warden shall repair, clean, or otherwise remedy any unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA as soon as feasible but in no event later than 30 days following the receipt of the DCRA report.
V. FIRS SAFETY 60. Within 120 days, the Defendants shall install
and maintain a manual fire alarm system and fire detection system, which covers all areas used by women prisoners at Minimum, including the Annex dormitories. The fire detection system must include smoke detectors in all sleeping and dayroom areas, and smoke or heat detectors in all other areas. There must be an automatic retransmission of the above systems to a constantly attended location outside of the dormitory buildings. There must also be a control panel to provide emergency power or to send a warning if the system is not operational.
61. The Defendants must repair or replace the fire alarm system in the Administration building, the cafeteria and gymnasium at the Minimum main compound.
62. The Defendants must install a sprinkler system in the Annex dormitories and provide a 20-minute fire-rated enclosure of storage rooms located in both dormitories.
63. The Defendants shall ensure that all bed linens, blankets, and curtains or draperies in the Annex dormitories are of fire-retardant material.

- 18 64. Effective immediately, in each Annex dormitory, the Defendants shall conduct fire drills 12 times per year, 4 times per shift, and shall keep written documentation of all such drills. 65. The Defendants shall conduct and document mandatory semi-annual training on fire safety procedures for all correctional officers. 66. Effective immediately at the Annex, and in accordance with Department Order No. 2920.1A, the Defendants shall: a. conduct weekly inspections of all buildings and grounds for fire hazards, and document such inspections; b. conduct quarterly inspections of all fire safety equipment, and document such inspections; and c. ensure that the Institutional Fire Marshal conducts quarterly inspections of the Facility. 67. Effective immediately, and in accordance with Department Order No. 2920.1A, the District of Columbia Fire Department shall conduct fire safety inspections of the Annex not less frequently than every 12 months. The Warden of Minimum shall obtain the Fire Department's report within 10 days and promptly give a copy to the Plaintiffs' counsel. Thereafter, the Warden shall cause any fire safety deficiencies identified in the Fire Department's report to be remedied within 30 days, or shall provide a report to the Fire

- 19 Department as to why the deficiency cannot be so remedied and provide a plan to remedy the deficiency within a further period of time not to exceed 90 days.

VI. GENERAL 68. This Order shall continue in full force and
effect, absent modification by the Court, until the Defendants have complied with all provisions for 5 years.

FURTHER ORDERED: that the Clerk shall mail copies of this Order to:

Peter J. Nicicles, Esq. Caroline M. Brown, Esq. Tracy A. Thomas, Esq. Julie K. Abbate, Esq. Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566
Brenda V. Smith, Esq. Deborah L. Brake, Esq. National Women's Law Center 11 Dupont Circle, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036

Maria Amato, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Sixth Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001

JUNE L. GI United Stktes District Co* Judge

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF )

COLUMBIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

)

et. al.,

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

) Civil Action No.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et. al.

) (JLG) )

HOT - 1 1998

Defendants )

NANCY MHYfcri n u t ITINGTON, CLERK

)

THE PARTIES' JOINT STATUS REPORT REGARDING

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CONTEMPT

On June 29, 1998 the parties met to discuss and resolve

plaintiffs' concerns regarding compliance with the Court Order in

the above referenced case. The parties believe they have made

considerable progress in resolving these issues, and submit this

status report as set forth below. The first section responds to

general issues raised in the motion; the second section responds to

the specific remedies requested by plaintiffs on page 28 of the

motion.

I. GENERAL CONCERNS REGARDING SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

1. Probable Cause Ratio - Plaintiffs state that the number of

sexual misconduct cases resulting in a finding of probable cause

appears low and that the percentage reflects inadequate

investigation.

It is defendants' position that the number of findings of

probable cause reflect an appropriate if not exceptional level of

probable cause findings. Since the defendants have resumed

investigation of sexual misconduct complaints, a finding of

probable cause has been reached in 10 out of 63 cases filed at the
Women Prisoners/ DC v. DC

! • • • ! til • • » • • <••

HH • • • • I

PC-DC-011-024

Correctional Treatment Facility (herein "CTF")(until March, 1997,

when the CCA took over), Minimum Security and Detention facilities.

The CCA has investigated eight cases of sexual misconduct with one

finding of probable cause since assuming the responsibility in

June, 1997. These findings are consistent and in fact exceed the

percentage of positive findings reached by the Special Officer of

the Court, Grace Lopes - which were 2 findings of probable cause

out of 46 cases.

Plaintiffs requested and shall have regular access to review

sexual misconduct reports at the site where they are maintained,

with appropriate notice to defense counsel to arrange a mutually

agreeable date and time. Plaintiffs have proposed a new format for

the compilation of statistics regarding sexual misconduct, which

shall be included in the monthly report.

2.

Investigative technigues - Plaintiffs alleged that

investigators side with employees unless complainants' allegations

can be verified or substantiated. In February of 1998, a cadre of

2 6 DOC staff members and six CCA staff members were selected to

serve as sexual misconduct investigators and were trained by United

States Investigative Services (USIS) in a week long intensive

training program. The candidates were selected from a broad

spectrum of correctional disciplines, including correctional

officers from various levels on the chain of command, case

managers, social workers, psychologists, and a variety of other

non-uniformed staff. The investigators also present a broad

spectrum of ethnic, racial and religious backgrounds, and were

selected on the basis of their proven records of sound judgment, discretion, superior work habits and skills.
USIS conducts investigations on behalf of the federal government and enjoys an outstanding reputation. The training required full participation in drafting investigative plans which serve as a roadmap of sources to check and witnesses to interview before the investigation begins. The staff were trained not to conclude that the employee prevails if there are no witnesses. They were trained to look for other evidence or indicia that may corroborate the inmate's allegations, such as shift reports, assignment rosters, logs or other documents that will tend to confirm surrounding facts and details. They were also trained to investigate issues of motive such as recent disciplinary actions, past threats, prior relationships and other relevant information.
Employees learned and practiced techniques including witnesses, interviewing witnesses, analyzing evidence and preparing sworn statements.
The DOC and CCA have appointed sexual misconduct coordinators. They are highly qualified and trained individuals who have advanced skills and experience in the many nuances and challenges presented by incidents of sexual misconduct.
The coordinators' duties include reviewing all complaints to determine whether they assert a sexual misconduct claim. If on the face of the complaint it appears it does not present sexual misconduct or retaliation, they interview the complainants to ensure they know all the facts, thereby protecting inmates who may

unartfully draft a complaint. After an investigator is assigned to a case, the coordinator
reviews the investigation plan for comment. The coordinators provide advice and guidance to the investigators, participate in training, refer cases to law enforcement and track case progress monthly. They prepare the sexual misconduct statistical reports and are the custodians of sexual misconduct investigation records.
To date, the CCA has not used its in-house investigators, but rather a private contracting agency, Delaney, Seigal and Zorn, a national company used by the former Special Officer of the Court in this case, Grace Lopes, as well as a private investigator Edward Morey. 3. Investigator Recommendations - Plaintiffs alleged in their motion that the improved quality of investigations is diminished because of the alleged failure by the DOC and CCA to follow investigators' recommendations regarding operational concerns observed in their investigations.
Defendants state that recommendations were not acted upon because they were not in the investigator's area of experience or expertise and could not be followed without violating sound correctional or management practices. Moreover, investigation packets are maintained confidentially and therefore, correctional staff were not aware of the recommendations.
The DOC developed a new procedure where recommendations will be sent to the Deputy Director of Institutions for the DOC or the Warden at the CTF under separate memo without revealing

confidential sexual misconduct information. The procedure was

proposed and staff were trained in February, 1998, during the

training of 32 investigators described in paragraph two, above. In

response to plaintiffs' allegations, a memo outlining the process

was circulated on August 25, 1998, which was previously produced to

plaintiffs. Defendants shall review this procedure a second time

in an upcoming refresher training for the investigators, which has

not yet been scheduled, but will occur by November 15, 1998.

Plaintiffs may upon request review these separate memos which

will be maintained with the investigative reports.

4.

Definition of Sexual Misconduct- Plaintiffs allege an

investigator's finding that an officer's actions were made without
i
"specific intent of sexual gratification" is confusing and

inconsistent with the sexual misconduct definition. Defendants

explain that when an employee is accused of sexual misconduct in

the course of action taken pursuant to penological practices, the

sexual intent must be examined. For example, if an officer enters

a female unit without announcing a man on the tier in the course of

a shakedown, or if an officer frisks an inmate but did so for

legitimate security reasons, the conduct, in that sense, was not

performed with a "specific intent of sexual gratification". Such

an intent must be examined to determine whether an action was

penologically sound or pretext for sexual contact.

In response to plaintiffs' concern, defendants shall review

this procedure in an upcoming refresher training for the

investigators, which has not yet been scheduled, but they intend to

hold by November 15, 1998. The training will remind the

investigator to explain in the report why specific intent is

relevant. In the interim, a memorandum shall be circulated by

October 15, 1998, outlining this and any other issues raised in

this filing to all appropriate staff.

Plaintiffs shall be

provided with a copy.

5. CCA Hired DCDC Bad Actors - Plaintiffs expressed concern that

the CCA hired the same perpetrators previously identified as "bad

actors" in the Department of Corrections (DOC), i.e. people who had

previous complaints of sexual misconduct filed against them while

at the DOC. To the best of defendants' knowledge, there was only

one officer who was hired by the CCA - after retirement from the

DOC, not termination. While he had a few complaints filed against

him alleging sexual misconduct at the DOC and the CCA, no probable

cause was found.

Plaintiffs are concerned that there is a flaw in the system

which allows bad actors from DCDC to be hired by the CCA. The

undersigned does not dispute the fact that it would be helpful to

be able to notify the CCA when a former employee has had sexual

misconduct report(s) filed against him or her that resulted in "no

probable cause" findings, but the government is bound by laws

prohibiting it from maintaining or communicating personnel records

of charges in which an employee was exonerated under D.C.M.R.

Chapter 16.

However, defendants are developing a procedure allowing

communication to the CCA of probable cause findings reached against

former employees through the submission by CCA to the DOC of a written request. The DOC could only reveal information where there was no probable cause if provided with a written and signed waiver by the former employee, specifically relinquishing his/her privacy and personnel rights as to the sexual misconduct reports. The CCA will require that former DOC employee applicants be required to sign such a waiver. 6. Staff Resign Rather than Terminated - Plaintiffs allege investigations were closed after staff members were allowed to resign. Plaintiffs disagree with defendants' position that there was only one officer who quit while an investigation was on-going.
Investigators are required to complete an investigation even after an employee leaves, so a record can be maintained as to whether probable cause was found. The record should contain a clearly stated finding regarding the allegation. However, former staff no longer employed with the agency cannot be compelled to cooperate in the departments' administrative investigation and cannot be disciplined by the DOC. The Department will hold a refresher training on this and all other matters set forth in this status report by November 15, 1998. In the interim, a memo will be distributed to the investigators by October 15, 1998, addressing this issue. Plaintiffs shall be provided with a copy. 7. Inmates Impregnated While Incarcerated - All DOC and CCA pregnant inmates are housed on a special unit in the CTF. Every month, the CTF sexual misconduct coordinator receives a list of all pregnant inmates and checks their conception dates with their

custody dates. Inmates who conceive while incarcerated are immediately referred for a sexual misconduct investigation. The list of pregnant inmates has been sent to plaintiffs since May, 1998 and will continue to be sent to plaintiffs. There have been at least six pregnancies while incarcerated since March of 1997; one is alleged to involve a staff member, and the others allegedly involved male inmates. The pregnancies resulted in policy changes at the CTF that closed the satellite kitchens and segregated the genders in the culinary and medical units, where inmates and staff were able to have furtive contact with the opposite sex. 8. Sexual Misconduct Statistical Report - Pursuant to plaintiffs' request, a new statistical report is implemented for the DOC and the CTF that will be attached to the monthly report. The new report will distinguish the incidents involving females, include the number of sexual misconduct complaints reported to the Metropolitan Police Department, the location of the incident, the type of complaint and the discipline of employees. Plaintiffs requested the statistics include "what recommendations were made and/or implemented" or that the information be included in the monthly report. Defendants will retain this information in a separate file as set forth in paragraph three above, which can be reviewed by plaintiffs periodically. Defendants believe that this is a more secure procedure because the monthly report is not maintained with the appropriate level of confidentiality.

II. RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED REMEDIES The paragraph references below refer to the relevant
paragraphs in the Court Order in this case. Paragraph 7 CCA must provide written penalties for sexual misconduct. Response: The CCA's sexual misconduct policy specifies
potential penalties for violations of its policies in section 14100.5(N) which states "CCA will impose stringent disciplinary action against persons, up to and including termination". The CCA does not require a table of penalties as provided in DOC Department Order 3350.2B, due to the fact that CCA is a private corporation, and as such has the ability to terminate any employee for cause. The table of penalties provided by the DOC is tailored to conform to the progressive discipline requirements of D.C.'s Municipal Regulations, Chapter 16. CCA is not limited by the requirement for progressive discipline, and in all instances where a probable cause finding of sexual misconduct was made, the employee was terminated. This is in line with the first offense listed in the DO 3350.2B, where termination is the penalty for sexual abuse on the first offense.
Paragraph 8 CCA must hold Inmate Grievance Committee Meetings. Response: Inmate Grievance Committee Meetings have been resumed on April 30, 1998 (minutes have been produced to plaintiffs). However, a meeting was not held in June. Meetings have been scheduled for the fourth Thursday of every other month.

Plaintiffs requested a schedule for meetings for the remainder of 1998, but there is no charted schedule and the CCA feels it is unnecessary because it is already specific about when the meetings occur. In a reasonable time period prior to each IGAC meetings, notices will be posted in the women's dormitories.
Paragraph 14 Revise Department Order and CCA policy to allow 15 days for inmate to appeal adverse decision on sexual misconduct investigation. Response; The CCA/CTF amended Policy 14-100 to reflect this change, effective July 31, 1998. Regarding the DOC, under D.C.M.R. Chapter 16, an employee must be disciplined within 45 days of the infraction or the charges must be dropped. The time period allotted for appeal cannot be expanded to 15 days, because it leaves insufficient time for the proper investigation as well as receipt, consideration, and response to an inmate appeal and disciplinary action. Plaintiffs expressed a willingness to compromise on less than 15 days. The DOC agreed to amend the Department Order to include an increase of appeal time from five to eight business days and plaintiffs accepted this proposal. DOC employees are currently preparing the appropriate documents to effect such a change, which must be circulated in the DOC for comment and approval. In the interim, the Department will allow eight days for appeal, which the sexual misconduct coordinators will oversee and a memo will be circulated to that effect to appropriate
10

staff, no later than October 15, 1998. A copy will be provided to plaintiffs.
Paragraph 15 fb) and (c) Conduct annual refresher training at Jail; Conduct 40 hours training for staff working with female offenders; and conduct enhancement training on working with female inmates. Response: The CCA/CTF has conducted the training required in this paragraph. Attendance rosters for the 4 0-hour "Working with Female Offenders" and the first special issues training, "Domestic Violence", were previously submitted to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were provided the attendance roster for the second special issues training, "The Effects and Impact of Violence on the Female Offender; with special emphasis on rape and incest", which was held on June 5, 1998. The DOC has contacted Andie Moss, with the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) who has assisted in the development and implementation of that training and has herself conducted a portion of it. The 40 hour enhanced training for staff working with females was provided Monday, August 24 through Friday, the 28th, 1998. The annual refresher training was held September 18, 1998. Paragraph 17 Make alterations to CTF to ensure women's privacy. Opaque window coverings were placed on all windows in the female housing units, however, a body silhouette could still be seen. Permanent cover on the windows with a material or
11

substance sufficient to keep a body from being seen in a lighted room at night violates ACA standards which state that "all inmate rooms/cells provide access to natural light" (ACA Standard 34140). To rectify this, pursuant to a memorandum dated February 2, 1998, the new Warden implemented a standardized procedure to allow females to cover their windows, to include a revision to the housing unit officer's posts orders to allow temporary coverings pending installation of permanent covers.
The CCA ordered felt material and velcro to be used to make window coverings which can be put up by female inmates as necessary. The installation was to be complete by July 31, 1998.
However, the CCA learned that the felt is flammable and may be toxic. The CCA ordered a non-toxic, non-flammable material for curtains, which was received in early September. Inmates have been selected to sew curtains which are due to be completed by September 25, 1998. Defendants will accommodate plaintiffs' request with defendants' agreement to inspect the window treatments to confirm their adequacy.
Paragraph 19 Provide diagnostic studies for women. Pursuant to a memorandum dated January 22, 1998 by the Administrator, DOC Case/Unit Management, diagnostic studies for female inmates were suspended for all female inmates except for Youth Act inmates on the basis of their purported transfer into the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP). However, subsequent to this memorandum, CTF was cited by the DOC Contract Monitor for being out of compliance with the requirement to complete female
12

diagnostic studies and the Administrator did not have the authority to suspend a court-ordered requirement. Diagnostic studies were completed on all females who did not receive studies during the time following the memorandum and documentation was provided to the DOC Contract Monitor. Diagnostic studies are now being done on all eligible female inmates without regard to whether or not they are designated for transfer to the FBOP.
It is also noted that female inmates at CTF were never required to complete a diagnostic study as a prerequisite to participating in programs. Also, a CTF diagnostic study is not necessary to participate in programs in the FBOP - such a study would be done at the receiving facility.
Paragraph 3 3 Provide one apprenticeship program for women. Because of the anticipated transfer of the majority of the long-term female inmate population, the negotiations for an apprenticeship program were put on hold. When the anticipated move did not materialize, CCA/CTF revisited the issue. However, due to the female inmates' inability to complete the hours necessary for even the shortest apprenticeship program within their short sentence structures, the Apprenticeship Council could not identify or approve an acceptable apprenticeship program and in fact, rejected two proposals. Brenda V. Smith, counsel for plaintiffs, suggested at a meeting on June 29, 1998, that a shorter, "pre-apprenticeship program" may be implemented that can bridge a female inmate to a longer apprenticeship program in the community upon release. The
13

parties met on July 20, 1998 with the undersigned, Brenda V. Smith and the Deputy Warden of the CTF to discuss the possibility for a "bridge program" and based on the discussion, the CCA is pursuing the possibility.
The CCA has made progress in identifying an appropriate bridge program. They met with several vendors in the building trade and the appropriate CTF programming staff are preparing a report on the options and recommendations by September 30, 1998. The completed report will be provided to the plaintiffs.
For the Court's information, the CCA is initiating an additional vocational program on hairbraiding, a popular service in this area, through a certified beauty school which will provide certification upon completion, in addition to its present programs. The plaintiffs pointed out that the monthly report incorrectly identifies the program as an "apprenticeship program", and it will be corrected immediately. Defendants do not consider the braiding program to be a substitute for an apprenticeship program.
Paragraph 52 Air balancing. The CTF maintenance contractor has completed servicing and cleaning the ventilation system throughout the facility which they represent will allow for appropriate air flow and should improve performance in the next heating season. The CTF contracted with Precision Mechanical to insulate outside cell walls. This year, one test cell was insulated and testing by maintenance staff prior to the end of the winter
14

heating season determined that the temperatures in that room were raised by 6 to 8 degrees. However, the contractor found that it brings in the walls, reducing the size of the cells to dimensions that fall below ACA standards. Under its contract with the District, the CCA is required to achieve ACA accreditation within 2 years, which it will not accomplish if they undertake a renovation that will violate those standards.
Substantial progress has been made in the last few months to the air balancing and heating and cooling system in the facility. The contractors believe that this is sufficient to provide room temperatures which meet those required by the Court Order. However, until the heating season begins, it is not possible to confirm that these improvements have been made. If in the heating season, from approximately October through April, the evidence shows that the problem has not been remedied, an alternative proposal will be provided to the plaintiffs and the Court for further action. The new Warden expressed concern that in the past, adequate documentation was not maintained regarding daily temperatures, and states they will be properly documented under her supervision. The documentation will be provided to plaintiffs upon request.
The present Warden of the CTF was not in the facility last winter. However, she states it was reported to her that regardless of compliant temperatures, there were individuals last year who continued to complain about temperatures due to different tolerances. Plaintiffs have requested copies of the
15

written contracts CCA contracts DICK Corporation and Precision Mechanical. However, the CTF has advised the undersigned that presently, there are no written contracts regarding the insulation of the sample cell, the air balancing and the ventilation service, and that the work is done pursuant to a verbal agreement while the appropriate agents are negotiating contracts. The CCA stated they did not want to hold up progress over a formal, written agreement. Plaintiffs will be provided with any documentation reflecting the verbal agreement and a copy of the formal contract when it is finalized.
Paragraph 59 DCRA Sanitation Reports. The CTF did receive a rating of 50% on its DCRA inspection held in October 14-15, 1997. However, a follow-up inspection on October 17, 1997, resulted in a rating of 92%. More importantly, on May 8, 1998, the CTF received a rating of 94% (the report was previously provided to plaintiffs). This shows significant improvement over the October 14-15 inspection. Plaintiffs were provided with an abatement plan for the October, 1997 report on July 29, 1998. A problematic area continues to be the temperature of foods when delivered to the units. The CCA purchased and is using special tray liners to further insulate and seal food trays to retain heat. In addition, the CCA has received approval from the DOC to amend the staffing plans (a procedure required by the contract) so that a team of designated staff serve food on all units. This will circumvent the wait for food carts to be picked
16

up by escort officers. In addition, CCA purchased new food trays that have a bottom
and a top. Old trays have no lids of their owns, but are designed to be stacked with the upper trays serving as lids for the lower ones. The new trays will better retain the heat and are expected to be delivered by October 3rd and in use by October 12, 1998. New electrically powered food carts with hot and cold compartments have been ordered and are expected to be delivered by October 3rd and in use by the twelfth.
The CCA has asked the food vendor to increase the number of staff in the food preparation, which should accelerate the delivery of meals. The inadequate kitchen staff provided by the contractor exacerbate delays in food delivery.
Equipment, procedural and staffing changes should result in food temperatures in the proper range upon arrival.
Paragraph 65 Conduct training at CTF on fire safety procedures. The CTF has reviewed the DOC's Fire Safety Lesson Plan and all officers at the CTF have been trained in all of the major components of the DOC's lesson plan, i.e. fire safety, institutional safety, CPR, first aid, emergency plans, and Scot Air Pack. The training was not provided under the single heading of a class called "fire safety", but all officers have received the full spectrum of training required under the DOC Fire Safety Lesson Plan. To comply with the mandate that all officers receive
17

training semi-annually, a second training class, entitled "Fire Safety" will be provided for correctional officers before the end of the year. III. DOCUMENTS
The following documents were previously provided to plaintiffs:
1) Inmate Grievance Committee Meeting, May 28, 1998. 2) DCRA Environmental Inspection Report, May 4-8, 1998. 3) Proposed Vocational Training for Professional Training 4) [CONFIDENTIAL] New List of Pregnant Inmates-None Impregnated While Incarcerated 5) Sexual Misconduct Monthly Statistical Report 6) Training curriculum and attendance log for the 40 hour enhanced training for staff working with female inmates. 7) Memorandum from the Deputy Director of Institutions to all sexual misconduct investigators requiring the placement of operational recommendations in a separate memo from the investigation report. 8) CCA's amended department order regarding sexual misconduct against inmates, implemented July 31, 1998.
18

IV. CONCLUSION The parties shall continue to work to resolve plaintiffs'
concerns and defendants appreciate the opportunity to further improve conditions and services for the female inmate population of the D.C. Department of Corrections. Plaintiffs have authorized defendants to file this joint report which has been approved by plaintiffs.
Respectfully submitted, JOHN M. FERREN
Corporation Counsel, D.C. GEORGE C. VALENTINE
Deputy Corporation Counsel, D.C. Lai Litigatior^-,Division
MARIA C. AMATO (414935) Chief, Civil Rights & Gov't. Serv. Section 441 Fourth Street, N.W., 6th Floor-South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 727-6295, ext. 3469
19

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Defendants'

Joint Status Report Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion fpr Contempt was

mailed, postage prepaid on this

/ day of Ls^C '^Ct-tlj.^ 1998,

to:

Peter Nickles and Lisa Stevenson, Esquires, Covington and Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., P.O. Box 7566, Washington, D.C. 20044
Brenda Smith, Esq., Washington College of Law, American University, 4801 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016
John Ray, Esq. Manatt, Phelps and Phillips 1501 M Street, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005

Maria-Claudia Amato

20

 
 Women Prisoners/DC v. DC

PC-DC-011-030

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF )

COLUMBIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

)

et. al..

) Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, e_t. aj,-

)

)

Defendants. )

Civil Action No. 92-2052 (JLG)

DEFENDANTS' PRETRIAL STATEMENT
Defendants, by and through counsel, Maria Amato, Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. respectfully submit the following pretrial statement. I. Statement of Facts Relevant To This Action
Plaintiffs, the women prisoners of the D.C. Department of Corrections, allege Constitutional inadequacies in the areas identified below relevant to their conditions of confinement and access to programming and work training. Defendants assert the conditions of confinement and the record in this case evidence no systematic deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' basic human needs. Moreover, defendants assert that the relevant conditions and programs meet the applicable standard of care and that female prisoners enjoy equality, parity and often greater benefits in many aspects of their confinement in comparison with male inmates. II. DISPUTED ISSUES; 1. PROGRAMMING: CTF AND MINIMUM

A. Education; (1) Accessibility of basic and higher education with regards to (a) escort availability
(b) environmental impact on services (c) scheduling (2) Availability of Supplies and Course Materials. (3) Quality of education in comparison with male inmates.
B. Vocational/ Apprenticeship; (1) Quality and quantity of vocational programs available for females in comparison with male inmates. (2) Availability of gender non-stereotypical vocational programs. C. Work Training (Minimum Only): (1) Accessibility and quality of work training programs in comparison with male inmates. (2) Accessibility of gender nontraditional work training programs. D. Industry; (1) Quality and Quantity of Industry jobs available to females in comparison with male inmates. (2) Accessibility of gender non-traditional industrial jobs. E. Religion: (1) Quality and quantity of religious services, activities and programs available to females in comparison with male inmates.

(2) Quality and and space of physical facilities available to females in comparison with male inmates.
(3) Availability of religious leaders and counselors in comparison with male inmates.
F. Recreation: (1) Quality and quantity of recreation time available to females in comparison with male inmates. (2) Quality and quantity of recreation activities available to females in comparison to male inmates. (3) Accessibility to facilities and equipment for recreation in comparison to male inmates. G. Psychological and Substance Abuse Counseling: (1) Quality and quantity of substance abuse counseling available to females in comparison with male inmates. (2) Quality and quantity of psychological/ social worker counseling available to women in comparison with male inmates. 2. SEXUAL MISCONDUCT:1/ A. Protection of Women (1) Adequacy of both preservice and inservice training of personnel regarding sexual misconduct. (2) Adequacy of education for male and female prisoners regarding sexual misconduct. (3) Adequacy of available methods for reporting sexual misconduct.
1 The term "sexual misconduct" will include for the purposes of this case, all misconduct ranging in severity from verbal commentary through physical assaults.

(4) Adequacy of the timeliness in handling allegations of sexual misconduct.
(5) Adequacy of the manner in which sexual misconduct is investigated.
(6) Adequacy of the prophylactic measures taken to protect an inmate from the accused while an investigation is being conducted.
(7) Adequacy of the final decision or ruling upon an allegation of sexual misconduct after it has been investigated.
(8) Adequacy of the discipline of personnel found to have engaged in sexual misconduct.
(9) Adequacy of tracking system for identifying officers with repetitious charges of sexual misconduct.
B. PRIVACY; (1) Adequacy of screening of windows at the CTF while women are dressing. (2) Adequacy of procedures for announcing a male officer entering a female unit. (3) Adequacy of dress codes for females on unit during daytime hours. 3. MEDICAL CARE/OB/GYN: (CTF Only) (1) Adequacy of prenatal and postpartum medical care.
(a) Adequacy of timely pregnancy testing and communication of results.
(b) Adequacy of periodic prenatal exams and postpartum follow up exam.

(c) Adequacy of fetal testing and prenatal monitoring. (d) Adequacy of nutrition and vitamin supplements for pregnant inmates. (e) Adequacy of prenatal and postpartum counseling and education, including parenting, nutrition and postpartum depression. (f) Adequacy of child placement counseling and assistance. (g) Adequacy of visitation with babies by postpartum mothers. (h) Adequacy of transport to prenatal and postpartum medical appointments. (i) Adequacy of coordination with D.C. General Hospital for continuity of care. (j) Adequacy of documentation of services, counseling and testing.
2. Adequacy of Gynecological Care. (a) Adequacy of routine gynecological testing on a
periodic basis including pap smears, mammography, etc. (b) Adequacy of notification of test results. (c) Adequacy of follow up and treatment for abnormal
test results. (d) Adequacy of follow up on missed and rescheduled
appointments.
• i

(e) Adequacy of treatment of HIV related gynecological problems.
(d) Adequacy of counseling and education regarding gynecological problems, sexually transmitted diseases and AIDs.
(e) Adequacy of transport to gynecological appointments.
(g) Adequacy of coordination with D.C. General Hospital for continuity of care.
(h) Adequacy of documentation of services, counseling and testing provided to women. 4. SANITATION AND SAFETY:
(1) Availability of Supplies: (a) Availability of feminine hygiene products. (b) Availability of cleaning supplies, including
cleaning products and implements. (c) Quality of cleaning supplies. (d) Availability of laundry detergent and supplies. (e) Availability of adequate washing appliances.
(2) Cleanliness of Environment (a) Adequacy of supervision, enforcement and quality
control of cleaning detail. (b) Adequacy of cleanliness of kitchens. (c) Adequacy of cleanliness of bathrooms. (d) Adequacy of cleanliness of housing/living units.
(3) Vermin Control (a) Frequency of use of pest control measures.

(b) Adequacy of supervision, enforcement and quality control of environmental sanitation to inhibit pest infestation.
(4) Lighting (a) Adequacy of lighting in culinary, store room,
showers, dorm areas. (5) Ventilation (a) Adequacy of ventilation in Industry at Central
Facility. (b) Adequacy of ventilation at CTF. (c) Adequacy of ventilation in trailers and dorms at
Minimum. (6) Plumbing (a) Adequacy of water temperatures for the handsinks
and showers. (b) Adequacy of maintenance of sanitary fixtures. (c) Adequacy of availability of sanitary fixtures.
(7) Electrical (a) Adequacy of electrical circuit identification. (b) Adequacy of panel and outlet box coverings.
(8) Drainage (a) Adequacy of water drainage on grounds at Minimum.
(9) Food Preparation and Service (a) Adequacy of food serving temperatures. (b) Adequacy of sanitation in food transport and
service in Industry at Central Facility.

(c) Adequacy of sanitation exhibited in preparing and serving food at CTF and Minimum.
(10) Laundry (a) Adequacy of laundry procedures at Minimum to
ensure elimination of infectious organisms. (b) Adequacy of sanitation procedures in the
transporting of laundry at Minimum and CTF. (11) Refuse disposal (a) Adequacy of coverings for refuse containers at
Minimum. (12) Recreation (a) Adequacy of recreation time allotted to inmates at
Minimum. 5. FIRE SAFETY
(1) Training (a) Adequacy of operational procedures for responding
to fire emergencies. (b) Adequacy of staff and inmate participation in fire
drills. (2) Systems (a) Adequacy of testing of fire protection system at
CTF. (b) Adequacy of fire detection equipment provided at
Minimum. (3) Population Safety (a) Feasibility of evacuation.
8

(b) Adequacy of evacuation plans. 6. QUALITY OF LIFE;
(1) Smoking; (a) Smoking policy at CTF for women in comparison to
male inmates. (b) Adequacy of smoking cessation aids.
(2) Dining Privileges: (a) Adequacy of time allotted for females for dining
in comparison to male inmates. (b) Food portions in comparison to male inmates.
(3) Canteen; (a) Quality of snacks and other items available. (b) Availability of feminine hygiene products. (c) Availability of supplies on canteen in comparison
with male inmates. (d) Accessibility of canteen in comparison with male
inmates.
III. WITNESSES: The following individuals will be called as witnesses in the
trial of this matter. The business address is indicated by name. Each address is as follows:
Grimke Building: 1923 Vermont Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. CTF: Correctional Treatment Facility, 1901 E Street, S.E. Washington, D.C.

D.C. Jail: Central Detention Facility, 1901 D Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
Minimum: Minimum Security Facility, Lorton, Va. Central Facility: Lorton, Va. Office of Special Needs, Lorton, Va.
************ 1. Ms. Margaret Moore. Director, D.C. Department of Corrections, Grimke Building -Ms Moore will offer testimony concerning her commitment, philosophy and plans as the new director of the D.C. Department of Corrections regarding women prisoners to include all aspects of confinement, including conditions of confinement, programming, work and alleged sexual misconduct. 2. Paul Ouander. Deputy Director, D.C. Department of Corrections, Grimke Building -Mr. Quander will testify regarding preparation for the return of women from the Federal Bureau of Prisons. -The preparation for the opening of the CTF. -Conditions of confinement, programming and allegations of sexual misconduct towards female inmates. -Progress regarding the conditions of confinement, programming and handling of allegations sexual misconduct in the Department. -Considerations, constraints and other concerns including budget and security, regarding expansion of programming, work and activities for women.
10

3. William Plaut. Associate Director for Operations, Acting Associate Director for Programs, Former Associate Director for Institutions, Grimke Building
Mr. Plaut will testify regarding: -Conditions of confinement for women prisoners with regards to the environment including sanitation, fire safety, and facilities management. -Programming for females. -Policies and procedures regarding allegations of sexual misconduct including the specific handling of alleged incidents of sexual misconduct. -Medical Care for female prisoners including policies, procedures and protocol, transport, and coordination with D.C.G.H. 4. Bernard Braxtonf Associate Director for Institutions, Lorton, Va. Mr. Braxton will testify concerning policies and procedures regarding females housed in Lorton, including: -Staffing of Minimum Security Facility. -Expansion of programs at Minimum Security Facility. -Physical facilities at Central. -Plans to expand physical facilities for Industry at Central Facility and the Annex. -Handling of allegations of sexual misconduct. 5. Vernon Hawkinsr chief, Office of Special Needs, Lorton, Va.
11

Mr. Hawkins will testify as to: -The origin, development and progress of the Office of Special Needs. -The services, purpose and function of the Office of Special Needs. -Expansion and future plans for females by the Office of Special Needs. 6. Reaina Gilmore. Coordinator, Female Offenders Program, Lorton, Va. Ms. Gilmore will testify as to all aspects of female offenders including: -Profile and special needs of female offenders. -The departments policies, procedures, programs and plans for dealing with and meeting the needs of female inmates. -Programming, work and activities available to female inmates. -Future plans for female inmates. -History, progress and future plans of the Female Offenders' Program. 7. Douglas Stempson. Administrator, Minimum, Lorton, Va. Mr. Stempson will testify as to all aspects of the confinement of female prisoners at the Minimum Annex, including: -The physical environment, including maintenance, sanitation, safety, fire, etc. -The programming and activities offered females.
12

-Work training, industry, detail work provided females at the Annex.
-General policies and procedures relating to females. -General policies and procedures for the handling of allegations of sexual misconduct. -Specific alleged incidents of sexual misconduct. 8. G.H. McCathorine. Former Associate Director for Programs, Former Administrator for the CTF. Ms. McCathorine will testify as to all aspects of the confinement of female prisoners in the CTF including: -Preparation for the return of women from the Federal Bureau of prisons and the opening of the CTF. -Sanitation, safety, and the physical environment. - Programming, detail and activities provided female inmates at CTF and in the D.C. Department of Corrections. -Staffing, security and movement of inmates at CTF. -Budget, space, security and other elements regarding programming for females. -Policy, practice and procedures in handling alleged incidents of sexual misconduct at the CTF. -Specific incidents of alleged sexual misconduct. 9. Michelle Elzie. Administrator, D.C. Jail Ms. Elzie will testify as to the policies, practices and procedures regarding the handling of allegations of sexual misconduct at the Jail and will also testify as to certain currently pending specific allegations of misconduct.
13

10. John Henderson. Former Administrator of the D.C. Jail and current Administrator, Occoquan Facility, Lorton, Va.
Mr. Henderson will testify to past policies, procedures for the handling of alleged sexual misconduct at the D.C. Jail and the handling of specific incidents of sexual misconduct.
11. Vincent Gibbons. Administrator, Central Facility, Lorton, Va., Former Chief of Mental Health Services.
Mr. Gibbons will testify regarding: -Addressing the psychological needs of females in the past. -All aspects of Industry at Central Facility relevant to female prisoners including the physical facility, security and movement, sexual harassment training for inmates, feeding and transport. 12. James Riddick. Asst. Admin, for Programs, Acting Administrator for CTF. Mr. Riddick will testify to : -Programming, work details and all activities available for females at the CTF. -Plans regarding programming for female inmates at CTF. -All aspects of confinement of females at CTF including physical environment, security, movement, dining etc. 13. Gerald Bowser. Women's Program Director, CTF Mr. Bowser will testify as to: -His plans regarding programming for the female inmates at the CTF.
14

-Programming, work details, all aspects of confinement of females in CTF Female Offenders Unit.
14. Hazel Smith. Assistant Administrator for Programs, Minimum, Lorton, Va.
Ms. Smith will testify as to: -The programs, vocational, educational, work training, detail work and activities provided females at Minimum. -Practices, policies and procedures for the handling of sexual misconduct at Minimum. -The handling of allegations of sexual misconduct. -The preparation of the CTF for the return of females from the FBOP. 15. Edmund Walsh. Chief, Case Management, CTF Mr. Walsh will testify to: - The policies, practices and procedures for the case management assessment of females at the CTF. -Population management, classification, custody, security issues for women and unit management. 16. L.C. Jones. Asst. Admin, for Operations. Mr. Jones will testify as to all aspects of Operations at the CTF including: -Security system including elevators and doors, movement, housing and staffing. -Housing and Security Board hearings. -Sanitation, safety and fire procedures at CTF.
15

-Policies, practices and procedures for the investigation of allegations of sexual misconduct and specific allegations of sexual misconduct.
17. Alethia Hill Simmons. Higher Education, Lorton,Va. Ms. Simmons will discuss and compare the available college programs for inmates and more specifically female prisoners. 18. Mance Lanaham. Principal, CTF Mr. Langham will testify as to the available educational and vocational programs available to prisoners at the CTF. 19. James Derr. Vocational Dev't Specialist, Minimum Annex, Lorton, Va. Mr. Derr will testify as to the vocational, educational and work training services available to females at Minimum, Annex. 20. Deloice Leaaett. Recreation Specialist, CTF Ms. Leggett will testify as to the recreation activities available to inmates at CTF, including the recreation schedules, equipment, staffing and activities. 21. Gertrude Jackson, Recreation Specialist, CTF Ms. Jackson will testify as to the recreation activities available to inmates in the Substance Abuse Programs at CTF, including schedules, equipment, staffing and activities. 22. Sharon Hargrove. Recreation Specialist, Minimum Annex, Lorton, Va. Ms. Hargrove will testify as to the recreation activities available to females at Minimum Annex including schedules, equipment, staffing and activities.
16

2 3. Reverend Alfred Minor, CTF Reverend Minor will testify as to all religious services available to all inmates at CTF including the services and activities, facilities, staffing and volunteer coordinator, pastoral and crisis counseling. 24. Reverend Jerry Moore. Minimum, Lorton, Va. Reverend Moore will testify as to all religious services available to all inmates at Minimum and the Annex including the services and activities, facilities, staffing and volunteer coordinator, pastoral and crisis counseling. 25. Dr. Wilttert Brown. Jr. Industrial Services, Central Facility, Lorton, Va. Dr. Brown will testify as to all aspects of Industry and preindustry available to inmates including: -Available industries. -Physical facilities. -Compensation. -Enrollment. -Security issues. -Compensation. -Future plans. -Policies, practices and procedures regarding the handling of sexual misconduct and specific incidents of alleged sexual misconduct in the Industry factory.
17

26. Mr. Richard Peverell. Garment Shop Foreman, Central Facility, Lorton, Va.
Mr. Peverell will testify as to all aspects of the employment of inmates in the garment shop including:
-The physical plant. -Movement of inmates, security and mingling. -Procedures for feeding and meeting the other physical needs of inmates at the garment factory. -General practices, policies and procedures regarding sexual misconduct in the factory and specific incidents of alleged sexual misconduct. 27. Jasper Orroond. Chief of the Substance Abuse Program, CTF Mr. Ormond will testify to the intensive 12 to 18 month substance abuse program at the CTF for both males and females, and the community phase of the program in community correctional centers for one year after release. 28. Madie Berrv. Substance Abuse, CTF Ms. Berry will testify as to the pilot female substance abuse program for women and the intensive substance abuse program for females at CTF. 29. Sondra Petty. Substance Abuse, CTF Ms. Petty will testify as to the six month substance abuse program and the planned 30 day program at the CTF and the Annex. 30. Delores Starks. Substance Abuse, CTF
18

Ms. Starks will testify as to her duties and responsibilities as the senior substance abuse counselor who directly provides services to the female inmates in the six month substance abuse program at the CTF.
31. Henry Cobb. Substance Abuse, Minimum, Lorton, Va. Mr. Cobb will testify as to the six month substance abuse program available to females at Minimum Annex. 32. Dr. William Davidson. Psychiatric Services, Lorton, Va. Dr. Davidson will testify as to the psychiatric services available to females at CTF. 33. Vinson Reynolds. Psychologist, CTF Mr. Reynolds will testify as to the psychological services, counseling and therapy available to females at CTF. 34. Pearl Jacksonf LICSW, Social Worker, CTF Ms Jackson will testify regarding the social worker services provided females, including counseling, crisis intervention, self esteem groups, cotherapy and child placement/visitation services and referrals to Karrick Hall provided pregnant and general population females at the CTF. 35. Loretta Brantley. Social Worker, CTF Ms. Brantley will testify regarding the social worker services provided females, including counseling, crisis intervention, self esteem talk groups, cotherapy and child placement/visitation services and referrals to Karrick Hall provided Youth Rehabilitation Act and Intake Unit at the CTF. 36. Helen Brown. Social Worker, DCGH
19

Ms. Brown will testify regarding social worker services provided prenatal and postpartum females at D.C. General Hospital with special regard to placement of incarcerated mother's infants and handling of "boarder babies11.
37. Valerie McNeil. Unit Manager, CTF Ms. McNeil will testify as to all aspects of confinement of females on specific housing units and specifically the intake unit of the CTF including: schedules, movement, details, supplies, escorts, custody and classification, programming, unit activities, rules and regulations and policies, practices and procedures regarding female attire, privacy, grievances and sexual misconduct. She will also testify as to the comparison of the functions of the intake unit versus the male counterpart, the R and D Unit. 38. Karen Brock, Case Manager, CTF Ms. Brock will testify as to the services she provides to the females of the CTF including initial intake evaluations, classification, referral to programs, counseling and other programs, parole, halfway houses and other case management activities. She will also testify to general issues of confinement on the housing units such as schedules, movement, details, supplies, escorts, programming, unit activities, rules and regulations and policies, practices and procedures regarding female attire, privacy, grievances and allegations of sexual misconduct. 39. Donna Baker. Case Manager, CTF
20

Ms. Baker will testify as to the services she provides to the females of the CTF including initial intake evaluations, classification, referral to programs counseling and other programs, parole, halfway houses and other case management activities. She will also testify to general issues of confinement on the housing units such as schedules, movement, details, supplies, escorts, programming, unit activities, rules and regulations and policies, practices and procedures regarding female attire, privacy, grievances and allegations of sexual misconduct.
40. Dr. William Hall. Asst. Director, Health Services, Lorton, Va.
Dr. William Hall will testify as to policies, practices, procedures and protocols regarding the provision of medical care to inmates in the D.C. Department of Corrections and his capacity as technical supervisor to CTF medical unit and coordination of services with D.C. General Hospital.
41. Dr. Charles Hall. Ob/Gyn, Medical Unit, CTF Dr. Charles Hall will testify as to all aspects of gynecological and perinatal care provided females at the CTF including testing, medical care and follow up, counseling, procedures, referrals, protocols and coordination with the D.C. General Hospital. 42. Dr. Sidney Jones. Chairman OB/Gyn Department, DCGH Dr. Jones will testify as to all aspects of gynecological and perinatal care provided females at D.C.G.H. including
21

testing, medical care and follow up, counseling, procedures, referrals, protocols and coordination with the D.C. Department of Corrections.
43. Dr. Keller. Medical Unit, CTF Dr. Keller will testify as to the general medical care provided females at the CTF including sick call procedures, protocol, testing, appointments, referrals, follow up etc. 44. Dr. Eliza Taylor. Chief Medical Officer, Medical Unit, CTF Dr. Taylor will testify as to all aspects of medical care including supervision of all medical providers, documentation, referrals, follow up, treatment protocols, testing, specialty clinics, etc. 45. Dr. Clayton. Medical Unit, CTF Dr. Clayton will give testimony regarding medical care provided female inmates specifically relating to HIV/AIDs including testing, medical care and treatment given HIV positive inmates at CTF. Dr. Clayton will also testify as to pre-test and post-test counseling and the distribution of prophylactics to prevent the spread of AIDs. 46. Clarence Covinaton. HIV Counselor, CTF Mr. Covington will testify regarding the HIV/AIDs education and counseling provided inmates and the distribution of prophylactics to prevent the spread of infection in the facility. 47. Mary Dot Thomas. Nurse, Medical Unit, CTF
22

Ms. Thomas will testify as to Ob/Gyn nursing services available to females at CTF including testing and education regarding gynecological concerns and perinatal care.
48. Caroline Gibson,. Nurse, Medical Unit, CTF Ms. Gibson will testify as to nursing services available to females at CTF including testing, education regarding gynecological concerns and perinatal care. 49. Lois Cane. Appointments Nurse, Medical Unit, CTF Ms. Cane will testify as to the coordination of appointments between CTF and D.C.G.H., follow up appointments, coordinating referrals and rescheduling of missed appointments. 50. Carole Gibson. Public Health Nurse Practitioner, CTF Ms. Gibson will testify to prenatal educational classes held on the pregnancy unit educating women in various issues such as nutrition, counseling, parenting as well as general education provided females regarding general health issues including sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, breast exams and other health issues. 51. Linda Studevantf Unit Manager, Pregnant Females Unit, CTF Ms. Studevant will testify as to all aspects of confinement of females on the pregnancy housing unit including: -Schedules, movement, details, supplies, escorts, programming, unit activities, rules and regulations and policies practices and procedures regarding female attire, privacy, grievances and sexual misconduct. She will also testify as to
23

the comparison of the functions of the pregnancy unit versus a

regular housing unit including special provisions for pregnant

females such as special medical rounds, snacks and meals, etc.

52. All Witnesses Named Bv Plaintiffs

IV. EXPERT WITNESSES

1. Dr. T.A. Ryan

(a) Qualifications: (See attached curriculum vitae marked

as Exh. A for a more detailed statement of Dr. Ryan's

qualifications, too extensive to set forth here). Generally, Dr.

Ryan's qualifications are as follows:

PhD Psychology

Stanford University

MA Sociology

California State University

BA Psychology

Stanford University/California

State University at Sacramento

Advanced Study

University of Geneva

Advanced Study

University of Oslo

Dr. Ryan's extensive qualifications include professional honors and listings in a dozen professional honorary directories, membership in nine correctional and psychological associations, 16 awards in the field of research, sociology, psychology and corrections including a joint award from the U.S. and Canada corrections for meritorious contribution to correctional systems, and awards from the American Psychological Association for contribution and distinction in corrections, U.S. Bureau of Prisons Award in recognition of pioneering efforts in
24

correctional education, South Carolina Correctional Association

Distinguished Service Award in recognition of outstanding

professional achievement in the criminal justice system and

service to humanity, American Correctional Association Award for

Outstanding Research in Corrections.

Dr. Ryan has served on over sixty correctional,

psychological and research professional assignments, activities,

research and development projects. Dr. Ryan has published ninety

articles and 63 reports related to corrections, education and

vocation, psychology, counseling, and other areas. (See attached

CV for description of each publication and report).

(b) Dr. Ryan's areas of expertise: Corrections, female

offenders, correctional education, management, organizational

psychology, evaluation and research. (See attached CV marked

Exh. A ) .

(c) Substance of Testimony: See attached Report of

Technical Assistance by Dr. Ryan, marked as Exh. B.

2. Dr. John H. Clark. M.D.. M.P.H.. C.C.H.P.:

(a) Qualifications: (See attached curriculum vitae marked

as Exhibit C for more detailed explanation of experience). Dr.

Clark is a specialist in the area of OB/Gyn with extensive

experience in the area of Public Health and correctional medical

care and administration. His education includes, aside from

various fellowships, the following:

B.S.

Knoxville College

M.D.

Meharry Medical College

25

Internship

University of Southern California Medical

Center

Residency in

Martin Luther King, Jr. Hospital, L.A.,

OB/Gyn

California.

Dr. Clark is currently the Chief Medical Officer of the very

large and complex Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, which

includes oversight of all physicians including supervision,

orientation, budget functions, coordination with outside

entities, examination and treatment of inmates, liaison to

various legal and civil rights groups and the L.A. Health

Department and the California Medical Association.

Dr. Clark has previously served as the Public Health Chief

of the South Area of the L.A. County Department of Health

Services, the Deputy Director of Public Health, Santa Clara

Health Department and the Director of Obstetrics and Gynecology,

L.A. County Department of Health Services, Hubert H. Humphrey

Comprehensive Health Center. He has also served as the Director

of Maternal and Infant Care for the Southeast Health Services,

L.A. County Department of Health and the coordinator of

Ambulatory Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Dr. Clark is the L.A. County representative to the

California Medical Association, Jail and Detention Facility

Committee. He is a member of the L.A. County Sheriff's AIDS Task

Force and "APLA", AIDS Project Los Angeles Committee on Law
Enforcement and Emergency Worker's and Jail Accreditation

Surveyor for the California Medical Association and the National

26

Commission on Correctional Health Care. Dr. Clark has spoken frequently regarding various issues of Public Health care, AIDS and pregnancy, including high risk pregnancies. Dr. Clark has authored ten publications concentrating on issues of correctional health care. He has been a consultant/ expert on at least fourteen occasions for, among others, the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, National Institute of Corrections, National Commission on Health Care, U.S. Attorney's Task Force on Mississippi Jails and many others.
(b) Area of Expertise: Dr. Clark is an expert in the areas of OB/Gyn care, health care in corrections, public health, and administration and management of health care.
(c) Substance of Testimony: The Court's attention is directed to the attached report (Exh. D) and 26(b)(4) statement (Exh. E ) ,the substance of the testimony too extensive to set forth fully here.
3. Justin Taylor (a) Qualifications: (See attached curriculum vitae attached to Mr. Taylor's Supplemental Statement Provided Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A)(i) which is marked as Exh. F for a more detailed statement of Mr. Taylor's qualifications). Generally, Mr. Taylor's has nineteen years of law enforcement experience. Since 1986 he has been responsible for the supervision of approximately seventy employees in the
coordination of the New York State Department of Correctional
Services Fire/Safety Program for 30,000 staff and 65,000 inmates.
27

Mr. Taylor also serves as an Auditor for the American Correctional Association. In that role he has performed several formal accreditation audits at various correctional facilities throughout the country.
(b) Areas of expertise: Fire/Safety. (c) Substance of Testimony: See attached Supplemental Statement Provided Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A)(i) marked as Exh. F. 4. Peter Genco: (a) Qualifications: (See attached curriculum vitae attached to Mr. Genco's Supplemental Statement Provided Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A)(i) marked as Exh. G for a more detailed statement of Mr. Genco's qualifications). Generally, Mr. Genco has thirty-three years experience in the area of environmental health. Currently he is the Director of Environmental Health for the New York City Department of "Corrections. In this position, Mr. Genco has developed policy and procedures for monitoring, evaluating, and if necessary, correcting problems related to environmental health issues (i.e. food, air, water, pest control, infectious waste and toxic gases). Mr. Genco has also served as the Assistant Director for the New York Bureau of Field Services, has taught environmental health related courses at the Health Academy and at Lehman College. (b) Area of expertise: Environmental Health.
28

(c) Substance of Testimony: See attached Supplemental Statement Provided Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A)(i) marked as Exh. G.
5. EXHIBITS The parties have agreed to each prepare a set of premarked
exhibits which will be exchanged before trial. The parties will prepare a volume of their exhibits, bound in binders, and produce an additional set for the Court, the witness and counsel for both sides. This will expedite and facilitate easy reference for all parties to documents and avoid delay and confusion in the marking and identification of documents during trial. Moreover, it will avoid confusion created by merely listing and describing documents, since the most accurate description is the document itself.
Counsel have discussed issues regarding advance stipulation to the admissability of documents. The parties have agreed that while there are no specific objections that arise at this time, objections may arise depending on how a document is used at trial. Therefore, the parties have agreed to reserve the right to object to the admissability of documents such as IGP's, letters, complaints, memos, reports and all other documents where offered for truth without the use of the appropriate witness to testify as to the matters asserted therein. The parties can stipulate as to the authenticity of medical records,
29

institutional records and all other documents produced by defendants to plaintiffs in response to discovery requests.
Defendants are currently preparing a chart listing all programs and services available in all relevant institutions to assist the Court. The defendants plan to enlarge the chart for easy referral during trial.
6. Citations to Legal Authority The defendants will submit a supplemental trial brief discussing in greater detail the legal authority regarding various issues relevant to this suit, which is too voluminous to set forth here. In general however, the legal authority relied upon in defense of this case and the general areas to which they apply are as follows: (a) Conditions of Confinement and Medical Care- Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. (b) Sexual Misconduct/Privacy- Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution regarding constitutional rights to bodily privacy and deprivation of that right without due process, remedied through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. (c) Education- Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Section 1681 (1988).
30

(d) Education, work, religion, recreation and general quality of life- Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, equal protection of the laws, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
(e) Conditions of Confinement, education, vocation, religion, recreation, quality of life, privacy and sexual misconduct- District of Columbia Code Sections 24-442 and 24-425 which charges the District of Columbia with the responsibility for the safekeeping, care and protection of prisoners.
Respectfully submitted, VENESSA RUIZ
Acting Corporation Counsel, D.C. MICHAEL E. ZIELINSKI
Assistant Deputy Corporation Counsel, D.C. Civil Division RICHARD S. LOVE Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. Chief, Cpj?r^e€ional Litigation Section
MARIA AMATO (414935) Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. Correctional Litigation Section 441 Fourth Street, N.W., 6th Floor-South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 727-6295
31

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Defendants' Pretrial Statement was hand delivered to Peter Nickles, Esquire, Covington and Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., P.O. Box 7566, Washington, D.C. 20044, and Brenda Smith, Esquire, National Women's Law Center, 1616 P Street, N.W., Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20036, on th>a 17th day of May, 1994.

\pretrial

MARIA AMATO (414935) Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. Correctional Litigation Section 441 Fourth Street, N.W., 6th Floor-South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 727-6295

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JANE DOE I, JANE DOE II, JANE DOE III, JANE DOE IV, JANE DOE V, JANE DOE VI, JANE DOE VII, JANE DOE VIII, JANE DOE IX, JANE DOE X, JANE DOE XI, JANE DOE XII, JANE DOE XIII,
Correctional Treatment Facility D.C. Department of Corrections 1901 E Street, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20001,
Minimum Security Annex D.C. Department of Corrections Lorton, VA 22079,
Central Detention Facility D.C. Department of Corrections 1901 D Street, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
V.

)

)

)

) Civil Action No.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

93 2052

E )
) ) )
)

FSLED

)

)

)

)

)

"oust * I C T i i f <•

)

) ) )

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

)

)

SHARON PRATT KELLY, Mayor,

)

Judiciary Square

)

441 4th Street, N.W.

)

Washington, D.C. 20001

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT

)

OF CORRECTIONS,

)

1923 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

)

Suite N-207

)

Washington, D.C. 20001

)

)

WALTER B. RIDLEY, Director,

)

D.C. Department of Corrections

)

1923 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

)

Suite N-207

)

Washington, D.C. 20001

)

Women Prisoners/DC v. DC

PC-DC-011-034

i

WILLIAM M. PLAUT,

)

Associate Director

)

for Institutions,

)

D.C. Department of Corrections

)

P.O. Box 25

)

Lorton, VA 22199

)

)

GWEN H. WASHINGTON,

)

Associate Director for Programs

)

D.C. Department of Corrections

)

and

)

Acting Administrator,

)

Correctional Treatment Facility

)

D.C. Department of Corrections

)

1901 E Street, S.E.

)

Washington, D.C. 20003,

)

)

JOHN S. HENDERSON, Administrator

)

Central Detention Facility

)

D.C. Department of Corrections

)

1901 D Street, S.E.

)

Washington, D.C. 20003,

)

)

DOUGLAS E. STEMPSON, Administrator

)

Minimum Security Annex

)

D.C. Department of Corrections

)

P.O. Box 5000

)

Lorton, VA 22199,

)

)

WILLIAM HALL, M.D.,

)

Assistant Director for Health

)

Services,

)

D.C. Department of Corrections

)

8941 Lorton Road

)

Lorton, VA 22079

)

)

ELIZA TAYLOR, M.D.,

)

Acting Chief Medical Officer

)

Correctional Treatment Facility

)

D.C. Department of Corrections

)

1901 E Street, S.E.

)

Washington, D.C. 20003,

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GENERAL

)

HOSPITAL COMMISSION,

)

an independent agency of the

)

District of Columbia,

)

1900 Massachusetts Ave, S.E.

)

Washington, D.C. 20003

)

)

Defendants.

)

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT

1

II. JURISDICTION

1

III. VENUE

2

IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

2

V. PARTIES

4

A. Plaintiffs

4

B. Defendants

9

VI. WOMEN PRISONERS IN THE D.C. CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM . . . 12

VII. CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT

15

A. DEPRIVATION OF OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL

CARE

16

B. DEPRIVATION OF BASIC SANITATION NEEDS

20

C. DEPRIVATION OF BASIC SHELTER NEEDS

20

D. FIRE HAZARDS

21

E. DEPRIVATION OF BASIC NUTRITIONAL NEEDS

22

F. DEFENDANTS' KNOWLEDGE OF AND DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO THESE CONTINUING VIOLATIONS . . . 22

VII. SEXUAL ABUSE, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, AND INVASION OF

PERSONAL PRIVACY

23

VIII.INFERIOR TREATMENT

26

A. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

26

1. Education Courses

26

2. Vocational Education Programs

29

B. WORK OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN PRISONERS

31

C. RELIGIOUS PROGRAMS AND PRIVILEGES

33

D. RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS AND PRIVILEGES

34

E. QUALITY OF LIFE

36

1. Dining Privileges

36

2. Canteen

36

3. Clothing

37

4. Smoking

37

5. Harm to the Plaintiffs

38

CAUSES OF ACTION

38

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

41

I. NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT 1. This is a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought by women prisoners in the District of Columbia correctional system. Defendants, the District of Columbia and named officials with responsibility for the District's prisons and prison population, have failed to provide Plaintiffs with adequate obstetrical and gynecological care, shelter, and food and have subjected the Plaintiffs to unsafe and unsanitary living conditions. Defendants have failed to protect the women from sexual assaults and coerced sexual conduct by correctional officers and have subjected Plaintiffs to a hostile environment characterized by pervasive sexual favoritism and harassment. Defendants have provided the women prisoners with programs, services, and conditions that are inferior to those provided to male prisoners. Defendants' actions and inactions violate Plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. S 1681 (1988), and the laws of the District of Columbia.
II. JURISDICTION 2. This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief, arising under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments of the United States Constitution, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (1988), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pendent claims are based on D.C. Code §§ 24425 and 24-442, and regulations promulgated thereunder.
"IT

- 23. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3). Declaratory relief is sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
III. VENUE 4. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c).
IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 5. This action is brought by the named Plaintiffs on behalf of all women prisoners who are now or will be hereafter incarcerated in the District of Columbia correctional system. Currently, women prisoners are housed at the D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility ("CTF"), the Lorton Minimum Security Annex ("Annex"), or the D.C. Central Detention Facility ("Jail"). A class action is proper pursuant to Rule 23(a), 23(b)(l), and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. Members of the class on behalf of whom Plaintiffs sue are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. The total number of class members currently incarcerated number approximately 625 -- approximately 290 women at CTF, approximately 150 women at the Annex, and approximately 185 women at the Jail. Women prisoners are transferred to, from, and between these facilities on an ongoing basis.
TT

- 37. There are common questions of law and fact affecting the right of women prisoners to be free from unconstitutional conditions of confinement; from actual and threatened sexual assaults, coerced sexual conduct, and a hostile environment based on sex; and from inferior programs and services. Common issues of fact include the existence of inadequate obstetrical and gynecological care, sanitation, shelter, fire safety, and food; the existence and causes of sexual assaults, coerced sexual conduct, and a hostile environment based on sex throughout the three facilities; and Defendants' inferior treatment of women with respect to educational programs, work opportunities, religious programs and privileges, recreational programs and privileges, and general quality of life. 8. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the class, and Plaintiffs fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. 9. Separate injunctive and declaratory actions maintained by individual members of the class would create a risk of varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants, and adjudication regarding individual class members would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of or impair the interests of other members not parties to the adjudication.

- 410. Defendants have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class that Plaintiffs represent, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and/or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. 11. Plaintiffs have brought this action for injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of the class comprising all women prisoners who are presently incarcerated at CTF, the Annex, or the Jail or who will be incarcerated at CTF, the Annex, the Jail, or elsewhere within the District of Columbia Department of Corrections.
V. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs 12. Plaintiffs seek to maintain their confidentiality and have filed this lawsuit under pseudonyms. Plaintiffs1 names have been submitted to the Court along with a motion requesting that their names be maintained under seal. A list of their names will be served on Richard S. Love, Esquire, Chief of the Correctional Litigation Unit, Office of the District of Columbia Corporation Counsel, along with a copy of the complaint. A motion for a protective order has also been filed with the Court requesting that Defendants be prohibited from disclosing this information except as necessary for purposes of this litigation.

- 513. Jane Doe I is a woman prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections currently awaiting sentencing. She is pregnant and is presently confined at CTF. Defendants have deprived Jane Doe I, who is in the advanced stages of her pregnancy, of adequate prenatal and medical care. Defendants have also deprived Jane Doe I of adequate, heated shelter. 14. Jane Doe II is a woman prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections presently confined at CTF. Jane Doe II is serving a substantial sentence and has been incarcerated at the Jail, at facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), and at CTF. Jane Doe II has chronic medical problems that require ongoing medical care. Defendants have failed to provide Jane Doe II with appropriate gynecological care despite Jane Doe II's repeated requests for such care. 15. Jane Doe III is a woman prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections presently confined at CTF. Jane Doe III is serving a substantial sentence and has been incarcerated at the Jail, at facilities operated by the BOP, and at CTF. Defendants have placed Jane Doe III in a cell that is open to view by male correctional officers and prisoners and have prohibited her from taking steps to protect her privacy while dressing and undressing. Prior to her incarceration at CTF, Jane Doe III completed two years of college education and had substantial vocational

- 6training. Yet since her transfer to CTF, Defendants have failed to offer Jane Doe III college courses or vocational training and apprenticeships comparable to those offered to similarly situated male prisoners. Defendants have provided Jane Doe III with limited privileges regarding recreation and smoking that are distinctly inferior to those privileges granted to similarly situated men.
16. Jane Doe IV is a woman prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections presently confined at CTF. Jane Doe IV is serving a substantial sentence and has been incarcerated at the Jail, at facilities operated by the BOP, and at CTF. Correctional staff employed by Defendants have sexually harassed Jane Doe IV and subjected her to inappropriate and unwelcome sexual advances. Jane Doe IV has completed her high school requirements and has significant vocational training. Jane Doe IV is enrolled in a correspondence course, but Defendants have failed to provide her with course books or officer escorts so that she can complete the work for the course. Defendants have also failed to provide Jane Doe IV with vocational training and apprenticeship opportunities equal to those offered to similarly situated male prisoners.
17. Jane Doe V is a woman prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections presently confined at CTF. Jane Doe V has been incarcerated at the Jail, at facilities operated by the BOP, and at CTF. Correctional

- 7officers employed by the Defendants have sexually harassed Jane Doe V and subjected her to inappropriate and unwelcome sexual advances. Even after Jane Doe V filed a grievance, Defendants failed to address and remedy this conduct. Defendants have also failed to provide Jane Doe V with the same recreational programs and opportunities as those provided to similarly situated male prisoners.
18. Jane Doe VI is a woman prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections presently confined at CTF. Jane Doe VI is serving a substantial sentence and has been incarcerated at the Jail, at facilities operated by the BOP, and at CTF. Jane Doe VI has completed extensive educational and vocational training, but since her incarceration at CTF, Defendants have denied Jane Doe VI access to educational and apprenticeship opportunities comparable to those provided to similarly situated male prisoners. Defendants have also failed to provide Jane Doe VI with adequately heated and sanitary living facilities.
19. Jane Doe VII is a woman prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections presently confined at the Annex. Defendants have subjected Jane Doe VII to unsanitary and unsafe living conditions and denied her access to educational and recreational programs on the same basis as provided to similarly situated men.
20. Jane Doe VIII is a woman prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections presently

- 8confined at the Annex. Jane Doe VIII has been incarcerated at the Jail and the Annex. Jane Doe VIII is eligible for work training, but Defendants have prevented her from seeking or obtaining daytime employment by denying her the same work training opportunities and services as those that are provided to similarly situated men.
21. Jane Doe IX is a woman prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections presently confined at the Annex. Jane Doe IX has been incarcerated at the Jail, at facilities operated by the BOP, at CTF, and at the Annex. Jane Doe IX is employed in a prison industry where she is subject to unwelcome sexual advances and conduct by correctional officers employed by the Defendants.
22. Jane Doe X is a woman prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections presently confined at the Annex. Jane Doe X is serving a substantial sentence and has been incarcerated at the Jail, at facilities operated by the BOP, at CTF, and at the Annex. Jane Doe X is a high school graduate and has taken some college courses. Jane Doe X also has substantial vocational experience. Defendants have denied Jane Doe X access to educational programs, work details, prison industry work, and apprenticeship programs that are available to similarly situated male prisoners.
23. Jane Doe XI is a woman prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections presently confined at the Annex. Jane Doe XI has been incarcerated at the Jail, at

- 9facilities operated by the BOP, and at the Annex. Defendants have denied Jane Doe XI the opportunity to participate in vocational training for the skilled trades even though that opportunity is provided to similarly situated men. Defendants have also denied Jane Doe XI access to recreational programs on the same basis as similarly situated men.
24. Jane Doe XII is a woman prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections presently confined at the Jail. Defendants have permitted Jane Doe XII to be subjected to unwelcome sexual advances and sexual harassment from correctional personnel and male prisoners.
25. Jane Doe XIII is a woman prisoner of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections presently confined at the Jail. Defendants have permitted Jane Doe XIII to be subjected to sexual harassment from correctional personnel and male prisoners.
B. Defendants 26. Defendant District of Columbia is a municipal corporation and is responsible for the supervision and operation of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections. 27. Defendant Sharon Pratt Kelly is the Mayor of the District of Columbia and is responsible for the direction and control of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections.

- 10 28. Defendant District of Columbia Department of Corrections is responsible for the safekeeping, care, protection, and instruction of all D.C. prisoners. The Department is charged with providing for the proper treatment, care, rehabilitation, and reformation of the prisoners. 29. Defendant Walter B. Ridley is the Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections. He is responsible for the overall operation of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections and each institution within its jurisdiction, including CTF, the Annex, and the Jail. 30. Defendant William M. Plaut is the Associate Director for Institutions of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections and is responsible for all securityrelated aspects of the facilities operated by the Department of Corrections. 31. Defendant Gwen H. Washington is the Associate Director of Programs of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections and is responsible for the management and supervision of the programs and services at the three facilities. Defendant Washington is also the Acting Administrator of CTF and is responsible for its operation. 32. Defendant John S. Henderson is the Administrator of the Jail and is responsible for its operation.

-lisa. Defendant Douglas E. Stempson is the Administrator of the Annex and is responsible for its operation. 34. Defendant William Hall, M.D., is the Assistant Director for Health Services at the District of Columbia Department of Corrections and is responsible for the management and supervision of the Department of Corrections' health care delivery system. 35. Defendant Eliza Taylor, M.D., is the Chief Medical Officer at CTF and is responsible for the medical care of the prisoners housed at CTF. 36. Defendant District of Columbia General Hospital Commission governs the District of Columbia General Hospital and is responsible for developing broad policies for the hospital and for ensuring that proper professional standards are maintained in the care of the sick at the hospital. By written agreement, the D.C. General Hospital is responsible for providing prisoners incarcerated in D.C. Department of Corrections facilities with medical care, including prenatal and obstetrical care. 37. Defendants who are individuals are sued solely in their official capacities. In all of their actions complained of herein, Defendants are acting and have acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

- 12 VI. WOMEN PRISONERS IN THE D.C. CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM
38. The population of women prisoners in the District of Columbia has nearly tripled, growing from 220 in 1984 to 625 today. Until 1989, women sentenced by the District of Columbia Superior Court to two years or less were housed at the Jail, while those with longer sentences were routinely sent to the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") and housed in federal prisons as far away as Pleasanton, California. In early 1992, the BOP sent approximately 120 women back to the D.C. correctional system as part of its plan eventually to return all D.C. women prisoners. At this time, approximately 30 D.C. women still remain incarcerated in the federal prisons.
39. Incarcerated women who serve their sentences within the D.C. correctional system are housed only at CTF, the Annex, or the Jail. By contrast, adult male prisoners who serve their sentences within the D.C. correctional system can be housed in one of eight facilities: the Jail, the Occoquan Facilities, the Lorton Central Facility ("Central"), the Lorton Minimum Security Facility ("Minimum"), the Lorton Medium Security Facility ("Medium"), the Lorton Maximum Security Facility ("Maximum"), the Modular Facility, and CTF (special-needs prisoners). These facilities for men provide varying levels of security from minimum to maximum security.
40. CTF is a new correctional facility that has been operated by the District of Columbia since May 1992. It

- 13 was originally conceived and built as an 800-bed facility to diagnose and treat mental health needs and to provide substance abuse treatment and diagnostic services for prisoners in the D.C. correctional system. CTF is a controlled-movement facility that was designed to house prisoners in discrete autonomous units comprised of single cells. Three units at CTF house prisoners: the C Building (reception and diagnostic), the D Building (the Substance Abuse Pilot Program), and the E Building. Each unit is equipped with a satellite kitchen and recreation yard.
41. The E Building was initially intended to house prisoners receiving mental health treatment. However, due to the influx of women prisoners returning from the federal prison system and the existing local population of women prisoners, Defendants appropriated the 256-bed E Building to house women prisoners. CTF currently houses 290 women prisoners whose remaining sentences range from two years to life imprisonment. In addition to the 256 women housed in the E Building, some 32 women are housed in the Substance Abuse Pilot Program at CTF. No women are housed in Reception and Diagnostic, which results in the women not receiving initial evaluations and diagnosis upon entering CTF.
42. The Annex currently houses approximately 150
women prisoners. The Annex was constructed in 1955 and used
as the Department of Corrections1 Training Academy until 1988, when it was converted to minimum security housing for male

- 14 prisoners. One year later, in September of 1989, the Annex was converted to house women prisoners. The Annex consists of two barrack-like structures with bunk beds lined up in a row on either side of a room. The dining facility, gym and outdoor playing field, law library, and prison industries are located off Annex grounds at the men's Minimum and Central Facilities. Women must be escorted to these facilities.
43. In June 1992, approximately 70 women from the Annex were transferred to CTF, while another 70 who were within 6 months of release were left at the Annex. The Department of Corrections planned to close the Annex, but was unable to do so because the large numbers of sentenced women quickly absorbed the space at CTF. For three months from June to August of 1992, 60 women languished at the Annex with only skeletal programs and staff until a decision was made to reopen the facility to full capacity in September of 1992. Currently, the Annex houses women felons and misdemeanants within 24 months of their presumptive release date.
44. The Jail is a correctional facility which has been operated by the District of Columbia since 1976. The Jail was designed to hold a maximum of 1,392 prisoners. The average daily population at the Jail totals approximately 1,680 prisoners and includes approximately 185 women. In general, the Jail houses women awaiting trial or sentencing, women serving sentences of up to one year, and sentenced women awaiting transfer to other facilities.

- 15 45. The general conditions and programs at the Jail fall within the orders and decrees of Campbell v. McGruder. No. 1462-71 (D.D.C.). However, that case does not encompass the claims asserted here regarding sexual abuse and sexual harassment. 46. Since their return from the federal BOP facilities to the D.C. correctional system, the women prisoners have been housed under a series of ad hoc arrangements instituted by Defendants. Through these ad hoc housing arrangements, Defendants have failed to provide the basic needs and services -- specified below -- to which the women are entitled. Moreover, defendants have consistently failed to provide the women with programs, services, privileges, and basic living conditions equivalent to those that Defendants provide to similarly situated men.
VII. CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT 47. Defendants have failed to provide the women prisoners at CTF with adequate obstetrical and gynecological care. Defendants have also failed to provide the women prisoners at CTF and the Annex with adequate sanitation, shelter, fire safety, and nutrition. Because the conditions of confinement at the Jail are subject to the orders and decrees in Campbell v. McGruder, No. 1462-71 (D.D.C.), they are not being challenged in this action.

- 16 A. DEPRIVATION OF OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL CARE
48. Defendants have deprived the women prisoners at CTF of adequate obstetrical and gynecological care. The adequacy of the obstetrical and gynecological care of women at the Annex and the Jail are not being challenged in this action because medical care in those facilities falls within the purview of Inmates of Three Lorton Facilities v. District of Columbia, No. 92-1208 (D.D.C.) and Campbell v. McGruder, No. 1462-71 (D.D.C.)/ respectively.
49. Defendants have failed to provide women prisoners at CTF with routine gynecological care. Many women prisoners are in a high risk category for gynecological diseases because they suffer from sexually transmitted diseases and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ("AIDS"). Because gynecological symptoms are usually the first sign of AIDS in women, Defendants' failure to provide adequate gynecological care prevents early identification, treatment, and monitoring of women prisoners infected with AIDS. Such failure to provide routine gynecological care also deprives all women prisoners of a basic health need because so many gynecological diseases can only be effectively treated in their early stages.
50. Defendants sometimes provide Pap smears and gynecological exams, but only after a woman prisoner has repeatedly demanded such care. However, routine rather than random gynecological care is required to reduce the risk and

- 17 effects of serious disease. Moreover, Defendants often fail to inform those women who do receive Pap smears of the results of their tests, even when those results indicate abnormalities.
51. Defendants fail to provide pregnant prisoners, who compromise approximately 8-10% of the incarcerated female population in the D.C. correctional system, with adequate pregnancy testing. Defendants provide no pregnancy screening upon intake at the Jail. Moreover, Defendants delay or ignore women's requests for testing after intake. Once tests are finally administered, women prisoners often do not receive the test results for several weeks. The Defendants' delay in testing and notifying the women prisoners hampers their ability to obtain adequate prenatal care. The Defendants' delay also deprives the women of options for terminating their pregnancies.
52. Defendants have failed to provide adequate prenatal care to the women at CTF. After a prisoner's pregnancy is confirmed, she is transferred to CTF for prenatal care. However, this care fails to comport with medical norms which indicate that women should have a high-protein, low-salt diet and that visits to doctors should be made at monthly intervals during the first two trimesters, bimonthly during the seventh and eighth months, and weekly during the ninth month. For women who are experiencing high risk pregnancies, such as women with histories of alcohol and drug abuse,

- 18 sexually transmitted diseases, older women, and women expecting more than one baby, visits should be at even more frequent intervals.
53. Women are supposed to be transported to D.C. General Hospital, which is adjacent to CTF, for the majority of their prenatal care and for delivery. The Defendants routinely fail to provide officer escorts for these scheduled prenatal visits. Consequently, pregnant prisoners are not able to see a doctor. On one recent occasion, after initially taking a woman prisoner to the hospital too early for delivery, correctional officers failed to transport a woman prisoner in labor to the hospital or even to the CTF infirmary, and she gave birth in her cell, assisted by another woman prisoner.
54. Defendants' routine failure to transport the women prisoners to the hospital also precludes effective counseling and preparation for the placement of the child. The only counseling and placement services available to the women regarding the placement of the child after birth is offered by the social services department at D.C. General Hospital.
55. As a result of Defendants' failure to provide effective counseling to the women prisoners, many mothers must
leave their infants at D.C. General Hospital as abandoned
infants or "boarder babies." There are no procedures for visits between the mother and the newborn who is left at D.C.

- 19 General Hospital. This separation after birth makes nursing, which can provide important health benefits for both mother and child, impossible.
56. Defendants' failure to provide counseling regarding child care arrangements causes women to make hasty placements with caretakers with whom they are not familiar, including correctional employees. These decisions can result in the women losing custody of these children after their release from prison. Unfortunately, some of these hastilyarranged placements have led to custody battles in which the mother, because of her incarceration, is unlikely to prevail.
57. Defendants fail to provide adequate post-partum care to the women prisoners in the D.C. correctional system. After a normal vaginal birth, women prisoners are returned to prison the day after the delivery, and thereafter prohibited from visiting their baby. After a caesarean birth, women prisoners are returned to a facility after three days. The only follow-up medical care for post-partum women is a sixweek check-up at D.C. General Hospital.
58. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with counseling services for post-partum depression or the depression resulting from the mother's separation from her child. They also failed to provide counseling for women whose pregnancies end in miscarriage or stillbirth.

- 20 B. DEPRIVATION OF BASIC SANITATION NEEDS
59. Although CTF is a new facility which recently opened in 1992, Defendants have permitted pervasive unsanitary conditions to develop there. The facility is plagued by roaches and rodents throughout the living quarters and the food preparation areas.
Annex 60. The dormitory barracks and bathrooms at the Annex are filthy and unsanitary. The barracks are infested with cockroaches/ rodents, and have even been inhabited by skunks. 61. Defendants' failure to provide women prisoners with cleaning supplies makes it impossible to maintain basic cleanliness and hygiene in the women's living areas. The Defendants expect the women to clean their living quarters with a "disinfectant" that is nothing more than water. Even after the women at the Annex volunteered to paint and otherwise repair their barracks, Defendants refused to supply them with the necessary materials.
C. DEPRIVATION OF BASIC SHELTER NEEDS
62. Defendants have failed to provide the women
prisoners at CTF with adequate shelter. The Defendants have failed to control the temperature in the women's cells and as
"TTI

- 21 a result the women are bitterly cold throughout the year. During both the winter and the summer, the women must frequently sleep in all of their clothes and long underwear in order to stay warm.
Annex 63. Defendants have failed to provide the women prisoners at the Annex with adequate, heated shelter in their barracks. The Defendants have also failed to heat or air condition the trailers where the women are expected to attend classes, have recreation time, and visit family members. The stifling heat in the trailers caused the teacher at the Annex to cancel basic education courses during June through August of 1993.
D. FIRE HAZARDS CTF 64. The command system at CTF that electronically
operates the doors and elevators frequently malfunctions. The elevators at CTF routinely malfunction and stop for long periods of time, leaving prisoners trapped behind, and sometimes between, their doors. On other occasions, the malfunctioning system has prevented medical assistance personnel from reaching prisoners. This creates a dangerous risk of the loss of life and property in the event of a serious fire or other emergency at CTF.

- 22 65. The conditions at the Annex are unsafe and pose a threat in the case of fire. The barracks are crowded with rows of double-bunks that block the exits to the room. Moreover, the Annex has inadequate fire safety equipment such as smoke alarms. Routine fire drills are not conducted at the Annex.
E. DEPRIVATION OF BASIC NUTRITIONAL NEEDS CTF 66. Defendants routinely fail to order enough food
for the number of prisoners incarcerated at CTF. Consequently, women often do not get enough food to eat or eat meals that are not nutritionally balanced.
Annex 67. Defendants fail to provide special dietary food to the women at the Annex for medical or religious restrictions. Defendants have told the women prisoners that in order to receive these special dietary meals, they must transfer to the maximum security environment at the Jail.
F. DEFENDANTS1 KNOWLEDGE OF AND DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO THESE CONTINUING VIOLATIONS 68. Defendants are aware of the constitutionally
inadequate conditions described in paragraphs 47 through 67, but nevertheless have failed and refused to provide needed medical care, to improve deplorable sanitation, to provide necessary heat, to ensure fire safety, and to supply necessary

- 23 food. Such failure and refusal constitute deliberate indifference to the basic needs of the women prisoners at CTF and the Annex.
VIII. SEXUAL ABUSE, SEXUAL HARASSMENT. AND INVASION OF PERSONAL PRIVACY
69. Correctional personnel and male prisoners have routinely subjected women prisoners at CTF, the Annex, and the Jail to a culture which fosters, tolerates, and even encourages the sexual, emotional, and physical degradation and abuse of women.
70. Defendants have failed to protect the women prisoners from the sexual abuse to which the women are subjected in all three facilities. Correctional officers and staff have sexually assaulted women prisoners. One woman prisoner at the Annex was sexually assaulted when she was transported for medical care. A correctional officer dragged her from the truck into a corn field and sexually assaulted her. This woman became pregnant as a result of this assault. Another woman prisoner at the Jail was locked into an office by a correctional officer who forced her to perform oral sex and then forcibly had sex with her. This woman became pregnant as a result of this assault.
71. D.C. Department of Corrections Order No. 3350.1 prohibits all intimate contact between prison employees and prisoners. However, officers and staff have engaged in sexual activity in contravention of this order by coercing the women

- 24 prisoners into sexual activity by threatening them or promising them certain "benefits" such as cigarettes, candy, or access to the telephone. For example, one officer at the Jail promised to obtain cigarettes and candy for a woman prisoner. The officer then coerced the woman into having sex with him under threat of reporting her for possessing contraband.
72. Defendants have failed to protect the women prisoners from the pervasive sexual harassment to which the women are subjected in all three facilities. Correctional officers and staff have solicited sexual favors from the women. Defendants' employees have made inappropriate comments about the women's appearance, used offensive sex-based language, and engaged in sex-based, offensive conduct. One woman was sexually harassed by an officer who repeatedly made sex-based comments, including one comment regarding his desire to "stick his rod up in her." The woman filed an administrative grievance regarding this officer, but no action was taken against the officer. Defendants' employees have retaliated against women prisoners who have refused to participate in sexual activity with the employees.
73. Defendants have tolerated similar sexual harassment when it has been perpetrated by the male prisoners towards the women. The work details and prison industries at the Annex and CTF cultivate a hostile environment in which women prisoners are forced to endure unwelcome sexual advances

- 25 as a condition of their work. For example, at CTF, male staff employed in the kitchen harass the women who work there on culinary detail and have solicited sexual favors from the women in exchange for cigarettes. Similarly, in the Lorton printing industry, Defendants permit the women prisoners to be harassed and intimidated by their male co-workers to the point where some women have been forced to quit.
74. Defendants have failed to prevent the invasion of the women prisoners' personal privacy. Male officers and staff routinely enter the women's dorms, showers, and restrooms without announcing their arrival. Defendants prohibit the women at CTF from covering the windows to their cells, even very briefly, despite the fact that the windows allow male prisoners in an adjoining wing to view the women as they are dressing or undressing.
75. The Defendants have failed to implement an effective mechanism to identify, investigate, and prevent the widespread sexual, emotional, and physical abuse of women prisoners.
76. Defendants are aware that the women prisoners are subject to sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and invasions of personal privacy, but nevertheless have failed and refused to take any action to remedy the situation. The Defendants' failure and refusal constitute deliberate indifference to the basic needs of the women prisoners at CTF, the Annex, and the Jail.

- 26 IX. INFERIOR TREATMENT 77. Defendants have provided the women prisoners at CTF and the Annex with programs, services, and opportunities that are substantially inferior to those provided to similarly situated men in the D.C. correctional system. Such sex-based inferior treatment is found in the women's educational programs, work opportunities, religious programs and privileges, recreational programs and privileges, and general quality of life. Because the programs and services provided to the women at the Jail are subject to the orders and decrees in Campbell v. McGruder, No. 1462-71 (D.D.C.), they are not being challenged in this action.
A. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 78. Defendants are statutorily required pursuant to
D.C. Code § 24-442 to provide educational instruction and rehabilitation programs to all prisoners.
79. Defendants have provided the women prisoners at CTF and the Annex with educational programs and opportunities that are inferior to those provided to similarly situated men.
80. The Defendants receive federal financial assistance.
1. Education Courses 81. Defendants have provided the women at CTF with
educational programs that are substantially inferior to those educational programs provided to similarly situated men.

- 27 Defendants offer the men significant basic education courses. Defendants also offer the men the opportunity to participate in college-level courses either through a correspondence course run by Park College at Medium or through a number of college courses provided on site at the prisons by the University of the District of Columbia ("UDC"). The college classes are offered at no cost to the male prisoners, and UDC also offers each male prisoner his first year of classes free after release. While incarcerated, a male prisoner can earn an associate degree in a variety of different fields, including Computer Science, Legal Assistance, and Business Management, or a bachelor degree in Urban Studies from the university. In 1990, a male prisoner from Lorton was the valedictorian for the graduating college class at UDC.
82. By contrast, Defendants offer the women at CTF only limited basic education and one college "correspondence" course available through Atlantic Union College which is taught by a computer. These programs are of little value to the women at CTF, many of whom have completed high school and some college education while they were incarcerated in the federal prisons prior to their return to the D.C. correctional system. Moreover, the Defendants have frustrated the women's attempt to take advantage of even this limited college-level opportunity by routinely failing to provide either officer escorts to the computer lab or staff to supervise the class. In addition, Defendants require women to apply for financial

- 28 aid under the Pell Grant Program to pay for the Atlantic Union class. Defendants thereby cause the women to exhaust their post-release eligibility for future Pell Grants because the amount of financial assistance that any individual may receive through these grants is limited.
83. Defendants have provided the women at the Annex with basic education and college-level programs that are substantially inferior to those educational programs provided to similarly situated men at Minimum. Defendants have regularly provided the men with a variety of basic education courses, as well as the college-level courses offered by UDC. Defendants have also provided the men with computers to aid them in their studies and with staff to counsel them about educational loans and opportunities upon their release.
84. Defendants failed to provide the women at the Annex with any basic education classes at all during the summer of 1992 and the spring and summer of 1993. Defendants purport to allow the women to enroll in the UDC classes at Minimum, but Defendants have routinely denied the women access to those classes by failing to transport them to the classes in which they have enrolled. Defendants provide no educational counseling or computers for the women.
85. Plaintiffs are significantly harmed by the inferior educational opportunities provided by the Defendants. The women are denied the education to which they are statutorily entitled. This lack of education significantly

- 29 reduces the options that women have upon release for obtaining further education and better employment. Moreover, participation in an educational program allows prisoners to receive good time credits, D.C. Code § 24-429, D.C. Reg. 604.5, which reduce their time in prison. Participation in educational programs is often a requirement of parole or drug treatment programs run by the prison. Thus, the inability to take educational classes can lengthen the women's terms of incarceration. The lack of programming for women unnecessarily increases their stress and anxiety. The women are further harmed because the lack of education significantly impacts the prisoners' self-esteem, attitude, and adjustment during incarceration.
2. Vocational Education Programs 86. Defendants have provided the women at CTF with vocational education programs that are substantially inferior to those provided to similarly situated men. The men can participate in a variety of useful training programs that prepare them for gainful employment, such as barbering, computer technology, building maintenance, auto mechanics, and boiler plant operation. Defendants have provided the women at CTF with limited and stereotypical vocational education training in areas such as sewing, typing, and
printing/reproduction.
87. Defendants have provided the women at the Annex with vocational education programs that are substantially

- 30 inferior to those provided to similarly situated men at Minimum. Men at Minimum have a variety of vocational education opportunities, while the women at the Annex are limited to two pre-industrial vocational training classes. Men at Minimum are able to earn significant good time credits for their participation in the vocational education programs.
88. Defendants have failed to provide the women at CTF or the Annex with any apprenticeship programs. However, Defendants provide similarly situated men with a variety of apprenticeships, such as plumbing, electrical, dental technology, brick masonry, auto mechanics, carpentry, culinary, and auto body repair. The plumbing and electrical apprenticeships are approved through the D.C. Apprenticeship Council and can lead to certification as a journey level craftsman upon completion. Male prisoners who complete the dental technology apprenticeship are then qualified to take the licensing test in that field.
89. Plaintiffs are significantly harmed by the Defendants' failure to provide adequate and appropriate vocational training programs and apprenticeships. The women do not have the same opportunity that men do to gain marketable employment skills that will lead to higher paying detail jobs while in prison and meaningful employment upon release from prison. Women have an equal, if not a greater, need for vocational programs in order to obtain secure and well-paying employment upon release into the community. Women

- 31 entering prison have a much higher unemployment rate than men. Although 62% of all D.C. prisoners are unemployed at the time of their arrest, as many as 85% of women arrestees are unemployed. Furthermore, the lack of vocational education programs deprives the women of the opportunity to earn good time credit that can lessen their prison sentence.
B. WORK OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN PRISONERS 90. Defendants have provided the women prisoners at
CTF with work opportunities substantially inferior to those provided to similarly situated men. The men are provided with a greater variety of and higher-paying work details (prison chores). Men are also able to work in a large variety of high-paying prison industries, such as metal fabrication and furniture repair and refinishing. By contrast, Defendants provide only one industry at CTF -- printing -- and it employs only six women. Defendants pay the women who work at the CTF industry substantially lower wages than the men at the Lorton industries.
91. Defendants have provided the women prisoners at the Annex with work opportunities substantially inferior to those provided to similarly situated men at Minimum. The men have a wide variety of higher-paying work details and prison industry jobs. The men also have greater access to work training programs that allow prisoners to work in the community while returning to the prison at night. Defendants

- 32 have provided the men with a job counselor to help them locate jobs and a government vehicle to attend job interviews.
92. Defendants have limited the work duties of women at the Annex to stereotypical and low-paying duties such as cleaning, cooking, and clerical work. The Defendants permit the women at the Annex to participate in only two prison industries: the garment shop and the print shop. Defendants also have denied the women adequate opportunity to participate in the work training program. Defendants have failed to inform the women of the program. Defendants routinely fail to classify qualified prisoners for work training, and they do not provide the women with counseling assistance or transportation to job interviews.
93. Defendants discriminate against the women prisoners at the Annex who work in the Lorton industries. For example, men in the Lorton garment factory have a restroom directly off the workroom. The women's restroom is in a different part of the building, and women are only permitted to use the bathrooms at certain times, when they all must go together. In addition, women are forced to eat cold lunches at their sewing machines under unsanitary conditions while the men go to the cafeteria for a hot meal.
94. Plaintiffs are significantly harmed by their exclusion from particular work details, prison industries, and work training programs. The women cannot earn the same amount of money while in prison that male prisoners are able to earn.

- 33 The women are unable to learn job skills that will enable them to obtain gainful employment upon release from prison. The prospect of gainful employment is particularly important for incarcerated women, since eighty percent of them are single mothers who are responsible for at least one dependent child upon release from prison.
C. RELIGIOUS PROGRAMS AND PRIVILEGES 95. Defendants have provided the women prisoners at
the Annex with religious programs and privileges substantially inferior to those provided to similarly situated men at Minimum. The men have a chaplain and the use of a chapel for religious services of many different faiths. Men may also participate in extracurricular religious activities such as the choir.
96. Defendants do not permit women to attend the religious services at Minimum. Instead, Defendants provide only a few services to the women in an unheated trailer at the Annex using recorded music on a tape player. No Muslim services are available to women. There is no chaplain to assist the women prisoners, even though the Department of Corrections Order No. 4410.IB states that a chaplain will be provided to all prisoners. Because of the lack of a chaplain,
the women are informed of family deaths by officers and other prisoners.

- 34 97. The inferior access to religious programs and privileges significantly burdens the women prisoners by impairing their sense of community and spiritual well-being. It also deprives them of a much-needed source of support.
D. RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS AND PRIVILEGES 98. Defendants have provided the women prisoners at
CTF with recreational programs and privileges substantially inferior to those provided to similarly situated men. The movement of these men is not restricted and they enjoy a daily opportunity for extended outdoor exercise. Because CTF was intended to be a short-term diagnostic and treatment facility, the movement of all prisoners housed at CTF is severely restricted. Opportunities for outdoor recreation and exercise are almost non-existent at CTF. At most, prisoners are allowed thirty to sixty minutes of recreation in the prison yard three or four times a week. This limited opportunity for outdoor recreation may be tolerable for men who are at CTF on a short-term basis for specialized treatment, but is wholly inadequate for women who are incarcerated at CTF for at least two years, and possibly as long as life. Moreover, Defendants discriminate between the men and women at CTF. The men are given daily access to CTF's indoor gym, but the women are limited to evening hours a few times a week or to those times when it is raining outside.
wr,

- 35 99. Defendants have provided the women prisoners at the Annex with recreational programs and privileges substantially inferior to those provided to similarly situated men at Minimum. Defendants have given the men full access to a track and football field and a gym which they can use for a range of activities including talent shows, dances, and family nights. At most, Defendants permit the women to use the gym and field for two days a week in the evening. At other times, the women are relegated to an unheated trailer dedicated to "recreation" purposes. Defendants require that a recreation specialist supervise the women in all recreational activities, but they frequently fail to provide such a specialist, thereby denying them of even this limited opportunity for exercise. Defendants have also denied the women the opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities such as family days and the drama troupe. 100. The inferior access to recreational opportunities significantly harms the women prisoners by impairing their health and mental and physical well-being. In particular, the women prisoners at CTF suffer psychological and physical harm caused by their lengthy confinement in a high security, restricted-movement facility that was never intended to house long-term prisoners.

E. QUALITY OF LIFE

- 36 -

101. Defendants have provided the women prisoners at

CTF and the Annex with a quality of life that is substantially

inferior to that provided to similarly situated men.

1. Dining Privileges

102. Defendants have provided the women prisoners at

the Annex with dining privileges substantially inferior to

those provided to similarly situated men at Minimum. Women

prisoners eat in the cafeteria at Minimum in different shifts

from the male prisoners. The Defendants have prohibited the

women, but not the men, from getting second helpings of food.

The Defendants' failure to provide adequate food at mealtimes

means that women are forced to spend money at the canteen to

supplement their diet with soup, crackers, and cans of tuna.

Furthermore, the Defendants arbitrarily limit the women's

dining time to fifteen to twenty minutes while allowing the

men forty-five minutes to one hour to eat their meals.

2. Canteen

103. Defendants have provided the women prisoners at

CTF with canteen privileges substantially inferior to those

provided to similarly situated men. The men's facilities all

have canteens. CTF does not have a canteen from which

prisoners can purchase necessary items such as toiletries,

feminine hygiene products, stationery, and snack food.

Instead, the women at CTF must order these products from the

canteen at the Jail, and these are often "out of stock."

- 37 3. Clothing
104. Defendants have provided the women prisoners at the Annex with clothing privileges substantially inferior to those provided to similarly situated men at Minimum. The men are allowed to wear regular street clothes. Defendants strictly regulate the clothing women wear, for example, prohibiting sweatsuits, and shorts above the knee. Moreover, defendants give out disciplinary reports to the women for wearing tight clothing.
4. Smoking 105. Defendants have provided the women prisoners at
CTF with smoking privileges substantially inferior to those provided to similarly situated men. CTF is the only designated non-smoking facility in the D.C. correctional system. Smoking is prohibited in all areas, including the outdoor prison yard. This no-smoking policy has caused increased tension and anxiety among women with medium and long-term sentences, many of whom are smokers. Moreover, the ban on smoking has created a booming black market economy where cigarettes are traded for money, sex, canteen items, and other favors. In contrast, the men serving long-term sentences at other facilities have no smoking restrictions whatsoever. These men can smoke outside, in the cafeteria,
and even in their cells or dormitories. Even male prisoners
in administrative segregation are permitted to smoke in their cell.

- 38 5. Harm to the Plaintiffs
106. The inferior quality of life significantly burdens the women prisoners by dehumanizing them, thereby impacting on their self-esteem, attitude, and adjustment during incarceration. Moreover, the Defendants' actions based solely on the prisoners' sex perpetuates social stereotypes of women as second-class citizens.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Paragraphs 1 through 68 are incorporated herein by reference and realleged. Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiffs with a humane environment in which their basic human and medical needs are met violates the rights of Plaintiffs already convicted and serving sentences to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Paragraphs 1 through 46 and 69 through 76 are incorporated herein by reference and realleged. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual abuse and sexual harassment to which Plaintiffs are subjected constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. S 1983.

- 39 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Paragraphs 1 through 46 and 69 through 76 are incorporated herein by reference and realleged. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and invasions of the personal privacy of the Plaintiffs violates the rights of pre-trial detainees to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. S 1983.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Paragraphs 1 through 46 and 69 through 76 are incorporated herein by reference and realleged. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and invasions of the personal privacy of the Plaintiffs constitutes an official policy or custom that deprives the Plaintiffs of their constitutional right of bodily privacy and also deprives them of a liberty interest without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Paragraphs 1 through 46 and 69 through 76 are incorporated herein by reference and realleged.

- 40 Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual harassment of the Plaintiffs violates the rights of the Plaintiffs to equal protection of the laws under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Paragraphs 1 through 46 and 77 through 89 are incorporated herein by reference and realleged. Defendants' inferior treatment of women prisoners in educational programs violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. S 1681 (1988).
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Paragraphs 1 through 46 and 77 through 106 are incorporated herein by reference and realleged. Defendants' inferior treatment of women prisoners in the areas of education, work, religion, recreation, and general quality of life constitutes invidious discrimination resulting from the facial classification of prisoners based on sex, and this inferior treatment is not directly and substantially related to an important and legitimate governmental interest, and violates the rights of Plaintiffs to equal protection of the laws under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. S 1983.

- 41 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Paragraphs 1 through 106 are incorporated herein by reference and realleged. Defendants1 failure to provide Plaintiffs with a humane environment in which their basic human and medical needs are met, and in which appropriate educational, vocational, religious, recreational, and quality of life opportunities are provided, and Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and invasions of the personal privacy of the Plaintiffs, violates Defendants' duties under the District of Columbia Code §§ 24442 and 24-425, which require Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with safekeeping, care, protection, and instruction in a suitable and appropriate institution, and to meet their basic medical needs.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Court to grant the following relief: a. Declare that the actions and inactions of the Defendants described herein have violated and continue to violate the Plaintiffs' rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.

- 42 § 1681 (1988), and the District of Columbia Code §§ 24-442 and 24-425;
b. Enjoin the Defendants from engaging in any action or conduct, or from failing to act in any way, that violates the Plaintiffs' above-mentioned rights;
c. Order the Defendants to take all action
necessary to remedy the violations of the Plaintiffs' abovementioned rights;
d. Award Plaintiffs the cost of this suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees; and
e. Award Plaintiffs all further relief that this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, C p V l N G ^ O l f ^ BURL IN*
By: er J. Nicltfles # 53447
Caroline M. Brown # 438342 Tracy A. Thomas # 435742
COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (202) 662-6000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Co-counsel: Brenda V. Smith # 404979 Deborah L. Brake # 435006
NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER 1616 P Street, N.W. Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-5160
Dated: October 1, 1993
"in

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et

Plaintiffs,

v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

) Civil Action No. 93-2052

)

FILED

)

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et a_l. , )

Defendants.

)

!\-••;«/ 9 1993

Qlerk, U.S. District Court
District of Colombia ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. SHARON PRATT KELLY,

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WALTER RIDLEY, WILLIAM PLAUT.

GWEN WASHINGTON. JOHN S. HENDERSON. DOUGLAS STEMPSON.

WILLIAM HALL AND D.C. GENERAL HOSPITAL COMMISSION

TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

First Defense

The Department of Corrections is a division of the municipal

corporation, the District of Columbia, and is therefore non sui

juris, see, Miller v. Spencer 330 A.2d 251, n.l (D.C. App.,

1974).

D.C. General Hospital Commission is no longer an independent

agency, is not a sueable entity and is not a proper party before

this Court.

The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE

I. NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT

1. The allegations in paragraph one of plaintiffs'

complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which

no response is required. If answer is required, the same are

denied.

Women Prisoners/DC v. DC

PC-DC-011-035

II. JURISDICTION 2 and 3. Defendants admit the existence of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments of the Constitution, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (1988), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, D.C. Code 24-425 and 24-442, 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343 (3) and 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, but deny this Court has jurisdiction over this matter and these parties solely by reason thereof.
III. VENUE 4. Defendants admit the existence of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) and (c) but deny venue is proper solely by reason thereof.
IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 5 through 11. The allegations in paragraphs five through 11 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
V. PARTIES A. PLAINTIFFS 12 through 25. The allegations in paragraphs 12 through 25, of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied. B. DEFENDANTS 26. The defendants admit the District of Columbia is a municipal corporation and that the Department of Corrections is a division thereof. The remaining allegations in paragraph 26 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the

pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
27. Defendants admit Sharon Pratt Kelly is the Mayor of the District of Columbia. The remaining allegations in paragraph 27 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
28. The allegations in paragraph 28 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
29. Defendants admit Walter B. Ridley is the Director of District of Columbia Department of Corrections. The remaining allegations in paragraph 29 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
30. Defendants admit William M. Plaut is the Associate Director for Institutions for the D.C. Department of Corrections. The remaining allegations in paragraph 30 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
31. Defendants admit Gwen Washington is the Associate Director for Programs for the D.C. Department of Corrections and is the Acting Administrator of the CTF. The remaining allegations in paragraph 31 of plaintiffs' complaint contain

conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
32. Defendants admit John Henderson is the Administrator of the D.C. Jail. The remaining allegations in paragraph 32 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
33. Defendants admit Douglas Stempson is the Administrator of the Annex of the Minimum Security Facility, District of Columbia Department of Corrections. The remaining allegations in paragraph 3 3 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
34. Defendants admit Dr. William Hall is the Assistant Director for Health Services for the District of Columbia Department of Corrections. The remaining allegations in paragraph 34 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
35. Defendants admit Dr. Eliza Taylor is the Chief Medical Officer at the CTF. The remaining allegations in paragraph 3 5 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
36. Defendants admit D.C. General Hospital provides prisoners in the D.C. Department of Corrections Facilities with

medical care. The remaining allegations in paragraph 36 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
37. The allegations in paragraph 37 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
VI. WOMEN PRISONERS IN THE D.C. CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM 38 through 40. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 38 through 40 of plaintiffs' complaint. 41. Defendants deny that women do not receive initial evaluations and diagnosis upon entering the CTF. The defendants admit the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 41 of plaintiffs' complaint. 42. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 42 of plaintiffs' complaint. 43. The allegations in paragraph 43 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied. 44. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 44 of plaintiffs' complaint. 45 and 46. The allegations in paragraphs 45 and 46 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the

pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
VII. CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT 47. The allegations in paragraph 47 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
A. DEPRIVATION OF OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL CARE 48 through 58. The allegations in paragraph 48 through 58 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
B. DEPRIVATION OF BASIC SANITATION NEEDS CTF
59. The allegations in paragraph 59 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
ANNEX 60 and 61. The allegations in paragraphs 60 and 61 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.

C. DEPRIVATION OF BASIC SHELTER NEEDS CTF

62. The allegations in paragraph 62 of plaintiffs'

complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which

no response is required. If answer is required, the same are

denied.

ANNEX

63. The allegations in paragraph 63 of plaintiffs'

complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which

no response is required. If answer is required, the same are

denied.

D. FIRE HAZARDS CTF

64. The allegations in paragraph 64 of plaintiffs'

complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which

no response is required. If answer is required, the same are

denied.

ANNEX

65. The allegations in paragraph 65 of plaintiffs' complaint

contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no

response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.

E. DEPRIVATION OF BASIC NUTRITIONAL NEEDS

CTF

66. The defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 66 of

plaintiffs' complaint.

ANNEX

67. The defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 67 of

plaintiffs' complaint.

7

F. DEFENDANTS' KNOWLEDGE OF AND DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO THESE CONTINUING VIOLATIONS
68. The allegations in paragraph 68 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
VIII. SEXUAL ABUSE. SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND INVASION OF PERSONAL PRIVACY
69. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 69 of plaintiffs' complaint.
70. The allegations in paragraph 70 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
71. Defendants admit the D.C. Department of Corrections prohibits all intimate contact between prison employees and prisoners. The remaining allegations in paragraph 71 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
72. through 76. The allegations in paragraphs 72 through 76 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
IV. INFERIOR TREATMENT 77. The allegations in paragraph 77 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which
8

no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
A. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 78, 79 and 80. The allegations in paragraphs 78, 79 and 80 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
1. EDUCATION COURSES 81 through 85. The allegations in paragraphs eighty one through 85 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
2. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 86 through 89. The allegations in paragraphs 86 through 89 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
B. WORK OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN PRISONERS 90 through 94. The allegations in paragraphs 90 through 94 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.

C. RELIGIOUS PROGRAMS AND PRIVILEGES 95 through 97. The allegations in paragraphs 95 through 97 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
D. RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS AND PRIVILEGES 98 through 100. The allegations in paragraphs 98 through 100 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
E. QUALITY OF LIFE 101. The allegations in paragraph 101 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
1. DINING PRIVILEGES 102. The allegations in paragraph 102 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
2. CANTEEN 103. The allegations in paragraph 103 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.

3. CLOTHING 104. The allegations in paragraph 104 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
4. SMOKING 105. The allegations in paragraph 105 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied.
5. HARM TO PLAINTIFFS 106. The allegations in paragraph 106 of plaintiffs' complaint contain conclusions of law and/or the pleader to which no response is required. If answer is required, the same are denied. Further answering the complaint, defendants deny all allegations not specifically admitted or otherwise answered and deny all allegations of wrongdoing, negligence, statutory violations or constitutional violations.
THIRD DEFENSE If the plaintiffs were/are injured and/or damaged as alleged in the complaint, then such injury and/or damage was due to their own contributory negligence and/or assumption of the risk.
11

FOURTH DEFENSE If plaintiffs were injured as alleged in the complaint, then such injury is the result of their own intentional and/or wrongful conduct.
FIFTH DEFENSE The conduct of defendants, at all relevant times, met all applicable standards of care.
SIXTH DEFENSE The allegations contained in paragraphs 69 to 76 of plaintiffs' complaint insofar as they refer to the D.C. Detention Facility are barred by the the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel and issue preclusion.
Respectfully submitted, JOHN PAYTON
Corporation Counsel, D.C. MICHAEL E. ZIELINSKI
Assistant Deputy Corporation Counsel, D.C. Civil Division RICHARD S. LOVE Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. Chief, CorrectionaL^itigation Section
MARIA AMATO (414935) Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. Correctional Litigation Section 441 4th Street, N.W. Sixth Floor/South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 727-6295
12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer to

Plaintiffs' Complaint was mailed, postage prepaid, to Peter

Nickles, Covington and Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. P.O.

box 7566, Washington D.C. 20044-7566 and Brenda Smith, National

Women's Law Center, 1616 P. Street, N.W. Suite 100, Washington,
f

D.C. 20036 on November /

, 1993.

MARIA AMATO (414935) Assistant Corporation Counsel, D.C. Correctional Litigation Section 441 4th St., N.W. Sixth Floor, South Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 727-6295

dar/womcns.ans

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No. 93-2052 JLG

v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,

Defendants,

)

FILED

W i71994
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT P L A I N T I F F S ' PRETRIAL STATEMENT DISTRICT 01= COLUMBIA

Women Prisoners/DC v. DC
PC-DC-011-036

Peter J. Nickles (#53447) Caroline M. Brown (#438342) Tracy A. Thomas (#435742)
COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (202) 662-6000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Co-Counsel
Brenda V. Smith (#404979) Deborah L. Brake (#43 5006)
NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER Suite 100 1616 P Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 2 0 036 (202) 328-5160

Dated: May 17, 1994

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION

1

I.

CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS

2

A. Background Facts

2

B. Inadequate and Inferior Programs . . . . 3

C. Sexual Misconduct

8

D. Medical Care

11

E. Conditions of Confinement

14

II.

LEGAL CLAIMS

18

A. Inadequate and Inferior Programs . . .

18

B. Sexual Misconduct

20

C. Medical Care

22

D. Conditions of Confinement

24

E. Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . . . .

27

F. Violations of D.C. Code

28

III.

LIST OF WITNESSES

29

IV.

EXPERT WITNESSES

33

A. Ward Duel

33

B. Dr. Susan Fiester

33

C. Thomas Jaeger

34

D. Jennie Lancaster

3 5

E. Dr. Benjamin Major

3 6

V.

EXHIBIT LIST

37

VI.

LIST OF DEPOSITIONS DESIGNATED

BY PLAINTIFFS

3 8

VII.

PENDING MOTIONS

44

VIII.

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

45

- 11 -

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

page

Akao v. Shimoda, 832 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1987), cert.

denied, 485 U.S. 993 (1988)

25

Archer v. Dutcher. 733 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1984)

23

Battle v. Seaao. 431 S.E.2d 148 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) . . . 21

Beehler v. Jeffes. 664 F. Supp. 931 (M.D. Pa. 1986),

aff'd without opinion. 989 F.2d 486

(3d. Cir. 1993)

20

Bell v. Wolfish. 441 U.S. 520 (1979)

21

Bohen v. City of East Chicago. Ind.. 799 F.2d 1180 (7th

Cir. 1986)

22

Boiling v. Sharpe. 347 U.S. 497 (1954)

19, 22

Boretti v. Wiscomb. 930 F.2d 1150 (6th Cir. 1991) . . .

23

Bowling v. Enomato. 514 F. Supp. 201 (N.D. Cal. 1981) . 21

Campbell v. McGruder. 580 F.2d 521 (D.C. Cir. 1978) . 24

Campbell v. McGruder. No. 1462-71 (D.D.C.) . . . .

18, 22

Canterino v. Barber. 564 F. Supp. 711 (W.D. Ky. 1983) . . 19

Canterino v. Wilson. 546 F. Supp. 174 (W.D. Ky. 1982),

rev'd in part on other grounds. 869 F.2d 948 (6th

Cir. 1989)

18, 20

Canton v. Harris. 489 U.S. 378 (1989)

28

Charles v. Wade. 665 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1982)

38

Dawson v. Kendrick. 527 F. Supp. 1252

(S.D. W. Va. 1981)

21

District of Columbia v. Mitchell, 533 A.2d 629 (D.C. App.

1987)

28

Divers v. Department of Corrections. 921 F.2d 191 (8th

Cir. 1990)

18

Doe v. District of Columbia, 701 F.2d 948 (D.C. Cir.

1983)

26

Duncan v. Duckworth. 644 F.2d 653 (7th Cir. 1981) . . . . 23

Eades v. Thompson. 823 F.2d 1055 (7th Cir. 1987) . . . . 23

Estelle v. Gamble. 429 U.S. 97 (1976)

22, 23

Fair v. Brown. No. K85-535, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13428

(W.D. Mich. 1990)

20

Favia v. Indiana University of Penn.. 812 F. Supp. 578

(W.D. Pa. 1987)

19

Fortner v. Thomas. 983 F.2d 1024 (11th Cir. 1993) . . . 21

Forts v. Ward, 621 F.2d 1210 (2nd Cir. 1980)

21

French v. Owens. 777 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1985), cert.

denied. 479 U.S. 817 (1986)

25, 26

Garnett v. Keener. 541 F. Supp. 241 (M.D. Pa. 1982) . . . 20

Glover v. Johnson. 478 F. Supp. 1075

(E.D.-Mich. 1979)

18, 19

Havnesworth v. Miller. 820 F.2d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1987) . . 27

Headlev v. Bacon. 828 F.2d 1272 (8th Cir. 1987)

22

Helling v. McKinnev. 113 S. Ct. 2475 (1993)

24

Hite v. Leeke. 564 F.2d 670 (4th Cir. 1977)

25

Hoptowit v. Spellman. 753 F.2d 779

(9th Cir. 1985)

25, 26, 27

Hovater v. Robinson. 1 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 1993) . . . . 21

Hudson v. McMillian. 112 S. Ct. 995 (1992)

20, 24

Hutchinqs v. Corum. 501 F. Supp. 1276

(W.D. Mo. 1980)

. 25, 27

In re Moore. 39 Bankr. 571 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1984) . . . 38

Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 717 F. Supp. 854 (D.D.C.

1989)

24, 27

- IV -

Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry. 844 F.2d 828 (D.C. Cir.

1988)

26

Inmates of Three Lorton Facilities v. District of

Columbia. No. 92-1208 (D.D.C.)

22

John Doe v. District of Columbia. 697 F.2d 1115 (D.C.

Cir. 1983)

28

Johnson v. Hav. 931 F.2d 456 (8th Cir. 1991)

23

Jordan v. Gardner. 986 F.2d 1521 (9th Cir. 1993) . . . . 20

Kaminsky v. Rosenblum. 929 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1991) . . . 23

King v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin Sys..

898 F.2d 533 (7th Cir. 1990)

22

Klinger v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services,

824 F. Supp. 1374 (D. Neb. 1993)

19, 20

LaShawn A. v. Dixon. 762 F. Supp. 959 (D.D.C. 1991), aff'd in part, rev'd in part. 990 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1993), cert, denied. 114 S. Ct. 691 (1994) . . 27

Lee v. Downs. 641 F.2d 1117 (4th Cir. 1981)

21

Leeds v. Watson. 630 F.2d 674 (9th Cir. 1980)

27

Liahtfoot v. Walker. 486 F. Supp. 504 (S.D. 111. 1980) . 26

Madison County Jail Inmates v. Thompson, 773 F.2d 834

(7th Cir. 1985)

25, 26

McCoy v. Nevada Department of Prisons. 776 F. Supp. 521

(D. Nev. 1991)

18, 19

McKenzie v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections, 138

F.R.D. 554 (E.D. Wis. 1991)

21

Miller v. Carson. 563 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1977)

26

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan. 458 U.S. 718

(1982)

19

Monell v. Department of Soc. Services, 436 U.S. 658

(1978)

27

Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates v.

Lanzaro. 834 F.2d 326 (3d Cir. 1987), cert, denied,

486 U.S. 1006 (1988)

22

- v -

Morgan v. District of Columbia. 618 F. Supp. 754 (D.D.C.

1985)

28

Morgan v. District of Columbia. 824 F.2d 1049 (D.C. Cir.

1987)

27

Murphy v. Chicago Transit Authority. 638 F. Supp. 464

(N.D. 111. 1986)

22

Murphy v. United States. 653 F.2d 637 (D.C. Cir. 1981) . 24

Parker v. District of Columbia. 850 F.2d 708 (D.C. Cir.

1988), cert, denied. 489 U.S. 1065 (1989)

27

Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney. 442

U.S. 256 (1979)

19

Pitts v. Meese, 684 F. Supp. 303 (D.D.C. 1987), aff'd.

866 F.2d 1450 (D.C. Cir. 1989)

28

Pitts v. Thornburgh. 866 F.2d 1450 (D.C. Cir. 1989) . . . 19

Poe v. Haydon. 853 F.2d 418 (6th Cir. 1988), cert.

denied, 488 U.S. 1007 (1989)

21

Pontarelli v. Stone. 930 F.2d 104 (1st Cir. 1991) . . . . 21

Poulsen v. City of North Tonawanda, 811 F. Supp. 884

(W.D.N.Y. 1993)

22

Ramos v. Lamm. 639 F.2d 559 (10th Cir. 1980), cert.

denied. 450 U.S. 1041 (1981) . . . . 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

Rhodes v. Chapman. 452 U.S. 337 (1981)

24, 26

Santana v. Callazo. 714 F.2d 1172 (1st Cir. 1983), cert.

denied. 466 U.S. 974 (1984)

27

Spain v. Procunier. 600 F.2d 189 (9th Cir. 1979) . . . . 26

Starrett v. Wadlev. 876 F.2d 808 (10th Cir. 1989) . . . . 21

Todaro v. Ward. 431 F. Supp. 1129 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd. 565

F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1977)

22, 23

Todaro v. Ward. 565 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1977)

23

Toussaint v. Yockev. 722 F.2d 1490 (9th Cir. 1984) . 24, 26

Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia. 841 F.2d 1133

(D.C. Cir. 1988)

28

- vi -

Wellman v. Faulkner. 715 F.2d 269 (7th Cir. 1983), cert.

denied. 468 U.S. 1217 (1984)

22, 23, 26

Wilson v. Seiter. 501 U.S. 294 (1991) . . . . 21, 23, 24, 25

Wishon v. Gammon. 978 F.2d 446 (8th Cir. 1992)

18

STATUTES

D.C. Code § 24-425

28

D.C. Code § 24-442

28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (b) (4)

33, 34, 35, 36

Fed. R. Evid. 801 (d) (2) . •

38

Federal Rules of Evidence, Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(1) . 37, 38

United States Constitution, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (1988) . . . 2, 19

42 U.S.C. § 1983

21, 27, 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF

)

COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

)

etal.,

)

Plaintiffs,

) Civil Action ) No. 93-2052 JLG

V.

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

)

et al.,

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFFS' PRETRIAL STATEMENT
INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs are the class of women prisoners housed in three facilities operated by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DCDC), the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF), the Lorton Minimum Security Annex (Annex), and the Central Detention Facility (Jail). Women prisoners from CTF and the Annex have come before this Court because Defendants, the District of Columbia and named officials with responsibility for the District's prisons and prison population, have (1) provided them with programs, services, and opportunities that are inadequate and inferior as compared to those provided to male prisoners; (2) subjected them to a hostile environment characterized by pervasive sexual favoritism and harassment, and failed to protect them from

- 2-
sexual assaults and coerced sexual conduct by correctional employees; (3) deprived them of adequate obstetrical and gynecological care at CTF; and (4) exposed them to unsafe and unsanitary living conditions. Women prisoners at the Jail are before this Court because Defendants have also subjected them to a hostile environment characterized by pervasive sexual harassment and misconduct.
At trial, Plaintiffs will offer the testimony of expert and fact witnesses and documentary evidence that support the allegations outlined above. Together, the factual evidence and legal authority will show that Defendants' actions and inactions have violated the Plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (1988), and the laws of the District of Columbia, and that the relief requested by Plaintiffs is necessary to remedy these violations. I. CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS
A detailed description of the facts in this case is contained in Plaintiffs' Supplemental Response to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories, attached to this statement as Exhibit A.
A. Background Facts 1. In the last decade, the number of women
prisoners incarcerated in facilities operated by the DCDC has nearly tripled.

- 3-
2. Since 1989, Defendants have housed women prisoners in the D.C. correctional system under a series of ad hoc arrangements.
3. For several years, Defendants failed to plan and prepare for the influx of women prisoners into the D.C. correctional system.
4. Even after Defendants formulated plans for the women prisoners in their care, they have failed to implement the majority of those plans.
B. Inadequate and Inferior Proqr*a'mp 1. The Defendants receive federal financial
assistance. 2. Medium-custody female inmates are housed at
CTF. 3. Medium-custody male inmates are housed at
Medium Facility (low-medium), Central Facility (mediummedium) , and Occoquan (high-medium) on the Lorton reservation.
4. Minimum-custody female inmates are housed at the Annex.
5. Minimum-custody male inmates are housed at the Minimum Security Facility.
6. Male inmates housed at CTF are special population inmates enrolled in the voluntary 18-month, prerelease substance abuse program or in the thirty- to sixty-day reception and diagnostic evaluation program.

- 4 -
Education 7. Defendants provide women at CTF with education programs that are inadequate and inferior as compared to those provided to male inmates at Central, Medium, and Occoquan. For example, women are provided with part-time academic school rather than full-time school, and women have only an associate's degree program through a computer correspondence course rather than a bachelor's degree program with live, onsite instructors.
a. CTF is a controlled-movement facility that was designed to have all programming activities, including education, occur on the housing units due to the limited facility access to centralized areas.
b. Defendants provide little or no programming to general population women on the housing units.
c. Staffing inadequacies and escort problems at CTF limit women prisoners' access to centralized programs and contribute to the inadequacy and inferiority of educational programs.
8. Defendants provide women at the Annex with education programs that are inadequate and inferior as compared to those provided to male inmates at Minimum. For example, the academic school for women has been cancelled for several months at a time, and women are unable to attend the

- 5-
full scheduled time of college classes due to the failure of Defendants to provide staff escorts.
Vocational Education 9. Defendants provide women at CTF with vocational education programs that are inadequate and inferior as compared to those provided to male inmates at Central, Medium, and Occoquan. For example, Defendants provide women at CTF with only one vocational education program and 3 skills courses, whereas Defendants provide men at Central with 13 vocational education programs.
a. Staffing inadequacies and escort problems at CTF limit women prisoners' access to programs and contribute to the inadequacy and inferiority in vocational educational programs.
10. Defendants provide the women at the Annex with vocational education programs that are inadequate and inferior as compared to those available to men at Minimum.
a. Women at the Annex have one short vocational program in graphic arts available to only 5-7 individuals.
b. Men at Minimum are able to develop their vocational skills by working on trade-related details that build on the vocational education these men gain at other medium security facilities prior to coming to Minimum.

- 6-
Work Opportunities 11. Defendants provide women at CTF with work details that are inadequate and inferior as compared to those provided to male inmates at Central, Medium, and Occoquan. Women do not work on the trade-related details available to men such as plumbing, carpentry, and electrical. 12. Defendants provide women at the Annex with work details that are inadequate and inferior as compared to those provided to male inmates at Minimum. Women do not work on many of the details available to men such as farm, dairy, plumbing, carpentry, electrical, and auto mechanics. 13. Defendants provide the women at CTF with industrial work opportunities that are inadequate and inferior as compared to those provided to male inmates at Central, Medium, and Occoquan.
a. Defendants provide no industries for women at CTF.
b. Defendants provide men at Central with 11 different industrial work opportunities.
14. Women at the Annex are denied equal access to the full range of industrial opportunities at Central based on their gender. Women work in 2 industries, whereas the men are employed in 11 different industries.
15. Defendants provide women at the Annex with work training furlough opportunities that are inadequate and inferior as compared to those provided to male inmates at

- 7-
Minimum. Only 3 women were approved for work training in all of 1993, whereas an average of 50-60 men from Minimum are employed in work training programs at any one time.
Religious Programs 16. Defendants provide women at the Annex with religious programs that are inadequate and inferior as compared to those provided to male inmates at Minimum. Women do not have full-time access to a chaplain, and they are not provided with the same range of religious study programs, services, and group events as men. Recreation 17. Defendants provide the women at CTF with recreation activities that are inadequate and inferior as compared to male inmates at Central, Medium, and Occoquan.
a. Women's recreation is limited to one hour outside, five days per week. Women can access the gym 2 nights per week for 2 hours.
b. Men at Central, Medium, and Occoquan have access to the outdoors virtually all day from dawn to dusk. Men can access the gym for approximately 3 hours per day, at least 5 days per week.
c. Staffing inadequacies and escort problems at CTF limit women prisoners' access to recreation and contribute to the inadequacy and inferiority in recreational activities.

- 8-

18. Defendants provide women at the Annex with recreation activities that are not comparable to those provided to male inmates at Minimum. Women are limited to using the men's gym and field only 4 hours each week, and the women's recreation trailer is open only for limited hours five days a week that conflict with scheduled program and work times.

Smoking

19. Defendants provide women at CTF with smoking

privileges that are inadequate and inferior as compared to

those provided to male inmates at Central, Medium, and

Occoquan. Women are not permit to smoke at all. Men are

permitted to smoke outside, where they can access for most of

the day, or in some indoor designated areas.

*

*

*

20. Defendants' have displayed indifference, bias, and stereotypical notions of women in creating unequal programs for women prisoners.

C. Sexual Misconduct 1. Women residents are subjected to inappropriate
verbal sexual comments, advances and propositions in every

aspect of their incarceration, including on work details, in industries, in programming areas, in housing units, and during

escorts within CTF and transport outside of both facilities. 2. Defendants' employees engage in, encourage, and
allow inappropriate sexual behaviors with the women residents

- 9-
and force or coerce women residents into having sexual
contacts and do not protect the women from such sexual
contact. a. Employees allow women on housing units to
be inappropriately attired in the presence of male employees.
b. Employees encourage or coerce women residents to "flash" or to expose their bodies to employees.
c. Employees expose their bodies to women residents.
d. Employees touch the women residents in an inappropriate and unwelcomed sexual manner.
e. Employees initiate and/or engage in sexual activity with women residents.
f. Employees allow women residents to have sexual relations with other residents.
g. Employees coerce women residents into having sexual contacts in exchange for goods and favors, including cigarettes, money, candy, food, and preferential treatment.
h. Employees use physical force and threats of physical force to make women engage in sexual activity.

- 10 -
i. Employees coerce women into engaging in sexual activity through the use of threats, including threats of escape reports and disciplinary reports.
3. Defendants fail to prevent the invasion of women residents' privacy.
4. Defendants know or should know of these incidents of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct.
5. Defendants fail to adequately investigate reports of sexual misconduct and fail to take appropriate action against e'mployees who are accused of sexual misconduct.
6. Defendants fail to prevent sexual harassment and misconduct by failing to properly train and counsel DCDC employees and by maintaining an environment where sexual harassment and misconduct are condoned and tolerated.
7. Defendants know or should know that incarcerated women as a population generally have low self esteem and a high incidence of depression, and that many women residents have experienced rape, sexual assault, or sexual abuse prior to being incarcerated. Defendants know or should know that because of the women's past trauma, the women are reluctant to report sexual misconduct during incarceration.
8. Defendants know or should know that the sexualized environment at the facilities and the sexual contact between employees and residents causes women to experience psychological injury and emotional pain and distress and prevents their rehabilitation.

- 11 -
D. Medical Care 1. Defendants do not provide adequate gyneco-
logical examination and testing. 2. Defendants do not provide adequate monitoring
and follow-up of gynecological conditions. 3. Defendants do not provide women prisoners with
adequate education regarding sexually-transmitted diseases and other gynecological conditions.
4. Defendants do not have a protocol for gynecological care for women who are HIV positive.
5. Defendants do not provide an adequate transportation system for ensuring that women prisoners at CTF are able to keep their medical appointments.
6. Defendants do not provide adequate prenatal care.
a. Defendants do not have an adequate prenatal protocol at CTF.
b. Defendants do not provide all pregnant women with adequate nutrition, and do not provide required vitamins and iron tablets in a timely manner.
c. Defendants do not provide all pregnant women with regular prenatal check-ups.
d. Defendants fail to inform all pregnant
women of the existence of the prenatal education classes
that are available, when they are available.
_

- 12 -
e. Defendants have offered virtually no prenatal exercises classes since the opening of CTF in May 1992.
f. Defendants fail to provide an adequate transportation system for ensuring that women are able to keep their prenatal appointments at D.C. General Hospital.
7. Defendants do not provide adequate counseling to pregnant women regarding child care arrangements.
a. Defendants do not provide pregnant women with timely counseling to enable them to make appropriate child care arrangements.
b. The counseling and assistance that Defendants offer do not encourage women to consider a variety of child care arrangements, but instead, strongly encourages them to give up their babies for adoption.
8. Defendants do not provide women prisoners with adequate post-partum medical care.
9. Defendants do not provide women prisoners with adequate post-partum counseling.
10. Defendants do not provide adequate opportunities for mothers to visit their babies who are boarding at D.C. General Hospital and there is no written policy regarding such visitation.
11. Defendants have failed to maintain effective coordination and communication with D.C. General Hospital in
m

- 13 -
order to provide adequate medical care and social services to women prisoners at CTF.
12. Defendants are aware that no effective communication and coordination exists between D.C. General Hospital and DCDC and that this problem adversely affects women prisoners' medical care.
13. Defendants are aware that women prisoners at CTF are in a high risk category for gynecological diseases such as syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, breast, uterine, and cervical cancer, and for developing complications during pregnancy.
14. Defendants' failure to provide adequate gynecological and obstetrical care precludes prevention, early identification, treatment, and monitoring of gynecological conditions; increases the risk of infant deformity and mortality; increases the health risks associated with pregnancy for women; precludes bonding between mother and child; and puts newborn children at greater risk of being placed in inappropriate child care arrangements. Defendants' failure to provide adequate gynecological and obstetrical care also causes women prisoners unnecessary physical and psychological stress and pain.

- 14 -
E. Conditions of Confinement Lorton Minimum Security Annex 1. The dormitories that house the women prisoners
at the Annex are overcrowded and, as a consequence, are also poorly ventilated, poorly lit and excessively noisy.
2. The dormitories of the Annex are poorly maintained, including:
a. The dormitories are infested with cockroaches;
b. The roof leaks -- in one instance, directly onto an electrical box;
c. Mattresses and pillows are torn; d. The hot water frequently runs out; 3. The grounds of the Annex are poorly maintained. Dumpsters are overfilled and uncovered. The drainage system is so poor that the women are almost ankle deep in mud whenever it rains. 4. Women prisoners housed at Lorton are deprived of adequate access to sanitary and restroom facilities in the dormitories, in the industries, and in the trailers that house their programs. 5. The food at the Lorton Minimum Security Facility is prepared under unsanitary conditions, and the kitchen is infested with vermin. 6. Women prisoners who work at the prison industries eat under unsanitary and unsafe conditions.

- 15 -
7. The environmental conditions suffered by the women prisoners housed at the Annex lead to an increase in anxiety, depression, communicable diseases, and confrontations between inmates and with staff.
8. Women prisoners at the Annex face potentially fatal fire hazards both in their dormitories and on the main compound at Minimum. These hazards include the following:
a. No fire alarm systems are provided in the dormitory buildings;
b. Inadequate fire detection systems are provided in the dormitory buildings;
c. The dormitory buildings are of combustible construction;
d. A high combustible load exists within the dormitory buildings;
e. Storage areas within the dormitory buildings are inadequately protected;
f. Interior finishes of wood paneling in the dormitory buildings result in a severe fire hazard to the occupants;
g. The fire alarm system in the dining room and gymnasium is inoperative;
h. Fire exit doors in the gymnasium are inoperative;
i. Fire drills are inadequate; and

- 16 -
j. Operational procedures for response to fire emergencies by staff are inadequate.
9. Due to the grossly inadequate level of fire safety, women prisoners at the Annex are at risk of loss of life and property.
10. Defendants are aware of the environmental and fire safety conditions at the Annex and their adverse effect on the women prisoners housed there.
CTF 11. Women prisoners housed at CTF are subjected to bitterly cold temperatures and leaking walls and ceilings due to construction defects in the CTF building, including a grossly deficient heating and air handling system. Because of these deficiencies, CTF's ventilation system has been shut off to preserve heat and as a result, no fresh air is circulated inside the building. 12. The living conditions at CTF are unsanitary and unhealthy, and include the following deficiencies:
a. lack of adequate hot water; b. excessive noise; c. presence of mice; d. unsanitary laundry procedures; and e. lack of adequate cleaning supplies to maintain a sanitary environment. 13. The food at CTF is prepared under unsanitary conditions. In particular, the food temperatures for the

- 17 -
"hot" food served to prisoners with special diets is dangerously low.
14. The environmental conditions suffered by women prisoners housed at CTF leads to an increase in respiratory infections, colds, flu and other communicable diseases.
15. CTF provides an inadequate level of fire safety due to the following:
a. The frequency and distribution of fire drills is inadequate;
b. Operational procedures for responding to fire emergencies by staff are inadequate;
c. There is inadequate testing of the fire protection systems;
d. The fire alarm system cannot be used by staff;
e. Water leakage from rain creates a severe hazard due to the exposure of electrical equipment to rain water; and
f. Improper storage of combustibles in the culinary area.
16. Due to the inadequate level of fire safety, women prisoners at CTF are at risk of loss of life and property.
17. Defendants are aware of the environmental and fire safety conditions at CTF and their adverse effect on the women prisoners housed there.

- 18 -
Plaintiffs understand that Defendants dispute each of these asserted facts.
II. LEGAL CLAIMS A. Inadequate and Inferior Programs 1. The programs and services provided to women at
the Jail are not being challenged in this case as they are subject to the orders and decrees in Campbell v. McGruder. No. 1462-71 (D.D.C.).
2. A female inmate is "similarly situated" for purposes of constitutional equal protection and Title IX analyses to a male inmate who has a comparable custody level, sentence structure, and classification status. See Klinger v. Nebraska Dep't of Correctional Servs., 824 F. Supp. 1374, 1431-34 (D. Neb. 1993); McCov v. Nevada Dep't of Prisons. 776 F. Supp. 521, 533 (D. Nev. 1991); Canterino v. Wilson. 546 F. Supp. 174, 206 (W.D. Ky. 1982), rev'd in part on other grounds. 869 F.2d 948 (6th Cir. 1989); Glover v. Johnson, 478 F. Supp. 1075 (E.D. Mich. 1979). See also Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446 (8th Cir. 1992) (lockdown inmates not similarly situated to general population inmates for education and vocation programs); Divers v. Department of Corrections, 921 F.2d 191 (8th Cir. 1990) (protective custody inmates similarly situated to other protective custody inmates).

- 19 -
3. Defendants' provision of unequal programs and opportunities to women prisoners on the basis of a facial, sex-based classification of segregating prisoners, demonstrates intent to discriminate as a matter of law under both the equal protection and Title IX analyses. Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hoaan. 458 U.S. 718, 724-26 (1982); Personnel Adm'r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 274 (1979); Pitts v. Thornburgh. 866 F.2d 1450, 1453-55 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Canterino v. Barber, 564 F. Supp. 711, 714 (W.D. Ky. 1983) (Title IX); Favia v. Indiana University of Penn., 812 F. Supp. 578, 584 (W.D. Pa. 1987) (Title IX).
4. The lack of parity in programs and opportunities available to women prisoners as compared to similarly situated male prisoners, in the areas of education, vocational education, work, religion, and recreation, is not substantially related to an important governmental interest and reflects invidious discrimination that violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Pitts v. Thornburah. 866 F.2d 1450, 1451, 1461-63 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Klinqer v. Nebraska Dep't of Correctional Servs.. 824 F. Supp. 1374, 1431-34 (D. Neb. 1993); McCoy v. Nevada Dep't of Prisons. 776 F. Supp. 521, 533 (D. Nev. 1991); Glover v. Johnson. 478 F. Supp. 1075 (E.D. Mich. 1979); see also Boiling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) (equal protection component of

- 20 -
the Fifth Amendment provides same guarantee of protection as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment).
5. Defendants' inferior treatment of women prisoners in education and vocational education programs violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (1988) . Beehler v. Jeffes. 664 F. Supp. 931 (M.D. Pa. 1986), aff'd without opinion. 989 F.2d 486 (3d. Cir. 1993); Klinqer v. Nebraska Dep't of Correctional Servs.. 824 F. Supp. 1374, 1431-34 (D. Neb. 1993); Canterino v. Wilson. 546 F. Supp. 174", 210 (W.D. Ky. 1982), rev'd in part on other grounds. 869 F.2d 948 (6th Cir. 1989) .
B• Sexual Misconduct 1. Defendants' failure to prevent sexual
harassment, sexual misconduct and invasions of personal privacy involving women prisoners, and Defendants' knowledge that a high probability of severe psychological injury and emotional pain and suffering exists for women who are subjected to such misconduct, constitute unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Hudson v. McMillian, 112 S. Ct. 995, 998 (1992); Jordan v. Gardner. 986 F.2d 1521, 1526 (9th Cir. 1993) (en bane).
2. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual harassment, sexual misconduct and invasions of personal privacy involving sentenced inmates constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

- 21 -
Wilson v. Seiter. 501 U.S. 294 (1991); Hovater v. Robinson. 1 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 1993); McKenzie v. Wisconsin Dep't of Corrections. 138 F.R.D. 554 (E.D. Wis. 1991); Fair v. Brown, No. K85-535, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13428 (W.D. Mich. 1990); Garnett v. Kepner. 541 F. Supp. 241 (M.D. Pa. 1982); Battle v. Seaao. 431 S.E.2d 148 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).
3. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual harassment, sexual misconduct and invasions of personal privacy involving female pretrial detainees violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Bell v. Wolfish. 441 U.S. 520 (1979) .
4. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual harassment, sexual misconduct and invasions of personal privacy involving both female sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees violates the Plaintiffs' constitutional right to bodily privacy. Fortner v. Thomas. 983 F.2d 1024 (11th Cir. 1993); Lee v. Downs, 641 F.2d 1117 (4th Cir. 1981); Forts v. Ward. 621 F.2d 1210 (2nd Cir. 1980); Bowling v. Enomato, 514 F. Supp. 201 (N.D. Cal. 1981); Dawson v. Kendrick, 527 F. Supp. 1252 (S.D. W. Va. 1981) .
5. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual harassment, sexual misconduct and invasions of personal privacy of both sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to Defendants by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Boiling v. Sharpe. 347 U.S. 497 (1954);

- 22 -
Pontarelli v. Stone. 930 F.2d 104 (1st Cir. 1991); King v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys.. 898 F.2d 533 (7th Cir. 1990); Starrett v. Wadlev. 876 F.2d 808 (10th Cir. 1989); Poe v. Havdon, 853 F.2d 418 (6th Cir. 1988), cert, denied, 488 U.S. 1007 (1989); Headlev v. Bacon. 828 F.2d 1272 (8th Cir. 1987); Bohen v. Citv of East Chicago. Ind.. 799 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir. 1986); Poulsen v. Citv of North Tonawanda, N.Y.. 811 F. Supp. 884 (W.D.N.Y. 1993); Murphy v. Chicago Transit Auth.. 638 F. Supp. 464 (N.D. 111. 1986).
C. Medical Care 1. The adequacy of the obstetrical and
gynecological care of women at the Annex and the Jail are not being challenged in this action because medical care in those facilities falls within the purview of Inmates of Three Lorton Facilities v. District of Columbia, No. 92-1208 (D.D.C.) and Campbell v. McGruder, No. 1462-71 (D.D.C), respectively.
2. The U.S. Constitution prohibits Defendants from maintaining a system of medical care characterized by deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble. 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976); Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 350 (3d Cir. 1987), cert, denied. 486 U.S. 1006 (1988); Wellman v. Faulkner. 715 F.2d 269, 271 (7th Cir. 1983), cert, denied. 468 U.S. 1217 (1984); Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 574 (10th Cir. 1980), cert, denied, 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Todaro

- 23 -
v. Ward. 431 F. Supp. 1129, 1132 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd. 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1977) .
3. Adequate gynecological and obstetrical care is a serious medical need of women. See Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 348 (3d Cir. 1987), cert, denied. 486 U.S. 1006 (1988); Archer v. Dutcher. 733 F.2d 14, 16 (2d Cir. 1984); Todaro v. Ward. 431 F. Supp. 1129 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1977).
4. There are systematic and gross deficiencies in the procedures which Defendants use to provide medical care to women prisoners, procedures which effectively cause delay or denial of access to adequate medical care. See Ramos v. Lamm. 639 F.2d 559, 577 (10th Cir. 1980), cert, denied. 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Kaminskv v. Rosenblum. 929 F.2d 922, 926 (2d Cir. 1991); Wellman v. Faulkner. 715 F.2d 269, 272 (7th Cir. 1983), cert, denied. 468 U.S. 1217 (1984).
5. Defendants have failed to carry out prescribed medical treatment, depriving women prisoners at CTF of adequate medical care. See Johnson v. Hay, 931 F.2d 456, 461 (8th Cir. 1991); Boretti v. Wiscomb, 930 F.2d 1150, 1154 (6th Cir. 1991).
6. Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of women prisoners at CTF, and thus have violated the Eighth Amendment. See Wilson v. Seiter. 501 U.S. 294 (1991); Estelle v. Gamble. 429 U.S. 97,

- 24 -
103 (1976); Eades v. Thompson. 823 F.2d 1055, 1060-61 (7th Cir. 1987); Duncan v. Duckworth. 644 F.2d 653, 654 (7th Cir. 1981); Todaro v. Ward. 565 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1977).
7. By placing women at greater risk of developing gynecological diseases and complications during pregnancy, and by placing their unborn children at greater risk of infant deformity or mortality, Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment. Helling v. McKinnev. 113 S.Ct. 2475 (1993).
D. Conditions of Confinement 1. Defendants have been deliberately indifferent
to the conditions of confinement of the women prisoners who are housed at the Annex and at CTF. Wilson v. Seiter. 501 U.S. 294 (1991); Murphy v. United States. 653 F.2d 637 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
2. Conditions of confinement that rise beyond mere discomfort and threaten the mental and physical well-being of prisoners are cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Hudson v. McMillian. 112 S. Ct. 995, 998 (1992); Rhodes v. Chapman. 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981); Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 566 (10th Cir. 1980), cert, denied. 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Campbell v. McGruder. 580 F.2d 521, 534 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Inmates of Occoauan v. Barrv. 717 F. Supp. 854, 867 (D.D.C. 1989).
3. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by subjecting the women prisoners to overcrowding that has led to an increase in stress, tension, communicable diseases, and

- 25 -
inappropriate behavior between inmates. Akao v. Shimoda. 832 F.2d 119, 120 (9th Cir. 1987), cert, denied. 485 U.S. 993 (1988); Toussaint v. Yockev. 722 F.2d 1490, 1492 (9th Cir. 1984) .
4. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect the women prisoners from excessively cold or hot temperatures and by failing to provide adequate ventilation and insulation. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991); French v. Owens. 777 F.2d 1250, 1255 (7th Cir. 1985), cert, denied, 4"?9 U.S. 817 (1986); Madison County Jail Inmates v. Thompson, 773 F.2d 834, 838-39 (7th Cir. 1985); Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 784 (9th Cir. 1985); Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 566 (10th Cir. 1980), cert, denied. 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Hutchinas v. Corum, 501 F. Supp. 1276, 1282 (W.D. Mo. 1980) .
5. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect women prisoners from unhealthy conditions, including by failing to provide proper plumbing, adequate hot water, adequate lighting, and adequate cleaning supplies, and by failing to follow sanitary laundry procedures. French v. Owens. 777 F.2d 1250, 1252 (7th Cir. 1985), cert, denied. 479 U.S. 817 (1986); Madison County Jail Inmates v. Thompson, 773 F.2d 834, 838-39 (7th Cir. 1985); Hoptowit v. Spellman. 753 F.2d 779, 783-84 (9th Cir. 1985); Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 569-70 (10th Cir. 1980), cert.
-BB

- 26 -
denied. 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Hite v. Leeke. 564 F.2d 670, 672 (4th Cir. 1977).
6. These conditions have a mutually enforcing effect of depriving women prisoners of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991); Rhodes v. Chapman. 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981); Doe v. District of Columbia. 701 F.2d 948, 961 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry. 844 F.2d 828, 836-37 (D.C. Cir. 1988) .
7. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide food that has been prepared under safe and sanitary conditions. French v. Owens. 777 F.2d 1250, 1255 (7th Cir. 1985), cert, denied. 479 U.S. 817 (1986); Madison County Jail Inmates v. Thompson. 773 F.2d 834, 838-39 (7th Cir. 1985); Ramos v. Lamm. 639 F.2d 559, 571 (10th Cir. 1980), cert, denied.. 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Lightfoot v. Walker. 486 F. Supp. 504, 524 (S.D. 111. 1980).
8. The presence of vermin is evidence of a failure to maintain facilities in a constitutionally adequate manner. Hoptowit v. Spellman. 753 F.2d 779, 784 (9th Cir. 1985); Wellman v. Faulkner. 715 F.2d 269, 274 (7th Cir. 1983), cert, denied. 468 U.S. 1217 (1984).
9. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by failing routinely to provide opportunities for outdoor exercise and fresh air to prisoners who are incarcerated for lengthy periods of time. Toussaint v. Yockev. 722 F.2d 1490

- 27 -
(9th Cir. 1984); Spain v. Procunier. 600 F.2d 189, 199-200 (9th Cir. 1979); Miller v. Carson. 563 F.2d 741, 749-51 (5th Cir. 1977) .
10. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide an adequate level of fire safety. Hoptowit v. Spellman. 753 F.2d 779, 783 (9th Cir. 1985); Santana v. Callazo. 714 F.2d 1172, 1183 (1st Cir. 1983), cert, denied. 466 U.S. 974 (1984); Leeds v. Watson. 630 F.2d 674, 675 (9th Cir. 1980); Hutchinas v. Corum. 501 F. Supp. 1276, 1293 (W.D. Mo. 1980).
11. Prisoners have the right not to be subjected to the unreasonable threat of injury or death by fire and need not wait until actual casualties occur in order to obtain relief. Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 717 F. Supp. 854, 867 (D.D.C. 1989).
E. Violations of 42 U.S.C. S 1983 1. Defendant District of Columbia and its agencies
are liable to the class of women prisoners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because its policies or customs have deprived them of rights secured by the U.S. Constitution and federal laws. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs.. 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 824 F.2d 1049, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
2. The policies or customs that have led to the constitutional harm include the Defendants' "actual practice" and not necessarily what is found in the District's laws and regulations. LaShawn A. v. Dixon. 762 F. Supp. 959, 990

- 28 -
(D.D.C. 1991), aff'd in part, rev'd in part. 990 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1993), cert, denied. 114 S. Ct. 691 (1994); Parker v. District of Columbia. 850 F.2d 708, 714 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert, denied. 489 U.S. 1065 (1989); Havnesworth v. Miller. 820 F.2d 1245, 1248 & n.l (D.C. Cir. 1987).
3. Defendants' deliberate indifference towards women prisoners, including the failure to train its employees on proper treatment of women prisoners, constitutes a policy or custom that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Canton v. Harris. 489 U.S. 378, 389 (1989); Parker v. District of Columbia. 850 F.2d 708, 714 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert, denied. 489 U.S. 1065 (1989); ; Morgan v. District of Columbia. 824 F.2d 1049, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
F. Violations of D.C. Code 1. The constitutional and statutory violations
enumerated above, regarding programs, sexual harassment and misconduct, medical care, and conditions of confinement to which women prisoners are subjected, constitute violations of D.C. Code § 24-442 which requires Defendants to be responsible for the safekeeping, care, protection, instruction, and discipline of all persons committed to its correctional institutions. John Doe v. District of Columbia. 697 F.2d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 1983); District of Columbia v. Mitchell. 533 A.2d 629 (D.C. App. 1987).
2. Defendants have failed to house women prisoners in appropriate facilities in violation of D.C. Code § 24-425.
• • l

- 29 -

Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Pitts v. Meese, 684 F. Supp. 303 (D.D.C. 1987), aff'd. 866 F.2d 1450 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 618 F. Supp. 754 (D.D.C. 1985).

3. This Court has pendent jurisdiction to consider

the state law claims. See John Doe v. District of Columbia,

697 F.2d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

*

*

*

A full explication of the application of the

relevant case law to the facts of this case will be submitted

to the Court in the Plaintiffs' brief filed in conjunction

with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to be filed

with the Court on June 9, 1994.

III. LIST OF WITNESSES Plaintiffs expect to call the witnesses listed below
to testify at trial. A brief summary of the direct testimony that Plaintiffs expect to elicit is provided.
1. Jane Doe II is an inmate of CTF. She is expected to testify concerning medical care, programs and opportunities, and general living conditions.
2. Jane Doe III is an inmate of CTF. She is expected to testify concerning programs and opportunities, smoking, and sexual misconduct.

- 30 -
3. Jane Doe IV is an inmate of CTF. She is expected to testify concerning programs and opportunities and sexual misconduct.
4. Jane Doe V is an inmate at CTF. She is expected to testify concerning sexual misconduct, programs and opportunities, and general living conditions.
5. Jane Doe VI is an inmate at CTF. She is expected to testify concerning programs and opportunities and general living conditions.
6. J'ane Doe VII is an inmate at the Annex. She is expected to testify concerning programs and opportunities and sexual misconduct.
7. Jane Doe VIII is a former inmate of the Annex who was recently released. She is expected to testify concerning programs and opportunities.
8. Jane Doe IX is an inmate at the Annex. She is expected to testify concerning programs and opportunities, sexual misconduct and living conditions.
9. Jane Doe XI is an inmate at the Annex and a former inmate at CTF. She is expected to testify concerning programs and opportunities and general living conditions.
10. Jane Doe XII is a former inmate at CTF who was recently released. She is expected to testify concerning sexual misconduct and programs and opportunities.

- 31 -
11. Jane Doe A is an inmate at the Annex. She is expected to testify concerning sexual misconduct and programs and opportunities.
12. Jane Doe B is an inmate at the Annex. She is expected to testify concerning sexual misconduct and programs and opportunities.
13. Jane Doe K is an inmate at the Jail. She is expected to testify concerning sexual misconduct, programs and opportunities, and general living conditions.
14. Jane Doe L is an inmate at the Annex. She is expected to testify concerning programs and opportunities, and medical care at CTF.
15. Jane Doe P is an inmate at the Annex. She is expected to testify concerning sexual misconduct and programs and opportunities.
16. Jane Doe Q is a former inmate at the Jail, who was recently released. She is expected to testify concerning sexual misconduct and programs and opportunities.
17. Jane Doe W is an inmate at CTF. She is expected to testify concerning sexual misconduct.
18. Jane Doe Z is a former inmate of the Annex. She is expected to testify concerning sexual misconduct and programs and opportunities.
19. Jane Doe CC is an inmate at CTF. She is expected to testify concerning sexual misconduct and programs and opportunities.

- 32 -
20. Jane Doe FF is an inmate at CTF. She is expected to testify on sexual misconduct, programs and opportunities, and living conditions.
21. Jane Doe 00 is an inmate at CTF and a former inmate at the Annex. She is expected to testify concerning sexual misconduct and programs and opportunities.
22. Jane Doe PP is a resident of Community Correctional Center #2, 1825 13th Street NW, Washington, DC and is a former inmate of the Annex. She is expected to testify concerning sexual misconduct and programs and opportunities.
23. Jane Doe RR is an inmate at the Annex. She is expected to testify concerning sexual misconduct and programs and opportunities.
24. Jane Doe EEE is a former inmate of CTF who was recently released. She is expected to testify concerning sexual misconduct, programs and opportunities, and general living conditions.
25. Jane Doe QQQ is an inmate at CTF. She is expected to testify concerning medical care and general living conditions.
26. Robert Mallon, Atlantic Union College, 338 Main Street, Lancaster, MA 01561. He is expected to testify concerning the Atlantic Union College program for women at CTF.

- 33 -
IV. EXPERT WITNESSES A. Ward Duel, Compliance Consultants, Inc., McHenry,
IL. Mr. Duel has a B.S. in Food Technology from the University of Wisconsin (Madison) and an M.P.H. from the University of California (Berkeley). He is a registered sanitarian and is a commissioned officer of the U.S. Public Health Service.
Mr. Duel has served as the in-house consultant on environmental health and public health for the American Medical Association Task Force for the development of jail standards. As an environmental health consultant, Mr. Duel has inspected correctional facilities in 33 states and has testified in court over 25 times. In several cases, Mr. Duel has been appointed by the court to be a monitor or a member of a monitoring team. He has lectured extensively and is the author of numerous monographs, manuals, and journal articles in the field of environmental health.
Mr. Duel has prepared environmental health reports based on his site visit of both the Annex and CTF, and is expected to testify on the substance of those reports and as detailed in the statement filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) with this Court on April 11, 1994.
B. Dr. Susan Piaster, M.D., Medical Director, Psychiatric Institute of Washington, D.C. Dr. Fiester is a psychiatrist with extensive experience in the area of sexual abuse.

- 34 -
Dr. Fiester is an expert in all aspects of sexual misconduct. Dr. Fiester has served as an expert in over 2 0 civil and criminal cases, with special expertise in the area of rape, sexual abuse, and domestic violence. Dr. Fiester has worked as a consultant for the Court Consultation Clinic at the Yale School of Medicine, and in that capacity has performed hundreds of competency evaluations on female inmates incarcerated in Connecticut.
Dr. Fiester is also an expert in nicotine addiction. Dr. Fiester has written several abstracts concerning nicotine addiction and has given numerous presentations on nicotine addiction.
Dr. Fiester is expected to testify on the issues of sexual misconduct and nicotine addiction as detailed in the statement filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A)(i) on March 7, 1994.
C. Thomas Jaeger, Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia. Mr. Jaeger is a professional engineer who has been working in the field of fire safety for 27 years. He is president of a multinational consulting engineering firm that specializes in fire protection.
Mr. Jaeger has been a consultant or expert with respect to many correctional and detention facilities nationwide. He was the project manager for fire safety surveys of twelve prisons operated by the federal Bureau of Prisons. He is a charter member of the Subcommittee on Detention and

- 35 -
Correctional Occupancies for the National Fire Protection Association. He has lectured and written extensively in the area of fire safety.
Mr. Jaeger is expected to testify on the issues of fire safety at both the Annex and the CTF as detailed in the statement filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) on April 13, 1994, except that Mr. Jaeger does not intend to testify that the fire alarm system at CTF is frequently inoperative.
D. Jennie Lancaster, Female Command Manager, North Carolina Division of Prisons. Ms. Lancaster has B.A. degree in Religion. She has 22 years experience working in corrections and 15 years of experience working with female offenders.
Ms. Lancaster is an expert in all areas of corrections, including management, conditions, staffing, facility construction, programming, and specifically in the area of female offenders. She has been a consultant with the National Institute of Corrections to numerous states on issues concerning female offenders, including issues of sexual misconduct.
Ms. Lancaster is expected to testify on the issues of inadequate and inferior programming and opportunities for women at CTF and the Annex. In addition, she is expected to testify on organizational procedures for investigating and minimizing incidents of sexual misconduct, as detailed in the
•¥1

- 36 -
statement filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) on April 11, 1994.
E. Dr. Benjamin Major, M.D., M.P.H. (Maternal Child Health/Family Planning), Senior Physician, Sacramento County Health Department (Forensics) and Private Contractor and Consultant to Planned Parenthood of Alameda County/San Francisco, California and Shasta/Diablo, California, and to Pregnancy Consultation Center, Sacramento, California.
Dr. Major has over thirty years of experience as a board certified OB/GYN physician. During the past four years he has provided medical care to women incarcerated at the Sacramento County Jail. He has also served as an expert in obstetrical and gynecological care in two prison class action cases in the state of California. Dr. Major currently serves on the board of directors of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. He is also a member of the American Correctional Health Association and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Dr. Major is expected to testify regarding obstetrical and gynecological care provided to women at CTF as detailed in the statement filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) on April 15, 1994.
•T

- 37 -
V. EXHIBIT LIST A list of Plaintiffs' proposed exhibits is included
as Exhibit B to this pretrial statement.-' On May 13, 1994, Plaintiffs submitted a draft copy
of this exhibit list to Counsel for Defendants for the purpose of reaching an agreement between the parties as to which exhibits would be stipulated to as admissible at trial. See Letter, Exhibit C. Counsel responded that due to the time constraints and the different organization of the parties' documents (i.e. Plaintiffs' Bates-stamped the documents after they were received unstamped from Defendants) she was unable to go through each exhibit on the list and check whether or not she stipulated or objected.
Counsel for Defendants has represented that she does not anticipate objecting to the authenticity of any documents produced by the Defendants. She may have objections to the authenticity of some of the documents produced by Plaintiffs (indicated by a WP Bates-stamp number or no number at all and listed on pages 58-64 of the exhibit list).
Counsel also stated that she may object to the admissibility of certain of the Defendants' documents, such as Inmate Grievance Procedures (IGPs), if admitted by Plaintiffs
-' For reasons of confidentiality, the Exhibit List has not been included in the copy of the pretrial statement filed with the Clerk's Office.

- 38 -
to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but not if admitted to show notice to the Defendants.
VI. LIST OF DEPOSITIONS DESIGNATED BY PLAINTIFFS Plaintiffs have designated the pages listed below as
relevant excerpts from depositions of D.C. Department of Corrections employees. Under Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, depositions or parts of depositions are admissible for any purpose permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence, Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(1), including admissions made by a party or party's employee concerning matters within the scope of employment during the existence of the employment relationship. Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(2); Note of Advisory Committee (1980 Amendment); Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).
Plaintiffs also request that they be allowed to designate the following relevant excerpts from depositions of members of the plaintiff class taken by Corporation Counsel in this action. Pursuant to Rule 32(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the deposition of a witness may be used at trial "by any party for any purpose" if the "witness is unable to attend or testify because of . . . imprisonment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3)(C); Charles v. Wade, 665 F.2d 661, 664 (5th Cir. 1982); In re Moore. 39 Bankr. 571, 572 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1984). In addition, subsection (E) of the Rule states that the Court may allow a deposition to be used in its discretion if "such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it

- 39 -
desirable" and "in the interest of justice." Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3)(E). Because the use of deposition testimony of certain plaintiffs will minimize the number of class members who will give live testimony, Plaintiffs respectfully request that they be allowed to designate the following Jane Doe depositions for possible use at trial.
The complete list of deposition excerpts submitted by Plaintiffs is as follows:
1. Deposition of Majid Ali, February 3, 1994. Pages: Entire.
2. Deposition of Bernard Braxton, May 4, 1994. Pages: Cover; 3-5; 14-19; 22-30; 32-42; 44-71.
3. Deposition of Vera Brummell, May 6, 1994. Pages: Cover; 6; 12-97; 102-104.
4. Deposition of James Derr, March 28, 1994. Pages: Cover; 1-11; 13-14; 49-54; 66-73; 75-77; 79-88; 90; 97-103; 105-121; 131; 134-140.
5. Deposition of James Derr, May 5, 1994. Pages: Cover; 5-23; 26-27; 29-65; 67-68; 88-100; 102-106; 119-122; 133-135; 140.
6. Deposition of Michele Elzie, May 4, 1994. Pages: Cover; 9-10; 12; 16-21; 24-31; 34-41; 36-37; 40; 4349; 51; 53-54; 65-67; 76-87; 96-99.
7. Deposition of Michele Elzie, May 4, 1994, Under Seal. Pages: Cover; 5-19.

- 40 -
8. Deposition of Vince Gibbons, April 6, 1994. Pages: Entire.
9. Deposition of Regina Gilmore, March 1, 1994. Pages: Cover; 6; 15-18; 25-51; 54-56; 59-60; 63-66; 69-72; 74-75; 78-86; 90-111; 116-120; 124-129; 131-134; 137-138; 143154; 156-188; 197-199; 203-208; 212-219; 226-231.
10. Deposition of Arthur Graves, April 7, 1994. Pages: Cover; 7-10; 14-16; 18-25; 33-59; 67-70; 81; 85-98; 100-126; 130-132.
11. Deposition of Dr. Charles Hall, April 6, 1994. Pages: Entire.
12. Deposition of Dr. William Hall, April 4, 1994. Pages: Entire.
13. Deposition of Vernon Hawkins, April 5, 1994. Pages: Cover; 8-9; 11-12; 16-19; 23-29; 31-32; 35-41; 45-48; 53-68; 75-77; 81-88; 103-104; 106-107; 111-114; 119-122; 125126; 143-145; 147-149; 151-168; 171-180.
14. Deposition of John Henderson, February 25, 1994. Pages: Cover; 9-10; 13; 15-16; 39-42; 67-69; 84-102; 106-167.
15. Deposition of W. Pearl Jackson, January 28, 1994. Pages: Entire.
16. Deposition of Yvette Jackson, March 30, 1994. Pages: Entire.

- 41 -
17. Deposition of L.C. Jones, Under Seal, April 6, 1994. Pages: Cover; 14-41; 44-47; 61-66; 72-89; 101-192; 194-196.
18. Deposition of Paul Krull, March 8, 1994. Pages: Cover; 9-11; 22-277.
19. Deposition of Mance Langham, January 28, 1994. Pages: Cover; 5-11; 27-31; 37-38; 41-42; 45-47; 63-91; 93119; 131-134; 154-155.
20. Deposition of G.H. McCathorine, March 30, 1994. Pages: Entire.
21. Deposition of Rev. Minor, March 21, 1994. Pages: Cover; 6-7; 15-22; 24-28; 30-38; 40-45; 48-49; 50-54; 94-124; 126-129.
22. Deposition of Reesa Motley-McMurtry, April 19, 1994. Pages: Cover; 7-17; 26; 30-33; 41-43; 54-60; 62-63; 6572; 77; 91-99; 109-114; 118-128; 130-141; 143-149; 152-155; 157-159; 161-163; 169-176; 178-179; 183-186; 210-217; 219-269; 271-272; 274-354.
23. Deposition of Toni Perry, March 8, 1994. Pages: Entire.
24. Deposition of William Plaut, February 23, 1994. Pages: Entire.
25. Deposition of Howard Ray, March 7, 1994. Pages: Cover; 8-9; 13-17; 26-30; 34-50; 54-68; 70-76; 81-175.
26. Deposition of Howard Ray, Continued, April 5, 1994. Pages: Entire.

- 42 -
27. Deposition of James Riddick, April 8, 1994. Pages: Cover; 6-8; 19-23; 29-230.
28. Deposition of David Roach, April 6, 1994. Pages: Cover; 16-21; 23; 25-32; 35-37; 40-42; 44; 46-49; 5176; 78-80; 82-85; 88-92; 100-105; 108-128.
29. Deposition of Hazel Smith, February 16, 1994. Pages: Entire.
30. Deposition of Douglas Stempson, February 23, 1994. Pages: Cover; 9; 63-64; 87-104; 132-134; 166-198.
31. Deposition of Dr. Eliza Taylor, April 7, 1994. Pages: Entire.
32. Deposition of Christine Welch, March 21, 1994. Pages: Cover; 5-8; 15-19; 21-28; 30-32; 42-47; 55-67; 69; 7174; 76-82.
33. Deposition of Jane Doe II, January 13, 1994. Pages: Cover; 12; 18-26; 44-127; 138-158.
34. Deposition of Jane Doe III, January 18, 1994. Pages: Cover; 17-19; 25-32; 43-102; 104-127; 131-149.
35. Deposition of Jane Doe III, March 24, 1994. Pages: Cover; 162-163; 165-194.
36. Deposition of Jane Doe IV, January 18, 1994. Pages: Cover; 24-40; 61-117; 122-149; 152-161.
37. Deposition of Jane Doe V, January 27, 1994. Pages: Cover; 44-46; 48-49; 51-54; 61-62; 75-101; 109-147; 154-157; 162-208.
•nn

- 43 -
38. Deposition of Jane Doe VI, January 27, 1994. Pages: Cover; 23-26; 40-44; 59-70; 72-127; 140-143.
39. Deposition of Jane Doe VII, January 21, 1994. Pages: Cover; 27-29; 49-58; 60-93; 95-132; 146-150.
40. Deposition of Jane Doe VII, March 29, 1994. Pages: Entire.
41. Deposition of Jane Doe VIII, January 26, 1994 Pages: Cover; 56-60; 65-74; 82-120; 124.
42. Deposition of Jane Doe IX, January 21, 1994. Pages: Cover; 79-80; 87-212; 239-240.
43. Deposition of Jane Doe IX, March 29, 1994. Pages: Entire.
44. Deposition of Jane Doe XI, January 24, 1994. Pages: Cover: 80-84; 87-96; 103-106; 113-119; 123-148; 163167; 170-173; 252-277.
45. Deposition of Jane Doe XII, January 25, 1994. Pages: Cover; 94-96; 113-114; 176-250.
46. Deposition of Jane Doe A, March 24, 1994. Pages: Cover; 15-58.
47. Deposition of Jane Doe A, March 31, 1994. Pages: Cover; 3-39; 46-63; 66-68; 72-73; 75-81.
48. Deposition of Jane Doe B, March 21, 1994. Pages: Cover; 90-109; 111-128; 131-139; 144-145; 153-166; 177-180.
49. Deposition of Jane Doe E, March 22, 1994. Pages: Cover; 8-11; 16; 46-107.

- 44 -

50. Deposition of Jane Doe L, March 24, 1994. Pages: Cover; 6-69; 73-76; 78-79.
51. Deposition of Jane Doe P, March 31, 1994. Pages: Cover; 9-81.
52. Deposition of Jane Doe W, March 22, 1994. Pages: Cover; 7-17; 21-38.
53. Deposition of Jane Doe FF, March 22, 1994. Pages: Cover; 10-14; 18-25; 27; 30-33; 36-40; 45-85; 95-96; 98-100.
54. Deposition of Jane Doe PP, March 24, 1994. Pages: Cover; 18-33; 39-104.

VII. PENDING MOTIONS

The following motions and applications are currently

pending before the Court:

Date

Motion

Plaintiffs' Position

3/22/94

Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order of 3/17/94 regarding Reimbursement of Costs of Medical Expert

Motion should be denied.

4/22/94

Plaintiffs' Application for Award of Costs Consistent with the Court's Order of 3/17/94

Award of Costs should be ordered.

- 45 -

4/28/94

Plaintiffs' Motion for Order of Contempt Against Defendants and for Order to Remedy, Prohibit and Impose Sanctions for Violation of the Court's Protective Order

Motion should be granted. (Proposed order included in Plaintiffs' Reply Motion filed on 5/16/94).

5/2/94

Plaintiffs' Motion
for Order of Contempt Against Defendants for Violation of the Court's Protective Order

Motion should be granted. (Proposed order included in Plaintiffs' Reply Motion filed on 5/16/94).

5/3/94

Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt and to Compel Production of Documents

Motion should be granted.

5/9/94

Defendants' CrossMotion for Sanctions

Motion should be denied.

5/10/94

Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Preclude Testimony of Defendants' Expert Witnesses

Motion should be granted.

VIII. MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiffs intend to offer several motions in limine

at trial or at the Court's discretion. These motions will

include the following:

A. Plaintiffs will ask the Court to allow the Jane

Does who appear in Court to testify anonymously.

B. Plaintiffs will ask the Court to hold that

Defendants' piecemeal attempts to improve the conditions of

confinement and programs and services for women prisoners

after the filing of the complaint in this action should not be

considered as evidence by the Court in determining liability.

- 46 -
C. In the third motion, Plaintiffs will ask the Court to exclude evidence of program comparisons between female inmates at CTF and male inmates at CTF as not relevant to the legal analysis in this case.
Respectfully submitted, GOVINGTON & BURLING

Dated: May 17, 1994

Peter J. Nicjkl'es (#5344T) Caroline M. Brown (#438342) Tracy A. Thomas (#435742)
COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (202) 662-6000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Co-counsel:
Brenda V. Smith (#404979) Deborah L. Brake (#435006)
NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER 1616 P Street, N.W. Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 2003 6 (202) 328-5160

IT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 17, 1994, I caused a
copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Pretrial Statement to be
hand-delivered to:
Maria Amato, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel 6th Floor South 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,

v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,

Defendants

Civil Action No. 93-2052 JLG

EXHIBITS TO PLAINTIFFS' PRETRIAL STATEMENT

Dated: May 17, 1994

Peter J. Nickles (#53447) Caroline M. Brown (#438342) Tracy A. Thomas (#435742)
COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (202) 662-6000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Co-Counsel
Brenda V. Smith (#404979) Deborah L. Brake (#435006)
NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER Suite 100 1616 P Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-5160

Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C

- 1 -
Table of Exhibits
Supplemental Interrogatories Exhibit List Letter to Ms. Amato from Ms. Thomas, dated May 13, 1994 re: stipulation to exhibit list

 
 Women Prisoners/DC v. DC PC-DC-011-037

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
fit
Plaintiffs,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, fit al..
Defendants.

7 5
C.A. NO. 9 3 - 2 0 5 2 (JLG)

ORDER This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiffs' oral motion for a hearing concerning the level of the Correctional Treatment Facility's ("CTF") compliance with the Court Order of December 13, 1994 and any relevant modifications of the Order ('•December 13, 1994 Court Order"). On February 1 and 2, 1995, the Court's Special Officer, Ms. Grace Lopes, and Mr. Jim Henderson inspected CTF in order to assess the Department of Corrections' plan to double-cell the facility. On February 7, 1995, Ms. Lopes issued a report of her investigation. Although Ms. Lopes investigated CTF in order to determine the impact a mass transfer of male inmates from Modular would have on CTF, her report contained a number of observations which suggested that CTF was not in compliance with certain provisions of the December 13, 1994 Court Order. The report prompted the Plaintiffs to file a Motion Requesting Implementation

of Monitoring Procedures and caused the Plaintiffs to. request a hearing to determine the level of CTF's compliance with the December 13, 1994 Court Order. Although the Court initially scheduled a hearing in this matter, upon further review it believes that this issue would be better handled in a more deliberate fashion.
In light of these circumstances, the Court shall direct Ms. Lopes to return to CTF with the specific purpose of determining whether CTF is presently in compliance with the December 13, 1994 Court Order. The Court shall also instruct Ms. Lopes to file with the Court and the parties a report on her inspection. This report is due on April 10, 1995.
If, after reviewing this report, the Plaintiffs wish to have a hearing they may file an appropriate motion with the Court describing the specific grounds upon which they would like to be heard. If the Court decides that a hearing is necessary, the scope of the proceeding would be no broader than a determination of whether certain conditions at CTF are not in compliance with the December 13, 1994 Court Order.
Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' oral motion for a hearing concerning the level of CTF's compliance with the Court Order of December 13, 1994, it is this 15th day of March,
ORDERED that Ms. Grace Lopes shall inspect the conditions at CTF for the limited purpose of determining whether the facility is in compliance with the December 13, 1994 Court Order; it is further
ORDERED that Ms. Lopes shall submit a report of her inspection

to the Court and the parties by April 10, 1995; it is further ORDERED that the hearing scheduled for March 23, 1995 is
cancelled; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall send copies of this Order to:

Peter J. Nickles, Esq. Caroline M. Brown, Esq. Tracy A. Thomas, Esq. Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. P.O. BOX 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566

Richard Love, Esq. Maria Amato, Esq. Office of the Corporation
Counsel 441 4th St., N.W. 6th Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001

Brenda V. Smith, Esq. Deborah L. Brake, Esq. National Women's Law Center 1616 P Street, N.W., Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20036

Grace M. Lopes, Esq. Special Officer of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia 1130 17th St., N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036

 
 Women Prisoners/DC v. DC

PC-DC-011-038
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al..
Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No. 93-2052 JLG

v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al..

Defendants.

' ORDER Upon consideration of the Joint Motion of the Parties Proposing Modifications of the Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, it is hereby ORDERED that paragraphs 61, 62, and 63 of the Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief of December 13, 1994 are amended as follows: 61. In the case of non-emergency abnormal laboratory or diagnostic test results of clinical significance relating to obstetrical and/or gynecological care, the prisoner will be seen by a licensed medical staff member (a physician or physician assistant) within five (5) business days of the time the facility receives the results of such test. At such time the medical staff member will explain the result to the patient and order such follow up care as is appropriate. 62. The Defendants shall require a woman prisoner who refuses medical care relating to obstetrical and/or gynecological care to be referred by two business days to a licensed medical staff member who can answer the patient's

- 2-
questions and counsel the patient concerning the consequences of refusal. If the prisoner refuses in the presence of an appropriate medical staff member, the prisoner will be counseled immediately by that health care provider. Medical care, for the purposes of this paragraph, shall be defined as treatment, procedures, test or consultations ordered or referred by a health care provider. Until such time that a comprehensive and up-to-date quality assurance program is implemented for the D.C. Department of Corrections systemwide, Defendants" will maintain a record of the refusals, that shall include the basis for the refusal, and follow-up consultation. The reasons for refusal shall be analyzed as part of the monthly reporting procedures by the Chief Medical Officer. When the system-wide quality assurance program is in place, the reasons for refusal shall be analyzed regularly as part of this comprehensive and up to date quality assurance program. This quality assurance activity shall be documented.
63. The Defendants shall provide diagnostic evaluations for adult women prisoners who are sentenced felons and at least one year from their parole eligibility date, equivalent to those currently provided for men held in the Reception and Diagnostic Unit at the CTF, to determine women prisoners' needs, interest, and requirements for increased programs and opportunities in academic and higher education, vocation, work, religion and recreation. The procedure for the needs assessment shall be done by an approved scientific method.

- 3These evaluations shall be completed in a manner and time frame equivalent to the males in the diagnostic unit, but shall not exceed 120 days from the date of the female prisoner's transfer to CTF or the Annex. The evaluations shall include educational, vocational and psychological testing. The Defendants shall provide women with the appropriate available programming called for by this evaluation within 30 days of completion of the Diagnostic Evaluation.
and, it is further ORDERED, that the time for Defendants to comply with 1 86 of the Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief is extended for 30 days during which time the parties are directed to confer and submit to the Court any potential amendments to the Order.
Judge June L. Greer U.sT District Judge
Dated: Tftfrx c W If,

- 4-
Copies to:
Peter J. Nickles Tracy A. Thomas Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Ave NW PO Box 7566 Washington DC 20044
Brenda Smith National Women's Law Center 1616 P Street NW Suite 100 Washington DC 20036
Maria Amato Assistant Corporation Counsel 441 4th Street NW 6th Floor South Washington DC 20001

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF )

COLUMBIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Civil Action No. 93-2052

) (JLG)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et. al.

)

)

Defendants

)

----------------------------)

CONSENT MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

The Plaintiffs and Defendants, by and through counsel, jointly request dismissal of the above captioned case with prejudice. Pursuant to Local District Court Rule 7.l(m), the parties consent to this motion. Plaintiffs and Defendants respectfully direct the Court's attention to the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

PETER J. NICKLES (53447) REENAH L. KIM Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 662-5394

ROBERT J. SPAGNOLETTI Attorney General GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division

DC: 141&155-1

BRENDA V. SMITH (404979) Washington College of Law American University 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20016 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

RICHARD S. LOVE [340455] Chief, Equity 1
MARIA C. AMATO (414935) Senior Counsel 441-4th St., N.W., Sixth Floor Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6642 Attorneys for Defendant District of Columbia
Gregory E. Jackson, General Counsel Brenda Baldwin-White, Deputy General Counsel D.C. Department of Corrections 1923 Vermont Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF )

COLUMBIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Civil Action No. 93-2052

) (JLG)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et. al.

)

)

Defendants

)

-----------------------------)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE CONSENT MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2) and

(3), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5), the parties in this action have agreed to terminate the

remaining orders entered in the above-captioned civil action. The parties have exchanged

correspondence and information regarding the status of compliance, and Plaintiffs'

counsel has contacted and received comments from class members.

1.

The parties commenced discussions on the termination of the Court

Orders in this case in June 2003.

2.

Pursuant to those discussions, Plaintiffs' counsel requested to meet

with their clients at the Central Detention Facility (CDF) and at the

Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) in order to ascertain current

conditions at those facilities as they related to the Orders.

3.

Prior to those meetings, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a notice to all women

prisoners at CDF and CTF notifying them of the purpose and time of

the meetings. See Attachment A

4.

Plaintiffs' counsel, Brenda V. Smith and Reenah L. Kim, conducted

open meetings with the women prisoners at the CDF on June 19,2003

and June 20, 2003, and at CTF on August 8, 2003.

5.

In addition, detailed reports on compliance with the Court Orders have

been submitted to Plaintiffs' counsel on a monthly basis since 1994.

The D.C. Department of Corrections ("Department") responded on

March 25, 2003 and January 29, 2004 to Plaintiffs' counsel on the

status of compliance with the Orders.

6.

On April 9, 2004, the Director of the Department of Corrections

provided additional assurances of the Department's intent to continue

to address the issues raised in the instant litigation in a constitutional

manner. See Attachment B.

7.

In conjunction with this motion, the parties will be sending an

additional notice to women prisoners at the CDF and the CTF and to

District of Columbia women under the jurisdiction of the Federal

Bureau of Prisons of the parties' intent to dismiss this matter,

Plaintiffs' request for fees and providing 30 days for comment. This

notice will be sent to women individually, posted at institutions, and

published in the "Our Place, DC" newsletter, which is distributed to

District of Columbia women inmates in each federal facility. See Attachment C
Upon consideration of the monthly compliance reports submitted by the defendants, the correspondence among the parties, Plaintiffs' inquiry on the status of compliance and the determination by the parties that prospective relief does not remain necessary to correct current violations of constitutional rights that are the subj ect of the outstanding consent decree, the parties, pursuant to the PLRA, agree to and jointly move for the termination ofthe Orders granting prospective relief entered in the abovecaptioned civil action. The parties have settled all pending attorney fees and costs abrogating the need to file a petition pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 23(h).
Wherefore, the Plaintiffs and Defendants, by and through counsel, jointly request dismissal of the above captioned case with prejudice. Pursuant to Local District Court Rule 7.1 (m), the parties consent to this motion.
Respectfully submitted,

PETER J. NICKLES (53447) REENAH L. KIM Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 662-5394

ROBERT J. SPAGNOLETTI Attorney General D.C. GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation Division

BRENDA V. SMITH (404979) Washington College of Law American University 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20016 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

RICHARD S. LOVE [340455] Chief, Equity 1
MARIA C. AMATO (414935) Senior Counsel 441-4th St., N.W., Sixth Floor Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-6642 Attorneys for Defendant District of Columbia
Gregory E. Jackson, General Counsel Brenda Baldwin-White, Deputy General Counsel D.C. Department of Corrections 1923 Vermont Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF )

COLUMBIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

)

et. aI.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Civil Action No. 93-2052

) (JLG)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et. al.

)

)

Defendants

)

)

CONSENT ORDER

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2) and

(3) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5), the parties to this action have jointly moved to terminate

the remaining orders entered in the above-captioned civil action and to dismiss this case.

The parties have exchanged correspondence and information regarding the status of

compliance, and Plaintiffs' counsel has contacted and received comments from class

members. Upon consideration ofthe monthly compliance reports submitted by the

defendants, the correspondence among the parties, Plaintiffs' inquiry on the status of

compliance and the determination by the parties that there are no current violations of

constitutional rights that are the subject of the outstanding consent decree that require

prospective relief, the parties, pursuant to the PLRA, have agreed to and moved for the

termination of the Orders granting prospective relief entered in the above-captioned civil

action. Additionally, the parties have settled plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees in

accordance with the Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 23 (h)(1).

Wherefore, it is by the Court this _ _ _ day of ____, 2004

ORDERED: That all of the Orders entered in the above-referenced civil action
granting prospective relief are tenninated; it is,
FURTHER ORDERED: That Defendants shall pay the plaintiffs the sum of
$50,000. (fifty thousand dollars) in full and final settlement of all pending fees and costs
within 30 days of dismissal ofthis case consistent with Fed.R.Civ.Pro 23(h). It is,
FURTHER ORDERED: That upon the signing of this Order and approval of the
Plaintiffs' final attorney fee award, this case shall be dismissed with prejudice.
United States District Judge
Copies to:
Maria Amato Office of the Attorney General Senior Counsel, Equity Division 441 Fourth Street, N.W., Sixth Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001
Gregory E. Jackson, General Counsel Brenda Baldwin-White, Deputy General Counsel D.C. Department of Corrections 1923 Vennont Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
Peter J. Nickles, Esquire Covington and Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004
Brenda V. Smith, Esquire Washington College of Law American University 4801 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20016

 
 968 F.Supp. 744 (1997)
WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.
CA No. 93-2052.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
June 16, 1997.
Peter J. Nickles, Caroline M. Brown, Tracy A. Thomas, Julie K. Abbate, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, Brenda V. Smith, Deborah L. Blake, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Maria Amato, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
ORDER
JUNE L. GREEN, District Judge.
745 Upon consideration of the Joint Stipulated Motion of the parties filed January 27, 1997; *745 the Plaintiffs' February 11, 1997 Motion to Withdraw their January 11, 1997 Motion for a Court Appointed Expert Witness Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706; the Plaintiffs' March 3, 1997 Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs; the Plaintiffs' May 14, Status Report following the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of their petition for certiorari, and Defendants' response thereto, it is by the Court this 16th day of June, 1997,
ORDERED that the parties' Joint Stipulated Motion of January 27, 1997 be GRANTED as follows:
1) the Court STAYS any order an award of attorneys fees and costs as set out in the Plaintiffs' March 3, 1997, request, and orders the parties to engage in negotiations over any amount of attorney fees and costs to be awarded; such negotiations shall take place over the next 60 (sixty) days, and the parties shall report back to the Court no later than August 15, 1997 regarding the resolution of this matter.
ORDER FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
2) By agreement of the parties, other issues that remain before this Court following the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit are addressed as follows:
1. The Defendants' actions and inactions violated and continue to violate the Plaintiff class members' rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (1988).
2. The Defendants are ordered to take all action necessary to remedy and prevent the violations of the Plaintiffs' above-mentioned rights. The Defendants have been ordered, in the prior Orders identified above, to take specific measures in the areas of sexual harassment, education and vocation programs, and environmental and fire safety, as set forth below beginning with paragraph 4.
3. All measures ordered by the Court set forth below should have been completed and effective within six months of entry of the Order, dated December 13, 1994, unless otherwise specified, except that ¶ 19 should have been completed and effective within six months of entry of the Order dated March 15, 1995, and ¶¶ 11, 15, 16, 18, 23, 26, 27, 29, 33, 50, 58, and 59 should have been completed and effective within six months of entry of the Supplemental Order, dated August 14, 1995.

I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

4. Within 60 days, the Defendants shall write and follow a Department Order prohibiting sexual harassment involving District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DCDC) employees and women prisoners. The Defendants shall post and circulate the Department Order in accordance with departmental policy.

5. Under this policy the DCDC has the obligation to take appropriate steps to prevent and remedy sexual harassment committed by its own employees.

6. Prohibited conduct under the policy shall be defined as:

a. Sexual harassment which includes:

(1) all unwelcome sexual activity directed by any DCDC employee at a prisoner including acts of sexual intercourse, oral sex, or sexual touching and any attempt to commit these acts; and

(2) all unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature directed by any DCDC employee at a prisoner; and

b. Invasions of women prisoners' privacy by male employees without a valid penological reason, including the failure of any male employee to announce his presence when entering a female housing unit.

c. Retaliation for reporting complaints of, assisting any individual in making a report of, or

cooperating in an investigation of sexual harassment, regardless of the merits or the disposition of

746

the underlying complaint. Retaliatory conduct includes the following actions *746 taken against a

prisoner in response to that prisoner's complaint of sexual harassment or cooperation in the

reporting or investigation of sexual harassment: disciplining, changing work or program

assignments of, transferring to another facility of, or placing under involuntary protective custody

any prisoner.

d. Any breach of confidentiality by any employee concerning any report of sexual harassment.

e. Any interference with investigations of sexual harassment.

7. Penalties for prohibited conduct under the policy shall be determined by the Director of the DCDC within 30 days.

8. Women prisoners shall be able to report instances of sexual harassment through the existing Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) as specified in Department Order 4030.1D. The Defendants shall strictly adhere to the Inmate Grievance Procedure and shall establish an Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee (IGAC) as required by Section VII(C) of Department Order 4030.1D.

9. Women prisoners shall also be able to submit IGP's or complaints concerning sexual harassment in any form, orally or in writing, to any DCDC employee, who must submit the information, in writing, to the Warden of the facility within 24 hours of receiving the information. Women prisoners may also submit IGP's or complaints to prisoner representative to the IGAC.

10. The Defendants shall establish a confidential hot line, under the supervision of the Director of the DCDC, through which women prisoners can report allegations of sexual harassment.

11. Failure of an employee to report any allegation of sexual misconduct or any facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable employee to believe that sexual misconduct is occurring or has occurred shall subject the employee to discipline.

12. Upon receipt of any allegation of an act of unwelcome sexual intercourse or any allegation of unwelcome sexual touching, the Defendants must notify the proper law enforcement agency. The Defendants shall

communicate with the law enforcement agency concerning the status of any investigation. The Defendants must periodically document the status of police investigations. The occurrence of a police investigation does not relieve the Defendants of the duty to investigate.

13. The identity of the target of the alleged sexual harassment shall be revealed only to those who have an immediate need to know, including the alleged harasser(s) or retaliator(s) and any witnesses. All parties contacted in the course of an investigation will be advised that any retaliation, reprisal, or breach of confidentiality is a separate actionable offense as provided in the schedule of penalties.

14. Any prisoner who is dissatisfied with any investigation or resolution of an allegation of sexual harassment may appeal to the Director of the DCDC within 15 days of receiving written notice of the outcome of the investigation. The Director must respond within 15 days.

15. The Department shall conduct mandatory training using certified trainers on sexual misconduct for all DCDC employees. A consultant from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall develop the training plan and material. A "certified trainer" is defined as any person who has completed the "Train-the-Trainer" course developed by the NIC consultant.

a. The training shall include education concerning the Defendants' policies regarding reporting, investigating, and preventing sexual harassment, and the consequences for violating any policy concerning sexual harassment; and

b. All staff who work with female prisoners shall be trained by certified trainers within six months commencing no later than August 30, 1995. After the initial training of staff, the training will be included in the pre-service training of all staff. Annual retraining shall be conducted to refresh staff on the Department Order regarding sexual misconduct.

747

*747 c. Within one year, selected employees working with female prisoners shall receive a forty-

hour training program on working with female offenders. A semi-annual, enhancement training on

special issues related to working with female offenders will be offered to selected employees.

16. Commencing no later than August 30, 1995, the Department shall conduct mandatory training on sexual harassment using certified trainers for all women prisoners currently in the DCDC. A consultant from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall develop the training plan and materials which will instruct women prisoners on the Department Order on sexual misconduct and how to recognize and report sexual harassment. Training sessions for women prisoners on sexual harassment shall be provided within a reasonable time upon a woman's entry in the D.C. Department of Corrections.

17. The Defendants shall make necessary alterations at both the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) and the Minimum Security Annex (Annex) within 60 days to ensure that women have privacy in their living, sleeping and shower areas.

II. OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL CARE

18. The Defendants shall develop and implement a protocol concerning restraints used on pregnant and postpartum women which provides that a pregnant prisoner shall be transported in the least restrictive way possible consistent with legitimate security reasons. Specifically, the protocol shall provide:
a. The Defendants shall use no restraints on any woman in labor, during delivery, or in recovery immediately after delivery; and
b. During the last trimester of pregnancy up until labor, the Defendants shall use no restraints when transporting a pregnant woman prisoner unless the woman has demonstrated a history of assaultive behavior or has escaped from a correctional facility, in which case, only handcuffs shall be used.

III. PROGRAM EVALUATION
19. The Defendants shall provide diagnostic evaluations for women prisoners similar to those currently provided for men in the Reception and Diagnostic Unit at CTF to determine women prisoners' needs, interests, and requirements for increased programs and opportunities in education and vocation. The procedure for the needs assessment shall be done by an approved scientific method. These evaluations shall be completed in a manner and time frame equivalent to the males in the diagnostic unit, but shall not exceed 120 days from the date of the female prisoner's transfer to CTF or the Annex. The evaluations shall include educational and vocational testing. The Defendants shall provide women with the appropriate available programming called for by this evaluation within 30 days of completion of the diagnostic evaluation.
20. The Defendants shall coordinate the scheduling of academic educational classes, higher education classes, and vocational training for women in such a manner as to maximize women prisoners' participation in as many areas as possible.
21. The Defendants shall provide sufficient program space so that women prisoners can participate in equal and adequate education and vocation programs and services as compared to men prisoners. The Defendants shall provide at least two additional trailers at the Annex (with functional sanitary facilities) to allow for additional programming activities. Within 30 days, the Defendants may submit for the Court's consideration an alternative to the 2 ordered trailers.
22. The Defendants shall develop and implement quality assurance programs for monitoring program delivery to ensure the continued provision of equal and adequate education and vocation programs to women prisoners.
23. The Defendants shall ensure that women prisoners are escorted to and arrive at educational and vocational 748 programs in a timely manner as scheduled in a manner that *748 does not prevent the programming staff from
performing any of their duties.
24. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at the Annex with a range of academic education programs that is equivalent to the range of academic programs provided to male prisoners at the Minimum Security Facility (Minimum).
25. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a range of academic education programs that is equivalent to the range of academic programs provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.
26. Women prisoners at the Annex and CTF shall be provided with the opportunity for full-time (three hours per day, five days per week at CTF and five hours per day, five days per week at the Annex) basic education to include ABE, GED, and Special Education classes.
27. Women prisoners at CTF shall have access to on-site higher education programs which shall include a fouryear B.A. and/or B.S. degree program, an A.A. degree program, and precollege program. At a minimum, bachelor programs shall be offered in one area of study, and associate programs in two different areas of study leading to a degree. Defendants shall comply with the precollege requirement of this provision within 90 days.
28. The Defendants shall offer prisoners financial arrangements for these education programs that are the same as those arrangements available to similarly situated male prisoners.
29. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall provide appropriate substitute teachers or instructors during absences of regular teachers or instructors of more than three working days. The provision of a substitute teacher or instructor shall not result in increasing the class size beyond acceptable community standards for a period of time exceeding 15 consecutive school days.
30. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a range of vocational education programs that is equivalent to the range of vocational education programs provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.

31. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with two prevocational programs each to be at least six weeks in duration. Prevocational programs include those courses which teach personal development skills, living skills, and/or employment skills such as Employment Techniques, Awareness and Preparation (ETAP) and Lifeskills.
32. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a minimum of four vocational education programs, including the one program currently in place (DocuTech). These programs shall be available to female prisoners of all custody levels. A vocational education program is any program of 12 to 24 months of duration that teaches employable skills and contains both a classroom component and an on-the-job-training component. Two programs shall be operate within 120 days of the entry of this Order.
33. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with at least one apprenticeship program as defined by Department order.
34. All prevocational programs, vocational programs, and apprenticeships added for women prisoners at CTF shall have the potential for providing women with job skills marketable in the local labor market. An important consideration in the Defendants' selection of programs shall be the wage-earning capacity upon completion of the program.
35. The Defendants shall conduct affirmative outreach to women during the enrollment period for vocational training. This outreach shall entail DCDC staff meeting with women at least one month before the deadline for program enrollment to inform the women that the new programs are available and to offer a full description of the available programs and any applicable criteria for participation.
36. The Defendants shall ensure that all contractual programs used to provide services to women prisoners are compatible with and fulfill the provisions of this Order.
749 37. The Defendants shall staff a sufficient number of vocational development specialists *749 at the Annex in order to conduct testing, classes and counseling.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
38. Within one year, the Defendants shall repair or replace the roofs of Annex Dormitories 6 and 7 and retain them in a watertight condition.
39. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall repair the Annex dormitories so as to prevent the entry and refuge of vermin and shall conduct a vermin eradication program to eliminate the present infestation of vermin. The Defendants shall thereafter promulgate and follow an effective vermin eradication program.
40. Within 60 days, the Defendants shall provide each woman prisoner housed in the Annex dormitories at least one vertical locker and one footlocker.
41. Within 30 days, the Defendants shall replace all torn mattresses and pillows at the Annex with clean, untorn, fire-retardant mattresses and pillows. The Defendants shall conduct a regular inspection of all mattresses and pillows and shall, at that time, immediately replace any mattresses that are damaged to a degree that prevents adequate cleaning.
42. The Defendants shall immediately use cart liners or disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry at the Annex.
43. For as long as the Annex dormitories are double-bunked, the Defendants shall, within 60 days, provide a minimum of 20 foot candles of prisoner-controlled light to each bunk.
44. Effective immediately, the Defendants shall ensure that all housing units at the Annex are issued a timely, adequate and appropriate amount of cleaning supplies.
45. Within 60 days the Defendants shall connect the toilets and handsinks in every Annex trailer.

46. The Defendants shall continue to provide sufficient and readily accessible sanitary facilities for women in the industries at the Central Facility.

47. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall improve the ventilation at the Annex dormitories, the print shop and the garment shop so that the quality of air in these areas is brought up to an acceptable level.

48. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall install a drainage system at the Annex which will prevent hazardous accumulations of water.

49. The Defendants shall promulgate and follow a written preventive maintenance plan for the Amex dormitories, the Annex trailers, and the Annex grounds.

50. Three times every year, the Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) to inspect the Annex for compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation and maintenance and food service delivery (at the main Minimum compound). If any area is shown to be in compliance after completion of an inspection, the mid-year inspection may be an abatement inspection rather than a full inspection. At a minimum, DCRA shall conduct full compliance inspections at the Annex two times every year. Within 30 days of each inspection, the Warden of Minimum shall obtain the DCRA findings. The Warden shall repair, clean, or otherwise remedy an unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA as soon as feasible but in no event later than 30 days following the receipt of the DCRA report.

51. Within 90 days, the Defendant shall hire a qualified air balancing contractor to service the CTF air handling system so that it provides an acceptable level of air quality to all areas of the facility inhabited by prisoners.

52. In the event that the air balancing and other recent repairs to the heating system at CTF fail to maintain a minimum cell temperature of 65°F in every cell, measured at the perimeter wall, the Defendants shall immediately

a. cease housing women in the end cells of each tier;

b. provide each woman prisoner with two extra blankets, two pairs of thermal underwear, and two pairs of wool socks;

750

*750 c. explore means of insulating or heating the perimeter walls of the cells; and

d. report back to the Court.

53. The Defendants shall develop and implement an effective rodent prevention program.

54. Effective immediately, the Defendants shall ensure that all housing units at CTF are issued a timely, adequate and appropriate amount of cleaning supplies.

55. The Defendants shall use cart liners or disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry between CTF and the Jail.

56. Effective immediately, the Defendants at CTF shall monitor the food temperature and delivery times of all foods, including special diet meals, delivered to the satellite kitchen.

57. The Defendants shall promulgate and follow a written preventive maintenance plan for the CTF that includes maintenance of structures, systems, and equipment.

58. The Defendants shall ensure that the correctional officers inspect all plumbing fixtures daily, and shall ensure that any plumbing fixture that requires repair will be reported immediately upon discovery, and repaired in a timely manner. The Defendants shall maintain logs demonstrating compliance with this requirement.

59. Two times per year, the Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia DCRA to conduct inspections of the CTF for compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation, maintenance and food service delivery. Within 30 days of each inspection, the Warden of CTF shall obtain the DCRA findings. The Warden shall repair, clean, or otherwise remedy any unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA as soon as feasible but in no event later than 30 days following the receipt of the DCRA report.

V. FIRE SAFETY
60. Within 120 days, the Defendants shall install and maintain a manual fire alarm system and fire detection system, which covers all areas used by women prisoners at Minimum, including the Annex dormitories. The fire detection system must include smoke detectors in all sleeping and dayroom areas, and smoke or heat detectors in all other areas. There must be an automatic retransmission of the above systems to a constantly attended location outside of the dormitory buildings. There must also be a control panel to provide emergency power or to send a warning if the system is not operational.
61. The Defendants must repair or replace the fire alarm system in the Administration building, the cafeteria and gymnasium at the Minimum main compound.
62. The Defendants must install a sprinkler system in the Annex dormitories and provide a 20-minute fire-rated enclosure of storage rooms located in both dormitories.
63. The Defendants shall ensure that all bed linens, blankets, and curtains or draperies in the Annex dormitories are of fire-retardant material.
64. Effective immediately, in each Annex dormitory, the Defendants shall conduct fire drills 12 times per year, 4 times per shift, and shall keep written documentation of all such drills.
65. The Defendants shall conduct and document mandatory semi-annual training on fire safety procedures for all correctional officers.
66. Effective immediately at the Annex, and in accordance with Department Order No. 2920.1A, the Defendants shall:
a. conduct weekly inspections of all buildings and grounds for fire hazards, and document such inspections;
b. conduct quarterly inspections of all fire safety equipment, and document such inspections; and
c. ensure that the Institutional Fire Marshal conducts quarterly inspections of the Facility.
67. Effective immediately, and in accordance with Department Order No. 2920.1A, the District of Columbia Fire Department shall conduct fire safety inspections of the Annex not less frequently than every 12 months. The 751 Warden of Minimum shall obtain the Fire Department's report within 10 *751 days and promptly give a copy to the Plaintiffs' counsel. Thereafter, the Warden shall cause any fire safety deficiencies identified in the Fire Department's report to be remedied within 30 days, or shall provide a report to the Fire Department as to why the deficiency cannot be so remedied and provide a plan to remedy the deficiency within a further period of time not to exceed 90 days.
VI. GENERAL
68. This Order shall continue in full force and effect, absent modification by the Court, until the Defendants have complied with all provisions for 5 years.
ORDER
Upon further consideration of the Plaintiffs' May 14, 1997 Status Report, and Defendants' response thereto, it is by the Court this 18th day of June, 1997,
ORDERED that by agreement of the parties, the Plaintiffs' Eighth Cause of Action alleging violations under local law (D.C.Code Ann. sections 24-442 and 24-425) be dismissed without prejudice.

Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 899 F.Supp. 659 (1995)
WOMEN PRISONERS OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 93-2052 (JLG).
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
August 14, 1995.
6601234 *660 *661 *662 *663 *664 Peter J. Nickles, Caroline M. Brown, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, Brenda V. Smith, Deborah L. Brake, National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Richard Love, Maria Amato, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Washington, DC, Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer of the Court, Washington, DC, Seattle, Washington, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
JUNE L. GREEN, District Judge.
I. Introduction
This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Revised Motion to Stay and/or Modify Judgment. The Court shall deny the Motion to Stay because the Defendants have not met the necessary standards used to justify such action. The Court, however, will modify certain provisions of the remedial Order of December 13, 1994, 877 F.Supp. 634, as amended ("the Order").
II. Background
This matter came before the Court as a class action in which women prisoners at the Lorton Minimum Security Annex ("Annex"), the Correctional Treatment Facility ("CTF") and the Central Detention Facility ("Jail") sued the Defendants and asked the Court to grant them declaratory and injunctive relief in order to correct alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, Title IX and the D.C.Code Ann. § 24-442 (1989).
The Court held a three week trial and found Defendants liable for certain constitutional violations via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) and statutory violations of D.C.Code Ann. § 24-442 (1989). The Court issued a Memorandum Opinion ("Mem.Op.") and an Order which sought to correct the specific constitutional and statutory violations. The Defendants subsequently filed a Motion to Stay and/or Modify the Order and the Court denied it. The Defendants then sought a Stay of the Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court of Appeals ordered that the case be held in abeyance pending additional proceedings on the Defendants' Motion to Stay in this Court. Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Dept. of Corrections v. District of Columbia, No. 95-7041 (D.C.Cir. April 4, 1995). The Defendants ultimately filed a Revised Motion to Stay and/or Modify Judgment. After a review of the parties' briefs and oral argument, the Court temporarily stayed 30 paragraphs of the Order and ordered the parties to attempt to negotiate an agreement on those paragraphs. Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Dept. of Corrections v. District of Columbia, No. 93-2052 (JLG) (D.D.C. May 16, 1995). In commendable fashion, the parties were able to reach agreement on 26 paragraphs. The results are embodied in the Joint Status Motion and Motion Proposing Modifications to the Order for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief ("Joint Motion"). The Motion to Stay as it relates to the four remaining provisions and the Motion to Modify which was based on legal and practical arguments are left for resolution.

In the Joint Motion, the parties informed the Court that the Defendants seek a stay of Paragraphs 20, 43, 79 and 96 of the Order. Although the parties agreed to modify Paragraphs 20 and 43, the Defendants requested a stay due to lack of funds to hire additional medical staff. The four paragraphs, as modified, provide the following:

665

*665 20. The Defendants shall hire within 90 days:

(a) a health educator with appropriate training in obstetrics and gynecology in a half-time position who shall provide clinical and health educational services to the entire female prisoner population; and

(b) an additional nurse practitioner, physician's assistant with special training in obstetrics and gynecology, or nurse midwife to provide clinical services to women prisoners at CTF.

43. The health educator shall implement, within 60 days from the day that the health educator is hired, an obstetrical and gynecological health education program that satisfies a recognized national medical standard. Educational material should also be made available in the CTF library. The Defendants shall maintain adequate documentation on the program so that it can be evaluated by the Court within 60 days after implementation.

79. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with at least one apprenticeship program as defined by Department order.[1]

96. The Defendants shall immediately provide all women prisoners at CTF, including pregnant prisoners subject to medical approval, with recreation for twenty-five hours per week. Women shall have the option of going outside or to indoor recreation facilities during the time period. This recreation schedule shall be effective at CTF within 15 days of this Order.[2]

III. Analysis of Motion to Stay

In deciding the Defendants' motion for a stay, the Court must determine whether the Defendants have demonstrated a strong showing that they are likely to prevail on the merits of the appeal and that they will be irreparably injured in the absence of a stay. WMATC v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C.Cir.1977). The Court also must determine whether a stay would substantially harm other parties interested in the proceedings and whether the public interest would be served by a stay. Id. When the other three factors strongly favor granting a stay, a Court may exercise its discretion to grant a stay "if the movant has made a substantial case on the merits." Id. Essentially, the Court may properly stay its own order when it has "ruled on an admittedly difficult legal question and when the equities of the case suggest that the status quo should be maintained." Id. at 844-45.
A. Merits of the Appeal

1. D.C.Code Ann. § 24-442 (1989)

Paragraphs 20 and 43 of the Order rest on the Court's finding of a lack of adequate obstetrical and gynecological care at CTF in violation of D.C.Code Ann. § 24-442 (1989). The statute provides, in pertinent part:
[The] Department of Corrections ... shall ... be responsible for the safekeeping, care, protection, instruction, and discipline of all persons committed to [facilities under its jurisdiction].
D.C.Code Ann. § 24-442 (1989). This statute "implicitly recognizes the common law rule which imposed upon prison authorities, a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in the protection and safe-keeping of prisoners." Toy v. District of Columbia, 549 A.2d 1, 6 (D.C.1988). Nothing in the statute explicitly curtails the 666 equity jurisdiction conferred on the Court by D.C.Code Ann. § 11-921(a) (1995).[3] The *666 District of Columbia

Court of Appeals has "always construed this grant of jurisdiction broadly ... [and] ha[s] upheld [the Superior Court's] exercise of equitable jurisdiction in a variety of contexts, even when statutes did not explicitly provide access to the Superior Court." Hessey v. Burden, 615 A.2d 562, 571 (D.C.1992) (citations omitted).
The Defendants argue that the statute merely extends the common law of torts to prisons and does not permit equitable relief to prevent future torts. Implicit in the argument is the view that the common law of torts forbids injunctive relief to prevent future torts. It is well-settled, however, that the common law recognizes that an important form of remedy for a tort is an injunction, granted before any damage occurs. Berrien v. Pollitzer, 165 F.2d 21, 22 (D.C.Cir. 1947) ("No one can seriously contend that money is an adequate remedy for all sorts of personal wrongs. Clearly `injunctions and similar flexible remedies of equity are much better suited than a speculative action for damages to protect [personal] interests....'"); see also Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts, Ch. 1, § 1 p. 2 (5th Ed.1984).
In negligence actions where irreparable injury is threatened, a court may act by injunction to prevent harm before it occurs. Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts, Ch. 5, § 30 p. 165 n. 8 (5th Ed.1984). The availability of an injunction against a threatened tort depends upon various factors including "the relative adequacy to the plaintiff of an injunction and of the other remedies, plaintiff's laches or unclean hands, the relative hardship likely to result to defendant if an injunction should be granted and to plaintiff if it should be denied, the interests of third persons and of the public and the practicability of framing and enforcing the order of judgment." Restatement (Second) of Torts, Ch. 48 § 933(1) p. 559 and Comment a. on Subsection (1) p. 560 (1979). The threatened tort must be of sufficient seriousness and imminence to justify coercive relief. Restatement (Second) of Torts, Ch. 48 § 933 comment b. on Subsection (1) p. 561 (1979). A common method of proving a threat of a future tort is by proving a past tort under conditions that render its repetition or continuance probable. Id. It is not necessary, however, to prove a past wrong. Id.
The Defendants' failure to meet the standard for obstetrical and gynecological care is the proximate cause of past injuries and it is reasonably foreseeable that their actions or inactions will lead to future injuries to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants' failure appropriately to educate women prisoners results in their refusal of medical help. Inadequate examinations and follow-up treatment permit cervical and breast cancer, opportunistic infections in AIDS patients, sterility as a result of chlamydia and gonorrhea, peritonitis from gonorrhea, and aortic aneurysms, dementia, psychosis or death from syphilis. Plainly, an award of damages is no remedy for these medical problems. Furthermore, women prisoners do not have the option of finding other doctors. Only equitable relief will provide an adequate remedy.
The Defendants argue that the Court should refrain from using its equitable powers in the absence of any guidance from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals interpreting § 24-442. This Circuit, however, has affirmed an order of equitable relief in the absence of any District of Columbia decisional law. See Friends for All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 746 F.2d 816, 828 n. 18 (D.C.Cir.1984) (stating, "Since no District of Columbia decisional law is on point here, we must make a predictive judgment about D.C. law.")
The Defendants argue that § 24-442 should be interpreted like 18 U.S.C. § 4042 (1985) which provides federal prisoners with a tort remedy in damages but not equitable relief. Federal prisoners, however, may not sue for injunctive relief because such a remedy is precluded by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the Federal Tort Claims Act does not provide a waiver of sovereign immunity for equitable relief. Federal prisoners may maintain an action in tort for money damages because the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (1994) carves out an 667 exception to the doctrine. Section 18 U.S.C. § 4042 (1985) simply establishes *667 the Bureau of Prisons' duty of care.[4] The District of Columbia, lacking sovereign immunity, does not possess a similar shield to protect it from claims for injunctive relief. See Wade v. District of Columbia, 310 A.2d 857, 861 (D.C.1973).
The Defendants also argue that the Court should not have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the § 24-442 claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (1993). That statute provides, in pertinent part:
(b) [I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if 0907
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,[5] or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
The claims under § 24-442 are so related to claims in the action within the Court's original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. A Court has the authority to reach a state law claim when a nonfrivolous claim arising under federal law and one arising under state law emerge from a common nucleus of operative fact. Common Cause v. District of Columbia, 858 F.2d 1, 10 (D.C.Cir.1988) (quoting United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1138, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966)). The justification for such an exercise of jurisdiction "lies in considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants." United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726, 86 S.Ct. at 1139.
Although the Court did not address the issue of gynecological care under the Eighth Amendment, the Court holds that the constitutional claim is not "so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1379, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974).[6] The record is replete with instances of profound suffering caused by inadequate obstetrical and gynecological care at CTF. This factual situation is a far cry from one in which a state cause of action is bootstrapped on to a frivolous constitutional claim.
The statute conferring supplemental jurisdiction is permissive in that it provides that a district court "may" decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim for the enumerated reasons. The Court does not find any reason under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1)-(4) (1993) to relinquish jurisdiction over the § 24-442 claims.
The claim does not raise a novel or complex issue of District of Columbia law. The standard of care in the statute has been clarified so as to preclude any ambiguity. See District of Columbia v. Mitchell, 533 A.2d 629, 648 (D.C.App.1987) (holding physicians owe same standard of care to prisoners as physicians owe to private patients 668 generally). *668 The exercise of injunctive relief is explicitly authorized by D.C.Code Ann. § 11-921(a) (1995) and is an unexceptional feature of common law.
The claim does not substantially predominate over the constitutional or Title IX claims "whether in terms of proof, or the scope of the issues raised, or of the comprehensiveness of the remedy sought." See United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966). Furthermore, there are no other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
The Defendants argue that application of § 24-442 is barred by the 11th Amendment to the United States Constitution.[7] The Defendants support this argument with the case of Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106, 104 S.Ct. 900, 911, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984), in which the Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from granting relief against state officials on the basis of state law. The District of Columbia, however, is not a state for the purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. Committee of Blind Vendors v. District of Columbia, 695 F.Supp. 1234, 1241 n. 6 (D.D.C.1988); See Morris v. WMATA, 781 F.2d 218, 228 (D.C.Cir.1986) ("[H]ad Maryland and Virginia created WMATA without the participation of the District of Columbia, we would conclude that WMATA enjoys eleventh amendment immunity as an instrumentality of the state.") Cf. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 74 S.Ct. 693, 98 L.Ed. 884 (1954) (District of Columbia not a "state" under the Fourteenth Amendment). It is well-settled that the District of Columbia is a municipality. Jones v. District of Columbia, 323 F.2d 306, 309 (D.C.Cir.1963); La Forest v. Board of Commissioners, 92 F.2d 547, 548 (D.C.Cir.1937). The Eleventh Amendment does not protect municipalities. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2312, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). The District of Columbia, therefore has no immunities under the Eleventh Amendment.

2. Title IX[8]
Paragraphs 79 and 96 of the Order rest on the Court's finding of an inequality of programs offered at CTF in violation of Title IX and its implementing regulations. The Court, therefore, must examine these laws.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...." 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (1990).
Under Title IX, "state prisons receiving federal funds are required ... to make reasonable efforts to offer the same educational opportunities to women as to men. Although the programs need not be identical in number or content, women must have reasonable opportunities for similar studies and must have an equal opportunity to participate in programs of comparable quality." Jeldness v. Pearce, 30 F.3d 1220, 1229 (9th Cir.1994).
The Defendants argue that the Court mistakenly applied Title IX to prison industries, prison recreational activities, prison work details and work training programs. The Court, however, is required to accord Title IX "a sweep as broad as its language," North Haven Board of Ed. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 521, 102 S.Ct. 1912, 1918, 72 L.Ed.2d 299 (1982), and therefore, it holds that Title IX reaches industries, recreation, work details and work training.
669 During congressional debates on Title IX, Senator Bayh, who introduced the *669 legislation, plainly announced that the proposed law was meant to expand employment opportunities for women:
It is ... an important first step in the effort to provide for the women of America something that is rightfully theirs 0907 an equal chance to attend the schools of their choice, to develop the skills they want, and to apply those skills with the knowledge that they will have a fair chance to secure the jobs of their choice with equal pay for equal work.
118 Cong.Rec. 5808. (1972) (Emphasis added). See North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U.S. at 526-27, 102 S.Ct. at 1920-21 ("Senator Bayh's remarks, as those of the sponsor of the language ultimately enacted, are an authoritative guide to the statute's construction.")
Title IX's implementing regulations specifically prohibit sexual discrimination in the areas presently at issue. A recipient of federal funds may not discriminate on the basis of sex in the following education programs or activities: industrial, physical education,[9] vocational,[10] technical. 34 C.F.R. § 106.34 (1994). In the area of employment, recipients are prohibited from sexually discriminating when they assist another organization or person in making outside employment available. 34 C.F.R. § 106.38(a) (1994). Use of the word "outside" indicates a clear intent to prevent discrimination in ordinary employment as opposed to the more traditional academic or work training programs. Furthermore, the regulations prevent the recipient from discriminating when they hire for their own needs. 34 C.F.R. § 106.38(b) (1994). The "outside employment" distinction is important because it destroys the inflexible partition between work and study which the Defendants' interpretation of Title IX creates.[11]
Defendants also ignore the very practical interconnections between work and study at the institutions. In the Court's Memorandum Opinion of December 13, 1994 it found that the completion of academic, vocational, apprenticeship and higher education programs qualifies women prisoners for an increased industrial wage. (R. 10A-48 (Morning Session).) (Memorandum Opinion ("Mem.Op.") at 656.) Work opportunities and academic performance are woven together as in a more traditional work-study context.
3. The Fifth Amendment and Equal Protection
At trial, the Plaintiffs challenged programs at CTF and the Annex on Equal Protection grounds. The Court decided not to reach that issue because the remedial devices in Title IX sufficiently cover discrimination in educational

programs. A decision on the constitutional question was, therefore, not absolutely essential to the disposition of the case. (Mem.Op. at 678.) This issue now comes before the Court in a different posture. In deciding a motion to stay, the Court must decide whether it has rendered a decision on "an admittedly difficult legal question." See WMATC v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d at 844-45. Since the issue raised under Title IX is one of first impression in this Circuit, the Court holds that it should proceed to the Equal Protection claim.[12]
670 *670 The fundamental purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to compel the government to treat equally all people who are similarly situated.[13]Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 3254, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). Equal protection principles apply to federal action through the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499, 74 S.Ct. 693, 694, 98 L.Ed. 884 (1954). Government policies that seek to distinguish between males and females are subject to scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 75, 92 S.Ct. 251, 253-54, 30 L.Ed.2d 225 (1971), and anyone defending such a policy must provide an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for it. Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 724, 102 S.Ct. 3331, 3336, 73 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1982). Classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197, 97 S.Ct. 451, 456-57, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976). The Supreme Court has rejected administrative ease and convenience as a justification for gender-based classifications. Id. at 198, 97 S.Ct. at 457.
In the case of Pitts v. Thornburgh, 866 F.2d 1450 (D.C.Cir.1989), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals confronted an equal protection challenge by female prisoners. In Pitts, the inmates alleged that the District of Columbia's policy of incarcerating long-term female offenders at distant federal facilities violated the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 1451-52. The Court of Appeals applied the heightened scrutiny standard despite the Supreme Court's use of a "reasonableness" standard when reviewing prison regulations in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987).
The Pitts court offered two reasons for its application of heightened scrutiny. The Court stated that Turner "applies to cases involving regulations that govern day-to-day operation of prisons and that restrict the exercise of prisoners' individual rights within prison" whereas Pitts involved "general budgetary and policy choices made over decades in the give and take of city politics." Pitts v. Thornburgh, 866 F.2d at 1453-54.
The Court also stated that Pitts involved "important concerns that the Supreme Court has clearly held call for stepped-up scrutiny" under the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 1454. Equal protection claims are distinct from the personal rights challenges in Turner because the former is a "demand that governmental action that affects an individual not be predicated upon constitutionally defective reasoning. The claim charges invidiousness, rather than an unwarranted interference with constitutionally secured liberties." Id. at 1455.
The Defendants argue that the differences in treatment between men and women in the areas of recreation, industries and work details, "are largely attributable to the differences in the physical structures in which men and women convicts are incarcerated and in the relative proportion of men and women placing demands on limited space, personnel, and other resources available to the Department of Corrections." (Defs. Reply at 12.) The Defendants also argue that CTF "had been operating for only a short period, and [was] just getting off the ground, when this case was filed, while the facilities the plaintiffs have used for comparison had been in operation for much longer periods." (Id.)
a. The Annex
The Court finds that the women at the Annex are similarly situated to the men of the Minimum Facility by virtue of their similar custody levels, sentence structures and purposes of incarceration. (See Mem. Op. at 675-676.)
The Defendants provide women prisoners at the Annex with an opportunity for work details, recreation and work 671 training that is not equal to the opportunities provided to *671 similarly situated men.[14] The decision to provide
women prisoners with less opportunity in these areas must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives to withstand invalidation.

Women prisoners at the Annex are employed as maintenance workers, housekeepers, receptionists, clerks and librarians, but do not perform skilled chores like carpentry and plumbing. (Mem.Op. at 657.) There is no justifiable reason why women cannot perform the more skilled, less traditional chores within their own facility as similarly situated men may do in their facilities. (Id. at 657.)
In the area of work training, the unequal participation of women is due to the Defendants' inability to complete paperwork, insufficient transportation and failure adequately to publicize those opportunities which are available. (Id. at 658.) There is no important government objective being served.
Recreational opportunity for women at the Annex is not equal due to inferior facilities and limited access to the athletic facilities at the Minimum Facility main compound. (Mem.Op. at 658-659.) To justify the inequality by pointing to the "differences in the physical structures" merely begs the question. Similarly, relying on the "proportion of men and women" does not address the differences in the quality of what the women are offered. The limited resource argument does not explain the unequal distribution of the minimal resources that are available. In sum, the Defendants have failed to raise any important governmental objectives to justify the differences in treatment between men and women prisoners.
The Court holds that the Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) for not providing equal opportunities in the areas of recreation, work details and work training at the Annex because this inequality results from the implementation of a policy decision of the Department of Corrections to provide unequal opportunity in these areas. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2035-36, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).
b. CTF
The Court finds that the women at CTF are similarly situated to the men of Central, Medium and Occoquan by virtue of their similar custody levels, sentence structures and purposes of incarceration. (See Mem.Op. at 675-676.)
The Defendants provide women prisoners at CTF with an opportunity for recreation, industries and work details that is not equal to the opportunity provided to similarly situated men.[15] The decision to provide women prisoners with less opportunity in these areas must, therefore, serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives.
The main governmental objective behind placing women prisoners at CTF was to save money for the District of Columbia. (Mem. Op. at 648.) The Defendants argue that CTF was still adjusting to the transfer of women prisoners to the facility when the Plaintiffs filed this case and CTF is being compared to facilities that were in full operation for a long time. Many of the problems at CTF, however, stem from the Defendants' own failure to plan, develop and implement either programs or resources for women prisoners. (Mem.Op. at 656.) The continuing programmatic inequalities are not substantially related to the objective of saving money.
In the area of work details, CTF offers positions in maintenance, culinary, clerical, education, environmental, intake, landscape, offices, quick copy, religion and supply management. (Mem.Op. at 660.) Central offers 25 work details which include those found at CTF, but also give men the opportunity to practice trades like plumbing, carpentry, bricklaying, mechanics, painting, welding, air conditioning, and masonry. (Id.) Medium offers the typical 672 support jobs but again offers *672 some trades in painting, plumbing, and electrical work. (Id.) Occoquan's offerings include barbering, carpentry, electrical work, heating, painting and plumbing. (Id.)
There is no important governmental objective being served by precluding women from performing some of the skilled details that men are allowed to perform at their respective institutions. Though the physical structures inhabited by the men are different from CTF, there exists nonetheless a need for the performance of skilled details at CTF. Trades like plumbing, carpentry, bricklaying, electrical work, painting, welding, air conditioning, heating and masonry are skills needed to keep almost any building in repair. Though CTF is a relatively new

building, its physical problems are well documented. (See Mem.Op. at 648-650, 653.) The larger number of men prisoners and the lack of resources do not provide reasons for the lack of opportunity for women at CTF.
In the area of industries, Central offers ten, Medium offers two, Occoquan offers one and CTF offers none. (Mem.Op. at 661.) The Defendants argue that the structure of CTF prevents the establishment of an industry for women. The Defendants' own expert penologist, however, testified that the Defendants should create an industry at CTF. (Mem.Op. at 661.) Such testimony indicates that equality is achievable. Its absence, therefore, is not acceptable.
The amount of recreation at CTF is severely limited by the physical structure of the facility. The structure cannot, however, account for the utterly one-sided opportunities for recreation. Plaintiffs' expert penologist likened the approximately one hour of recreation time a day to the prison disciplinary measure of "segregation". (Mem.Op. at 661.) The smallest allocation of recreation for men allows for two to four hours a day. (Mem.Op. at 661.) Such a contrast clearly violates the principle of equal protection.
The Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) for the unequal provision of recreation, industries and work details at CTF because the situation is a direct result of a policy decision of the Department of Corrections. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2035-36, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). They are also liable because this deprivation is caused by a governmental `custom' which has not received formal approval through the Department of Corrections decisionmaking channels. See Id. at 691, 98 S.Ct. at 2036.
4. Remedies
The Defendants challenge both the statutory and constitutional bases of the four provisions and the Court's power to take those remedial measures. When a court finds prison conditions which violate the law, it has a duty to remedy the offending conditions and, as this Circuit has cautioned, mandate "specific corrections of specific problems." Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 844 F.2d 828, 841 (D.C.Cir.1988). Courts are to be guided by certain limiting principles. First, "once a right is established the remedy chosen must be tailored to fit the violation," with the scope of the remedy determined by the nature and extent of the violation. Id. Courts must identify conditions and order these conditions remedied. Id. at 842. If, after ordering specific changes, local authorities are "found wanting", then district courts are empowered to make even broader or "sweeping remedial" changes. Id. Second, the remedy chosen must seek to place victims of unlawful conduct in "the position they would have occupied in the absence of such conduct." Id. at 841 (quoting Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 2757, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977). Third, district courts must consider the interests of local authorities in managing their own affairs. Id.
The essence of the Defendants' remedies argument is that the Order in this case go beyond what is necessary to cure the violative conditions.[16] The Court holds that the remedies faithfully follow the limiting principles of Occoquan v. Barry.
673 *673 Paragraph 20(a) seeks to remedy specifically the grossly inadequate health education at CTF. (Mem.Op. at 645.) The Order simply mandates a health educator with appropriate training in obstetrics and gynecology in a half-time position to provide clinical and health educational services.
Paragraph 20(b) seeks to remedy specifically the inadequate staffing which results in inadequate obstetrical and gynecological care. (Mem.Op. at 647.) The Order gives the Defendants the choice of adding a nurse practitioner, physician's assistant with special training in obstetrics and gynecology, or nurse midwife to provide clinical services.
Paragraph 43's implementation of an obstetrical and gynecological health education program, like Paragraph 20 specifically addresses the problem of inadequate education. Provision of educational material addresses the absence of any educational materials for women prisoners at CTF. (Mem.Op. at 645.) Maintenance of records allows the parties to prove compliance or noncompliance with the Paragraph.

Given the nature and extent of problems with obstetrical and gynecological care at CTF, the Court holds that these remedies are sufficiently tailored to meet specific existing problems. In addition, these paragraphs of the Order place women prisoners at CTF in a position they would have occupied in the absence of such neglect. They will now be educated and treated.
As to the interests of the District of Columbia in managing its own affairs, Paragraphs 20 and 43 simply conform to the policies of the Department of Corrections. Defendants' policy on health promotion and disease prevention states: "Health Services will provide health education and training in self-care skills to all inmates...." (Mem.Op. at 645.) Furthermore, "[i]t is the policy of Health Services to provide clinically appropriate periodic health examinations and follow-up care to inmates under the [DCDC]." (Mem.Op. at 643.)
Paragraphs 79 and 96 specifically address two blatant inequalities at CTF. There are no apprenticeships at CTF equal to those offered to similarly situated male prisoners. (Mem.Op. at 660.) Paragraph 79 does nothing more than order the Defendants to remedy this situation and allows them to do so "as defined by Department order."
Similarly, Paragraph 96 is specifically tailored to remedy the unequal provision of recreational opportunities at CTF. (Mem. Op. at 661.) The twenty-five hours of recreation time per week given to women is less than the fifteen hours per day given to males at Central or the all day recreation of males at Medium or the daily seven hours of recreation at Occoquan. (Mem.Op. at 661.) The option to remain indoors or go outdoors is exactly the option men exercise at the similarly situated facilities. Furthermore, Paragraphs 79 and 96, at the very least, place women prisoners in the position they would have occupied in the absence of such inequality.
The Court has been cognizant of the Defendants' interest in managing their own affairs. Paragraph 79 does not offer any specifics as to the type of apprenticeship program to be offered. It simply orders the Defendants to establish one. Paragraph 96 does not set a detailed schedule for recreation but instead provides a weekly amount. The Defendants still retain much latitude within the broad outlines of these two Paragraphs.
In summary, the Court holds that the four paragraphs challenged by the Defendants on "overbreadth" grounds are consistent with the limiting principles which district courts in this Circuit must apply when devising remedies for unlawful prison conditions.
B. Irreparable Injury to the Defendants
The Defendants justify their Motion for a stay by arguing that the District of Columbia has been declared insolvent by the General Accounting Office and the Order diverts funds to costly improvements. Defendants claim that they cannot afford to hire the two additional staff members required by Paragraph 20 or to start the health education program under Paragraph 43. The Defendants did not make this argument for Paragraph 79 or 96, but even so, 674 "[m]ere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time *674 and energy necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are not enough." Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C.Cir.1958). Though some of this money might be unrecoverable, "[a] party moving for a stay is required to demonstrate that the injury claimed is both certain and great." Cuomo v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 772 F.2d 972, 976 (D.C.Cir.1985). The Court holds that the potential injury from these two provisions does not rise to that level.
C. Substantial Harm to Other Interested Parties
"As with irreparable harm to the movant, [the Court] test[s] these harms for substantiality, likelihood of occurrence and adequacy of proof." Id. at 977. The provision of health care and education is exceedingly important for people in a high risk health category such as Defendants. Failure to educate and treat obstetrical and gynecological problems will lead to very serious health problems for some members of the Plaintiff class.
At trial the Plaintiffs' expert penologist testified that, in the opinion of the Department of Corrections employees with whom she spoke, the "inability to have a job" was the most common reason for the return of women

prisoners to jail. The apprenticeship program cannot be postponed while women prisoners at CTF move closer to their release dates.
Recreation assumes a greater dimension within the context of a controlled movement facility like CTF. The Plaintiffs' expert likened the limited recreation at CTF to punitive segregation which is a form of injury that a prison may legitimately use against prisoners. At CTF, however, such a restriction is the norm. It is a daily substantial injury.
As with the Defendants' funds, the Plaintiffs' potential loss of recreation, health and vocational training are unrecoverable. The Court holds that upon weighing the competing harms, the balance swings toward a denial of the Motion to Stay.
D. The Public Interest
The Court holds that whatever interest the public has in the Order favors a denial of a Motion to Stay. The interest in saving the public money needed for the four provisions is outweighed by the public interest in having women prisoners leave jail reasonably healthy and with the capacity to hold productive jobs instead of returning to jail for a publicly financed incarceration.
IV. Analysis of Motion to Modify
In addition to the Motion to Stay, the Defendants have moved the Court to modify its Order. As a preliminary matter, the Court will adopt the modifications proposed by the parties in the Joint Motion, with the exception of Paragraphs 20 and 40. Defendants' arguments for modification generally are premised on legal and practical grounds. The Court will consider each category in turn.
A. Legal Bases for Modification
The Court is satisfied that its legal analysis of the Eighth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, Title IX and the D.C.Code adequately support the remedial order issued in this case with the exception of child visitation and child placement issues. The Court will address this issue first. In addition, the Court will review the challenges to the Order under the limiting principles for remedies announced in Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 844 F.2d 828 (D.C.Cir.1988).[17]
1. Child Visitation and Child Placement Counseling
In its Memorandum Opinion, the Court held that the lack of child visitation and inadequate child placement counseling at CTF combined to form an Eighth Amendment violation. (Mem.Op. at 669.) Upon reconsideration of 675 the legal issue, the Court holds that issues involving prisoner visitation *675 rights are more appropriately reviewed under the Due Process Clause. On the issue of prisoner contact visits, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that prisoners be allowed contact visits "when responsible, experienced administrators have determined, in their sound discretion, that such visits will jeopardize the security of the facility."[18]Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 589, 104 S.Ct. 3227, 3234, 82 L.Ed.2d 438 (1984).
Attached to the Revised Motion to Stay and/or Modify Judgment, the Defendants attached the Corrected Declaration of Margaret Moore, Director, D.C. Department of Corrections. Ms. Moore's revised declaration contains additional information not previously provided to the Court. In her revised Declaration, the Director explains that a program allowing for women prisoners to routinely visit their children at D.C. General Hospital would create significant security risks such as escapes, assaults and the passing of contraband. (Moore Dec. at 11-12.) Based on Ms. Moore's evaluation of the security risks, the Court will vacate that portion of the Memorandum Opinion holding that the lack of child visitation violates the Eighth Amendment. The Court will also vacate Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the Order.

Without child visitation as an Eighth Amendment concern, the Court holds that the lack of child placement counseling does not by itself rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.[19] Though the Court regards such matters as exceedingly important, it does not believe that lack of child placement counseling is a deprivation which denies the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2323-24, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). The Court, therefore, vacates Paragraphs 41 and 42 of the Order.
2. Remedies
As to the remedies for Title IX violations, the Defendants argue that the inequalities can be cured by a redistribution of existing resources and programs and that they should be given the option of redistributing these resources. The remedies which correct Title IX and Equal Protection violations rest on evidence the Court reviewed at trial. The Court realizes that the situation with programs at all of the Defendants' facilities is fluid. The Court does not intend the Order to preclude a redistribution of resources, as long as it can be accomplished within the bounds of the Order and the court orders and consent decrees which control other institutions under the Defendants' control. Nonetheless, the Court does not have before it any evidence that such a redistribution has occurred. If the Defendants devise a plan which offers the Plaintiffs fewer programs than what is contained in the Order but which is also not in violation of Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause, the Defendants may present such evidence to the Court and seek a modification of the Order.
The Defendants' Motion to Stay and/or Modify identifies individual provisions of the Order which they say are not justified. The Court will consider each objection that contains a specific legal argument.[20]
Paragraph 7, inter alia, prohibits the Defendants from retaliating against a woman prisoner who reports sexual harassment. This provision specifically addresses problems of retaliation found by the Court at trial. The evidence 676 demonstrated that officers threatened women not to report the *676 incidents of assaults. (Mem.Op. at 639.) Women prisoners were also placed in nonvoluntary protective custody after reporting these events. (Id.) This remedy does not prevent the Defendants from legitimately taking punitive action against women prisoners for an infraction. It simply prevents them from using disciplinary measures to cover up sexual harassment.
Paragraph 10 allows women prisoners to submit Inmate Grievance Procedure forms ("IGP's") or complaints orally or in writing to a DCDC employee who must submit it to the monitor and Warden within 24 hours. This provision specifically addresses problems encountered by illiterate prisoners and problems with inconsistent reporting practices of the Defendants. (Mem.Op. at 640.)
The parties have reached an agreement as to the wording of Paragraph 20. The Court, however, will amend Paragraph 20(a) to require the ordered health educator to provide the ordered services to "the entire female prisoner population at CTF." Obstetrical and gynecological care of women prisoners at the Annex is controlled by the consent decree in Inmates of Three Lorton Facilities v. District of Columbia, No. 92-1208 (D.D.C.) and such care at the Jail is controlled by Campbell v. McGruder, No. 1462-71 (D.D.C.).
Paragraph 21 requires the Defendants to maintain their current regularly scheduled hours. This specifically addresses problems with understaffing, (Mem.Op. at 647), and overall inadequate OB/GYN care. (Mem.Op. at 643-645.) The Defendants argue that since a clinic already exists this provision is unjustified. In The Special Officer's Report on Compliance with the December 13, 1994 Order, as Amended ("Special Officer's Report") filed on May 10, 1995, the Special Officer informed the Court that, although Paragraph 21 would not take effect for another month, evidence indicated that the clinic operated sporadically between January 1995 and April 1995. (Sp.Off.Rpt. at 20.) The Court holds that this provision corrects a specific problem and it is not an unwarranted intrusion into the Defendants' affairs inasmuch as it merely requires them to maintain the hours of their own clinic.
Paragraph 22 of the Order requires the Defendants to establish a prenatal clinic at CTF. This provision specifically seeks to remedy the inadequate prenatal care given to women prisoners at CTF. (Mem.Op. at 646.) Defendants claim that the needs of women prisoners are met by using the OB/GYN clinic at CTF. The Special Officer's Report contradicts this position. (Sp.Off.Rpt. at 21.) The Court, therefore, will not modify Paragraph 22.

B. Practical Basis for Modification
Paragraph 79 mandated two apprenticeship programs for CTF. The Defendants claim that they have not been able to find a suitable apprenticeship program. In the Joint Motion, the Defendants informed the Court that they would file a proposal as to Paragraph 79. The Court did not receive a proposal from the Defendants and is not persuaded that no program can be found. The Court will adopt the proposal filed by the Plaintiffs which reduces the requirement to one apprenticeship program.
Paragraph 96 requires the Defendants to provide recreation to women prisoners for five hours a day, seven days a week. The Defendants claim that the physical limitations at CTF prevent compliance. The Court did not receive a proposal from the Defendants on this Paragraph as promised in the Joint Motion. The Court will adopt the Plaintiffs' compromise proposal of twenty-five hours of recreation per week. The weekly allocation of less recreation time gives the Defendants more flexibility to correct this unequal opportunity.
Paragraph 116 orders the Defendants to hire a qualified air balancing contractor to service the CTF air handling system. The Defendants claim that repairs to the system cannot be accomplished within the timeframe of the Order. Paragraph 127 requires the Defendants to install a sprinkler system in the Annex dormitories within six months of the Order. The Defendants also claim that they cannot accomplish this within that period of time. Director Moore estimates that it could take over a year due to testing the water system and the contracting 677 process. *677 The Court will not modify these two paragraphs. The Defendants may, however, submit a detailed report which explains the measures which have been taken to correct these serious problems, reasons for noncompliance with the Order and any reasonable alternatives to the requirements in the Order.
V. Conclusion
Since the Court finds that the Defendants have not met the standards necessary to justify a stay, the Court denies the Defendants' Motion to Stay the Judgment. The Court will, however, grant the Defendants' Motion to Modify in part. The Court modifies its Order as to Paragraphs 12, 17, 18, 20, 35, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 58, 60, 67, 70, 71, 75, 87, 102, 115, 123 and 124 and vacates Paragraphs 39, 40, 41, 42, 73 and 74.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the Defendants' Revised Motion to Stay and/or Modify Judgment, the Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Renewed Motion to Stay and/or Modify Judgment, the Defendants' Reply, the Defendants' Supplement, the Plaintiffs' Surreply, the Joint Status Motion and Motion Proposing Modifications to the Order for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, the Plaintiffs' Status Motion Regarding ¶¶ 79 and 96 of the Order, it is by the Court this 11th day of August, 1995
ORDERED that the portion of the Defendants' Revised Motion to Stay and/or Modify Judgment in which Defendants seek a stay is DENIED; it is further
ORDERED that ¶¶ 73 and 74 of the Court's Order of December 13, 1994 are VACATED due to the termination of the Atlantic Union College program at CTF; it is further
ORDERED that ¶¶ 39, 40, 41, 42 of the Court's Order of December 13, 1994 are VACATED; it is further
ORDERED that ¶¶ 12, 17, 18, 20, 35, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 58, 60, 67, 70, 71, 75, 87, 102, 115, 123 and 124 of the Court's Order of December 13, 1994 are amended as follows:
12. Failure of an employee to report any allegation of sexual misconduct or any facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable employee to believe that sexual misconduct is occurring or has occurred shall subject the employee to discipline.

17. The Department shall conduct mandatory training using certified trainers on sexual misconduct for all DCDC employees. A consultant from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall develop the training plan and materials. A "certified trainer" is defined as any person who has completed the "Train-the-Trainer" course developed by the NIC consultant. The monitor(s), if they so choose may attend this training.
a. The training shall include education concerning the Defendants' policies regarding reporting, investigating, and preventing sexual harassment, and the consequences for violating any policy concerning sexual harassment; and
b. All staff who work with female prisoners shall be trained by certified trainers within six months commencing no later than August 30, 1995. After the initial training of staff, the training will be included in the pre-service training of all staff. Annual retraining shall be conducted to refresh staff on the Department Order regarding sexual misconduct.
c. Within one year, selected employees working with female prisoners shall receive a forty-hour training program on working with female offenders. A semi-annual, enhancement training on special issues related to working with female offenders will be offered to select employees.
18. Commencing no later than August 30, 1995, the Department shall conduct mandatory training on sexual harassment using certified trainers for all women prisoners currently in the DCDC. A consultant from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall develop the training plan and materials which will instruct women prisoners on the Department Order on sexual misconduct and how to recognize and report sexual harassment. Training sessions for women prisoners on sexual harassment shall be provided within 678 a *678 reasonable time upon a woman's entry into the D.C. Department of Corrections.
20. The Defendants shall hire within 90 days: (a) a health educator with appropriate training in obstetrics and gynecology in a half-time position who shall provide clinical and health educational services to the entire female prisoner population at CTF and (b) an additional nurse practitioner, physician's assistant with special training in obstetrics and gynecology, or nurse midwife to provide clinical services to women prisoners at CTF.
35. The Defendants shall develop and implement a protocol concerning restraints used on pregnant and postpartum women which provides that a pregnant prisoner shall be transported in the least restrictive way possible consistent with legitimate security reasons. Specifically, the protocol shall provide:
a. The Defendants shall use no restraints on any woman in labor, during delivery, or in recovery immediately after delivery; and
b. During the last trimester of pregnancy up until labor, the Defendants shall use no restraints when transporting a pregnant woman prisoner unless the woman has demonstrated a history of assaultive behavior or has escaped from a correctional facility, in which case, only handcuffs shall be used.
43. The health educator shall implement, within 60 days from the day that the health educator is hired, an obstetrical and gynecological health education program that satisfies a recognized national medical standard. Educational material should also be made available in the CTF library. The Defendants shall maintain adequate documentation on the program so that it can be evaluated by the Court within 60 days after implementation.
46. If a woman prisoner is in need of emergency obstetrical or gynecological care during evening or weekend hours, she shall be taken immediately to the emergency room at D.C. General Hospital if she is less than 20 weeks pregnant, and to the OB/GYN admitting office if she is 20 or more weeks pregnant, unless employees providing obstetrical and/or gynecological care at D.C. General Hospital determine that the main emergency room at D.C. General Hospital would be more medically appropriate.
47. The Defendants shall provide each woman prisoner for whom the DCDC has advance notice of her discharge from custody with the following:

a. a supply of essential medications that will last until she may be reasonably expected to obtain necessary follow-up care in her community; and
b. referrals to services in the community to insure continuity of care.
48. If a woman is released prior to the time that abnormal results of any gynecological or obstetrical tests are received by CTF medical personnel, the Defendants shall forward the test result to her last known mailing address. Defendants shall advise women prisoners of this policy.
49. The Defendants shall ensure that prisoners are transported to medical appointments on time.
50. The Defendants shall modify their transportation procedures so that women prisoners arrive at D.C. General Hospital no more than 2 hours before the scheduled time of their appointment.
55. For all pregnant women prisoners, the Defendants shall maintain a medical chart on an ACOG form together with a regular medical chart. All medical visits to or by the responsible physician or primary healthcare provider, orders for laboratory tests, laboratory test results and other notes and orders relating to the medical care of pregnant women prisoners shall be recorded on the ACOG form or consultation form.
58. Documentation shall be required whenever CTF medical staff elect not to follow the instructions of a consulting physician at D.C. General Hospital or elsewhere. This documentation should include the justification for not providing the therapy ordered.
60. Prisoners shall receive notice of normal results of laboratory or diagnostic tests at the discretion of the physician or upon request by the woman prisoner.
67. The Defendants shall ensure that women prisoners are escorted to and arrive at educational programs, 679 recreation, employment, *679 and medical care in a timely manner as scheduled in a manner that does not
prevent the programming staff from performing any of their duties.
70. Women prisoners at the Annex and CTF shall be provided with the opportunity for full-time (three hours per day, five days per week at CTF and five hours per day, five days per week at the Annex) basic education to include ABE, GED, and Special Education classes.
71. Women prisoners at CTF shall have access to on-site higher education programs which shall include a fouryear B.A. and/or B.S. degree program, an A.A. degree program, and a precollege program. At a minimum, bachelor programs shall be offered in one area of study, and associate programs in two different areas of study leading to a degree. Defendants shall comply with the precollege requirement of this provision within 90 days.
75. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall provide appropriate substitute teachers or instructors during absences of regular teachers or instructors of more than three working days. The provision of a substitute teacher or instructor shall not result in increasing the class size beyond acceptable community standards for a period of time exceeding 15 consecutive school days.
79. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with at least one apprenticeship program as defined by Department order.
87. The Defendants shall revise the Department of Corrections guidelines and practices for work training placement within 30 days to take into account the different sentence structure of female offenders and to permit women's maximum participation in work training.
96. The Defendants shall immediately provide all women prisoners at CTF, including pregnant prisoners subject to medical approval, with recreation for twenty-five hours per week. Women shall have the option of going outside or to indoor recreation facilities during the time period. This recreation schedule shall be effective at CTF within 15 days of this Order.
102. Within one year, the Defendants shall reduce the population of the Annex Dormitories 6 and 7 so that no more than 135 women are housed in the two dormitories combined.

115. Three times every year, the Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) to inspect the Annex for compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation and maintenance and food service delivery (at the main Minimum compound). If any area is shown to be in compliance after completion of an inspection, the mid-year inspection may be an abatement inspection rather than a full inspection. At a minimum, DCRA shall conduct full compliance inspections at the Annex two times every year. Within 30 days of each inspection, the Warden of Minimum shall obtain the DCRA findings. The Warden shall repair, clean, or otherwise remedy an unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA as soon as feasible but in no event later than 30 days following the receipt of the DCRA report.
123. The Defendants shall ensure that the correctional officers inspect all plumbing fixtures daily, and shall ensure that any plumbing fixture that requires repair will be reported immediately upon discovery, and repaired in a timely manner. The Defendants shall maintain logs demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
124. Two times per year, the Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia DCRA to conduct inspections of the CTF for compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation, maintenance and food service delivery. Within 30 days of each inspection, the Warden of CTF shall obtain the DCRA findings. The Warden shall repair, clean, or otherwise remedy any unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA as soon as feasible but in no event later than 30 days following the receipt of the DCRA report.
It is further
ORDERED that all deadlines shall run from the date of entry of this Supplemental Order.
[1] The original order mandated two apprenticeship programs. In the Joint Motion, the parties informed the Court that each side would file separate motions detailing their proposals as to these two provisions. The Plaintiffs filed their proposal with the Joint Motion. The Court, as of this date, has received nothing from the Defendants. As more fully stated in Section IV(B) of this Memorandum Opinion, the Court adopts the Plaintiffs' proposed modification of this provision.
[2] The original order mandated thirty-five hours of recreation per week. As more fully stated in Section IV(B) of this Memorandum Opinion, the Court adopts the Plaintiffs' proposed modification of this provision.
[3] When exercising pendent jurisdiction over a state law claim, the Court has the same equitable powers as the state court. West Allis Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bowen, 852 F.2d 251, 257 (7th Cir.1988).
[4] The Defendants claim that District of Columbia decisions interpreting § 24-442 have relied on federal interpretations of 18 U.S.C. § 4042 (1985). Local decisions comparing 18 U.S.C. § 4042 (1985) with § 24-442, however, have done nothing more than to observe that both statutes establish a similar standard of care for prison officials in their respective jurisdictions. See Matthews v. District of Columbia, 387 A.2d 731, 734 (D.C.Cir.1978); Ross v. United States, 641 F.Supp. 368, 371 (D.D.C.1986).
[5] The Court did not reach the constitutional claim.
[6] The Defendants are disturbed that the Court refrained from deciding the constitutional question in favor of applying the District of Columbia Code. The Supreme Court, however, in Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 117, 104 S.Ct. 900, 917, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) provided the following guidance: "[A] federal court may resolve a case solely on the basis of a pendent state-law claim ... [and] the court usually should do so in order to avoid federal constitutional questions...."
[7] The Eleventh Amendment states:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
U.S. Const. amend. XI.

[8] The Defendant argues that the men and women prisoners are not "similarly situated" for the purposes of Title IX. Nothing in the record prompts the Court to reverse itself on this issue.
[9] The regulations also cover intramural athletics. 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(a) (1994).
[10] "Vocational education is preparation for the pursuit of a technical, skilled, or semiskilled occupation or trade, or study in a technical field, whether or not the school or institution offers certificates, diplomas, or degrees and whether or not it offers fulltime study." 34 C.F.R. § 106.2(n) (1994).
[11] Gender discrimination in vocational education, job placement and apprentice training programs is also prohibited by 34 C.F.R. Pt. 100, App. B, VII(A) & VII(B) (1994) which is an implementing regulation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (1994).
[12] Though the "likelihood of success on the merits" analysis may suggest to the parties that the Court's analysis here is merely predictive, the Court's Equal Protection analysis constitutes a substantive modification of the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on December 13, 1994. This works no prejudice to either side as this issue has been fully briefed by the parties and, in any event, the Plaintiffs are entitled to raise their Equal Protection claims in the Court of Appeals. See Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 475 n. 6, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 1156 n. 6, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970) ("The prevailing party may, of course, assert in a reviewing court any ground in support of his judgment, whether or not that ground was relied upon or even considered by the trial court.")
[13] The Court will compare prisoners who are similarly situated by virtue of their similar custody levels, sentence structures and purposes of incarceration. The Court holds that women prisoners at the Annex are similarly situated to the male prisoners at Minimum and that women prisoners at CTF are similarly situated to the male prisoners at Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities. (See Mem.Op. at 675-676.)
[14] The Court found no inequality under Title IX in the area of vocational training, apprenticeships and industries. (Mem.Op. at 658.) The Court finds no violation of the Equal Protection Clause in these areas either.
[15] Work training is not an issue at this facility.
[16] The Defendants also claims that the remedies are "unrealistic and excessively expensive." (Defs.Cor.Mem. P & A at 6.) The Court cannot discern the legal ground for this argument but assumes it is a restatement of their "over-breadth" argument.
[17] The Court will review those challenges outlined in Section D of the Defendants' Revised Motion to Stay and/ or Modify the Judgment and the challenges in the Defendants' Supplement to the Corrected Motion.
[18] In a case involving a woman prisoner's right to breast-feed her infant, the Fifth Circuit analyzed the issue as one implicating the right of privacy which includes the right to make personal decisions relating to child rearing without governmental interference. Southerland v. Thigpen, 784 F.2d 713 (5th Cir.1986) (quoting Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 97 S.Ct. 2010, 52 L.Ed.2d 675 (1977)). The court ultimately denied her request and held that her right to breast-feed her child was inconsistent with the legitimate goals and policies of the penal system. Id. at 718.
[19] The Court also holds that it does not contravene D.C.Code Ann. § 24-442 (1989).
[20] The Defendants objections to Paragraph 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 44, 45, 49, 50, 58, 84, 85 are essentially disagreements with the Court's Findings of Fact. The Defendants do not present evidence which would cause the Court to amend its Findings of Fact.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 877 F.Supp. 634 (1994)
WOMEN PRISONERS OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 93-2052 (JLG).
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
December 13, 1994.
635*635 636*636 637*637 638*638 Peter J. Nickles, Caroline M. Brown, Tracy A. Thomas, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs.
Maria Amato, Teresa A. Ferrante, Asst. Corp. Counsel Correctional Litigation Section, Washington, DC, Baltimore, MD, for defendants.
OPINION
JUNE L. GREEN, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court after a three-week trial, including the submission of approximately 900 exhibits and hundreds of pages of deposition and transcript testimony. On December 1, 1993, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2). The class is defined as all women prisoners who are incarcerated in the District of Columbia correctional system as of October 1, 1993, and 639*639 all women prisoners who will hereafter be incarcerated in the D.C. correctional system.
Women prisoners in the District of Columbia are incarcerated in three facilities: the Lorton Minimum Security Annex (Annex), the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) and the Central Detention Facility (Jail). The Annex is a collection of minimum security dormitories in Lorton, Virginia, which presently house approximately 174 women prisoners who are either held for trial, awaiting sentence or within 24 months of release. (R. 8-99; Pls.Exs. 621 at WP00034; 520 at DC0030902.) CTF is an 800 bed co-correctional facility in the District of Columbia consisting of a series of buildings which house approximately 271 medium custody, general population women prisoners. (Pls.Exs. 638 at 5; 520 at DC0030902.) The Jail is a medium to maximum security co-correctional facility in the District of Columbia housing approximately 168 women prisoners who are either serving sentences of less than one year or who are awaiting trial or sentencing. (Pls.Exs. 621 at WP00031, 520 at DC0030902.)

The Plaintiffs premise their claim for declaratory and injunctive relief on the following grounds: 1) women prisoners at the Annex, CTF, and the Jail are subject to sexual harassment in violation of the Fifth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment; 2) women prisoners at the Annex and CTF receive unequal opportunities to participate in prison programs in comparison to similarly situated men at other correctional facilities in violation of Title IX and the Fifth Amendment; 3) the provision of inadequate obstetrical and gynecological care offered to women prisoners at CTF violates the Eighth Amendment; and 4) the general conditions of confinement and fire hazards at the Annex and CTF violate the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are liable for these constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs argue that virtually all of the Defendants' actions violate the Plaintiffs' rights under the D.C.Code §§ 24-442 and 24425.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Sexual Harassment at the Jail, CTF and the Annex
The evidence demonstrates that there have been many incidents of sexual misconduct between prison employees and female prisoners in all three of the womens' facilities in this case. The level of harassment involves forceful sexual activity, unsolicited sexual touching, exposure of body parts or genitals and sexual comments. (R. 2-3.)
Within the D.C. Department of Corrections (DCDC) there is a general acceptance of sexual relationships between staff and inmates which creates a "sexualized environment" where "boundaries and expectations of behavior are not clear." (R. 5-78.) Based on conversations with DCDC employees, Mr. Howard Ray Jr., former administrator of CTF, stated, "[Y]ou just get this sense that [sexual misconduct] has always happened and it is always going to happen." (Ray Dep. I at 112.)
The most disturbing evidence of sexual harassment involves sexual assaults on women prisoners and the inadequacy of the Defendants' response to these attacks.[1] On October 31, 1993, at about 2:30 a.m., a correctional officer at the Jail, sexually assaulted Jane Doe Q while she was a patient in the infirmary. (R. 1-75 to 1-80.) The officer fondled her breasts and vagina, tried to force her to perform oral sex and then raped her. On December 9, 1993, at approximately 5:30 a.m., a correctional officer at CTF forced Jane Doe RR to perform oral sex on him while Jane Doe RR attempted to empty trash as part of a work detail. (R. 6-123 to 24.) The individual officers who assaulted Jane Doe Q and Jane Doe RR warned the women not to report the attacks. (R. 1-80; 6-126.)
Jane Doe Q and Jane Doe RR were placed in protective custody after they filed complaints. (R. 1-86; Pls.Ex. 502 at 11.) Jane Doe RR explained the problems with this arrangement: "[Protective Custody] is just 640*640 like being punished. [I]t's the same place where you go if you do something.... You stay on lock 23 hours every day.... I didn't [feel safe] ... because the person that is supposed to be watching us, [is] never at the desk hardly ... I don't consider that as being protected." (R. 6-132 to 6-133.)

In addition to rape and forced sodomy, women prisoners endure other varieties of sexual assault. In September 1993, a correctional officer at CTF grabbed Jane Doe W's buttocks and vagina while he escorted her from the medical unit where she had received prenatal care. (R. 1-36 to 1-38.) A CTF foreman tried to rub up against Jane Doe Z, and steward hands and different officers fondled women prisoners' breasts, legs, arms and buttocks. (R. 7-64.) Another CTF officer attempted on several occasions to fondle Jane Doe K's breasts, vagina and buttocks in the television room. (R. 6-110.) A teacher in the print shop would frequently try to pull Jane Doe OOO to him and kiss her. (R. 1-112 to 113.) An officer in the garment shop attempted to paw and kiss women prisoners. (R. 6-113.)[2]
Another problem at CTF and the Annex is a lack of privacy. Some male officers fail to announce themselves before appearing in areas where women undress. (R. 3-16; 1-56 to 1-58; Y. Jackson Dep. at 32-33, 43.) In addition, the structural design of CTF permits male inmates a view of women's rooms while the men are in the recreation yard or in their own cells. (R. 9-131.) Defendants claim that they allow women to cover the window while they are dressing, but the Court did not see evidence of a written policy to this effect. (R. 9-53; 9131.)
Women prisoners at all three facilities are the targets of sexual comments. Steward hands and officers at CTF feel free to direct sexual comments at women prisoners. (R. 7-64, 66.) One officer in particular discovered that Jane Doe V was going to take a shower and said, "Well, you go ahead and do that and I'll be in there to stick my rod up in you." (R. 4-68.) Male prisoners and correctional officers at the Annex also direct sexually explicit comments toward women prisoners. (R. 1-117; 6-115.) Officers at the Jail verbally harass women by making derogatory references about women prisoners' breasts and buttocks. (R. 1-88.)
The DCDC has policies and procedures designed to address sexual misconduct. In the Defendants' Basic Regulations for all Employees, employees are cautioned not to become intimate with prisoners. (Defs.Ex. 26 at 5-6.) The Defendants also have created the Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) under Department Order No. 4030.1D (Pls.Ex. 117.), the D.C. Personnel Policy on the Employee and Inmate Relationships under Department Order No. 3350.1, (Defs.Ex. 53.), the Sexual Harassment in the Workplace policy under Department Order No. 3310.4B (Pls.Ex. 107.) and the Procedure for Handling Institutional Persons Suspected of Committing Crimes in the Institutions under Department Order No. 5410.1. (Defs.Ex. 27.) These regulations are supposed to be taught during a seven-week, preservice training program and each year during a 40-hour in-service training program. (R. 8125 to 26.)
Though the DCDC has established an Inmate Grievance Procedure, (R. 8-127 to 28), procedures for filing an IGP form are not posted on each one of the units as required, and requests for written reports present an obstacle for illiterate women who wish to file a complaint. (R. 2-44 to 2-45.)
These various policies and procedures are of little value because the Defendants address the problem of sexual harassment of women prisoners with no specific staff training (Stempson Dep. at 182-83.), inconsistent reporting practices, cursory investigations and timid sanctions. Since training is confined to sexual harassment in the workplace (Riddick Dep. at 92; Pls.Exs. 111, 115.)[3], 641*641 employees confront the harassment of women

prisoners in different ways. Ms. Toni Perry, the former Director of the Women's Program at CTF, would present an inmate's allegations to the Director of the DCDC instead of reporting to the administrator of the facility. (Perry Dep. at 162.) Mr. James Derr, a staff assistant at the Annex, said that because there are corrupt people in the system "you almost have to be careful as to who you give your information to, ... whether they be higher-ups or superior to you or not.... I'm reluctant to give much information to anyone of our system." (Derr Dep. II at 88, 97-98.) Ms. Christine Welch, a substance abuse counselor at CTF, believes that an inmate would have to tell her something two or three times before Ms. Welch would report it. (Welch Dep. at 62-63.) When a woman prisoner complained to Ms. Welch about an instance of sexual harassment, she told the woman prisoner to "just quit her job and program, because she really didn't need to work." (Welch Dep. at 63-64.)
Reports of sexual misconduct also do not remain confidential. (Perry Dep. at 164; R. 4-50.) After Jane Does Q and RR reported their assaults, the incidents quickly became a matter of public knowledge among prisoners and staff. (R. 1-86; 6-137.) Officers spoke with Jane Doe RR about her attack and gave her the impression that they regarded it as a "joke" or "gossip." (R. 6-137.)
The Defendants do not adequately investigate the incidents of sexual misconduct because there is no policy and because the investigations are not taken seriously. (Krull Dep. at 227; Derr.Dep. II at 105-06; Y. Jackson Dep. at 161.) If the DCDC does not have first-hand knowledge of an incident, Mr. William Plaut, the Deputy Director of Operations and Acting Deputy Director for Programs,[4] believes that they must wait for the conclusion of a police investigation or the conviction of the accused employee before they can take any action. (R. 8-132.) On many occasions while Mr. John Henderson worked as the Administrator of the Jail, police would not respond to his initial call to investigate and he would not make any further attempts to contact them or conduct an independent investigation. (Henderson Dep. at 146.) In a case involving an allegation that an officer had impregnated an inmate through coerced sexual intercourse, Mr. Henderson referred the case to the police and did not learn of the results until four months after the police concluded their investigation. (Henderson Dep. at 94-95, 108-110.) Mr. Henderson did not conduct his own investigation or discuss the case with the accused officer who was eventually reassigned to the Occoquan Facility. (Henderson Dep. at 108-10, 113-15.)
Ms. G.H. McCathorine[5], Associate Director of Programs for the DCDC, responds to complaints by assigning Deputy Warden L.C. Jones[6] to a case and then she waits for the results of his investigation. (McCathorine Dep. at 242.) When Jane Doe RR discussed incidents of sexual misconduct with Deputy Warden Jones he discouraged her from talking to him too often because people would view her as an informer. (R. 6-144 to 145.) He also assured Jane Doe RR that if she did not provide any names to one of the Plaintiffs' lawyers, he would work toward getting her released from jail. (R. 6-144.) Though Mr. Jones himself had an allegation of sexual misconduct pending against him, his superior Ms. McCathorine claimed that she was not aware of this. (Jones Dep. at 169-70; McCathorine Dep. at 230.) Mr. Jones claims to have certain difficulties determining whether harassment has occurred. Concerning an allegation against one officer, 642*642 he expressed disbelief that a man the officer's age would be attracted to an openly homosexual inmate.[7] With respect to harassment in the culinary section of CTF, he believes that he cannot adequately conduct an investigation without a camera. (Jones Dep. at 31.)

Though Ms. Jennie Lancaster, a jail administrator and the Plaintiffs' expert penologist, has been able to reach a conclusion in approximately 90 percent of all sexual harassment cases she has confronted, the record demonstrates that the Defendants often fail to reach any conclusions in their investigations. (R. 5-74, 76.) Jane Doe Q reported her attack to the administration and the police, but at the time of trial, she did not know the results of the investigation or whether any action was taken against the officer who assaulted her. (R. 185 to 86.) Jane Doe RR filed an IGP, (Pls.Ex. 502), and later filed criminal charges yet neither the CTF administration nor the police has informed Jane Doe RR about the status of the investigation into the incident; and to her knowledge, no disciplinary action has been taken against the officer who assaulted her. (R. 6-136.) Jane Doe OOO, along with five other women, complained to the Administration about sexual harassment by a teacher in the Print Shop yet there is no evidence that the administration took corrective action. (R. 1114.) Jane Doe K complained to CTF staff about the incidents of CTF officers pawing women prisoners but the administration took no action against the officers. (R. 6-111.)
When the evidence is reduced to a dispute between an inmate's allegation and an employee's version of events, the Defendants generally side with the employee. (R. 8-133 to 34; See, e.g., Pls.Exs. 74, 76, 77, 79, 86.) A typical example is the administration's response to Jane Doe W's IGP in which the administration summarily concludes that her allegations "could not be validated." (Pls.Ex. 69 at 2-4; R. 1-40, 43.)
When the Defendants do suspect that an employee is guilty of sexual misconduct they possess a range of sanctions to use against an employee, (Defs.Ex. 25), but they often simply reassign the employee to a different facility. (R. 5-74 to 5-76.) Mr. Plaut stated,
There are . . . cases where we believe the inmate. In fact, the inmate's story in some cases is more credible than the employee's story, but you cannot take adverse or corrective action against the employee because you believe the inmate over the employee. In cases like that we relocate the employee and make sure the employee does not come in contact with that inmate, does not work in that institution.
(R. 8-134.) Mr. Plaut stated that he has personally reassigned "many, many" officers who he believed may have been engaged in sexual misconduct. (R. 8-135.) The officer who assaulted Jane Doe W continued to work on Jane Doe W's unit after the incident (R. 1-47) and was transferred to the Maximum Security Facility on May 8, 1994. (Pls.Ex. 675.) Jane Doe K complained to staff about the harassment by the officer in the garment shop (R. 6113; Pls.Ex. 66 at 5.) and that officer was transferred to another post. (R. 8-153, 6-114.) When Yvette Jackson, a correctional officer at the Annex, reported the problem of an officer entering women's areas without announcing his presence, Captain Larry Corbett assured Jackson that he would try to keep the officer from coming up to the Annex as much as possible. (Y. Jackson Dep. at 38.)
Reassignment does not always occur. When Jane Doe RR returned to CTF in May 1994 the officer who assaulted her still worked at the facility. (R. 6-135.)
The effect of sexual harassment on women prisoners is profound. The abuse has a significant impact on a woman's concentration, and it lowers confidence and self-esteem. (R. 2-57 to 2-58.) It leads to irritability, anxiety and nervousness. Women may be angry that

the incident is happening and fearful that they will be continually exposed to it. (R. 2-58.) Women prisoners who experience sexual harassment report significant depression, nausea, frequent headaches, insomnia 643*643 and feelings of fatigue. (R. 2-58.) Those who report the harassment often experience increased stress and may end up becoming isolated from other women in the institution. (R. 2-58.) Women can feel self-doubt, and disillusionment at the failure of the organization to protect them. Women prisoners lose confidence in the system and may decide not to complain about additional incidents. (R. 1-118; 6-115.)
For women who have a history of sexual abuse the harassment often brings back memories of the prior abuse.[8] (R. 2-61 to 62.) This can lead to severe depression, reinforcement of a "victim" self-image and a belief that, as in childhood, they have no control over their lives. (R. 2-61.)
B. Obstetrical and Gynecological Care at CTF
Women prisoners at CTF, like most female inmates, experience a higher rate of illnesses than the general population. (R. 3-52 to 3-53.) Specifically, women inmates have a greater risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis, AIDS,[9] or gonorrhea, and other illnesses such as cervical cancer and sterility due to infection. (R. 3-53.) The reason for the high rate of disease stems from the fact that the lifestyle of a typical woman prisoner does not include good health habits. (R. 3-52.)
Doctors should examine people in a "high risk" health category much more frequently and they should also anticipate complications, particularly in the case of prenatal patients. (R. 357 to 3-58.) Failure to monitor these women closely results in an unnecessary degeneration of their health and the health of a fetus if they are pregnant. (R. 3-58, 3-60.)
Adequate gynecological care begins with a thorough examination. This includes a pelvic examination, a thorough gynecological-obstetric history, a PAP smear, cultures for gonorrhea and chlamydia, a test for syphilis, a thyroid examination, breast examination and an examination of the rectum, abdominal contents and pelvic organs. (R. 3-59.) In certain instances a test for Hepatitis B should be done. (R. 3-59-60.) Failure to give timely examinations can shorten a patient's life in the case of AIDS, or it can result in infertility in the case of chlamydia and gonorrhea. (R. 3-63 to 64.) It is best if an institution establishes a list of necessary exams as part of a protocol for health care providers to follow. When an organization faithfully follows a protocol, people "develop a habit of doing things properly." (R. 3-72.)
The DCDC policy states: "[A]ll new arrivals ... will be seen within 24 hours to determine the health status of the resident and to take any steps necessary to protect the health and safety of the resident and general population." (Pls.Ex. 563.) Also, "[i]t is the policy of Health Services to provide clinically appropriate periodic health examinations and follow-up care to inmates under the [DCDC]." (Pls.Ex. 483.)
These policies are not followed at CTF.[10] (R. 3-76 to 3-77.) Women prisoners during intake are not given pelvic exams or breast 644*644 exams. (R. 14-12.) Women must also request PAP smears through sick call. (R. 14-12.) Out of a sample of 70 women prisoners, 9 did not have any documented PAP smears. (R. 3-67.) In addition, there was no documentation as

to the last PAP smear these women had. (R. 3-67.) Approximately 12 women out of the sample of 70 were HIV positive and none of these women had PAP smears done at sixmonth intervals. (R. 3-73.) PAP smears should be taken every one or two years for non-risk patients. (R. 3-67, 14-117.) But high risk patients, such as women with advanced stage HIV or previous abnormal PAP smears, should be checked at least every six months. (R. 14117.) A woman who is compromised with AIDS can go from a negative PAP smear to invasive cancer within a year. (R. 3-70.)
Defendants do not routinely test women prisoners at CTF for sexually transmitted diseases. (R. 3-74; 14-12.) In 7 out of 47 reviewed cases, either a gonorrhea culture or chlamydia culture was missing. (R. 3-74.) In some cases women were not tested for syphilis. (R. 3-74.) Failure to screen for chlamydia may result in sterility for a woman or eye infections and pneumonia for a newborn baby. (R. 3-74 to 3-75.) Advanced gonorrhea may result in sterility, abscessed ruptures and peritonitis. (R. 3-75.) Syphilis may lead to an aortic aneurysm, dementia or psychoses.[11] (R. 3-76.)
Even when women prisoners receive medical tests, the follow-up care of inmates at CTF is inadequate. In one instance a woman with an abnormal PAP smear declined further testing because she believed that she would be released soon and would get better care from a private doctor. (R. 3-78.) She was not released, however, and received the tests three months after the time prescribed. (R. 3-78.) In another case, doctors performed a biopsy on a woman after a very abnormal PAP smear. The woman was subsequently released from custody without the record indicating that any medical advice was given to her. (R. 3-78.)
The Plaintiffs presented women prisoners who provided further evidence of the Defendants' failure to render adequate follow-up care. Jane Doe II is a CTF prisoner who is HIV positive and suffers from the human papilloma virus (HPV).[12] (R. 2-158, 172.) While at CTF in September 1992, Jane Doe II experienced abnormal vaginal discharges and painful discharges of fluid from her left nipple. (R. 2-158, 166.) At her initial screening, she complained to a CTF physician's assistant about her breast problem. (R. 2-164.) On September 16, 1992, she saw Dr. Charles Hall at the CTF infirmary. (R. 2-165.) Dr. Hall prescribed medicine for the vaginal discharge and scheduled an appointment for her at the Howard University surgery clinic at the Jail approximately three weeks later. (R. 2-166.) She missed the next two appointments because the Defendants were late in transporting her. (R. 2-166 to 167.)
Despite her continued complaints to CTF medical staff[13] and a worsening condition, Jane Doe II did not receive an examination until November 1993, more than one year after complaining about her condition. (R. 2-167 to 169.) Doctors performed a biopsy on March 23, 1994 at D.C. General. (R. 2-170.) The five month wait for the biopsy occurred because CTF staff on approximately four occasions scheduled her for the wrong medical facility. (R. 2-170.)
645*645 The Defendants' medical expert and Dr. Charles Hall believe that the Defendants' response to Jane Doe II's breast problem did not meet minimal medical standards. (R. 1426 to 27; 14-119 to 120.) According to Dr. Major, Jane Doe II's breast discharges warranted only a simple cytology smear of the drainage which could easily have been performed at the CTF clinic instead of the clinic at the Jail. (R. 3-80 to 3-81.)

In May 1993, she requested a PAP smear from the CTF medical staff because she discovered lesions on her buttocks and experienced irregularities in her menstrual cycle. (R. 2-171.) She did not receive a test until November 1993 and the results of the test were abnormal. (R. 2-171 to 172.) In January 1994, Jane Doe II received a culdoscopy which revealed no abnormalities.[14] (R. 2-172 to 173.) By June 1994, she still had not seen a gynecologist at CTF since the PAP smear and culdoscopy. (R. 2-173.)
The case of Jane Doe V provides another example of a breakdown in medical treatment. In June 1993, Jane Doe V requested a PAP smear and a mammogram because a physician's assistant at the Jail informed her that she had polycystic breasts. (Pls.Ex. 254 at 4.) Three separate physician's assistants at CTF told her that she could not receive a mammogram because she was not thirty-five years old. (R. 4-94.) She finally saw a gynecologist about her breast in September 1993 but still did not receive a mammogram. (R. 4-95.) Only after Jane Doe V threatened to file a complaint did she receive a mammogram. (R. 4-95.)
Defendants' policy on health promotion and disease prevention states: "Health Services will provide health education and training in self-care skills to all inmates ...." (Pls.Ex. 570.) The health education at CTF, however, is "grossly inadequate." (R. 3-86.) Dr. William Hall, Assistant Director for Health Services, stated that the DCDC does not have any pamphlets or videos that deal specifically with obstetrical and gynecological care. (William Hall Dep. 181-82.) The only evidence of health education that Plaintiffs' medical expert found, was a breast self-examination chart located on the back of one of the rooms in the infirmary. (R. 386 to 3-87.)
According to Dr. Major, records at CTF demonstrate "too many records of refusal of treatment." (R. 3-84.) The number of women refusing treatment could be reduced by proper counseling as to the importance of treatment. (R. 3-84.) In one case, a pregnant woman with syphilis refused treatment for two months simply because she did not like injections. (R. 3-84 to 3-85.) Education is particularly important in the area of breast self-examinations where over the past ten years more breast lumps have been discovered by women than by their doctors. (R. 3-88.)
The DCDC has a written policy which requires the Defendants to provide comprehensive medical care and counseling to all pregnant women prisoners. (Pls.Ex. 2.) But even in 1994 they recognized a "lack of gender specific care in the areas of prenatal and postnatal education and care." (Pls.Ex. 434 at 5.)
In the area of abortion counseling, the written policy of the DCDC provides: "The Institution Administrators shall provide each inmate with medical and social counseling to aid her in making the decision to have an elective abortion. Religious counseling will be made available should the inmate desire it." (Pls.Ex. 5.) Women prisoners receive abortion counseling from Ms. Marydot Thomas, a licensed nurse, as well as from the clinic performing the abortion. (R. 13-89.)
In rendering prenatal care, the Defendants have not followed any written protocol.[15] (R. 1399.) A protocol or use of a Problem Oriented Prenatal Risk Assessment (POPRAS) form is a crucial element of prenatal medical treatment. (R. 3-94, 14-129.) This 646*646 form takes health care providers through a step-by-step approach to treating a prenatal patient. Dr.

Charles Hall, who is responsible for prenatal care at CTF, told Dr. Major during an interview that there was no written protocol at CTF and that the "protocol" was "in his head". (R. 3-9596.)
After Dr. Major's interview with Dr. Hall, Dr. Eliza Taylor asked Dr. Hall to prepare a prenatal protocol for CTF. (Pls.Ex. 457; Charles Hall Dep. at 122-23.) The protocol, however, is not nearly sufficient. (R. 3-97.) For example, it requires an Alpha Feto Protein test "at appropriate time," which might mean one thing to a doctor and another thing to a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant. (R. 3-98.) It does not indicate when or how an ultrasound test should be performed. (R. 3-98.) The protocol vaguely prescribes "tests, management and referral as needed based on the judgment of the health care provider." (Pls.Ex. 457.)[16]
Dr. Major found eleven instances where women did not receive prenatal care until after two or more months from the start of pregnancy. (R. 3-99 to 3-100.) General standards require prenatal care to commence no later than two months after pregnancy begins. (R. 3-99.) Care within the first two months enables doctors to ameliorate gestational problems such as anemia, hypertension, diabetes and poor weight gain or infant growth. (R. 3-101.) The standard of care for prenatal appointments is monthly visits for the first six months, bimonthly visits for the seventh and eighth months and weekly visits for the last month. (R. 14-126.)
The experiences of Jane Doe QQQ and Jane Doe L offer examples of inadequate prenatal treatment. On a Saturday in January 1994, Jane Doe QQQ experienced vaginal bleeding and was sent to D.C. General where a nurse informed her that she had to wait in the lockup. (R. 4-23 to 24.) Jane Doe QQQ refused to go because as she explained: "I believed I was threatening a miscarriage, and [in] lock-up, I would have been on a metal bed without a mattress and I would have been in a cell ... for five or six hours." (R. 4-24 to 4-25.) She finally returned to CTF that night and did not see a doctor until the following Monday. (R. 426.)
Jane Doe L was five months pregnant when she arrived at CTF on March 22, 1993. (R. 2134.) She received two examinations and a sonogram before delivery even though she made requests for a prenatal examination through sick call. (R. 2-136 to 2-138; 14-20 to 1424; Pls.Exs. 681, 682, 683.)
On the night before delivery, Jane Doe L experienced labor pains and was taken to the hospital. (R. 2-139.) But D.C. General sent her back because her water had not broken and she was not dilating. (R. 2-139 and 140.) Despite the fact that her contractions were five minutes apart, the staff at CTF placed her in handcuffs and leg shackles and sent her to a prescheduled court appearance. (R. 2-141 to 142.) The Marshals at the courthouse sent her back to CTF because she could not walk due to labor pain. (R. 2-143.) At CTF, she spoke to a nurse who knew about her trip to D.C. General but only offered her some aspirins and told her to prop her feet up and rub her stomach. (R. 2-143 to 2-144.) Jane Doe L went to her cell and delivered her baby shortly thereafter. (R. 2-146.) Jane Doe L had not yet purged the afterbirth from her body when guards placed her in handcuffs and leg shackles and sent her by ambulance to D.C. General. (R. 2-147.)

Jane Doe L's experience with shackling is not unusual. When Defendants transport pregnant women prisoners on medical visits they customarily place women in leg shackles, handcuffs and a belly chain with a box that connects the handcuffs and belly chain. (R. 414; 6-98 to 6-99; 2-141 to 2-142; 2-147; 1-61 to 1-62.) A physician's assistant stated that even when a woman is in labor "their ankles and their hands are cuffed." (Ali Dep. at 16263.) Leg shackles are the least inconvenient method of shackling and chest boxes, arm shackles and wrist shackles 647*647 increase the chance for injury. (R. 4-7.) Deputy Warden Jones stated that he does not use leg shackles on a woman in her third trimester of pregnancy "because there's a possibility she might trip." (Jones Dep. at 16-17.) Dr. Major stated that unless a pregnant prisoner is assaultive or an escape threat the need for shackling is unnecessary. (R. 4-6 to 7.)
In the area of prenatal nutrition, the Defendants' written policy states: "Pregnant females shall be placed on a nutritionally balanced diet that includes milk and a late evening snack.... Any dietary recommendations made by D.C. General Hospital shall be followed." (Pls.Ex. 2 at 2.) Records of some women reveal abnormally low weight gain which could possibly mean that the nutritional needs of women have not been met. (R. 3-112; See R. 159 to 1-60.) On one occasion, Defendants refused to give a dietary supplement even though D.C. General prescribed it. (R. 4-27 to 4-30, 14-28.) There were also incidents where the CTF pharmacy ran out of vitamins due to storage problems. (R. 3-113.)
In other areas of prenatal care, the Defendants offer parenting classes once a week, prenatal exercise classes two days a week for an hour (as of May 1994) and a "therapeutic community" (as of April 1994) in which counselors and Ms. Linda Studevent, the unit manager for pregnant women, hold group discussions with women prisoners on issues related to pregnancy. (R. 9-121 to 23, R. 4-11 to 4-13.)
Defendants, however, provide post-partum women prisoners with almost no time to visit their babies while the babies board at D.C. General. (R. 4-18; 6-100.) The record shows that mothers are transported to D.C General for visits only when the baby is critically ill. (R. 9-141 to 42; Pls.Ex. 48 at 6, 7, 9, 11, 13.) The Defendants have no policy statement on visitation between inmates and their babies. The evidence indicates that women need to hold their children at each feeding time. (R. 3-121 to 122.)
In cases where the infant is critically ill, the infant has died or when the mother is depressed because of child placement, post-partum counseling is crucial in alleviating stress or depression. (R. 3-128 to 129.) Defendants offer post-partum counseling through Ms. Loretta Brantley, a supervisory social worker. (R. 10A-4 to 5 (Morning Session).) Ms. Brantley has worked on the pregnancy unit since May 1994 and supervised the previous pregnancy counselor Ms. Pearl Jackson. (R. 10A-6 (Morning Session).)
Perhaps the most important post-partum concern is child placement while a mother is incarcerated. The Defendants recognize that the separation of women prisoners from their children often creates a trauma more severe than that experienced by male prisoners. (R. 8-115, 9-10, 11-51.) The Defendants' policy on child placement is as follows: "Arrangements for placement of any child born while the mother is in custody should begin as soon as the pregnancy is known, but prior to delivery." (Pls.Ex. 8 at DC0000090.) The evidence shows that child placement counseling needs to occur by at least the second

trimester. (R. 3-116.) At trial, the Defendants claimed that as of January 1994 child placement counseling is available for pregnant women prisoners once a week. (R. 9-125, 127; R. 10A-4 (Morning Session).)
By 1994, however, Defendants recognized that they did not offer enough programming in the area of boarder babies, child custody and foster care. (Pls.Ex. 434 at DC0027809.) Jane Doe L testified that at no point during her pregnancy did anyone at CTF counsel her on child placement. (R. 2-151.) Jane Doe QQQ tried to make arrangements for the placement of her child but the counselor responsible for child placement "seemed unconcerned and unwilling to assist [her]." (R. 4-32.) Jane Doe QQQ testified that a woman she briefly met once will care for the baby. (R. 4-32.)
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 458 lists seven inmates' babies who boarded at D.C. General in 1993. The previous year, 16 babies of women prisoners boarded at the hospital. (R. 10A-33 (Morning Session).) Dr. Major stated that in his experience with correctional institutions he had never seen that many boarder babies. (R. 3-119 to 120.) He "refused to believe that this many mothers did not want their 648*648 children placed properly." (R. 3-120.) Dr. Charles Hall has not spoken to anyone within the DCDC about the issue of boarder babies. (R. 14-10.)
Overall, many of the problems with obstetrical and gynecological care can be traced to inadequate staffing, problems with transportation and a lack of consultation between CTF and D.C. General. As of November 1993, Dr. Eliza Taylor stated that the physician shortage is "quite apparent." (Pls.Ex. 394 at DC0025016.) Even when staff is available, the Defendants too often fail to transport women prisoners to medical appointments. (Pls.Ex. 389 at DC0024258-63; Ali Dep. at 103-04.) A lack of transportation caused Jane Doe QQQ to miss two prenatal appointments (R. 4-20.), kept Jane Doe K from approximately four appointments (R. 6-96.) and prevented Jane Doe II from being examined on two occasions. (R. 2-166 to 167.)
The Defendants' Monthly Medical Reports offer further proof that the lack of transportation is a longstanding problem. (Pls.Ex. 394.) In September 1992, 151 women were scheduled for OB/GYN appointments, 91 are listed as not receiving transportation and 9 refused to go. (Pls.Ex. 394 at DC0025220.) The Chief Medical Officer of CTF at that time, Dr. Lynette E. Mundey, expressed concern about the "significant number of no shows" and stated that the escort system had "not worked effectively." (Pls.Ex. 394 at DC0025218.) In November 1992, 148 women were scheduled for OB/GYN appointments and 39 were listed under "no transportation." (Pls.Ex. 394 at DC0025201.) In October 1993, 100 women were scheduled for OB/ GYN appointments but only 76 were seen and in August 1993, 118 women prisoners had OB/GYN appointments and 71 were seen. (Pls.Ex. 394 at DC0025033 & DC0025062.) Defendants' records fail to explain the reasons for these women not being examined.
Defendants hoped to improve the provision of medical care by creating a Memorandum of Understanding between D.C. General Hospital and the DCDC. (Pls.Ex. 455) It requires administrative and clinical principals of each facility to attend meetings at intervals of no more than four months. (Pls.Ex. 455 at DC0030944.) The Memorandum also provides for continuity of care and states that all inmate-patients "referred to [D.C. General] for ambulatory clinics will be seen with dispatch and given priority status to other patients."

(Pls.Ex. 455 at DC0030946.) Defendants do not follow this Memorandum of Understanding. (R. 3-138, 14-158.) Dr. John Clark, Defendants' medical expert, found that there was a "lack of adequate communication and coordination at three levels.... Medical to Medical (i.e., Doctor to Doctor), Nurse to Nurse (DCGH to CTF) and DCGH Medical to DOC-CTF Custody Staff." (Pls.Ex. 667 at 12.) Dr. Charles Hall of CTF has had no discussions with D.C. General concerning the general quality of care that is provided to all women prisoners who are treated at D.C. General. (Charles Hall Dep. at 151.)
C. Physical Conditions of Confinement at CTF and the Annex
1. Housing Conditions
a. CTF
The DCDC created CTF in response to a need for an 800-bed facility that would offer intensive treatment and transitional services for special needs offenders. (Pls.Ex. 338 at DC0018947.) The Defendants intended to divide the facility into three areas: Reception and Diagnostic (288 beds); Substance Abuse (256 beds), and Mental Health (256 beds). (Pls.Ex. 338 at DC0018947.) This plan changed in 1992 when the Defendants increased the number of female offenders to be placed at CTF and delayed the implementation of the Mental Health Program. (Pls.Ex. 338 at DC0018947-48.) This decision was made for primarily financial reasons. (R. 8-9.) In a February 27, 1992 letter to Deputy Mayor Robert Mallett, Mr. Ridley explained his request to change the mission of CTF:
Unfortunately, recent developments associated with the budget and the growing population has forced the department to reconsider full implementation of the Mental Health Program at the CTF. The Federal Bureau of Prisons informed the department that it can no longer house approximately 649*649 700 inmates from the District. The anticipated increase in population by 700-800, as a result of the Bail Reform Act, and assurance that existing court orders are complied with are a few of the problems forcing the department to consider increasing the number of females at the CTF. More importantly, the department must consider all cost saving efforts as a means of meeting its budget mark.
(Pls.Ex. 338 at DC0018948) (emphasis added). In assessing the "Pros" and "Cons" of this move, the first "Pro" listed was: "Assist the department in reducing its budget by eliminating 71 positions with a savings of $3,267,748." (Pls.Ex. 338 at DC0018949.) One of the "Cons" was "[a] small number of individuals in the community may respond in a negative manner concerning the movement of women from a campus-like setting to a closed-in setting. This can be justified in that the availability of more comprehensive services and privacy outweigh the continued placement at Lorton." (Pls.Ex. at 338 at DC0018950.)
CTF is constructed as a series of multilevel buildings all connected by inside walkways. (Pls.Ex. 638 at 5.) Administration, medical and visiting facilities are located in Building B; food service is located in the basements of Buildings A and B; central services and a gymnasium are located in Building B; reception and diagnostic services are located in

Building C (which houses some females); housing and treatment facilities for substance abuse are located in Building D. (Pls.Ex. 638 at 5.)
Women prisoners are housed in Building E. (Pls.Ex. 638 at 5.) Building E contains 4 housing units and there are 64 cells in each housing unit. A single unit takes up an entire floor and is symmetrically divided into an "A" side and a "B" side. Each side has a day room and then an L shape to the building of two wings of cells opening off the day room and each of the legs of the L has two levels of cells in it. There are eight cells on each level.
Each cell has a single bed with a toilet, a slot type window on an outside wall and registers for air circulation. (R. 6-53.) The bed is fastened to a masonry outside wall. (R. 6-53.) The cells are not insulated and those at the far end have two outside walls which make them the coldest rooms. (R. 6-53.)
As Mr. Paul Quander, the Executive Deputy Director for the DCDC said of the facility, "CTF is designed for controlled movement.... Elevator control, door control, electronics, computer generated. Things of that nature. It's different from what we have in our other facilities." (R. 8-67.) Ms. Lancaster added, "This is not the type of facility that would be designed for a general population female institution and is not designed in my opinion to house a general prison population...." (R. 5-45.)
Despite the fact that it is a new facility, CTF has problems. The facility is unable to generate a sufficient amount of heat in winter. (Pls.Ex. 145 at DC0003388; Pls.Ex. 159 at DC0003820.) The failure of steam coils in the air handling mechanism and lack of insulation in the cells cause low cell temperatures. (Pls.Ex. 638 at 7-8; R. 6-55 to 56, 72.) The steam coil malfunction forced the administration to shut down the outdoor air intake and thus prevent the entry of fresh air and the removal of contaminants. (Pls.Ex. 638 at 7; R. 6-56.) Jane Doe V testified:
Last winter, my first winter in CTF, I experienced icicles on [the inside of] my windows, extremely cold weather, blowing puffs out of my mouth and nostrils. There were mornings when we would have to get extra blankets if they would bring them up to us. We would have to put on layers and layers of clothes just to stay warm.[17]
(R. 4-89.) Low temperatures greatly increase the incidence of illness from cold or flu. (R. 654; Pls.Ex. 159 at DC0003820.)
Jane Doe K notified the Defendants about the heating problem in a letter to Ms. ParrottFonseca asking for the Administration 650*650 to fix the problem. (Pls.Ex. 160 at DC0003826-27.) She wrote:
I come to you expressing the dire need for heat in the Correctional Treatment Facility.... The institution has provided some of the residents with extra clothing and blankets, but even so, there is a large percentage of the population who did not receive such.[18] This out of kindness is still not enough to protect us from such frigid temperatures.... In this facility, the Department of Corrections houses residents of all [kinds]. There are pregnant females, diabetics, HIV patients, high and low blood pressure patients, etc. Therefore, these people, as well as those who are not categorized above, need to protect themselves from the cold.

Some nights it gets so cold until I can't sleep.... I have heard many different stories regarding the heat situation ... but the main thing is that we need heat in this building.
(Pls.Ex. 160 at DC0003826-27.) Jane Doe K received no response from the DCDC. (R. 6119.)
Mr. Ward Duel, the Plaintiffs' expert in the field of environmental health, visited CTF in February 1994 on a mild February day and took temperature readings in the living areas. (R. 6-54.) Within the same unit some cells were 64 degrees and other cells were 75 degrees. (Pls.Ex. 638 at 7.) Mr. Duel found that the temperature of the air blowing out of a register was 65 degrees. (Pls.Ex. 638 at 8.) Residents use paper products, such as toilet paper and sanitary napkins, to cover air vents which are blowing cold air. (Pls.Ex. 147 DC0003401, DC0003412, DC0003444, DC0003440.)
The malfunction of the ventilating system creates noise. (Pls.Ex. 638 at 9-10.) From the ventilation noise alone, Mr. Duel received a decibel reading of 74 decibels and in an empty cell during the morning with the door shut he got a reading of 44 decibels. (Pls.Ex. 638 at 9.) He stated that the maximum allowable decibel level for nighttime conditions is 45. (R. 657.)
Mr. David White, Chief of Facilities Maintenance at CTF, is uncertain that the recent efforts to repair the system will solve the problems with heat at CTF. (R. 6-68; 12-75.)
Beyond the heating problem, there are many other unsanitary conditions at CTF. There are defective toilets which result in the exposure of sewage and possible environmental transmission of sewage-born illnesses. (Pls.Ex. 638 at 6.) Water leaks out of some showers damaging ceilings below and injuring prisoners. (R. 6-62; Pls.Ex. 638 at 6-7; Pls.Ex. 159 at DC0003820.) CTF staff do not use cart liners to transport the laundry thus promoting the spread of germs. (Pls.Ex. 638 at 12; R. 6-58; 12-5.) Women inmates are responsible for cleaning their cells, yet the institution does not provide them with adequate supplies because of an internal distribution problem and an uneven delivery by the supplier. (R. 4-91; 6-62 to 63.) CTF has a problem with rodents. In a September 20, 1993 letter to Captain L.C. Jones, then Assistant Administrator for Operations, Ms. G.H. Washington, Associate Director of Programs, stated that "[t]here is excessive mice dropping, mice nesting debris and trash on the floor, on the shelves, and behind the shelves." (Pls.Ex. 146 at DC0003390.) Mr. Duel found that CTF had a significant problem with mice in the corridors, hallways, stairways and kitchen. (Pls.Ex. 638 at 15.)
Inadequate food preparation threatens residents at CTF. (R. 6-63 to 65.) Mr. Duel found special diet meals[19] which were 30 to 40 degrees below an acceptable level. (R. 6-64.) The sanitarian's Food Establishment Self-Evaluation Reports, (Pls.Ex. 183), are similar to the evaluations used by the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) when they examine commercial food establishments. Out of 41 Food Establishment SelfEvaluation Reports for the CTF main and satellite kitchens, 34 fell below the "acceptable" level. (Pls.Ex. 183.) 651*651 The Defendants recently hired a nutritionist who has improved the quality of the special diets but it is not clear whether she has been hired for long-term employment. (R. 6-71, 75.)

The water temperature in the lavatory hot water faucets ranged from the high 80's to the low 90's. (Pls.Ex. 638 at 6.) When the Administration uses disposable utensils, trays and plates during breakfast, the mid-morning water is borderline acceptable. (R. 6-69.) The use of disposable goods, however, creates a waste removal burden. (R. 12-8.)
b. The Annex
Though the Defendants intended to send all female prisoners to CTF in 1992, "population pressures" forced the Defendants to use the Annex to house short-term female prisoners. (Pls.Ex. 334 at DC0018932.) One factor in this decision is contained in a June 1, 1992 Memorandum to Director Ridley, in which Administrator Krull observes that by "[c]onfining the population to short-term offenders, the risk of a law suit is diminished." (Pls.Ex. 334 at DC0018935.) Despite this type of strategic thinking, the Defendants' official policy states: "It is the policy of the DCDC to provide a safe environment for all staff and inmates in its institutions and facilities through compliance with American Correctional Association (ACA) standards and other applicable regulations and statutes." (Pls.Ex. 143.)
The Annex was constructed in 1955 and served as the Department's Training Academy until August 1988 when it was converted to a minimum security facility for male prisoners. In September 1989, it was converted again for use by women prisoners. The Annex is composed of dormitories which are converted military barracks. (Pls.Ex. 637 at 4.) Dormitory 6 is a large open room with a rest room and small day room combination opening off one end. (Pls.Ex. 637 at 4; R. 6-10.) Dormitory 7 is a larger dormitory with smaller sleeping areas on either side that open up into a small, central day room. (Pls.Ex. 637 at 4; R. 6-10..) Attached to the day room is a rest room and showers shared by both wings. (Pls.Ex. 637 at 4.) In Dormitory 6, as of June 1994, there were 80 beds. (R. 6-8, 6-43.) In Dormitory 7A there were 62 beds and in Dormitory 7B there were 32 beds. (R. 6-8, 6-43.) The beds in the dormitories are double bunks the heads of which are placed against the outside wall. (R. 6-8.) Most of the beds in the row are approximately 30 inches apart which means that an inadequate amount of light reaches the lower bunks.[20] (R. 6-8; 11-142; Pls.Ex. 637 at 14.) The lack of light is an obstacle to floor cleaning. (Pls.Ex. 637 at 14; R. 619 to 20.)
On July 26, 1993, Ms. Regina Gilmore,[21] Acting Chief of Female Offender Programs, sent a letter to Ms. G.H. Washington. In the letter, Ms. Gilmore provided a summary of conditions at the Annex:
These buildings were not initially designed for continued residency and in 1989 emergency renovations were made to accommodate housing of female residents. In July 1992, the population dramatically decreased when CTF opened and upkeep suffered. In late 1992, the population quickly swelled as female offenders were returned from federal facilities and the Detention Facility transferred more women to manage crowding. There is an average of one hundred and seventy (170) females housed in these two dorms. Renovations and preventive maintenance have not kept pace and repair needs have reached crisis proportions.
(Pls.Ex. 170 at DC0003870.)

The environmental health experts of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants believe that the population in the dormitories is "excessive."[22] (R. 6-10, 11-140.) The overcrowding at the Annex creates a shortage of sanitary 652*652 facilities,[23] (Pls.Ex. 637 at 9-10.), increases the spread of infectious disease, (R. 6-11.), produces a heightened noise level,[24] (Pls.Ex. 637 at 8.) and creates filthy living conditions, such as dirty floors and moldy bathrooms. (R. 4-119; 4-150.) Jane Doe XI stated, "I was housed ... for a long period of time [at] Alderson, West Virginia [which] is the oldest federal women's facility there is and ... you can't even compare it to [the Annex]...." (R. 4-150.)
There is no mechanical ventilation in the dormitories except for the window air conditioners. (Pls.Ex. 637 at 12-13.) This results in a level of carbon dioxide which far exceeds military standards. (R. 6-11 to 6-15.) The poor quality of air promotes eye and throat irritation and the transmission of respiratory illnesses. (R. 6-15.)
The Annex also has a "very significant level of roaches." (Pls.Ex. 637 at 11-12; R. 6-22.) As Jane Doe VII testified: "They're in the room, in your bunk.... If you look behind your bunk right in the crease, ... you'll see roaches hibernating back there.... Sometimes if you look over next to you you'll see roaches crawling on the person while they sleep." (R. 4-120.) Plaintiffs' environmental health expert witnessed roaches in footlockers and vertical lockers at the Annex. (R. 6-22 to 6-23.) Roaches use the many cracks in Annex walls to hide or drop an egg and are capable of carrying dysentery, salmonella and infectious hepatitis. (R. 6-22 to 6-24.)
Mr. Duel found torn mattresses and pillows which provide a haven for bedbugs, lice and ectoparasites. (Pls.Ex. 637 R 10-11; R. 6-24 to 6-25.) Torn mattresses cannot be cleaned effectively, thereby increasing the likelihood that previous users will transmit skin diseases to the next person who sleeps on the mattress. (R. 6-25.) Defendants also place clean and dirty laundry in the same cart without any liner. (Pls.Ex. 637 at 16; R. 6-49 to 6-50, 11-139.) Germs from the dirty laundry stay in the cart to contaminate the clean laundry that reenters the cart. (R. 6-49 to 50.)
The kitchen facilities are unsanitary. (Pls.Ex. 637 at 18-20.) Despite Defendants' efforts to clean prior to inspection, Mr. Duel found dirt in less obvious places. (R. 6-32.) A review of maintenance records revealed that the kitchen drains were frequently clogged. (R. 6-33.) All of the these unsanitary conditions in the kitchen provide a source of food borne illnesses. (R. 6-33.) In addition, the dumpsters attract vermin because they are left open and contain unbagged material from the cafeteria. (R. 6-28 to 29, 11-142.)
Monthly inspection reports performed by the Defendants' Environmental Safety and Sanitation Office indicate that there is very little preventive maintenance at the Annex. (Pls.Ex. 144.) The heating unit which is designed to provide heat and hot water to the Annex frequently malfunctions, resulting in lukewarm water all year around. (R. 4-120; 6-26; Pls.Ex. 170 DC0003871.) The grounds of the Annex drain poorly which results in dangerous accumulations of ice in the winter, mud in the day rooms and breeding grounds for mosquitos in summer. (R. 6-27 to 6-28; Pls.Ex. 486; Smith Dep. at 87-88; Gilmore Dep. at 108, 127.) In fact, mosquitos and flies are in the dining room, the food preparation area and the dish washing area of the kitchen. (R. 6-46, 11-144.) These mosquitos transmit illnesscausing organisms. (R. 6-46.)

The record indicates a willingness on the part of women prisoners to improve the living conditions at the Annex. In a letter to Ms. G.H. Washington, dated June 26, 1993 Jane Doe XI stated:
In all of these years of doing my sentence I have never seen such run-down nor deplorable 653*653 conditions for living quarters.... I do not believe that you are truly aware of this.... There are much needed repairs that need to be done here. Also the upkeep is not truly being maintained for the Women's Dorms. A lot of us Federal Women are applicable and trained in all areas. We can paint, do carpentry and other jobs. Several of us have offered to do the painting of the Dorm I'm living in, if only the paint and materials would be purchased. Repeatedly nothing is done.
(Pls.Ex. 177.)
Outside of the Annex grounds, in the area of prison industries, women prisoners have a history of enduring unhealthy working environment. The Defendants have given potentially hazardous food to women who must eat in unsanitary conditions. (Pls.Ex. 637 at 18; R. 635.) The Defendants now provide women with thermal trays, a special delivery truck which keeps the food warmer, and two microwave ovens in the garment shop. (R. 6-46 to 6-47, XX-XXX-XX, Gibbons Dep. at 117.)
Though approximately 25 women used to share one small bathroom at the garment shop, the Defendants now provide the male prisoners with a single bathroom and give the women prisoners four bathrooms. (R. 4-140 to 141; 11-136; Pls.Ex. 362.)
The printing and garment shops do not have an adequate ventilation system which is capable of diluting and eliminating airborne contaminants. (R. 6-34; Pls.Ex. 637 at 13;) Instead there are fans near the ceiling on one side which blow air into the building while on the other side there are fans to blow air out of the building. (R. 6-33 to 6-34.)
Though the evidence undoubtedly demonstrates some attempts to improve conditions at the Annex and the industries, numerous Daily Work Sheets of Facilities Management and Facilities Engineering Service Orders show accelerated activity in the month before the site visit of the Plaintiffs' environmental health expert, Mr. Duel. (Pls.Ex. 480 DC0033257DC0033300.) Since the February 1994 inspection by Mr. Duel, the Defendants have repaired the roof where it leaked onto the electrical box. (R. 6-44.) A dirty ceiling in the kitchen had been replaced and lighting for the walk-in coolers had been added. (R. 6-45.)
2. Fire Safety
The three crucial elements of fire safety are the building, the systems within the building, and the building's operations. (R. 7-7.) The operational aspect of a correctional facility is distinct from an ordinary building because inmates need the assistance of third parties (correctional staff) to exit a building. (R. 7-23.) It is, therefore, crucially important to educate and drill staff in the removal of people from the building in an emergency.
a. CTF

The buildings of CTF are made of noncombustible materials, with fairly low combustible loading inside. (R. 7-39.) The facility has a full sprinkler system and a full fire alarm system. (R. 7-39.) It has a detection system in the corridors and common areas. (R. 7-39 to 7-40.) Though the fire alarm system is tested quarterly, (R. 13-23.), the sprinkler system is not being adequately maintained and tested. (R. 7-40 to 41; 13-24 and 63.) The sprinkler system, however, should be tested quarterly. (R. 13-63.) There is maintenance of the fire pump[25] but no testing. (R. 7-41.) All nationally recognized standards require annual testing of a fire pump. (R. 7-41.)
There is water leakage occurring in the building, especially in the basement and the culinary area where electrical conduit and electrical equipment are exposed. (R. 7-39.) The staff stores more in culinary spaces than the sprinkler system can handle. (R. 7-44 to 7-45.)
In the area of fire drills, approximately ten staff members and four inmates told Mr. Thomas W. Jaeger, the Plaintiffs' expert in the field of fire safety, that a year will pass without a fire drill. (R. 7-44.) Dr. Eliza J. 654*654 Taylor, Acting Chief Medical Officer at CTF, informed Dr. William Hall on July 30, 1993: "Have requested a fire drill for levels 68 and 82. Staff really needs to go [through] a mock evacuation drill." (Pls.Ex. 394 at DC0025075.) On September 1, 1993, she wrote that "Sgt. Bonapart, Safety and Fire, had been approached on several occasions regarding mock evacuation drill — especially egress from ... [the] Infirmary. There has to be a concerted effort on the part of the medical staff and security to coordinate the evacuation procedure because of the difficulty with movement in this facility." (Pls.Ex. 394 at DC0025059.)
b. The Annex
The level of fire safety at the Lorton Annex is grossly inadequate and below any nationally recognized standard. (R. 7-5.) It is not even in compliance with the District of Columbia standards. (R. 7-27.) The two Annex dormitories are of ordinary construction, which means that the Annex has masonry floors, masonry walls and wood roofs, wood paneling and planking as interior finish within the building. (R. 7-7 to 7-8.)
The combustible load at the Annex is heavy because 174 people with personal items, such as beds and pillows, live in a relatively small area. (R. 7-8.) Some inmates have lockers, but there are a significant amount of personal items stored in cardboard boxes and plastic bags near bunks which contributes to a hazardous continuity of the combustible load.[26] (R. 7-9; Pls.Ex. 398.) The use of metal storage lockers would significantly decrease the continuity of the load. (R. 7-9.)
Each dormitory possesses a storage room with a high load and one dormitory has a storage locker. (R. 7-9) Inside this area are cleaning materials, a large supply of paper towels, toilet paper and a large amount of combustible material. (R. 7-9.)
A fire would spread from one end of a dormitory to the other end in approximately five minutes. (R. 7-10.) There is also the danger of "flashover," which means that all the combustibles could be heated to the point of ignition when exposed to enough oxygen. (R. 7-11.)

The only compartmentalization[27] at the Annex is the separation of the boiler room from the dormitory. (R. 7-11 to 7-12.) Nothing exists to contain a fire within the T.V. room, the sleeping area, the bathroom, the storage area or offices. (R. 7-12.)
The two dormitories have several exits for use in an emergency. (R. 7-12 to 7-14.) Dormitory 6 has three exits which include the main door and doors at the far end and by the T.V. room. (R. 12-127.) Dormitory 7 has three exits in addition to its main door. (R. 12-128.) The main doors are unlocked 24 hours a day and the other doors are locked between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.[28] (R. 12-127.) Although the Annex has windows, there is not a nationally recognized standard that recognizes a window as an exit except in a single-family home. (R. 7-14.)
The amount of exits and their capacity are adequate for the number of people living in the Annex, but Mr. Jaeger testified that there must always be exits in two directions because a fire could block access to a single exit. (R. 7-13; 7-21.)
The fact that the dormitories are singlestory structures does not eliminate the danger to residents. (R. 7-29 to 30.) Multiple death fires still occur in single-story buildings. (R. 7-30 to 7-31.) In 1982, 29 people died in a fire that occurred in a one-story, fire-resistant building in Biloxi, Mississippi. (R. 7-31.)
At this time, the Defendants do not have an adequate fire alarm system at the Annex. The fire alarm apparatus at the Annex is antiquated. (R. 7-15.) The dormitories 655*655 have a pull station and a bell to notify residents in the event of a fire. (R. 7-15.) There is no control panel, no system supervision and no distribution of bells throughout the building. (R. 7-15.) The bell rings only within the dormitory itself. (R. 7-15.) The sleeping areas of the dormitories have smoke detectors which alert only those within the area of the detector. (R. 7-16.) There is no control panel to provide emergency power or to send a signal outside the buildings to a central control center or to send a warning that the system is not operational. (R. 7-16.)
The only "realistic" fire suppression system to use at the Annex would be a sprinkler system. (R. 7-18 to 7-19.) The dormitories only have 2½ gallon fire extinguishers. (R. 7-19.) These cannot serve as a large component of fire suppression since they are only designed for small fires and people usually do not know how to operate them. (R. 7-19.)
The Defendants' policy at Minimum for fire protection outlines a plan for fire prevention, fire suppression, and evacuation. (Pls.Ex. 400.) It requires "fire inspections and testing of equipment by [a] Fire Safety Officer at least once each quarter . . . [and a]n annual inspection by [the] Fire Prevention Section, Lorton Volunteer Fire Department or other qualified Fire Inspector(s)...." (Pls.Ex. 400 at 1.) Though the plan calls for quarterly drills, there is no evidence of staff training or the actual occurrence or success of drills. (R. 7-22.) The plan also does not state whether "quarterly" intervals refers to four times per year per shift, or four times per year per site, or four times per year per building. (R. 7-23.) The national standard calls for four drills per shift per year so that every shift is prepared. (R. 723) Some of the Annex staff told Mr. Jaeger that they had not performed any drills, while others recalled that their last drill happened four or five months earlier. (R. 7-25.)

On the issue of planning, Mr. Jaeger's testified: "I asked the correctional officer in Dorm 6 for their fire evacuation plan for the dormitory, and what I was handed was post orders, and the post orders don't refer one word to fire safety. There's a separate fire evacuation plan. That correctional officer did not understand the difference between their post orders and their fire evacuation plans." (R. 7-25 to 7-26.)
The Defendants have known about the hazardous conditions at the Annex for a long time. On January 24, 1994, Corporal Pleasant of Minimum informed Ms. Barbara A. Hart, the Acting Assistant Administrator for Operations, about certain deficiencies at the facility relating to fire safety. (Pls.Ex. 403.) He concluded his letter by stating: "Based upon my direct observation, the severity of the deficiencies in most instances would indicate they should be made top priority, but, they're merely ignored." (Pls.Ex. 403 at DC0025594.)
Pursuant to a request by Mr. Douglas W. Stempson, the Administrator at Minimum, Systems Engineering, Inc.[29] conducted an inspection of Minimum and concluded that it "constitute[s] an immediate life threatening situation. The problem has been exacerbated by the over-crowding condition of the Minimum Security Facility. There are hundreds of inmates and staff at the Minimum Security Facility, and there is no means of fire detection or evacuation."[30] (Pls.Ex. 532 at DC0035801.) The report also rated the fire alarm system in the Administration Building, the gymnasium and the cafeteria as "very poor" because the fire alarm panels are not operational, the voice evacuation systems have been removed, the smoke detectors are filthy or painted, and the manual stations are broken or inoperable. (Pls.Ex. 532 at DC0035801.) All of this is the result of Defendants' neglect and improper operation. (Pls.Ex. 525 at DC0035587.) Mr. Stempson and Ronald Jenkins, the D.C.D.C. Fire Marshal selected the proposal of Systems Engineering, Inc. to install a new fire alarm system. (Pls.Ex. 525 at DC0035587.)
On April 8, 1994, Mr. Stempson requested funding for a fire alarm system and stated, 656*656 "The lack of a working, compliant fire alarm system creates hazardous living and working conditions at the institution ... The investment in a new fire alarm system is likely to be much less than the liability resulting from a lawsuit." (Pls.Ex. 525 at DC0035586.)
Mr. Quander, the Executive Deputy Director for the DCDC, responded to Mr. Stempson by speaking with the associate directors and requesting another survey to see if in fact the SEI report was accurate and to determine if funds were available to correct the problem if it existed. (R. 8-47.) Mr. Quander, however, testified that he had no knowledge as to who is responsible for the survey and when it will be complete. (R. 8-58.)
D. Programs
The term "programs" encompasses: 1) educational programs which include academic, college and vocational, 2) work programs which would include work details, industries and work training, 3) recreational programs and 4) religious programs. (R. 5-6.)
The issue of programs must be viewed with an eye toward the general characteristics of an inmate population. In 1992, the demography of women prisoners in D.C. was as follows: 97 percent were African-American; 82 percent were single-parent primary caretakers; 85

percent were unemployed; 42 percent had a twelfth-grade education, and 7 percent were serving sentences for a violent crime. (Pls.Ex. 289 at DC0018269.)
Though women prisoners have access to programming within the D.C. correctional system, women prisoners many times do not receive reception and diagnostic (R & D) studies to determine their programming needs and interests. (Pls.Ex. 281 at DC0018045-46.) This is not the case with male prisoners. (Gibbons Dep. at 62-63.)
A report from the Female Offender Programs Office detailed the Defendant's overall failure to provide adequate programming for women prisoners. The report points to several reasons for the failure but concluded: "[O]f paramount influence is the Department's sudden housing of 99.5 percent of all female D.C.Code offenders without having planned, developed and implemented either programs or resources to meet the long-term treatment needs of this unique population." (Pls.Ex. 281 at DC0018044.) Mr. Plaut and Mr. Quander concede that when the women returned to CTF from the federal system not all programs were in place. (R. 8-19, 8-106.)
In addition to obvious intellectual and financial benefits, the completion of academic, vocational, apprenticeship and higher education programs qualifies women prisoners for good time credits (Pls.Ex. 272 at DC0017648-57.) and an increased industrial wage. (R. 10A-48 (Morning Session).)
On the subject of work opportunities, Ms. Jennie Lancaster, the Plaintiffs' expert penologist, testified:
One of the questions that I also asked during my interviews was what, in the employees' opinion ... caused women to come back to prison in the District.... And what I heard over and over is lack of money to take care of themselves, to take care of their children, inability to have a job....
(R. 5-41.)
1. The Annex
The Court will analyze the quality of programs offered to women prisoners by comparing the minimum custody women at the Annex to similarly situated males at the Minimum Facility (Minimum). The population at Minimum as of January 1994 was 1,103 prisoners; 167 of whom were women.[31] (Pls.Ex. 520 at DC0030884 & DC003092.)
(a) Academic and College Education
Whereas the men at Minimum receive full time Adult Basic Education (ABE) and General Education Development (GED) classes (R. 5-19.), the women at the Annex have one teacher, Ms. Gray, who provides the residents a three-hour ABE class and a three-hour GED class. (R. 5-18.)

Sometimes the classes do not meet. The Defendants closed the school when the D.C. Government planned to move all women prisoners from Minimum to CTF. (R. 5-19.) In 657*657 the summer of 1993, the air conditioning system in the classroom broke, forcing the closure of the school. (R. 4-103.) On another occasion, Ms. Gray broke her leg and missed approximately three months of work. (R. 4-102.) Though Ms. Hazel Smith, then Acting Correctional Program Officer,[32] asked Mr. Stempson for a replacement, no substitute was sent. (Smith Dep. at 105.)
Dr. Ryan, the Defendants' expert penologist, described the basic education offered at the Annex as "minimally adequate." (R. 11-65.) In her tour of the Annex she found women prisoners who would pursue this course of study if another teacher was available. (R. 1166.) For this reason, Dr. Ryan recommends that the Annex hire a new teacher. (R. 11-66.)
The college education at Minimum and the Annex is two pre-college classes and two electives each semester which meet at the main compound. (R. 5-20.) The women rely on escorts who routinely take them to class late. (R. 4-100 to 4-101.)
b) Vocational Education
Vocational programming usually has two components: on-the-job training and a related classroom curriculum. (R. 5-22.) The Annex offers one vocational program to women. This is the Graphic Arts program which is held at Central and lasts 15 weeks. (R. 5-27 to 28.) It would, however, take a year in that program to gain real skills in order to get a job in that industry. (R. 5-28.)
The men at Minimum, as well as women, receive the Employment Training and Awareness Technique Program (ETAP). (Pls.Ex. 674 at 1.)
The limited sentences served by minimum custody prisoners present difficulties for a prisoner since an adequate vocational program usually lasts one to two years. (R. 11-70.)
c) Work Details
The Annex provides residents with work details which are support duties needed for the running of the jail. (R. 5-29) They include maintenance, housekeeping, receptionist, library work, and office clerk. (R. 5-32; Pls.Ex. 379.) They do not perform the more skilled maintenance duties (eg. carpentry, plumbing.) at the Annex. (R. 5-33.)
The male inmates at Minimum have over 30 separate work details. Some of the details are carpentry, dairy, mechanics, painting, plumbing and welding. (R. 5-32 to 33; Pls.Ex. 379.) Some men leave the facility to work on a farm. (R. 5-33.) With the exception of Greensweep and a position at a halfway house, women are confined to the Annex. (R. 5-33.)
d) Industries

A prison industry is a business run out of a prison where goods are produced with inmate labor and then sold to government agencies. (R. 10A-46 (Morning Session).) Prison industries usually offer the highest wage and the most valuable job skills. (R. 5-34.) The pay scale ranges from approximately $80 a month to $300 a month. (Pls.Ex. 225 at DC0008487.) Those working under staff supervision can make up to $1.99 an hour and unsupervised prisoners can earn up to $2.63 an hour. (R. 10A-48 (Morning Session).)
Presently 65 out of the 604 prisoners who participate in industries are women. (R. 10A-48 to 9 (Morning Session).) Women at the Annex participate in the garment shop (50 women) and print shop (2 women) at Central. Men at Minimum may participate in the industries of agriculture and landscape. (Pls.Ex. 674 at 2.) Dr. Wilbert Brown Jr., Assistant Director for Industries, stated that women may not participate in any of the other industries at Central "primarily because of security availability. That is primarily a security accommodation kind of issue because we don't have adequate restrooms...." (R. 10A-50 (Morning Session).) Mr. Brown also testified that the furniture repair shop, the metal fabrication shop and laundry facility do not provide room to adequately view the prisoners. (R. 10A-50 to 51 (Morning Session).) The agricultural program takes place over 460 acres and would be difficult to supervise. (R. 10A-51 to 52 (Morning Session).)
658*658 e) Work Training
Work training is a program which allows inmates to work in the community at regular wages. (R. 5-37.) Mr. William Plaut, the Deputy Director of Operations and the Acting Deputy Director of Programs stated, "the primary mission of the Minimum Security Facility is a work institution, ... it's the institution in the Department whereby inmates, both male and female, can participate in work training programs...." (R. 8-97.)
The policy at Minimum is that a woman prisoner must reside at the facility for 90 days and be one year short of release before she is eligible for work training. (R. 4-144, 5-38.) Then, the women undergo a psychological evaluation. (R. 5-38.) The next step is the four-week ETAP program which is pre-vocational. (R. 5-38 to 39.) Afterward, the case managers must complete paperwork which is usually accomplished in four to eight weeks. (R. 5-39.) Mr. Derr, the vocation development specialist, believes that there are eligible women who cannot participate simply because they do not have paperwork done. He said, "Normally, nine times out of ten the ones who come from CTF are almost eligible...." (Derr I Dep. at 116.)
The women's participation in work training is "token." (R. 5-37.) In 1992, 2 women participated and the following year 3 women took part. (R. 5-37.) Dr. Ryan found on her tour that 4 women participated in work training. (R. 11-71.) Jane Doe XI said that more women do not participate in work training because, "[Y]ou don't ever hear [or read] anything about work training at Minimum Women's Annex unless one of the ladies that had been on work training happens to discuss it with you." (R. 4-148.)
Jane Doe XI had difficulty with this program because Mr. Derr was so busy with other duties that he did not have the time to take women prisoners on job interviews. (R. 4-146 to 147.) Mr. Derr does not have sufficient transportation either. (R. 4-146; Derr I Dep. at 131.)

The average number of men is usually 55 to 60. (R. 5-37 to 5-38.) They work in construction, as truck drivers, and as day laborers. (R. 5-38.) The Administration explains the disparity by citing the varying sentence structures of the men and women. (R. 5-38.)
f) Recreation
The Annex has a recreation trailer which contains a pool table, a ping pong table, exercise bikes and a weight machine. (R. 5-46; Pls.Ex. 27 at DC0000314.) The trailer is scheduled to be open approximately two hours on Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday; three hours on Saturday, and four hours on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. (Pls.Ex. 27 at DC0000313.) The trailer is closed on Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday during visitation hours. (Pls.Ex. 27 at DC0000313.) A staff member, usually Recreation Specialist Hargrove, must open it. (R. 5-46.)
There are no outdoor recreation facilities at the Annex. (R. 5-46.) Ms. Hargrove, therefore, escorts the women as a group to the recreation areas at the Minimum Facility main compound twice a week for three hours. (R. 5-46.) They can participate in volleyball, basketball, handball, ROTC and talent shows. (Pls.Ex. 27 at DC0000314.) Sometimes outside guests perform at events like Gospel shows, fashion shows, and variety shows. (Pls.Ex. 27 at DC0000314.) But Jane Doe VII said that "if the men are having a ... basketball game or volley ball game then they take away our rec time so they can have their games." (R. 4-107.)
The men at Minimum have access to the gymnasium and the ball field for approximately 6 hours in the morning Monday through Friday, and approximately 3 hours on several nights each week, and to the weight trailer 7 days a week during their free time. (Pls.Ex. 498). They may participate in organized intramural team sports. (R. 5-47.) The men may also participate in the Renaissance Drama Class.[33] (R. 4-108.) The women prisoners may not participate in Renaissance and have no equivalent drama program. (R. 4-111, 115; Pls.Ex. 626.)
659*659 g) Religious Programs
In the area of religious programs, Ms. Lancaster stated, "In my experience religious programming promptly draws the greatest number of female inmates than any other program that's routinely offered." (R. 5-51.) The women have Catholic and Protestant services on a weekly basis and a Bible Study Program. (R. 5-50.) A chaplain goes to Minimum three times a week, but the hours are not scheduled and he has no office there. (R. 5-50.) The Defendants have difficulty satisfying the demand for Islamic services because of an inability to acquire volunteers to conduct those services. (R. 9-98 to 99.)
There is no chapel at the Annex (R. 4-118.) so women hold religious services in the visiting hall. (R. 4-117.) Jane Doe VII stated: "During church service if the visitors have to use the bathroom then they'll come ... through the service, and when it's time for the visitors to leave, the females have to get [strip searched]." (R. 4-118.)

The men at Minimum have two Protestant services, Catholic services, Muslim services and four volunteer programs. (R. 5-51 to 52.) A chapel is also located on the grounds and a chaplain is assigned to Minimum. (R. 5-52.)
2. CTF
The Court will analyze the quality of programs offered to women prisoners by comparing medium custody general population women at CTF to the similarly situated men who reside at Occoquan Facility (Occoquan), Central Facility (Central), and the Medium Facility (Medium). As of January 1994 the population in each of those facilities was: 1,373 prisoners at Central, 1,016 at Medium and 1,767 at Occoquan, (Pls.Ex. 520 at DC0030883-85), and 271 women prisoners at CTF (Pls.Ex. 520 at DC0030902.)
a) Academic and College Education
Academic programs are available to women at CTF. The women have ABE class and GED class for approximately 3 hours a day. (R. 5-11 to 12.) These classes are scheduled at the same time as the vocational classes which means that if a woman wants to take both she can take only 1½ hours of each. (R. 9-83 to 84.) The men at Central have an 8-hour ABE class and an 8-hour GED class. (Gibbons Dep. at 61.) At Medium and Occoquan, there are 5½ hour ABE classes and 5½ hour GED classes. (R. 5-12.)
CTF offers college education to women, as well. Presently, Atlantic Union College (AUC) offers a computer-based AA degree program in general studies at the facility for 2½ hours in the morning, 3 days a week. (R. 5-15 to 16.) Residents may apply for a Pell Grant to cover tuition. (R. 5-15.) The credits that they earn with Atlantic are transferable to the University of the District of Columbia. (R. 11-62.) The Defendants expert penologist, testified that the Defendants should offer women prisoners at CTF a four-year program through an accredited university that ensures transferable credits. (R. 11-64 to 11-65.)
Mr. Walter Woodard, the GED teacher, helps women complete their Pell Grant forms; he passes out new books and he tries to correct computer problems. (R. 3-4.) The residents help each other with the classwork and then send it via computer to their AUC teacher in Lancaster, Massachusetts. (R. 3-5.) Women, however, have problems getting class materials (R. 3-5.) and problems delivering their homework in a timely manner long distance. (R. 3-6.) Currently women prisoners can only receive this class three days a week because male prisoners at CTF use the law library two days a week. (R. 3-6.)
Central, Medium and Occoquan offer more extensive college education. Central offers a UDC program which furnishes a B.A. degree, an A.A. degree and precollege courses. (R. 516.) Medium offers the Park College program which is offered 6 hours a day and provides a B.A. degree, a B.S. degree and an A.A. degree. (R. 5-16.) Occoquan gives residents a UDC program which offers an A.A. degree, a B.A. degree and the Park College program which offers a B.A. degree and an A.A. degree. (R. 5-16.) The District of Columbia funds the UDC programs while residents must receive a Pell Grant for the Park College program. (R. 5-16.)

660*660 Though CTF runs a primarily decentralized unit-management system, education programs are centralized. (R. 11-32.) Since CTF is a controlled-movement facility, it is critical that the elevator and the escort service function effectively. (R. 11-101 to 11-102.) Women are taken to elevators which carry them to another floor where a staff member escorts them to the class area. Due to problems with the escort system at CTF, women often arrive late to class. In the male facilities, the men are simply let out of the dormitories or living areas and allowed to go to class independently.[34]
The need for more staff at CTF is recognized even by Defendants' expert penologist Dr. Ryan. (R. 11-102.) The Administration has dealt with the need for extra staff by using overtime. (McCathorine Dep. at 115-16.) Overtime, however, frequently causes "staff burnout" (R. 5-13.) and is recognized by Mr. Quander as not being a long term solution. (R. 8-29.)
Defendants have hired approximately 70 new officers and have the authority to hire an additional 130. (R. 8-27 to 28.) It is unclear how many of these guards will work with women prisoners at CTF. Defendants also claim that the problem with escorts has been corrected by using school passes and designating an elevator operator specifically for women prisoners who are students. (R. 9-119 to 120.)
b) Vocational Education
Graphic Arts is the primary vocational program offered to women at CTF. (R. 5-22.) It is associated with the Docutech Program Lab and there are thirteen women participating in the program right now. (R. 9-33.) It meets five days a week for two and one-half hours in the morning and approximately two hours in the afternoon. Only minimum custody women can join. (Pls.Ex. 306 at DC0018562-63.) The Youth Act women who reside at CTF are required by a consent decree to be in vocational training and fill 2 of the spots. (Pls.Ex. 294 at DC0018420-21; R. 9-33.)
CTF also offers programs in computer literacy, sewing and typing. (Pls.Ex. 306 at DC0018564.) A prerequisite for the computer literacy program is an eighth-grade achievement level. (R. 5-23.) While these are listed as vocational programs, they do not have a classroom component. (R. 5-24.) Furthermore, there have been problems with teachers not appearing for class. (R. 5-23.) Dr. Ryan believes that the Defendants should offer at least one more program. (R. 11-96.)
The men's facilities offer an abundance of vocational opportunities and apprenticeships. (Pls.Ex. 517.) Central offers 15 different programs: Auto Body, Auto Mechanics, Barber Science, Brickmasonry, Building Maintenance, Business Typing, Carpentry, Culinary Arts, Digital Electronics, Drywall, Electricity, Graphic Arts, Landscape, Photography, and Plumbing. (R. 5-24; Pls.Ex. 674.) Medium Facility offers Brickmasonry, Drywall/Painting, and Word Processing. (R. 5-24.) At the Occoquan Facility there is Digital Electronics, Graphic Arts and Photography. (R. 5-25.) All three of the male facilities offer ETAP which is a prevocational course. (R. 5-25.)
Mr. Vincent Gibbons, the Administrator of Central, stated that it would be "an absolute nightmare" if women were escorted to Central to participate in vocational training. (Gibbons

Dep. at 92.) Mr. Gibbons claimed that his position rested on "a combination of factors" but only managed to say that "fraternization" would jeopardize prison security. (Gibbons Dep. 93-95.)
On the staff reaction to the presence of women, Mr. Gibbons stated the following:
[E]arly on, there was a lot of suspicion and a lot of concern about the fact that this was going to pose a major security crisis.... However, that was short lived and everyone has been very, very impressed with how few problems there have been and 661*661 with the fact that the women are generally pretty amicable. They are easy to get along with, friendly, produce good work, and ... again, I have spoken to the shop foreman on a regular basis.
(Gibbons Dep. at 120-21.)
No apprenticeships are available to women at CTF. (R. 5-25.) At Central there are programs in Carpentry, Culinary Arts, Dental Technology, Electricity, Plumbing and Upholstery. (R. 5-25.)
c) Work Details
CTF lists the following as work details: maintenance, culinary, clerical assignments, education aides, environmental, intake, landscape, offices, quick copy, rec clerk, religious, supply management, unit. (Pls.Ex. 363.)
Central offers 25 work details which include those found at CTF, but also give men the opportunity to practice trades like plumbing, carpentry, bricklaying, mechanics, painting, welding, air conditioning, and masonry. (R. 5-30; Pls.Ex. 674 at 3.) Medium offers the typical support jobs but again offers some trades in painting, plumbing, and electrical work. (R. 5-30.) Finally, Occoquan offers the standard support jobs but includes barbering, carpentry, electrical work, heating, painting and plumbing. (R. 5-30 to 31.)
The salary which residents command depends on the skill level of the job and demonstrated proficiency. The range is between $6 and $21 a month with the higher salaries reserved for jobs requiring a trade skill. (R. 5-31.)
d) Industries
At Central there are 10 industries such as Accounting, Furniture Repair, Garment Shop, Print Shop, Upholstery and Metal Shop. (R. 5-35.) Medium offers Furniture Repair and Metro Shop. (Pls.Ex. 674; R. 5-35.) At Occoquan there is a Garment industry. (R. 5-35.)
Though the Defendants referred to plans for an industrial program (R. 8-104.) the only program remotely like an industry is Docutech which as of April 1994 pays some women an industrial rate of pay.[35] (R. 10-A-4.) Defendants' expert penologist Dr. Ryan and the Defendants' Female Offenders Program Coordinator Ms. Regina Gilmore stated that there is no industry at CTF. (R. 11-74; R. 9-28.) Dr. Ryan believes that CTF should create an industry. (R. 11-74.) Single gender shifts are possible if the administration is able to fill the

shift with enough workers and if two shifts can be run in a cost effective manner. (R. 11107.)
e) Recreation
As in other areas of life at CTF, the physical structure and staffing adversely influence the recreational options for women. The women have to be taken to the recreation area and supervised while the men at the other medium security facilities are not supervised. (R. 544.)
The scheduled recreation for women at CTF is one hour a day, five days a week and access to the gymnasium for two hours, three times a week. (R. 5-41; Pls.Ex. 424 at DC0027044.) There is also low-impact aerobics two days a week for an hour each day. (R. 9-121.) Plaintiffs' expert penologist Ms. Lancaster stated, "This recreation time is more like segregation. This is what I am more used to with segregated inmates, ... not for general population inmates." (R. 5-41.) She added, "[T]o have one hour a day of outside time when you haven't done anything wrong and you're not in segregation I think is really unacceptable." (R. 5-42.)
Defendants have recognized these limitations on women from the beginning. In an April 15, 1992 letter to Federal Correctional Programs Division, Mr. Arthur Graves, Associate Director for Operations of DCDC, asked that women who had parole eligibility dates "well beyond the year 2000" not be returned "[s]ince these women will not have the opportunity for extensive outside activities while housed at the CTF...." (Pls.Ex. 320.)
Mr. Vince Gibbons, the Administrator at Central, said that the men at his facility may 662*662 go outside between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (Gibbons Dep. at 129-30.) They can play cards, sports, or other outdoor activities. At Medium, according to Mr. Krull, "Men can have recreation all day long." (Krull Dep. at 66.) At Occoquan, men have five hours of open time during the winter and seven hours of recreation a day during daylight saving time. Mr. David Roach, the Administrator at Maximum, said that men at the Maximum Facility generally have 1-to-2 hours of recreation in the morning and 1-to-2 hours in the afternoon. (Roach Dep. at 17.) All of this can be spent outdoors, weather permitting. (Roach Dep. at 18.)
The outdoor recreation programs at CTF occur in a small area which allows for basketball and volleyball. (R. 5-43.) There is a gymnasium and a weight room. The three men's facilities have group sports such as basketball, football, softball, soccer, and volleyball. (R. 5-43.) Central has a track, a handball court, an arts and crafts program and a drama program. (R. 5-43.) Medium also has a track and a handball court. (R. 5-43.) Occoquan has a track, a field, horse shoes, weights, and handball. (R. 5-43.)
f) Smoking Privileges
Men at the three facilities may smoke outside in designated areas. Smoking is absolutely prohibited within CTF. (Pls.Ex. 249 at DC0009722.) CTF primarily houses prisoners who

are receiving treatment for drug addiction and this ban is part of the facility's substance abuse treatment concept. (R. 5-53.)
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
The elements of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are generally satisfied if a plaintiff can demonstrate that a person acting "under color of state law" deprived the plaintiff of a federal right.[36] Municipalities and local government officials sued in their official capacities are considered "persons" under the statute, Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 & n. 55, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2035 & n. 55, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), and action taken pursuant to power conferred by state law and made possible because a person "is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken `under color of state law." Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 184, 81 S.Ct. 473, 482, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). The Defendants plainly are persons acting under color of state law within the meaning of § 1983. The dispute in this case centers on whether a federal rights have been violated and whether the Defendants caused the violations to occur.
A municipality is liable where "the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers." Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2035-36, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). It is also liable for "deprivations visited pursuant to governmental `custom' even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decisionmaking channels." Id. at 691, 98 S.Ct. at 2036.
The Supreme Court, though generally divided on what constitutes a municipal "policy," has ruled that a municipality is liable for constitutional violations which result from the municipalities failure to train its employees. Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). This may arise when "in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need." Id. at 390, 109 S.Ct. at 663*663 1205.[37]
B. The Eighth Amendment
Today, there is no serious constitutional argument against the proposition that the conditions within a prison are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has stated:
When the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well being.... The rationale for this principle is simple enough: when the State by the affirmative exercise of its power so restrains an individual's liberty that it

renders him unable to care for himself, and at the same time fails to provide for his basic human needs — e.g., food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety — it transgresses the substantive limits on state action set by the Eighth Amendment....
Helling v. McKinney, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 2480, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993) (quoting DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 199-200, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1005-1006, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989)).
In Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991), the Supreme Court provided the framework which courts must use when deciding whether certain conditions of confinement constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiffs in prison conditions cases must satisfy objective and subjective standards before a court can find that a correctional institution has violated the Eighth Amendment.
Under the objective standard, plaintiffs must demonstrate a deprivation which amounts to a wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2399, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). Though a condition may be harsh, it is a constitutional element of a prisoner's penalty if it is not cruel and unusual relative to contemporary standards of decency. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2399, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). Since the Constitution "does not mandate comfortable prisons, ... only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation." Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2324, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). The Eighth Amendment does not protect prisoners from inadvertent injury or errors in good faith. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 1084, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986).
The combination of some conditions of confinement may constitute an Eighth Amendment violation though each would not do so alone, "but only when they have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need such as food, warmth, or exercise — for example, a low cell temperature at night combined with a failure to issue blankets." Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2327, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991).
A condition which has not caused any present injury may still violate the Eighth Amendment if it "is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering." Helling v. McKinney, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 2480, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). In these situations a Court must then determine whether society considers this risk to 664*664 be so serious that it violates contemporary standards of decency. Id. ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2481.
A court may assess contemporary standards with the help of expert opinion, but such information does not define the "constitutional minima" and "cannot weigh as heavily in determining contemporary standards of decency as the public attitude toward a given sanction." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348 n. 13, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2400 n. 13, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 543-44 n. 27, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1876 n. 27, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) and Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2925, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)).

The subjective standard requires plaintiffs to prove that prison officials acted with "deliberate indifference" to inmate health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1977, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). The Supreme Court has stated:
A prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.
Id. ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 1979.
A factfinder may make inferences about a prison official's state of mind by examining circumstantial evidence and in some cases, "conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious." Id. ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 1981. Plaintiffs could prove that prison officials had actual knowledge of a risk if the risk was "longstanding, pervasive, well-documented, or expressly noted by prison officials in the past, and the circumstances suggest that the defendant-official being sued had been exposed to information concerning the risk and thus `must have known' about it...." Id. While prison officials may prove that they were ignorant of an obvious risk or thought of the risk as insubstantial, an official may not refuse to investigate facts or inferences that he strongly suspects indicate the existence of a condition which violates the Eighth Amendment. Id. ___ U.S. at ___ n. 8, 114 S.Ct. at 1982 n. 8. Officials who know of the substantial risk to inmate safety, however, may escape liability if they respond reasonably to the risk, even if the harm still occurs. Id. ___ U.S. at ___-___, 114 S.Ct. at 1982-83.
In a suit for injunctive relief to correct a substantial risk of serious injury, the subjective dimension of the Eighth Amendment analysis should be determined by examining the attitudes and conduct of prison officials at the time suit is brought and thereafter. Id. ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 1983. If at trial a plaintiff adequately proves the existence of an objectively intolerable risk of serious injury, the prison authorities could not possibly claim that they are subjectively unaware of the risk since the trial itself puts them on notice. Id. ___ U.S. at ___ n. 9, 114 S.Ct. at 1983 n. 9. Despite the fact that officials might have been subjectively culpable at the beginning of the case, an injunction will not be issued if they prove during the litigation that "they [are] no longer deliberately indifferent to an objectively intolerable risk of harm and that they would not revert to their obduracy upon the cessation of litigation." Id.
C. Sexual Harassment at the Annex, CTF and the Jail
1. The Eighth Amendment[38]
Under the objective standard, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a deprivation which 665*665 amounts to a wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. The evidence revealed a level of sexual harassment which is so malicious that it violates contemporary standards of decency. The physical assaults endured by women prisoners at the Annex, CTF and the Jail unquestionably violate the Eighth Amendment. Rape, coerced sodomy, unsolicited

touching of women prisoners' vaginas, breasts and buttocks by prison employees are "simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society." See, Farmer v. Brennan, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1977, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).
In combination, vulgar sexual remarks of prison officers, the lack of privacy within CTF cells and the refusal of some male guards to announce their presence in the living areas of women prisoners constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment since they mutually heighten the psychological injury of women prisoners.
There is a substantial risk of injury when officers make sexual remarks in an environment where sexual assaults of women prisoners by officers are well known and inadequately addressed. In free society, a woman who experiences harassment may seek the protection of police officers, friends, coworkers or relevant social service agencies. She may also have the option of moving to locations where the harassment would no longer occur. In sharp contrast, the safety of women prisoners is entrusted to prison officials, some of whom harass women prisoners and many of whom tolerate the harassment. Furthermore, the women are tightly confined, making their escape from harassment as unlikely as escape from the jail itself.
Routine invasions of bodily privacy, such as men peering into women's cells at CTF or the unannounced presence of male guards in female living areas provide a reminder to women prisoners that their exposure to abuse is almost endless. Though the Court is aware that in some instances, security concerns will take priority over privacy interests, the evidence did not show security based reasons for an inability to furnish women some privacy or for the refusal of some guards to announce their presence. The exposure of prisoners' bodies without any justification is unacceptable and increases the level of anxiety experienced by women prisoners.[39]
The health problems created by sexual harassment furnish more than enough evidence to satisfy the objective component of the Eighth Amendment analysis. Dr. Susan Fiester, the Plaintiffs' expert in the area of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct, demonstrated that the abuse caused significant depression, nausea, frequent headaches, insomnia, fatigue, anxiety, irritability, nervousness, and a loss of self-esteem.[40] Though some female prisoners have not suffered as much as the named Plaintiffs in this case, sexual harassment within the three facilities is so pervasive that other women prisoners are very likely to suffer serious harm in the future.
The Court finds also that the Defendants have violated the subjective standard of the Eighth Amendment by acting with "deliberate indifference" to the condition of sexual harassment which women prisoners at the three facilities must endure. The Court finds that Defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk of sexual assaults and harassment of women prisoners. The evidence demonstrated that the women prisoners filed complaints with the police and they sent IGP's and letters of complaint to prison 666*666 administrators. The circumstantial evidence allows at least the inference of deliberate indifference since the harassment was so obvious. Indeed, assaults are widely known by DCDC staff, vulgar comments are made openly and women are fondled publicly.

The Defendants demonstrate further disregard for women prisoners by failing to respond reasonably upon discovering instances of sexual harassment. There is no staff training on the subject of sexual harassment of women prisoners. There are no posted procedures for filing an IGP and no instructions or procedures for reporting harassment of women prisoners. Consequently, there is no clear understanding of what constitutes sexual harassment and how it should be reported. Some employees go to the Director, others do nothing but tell other employees who then pass the story along the grapevine. Some employees do not report an incident because the Defendants do not keep sensitive information confidential and do not conduct effective investigations.
The lack of confidentiality also causes women prisoners to suffer the additional trauma of having the small community in which they live know the details of a degrading assault. They may also be the targets of retaliation. By leaking private information prison officials coerce women prisoners and staff into silence and insulate themselves from scrutiny.
Those women prisoners who do pursue their case have little cause for hope because investigations are not taken seriously. The record shows that the Defendants often respond slowly and superficially to allegations of sexual misconduct. Mr. Krull admitted that the DCDC has no policy for investigating sexual misconduct. Mr. Henderson, as the Administrator of the Jail would not initiate investigations into sexual misconduct and left it to the police. Mr. Plaut believed that he had to wait for a conviction before he could take action. The invariable result is that cases "cannot be resolved" and officers who commit the assaults are often reassigned to another facility or allowed to remain in the same facility. The Court does not believe that a reasonable attempt to investigate sexual misconduct within the three facilities would so consistently achieve inconclusive results. The Court also believes that the reassignment of assaultive guards communicates to employees that sexual misconduct is not a serious matter, thus permitting future assaults.
Defendants also respond to allegations of sexual misconduct by placing the alleged victim in protective custody. Protective custody is the same treatment given to inmates when they are being punished. There is no reason for a women prisoner to feel safe in isolation when an attacker can gain access to her cell.
The Court finds that the Defendants have not proven during the litigation that they are no longer deliberately indifferent to the sexual harassment which occurs at the three facilities. Assaults continued to occur after the filing of this suit and a month before trial, a Deputy Warden told a woman prisoner that she should not provide information to a lawyer representing the Plaintiffs in this case. There is also no evidence that the Defendants have changed their approach to staff training, reporting and investigations.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have proven an Eighth Amendment violation by demonstrating a level of sexual harassment that is objectively cruel and to which the Defendants are deliberately indifferent.
2. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
The sexual harassment which the Plaintiffs suffer is the result of a governmental custom which has not received formal approval through the body's official decision-making

channels. In discussing sexual harassment, the former Administrator at CTF, Mr. Howard Ray Jr., suggested that sexual misconduct is a "custom" when he stated that it has always happened and will continue into the future.
The Court holds the Defendants liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because guards at the three facilities inflict injury on the women while executing a government custom of sexual harassment, notwithstanding the Defendants' official policies regarding sexual misconduct.
667*667 The evidence also demonstrates that the Defendants fail to properly train their employees in the area of sexual harassment of women prisoners. The only substantive training in the area of sexual harassment focuses on harassment in the workplace. Considering the duties of officers at the three facilities, the need for training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, the Court finds that the Defendants are deliberately indifferent.
The Court, therefore, finds that the sexual harassment of women prisoners at the Annex, CTF and the Jail violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
D. Obstetrical and Gynecological Care at CTF[41]
1. D.C.Code § 24-442 (1989)[42]
Plaintiffs claim that the lack of adequate obstetrical and gynecological care violates the law of the District of Columbia as embodied in D.C.Code § 24-442 (1989). This statute states in pertinent part:
[The] Department of Corrections ... shall ... be responsible for the safekeeping, care, protection, instruction, and discipline of all persons committed to [facilities under its jurisdiction].
D.C.Code § 24-442 (1989).
This statute encompasses the common law rule which imposes upon prison authorities and employees, a duty to exercise reasonable care in the protection and safekeeping of prisoners. Hughes v. District of Columbia, 425 A.2d 1299, 1302 (D.C.App.1981). In order to prevail on a claim under this statute, a "plaintiff must establish by competent evidence a standard of care; that the defendant violated the standard; and that such violation proximately caused injury to the plaintiff." Id. A plaintiff must establish a lack of proper correctional care by demonstrating with competent expert testimony, or other supporting proof, that what occurred in the case was "a negligent deviation from the demonstrated acceptable standard." Id. at 1303. A plaintiff is required to offer expert testimony where the subject matter at issue is "so distinctly related to some science, profession, or occupation as to be beyond the ken of the average layperson." Toy v. District of Columbia, 549 A.2d 1, 6 (D.C.App.1988). In the area of medical care, physicians owe the same standard of care to prisoners as physicians owe to private patients generally. District of Columbia v. Mitchell, 533 A.2d 629, 648 (D.C.App.1987).

Once plaintiffs demonstrate a deviation from the accepted standard they must then present evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find that there was a direct and substantial causal relationship between the defendant's breach of the standard of care and the plaintiff's injuries and that the injuries were foreseeable. Bell v. Jones, 523 A.2d 982, 995 (D.C.App.1986).
The Plaintiffs established the appropriate standard of care through Dr. Major who is a board-certified physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology. (Pls.Ex. 639; R. at 3-41.) Dr. Major referred to community and national standards in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, specifically the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. (R. 3-45.) He also relied on his 35 years of experience as an obstetrician and gynecologist. Five of those years were spent directing obstetrical and gynecological services in a correctional institution. (Pls.Ex. 639 at 1; R. at 3-45.)
The evidence demonstrates that the Defendants have deviated from the standard of acceptable medical care for women prisoners. The Court holds that the record supports Dr. Major's testimony as to the following deviations 668*668 from the general standard of adequate medical care: deficient gynecological examination and testing (R. 3-58.), inadequate testing for sexually transmitted diseases (R. 3-73 to 3-74.), inadequate follow-up care (R. 3-79 to 3-80, 3-83.), grossly inadequate health education (R. 3-86.), inadequate prenatal care (R. 3-94.), inadequate prenatal protocol (R. 3-95.) and ineffective prenatal education (R. 3-115.). These problems are compounded by the Defendants' inability to provide a reliable system of transportation or a confidential sick call process. Consequently, women prisoners miss appointments for lack of a vehicle or refuse help for fear of revealing the details of their medical history.
The Defendants even deviate from their own standards. The Defendants do not follow the Memorandum of Understanding which requires multilevel consultation between D.C. General and CTF, the Defendants do not follow their policy of thorough intake examinations and health education and they do not follow the policy of comprehensive prenatal care.[43]
These deviations are the proximate cause of foreseeable injury to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants' failure to thoroughly educate women prisoners results in refusals of medical help. Inadequate examinations and follow-up treatment permit cervical and breast cancer, opportunistic infections in AIDS patients, sterility as a result of chlamydia and gonorrhea, peritonitis from gonorrhea, and aortic aneurysms, dementia, psychosis or death from syphilis. Even conditions that are ultimately benign may cause great discomfort.
A penologically unnecessary arrangement which contributes to the diminution of life expectancy, an increase in pain, the delivery of a baby in a jail cell, and the anxiety of a prolonged wait for potentially life-saving medical procedures is intolerable. This is particularly true in the many cases where a lack of transportation or confidentiality impedes treatment.
Defendants have made some efforts to correct deficiencies in prenatal care by holding parenting classes, prenatal exercise classes and a "therapeutic community". Though these are positive measures, the creation of the exercise classes and the "therapeutic community" so close to trial calls into question the permanence of these measures. Nonetheless, the

necessary reforms in obstetrical and gynecological care must be more comprehensive to bring the Defendants into compliance with D.C.Code § 24-442.
2. The Eighth Amendment
Plaintiffs raise several additional claims which are on the periphery of obstetrical and gynecological care: shackling of pregnant women prisoners, child visitation and child placement counseling.[44] The Court believes that these matters are best resolved by Wilson v. Seiter analysis rather than the approach of Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) which addresses the provision of medical services to prisoners.
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the manner in which the Defendants shackle pregnant women prisoners in the third trimester of pregnancy and immediately after delivery poses a risk so serious that it violates contemporary standards of decency. The Court understands that the Defendants may need to shackle a woman prisoner who has a history of assaultive behavior or escapes. In general, however, the physical limitations of a woman in the third trimester of pregnancy and the pain involved in delivery make complete shackling redundant and unacceptable in light of the risk of injury to a woman and baby. The Court believes that leg shackles adequately secure women prisoners without creating an inhumane condition of confinement during the third trimester. While a woman is in labor and shortly thereafter, however, the Court holds that shackling is inhumane.
669*669 The combination of a lack of child visitation and inadequate child placement counseling at CTF constitute an Eighth Amendment violation because they have a mutually enforcing effect which results in an unacceptable risk of trauma for women prisoners who have recently delivered babies. Few events could be more stressful than the forced separation of a parent from his or her child. Though the injuries which flow from the Defendants' actions in this area are primarily psychological, there is nothing to suggest that the Eighth Amendment is limited to physical injury. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 15, 112 S.Ct. 995, 1004, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) (concurring opinion, Blackmun, J.)
The Court finds that the Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference in these areas since the risk of injury to women prisoners is obvious. Deputy Warden Jones stated that he would not shackle a third trimester woman which suggests that he recognizes the risk.
The Defendants recognize that such a separation for women prisoners, in most cases, is extremely painful. It is, however, unfortunately necessary in order for a mother to serve her sentence. But to forbid child visitation while a baby is at D.C. General serves no penological purpose. Similarly, denial of adequate child placement counseling furthers no legitimate correctional policy. Both deprivations plainly heighten a mother's anxiety to an unreasonable level.
The evidence which emerged through litigation failed to demonstrate that the Defendants were no longer deliberately indifferent to the need for greater child visitation and child placement counseling. The evidence did not show that the Defendants no longer continue to fully shackle third trimester women prisoners.

3. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
The Defendants shackle third trimester pregnant women prisoners pursuant to official policy. Though the Defendants have a policy which calls for child placement counseling, the Defendants are liable because the custom of the Defendants is to provide inadequate counseling in these areas. The Defendants deny adequate child visitation as a result of an unwritten but closely followed policy. The Court, therefore, finds that the shackling of third trimester women prisoners, inadequate child placement counseling and the lack of child visitation at CTF violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
E. Fire Safety at the Annex
1. The Eighth Amendment
The Plaintiffs have shown that the living conditions of women prisoners at the Annex present a risk of injury by fire so serious that it violates contemporary standards of decency. The Court finds the testimony of Mr. Jaeger, the Plaintiffs' expert in the field of fire safety, to be helpful with respect to the fire safety of the Annex.[45] His expert testimony demonstrated that several conditions working in concert create an objectively intolerable situation. The Annex dormitories are overcrowded, they carry a heavy combustible load, the walls cannot contain a fire within any room, only one fire exit consistently remains unlocked, there is no fire alarm system, there is no sprinkler system and fire drills are not regularly conducted. The Administration Building, the gymnasium and cafeteria have a poor fire alarm system.
The Court finds that each of these conditions has a mutually enforcing effect of exposing residents to an unconstitutionally intolerable risk of injury by fire. These conditions are at least very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering. The Court does not have to wait for the Plaintiffs to be incinerated before it can order the Defendants to raise the level of fire safety at the Annex.
Application of the subjective standard of the Eighth Amendment shows that the Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the risk of fire at the Annex. The 670*670 Court finds that the Defendants knew that a substantial risk of serious harm to inmate health or safety existed and they disregarded the risk.
The Annex fire hazards are longstanding, pervasive, well-documented, and expressly noted by prison officials. The Warden at Minimum has acknowledged that the absence of an adequate fire alarm system creates a hazard to residents. Even without Mr. Stempson's statements, Mr. Jaeger demonstrated the existence of fire hazards at the Annex, thus defeating any claim that the Defendants are not aware of fire hazards at the Annex.
The Defendants, however, have not proven during the litigation that they are no longer deliberately indifferent to the lack of fire safety at the Annex. Mr. Quander requested another survey to verify the findings in the a report that was accepted by the DCDC Fire Marshal. He had no knowledge as to who is responsible for the survey and when it will be finished. Even Mr. Stempson justified his request for a fire alarm system by referring to the

cost of a lawsuit. Many conditions which preclude litigation, however, have nothing to do with living conditions in a facility. The Court can easily imagine several factors which might have prevented a suit in this case: prisoner ignorance of legal claims, inability to obtain counsel or the desire of short-term residents not to antagonize the administration so close to their release date. The fire hazards at the Annex should have been corrected regardless of any legal action. References to litigation costs suggest that the Defendants in this instance will respond only to court orders.
The Court holds that the Defendants' failure to move promptly to ameliorate the fire hazards at the Annex amounts to deliberate indifference.
2. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Clearly, the Defendants do not have an official policy which requires the Defendants to create a firetrap at the Annex. But the Court does find that the deplorable level of fire safety at the Annex is the consequence of a decision by the Defendants not to correct the conditions which they acknowledge are hazardous.
In addition, the evidence demonstrates that written policies notwithstanding, the Defendants fail to train their employees in the area of fire safety and the Defendants do not follow their plan which calls for quarterly drills. Since the Defendants' inadequate training is so likely to cause injury to the approximately 170 women prisoners who must be evacuated during a fire, the Court concludes that the Defendants have been deliberately indifferent. Consequently, the Court finds that the lack of fire safety at the Annex violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
F. General Conditions at the Annex
1. The Eighth Amendment
The Plaintiffs have shown that the living conditions of women prisoners at the Annex violate contemporary standards of decency. The combination of certain conditions of confinement satisfies the objective component of Eighth Amendment analysis because the conditions are very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering. The infestation of roaches, torn mattresses, inadequate bathing and toilet facilities, excessive crowding, lack of mechanical ventilation, unclean floors, inadequate drainage, inadequate lighting, and uncovered dumpsters all have been shown to raise the risk of illness and injury to a constitutionally unacceptable level. The filthy condition of the kitchen area at Minimum, food served at hazardously low temperatures, the failure to use liners in the laundry carts, and inadequate ventilation at the printing and garment shop also expose women prisoners to a similarly unacceptable risk of illness and injury.
The Court has located conditions which violate the Eighth Amendment not because they produce surroundings which are unattractive or food which is unappetizing. These conditions are cruel and unusual because they combine to create an unconstitutionally high exposure to illness or injury. Furthermore, the Court finds these conditions unconstitutional

not because the Plaintiffs' environmental health expert, Mr. Duel, summarized them as "unacceptable". They are unconstitutional because his expert testimony 671*671 specifically demonstrated the particular illnesses and injuries which are likely to result from each of the conditions and because the Court finds that these hazards violate contemporary standards of decency.
Apart from the previously mentioned conditions, the Court is reluctant to find unconstitutional anything which simply increases "stress" unless it is truly egregious. For this reason the Court does not find that the daytime noise levels significantly threaten the health of women prisoners.
Application of the subjective standard of the Eighth Amendment shows that the Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the inhumane conditions at the Annex. The Defendants were aware of facts from which they inferred the existence of a substantial risk of serious harm to women prisoners and they disregarded the risk. Mr. Krull's suggestion that the placement of short-term offenders at the Annex would reduce the risk of a lawsuit suggests a general strategy to avoid repairing poor conditions.
But the record also contains much evidence of Defendants' recognition of specific problems. Ms. Gilmore recognized in July 1993 that repair needs of the Annex had reached "crisis proportions." The record also contains letters in which inmates notified the administration about other "deplorable" conditions and even offered to repair the defects. The Court believes at the very least, that conditions at the Annex are so obviously unhealthy that the Court may infer the Defendants' deliberate indifference.
Yet, the Defendants have not proven during the litigation that they are no longer deliberately indifferent to the inhumane conditions at the Annex. Since the Defendants have made no significant improvements at the Annex they certainly cannot claim that they have responded reasonably to the risk since discovering it. A June 1994 inspection revealed little change: a repaired roof, a replaced kitchen ceiling, new lighting for the walk-in coolers, bathrooms for women at the garment shop and improved delivery of food at the industries. The improvements, occurring so close to trial and easily capable of deterioration, do not persuade the Court that these limited areas of concern are permanently improved. Even if these changes were permanent, they would not bring the level of safety at the Annex to the constitutional minimum of acceptability.
2. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
As with the fire hazards at the Annex the Court cannot find a policy statement which permits such awful conditions to persist at the Annex. Nonetheless, these conditions remain because the Defendants customarily refuse to provide residents at the Annex with a living environment that satisfies the Constitutional minimum. Consequently, the Court finds that the unhealthy living conditions at the Annex violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
G. Fire Safety at CTF

1. D.C.Code § 24-442 (1989)[46]
The evidence revealed a variety of problems at CTF. There is a lack of maintenance and testing of certain elements of the present fire protection system. The sprinkler system is not being adequately maintained and tested. There is maintenance of the fire pump but no testing. Fire drills are held infrequently. There is water leakage in the basement where electrical equipment is exposed. Storage in some of the culinary spaces block the sprinkler system.
Plaintiffs claim that the lack of fire safety violates the law of the District of Columbia as embodied in D.C.Code § 24-442 (1989). The Court infers from the statute an obligation of prison authorities and employees to exercise reasonable care in the "protection" and "safekeeping" of prisoners from fire hazards. Mr. Justin Taylor, the Defendants' expert in the field of fire safety, testified that the sprinkler system should be tested quarterly. Mr. Jaeger demonstrated that standards require annual testing of the fire pump. Mr. Jaeger also explained how the leakage of water threatened to get into the 672*672 electrical conduit and electrical equipment and cause a fire. The national standard for fire drills calls for four drills per shift per year.
The Court finds that the Defendants failure to test the sprinkler system quarterly, the failure to maintain the sprinkler system, the failure to test the fire pump annually, the leakage of water in the basement and culinary area, the failure to conduct adequate fire drills and the blocking of the sprinklers in the culinary spaces all violate D.C.Code § 24-442.
H. General Conditions at CTF
1. The Eighth Amendment
The Plaintiff's have shown that the living conditions of women at CTF present a health risk so serious that it violates contemporary standards of decency.
The combination of conditions surrounding the inadequate heating unit create an objective violation of the Eighth Amendment. The malfunction in the heating unit causes freezing temperatures in cells. In addition, not all women are given an adequate number of blankets for warmth. This is the precise example of an Eighth Amendment violation offered by the Supreme Court in Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2327, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991).
Other conditions at CTF combine to increase the risk of illness among women prisoners. The evidence demonstrated a problem with mice, a lack of liners in the laundry carts, inoperable toilets in cells, a lack of cleaning supplies, unsanitary kitchen facilities, hazardous special diet meals and shower leaks which cause ceiling tiles to fall. In addition, the malfunction of the heating unit causes poor ventilation. As with similar conditions at the Annex, the expert testimony demonstrated a clear link between these conditions and various diseases and injury.

The Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to these conditions at CTF. The Court finds that the Defendants have been aware of these conditions, know of their danger and have not made any significant changes. Since January 1993, the Defendants have known that cells housing women prisoners were extremely cold. The Defendants have known about the rodent problem since at least September 1993. CTF staff admitted to Mr. Duel that there was an internal distribution problem with supplies. (R. 6-62 to 63.)
The Defendants have not proven during the litigation that they are no longer deliberately indifferent to the inhumane conditions at CTF. Mr. White, Chief of Facilities at CTF, informed Mr. Duel that he has doubts about recent efforts to fix the heating system. There is no evidence that problems with food preparation, mice, laundry carts, toilets, cleaning supplies and shower ceiling tiles have been fixed. The situation with the special diets at CTF had improved but the nutritionist who made many of the improvements in food delivery may not have longterm employment at CTF. The Court is not satisfied that the positive changes in this area are permanent.
2. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
The Court finds that the longstanding health hazards which exist at CTF are the result of a decision by the DCDC not to promptly abate these hazardous conditions. The Court therefore, finds that the Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
I. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...." 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).[47] The Plaintiffs ask the Court to apply this statute to the programs offered to women prisoners at the Annex and CTF.
Not many cases in the federal courts have dealt with the issue of Title IX's applicability to prison education programs or activities. The Ninth Circuit, however, recently explored the issue in Jeldness v. Pearce, 30 673*673 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.1994). That case involved a class of women prisoners who alleged, inter alia, that the Oregon State Department of Corrections violated Title IX and its regulations by discriminating against women prisoners in six educational and vocational training programs in the Oregon penal system. Id. at 1222. The court in Jeldness held that "state prisons receiving federal funds are required by Title IX to make reasonable efforts to offer the same educational opportunities to women as to men. Although the programs need not be identical in number or content, women must have reasonable opportunities for similar studies and must have an equal opportunity to participate in programs of comparable quality." Id. at 1229. The Court believes that this is an accurate reading of Title IX.
The plain language of Title IX indicates that the statute applies to "any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" with certain statutory exceptions. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Prisons are not listed as an exception to Title IX. The Court has no

reason to infer from the statute or its regulations that Congress intended for Title IX not to cover prisons. As the Jeldness court indicated, Congress amended Title IX on two occasions after two federal courts applied the statute to prisons, yet Congress did not add an exemption for prisons on either occasion. See, id. at 1225 (referring to Canterino v. Wilson, 546 F.Supp. 174 (W.D.Ken.1982), vacated on other grounds, 869 F.2d 948 (6th Cir.1989), and Beehler v. Jeffes, 664 F.Supp. 931 (M.D.Pa. 1986)).
In order to determine the extent of Title IX's coverage, courts have referred to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since Title IX uses the same language as Title VI, courts generally hold that they require the same levels of protection and equality. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 696, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 1957, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). But Title VI is a useful guide in construing Title IX only to the extent that the language and history of Title IX do not suggest a contrary interpretation. Northhaven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 529, 102 S.Ct. 1912, 1922, 72 L.Ed.2d 299 (1982). Though the Supreme Court has stated that the protection provided by Title VI is not broader than that offered by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 287, 325, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 2746-47, 2766, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978) (opinion of Powell, J.; Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, JJ., concurring), Title IX and Title VI use the same language and therefore, as a matter of statutory interpretation, they should be read to require the same levels of protection and equality. Jeldness v. Pearce, 30 F.3d 1220, 1227 (9th Cir.1994). "They should not be read to require different levels of protection [simply] because the Equal Protection Clause is interpreted differently for race than for gender." Id. at 1227-28.
During congressional debates on the provisions which became Title IX, Senator Bayh, who introduced the legislation stated:
While the impact of this amendment would be far-reaching, it is not a panacea. It is, however, an important first step in the effort to provide for the women of America something that is rightfully theirs — an equal chance to attend the schools of their choice, to develop the skills they want, and to apply those skills with the knowledge that they will have a fair chance to secure the jobs of their choice with equal pay for equal work.
118 Cong.Rec. 5808. (1972) (Emphasis added). In response to questions about the legislation, the Senator said, "This amendment sets no quotas. It only guarantees equality of opportunity." 118 Cong.Rec. 5812. (1972) (Emphasis added).[48]
In Northhaven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 102 S.Ct. 1912, 72 L.Ed.2d 299 (1982), the Supreme Court examined Title 674*674 IX's legislative history and held, "Although the statements of one legislator made during debate may not be controlling ..., Senator Bayh's remarks, as those of the sponsor of the language ultimately enacted, are an authoritative guide to the statute's construction." Id. at 526-27, 102 S.Ct. at 1920-21. The legislative history, therefore, makes clear that Title IX requires equality of treatment, nothing less.
The language of Title IX's implementing regulations suggest that they apply to correctional institutions as well. They propose to cover "any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, whether or not such program or activity is offered or sponsored

by an educational institution...." 34 C.F.R. § 106.1. The regulations also define a "recipient" as
[A]ny State or political subdivision thereof, or any instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof, any public or private agency, institution, or organization, or other entity, or any person, to whom Federal financial assistance is extended directly or through another recipient and which operates an education program or activity which receives or benefits from such assistance, including any subunit, successor, assignee, or transferee thereof.
34 C.F.R. sec. 106.2(h). Like Title IX, the regulations list specific exceptions which do not include prisons.
Title IX's implementing regulations specifically target areas of concern. They prohibit sexual discrimination "under any academic, extracurricular, ... occupational training or other education program or activity operated" by an entity that receives federal funds. 34 C.F.R. § 106.31(a). The denial of access to course offerings on the basis of sex is forbidden. 34 C.F.R. § 106.34. A recipient of federal funds must also provide equal athletic opportunity. 34 C.F.R. § 106.41. Finally, the regulations prohibit discrimination in the provision of employment opportunities and apprentice training programs. 34 C.F.R. § 106.38 and Pt. 100, App. B, VII-A & VII-B.
Under Title IX and its implementing regulations, prisons may not have to offer as many classes in the typically smaller female prison as opposed to the typically larger male prison, but the number of classes offered should at least be proportionate, not just to the total number of inmates, but to the number of inmates desiring to take educational programs. Jeldness v. Pearce, 30 F.3d 1220, 1229 (9th Cir.1994). In addressing the requirements of Title IX, a prison may not prevail by simply using penological necessity as a defense since it is just one factor in how the equality principles of Title IX are to be applied. Id. at 1230. In addition, a desire to preserve the state's limited resources cannot be used to justify an allocation of those resources which unfairly denies women equal access to programs routinely available to men. Canterino v. Wilson, 546 F.Supp. 174, 211 (W.D.Ky.1982).
There is disagreement in the federal courts as to the state of mind required for a violation of Title IX. The Court again notes the Supreme Court's holding that "[t]he drafters of Title IX explicitly assumed that it would be interpreted [like] ... Title VI....", Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 696, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 1957, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and that a majority of justices have stated that Title VI requires "intentional discrimination" in order to prove a statutory violation. See Guardians Ass'n v. Civil Service Comm'n, 463 U.S. 582, 608 n. 1, 103 S.Ct. 3221, 3235 n. 1, 77 L.Ed.2d 866 (1983) (Powell, J., concurring) ("Seven members of the Court agree that a violation of [Title VI] requires proof of discriminatory intent.").[49]
675*675 Discriminatory intent, however, is only an issue in cases involving facially neutral policies. See Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 274, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 2293-94, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979). When a classification is expressly defined in terms of gender, an inquiry into intent is unnecessary. Canterino v. Barber, 564 F.Supp. 711, 714 (W.D.Ky.1983). Defendants policy of segregating male and female prisoners is just such a gender-based policy. By virtue of their gender, women prisoners are sent to

certain facilities which offer program opportunities that are different from those offered in the male facilities. Though the reason for sex-based segregation in prisons is rational, "the absence of a malevolent motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect." United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187, 199, 111 S.Ct. 1196, 1203-1204, 113 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991).
1. "Similarly Situated" Analysis
The Court will compare prisoners who are similarly situated by virtue of their similar custody levels, sentence structures and purposes of incarceration. The Court finds that women prisoners at the Annex are similarly situated to the male prisoners at Minimum and the Court also finds that women prisoners at CTF are similarly situated to the male prisoners at Occoquan, Central and Medium.
The women prisoners incarcerated at the Annex like the male prisoners at Minimum are within two years of a presumptive release date. (Pls.Ex. 621 at WP00034, WP00033 at 6.) Both of these populations are preparing for release into the community and therefore, have the same need to fully prepare themselves for this stage of their lives.
The women prisoners at CTF are medium custody, general population inmates.[50] Medium custody general population men are sent, in order of security level, to either Occoquan, Central or Medium. (Gibbons Dep. at 43-44.) A comparison to CTF men would be inappropriate because the men reside at CTF for either short-term diagnostic attention or a voluntary 18-month intensive substance abuse program. (Pls.Ex. 319.) In contrast, the Plaintiffs who reside at CTF do not choose to live at there. (R. 8-66.)
Each of the male facilities perform different functions. Occoquan is a sentence-serving institution for "male felons who decline to participate in the high intensity programming offered at Central Facility." (Pls.Ex. 621 at WP00035; Gibbons Dep. at 44.) The purpose of Central is to provide program opportunities to prisoners "who wish to participate in high intensity and comprehensive programming." (Pls.Ex. 621 at WP00032.) Medium is designed to prepare prisoners for the transition to a minimum security facility, a halfway house or parole. (Id. at 44.; Krull at 35.) It is possible for the men at Medium to transfer to the other two facilities and men from the other facilities may be sent to Medium. (Krull Dep. at 34.) If an inmate at Medium has certain programming needs that are only available at Occoquan or Central then the Defendants will try to send him to one of those facilities. (Krull Dep. at 38.) The record, therefore, demonstrates that medium custody men generally have access to all of the programs offered at the three medium custody male facilities.
The Defendants argue that because women prisoners have needs which are unique to women prisoners, a comparison to male prisoners is inappropriate. (Defs. Trial Brief at 218.) The Defendants point to a 676*676 variety of differences to support their argument, although there is evidence that the Defendants recognize that the "programming needs [of females] are the same as those for males." (Pls.Ex. 291 at DC0018353.)
The Defendants argue that women prisoners are less violent than male prisoners and therefore, need more supervision. (Id. at 11.) This argument, in the context of an all female program, is counterintuitive. Supervision generally increases with an inmate population that

poses a greater risk of violence. This distinction in the context of a co-correctional program is nothing more than a disguised "prison security" argument which is appropriate to a determination of how a program will be implemented, not whether two groups are similarly situated.
The Defendants argue that women prisoners are victims of sexual abuse in greater numbers than male prisoners and therefore have lower self-esteem which makes them more dependent than men. (Id.) The Court does not find any evidence that women prisoners are afflicted with lower self-esteem than male prisoners or that they are more dependent than men. The evidence demonstrates that women prisoners are victims of sexual abuse in numbers disproportionate to men. This abuse causes a loss of self-esteem. Logically, this does not mean that male prisoners could not also suffer from low self-esteem for any number of other reasons.
The Defendants argue that women have more acute problems with substance abuse. (Id. at 11-12.) The record does not demonstrate this to be true either. The programming inequalities that exist rest on top of presumptively equal access to drug treatment.
The Defendants argue that women are more likely to have the responsibility of caring for a child. (Id. at 12.) It would be truly ironic if this unfortunately true difference succeeded as a rationale for unequal opportunity in educational, recreational, religious and work programs. Though prisons should have leeway in determining how best to address the parenting responsibilities of women, "parenting programs" are not a valid substitute for educational and occupational programs. Title IX embodies a Congressional recognition that education and employment are the primary routes by which women may materially improve their lives. The Defendants emphasis on other programs subverts the policies underlying the statute.
The Defendants finally argue that women prisoners have unique employment needs because they have less support in the community than men. (Id.) As with the previous argument, the Defendants prove too much. The lack of support added to child care responsibilities supports an argument for greater access to educational and occupational programs, not less.
The Court believes that the "unique needs and characteristics" mentioned by the Defendants, if true, should be addressed above and beyond their need for the programs at issue in this case, not as a substitute. A majority of the "unique characteristics" mentioned by the Defendants are also some of the burdens which historically have prevented women from achieving equality of opportunity. To use these characteristics to defeat a comparison of men and women prisoners would vitiate Title IX and also suggest that men and women could never be compared.
2. Title IX and Programs at the Annex[51]
At the Annex, the Defendants have not made reasonable efforts to offer the same educational opportunities to women as to men. For the most part, women prisoners do not have reasonable opportunities for similar studies and do not have an equal opportunity to participate in programs of comparable quality. The Court will briefly analyze each area of programs under Title IX and its implementing regulations.

The failure to provide women with equal access to academic and college education violates Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.31(a). In the area of academic and college education, women prisoners receive only half of the male prisoners' access to ABE and GED classes. This is insufficient, not simply because 677*677 it takes longer for women to finish the courses, but because they are unable to win good time credits. Course length is important particularly at the Annex because women serve shorter sentences and need to complete the courses before they are released.
The inequality is worsened by the Defendants failure to anticipate foreseeable problems. Classes have been canceled upon the teacher's illness and a broken air conditioner. The Defendants could easily ameliorate this problem by adding an additional teacher and providing adequate facilities.
In the area of college education, Men at Minimum and women at the Annex have access to 2 pre-college UDC classes. The Court holds, however, that women do not have a reasonable opportunity for similar studies because the Defendants do not escort the women prisoners to class in a timely manner.
In the area of vocational training and apprenticeships, women at the Annex and men at Minimum have equivalent access to meager offerings. The Court finds no violation of Title IX.
The Defendants failure to provide equivalent opportunity in the area of work details violates Title IX, 34 C.F.R. § 106.38(b), 34 C.F.R. § 106.31(a), and 34 C.F.R. Pt. 100, App. B, VII-A. Work details at Minimum are not only more numerous but better in quality than those offered at the Annex. The men perform details that prepare them for trades which command better salaries outside of prison. There is hardly a comparison of the stereotypical details at the Annex (receptionist, housekeeper, beautician, etc.) and the skilled details at Minimum (carpentry, electrical, mechanical, etc.)
The Court does not find that the Defendants offer women prisoners at the Annex unequal access to industrial programs in violation of Title IX. Women may participate in the garment and print shops while men may participate in the new industries of dairy and landscape. While the Plaintiffs argue that women prisoners could work well at the other industries at Central, they have failed to prove that women prisoners at the Annex do not receive industrial opportunities equivalent to male prisoners at Minimum. The Plaintiffs' argument may make sense as policy but it falls short of demonstrating inequality.
In the area of work training the Defendants violate Title IX and 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.31(a), 106.38(a)(1) and Pt. 100, App. B, VII-A. The large difference in participation between men and women is the result of sluggish processing of paperwork, the absence of an automobile to take women to interviews and the failure to publicize work training opportunities at the Annex. Dr. Ryan, the Defendants' expert penologist, gave an example of a good work release program that failed because among other things the facility did not provide the women with sufficient transportation. (R. 11-53 to 11-54.) Subsequent programs succeeded because transportation, counseling, education and child support were furnished. (R. 11-54.)

As in the other areas, men received training for jobs which required more skill than those jobs held by the women. Though some of these jobs involve stereotypically male skills, the Defendants may not justify unequal treatment by pointing to the limited availability of some occupations for women. 34 C.F.R. § 106.7.
The Defendants failure to provide comparable recreational facilities violates Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(a), (c) and the failure to provide equivalent activities violates Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.31(a). Access to a trailer for a couple of hours a day and the Minimum facilities for several hours a week is not comparable to the recreational opportunities for men at Minimum who have almost unlimited access to a gymnasium, a weight trailer and a ball field. The number of men might explain the size of different facilities but it does not explain the large difference in quality. There is also no reason why the women do not have anything remotely similar to the drama club offered to the men at Minimum.
Women prisoners do not have equal opportunity in the area of religious programs in violation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.31(a). The women have only limited 678*678 access to a chaplain. In addition, the Annex does not offer a place to worship which is comparable to the men's chapel at Minimum. Distractions occur as a result of the need to share space with prisoner visitations, thus harming the quality religious offerings.
3. Title IX and Programs at CTF
The Defendants have not made reasonable efforts to offer the same educational opportunities to women as to men. Women at CTF do not have reasonable opportunities for similar studies and do not have an equal opportunity to participate in programs of comparable quality.
The pronounced inequality in academic and college educational opportunity clearly violates Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.31(a). Not one woman at CTF has the opportunity to receive the amount of education offered to similarly situated men. The women of CTF have only 3 hours of ABE or GED classes whereas the men at Medium and Occoquan have 5½ hours of study and the men at Central have 8 hours of study. Women prisoners are also hindered by tardy escorts and class schedules which conflict with vocational classes.
The availability of college education is abysmal as well. A woman must first apply for a Pell grant which similarly situated men generally need not do. Then she must try to learn through the use of a computer without the aid of a teacher. Even if she is successful the limit of her opportunity is an AA degree. Men at all of the other facilities may obtain a four year college degree from instructors who teach at the facilities.
Women prisoners suffer obvious inequalities in vocational programs and apprenticeships in violation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.31(a). Vocational opportunities for women at CTF are virtually non-existent. The Graphic Arts program is closed off to medium custody women. The other offerings are stereotypically female and have no classroom component. Similarly situated men at Central have numerous opportunities to participate in substantive vocational programs. Men at Occoquan and Medium have several offerings. Apprenticeships are not available to women at CTF whereas there are some at Central and one at Occoquan.

The lack of equivalent opportunity in the area of work details violates Title IX, 34 C.F.R. § 106.38(b), 34 C.F.R. § 106.31(a), and 34 C.F.R. Pt. 100, App. B, VII-A. Work details at CTF are stereotypically female and low-skilled. They are not nearly equivalent to the details at the men's facilities which help men to establish marketable trades.
The lack of equivalent opportunity in the area of industries violates Title IX, 34 C.F.R. § 106.38(b), 34 C.F.R. § 106.31(a), and 34 C.F.R. Pt. 100, App. B, VII-A. There are no industries at CTF and the Defendants have no plausible excuse for the absence of industrial opportunities. Defendants sound a note of alarm at the thought of female participation in industries at Central but the Defendants concede that women prisoners do fine work in the garment shop. Furthermore, there is no evidence of a bona fide attempt by Defendants to establish an industry for women prisoners at CTF.
As with the academic education, the denial of equal recreation time is a result of the controlled-movement design of the facility. In a situation of lopsided opportunities this may be the most egregious inequality. Similarly situated men are given a degree of recreational freedom that might surprise many citizens while women at CTF, the overwhelming majority of whom are non-violent, experience a degree of confinement more stringent than men at the Maximum Facility. This violates Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(a).
J. The Fifth Amendment and Equal Protection
Since the remedial devices in Title IX sufficiently cover discrimination in educational programs, the Court will not review those programs under the Equal Protection Clause. See Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Ass'n, 453 U.S. 1, 20, 101 S.Ct. 2615, 2626-27, 69 L.Ed.2d 435 (1981) (remedial devices in a federal statute may demonstrate congressional intent to preclude suit under § 1983). This is consistent with the federal policy of 679*679 avoiding constitutional adjudication where not absolutely essential to the disposition of a case. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 547 n. 12, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1384 n. 12, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974). The Court will however, use the Equal Protection clause to review the denial of smoking privileges at CTF since that claim is not covered by Title IX.[52]
The fundamental purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to compel the government to treat equally all people who are similarly situated. Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 3254, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). Classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197, 97 S.Ct. 451, 456-57, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976).[53] Anyone defending such a policy must provide an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for it. Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 724, 102 S.Ct. 3331, 3336, 73 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1982).
Women prisoners at CTF may not smoke because smoking is inconsistent with the substance abuse treatment of other inmates with whom the women share the facility. The Court holds that the treatment of inmates for substance abuse is an important governmental objective and the non-smoking policy is substantially related to that objective. The smoking policy of CTF, therefore, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

ORDER FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Based upon the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is by the Court this 13th day of December 1994, ORDERED that:
1. The Defendants' actions and inactions violated and continue to violate the Plaintiff class members' rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (1988), and the District of Columbia Code §§ 24-442; and
2. The Defendants are ordered to take all action necessary to remedy and prevent the violations of the Plaintiffs' above-mentioned rights. The Defendants are ordered to take the following specific measures in the areas of sexual harassment, obstetrical and gynecological care, programs and opportunities, and environmental and fire safety. All measures shall be completed and in effect within six months of the date of this Order, unless otherwise specified.
I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT
3. Within 60 days, the Defendants shall write and follow a Department Order prohibiting sexual harassment involving District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DCDC) employees and women prisoners. The Defendants shall post and circulate the Department Order in accordance with departmental policy.
4. Under this policy the DCDC has the obligation to take appropriate steps to prevent and remedy sexual harassment committed by its own employees.
5. One or more members from the office of Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, will monitor allegations of sexual harassment at each facility in which women prisoners are housed. The monitor(s) shall log in each allegation of sexual harassment, investigate the allegations, submit the results of the investigation to the Warden of the relevant facility and the Director of the DCDC and keep records of the Defendants' resolution of the matter, including disciplinary actions, of such claims.
6. The monitor(s) shall investigate all outstanding allegations of sexual harassment 680*680 and shall submit a report on each allegation to the Warden of the relevant facility, and to the Director of the DCDC.
7. Prohibited conduct under the policy shall be defined as:
a. Sexual harassment which includes:

(1) all unwelcome sexual activity directed by any DCDC employee at a prisoner including acts of sexual intercourse, oral sex, or sexual touching and any attempt to commit these acts; and
(2) all unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature directed by any DCDC employee at a prisoner; and
b. Invasions of women prisoners' privacy by male employees without a valid penological reason, including the failure of any male employee to announce his presence when entering a female housing unit.
c. Retaliation for reporting complaints of, assisting any individual in making a report of, or cooperating in an investigation of sexual harassment, regardless of the merits or the disposition of the underlying complaint. Retaliatory conduct includes the following actions taken against a prisoner in response to that prisoner's complaint of sexual harassment or cooperation in the reporting or investigation of sexual harassment: disciplining, changing work or program assignments of, transferring to another facility of, or placing under involuntary protective custody any prisoner.
d. Any breach of confidentiality by any employee concerning any report of sexual harassment.
e. Any interference with investigations of sexual harassment.
8. Penalties for prohibited conduct under the policy shall be worked out by the Director of the DCDC and the Court's Special Officer Ms. Grace Lopes within 30 days of this Order.
9. Women prisoners shall be able to report instances of sexual harassment through the existing Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) as specified in Department Order 4030.1D. The Defendants shall strictly adhere to the Inmate Grievance Procedure and shall establish an Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee (IGAC) as required by Section VII(C) of Department Order 4030.1D.
10. Women prisoners shall also be able to submit IGP's or complaints concerning sexual harassment in any form, orally or in writing, to any DCDC employee, who must submit the information, in writing, to the monitor(s) and Warden of the facility within 24 hours of receiving the information. Women prisoners may also submit IGP's or complaints to an prisoner representative to the IGAC.
11. The Defendants shall establish a confidential hot line, under the supervision of the monitor(s), through which women prisoners can report allegations of sexual harassment.
12. Each employee shall be required to report any information, from any source, concerning sexual harassment, in writing, to the Warden of the facility and to the monitor(s) within 24 hours of receiving the information. Failure of an employee to report any suspected incident of sexual harassment shall subject the employee to discipline. If a prisoner so requests, the prisoner shall be treated as an anonymous informant.

13. The monitor(s) shall ensure that each reported violation of the policy is thoroughly investigated and documented. The monitor(s) shall submit a final written report to the Warden of the institution; the report shall include factual findings and a conclusion as to whether a preponderance of evidence shows that a violation of the sexual harassment policy occurred. Within 48 hours after the Warden receives the monitor(s)' report, the Defendants shall inform the complaining woman prisoner, in writing, of the outcome of the investigation. The Warden shall take appropriate action as detailed in the schedule of penalties.
14. Upon receipt of any allegation of an act of unwelcome sexual intercourse or any allegation of unwelcome sexual touching, the monitor(s) and the institution must notify the proper law enforcement agency. The monitor(s) shall communicate with the law enforcement agency concerning the status of any investigation. The monitor(s) must periodically 681*681 document the status of police investigations. The occurrence of a police investigation does not relieve the monitor(s) of the duty to investigate.
15. The identity of the target of the alleged sexual harassment shall be revealed only to those who have an immediate need to know, including the monitor(s), the alleged harasser(s) or retaliator(s) and any witnesses. All parties contacted in the course of an investigation will be advised that any retaliation, reprisal, or breach of confidentiality is a separate actionable offense as provided in the schedule of penalties.
16. Any prisoner who is dissatisfied with any investigation or resolution of an allegation of sexual harassment may appeal to the Director of the DCDC within 15 days of receiving written notice of the outcome of the investigation. The Director must respond within 15 days.
17. Within 90 days, a trainer from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall conduct mandatory training on sexual harassment for all DCDC employees who work with women prisoners. The trainer shall be selected within 60 days. The monitor(s) if they so choose, may attend this training.
a. The training shall include education concerning the Defendants' policies regarding reporting, investigating, and preventing sexual harassment, and the consequences for violating any policy concerning sexual harassment; and
b. In addition to roll call training, formal training sessions on sexual harassment shall be conducted on a quarterly basis for all years succeeding entry of this Court Order.
18. Within 90 days, an outside consultant, mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall develop a sexual harassment training program and materials and conduct training on sexual harassment for women prisoners so that women prisoners know how to recognize and report sexual harassment. The trainer shall be selected within 60 days.
a. The training materials must be included in the orientation that each woman receives upon intake or classification at each facility; and
b. Formal training sessions for women prisoners on sexual harassment shall be conducted on a monthly basis for the first year succeeding entry of the consent decree, and on a quarterly basis in all years thereafter that this decree shall remain in effect.

19. The Defendants shall make necessary alterations at both the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) and the Minimum Security Annex (Annex) within 60 days to ensure that women have privacy in their living, sleeping and shower areas.
II. OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL CARE
20. The Defendants shall hire within 60 days:
a. a nurse midwife in a half-time position who shall provide clinical and health educational services to the entire female prisoner population; and
b. an additional nurse practitioner or physician's assistant with special training in obstetrics and gynecology to provide clinical services to women prisoners at CTF.
21. The CTF OB/GYN Clinic shall maintain its current regularly scheduled hours.
22. The Defendants shall establish a prenatal clinic at CTF for women who receive their primary prenatal care at CTF. This clinic shall operate at least one half-day each week. Pregnant women shall not be required to make appointments for the prenatal clinic through the sick-call process, but rather, shall have scheduled appointments for the clinic.
23. The Defendants shall maintain statistics on the number of pregnant women and the birth outcomes of infants whose mothers delivered while incarcerated.
24. In addition to the general health interview and observation performed for male prisoners, the intake screening for all women prisoners shall include specific inquiry about her use of contraceptives or intrauterine devices, history of pregnancy, last known menstrual period, current likelihood and history 682*682 of sexually transmitted diseases and pattern of drug use (if applicable).
25. In accordance with DCDC policy, the Defendants shall inform all women prisoners of the procedure to access health services while incarcerated.
26. In addition to the health appraisal conducted for male prisoners, the Defendants shall conduct a gynecological examination, including a pelvic examination and evaluation, a breast examination accompanied by patient education, a PAP smear, a chlamydia and gonorrhea culture, and a serology for syphilis. In accordance with the CTF Operations manual and National Commission on Correctional Healthcare (NCCHC) and American Correctional Association (ACA) standards, this health appraisal shall occur within 14 days of admission into the DCDC, unless there is documentation of a complete and comparable health appraisal within the previous 90 days.
27. The Defendants shall develop and implement within 90 days, an appropriate health appraisal form to correspond with the ordered health appraisal for women noted in paragraph 26.
28. The Defendants shall develop and implement within 90 days, detailed written protocols concerning routine and follow-up care for common gynecological problems including

syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and pelvic inflammatory disease; PAP tests; pelvic examinations; breast examinations; education in contraception and mammography for highrisk women, in accordance with the standards of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG).
29. The Defendants shall provide gynecological care within the time frames and in a manner consistent with gynecological protocols that satisfy ACOG standards unless a physician determines that in his or her medical judgment it is not medically appropriate for such care to be provided in accordance with the protocol, in which case the reasons for this determination shall be entered into the patient's medical record.
30. At a minimum, the protocol concerning the provision of gynecological care shall provide that the Defendants shall offer and make available PAP tests to all high-risk women at CTF every six months.
31. The Defendants shall maintain a list of abnormal PAP results and, within seven days of receipt of an abnormal PAP result, shall notify the patient of the abnormal result and develop and initiate a course of treatment.
32. All women who receive an abnormal PAP test result shall be scheduled for a repeat PAP test at three-month intervals until the PAP test results are normal. Once the PAP test results are normal, a PAP test shall take place every six months. If a culdoscopy is required, it shall be performed in a manner and within time frames accepted as appropriate by ACOG standards.
33. The Defendants shall implement within 60 days a tracking system to insure that all women receive appropriate preventive gynecological care at regular intervals.
34. If a pregnancy test reveals that a woman is pregnant, routine prenatal care shall be initiated immediately.
35. The Defendants shall develop and implement a protocol concerning restraints used on pregnant and postpartum women which provides that a pregnant prisoner shall be transported in the least restrictive way possible consistent with legitimate security reasons. Specifically, the protocol shall provide:
a. The Defendants shall use no restraints on any woman in labor, during delivery, or in recovery immediately after delivery.
b. During the last trimester of pregnancy up until labor, the Defendants shall use only leg shackles when transporting a pregnant woman prisoner unless the woman has demonstrated a history of assaultive behavior or has escaped from a correctional facility.
36. The Defendants shall develop and implement within 90 days, a detailed written prenatal protocol for women who receive their primary prenatal care at CTF in accordance with ACOG standards. The protocol shall also provide guidelines to define "highrisk pregnancy." High-risk pregnancies shall be considered to include at a minimum 683*683 those women

with histories of alcohol and drug abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, diabetes or anemia, older women, women with poor obstetrical histories, and women expecting multiple births.
37. The Defendants shall arrange for each pregnant woman prisoner to see an obstetrician at monthly intervals during the first two trimesters of her pregnancy, bimonthly intervals during the seventh and eighth months, and weekly intervals during the ninth month. The Defendants shall arrange for women who are experiencing highrisk pregnancies to see an obstetrician at shorter than routine intervals until it is determined that the pregnancy is progressing normally.
38. The Defendants shall implement a tracking system to insure that all pregnant women are scheduled and seen regularly for prenatal care.
39. The Defendants shall permit a woman prisoner to feed her baby at D.C. General Hospital while the woman prisoner and baby remain at D.C. General Hospital.
40. The Defendants shall develop a routine visiting program for women whose children remain in D.C. General Hospital. These women shall be allowed to visit their children at D.C. General Hospital every day.
41. In accordance with the Defendants' Department Order, pregnant women prisoners shall receive counseling regarding child placement as soon as the pregnancy is known.
42. The Defendants shall designate a representative who shall develop and maintain contacts with licensed child-placing agencies, including the Department of Human Services. The Defendants shall provide training to its social workers on the range of options available for child placement, including third-party placement with family or friends, foster-care placement, and adoption. Each woman shall be given information about each of the options.
43. The nurse midwife shall implement within 90 days an obstetrical and gynecological health education program that satisfies a recognized national medical standard. Education material should also be made available in the CTF library. The Defendants shall maintain adequate documentation on the program so that it can be evaluated by the Court within 60 days after implementation.
44. The Defendants shall have at least one medical staff member available at CTF 24 hours each day.
45. CTF medical personnel shall have telephone access to the OB/GYN physician at CTF during evening and weekend hours.
46. If a woman prisoner is in need of emergency obstetrical or gynecological care during evening or weekend hours, she shall be taken immediately to the emergency area in the OB/GYN clinic at D.C. General Hospital, unless employees providing obstetrical and/or gynecological care at D.C. General Hospital determine that the main emergency room at D.C. General Hospital would be more medically appropriate.

47. The Defendants shall provide each woman prisoner who is discharged from custody with the following:
a. a supply of essential medications that will last until she may be reasonably expected to obtain necessary follow-up care in her community; and
b. referrals to services in the community to insure continuity of care.
48. If a woman is released prior to the time that results of any gynecological or obstetrical tests are received by CTF medical personnel, the Defendants shall forward the test results to her last known mailing address.
49. The Defendants shall provide sufficient resources to insure that prisoners are transported to medical appointments in a timely fashion, including a sufficient number of security staff to transport prisoners, appropriate and sufficient transport vehicles, and appropriate waiting areas.
50. The Defendants shall modify their transportation procedures so that the transportation system alone does not cause women prisoners to wait for more than one hour at D.C. General Hospital before receiving medical care.
684*684 51. If a woman prisoner misses a medical appointment for any reason, the Defendants shall reschedule the appointment for the earliest available date. The Defendants shall use their best efforts to insure that the rescheduled appointment occurs within a medically appropriate period of time.
52. The Defendants shall comply fully with all provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding between the DCDC and D.C. General Hospital.
53. The Defendants shall assign a physician, or a member of the medical staff at CTF, who provides obstetrical or gynecological care, to serve as a liaison between CTF medical personnel and D.C. General Hospital.
54. The Defendants shall maintain the content of each medical record in an orderly and confidential manner.
55. For all pregnant women prisoners, the Defendants shall maintain a medical chart on the POPRAS form pregnancy chart, or an equivalent form, together with a regular medical chart. All medical visits to or by the responsible physician or primary healthcare provider, orders for laboratory tests, laboratory test results and other notes and orders relating to the medical care of pregnant women prisoners shall be recorded on the POPRAS form or consultation form.
56. The Defendants shall develop and implement within 90 days, a new consultation form that provides adequate clinical information to D.C. General Hospital and insures that adequate information is provided by D.C. General Hospital to CTF medical personnel.

57. The Defendants shall institute, maintain and follow a system to coordinate the implementation and tracking of physician orders so that gynecological and obstetrical care will be provided within a timely fashion. The system shall coordinate all orders regardless of whether the physician orders are to be filled inside or outside the facility. This system shall be reflected in written procedural guidelines, a copy of which shall be provided to counsel for Plaintiffs within 60 days. Orders for medication are not to be tracked under this system.
58. Documentation shall be required whenever CTF medical staff elect not to follow the instructions of a consulting physician at D.C. General Hospital or elsewhere. This documentation should include the justification for not providing the therapy ordered. Only medically-based justifications shall be permissible.
59. For all women prisoners who are discharged from D.C. General Hospital or other medical facilities to CTF, CTF medical personnel shall promptly obtain a discharge summary and maintain the summary in the prisoner's medical record.
60. Prisoners shall receive notice of results of laboratory or diagnostic tests which are of no clinical significance within seven calendar days of the date the facility receives the results of such test.
61. In the case of non-emergency abnormal laboratory or diagnostic test results of clinical significance, the prisoner will be seen by the ordering physician, or if that physician is unavailable, by the Medical Officer, within 24 hours of the time the facility receives the results of such test. At such time the physician will explain the result to the patient and order such follow-up care as is appropriate.
62. The Defendants shall require a woman prisoner who refuses medical care to do so in the presence of a licensed medical staff member who can answer the patient's questions and counsel the patient concerning the consequences of a refusal. In accordance with DCDC policy regarding quality assurance, the reasons for refusal shall be analyzed regularly as part of a comprehensive and up-to-date quality assurance program. This quality assurance activity shall be documented.
III. PROGRAM EVALUATION
63. The Defendants shall provide diagnostic evaluations for women prisoners similar to those currently provided for men in the Reception and Diagnostic Unit at CTF to determine women prisoners' needs, interests, and requirements for increased programs and opportunities in academic and higher education, vocation, work, religion and recreation. 685*685 The procedure for the needs assessment shall be done by an approved scientific method. These evaluations shall be completed within 30-45 days of a female prisoner's transfer to CTF or the Annex. The evaluations shall include educational testing, vocational testing and psychological testing. The Defendants shall provide women with the appropriate programming called for by this evaluation within 60 days of their arrival at the facility.
64. The Defendants shall coordinate the scheduling of academic educational classes, higher education classes, vocational training, recreation time and activities, law library

hours, and work in prison details for women in such a manner as to maximize women prisoners' participation in as many areas as possible.
65. The Defendants shall provide sufficient program space so that women prisoners can participate in equal and adequate programs and services as compared to men prisoners. The Defendants shall provide at least two additional trailers at the Annex (with functional sanitary facilities) to allow for additional programming activities. Within 30 days, the Defendants may submit for the Court's consideration an alternative to the 2 ordered trailers.
66. The Defendants shall develop and implement quality assurance programs for monitoring program delivery to ensure the continued provision of equal and adequate programs to women prisoners.
67. The Defendants shall increase the number of staff posted or detailed at the women's unit at CTF and at the Annex to ensure that women prisoners are escorted to educational programs, recreation, employment, and medical care as scheduled. Sufficient staff shall be provided in a manner that does not prevent the programming staff from performing any of their duties.
68. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at the Annex with a range of academic education programs that is equivalent to the range of academic programs provided to male prisoners at the Minimum Security Facility (Minimum).
69. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a range of academic education programs that is equivalent to the range of academic programs provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.
70. Women prisoners at the Annex and CTF shall be provided with the opportunity for fulltime (five hours per day, five days per week) basic education to include ABE, GED, and Special Education classes. The Defendants shall immediately provide two full-time basic education teachers for ABE, GED, and Special Education classes at the Annex.
71. Women prisoners at CTF shall have access to on-site higher education programs which shall include a four-year B.A. and/or B.S. degree program, an A.A. degree program, a certification program, and a precollege program. The bachelor and associate programs shall be offered in a variety of fields, and at a minimum shall each offer three different areas of study leading to a degree. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall at least make the University of the District of Columbia B.A. and A.A. programs available to women prisoners at CTF.
72. The Defendants shall offer women prisoners financial arrangements for these education programs that are the same as those arrangements available to similarly situated male prisoners.
73. The Defendants shall immediately provide women prisoners at CTF with at least 30 hours of access per week to the Atlantic Union computers. Women shall be scheduled to access the computer during educational program time and during free time, including evenings and weekends. Women prisoners shall be provided with an amount of computers sufficient to meet their needs.

74. The Defendants shall immediately process the applications for Atlantic Union in a complete and timely manner. Women shall be provided with all books and course materials before the start of a course. The women shall receive substantive tutorial guidance in the course work from qualified educators.
75. The Defendants shall immediately provide appropriate substitute teachers or 686*686 instructors during absences of regular teachers or instructors of more than three working days. The provision of a substitute teacher or instructor shall not result in consolidating two classes into one or increasing the class size.
76. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a range of vocational education programs that is equivalent to the range of vocational education programs provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.
77. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with two prevocational programs each to be at least six weeks in duration. Prevocational programs include those courses which teach personal development skills, living skills, and/or employment skills such as Employment Techniques, Awareness and Preparation (ETAP) and Lifeskills.
78. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a minimum of four vocational education programs, including the one program currently in place (DocuTech). These programs shall be available to female prisoners of all custody levels. A vocational education program is any program of 12 to 24 months of duration that teaches employable skills and contains both a classroom component and an on-the-job-training component. Two programs shall be operative within 120 days of the entry of this Order.
79. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with at least two apprenticeship programs as defined by Department order.
80. All prevocational programs, vocational programs, and apprenticeships added for women prisoners at CTF shall have the potential for providing women with job skills marketable in the local labor market. An important consideration in the Defendants' selection of programs shall be the wage-earning capacity upon completion of the program.
81. The Defendants shall conduct affirmative outreach to women during the enrollment period for vocational training. This outreach shall entail DCDC staff meeting with women at least one month before the deadline for program enrollment to inform the women that the new programs are available and to offer a full description of the available programs and any applicable criteria for participation.
82. The Defendants shall ensure that all contractual programs used to provide services to women prisoners are compatible with and fulfill the provisions of this Order.
83. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at the Annex with a range of work opportunities that is equivalent to the range of work opportunities provided to male prisoners at Minimum.

84. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a range of work opportunities that is equivalent to the range of work opportunities provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.
85. The Defendants shall employ capable women prisoners on all work details available at the facility where women prisoners are housed. These details shall include maintenance and trades, such as plumbing, carpentry, and electrical.
86. The Defendants shall offer equivalent industrial opportunities by establishing at least two industries at CTF or by transporting women prisoners from CTF to the industries at the Central Facility to perform industrial work. Within 60 days, the Defendants shall submit to the Court plans for the implementation of an industrial program for CTF women prisoners.
87. The Defendants shall revise the guidelines and practices for work training eligibility within 30 days to take into account the different sentence structure of female offenders and to permit women's maximum participation in work training.
88. The Defendants will immediately provide a work training program to all women prisoners who are eligible under the revised guidelines, including those who are housed at CTF as stated in the CTF Operations Manual.
89. Within 30 days of entry of this Order, the Defendants shall complete and submit work training packets for each woman prisoner 687*687 eligible for work training and expedite the approval process.
90. The Defendants shall submit required paperwork for work training approval 45 days prior to a woman prisoner's eligibility date in order to complete the process by the date of eligibility. In the event that a woman arrives at the institution with less than 45 days until she is eligible for work training, the Defendants shall expedite the paperwork.
91. The Defendants shall not deny a woman prisoner the opportunity to participate in work training based on her arrival at the Annex or classification to minimum custody status within the previous 90 days or because of her impending eligibility for halfway house placement or parole.
92. The Defendants shall provide adequate staff, including case managers and vocational development specialists, to enable the women prisoners to be informed of their work training eligibility and to complete the necessary paperwork in the required time frame.
93. The Defendants shall staff a sufficient number of vocational development specialists at the Annex in order to conduct testing, classes and counseling; completes necessary paperwork and develop jobs, including non-traditional employment, and transport women to interviews. The Defendants shall provide the vocational development specialist(s) with an appropriate vehicle for transporting women to job interviews and for performing job development activities.

94. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at the Annex with recreational opportunities that are equivalent to the recreational opportunities provided to male prisoners at Minimum.
95. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with recreational opportunities that are equivalent to the recreational opportunities provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.
96. The Defendants shall immediately provide all women prisoners at CTF, including pregnant prisoners subject to medical approval, with recreation seven days per week for at least five hours per day. Women shall have the option of going outside or to indoor recreation facilities during this time period. This recreation schedule shall be effective at CTF within 30 days of this Order.
97. Women shall be given access to the same variety of recreation activities as are available to men, including large group events, intramurals, arts and crafts and drama activities.
98. The Defendants shall immediately open the recreation trailer at the Annex for at least 8 hours per day, 7 days a week. Correctional officers shall open and supervise the trailer when the recreation specialist is off duty. The recreation specialist shall not be assigned or pulled away from her duties as a recreation specialist for the women at the Annex, except in the case of an emergency.
99. The Defendants shall improve the Annex grounds by adding a basketball court, volleyball pit, and outdoor tables.
100. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at the Annex with a range of religious programs and services that are equivalent to the range of religious programs provided to male prisoners at Minimum.
101. Within 60 days, the Defendants shall provide chaplaincy services to women prisoners at the Annex for 5 days per week through a staff chaplain, volunteer chaplain, or a combination of chaplain staff members. The chaplain's hours shall include evening hours during the week to accommodate those women working on details, industry, or in the community.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
102. Within one year, the Defendants shall reduce the population of Annex Dormitories 6 and 7 so that no more than 90 women are housed in the two dormitories combined.
103. Within one year, the Defendants shall repair or replace the roofs of Annex Dormitories 6 and 7 and retain them in a watertight condition.
104. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall repair the Annex dormitories so as to prevent the entry and refuge of vermin and shall conduct a vermin eradication program to 688*688

eliminate the present infestation of vermin. The Defendants shall thereafter promulgate and follow an effective vermin eradication program.
105. Within 60 days, the Defendants shall provide each woman prisoner housed in the Annex dormitories at least one vertical locker and one footlocker.
106. Within 30 days, the Defendants shall replace all torn mattresses and pillows at the Annex with clean, untorn, fire-retardant mattresses and pillows. The Defendants shall conduct a regular inspection of all mattresses and pillows and shall, at that time, immediately replace any mattresses that are damaged to a degree that prevents adequate cleaning.
107. The Defendants shall immediately use cart liners or disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry at the Annex.
108. For as long as the Annex dormitories are double-bunked, the Defendants shall, within 60 days, provide a minimum of 20 foot candles of prisoner-controlled light to each bunk.
109. Effective immediately, the Defendants shall ensure that all housing units at the Annex are issued a timely, adequate and appropriate amount of cleaning supplies.
110. Within 60 days, the Defendants shall connect the toilets and handsinks in every Annex trailer.
111. The Defendants shall continue to provide sufficient and readily accessible sanitary facilities for women in the industries at the Central Facility.
112. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall improve the ventilation at the Annex dormitories, the print shop and the garment shop so that the quality of air in these areas is brought up to an acceptable level.
113. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall install a drainage system at the Annex which will prevent hazardous accumulations of water.
114. The Defendants shall promulgate and follow a written preventive maintenance plan for the Annex dormitories, the Annex trailers, and the Annex grounds.
115. Three times every year, the Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) to inspect the Annex for compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation and maintenance and food service delivery (at the main Minimum compound). The first such inspection shall be conducted within 45 days of the date of this Order. Within 30 days of each inspection, the Warden of Minimum shall obtain the DCRA findings. The Warden shall repair, clean, or otherwise remedy any unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA as soon as feasible but in no event later than 30 days following the receipt of the DCRA report.

116. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall hire a qualified air balancing contractor to service the CTF air handling system so that it provides an acceptable level of air quality to all areas of the facility inhabited by prisoners.
117. In the event that the air balancing and other recent repairs to the heating system at CTF fail to maintain a minimum cell temperature of 65°F in every cell, measured at the perimeter wall, the Defendants shall immediately
a. cease housing women in the end cells of each tier;
b. provide each woman prisoner with two extra blankets, two pairs of thermal underwear, and two pairs of wool socks;
c. explore means of insulating or heating the perimeter walls of the cells; and
d. report back to the Court.
118. The Defendants shall develop and implement an effective rodent prevention program.
119. Effective immediately, the Defendants shall ensure that all housing units at CTF are issued a timely, adequate and appropriate amount of cleaning supplies.
120. The Defendants shall use cart liners or disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry between CTF and the Jail.
121. Effective immediately, the Defendants at CTF shall monitor the food temperature 689*689 and delivery times of all foods, including special diet meals, delivered to the satellite kitchen.
122. The Defendants shall promulgate and follow a written preventive maintenance plan for the CTF that includes maintenance of structures, systems, and equipment.
123. The Defendants shall ensure that the correctional officers inspect all plumbing fixtures on each shift, and shall ensure that any plumbing fixture that requires repair will be reported immediately upon discovery, and repaired immediately. The Defendants shall maintain logs demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
124. Three times per year, the Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia DCRA to conduct inspections of the CTF for compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation, maintenance and food service delivery. The first such inspection shall be conducted within 45 days of the date of this Order. Within 30 days of each inspection, the Warden of CTF shall obtain the DCRA findings. The Warden shall repair, clean, or otherwise remedy any unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA as soon as feasible but in no event later than 30 days following the receipt of the DCRA report.
V. FIRE SAFETY

125. Within 120 days, the Defendants shall install and maintain a manual fire alarm system and fire detection system which covers all areas used by women prisoners at Minimum, including the Annex dormitories. The fire detection system must include smoke detectors in all sleeping and dayroom areas, and smoke or heat detectors in all other areas. There must be an automatic retransmission of the above systems to a constantly attended location outside of the dormitory buildings. There must also be a control panel to provide emergency power or to send a warning if the system is not operational.
126. The Defendants must repair or replace the fire alarm system in the Administration building, the cafeteria and gymnasium at the Minimum main compound.
127. The Defendants must install a sprinkler system in the Annex dormitories and provide a 20-minute fire-rated enclosure of storage rooms located in both dormitories.
128. The Defendants shall ensure that all bed linens, blankets, and curtains or draperies in the Annex dormitories are of fire-retardant material.
129. Effective immediately, in each Annex dormitory, the Defendants shall conduct fire drills 12 times per year, 4 times per shift, and shall keep written documentation of all such drills.
130. The Defendants shall conduct and document mandatory semi-annual training on fire safety procedures for all correctional officers.
131. Effective immediately, and in accordance with Department Order No. 2920.1A, the Defendants shall:
a. conduct weekly inspections of all building and grounds for fire hazards, and document such inspections;
b. conduct quarterly inspections of all fire safety equipment, and document such inspections; and
c. ensure that the Institutional Fire Marshal conducts quarterly inspections of the Facility.
132. Effective immediately, and in accordance with Department Order No. 2920.1A, the District of Columbia Fire Department shall conduct fire safety inspections of the Annex not less frequently than every 12 months. The Warden of Minimum shall obtain the Fire Department's report within 10 days and promptly give a copy to the Plaintiffs' counsel. Thereafter, the Warden shall cause any fire safety deficiencies identified in the Fire Department's report to be remedied within 30 days, or shall provide a report to the Fire Department as to why the deficiency cannot be so remedied and provide a plan to remedy the deficiency within a further period of time not to exceed 90 days.
133. Within 30 days, the Defendants at CTF shall repair the water leakage from rain, particularly in the vicinity of the highvoltage electrical conduit in the culinary storage room located in the CTF basement.

690*690 134. At CTF, the Defendants shall maintain the storage in the culinary storage room in a manner that does not prevent the sprinkler heads from functioning adequately.
135. At CTF, the Defendants shall maintain the sprinkler system and test it quarterly and they shall test the fire pump annually.
136. At CTF, the Defendants shall conduct fire drills 12 times per year, 4 times per shift, and shall keep written documentation of all such drills.
VI. GENERAL
137. This Order shall continue in full force and effect, absent modification by the Court, until the Defendants have complied with all provisions for 5 years.
138. Plaintiffs are awarded the costs of this suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees.
[1] By Court Order, the women prisoners were permitted to use "Jane Doe" pseudonyms in this case in order to preserve their privacy and protect them from retaliatory actions by other inmates and by DCDC employees.
[2] The print and garment shops are located at the Central Facility. Women prisoners from the Annex work in these shops to perform industrial labor.
[3] The employee manual defines sexual harassment as "any unwelcome and/or repeated sexual advances, request for sexual favors, or any other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. It is illegal when: 1) it is used as a condition of employment; 2) it is used as the basis of an employment decision; 3) it interferes with the work atmosphere or performance of an employee."
[4] Mr. Plaut held the position of Associate Director for Institutions when he dealt with some of the incidents of sexual misconduct alleged in this case.
[5] Some documents in the record refer to Ms. McCathorine by her former name, Ms. Gwen Washington. (R. 8-83.)
[6] The record contains references to Mr. Jones in his position as Lieutenant and Captain. Mr. Jones, however, is now the Acting Deputy Director for Operations at the Correctional Treatment Facility. (R. 8-145.) Mr. Plaut referred to him as Deputy Warden Jones. (R. 8-146.)
[7] The specific testimony of Lieutenant Jones was as follows: "This man is 60 some years old. I'm saying, wait a minute. But granted, now, I'll give you the fact that maybe he might be turned on by that fag, I don't know. I just do not. I find it hard to believe." (Jones Dep. at 142.)
[8] Dr. Susan Fiester, Plaintiffs' expert in the area of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct, testified that among the general female incarcerated population, between 70-to-80 percent have been sexually abused at some point in their lives. Dr. T.A. Ryan, the Defendants' expert penologist, testified that "in large measure, a female offender population will come from a history of abuse." (R. 11-40.)
[9] The Commission of Public Health, Office of Sero Prevalence/Preventive Health Care, conducted a study utilizing CPH protocol of random sampling. The study demonstrated that 9.9 percent of the females tested positive for HIV. (Pls.Ex. 660.) AIDS patients run a higher risk of developing opportunistic infections such as pneumonia or vaginal yeast infections. (R. 3-53 to 3-54.)
[10] Defendants claim that pelvic examinations, pregnancy tests, PAP smears and tests for sexually transmitted diseases are not routinely performed at CTF because they are supposed to be done at the Jail. (R. 13-128 to 130.) At CTF, a physician's assistant reviews the medical record for missed tests and initiates tests for pregnant prisoners. (R.

14-95 to 96.) But an investigation of medical care at the Jail indicates that the Defendants often did not conduct these tests. The Special Officer's Report on Medical Care at D.C. Jail, Campbell v. McGruder, C.A. No. 1462-71 (D.D.C.), February 2, 1994, at 42-43. Dr. Charles Hall, an OB/GYN physician at CTF claimed that he was not aware of these findings. (R. 14-37 to 39, 42 to 43.)
[11] On the subject of testing, no test has been as regularly administered as the tuberculin skin test. (R. 3-70.) Dr. Major, the Plaintiffs' expert in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, stated that the reason for this might be that tuberculosis poses a threat to prison personnel as well as other inmates. (R. 3-70 to 71.)
[12] This is a virally caused, sexually transmitted disease. It results in warts on the surface of external and internal genitals. It is treatable but potentially dangerous. Of the fifty or sixty strains of the virus, about eight to ten are premalignant. Very often it shows up on a PAP smear. (R. 3-79.)
[13] The lack of confidentiality at CTF convinced her not to participate in the sick call procedure. Sick call involves a group of physician's assistants who make daily triage rounds on the units and examine inmates who have placed their names on a sick call list. The first time Jane Doe II participated in this procedure a physician's assistant placed her file on a cart in open population. (R. 3-22.)
[14] A culdoscopy is the direct visual examination of the female viscera through an endoscope introduced into the pelvic cavity through the posterior vaginal fornix. Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing and Allied Health 258-59 (2d ed. 1978.)
[15] In addition, Dr. Clark found lapses in prenatal documentation which caused him concern because documentation is a crucial part of medical care. (R. 14-167 to 168.)
[16] Another related example of inadequate medical documents is the physical profile which Defendants use at CTF. (Pls.Ex. 646.) The document displays a front and back sketch of a man's anatomy. On the sketch displaying a frontal view, the genitals are crossed out. On the sketch which provides a rear view someone wrote, "Use this as a female." Dr. Major found this document in about 20 to 25 percent of instances when the chart was used. (R. 3-138 to 3-139.)
[17] Jane Doe II also stated that during the winter months there was ice on the inside of her windows, as well. She, however, claimed that nobody gave her extra clothing or blankets. She stayed warm by wearing "two and three jumpsuits, and robes and pajamas all at the same time." (R. 3-18.)
[18] The evidence indicates that many women do not receive an adequate amount of blankets or clothing when the heating unit malfunctions. (R. 3-18, 4-89, 6-117 to 119.)
[19] These meals are prepared for people with certain medical needs and for people who wish to comply with certain religious obligations. (R. 6-63 to 64.)
[20] The light on the lower bunks ranges from less than five-foot candles to ten-foot candles. (Pls.Ex. 637 at 14.) The American Public Health standard is 30-foot candles and the ACA standard is 20-foot candles. (Pls.Ex. 637 at 14.)
[21] Ms. Gilmore is presently the Coordinator of the Female Offenders Program for the DCDC.
[22] Defendants' environmental health expert, Mr. Peter Genco, believes that the Annex population must be reduced by 50 percent. (R. 11-140.)
[23] The ACA standard requires 1 lavatory for every 12 inmates and a shower for every 8 inmates. (Pls.Ex. 637 at 9.) In February 1994, Dormitory 6 had a ratio of 13 inmates per toilet, 12 inmates per sink and 12 inmates per shower. (R. 6-15.) In Dormitory 7 there was a ratio of 16 inmates per toilet, 19 inmates per sink and 16 inmates per shower. (R. 6-15.)
[24] The noise in the day room of Dormitory 7 registered at 74 decibels. (Pls.Ex. 637 at 8.) The ACA standard of acceptability for daytime noise is below 70. (R. 6-17.)

[25] The fire pump provides the thrust that the water needs to reach the sprinkler units at the upper levels of the building. (R. 7-41.)
[26] This measurement reflects the ability of a fire to spread from one piece of combustible material to another. (R. 78.)
[27] Compartmentalization is a construction design which places fire-rated doors or smoke-tight doors around an area so that a fire remains contained in that space. (R. 7-11.)
[28] When Plaintiffs' fire safety expert, Mr. Jaeger, performed his tour of the Annex, he was told that the exits are locked. (R. 7-13.) Since that time he has been told that one exit in the center of each building remains unlocked while the exits at each end are locked. (R. 7-13.)
[29] This company specializes in fire alarm system design, development, testing, maintenance and repair.
[30] Mr. Jaeger agreed that there are no provisions for fire detection but there are provisions for evacuation.
[31] Mr. Plaut testified that the current population is 174. (R. 8-99.)
[32] Ms. Smith is presently the Assistant Warden at the Annex.
[33] Renaissance is a drama troupe that performs for children in churches, juvenile detention facilities and recreation centers. (Pls.Ex. 627.)
[34] Occoquan is a "controlled movement" facility that houses the most violent medium custody male prisoners. (Braxton Dep. at 16.) The dormitory doors are locked and an inmate must have a pass to traverse one of the three zones except for meal and recreation time. Id. at 22. Men do not need an escort unless they are being disciplined, in protective custody or awaiting bed space. Id. at 24.
[35] Four positions are at the non-industrial rate of $9.25 a month; three women receive full-time industrial pay of $60 a month and the remaining six women work part-time and receive part-time industrial pay. (R. 9-33 to 34.)
[36] Section 1983 provides in relevant part:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...."
[37] In the Defendants' Proposed Conclusions of Law, they submit that the doctrine of official immunity shields them from all claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A claim of immunity, however, is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a government official acting in an official capacity. See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42, 104 S.Ct. 1970, 1980-81, 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984). Nor does the claim of immunity bar an award of attorney's fees. Id. at 543-44, 104 S.Ct. at 1981-82. The standard for immunity is whether an official knew or should have known that what they were doing violated the Constitution. Here the relief requested is prospective and a finding by this Court that the Defendants have violated the Constitution provides notice that future such acts or failures to act will violate the Constitution. There can be no good faith. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 n. 34, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2739 n. 34, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).
[38] Whereas convicted Plaintiffs bring a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment, pretrial detainee Plaintiffs rely upon the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process. Brogsdale v. Barry, 926 F.2d 1184, 1187 (D.C.Cir.1991). Though the unconstitutional conditions may be the same, "the threshold for establishing a constitutional violation is clearly lower for the pretrial detainees." Brogsdale v. Barry, 926 F.2d 1184, 1187 n. 4 (D.C.Cir.1991). The standard is whether the prison conditions "amount to punishment of the detainee." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1871-72, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). The Court's ruling that the sexual harassment visited upon women convicts violates the Eighth Amendment means a fortiori, that such harassment violates the Fifth Amendment rights of pretrial detainees.

In addition, Plaintiffs claim that the sexual harassment from which they suffer violates their rights to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment. Since the Court holds that this sexual harassment violates the Eighth Amendment, the Court will not unnecessarily reach out to define the contours of the Fifth Amendment as applied to sexual harassment.
[39] The Court will not review these complaints under a claim of a constitutional right of privacy because they are adequately addressed under the Eighth Amendment.
[40] On the issue of damage caused by sexual harassment, the Court relies on the testimony of Dr. Fiester only to show the objective results of Defendants' actions. The Court takes the necessary next step of finding an objective violation of the Eighth Amendment by referring to contemporary standards of decency.
[41] Access to adequate obstetrical and gynecological care of women prisoners at the Annex is under review in the case of Inmates of Three Lorton Facilities v. District of Columbia, No. 92-1208 (D.D.C.) and issues relating to obstetrical and gynecological care at the Jail are controlled by Campbell v. McGruder, No. 1462-71 (D.D.C.).
[42] The Court believes that the obstetrical and gynecological care of women prisoners at CTF is more appropriately addressed by the D.C.Code rather than the Eighth Amendment. The Court may consider this issue pursuant to it pendent jurisdiction over D.C.Code claims arising out of the same nucleus of operative fact. Financial General Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger, 680 F.2d 768, 769 (D.C.Cir.1982).
[43] In the area of prenatal nutrition, the Court does not find enough evidence to hold that the amount or quality of nutrition which Defendants provide to pregnant women prisoners violates D.C.Code § 24-442.
[44] The Plaintiffs also claim that the Defendants provide insufficient post-partum counseling. The Court does not find enough evidence in the record to support this claim.
[45] Though Mr. Jaeger called the level of fire safety at the Annex "grossly inadequate", the Court must determine whether these specific inadequacies amount to a constitutional violation by referring to the contemporary standards of decency as reflected in what the public attitude toward the conditions at the Annex would be.
[46] The Court believes that the issue of fire safety at CTF is more appropriately addressed by the D.C.Code. As with the issue of obstetrical and gynecological care at CTF, the Court considers this issue pursuant to it pendent jurisdiction over D.C.Code claims arising out of the same nucleus of operative fact. Financial General Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger, 680 F.2d 768, 769 (D.C.Cir.1982).
[47] The Defendants concede that they receive federal funding. (Defs. Answer to Int. No. 2.)
[48] Senator Bayh's intentions were made clear the previous year when he introduced similar legislation and stated: "What we are trying to do is provide equal access for women and men students to the educational process...." 117 Cong.Rec. 30407 (1971) (emphasis added), and "the bill ... seeks to assure complete equality of access to educational opportunity." 117 Cong. Rec. 30412 (1971) (emphasis added). The Senate never voted on this measure because it was ruled nongermane. 117 Cong.Rec. 30415 (1971).
[49] Under Title VI's implementing regulations, proof of discriminatory effect suffices to establish liability. See Guardians Ass'n v. Civil Service Comm'n, 463 U.S. 582, 584 n. 2, 103 S.Ct. 3221, 3223 n. 2, 77 L.Ed.2d 866 (1983) (opinion of White, J.). Some courts conclude that discriminatory intent is equally unnecessary for a violation of Title IX's regulations. See Roberts v. Colorado State Board of Agriculture, 998 F.2d 824, 832-33 (10th Cir.1993); Haffer v. Temple University, 678 F.Supp. 517, 539-40 (E.D.Pa. 1987). A review of Title IX's implementing regulations demonstrates an emphasis on the "effects" and "impact" of a defendant's policies. The Court finds no requirement of intent in the regulations. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.21(b)(2) (prohibits tests for admission which have disproportionately adverse effect, unless test is valid predictor), 106.22 (no admission preference for graduates of single sex schools if preference has discriminatory effect), 106.23(b) (no recruitment primarily at single sex schools if it has discriminatory effect), 106.34(d) (prohibits physical education skill standard which has adverse effect on one sex), 106.37(b) (prohibits award of sex-restricted forms of financial assistance which have overall effect of sexual discrimination), 106.52 (prohibits any employment criterion which has disproportionate adverse impact unless it validly predicts successful performance), 106.53(b) (prohibits recruitment at entities which furnish job applicants of one sex if it has

effect of sexual discrimination); See also Sharif By Salahuddin v. New York State Education Dept., 709 F.Supp. 345, 361 (S.D.N.Y.1989).
[50] At CTF, 104 women are serving sentences of one to two years, 84 women are serving sentences of three to four years and 19 women are serving sentences of five or more years. (R. 11-45.)
[51] Plaintiffs do not challenge the programs available to women prisoners at the Jail because these issues are controlled by the orders and decrees in Campbell v. McGruder, No. 1462-71 (D.D.C.)
[52] Equal protection principles apply to federal action through the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499, 74 S.Ct. 693, 694, 98 L.Ed. 884 (1954).
[53] The Court does not reach the issue of whether this case is distinguishable from Pitts v. Thornburgh, 866 F.2d 1450 (D.C.Cir.1989), and subject to the standard provided in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), because the Court holds that the Defendants have not violated the Plaintiffs' Equal Protection rights even under the heightened scrutiny standard.

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF

)

COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

)

et âij.,

)

Plaintiffs,

) Civil Action ) No. 93-2052 JLG

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

)

et al.,

)

)

Defendants. )

)

PLAINTIFFS' REVISED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

I. GENERAL 1. The profile of the woman prisoner in D.C. is
97% African-American, 85% unemployed, 82% single parent and primary caretaker, 7% sentenced for violent crimes, and 57% sentenced for drug law violations. The women have histories of substance abuse, past sexual and physical abuse, and suffer from severe emotional problems including depression and dependence. (Pi. Exs. 289, 290, 292, 339, 341, 434, 520; Fiester testimony at 2-8 to 2-9; Lancaster testimony at 5-9 to 5-11; Ryan testimony; Minor Dep. Tr. at 24-27; Def. Findings ¶ 18-25) .

Women Prisoners of DC Department of Corrections v. District of Columbia

• • • • I B I V V I I H H • HV •

• • ••• !••

PC-DC-0011-0002

- 2II. SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Incidents of Sexual Misconduct 2. There have been "many, many, many" incidents of
sexual misconduct between employees and female inmates in the D.C. Department of Corrections (DCDC). (Plaut Dep. Tr. at 151-52; Lancaster testimony at 5-72; Fiester testimony at 2-2 to 2-4).
3. Dr. Fiester based her expert opinion regarding sexual misconduct and sexual harassment in the D.C. Department of Corrections on over 70 allegations of sexual misconduct from the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF), the Minimum Security Annex (Annex), and the Central Detention Facility (Jail). (Fiester testimony at 2-4, 2-6). At trial Dr. Fiester testified to numerous examples of representative incidents that fall along a continuum of severity. (Fiester testimony at 2-2 to 2-4). Dr. Fiester testified to 18 representative allegations in which she named the specific Jane Doe involved. (Fiester testimony at 2-7, 2-11 to 2-29, 2-31 to 2-38, 2-47 to 2-50, 2-53 to 2-56, 2-123). In addition, Dr. Fiester testified about specific examples of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment in the areas of exchanges of sex for goods, verbal harassment, and invasions of privacy without naming the individual Jane Does involved. (Fiester testimony at 2-26, 2-37, 2-43).

- 34. A pattern of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment exists in the D.C. Department of Corrections. (Fiester testimony at 1-139) . Physical Sexual Conduct 5. DCDC employees use physical force and threats of physical force to make women prisoners engage in sexual activity. (PI. Exs. 88, 502, 504, 596; Fiester testimony at 2-7 to 2-21; Jane Doe Q testimony at 1-77 to 1-80; Jane Doe W testimony at 1-36 to 1-38; Jane Doe RR testimony at 6-123 to 6-124; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 149-51; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 64). 6. DCDC employees coerce women prisoners into engaging in sexual activity through the use of threats, including threats of escape reports and disciplinary reports. (PI. Ex. 68; Fiester testimony at 2-15 to 2-18; Jane Doe 00 testimony at 1-100, 1-102 to 1-106; Krull Dep. Tr. at 146-49). 7. DCDC employees coerce women prisoners into having sexual contacts in exchange for goods and favors, including cigarettes, money, candy, food, and preferential treatment. (Fiester testimony at 2-23 to 2-24, 2-26, 2-28; Jane Doe P testimony at 4-3 9 to 4-41; Jane Doe Q testimony at 1-87 to 1-88; Jane Doe 00 testimony at 1-100, 1-102 to 1-106; Jane Doe RR testimony at 6-138 to 6-140; Derr (II) Dep. Tr. at 75; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 57-59, 137-39; Jones Dep. Tr. at 23-32) . 8. DCDC employees initiate and engage in inappropriate sexual activity with women prisoners. (Pi. Exs.

- 480, 83, 85, 98, 104, 502, 506, 657; Fiester testimony at 2-31 to 2-32; Jane Doe K testimony at 6-103, 6-108 to 6-109, 6-113 to 6-115; Jane Doe P testimony at 4-42, 4-49; Jane Doe Q testimony at 1-87 to 1-88; Jane Doe W testimony at 1-36 to 138; Jane Doe 00 testimony at 1-100, 1-102 to 1-106; Jane Doe RR testimony at 6-138 to 6-140; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 58-59; Brummell Dep. Tr. at 14, 21, 85; Derr (II) Dep. Tr. at 78, 81, 88-89; Gilmore Dep. Tr. at 216; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 57-59, 73-74, 118-20, 137-39, 143-45, 147, 150-51; Jones Dep. Tr. at 113, 159-64, 167-79; Krull Dep. Tr. at 233, 263; Perry Dep. Tr. at 166-68; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 162-63; Ray (II) Dep. Tr. at 125-26; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 199; Smith Dep. Tr. at 200-10).
9. DCDC employees allow women prisoners to have sexual relations with other residents. (Jane Doe K testimony at 6-102; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 67-70; Jones Dep. Tr. at 14954) .
10. DCDC employees touch women prisoners in an inappropriate and unwanted sexual manner. (PI. Exs. 69, 73, 10, 596; Fiester testimony at 2-34 to 2-35; Jane Doe K testimony at 6-105 to 6-107, 6-110, 6-113; Jane Doe Q testimony at 1-77 to 1-78; Jane Doe W testimony at 1-36 to 137; Jane Doe Z testimony at 7-64; Jane Doe 00 testimony at 1113; Brummell Dep. Tr. at 85; Gilmore Dep. Tr. at 202; Jones Dep. Tr. at 137, 140-41).

- 511. DCDC employees expose their bodies to women prisoners. (Pi. Ex. 69; Fiester testimony at 2-36; Jane Doe P testimony at 4-54) . 12. DCDC employees encourage or coerce women prisoners to "flash" for them and to expose their bodies to employees. (Pi. Exs. 84, 88; Fiester testimony at 2-35 to 237; Jane Doe P testimony at 4-55). 13. Defendants are aware that physical sexual contact occurs between DCDC employees and women prisoners. (Pi. Exs. 66, 69, 73, 83, 85, 86, 97, 104, 502, 504, 506; Jane Doe K testimony at 6-108; Jane Doe P testimony at 4-45 to 446; Jane Doe RR testimony at 6-141 to 6-143; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 57-60; Brummell· Dep. Tr. at 13-104, 68-82; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 93-94, 127-67; P. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 152-56; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 23-156; Jones Dep. Tr. at 21-47, 110-88; Krull Dep. Tr. at 232-49, 269-70; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 119-26, 260-65; Perry Dep. Tr. at 160-75; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 151-52; Ray (II) Dep. Tr. at 125-30; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 199-200, 20204, 208-16; Roach Dep. Tr. at 108-14; Welch Dep. Tr. at 62-67, 79-82) . 14. Women prisoners can never consent to physical sexual contact with employees due to the extreme positions of power employees have over women prisoners, coupled with the fact that women prisoners are completely dependent upon the employees for their care, well-being, and security. (Fiester testimony at 1-44 to 1-45; Lancaster testimony at 5-62; Y.

- 6Jackson Dep. Tr. at 81-82; Krull Dep. Tr. at 201; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 232; Minor Dep. Tr. at 123-24; Perry Dep. Tr. at 175; Roach Dep. Tr. at 102).
Verbal Sexual Comments 15. Women prisoners at CTF, the Annex, and the Jail are subjected to inappropriate verbal sexual comments, advances and propositions by DCDC employees in every aspect of their incarceration. (PI. Exs. 67, 72, 74-78, 82, 84, 101; Fiester testimony at 2-37 to 2-39; Jane Doe V testimony at 466 to 4-68; Jane Doe VII testimony at 4-123 to 4-126; Jane Doe K testimony at 6-115; Jane Doe P testimony at 4-54, 4-56; Jane Doe Q testimony at 1-88; Jane Doe W testimony at 1-55; Jane Doe 00 testimony at 1-116; Jones Dep. Tr. at 144; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 57; Stempson Dep. Tr. at 170-72). 16. Defendants are aware that women prisoners at CTF, the Annex, and the Jail are subjected to inappropriate verbal sexual comments, advances and propositions by DCDC employees in every aspect of their incarceration. (Pi. Exs. 67, 72, 74-78, 82, 84, 101; Lancaster testimony at 5-62; Jane Doe 00 testimony at 1-116 to 1-117; Jones Dep. Tr. at 144; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 57; Stempson Dep. Tr. at 168-72). 17. Women prisoners at the Annex are subjected to unwelcome and inappropriate verbal sexual comments, advances and propositions by male inmates and DCDC employees in Industries at the Central Facility. (Fiester testimony at 234 to 2-35; Lancaster testimony at 5-75; Jane Doe K testimony

- 7at 6-112 to 6-114; Jane Doe Z testimony at 7-69 to 7-70; Jane Doe 00 testimony at 1-112 to 1-114; Derr (II) Dep. Tr. at 8890; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 92-111; Stempson Dep. Tr. at 133).
18. Defendants' employees witness and are aware that women prisoners are subjected to inappropriate verbal sexual comments, advances and propositions by male inmates at Minimum. (Fiester testimony at 2-38; Lancaster testimony at 5-79; Jane Doe 00 testimony at 1-117 to 1-118; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 157-58; Gilmore Dep. Tr. at 205-06).
Invasion of Privacy 19. Defendants fail to prevent the invasion of women residents' privacy. (Fiester testimony at 2-42 to 2-44; Jane Doe II testimony at 3-15 to 3-17). 20. Male employees frequently enter the women's living areas without announcing their presence in contravention of Defendants' internal policy. (Fiester testimony at 2-43; Jane Doe II testimony at 3-16; Jane Doe W testimony at 1-56 to 1-58; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 32-33, 44) . 21. Male employees frequently view the female residents without clothing as a result of their failure to announce their presence in the women's living areas. (Pi. Ex. 330; Fiester testimony at 2-43; Jane Doe W testimony at 1-56 to 1-58). Male officers also peep through the windows of women's rooms to view the women in stages of undress. (Fiester testimony at 2-43).

- 822. Male residents are able to view the interior of women's housing areas at CTF from the recreation yard and from their cells. (Pi. Ex. 330; Fìester testimony at 2-89; Jane Doe II testimony at 3-16 to 3-17; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 218-19). Environment 23. Sexual misconduct, sexual harassment and invasions of privacy are severe and pervasive and create a hostile, sexualized environment at CTF, Minimum, and the Jail. (Fiester testimony at 2-58 to 2-61; Lancaster testimony at 577 to 5-82; Minor Dep. Tr. at 15-22, 94-124, 126-29; Ray (II) Dep. Tr. at 111-12; 132-34). 24. Sexual misconduct and sexual harassment create a "toxic psychological environment" in which women prisoners are forced to live. (Fiester testimony at 1-140). 25. The sexualized environment is characterized by staff morale problems and large numbers of "rumors" regarding ongoing incidents of sexual misconduct that have become accepted as part of the day to day routine and culture at the DCDC facilities where women are housed. One employee at the Annex even heard staff describe CTF as a "brothel." (Lancaster testimony at 5-78). Such acceptance has diffused the professional boundaries and expected behaviors of DCDC employees, which leads to an increase in the numbers of incidents of sexual misconduct. (Lancaster testimony at 5-78; Ray (II) Dep. Tr. at 111-12)

- 926. The sexualized environment is also characterized by the inappropriate clothing of women inmates on their housing units. DCDC employees allow women on housing units to be inappropriately attired, in contravention of their internal policy, in the presence of male employees, which contributes to a hostile, sexualized environment. (PI. Exs. 326, 330, 357; Lancaster testimony at 5-80; Fiester testimony at 2-86 to 2-87; Hawkins Dep. Tr. at 151-52; Krull Dep. Tr. at 199; Perry Dep. Tr. at 152). Pregnant women are clothed in discarded aprons from the Jail that resemble hospital gowns that do not adequately cover their bodies. (Lancaster testimony at 5-80 to 5-81). 27. At the Annex, the constant harassment of the women prisoners on their way to the dining hall at Minimum also contributes to the hostile environment for women. Defendants permit male inmates at Minimum to stand behind a yellow line painted on the ground while women walk down the hill for daily meals. The men shout obscenities, inappropriate sexual remarks, sexual propositions, and ogle the women from behind the yellow line. (Lancaster testimony at 5-79; Fiester testimony at 2-38; Jane Doe 00 testimony at 1-117; Gilmore Dep. Tr. at 205-06; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 15758). Male correctional officers at the Minimum compound encourage the behavior of the male inmates by laughing and making no effort to stop the harassment of women prisoners. (Jane Doe 00 testimony at 1-117 to 1-118).

- 10 Effect on Women 28. Defendants are aware that incarcerated women as a population generally have low self esteem and a high incidence of depression, and that many women prisoners have experienced rape, sexual assault, or sexual abuse prior to being incarcerated. (Fiester testimony at 2-8 to 2-9; Lancaster testimony at 5-10; Def. Findings ¶ 19-20; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 137-41). 29. The sexualized environment and sexual contact between DCDC employees and women prisoners exacerbates the women's existing low self esteem and depression. (Fiester testimony at 2-57; Jane Doe W testimony at 1-54; Jane Doe 00 testimony at 1-106). 30. Women prisoners with histories of rape, sexual abuse, or sexual assault who are subjected to sexual comments, advances, or contacts experience increased depression, guilt, self-blame, anger, and hostility. Additionally, the process of resolving problems related to prior abuse is severely damaged. (Fiester testimony at 2-61; Jane Doe W testimony at 1-54; Jane Doe 00 testimony at 1-106). 31. Women prisoners who are not directly subjected to sexual comments or physical contact who observe this behavior may experience psychological distress, including feelings of helplessness and frustration, and may have recurrences of memories of past abuse. (Fiester testimony at 2-56 to 2-57; Jane Doe Z testimony at 7-67).

- 11 32. Coerced sexual contact in exchange for goods and preferential treatment encourages and reinforces pathological behavior in women prisoners, including reinforcing the idea that women can use their bodies as commodities and that their value is primarily as sexual objects. (Fiester testimony at 2-59). 33. Sexual assault or rape can cause women prisoners to experience severe depressive and anxiety disorders and significant physical symptoms. (Fiester testimony at 2-57 to 2-58) . Defendants' Response to Sexual Misconduct 34. Defendants fail to adequately address sexual misconduct at CTF, the Annex, and the Jail. (Pi. Exs. 66, 69, 73, 83, 85, 86, 97, 104, 502, 504, 506; Lancaster testimony at 5-6 to 5-7; Fiester testimony at 2-2; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 5760; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 93-113; P. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 15256; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 23-156; Jones Dep. Tr. at 21-47, 122-88; Krull Dep. Tr. at 232-49, 269-70; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 222-23, 225-26; Perry Dep. Tr. at 160-75; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 165-66, 171-72, 181-82, Ray (II) Dep. Tr. at 125-30; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 199-200, 202-04, 214-15; Roach Dep. Tr. at 111-14; Welch Dep. Tr. at 62-67, 79-82). 35. "Sexual misconduct is as serious if not the most serious kind of behavior issue of employees" in prison systems. (Lancaster testimony at 5-64).

- 12 Policies and Procedures 36. Department Order No. 4030.ID, the Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) Policy, outlines the process by which inmates can report complaints to the administration. (PI. Exs. 117, 120). However, inmates rarely use this process to report serious incidents such as sexual misconduct. (Lancaster testimony at 5-61). 37. Instructions for filing an IGP are not uniformly posted in the institutions. Women are not instructed on how to use the IGP process. Defendants' failure to inform women prisoners about the process restricts the women's access to this procedure for reporting incidents of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. (Fiester testimony at 2-44 to 2-45; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-70 to 4-71; Jane Doe W testimony at 1-46; Jane Doe RR testimony at 6-128; Krull Dep. Tr. at 230). 38. The existing Inmate Grievance Procedure does not adequately address women's concerns for confidentiality. (Fiester testimony at 2-45; Jane Doe RR testimony at 6-137 to 6-138; Perry Dep. Tr. at 164-65; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 148-49; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 210; Smith Dep. Tr. at 218). 39. The Department of Corrections has no policy that explicitly prohibits sexual assault or sexual harassment of female inmates. (Lancaster testimony at 5-61; Gilmore Dep. Tr. at 197). The personnel policy on the Employee-Inmate Relationship, Department Order No. 3350.1, prohibits undue

- 13 familiarity between employees and inmates and states that employees should refrain from having intimate or romantic relationships with inmates. (Pi. Ex. 106). The workplace sexual harassment policy, Department Order No. 3310.4B, applies only to incidents of sexual harassment between employees in the workplace and does not address incidents involving inmates. (Lancaster testimony at 5-61, 5-83; Pi. Exs. 107, 110).
40. Defendants have not clearly defined what behavior constitutes sexual misconduct and sexual harassment with inmates in a way that rank and file employees clearly understand. (Lancaster testimony at 5-7, 5-66). The professional boundaries between DCDC employees and inmates must be very clear and should be precisely conveyed to all employees. (Lancaster testimony at 5-70).
Reporting Sexual Misconduct 41. Defendants' employees routinely receive allegations of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment from women prisoners, but fail to report the allegations. (Lancaster testimony at 5-65; Fiester testimony at 2-45 to 248; Jane Doe K testimony at 6-109 to 1-110; Jane Doe Q testimony at 1-80 to 1-82; Jane Doe W testimony at 1-40 to 141; Jane Doe Z testimony at 7-68 to 7-69; Jane Doe RR testimony at 6-141; P. Jackson Dep. Tr. 152-56; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 72; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 240; Perry Dep. Tr. at 161; Welch Dep. Tr. at 62-67, 72). Some employees tell the

- 14 women that they must write up an IGP and send it up the chain of command. (Lancaster testimony at 5-65; P. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 152-56; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 72). Other employees advise women prisoners to quit their jobs in order to avoid the harassment or misconduct. (Lancaster testimony at 5-65; Fiester testimony at 2-48; Welch Dep. Tr. at 63-64).
42. Defendants' employees are not uniformly aware of their duty to report incidents of sexual misconduct. (Lancaster testimony at 5-64 to 5-66; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 158-59; Welch Dep. Tr. at 62).
43. Defendants' employees are not uniformly aware of the procedure for reporting incidents of sexual misconduct within the institution. (Lancaster testimony at 5-66; Fiester testimony at 2-45 to 2-48; Elzie Dep. Tr. at 77; Ali Dep. Tr. at 140; Derr (II) Dep. Tr. at 88; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 15859). Other employees do not trust the investigatory process, and thus fail to report incidents of sexual misconduct. (Lancaster testimony at 5-66; Derr (II) Dep. Tr. at 98; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 161).
Investigating Sexual Misconduct 44. Defendants fail to adequately and consistently investigate reports of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. (Lancaster testimony at 5-7; Fiester testimony at 2-49; PI. Exs. 66, 69, 73, 83, 85, 86, 97, 104, 502, 504, 506; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 57-60; Derr (II) Dep. Tr. at 105-06; Hawkins Dep. Tr. at 176-80; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 93-113, 115;

- 15 P. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 81-82, 152-56; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 23-156, 161; Jones Dep. Tr. at 21-47, 122-88; Krull Dep. Tr. at 227-28, 232-49, 269-70; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 222-23, 225-26; Perry Dep. Tr. at 160-75; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 165-66, 171-72, 181-82, Ray (II) Dep. Tr. at 125-30; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 199-200, 202-04, 214-15; Roach Dep. Tr. at 111-14; Welch Dep. Tr. at 62-67, 79-82).
45. No uniform investigatory procedures exist for investigating allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment involving women prisoners. (Lancaster testimony at 5-7, 5-67; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 85; Krull Dep. Tr. at 227).
46. Defendants have not appropriately investigated incidents of sexual misconduct or.sexual harassment. (Lancaster testimony at 5-67 to 5-73; Fiester testimony at 249; PI. Exs. 72, 80, 67, 82, 86, 502, 504, 596; Elzie (sealed) Dep. Tr. at 16). Defendants fail to consistently and thoroughly investigate the "many, many, many" allegations of sexual misconduct. (Lancaster testimony 5-7, 5-71; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 151-52).
47. All incidents of sexual misconduct should be reported to the Administrator of the facility. That Administrator has the responsibility to know of all allegations of sexual misconduct and to initiate the appropriate investigation in each instance. (Lancaster testimony at 5-67 to 5-68, 5-70). It is the administrator who

- 16 sets the tone and the expectations for the institution for both staff and inmates. (Lancaster testimony at 5-71).
48. The former administrator of CTF, Ms. McCathorine, concerned herself only with the result of an investigation and delegated all responsibility for the investigation itself to Mr. L.C. Jones. (McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 241). Mr. Jones had an allegation of sexual misconduct pending against him. (Fiester testimony at 2-55; Jones Dep. Tr. at 169-70). It is an inappropriate response to appoint an alleged perpetrator of sexual misconduct to investigate incidents of sexual misconduct. (Lancaster testimony at 5-71 to 5-72; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 229 (administrator cannot make a decision on whether it is appropriate to have Jones investigate allegations of sexual misconduct if he had allegations brought against him)).
49. An investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct should be conducted when there is any hint that a law has been violated; when an inmate says that sexual misconduct has happened to her; when there are allegations of threatening, intimidating language; when the specific name of an inmate is known; when the specific name of an employee is known; when a specific location such as building maintenance or culinary arts is identified; or when the information is the "final piece of the pie" that indicates a cohesive allegation of sexual misconduct. The investigation should be conducted

- 17 immediately after receipt of the information. (Lancaster testimony at 5-68 to 5-69) .
50. There are excessive delays in the Defendants' investigation and timely resolution of women prisoners' claims of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. (Lancaster testimony at 5-72; Fiester testimony at 2-126; Jane Doe P testimony at 4-39, 4-57).
51. Defendants routinely fail to investigate, or conduct deficient investigations of, allegations of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. (Pi. Exs. 68, 80, 84, 85, 91, 98; Fiester testimony at 2-53 to 2-56; Jane Doe K testimony at 6-105 to 6-108; Jane Doe 00 testimony at 1-114 to 1-115; Jane Doe RR testimony at 6-141 to 6-145; Brummell Dep. Tr. at 91; Derr (II) Dep. Tr. at 68-71, 75-76; Elzie (sealed) Dep. Tr. at 13-14; Hawkins Dep. Tr. at 176-80; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 164-66; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 67-74, 119-20, 137-39, 143, 148; Jones Dep. Tr. at 31-32, 159-60, 163-64, 167-79; Krull Dep. Tr. at 233, 244-49, 263-68; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 15358, 182; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 213; Smith Dep. Tr. at 200).
52. Defendants' recent policy regarding the use of outside investigators for allegations of sexual harassment applies only to workplace sexual harassment of female employees. (PI. Ex. 433; Gilmore Dep. Tr. at 212-14; Jones Dep. Tr. at 125).
53. The inaction of the Defendants in investigating allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment

- 18 increases the women's reluctance to report sexual misconduct or sexual harassment. (Fiester testimony at 2-61 to 2-62) .
Law Enforcement Agencies 54. Defendants' managerial employees are not uniformly aware of procedures for reporting allegations of sexual misconduct to law enforcement agencies. (Lancaster testimony at 5-73 to 5-74; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 115, 146; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 243). 55. Sexual misconduct involving force or threats of force are not routinely reported by Defendants to law enforcement agencies. (Pi. Exs. 73, 87, 90, 91, 154, 502; Lancaster testimony at 5-73 to 5-74; Fiester testimony at 248; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 161). Such misconduct should be reported to the police at the first belief that the possibility exists that a law has been violated. (Lancaster testimony at 5-73). 56. The former Administrator at CTF, Ms. McCathorine, indicated that she would first conduct an internal investigation before reporting an incident of sexual misconduct to law enforcement officials. (Lancaster testimony at 5-73; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 243). This is an inappropriate response to handling allegations of sexual misconduct. (Lancaster testimony at 5-73). 57. On the occasion that an incident of sexual misconduct involving force or threats of force is reported to law enforcement agencies, the Defendants often fail to

- 19 communicate with the law enforcement agency to stay up to date on the criminal investigation and even fail to ascertain the outcome of the investigation. (Lancaster testimony at 5-72; Jane Doe Q testimony at 1-85 to 1-86; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 95, 146, 151, 156-57) .
58. Defendants do not conduct an internal investigation when an allegation of sexual misconduct is referred to a law enforcement agency. (Elzie (sealed) Dep. Tr. at 9; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 149, 156-57). Such a personnel investigation is a required procedure for appropriately handling allegations of sexual misconduct in a prison. (Lancaster testimony at 5-73).
Conclusive Results 59. Defendants routinely fail to reach a conclusion as to whether sexual misconduct or sexual harassment in fact occurred. (Lancaster testimony at 5-74; Pi. Exs. 67, 82, 86, 88, 98, 502, 504, 596; Brummell Dep. Tr. at 95-97; Jones Dep. Tr. at 178-79; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 166; Smith Dep. Tr. at 200; Stempson Dep. Tr. at 169-72). Generally, it is possible to resolve such allegations conclusively in 90% of the cases. (Lancaster testimony at 5-76) 60. Defendants routinely determine that sexual misconduct or sexual harassment has not occurred when the evidence consists of an inmate's word against an employee's word. (Lancaster testimony at 5-72; Pi. Exs. 67, 74-78, 82, 86) .

- 20 61. Defendants fail to take appropriate disciplinary action to impose sanctions against DCDC employees for sexual misconduct or sexual harassment. (Lancaster testimony at 5-7, 5-74; Pi. Exs. 83, 101, 104, 502; Brummell Dep. Tr. at 68; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 13 2; Roach Dep. Tr. at 112; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 162, 189). Mr. Plaut, the Associate Director for Operations, testified that once an allegation of sexual misconduct has been referred to a law enforcement agency, a facility cannot discipline the employee unless he is found guilty of a crime. (Plaut testimony). However, conduct can constitute sexual misconduct that violates DCDC policies and regulations regardless of whether the conduct also meets the standards of a criminal act. (Lancaster testimony at 573; Fiester testimony at 2-128). 62. Defendants' most common response to allegations of sexual misconduct made by an inmate against an employee is to merely reassign the officer away from women inmates. However, this does not sufficiently sanction any wrongful conduct. This action also creates the impression that nothing can happen to an employee for engaging in such misconduct and discourages inmates from reporting the misconduct. (Lancaster testimony at 5-74 to 5-76). 63. Moreover, Defendants have failed to reassign officers in certain situations that have resulted in continued contact between the inmate and the alleged perpetrator for up

- 21 to eight months. (Jane Doe W testimony at 1-36, 1-47 to 1-51; PI. Ex. 675 (Munoz letter)).
64. Defendants have failed to define the possible sanctions for employees who engage in sexual misconduct, ranging from rape to sexual harassment. (Lancaster testimony at 5-7, 5-67; Pi. Ex. 109). Sexual misconduct requires serious, severe, and consistently adhered to sanctions imposed on employees for violating their professional boundaries, personnel policies, and public trust. (Lancaster testimony at 5-76).
Training 65. Defendants fail to adequately train their employees regarding sexual harassment and sexual misconduct between employees and inmates. (Lancaster testimony at 5-84; PI. Ex. 3 56; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 9O-92\· Stempson Dep. Tr. at 182-83; Welch Dep. Tr. at 76). 66. Defendants offer employees only 1.5 hours on the issue of the employee and inmate relationship during basic training at the beginning of their career with the Department of Corrections. (Pi. Exs. Ill, 388). Training in workplace sexual harassment offered for two hours in basic training and as in-service training once a year does not address sexual misconduct involving inmates, but addresses only incidents of sexual harassment between employees in the workplace. (Pi. Exs. 115, 116). The only training specific to female offenders was offered once in May 1992 for the opening of CTF.

- 22 (McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 109-13). However, many of the employees who participated in this training were subsequently transferred to work in the substance abuse unit at CTF rather than the women's unit, and future employees assigned to the women's unit were not offered the training. (Lancaster testimony at 5-86) .
67. Roll call training is offered to DCDC employees only on the issue of workplace sexual harassment. This training does not include information regarding sexual misconduct involving female inmates. Moreover, training offered for a maximum of ten minutes at the start of an employee's shift is an ineffective way of presenting this serious information to employees. (Lancaster testimony at 587) .
68. Defendants' failure to adequately train employees in issues regarding sexual misconduct involving female inmates has created an atmosphere where such behavior is tolerated and engaged in by employees. (Lancaster testimony at 5-87 to 5-88; Ray (II) Dep. Tr. at 111-12).
III. MEDICAL CARE Gvnecoloaical Care Examination and Testing 69. Women prisoners at CTF, as Defendants are
aware, are "at risk for a greatly increased incidence of sexually transmitted diseases," such as AIDS, syphilis,

- 23 gonorrhea, and chlamydia,· for other gynecological conditions such as breast and cervical cancer; and for developing complications during pregnancy. A study conducted by Defendants revealed that approximately ten percent of all women prisoners are HIV positive. In addition, a review of medical records conducted by Plaintiffs' medical expert, Dr. Major, revealed that in eleven of forty-seven cases, women had positive tests for syphilis. (Pi. Exs. 297, 660, 667; Major testimony at 3-52 to 3-58, 3-60, 3-65, 3-74; Clark testimony; W. Hall Dep. Tr. at 46, 51; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 152-55; Welch Dep. Tr. at 44-46).
70. Treating a high risk population differs from treating a non-high-risk population in that more frequent testing for, and monitoring of, gynecological conditions is required. As Dr. Major testified: "Intervals of examination should be much shorter, particularly as it refers to prenatal care, but even in cases that aren't connected with pregnancy, these women have to be watched a lot more closely because infections and diseases . . . rapidly develop to advanced stages which make treatment very difficult and cure sometimes unlikely." (Major testimony at 3-58).
71. Contrary to Defendants' own written policies and correctional health care standards, testing for sexuallytransmitted diseases is inadequate because it often does not take place within the prescribed period of time after intake or a reasonable time thereafter, and in some instances, does

- 24 not take place at all. Thus, even though Defendants have a written policy regarding testing, as Dr. Major testified: "[A]t CTF this policy is not followed and so, therefore, I'd have to say that the end result is the same as if there was no policy." (Major testimony at 3-59, 3-74, 3-77; Pi. Exs. 561, 563) .
72. Defendants' failure to provide adequate testing for sexually-transmitted diseases such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis to women prisoners at CTF places these women at an increased risk of sterility, infertility, and even death. For a pregnant woman, failure to provide adequate testing also places her fetus at greater risk of developing eye infections, contracting pneumonia, and impairing the quality of life of the newborn child. (Major testimony at 353 to 3-54, 3-74 to 3-76).
73. Defendants do not perform required routine gynecological examinations, such as routine pap smears, on all women within prescribed periods of time. Dr. Major found, for example, that in nine cases there was no documentation that a pap smear had ever been performed. (Major testimony at 3-66 to 3-67; PI. Ex. 254; Jane Doe II testimony at 2-171 to 2-172; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-93 to 4-96) .
74. Nationally-recognized standards of care require
Defendants to perform pap smears on women prisoners with AIDS
or who are HIV positive at least every 6 months, which Defendants have failed to do. Dr. Major's review of medical

- 25 records indicated that of approximately twelve women who were HIV positive whose records he reviewed, in not one instance had pap smears been performed at six-month intervals. (Major testimony at 3-68 to 3-70, 3-73, 3-80) .
Treatment and Follow-Up 75. Defendants have repeatedly failed to provide adequate treatment and follow-up of gynecological conditions even though it is Defendants' policy "to provide clinically appropriate periodic health examinations and follow-up care to inmates." (Pi. Exs. 254, 483, 641; Major testimony at 3-73, 3-78, 3-79 to 3-81, 3-81 to 3-83, 3-162; Jane Doe II testimony at 2-158 to 2-173, 3-23 to 3-24, 3-37 to 3-38; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-94 to 4-96; Hawkins Dep. Tr. at 64-65). 76. Adequate follow-up care is important because it may eradicate or at least ameliorate the condition complained of and, if there are recurrences of the condition, adequate follow-up care enables the recurrences to be detected early enough so that treatment is rendered more effective. (Major testimony at 3-77). 77. As a result of Defendants' failure to provide treatment and follow-up gynecological care, Defendants have caused women prisoners to experience unnecessary pain and stress and have increased the women prisoners' risk of developing further complications related to their medical conditions. As Jane Doe II testified: "There's days I don't want to even get out of bed because I don't feel that I can

- 26 handle -– I'm just afraid and I'm scared that I'm going to die in prison." (Pi. Ex. 254; Major testimony at 3-85; Jane Doe II testimony at 2-168, 2-175 to 2-176; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-93 to 4-96).
Health Education 78. In contradiction of their own written policies, Defendants provide "grossly inadequate" health education to women prisoners incarcerated at CTF. (Pi. Ex. 570, W. Hall Dep. Tr. at 181-182; Welch Dep. Tr. at 31-32; Major testimony at 3-86 to 3-88; Jane Doe II testimony at 2-172). 79. Defendants do not provide adequate access to contraceptives. (Major testimony at 3-90). 80. Adequate health education encourages prevention and early treatment of gynecological conditions. (Major testimony at 3-88) . 81. Health education is particularly important for women incarcerated at CTF because they are at high risk of contracting and/or transmitting sexually-transmitted diseases and developing other gynecological conditions. (Pi. Ex. 667; Major testimony at 3-52 to 3-58, 3-60, 3-65, 3-74; Ali Dep. Tr. at 89). 82. Health education and access to contraceptives are also important because women prisoners are sexually active while incarcerated in Defendants' correctional institutions. (Pi. Exs. 1, 557; Major testimony at 3-88 to 3-91; Jane Doe K testimony at 6-103 to 6-104; Ali Dep. Tr. at 124-25; P.

- 27 -

Jackson Dep. Tr. at 85-86; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 268-71; Ray (I) Dep. Tr. at 92-98; Taylor Dep. Tr. at 121-22, 153-58).
83. Failure to provide adequate health education

puts women prisoners at CTF at increased risk of developing serious gynecological problems. (Major testimony at 3-87 to

3-89) .

Abortion Counseling 84. Defendants' written policy provides that non-

directive counseling shall be provided to all incarcerated women who are contemplating seeking an abortion. (Pi. Ex. 5 ) .

85. Defendants have violated their own policy and have failed to provide adequate abortion counseling to pregnant women. (Pi. Exs. 434, 658; Major testimony at 3-91

to 3-92).

86. Indicative of Defendants' failure to ensure

that women receive non-directive counseling is Defendants' decision, approved by then Director Ridley, to allow

representatives of the "Sanctity of Life Ministry," an antiabortion organization, "to assist [Defendants] in providing quality program opportunities for the pregnant inmates in our

facilities," believing that organization would have a "major impact" and "would provide quality programming for this

population." (Pi. Ex. 658; Krull Dep. Tr. at 159-61; Major testimony at 3-92 to 3-93).

87. Defendants have failed to provide adequate

counseling in at least three instances where women indicated

- 28 they wanted, and ultimately obtained, an abortion. (Major testimony at 3-91 to 3-92; Welch Dep. Tr. at 61-62).
88. In at least one instance, one woman prisoner at CTF indicated that she wanted an abortion, yet she never obtained one. She never received any counseling concerning the options available to her. She is now approximately nine months pregnant. (Major testimony at 3-91 to 3-92).
Prenatal Care 89. Defendants have a written policy requiring them
to provide comprehensive medical care and counseling to all pregnant women prisoners. (Pi. Exs. 2, 339).
90. Defendants have violated their own policy by failing to provide pregnant women prisoners with adequate prenatal care. Indeed, in December 1993, former CTF administrator G.H. McCathorine referred to "noted deficiencies in pregnant females receiving prenatal care on schedule." (PI. Ex. 428). And in 1994, Regina Gilmore, Acting Coordinator of the Female Offender Program, further recognized that there is a "lack of gender specific care in the areas of pre-natal and postnatal education and care." (Pi. Exs. 434, 601; Major testimony at 3-93 to 3-116, 3-185 to 3-187; Jane Doe L testimony at 2-135 to 2-136).
91. Defendants are aware that the failure to provide adequate prenatal care and counseling to pregnant women prisoners at CTF increases the risk of infant deformity and mortality; increases the health risks associated with

- 29 pregnancy for women; precludes bonding between mother and child; and puts newborn children at greater risk of being placed in inappropriate child care arrangements. (Pi. Exs. 295, 297, 298, 606, 651; Major testimony at 3-100 to 3-102; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 271-75).
92. Defendants' failure to provide adequate prenatal care and counseling also causes a pregnant woman prisoner at CTF to endure stress unnecessarily because of fear that she and her fetus are not receiving proper care. Such stress is in addition to the general anxiety suffered by women who are pregnant while incarcerated. As the former Chief of Mental Health Services at DCDC has stated: "To experience pregnancy in the harsh environment of incarceration must be considered a most cruel punishment." (Pi. Ex. 297; Jane Doe K testimony at 6-101; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 271-75; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 301-02) .
Commencement of Prenatal Care 93. Defendants do not commence prenatal care immediately after they have reason to know that a woman prisoner is pregnant. Indeed, some pregnant women have resided at CTF for two months before receiving any prenatal care and in some instances, women prisoners have received virtually no prenatal care. (Major testimony at 3-99 to 3100; Jane Doe L testimony at 2-134 to 2-136). 94. Commencing prenatal care early in the pregnancy is particularly important because as Dr. Major indicated,

- 30 "[t]he earlier the necessity of intervention is determined the easier it is to eradicate or to ameliorate that particular risk of an unfavorable outcome of pregnancy." Common examples of conditions that may arise early in pregnancy, and for which early intervention is necessary, include anemia, hypertension, diabetes, and poor weight gain or poor infant growth. (Major testimony at 3-100 to 3-102).
95. Defendants have also failed to provide pregnant women prisoners with regularly scheduled prenatal check-ups. Jane Doe S4, for example, had to sign up for sick call to attempt to receive prenatal care, stating on the sick call list for April 12, 1993: "I need prenatal care bad." (Pi. Ex. 254; Major testimony at 3-100; Jane Doe K testimony at 6-97; Jane Doe L testimony at 2-134 to 2-13 8; Jane Doe QQQ testimony at 4-20 to 4-26).
Lack of a Prenatal Protocol 96. One of the most glaring defects in the prenatal care provided to women at CTF is the lack of an adequate written prenatal protocol, which would outline in detail the medical care that pregnant women should receive and the specified times during which they should receive that care. (PI. Ex. 642; Major testimony at 3-70 to 3-72, 3-94 to 3-96). 97. CTF also does not utilize risk assessment forms, such as PROPRAS forms, which are critical in minimizing maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. (PI. Exs. 642, 667; Major testimony at 3-94 to 3-96; Clark testimony).

- 31 98. One of the primary advantages of an adequate prenatal protocol is that, by following an adequate protocol, the risk of unfavorable outcomes of pregnancy is reduced. (Major testimony at 3-107 to 3-108). 99. Dr. Charles Hall, the CTF part-time OB/GYN physician, prepared "prenatal guidelines" at the request of Dr. Eliza Taylor. The "Guidelines for Care of Pregnant Inmates at CTF," are a one-page, seven-sentenced document, prepared subsequent to the filing of Plaintiffs' lawsuit and subsequent to the initial site visit of CTF by Plaintiffs' medical expert. (PI. Ex. 457; Major testimony at 3-132; C. Hall Dep. Tr. at 121-24). 100. These "guidelines" do not constitute an adequate prenatal protocol. (Pi. Ex. 457; Major testimony at 3-97 to 3-99) . Transportation 101. Transportation to and from D.C. General Hospital is an integral part of the provision of medical care to women prisoners at CTF because most pregnant women prisoners incarcerated at CTF receive their primary prenatal care at D.C. General Hospital, and, in most instances, give birth at D.C. General Hospital. Women prisoners also receive gynecological care at D.C. General Hospital. (Major testimony at 3-102; Jane Doe II testimony at 2-173; Jane Doe K testimony at 6-96; Jane Doe L testimony at 3-138; Jane Doe QQQ testimony at 4-10; C. Hall Dep. Tr. at 111; Jones Dep. Tr. at 63).

- 32 102. From the opening of CTF in May 1992 to the present day, Defendants have failed to provide an adequate transportation system for ensuring that women are able to keep their obstetrical and gynecological appointments at D.C. General Hospital, at the Jail, and even within CTF. (PI. Exs. 59, 389, 394; Major testimony at 3-102 to 3-103, 3-104 to 3106, 3-163 to 3-166; Jane Doe K testimony at 6-96; Jane Doe QQQ testimony at 4-20 to 4-26) . 103. Correctional officers are often not available to transport women to their obstetrical or gynecological appointments. Even when transportation is available, it is often so late that an appointment has to be cancelled or a woman is forced to refuse an appointment after arriving at D.C. General Hospital, for example, because she has had to wait too long after arrival before being seen by medical personnel. (Pi. Exs. 59, 389; Major testimony at 3-105 to 3106; Jane Doe II testimony at 2-167; Jane Doe K testimony at 6-96; Jane Doe QQQ testimony at 4-20 to 4-26, 4-35; Ali Dep. Tr. at 103-04) . 104. As a result of Defendants' failure to transport women to medical appointments in a timely manner, particularly to D.C. General Hospital, some women have not been able to receive medical visits at appropriate intervals. In some instances, there is considerable delay before a woman is seen at a rescheduled appointment. (Pi. Ex. 3 89; Jane Doe II

- 33 -

testimony at 2-167 to 2-168; Jane Doe QQQ testimony at 4-20 to

4-26).

10 5. In April 19 94, for example, Jane Doe QQQ had an

appointment at D.C. General Hospital to be tested for gestational diabetes. Because of the nature of the test, she was told not to eat that morning before the test was taken.

At the time, Jane Doe QQQ was approximately eight months pregnant and there was a history of diabetes in her family.

Her appointment was scheduled for 7:30 am but she did not leave CTF until 8:30 am because there was no escort to take her. Jane Doe QQQ did not arrive at DCGH until approximately

8:40 am she and had to wait in a main waiting area, with restraints on, for almost three hours. Jane Doe QQQ

eventually had to refuse to receive the test at D.C. General Hospital that day because she had been waiting three and a half hours, shackled to a bench, and although eight months

pregnant, had not eaten any food since the night before. Dr. Major testified that in his opinion, Jane Doe QQQ's wait was

much too long, particularly because "[p]eople who have gestational diabetes, if they don't eat when they're supposed to they get weak, they get sweaty, dizzy and the same thing

happens to the baby [which] is not good for the baby." (Major testimony at 3-105 to 3-106; Jane Doe QQQ testimony at 4-20 to

4-22).

106. Women prisoners have endured physical pain from Defendants' failure to provide an adequate transportation

- 34 system to enable them to keep their medical appointments. (Jane Doe II testimony at 2-167 to 2-171; Jane Doe K testimony at 6-96 to 6-97).
107. Rescheduling an appointment does not always alleviate the harm, or the risk of harm, caused by an initial missed appointment because there are a variety of standard tests that all pregnant women should receive within a prescribed period of time in order for those tests to be effective tools for evaluating the medical condition of the pregnant woman and the fetus. (Pi. Ex. 642; Major testimony at 3-96 to 3-97, 3-103) .
108. Defendants are aware that their administrative and transportation mechanisms do not provide adequate access to obstetrical and gynecological care. (Pi. Exs. 59, 389, 394; Jane Doe II testimony at 2-170; C. Hall testimony). Defendants have even maintained statistics in some of the Chief Medical Officer's monthly reports to Dr. William Hall comparing the number of appointments scheduled at D.C. General Hospital with the number of prisoners actually seen by D.C. General Hospital personnel. (Pi. Ex. 394; C. Hall testimony).
109. In addition to delaying and denying access to care by using an inadequate transportation system, Defendants also have no written policy regarding the use of restraints on pregnant women. Incredibly, leg shackles, handcuffs, and in some instances belly chains, have been used on pregnant women while they were in labor and within weeks, and sometimes days

- 35 and even hours, of delivery. (Jane Doe K testimony at 6-99; Jane Doe L testimony at 2-141 to 2-148; Jane Doe W testimony at 1-61 to 1-64; Jane Doe QQQ testimony at 4-13 to 4-17; Ali Dep. Tr. at 162-163; Jones Dep. Tr. at 14-17).
110. Use of such restraints during pregnancy, particularly during the later part of pregnancy, delivery, and within six weeks of delivery, is inhumane, causes discomfort, and increases considerably the risk of injury to the woman. (Major testimony at 4-7; Jane Doe L testimony at 2-141 to 2148; Jane Doe W testimony at 1-61 to 1-64).
Nutrition 111. Defendants have failed to meet the basic nutritional needs of pregnant women prisoners. (Major testimony at 3-108, 3-109 to 3-113; Jane Doe W testimony at 159 to 1-60). 112. Defendants' own Health Services Division Operating Procedure for pregnant women prisoners specifically requires provides that "[a]ny dietary recommendations made by D.C. General Hospital shall be followed." (Pi. Ex. 2; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 170) . 113. Yet, D.C. General Hospital physician orders regarding nutritional supplements for pregnant women at CTF have not been followed by CTF medical personnel. (Major testimony at 3-112 to 3-113; Jane Doe QQQ testimony 4-26 to 430) .

- 36 114. Not all pregnant women prisoners have received prenatal vitamins and iron tablets in a timely manner, due in part, to an alleged "storage problem." (Major testimony at 3 112 to 3-113) . 115. Not all pregnant women have received an adequate amount of food, and the food they receive has often been cold or not cooked thoroughly. (Jane Doe W testimony at 1-59 to 1-60; Jane Doe QQQ testimony at 4-27 to 4-30; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 228-30). Exercise 116. Women prisoners at CTF do not have access to regularly scheduled prenatal exercise classes and opportunities to receive fresh air. Defendants offered virtually no prenatal exercises classes until May 1994. (Major testimony at 3-113 to 3-114; Jane Doe K testimony at 697; Jane Doe QQQ testimony at 4-12 to 4-13). Prenatal Health Education 117. Defendants have failed to inform all pregnant women of the existence of the prenatal education classes that are available, on the occasions when such classes have been offered. (Major testimony at 3-114 to 3-116; Jane Doe K testimony at 6-97). 118. In addition, staff at CTF have failed to provide pregnant women prisoners with adequate educational material regarding all aspects of proper prenatal care. (Pi.

- 37 Ex. 434; Major testimony at 3-114 to 3-116; Jane Doe K testimony at 6-97; Jane Doe QQQ testimony at 4-11).
Child Placement Counseling 119. Defendants are aware of the necessity of providing adequate child placement counseling to pregnant women prisoners, particularly in light of the fact that "the greatest number of abandoned infants in the area hospitals belong to the women who are incarcerated within [Defendants'] institutions." (Pi. Ex. 44). 120. Dr. Major was "amazed" that there had been so many boarder babies at D.C. General Hospital of women who were incarcerated. (Major testimony at 3-119 to 3-120; PI. Exs. 44, 45, 46, 47, 434, 601, 605; Gilmore Dep. ïr. at 79-80; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 304-06; Minor Dep. Tr. at 26, 32-33) . As Dr. Major also testified, however, even if there were no boarder babies of women incarcerated at CTF, his opinion that child placement counseling was inadequate would not change because some women prisoners signed the care of their babies over to people "whom they hardly knew and people who if they had another choice would not be the person they would choose to give the child care." (Major testimony at 3-120; Jane Doe QQQ at 4-32) . 121. Once Defendants become aware that a woman prisoner is pregnant, it is in the best interest of the woman, her unborn child, and Defendants to begin non-directive counseling to the woman as soon as possible regarding the

- 38 variety of child care arrangements available to her. Indeed, Defendants' own written policy provides that counseling regarding child placement shall take place as soon as the pregnancy is known. (PI. Ex. 8; Major testimony at 3-116 to 3-118) .
122. Nevertheless, Defendants, in violation of their own policy, have failed to provide pregnant women prisoners with adequate counseling regarding child care arrangements. In some instances, Defendants have failed to provide any counseling regarding child care arrangements until after a child's birth. (Pi. Exs. 8, 434, 458; Jane Doe L testimony at 2-151). ,
123. The counseling that Defendants provide is deficient because it often does not explore the variety of alternative child care arrangements available, but instead, focuses on adoption alone. (Major testimony at 3-118 to 3119; Jane Doe QQQ testimony at 4-31).
124. Indeed, Defendants' promotion of adoption as the preferred child care arrangement has led some women prisoners to avoid seeking counseling from Defendants altogether because they believe Defendants will not provide appropriate assistance in making alternative child care arrangements. (Major testimony at 3-118; Jane Doe QQQ testimony at 4-30 to 4-32).
125. Defendants have also failed to provide women prisoners with adequate opportunities to discuss child care

- 39 arrangements with family members and other interested persons well in advance of their child's birth. In 1994, Regina Gilmore recognized "boarder babies, child custody and foster care services for newborns" as examples of program gaps or barriers for women prisoners in Defendants' custody. (Pi. Exs. 9, 434; Jane Doe QQQ testimony at 4-30 to 4-32) .
126. In several instances, women prisoners like Jane Doe O and Jane Doe T4 have lost custody of children born during incarceration because of the lack of counseling and assistance from Defendants regarding placement of their children. (McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 123-24).
127. In addition, Defendants' failure to provide adequate counseling to women prisoners regarding child care arrangements raises the stress level of pregnant women prisoners significantly because they fear that proper child care arrangements will not be made in advance of their children's birth or if they are made, will be made under duress, in haste, and without informed consideration. (Pi. Ex. 9; Major testimony at 3-117 to 3-118, 3-120 to 3-121; Jane Doe QQQ at 4-32; Krull Dep. Tr. at 96; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 120-26) .
128. As expressed to then-Director Ridley by the members of Defendants' Task Force on Pregnant Female Offenders: "Staff knew only too well the pain and suffering of a resident who, upon the birth of her child, was returned to custody. Staff knew only too well the agony of the pregnant

- 40 resident who was also HIV positive and who suffered for the fate of her unborn child. Staff knew only too well the misery of the woman resident whose child was placed in foster care with an unknown person in an unknown part of the city." (Pi. Exs. 601, 307, 434, 605, 625; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 120-26).
129. In some instances, Defendants' failure to provide adequate counseling has been so deficient that some newborn children of members of the plaintiff class have had to remain at D.C. General Hospital or at other hospitals after birth as "boarder babies" for an extended period of time. (PI. EXS. 43,4, 458, 539) .
130. Moreover, each day that such children remain in the hospital, their mothers endure unnecessary stress because of the circumstances in which the children are living. Often, this stress is not alleviated, but exacerbated while children remain at the hospital because Defendants have no established policy for arranging opportunities for women prisoners to visit with their infants who remain in the hospital. This is so even though Defendants have deemed it essential to provide sufficient opportunities for contact and bonding between mother and child. (Pi. Exs. 48, 341, 434, 458; Major testimony at 3-121 to 3-122 to 3-124; Jane Doe K testimony at 6-99 to 100; Studevant testimony; P. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 119121; Ray (II) Dep. Tr. at 16-19).
131. Jane Doe V W , for example, gave birth to a baby boy on October 19, 1992. Ad hoc arrangements were made for

- 41 her to visit her baby on November 25, 1992 and December 15, 1992. However, there was no specific written policy regarding visitation with babies and no other visitation was arranged. When she went to visit her child, Jane Doe V W was transported in full restraints. Jane Doe V W ' s baby boy remained a "boarder baby" at DCGH for almost four months until he was discharged to Jane Doe V W ' s maternal aunt on February 17, 1993. (PI. Exs. 48, 458).
132. Despite the importance of bonding between mother and child, CTF also has no policy allowing women prisoners who are new mothers to visit with their newborn children while the women prisoners are still in the hospital and before they are returned to CTF. (Major testimony at 3123 to 3-124; Jane Doe QQQ testimony at 4-18).
Postparturn Counseling 133. Postpartum counseling is necessary for a woman
who suffers from postpartum depression or depression resulting from the separation from her child, or for a woman whose pregnancy ends in miscarriage, stillbirth, or death shortly after birth. Postpartum counseling is also necessary for a woman whose child has not been placed with an appropriate care taker and thus remains at D.C. General Hospital as a "boarder baby." Defendants, however, have failed to provide adequate postpartum counseling to women in these circumstances. (Pi. Ex. 48; Major testimony at 3-128 to 3-130).

- 42 134. Jane Doe UUU, for example, gave birth to a baby in November 1992. The baby, however, had medical problems and had to remain at DCGH. Unfortunately, Jane Doe UUU's baby died soon thereafter. On December 4, 1992, she went to review the remains of her three-week old baby and to sign documents regarding the child. Jane Doe UUU received no counseling regarding her baby's death. (PI. Ex. 48; Major testimony at 3-129 to 3-130). 135. Jane Doe XXX gave birth to a baby girl on June 6, 1992. On Sunday October 10, 1992 a CTF employee received a telephone call from a physician at Children's Hospital informing him that Jane Doe XXX's infant daughter had died. Jane Doe XXX received no counseling regarding her baby's death. (Pi. Ex. 48). Coordination of Medical Care 136. Defendants do not follow the Memorandum of Understanding between D.C. General Hospital and the Department of Corrections which exists to facilitate communication between the two institutions and to identify areas of responsibility accorded to each. This Memorandum of Understanding, effective since 1991, specifically addresses important aspects in the provision of care, including access to medical care, access to medical information, interagency communication, quality assurance, and continuity of care (Pi. Exs. 455, 667; Major testimony at 3-132 to 3-137).

- 43 137. As a result of Defendants' failure to comply with the Memorandum of Understanding, there is a lack of communication and coordination at 3 levels: (1) medical to medical (i.e. , Doctor to Doctor) ; (2) nurse to nurse (DCGH to CTF); and (3) DCGH Medical to DOC-CTF custody staff. (Pi. Ex. 667; Major testimony at 3-137 to 3-138; Clark testimony). 138. Defendants' failure to comply with the Memorandum of Understanding and the lack of effective coordination and communication between D.C. General Hospital and CTF, negatively affects Defendants' ability to provide adequate gynecological and obstetrical care to women prisoners incarcerated at CTF. (Pi. Ex. 667; Major testimony at 3-132 to 3-138; Jane Doe L testimony at 2-138 to 2-148). 13 9. Defendants fail to conduct regular meetings as directed by the Memorandum of Understanding. (Pi. Exs. 455, 667; Clark testimony). 140. Medical information concerning individual patients is not routinely shared between medical personnel at the two institutions, nor is there any communication among health care providers concerning the quality of obstetrical or gynecological care provided to CTF women prisoners at DCGH. (PI. Ex. 667; C. Hall testimony; C. Hall Dep. Tr. at 151; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 271-73). 141. Even though the Memorandum of Understanding addresses continuity of care, Defendants have failed to provide adequate follow-up and continuity of care to women

- 44 prisoners upon release. (Pi. Ex. 455; Major testimony at 3-77 to 3-78, 3-87, 3-135).
142. There is no written policy or protocol for determining in what instances women should receive obstetrical or gynecological care at DCGH rather than at CTF. Instead, the decision is left up to the individual members of the medical staff at CTF. (C. Hall Dep. Tr. at 114-15; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 271-73).
143. Although Defendants are aware that women prisoners at CTF are often unable to keep scheduled medical appointments at D.C. General Hospital because correctional officers are unavailable to take them, no effective effort has been made to remedy this problem. (PI. Ex. 389; Clark testimony).
144. D.C. General Hospital physician orders are not followed by medical personnel at CTF. (Jane Doe V testimony at 4-95; Jane Doe W testimony at 1-58 to 1-59; Jane Doe QQQ testimony at 4-19, 4-27 to 4-30; C. Hall testimony).
IV. PROGRAMS General 145. Defendants have written documents professing
the goal to provide equitable programs for female offenders as compared to similarly situated male offenders, "while simultaneously meeting the uniquely gender-related needs of the incarcerated female." (Pi. Exs. 51, 211, 281, 284, 289,

- 45 291, 312, 323, 338, 339, 347, 348, 350, 434, 482, 665). However, they have failed to achieve this goal mandated byfederal and state law in that the programs for women prisoners are not adequate nor comparable to the programs for similar men prisoners. (Lancaster testimony at 5-5).
146. In September 1993, Defendants admitted that they were housing 99.5% of the female D.C. Code offenders "without having planned, developed, and implemented either programs or resources to meet the long-term treatment needs of this unique population." (PI. Ex. 665).
147. The Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) houses 256 medium custody, general population female inmates serving sentences of two years to life. (Pi. Exs. 319, 434; Elzie Dep. Tr. at 44-47).
148. Medium custody men can be sent to one or more of several institutions depending upon a variety of penological goals ranging from sentence-serving to programming to preparing for release. (Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 43-45; Krull Dep. Tr. at 34-39). Men often transfer along the continuum and are assigned to each of these facilities for a period of time. (Braxton Dep. Tr. at 17)
149. Medium custody men can be housed at the Occoquan reservation, a high-medium facility consisting of multiple dormitories located on a reservation. (Pi. Exs. 452, 508, 621; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 16; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 43-45; Krull Dep. Tr. at 36-37).

- 46 150. Medium custody men can also be housed at the Central Facility, a medium-medium facility. Central is the District's master program facility that provides male inmates with the opportunity "to participate in high intensity and comprehensive programming." (Pi. Exs. 452, 508, 621; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 17; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 43-4 5; Krull Dep. Tr. at 34-39). 151. Medium custody men within five years of release can also be housed at the Medium Facility, a low-medium institution. (PI. Exs. 452, 508, 621; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 17; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 43-45; Krull Dep. Tr. at. 34-39) 152. The medium custody, general population female inmates at CTF are similarly situated to the medium custody, general population men housed at the Central Facility, Medium Facility, and Occoquan. (Lancaster testimony at 5-8; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 41-42). 153. The male inmates housed at CTF are not similarly situated to the women prisoners in the women's unit at CTF, but are special population inmates participating in the voluntary, 12-18 month prerelease substance abuse treatment program, or the 30-45 day Reception and Diagnostic evaluation process. (Lancaster testimony at 5-8 to 5-9; Pi. Exs. 319, 425; Minor Dep. Tr. at 71-74; Ray (I) Dep. Tr. at 90; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 40).

- 47 154. The Minimum Security Facility houses minimum custody male inmates who are within two years of a presumptive release date. (PI. Exs. 346, 452, 621). 155. The Minimum Security Annex houses 178 minimum custody female inmates who are within two years of a presumptive release date. (Pi. Exs. 346, 434, 621). 156. The minimum custody female inmates at the Annex are similarly situated to the minimum custody male inmates at the Minimum Security Facility. (Lancaster testimony at 5-8). 157. Women prisoners have the same basic needs as men prisoners in the areas of academic education, college education, vocational education, work opportunities, recreation, and religion. (Lancaster testimony at 5-10, 5-92 to 5-94; Ryan testimony; Gilmore testimony). 158. Adult female inmates do not receive reception and diagnostic studies, available to similarly situated male inmates, and thus there is no comprehensive educational, vocational, and psychological testing for the women's needs and interests to guide appropriate programmatic solutions. (PI. Exs. 281, 663, 665; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 45, 62). 159. The legal concept of parity is one that has a practical meaning to prison administrators, and it is a nationally-recognized term for persons developing and administering programs for female offenders. (Lancaster testimony at 5-5 to 5-6; Pi. Ex. 319).

- 48 160. Defendants, the District of Columbia and the D.C. Department of Corrections, receive federal financial assistance. (Pi. Ex. 602; Def. Answers Int. No. 2 ) . Academic Education
161. Defendants provide women at CTF with academic education programs that are inadequate and not comparable to those provided to male inmates at Central, Medium, and Occoquan. (Lancaster testimony at 5-13 to 5-15) .
162. Defendants provide women at CTF with only parttime academic education classes, but provide the men at Central, Medium, and Occoquan with the opportunity for fulltime classes. (Lancaster testimony 5-11 to 5-12, 5-14; Pi. Exs. 217, 242, 343, 490, 661; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 61; Krull Dep. Tr. at 42, 47). No evening classes are available to the women as originally planned at CTF. (PI. Exs. 330, 444) .
163. The physical plant of CTF creates serious limitations on the programs and activities available to the women. CTF was designed as a controlled-movement treatment facility for substance abuse, mental health, and diagnostics that required intensive staffing. (Pi. Exs. 51, 330, 338, 405, 439; Elzie Dep. Tr. at 19). Defendants' placement of general population women prisoners in this controlled environment necessitates staff escorts to access centralized programming areas. (Lancaster testimony at 5-12; Pi. Exs. 339, 612) .

- 49 164. The requirement of staff escorts severely limits women prisoners' access to program opportunities. Program time is often delayed and even cancelled due to defects in the escort process. Problems with the operation of the elevator compound the escort situation and result in significantly less program time for the women. (Lancaster testimony at 5-15; Ryan testimony; Jane Doe II testimony at 3 4 to 3-5; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-83 to 4-84; PI. Exs. 426, 612; Perry Dep. Tr. at 73-74, 133-41). 165. Defendants' use of overtime staff to solve the escort problem is not an acceptable permanent solution. The extended use of overtime burns out employees and decreases their professionalism and energy level. (Lancaster testimony at 5-13; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 112-16). Defendants' failure to appropriately staff the CTF women's unit results in programming staff being utilized to perform security escorts which in turn decreases program opportunities for women in all areas including education. (Pi. Exs. 319, 329, 330, 343, 405, 426, 665; Perry Dep. Tr. at 73-74). Defendants' decision to substitute correctional officers for counselors has also reduced the program opportunities available to women. (Pi. Exs. 51, 405, 444). 166. Defendants do not offer educational instruction on the women's housing units as recommended by the CTF internal auditors, which would eliminate the strict reliance on escorts for programming. (PI. Exs. 330, 338, 339, 405).

- 50 167. Similarly situated men at Medium and Central move freely around the facility and can easily access education programs. (Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 64-65; Krull Dep. Tr. at 68). Men at Occoquan, which is a controlled-movement facility, use a pass system instead of an escort system allowing them free access to all programs. (Braxton Dep. Tr. at 22-24). Annex 168. Defendants provide women at the Annex with academic education programs that are inadequate and not comparable to those provided to male inmates at Minimum. (Lancaster testimony at 5-18). 169. Defendants did not provide academic school to the women prisoners at the Annex for seven months over the time period between May 1992 and October 1993. Defendants cancelled school three different times: for four months when the air conditioner was broken at the Annex trailer; a second time when the sole teacher was sick; and a third time when the Annex entered "shut down mode" for three months in anticipation of the transfer of all women to CTF. No substitute teachers were detailed to the Annex to provide education for the women, nor were women permitted to enroll in the classes for men at Minimum. (Lancaster testimony at 5-18 to 5-19; Pi. Exs. 345, 470; Jane Doe VII testimony at 4-102 to 4-103; Jane Doe P testimony at 4-57 to 4-58).

- 51 170. The basic education Defendants provide to the women at the Annex is inadequate because the one teacher can only offer part-time ABE and part-time GED classes. Part-time education is insufficient to provide the required educational programming to those women who need the instruction. A second teacher would enable the women to accomplish the educational goals faster, which is crucial for women prisoners who serve relatively short sentences. (Lancaster testimony at 5-18; Gilmore testimony; Pi. Exs. 332, 345, 362, 470, 488). 171. Defendants limit women's access to the classes by scheduling class during the day which overlaps with work time for many women, and thus denies them the opportunity to participate in educational classes. Defendants also provide women with less educational equipment such as computers and typewriters than men at Minimum. (Pi. Exs. 332, 345, 362, 470, 488) . 172. Male inmates at Minimum have the opportunity for full-time education and two teachers teach school fulltime. Many male inmates have completed basic education courses prior to their transfer to the Minimum Facility. (Lancaster testimony at 5-19). College Education CTF 173. Defendants provide women at CTF with college education programs that are inadequate and not comparable to

- 52 those provided to male inmates at Central, Medium, and Occoquan. (Lancaster testimony at 5-17 to 5-18).
174. No college education program was available to women prisoners at CTF from May 1992 to January 1993. (Lancaster testimony at 5-15; Pi. Exs. 330, 344, 449).
175. Defendants do not provide women at CTF with a four-year college degree program. (Lancaster testimony at 515 to 5-17; Ryan testimony; Jane Doe II testimony at 3-3; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-81 to 4-82; Pi. Exs. 420, 591).
176. Men at Central, Medium, and Occoquan are provided with four-year B.A. and B.S. programs in a variety of fields like urban studies, media technology, and business administration. Men at Central have four-year college programs run by the University of the District of Columbia (UDC); men at Medium have four-year college programs run by Park College; and men at Occoquan have four-year college programs run by both UDC and Park College. (Lancaster testimony at 5-16; Def. Answers Int. No. 7; PI. Exs. 215, 216, 235, 472, 516, 528; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 66-70; Krull Dep. Tr. at 48-49).
177. Women at CTF are offered one associates' degree program through Atlantic Union College in the area of "general studies" and a corresponding one-year pre-college certificate program. (Lancaster testimony 5-15 to 5-16, 5-18; Jane Doe II testimony at 3-3; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-82; Pi. Exs. 383, 420, 591).

- 53 178. Men at Central, Medium, and Occoquan are offered associates' degree programs through UDC and Park College. UDC offers a pre-college program and an associates' degree program in a variety of fields including accounting, computer science, legal assistance, media technology, urban studies, and business management. Men at Central, Medium, and Occoquan are provided with more fields of study and variety of courses than women at CTF. (Lancaster testimony at 5-16; Pi. Exs. 215, 216, 235, 375, 376, 389, 526; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 68-69; Krull Dep. Tr. at 50). 179. Defendants require women at CTF to finance the two-year Atlantic Union program with grant monies. However, similarly situated men are offered two and four-year college programs through UDC at no cost, which do not require personal payment or application for grant monies. UDC also offers inmates the opportunity to receive their first semester free once released into the community. (Lancaster testimony at 515 to 5-16; Jane Doe II testimony at 3-3; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-82; Pi. Exs. 215, 216, 235, 420; Braxton Dep. Tr. 24-25) . 180. The Atlantic Union program for women at CTF is taught by "electronic distance learning" through a computer. Men at Central, Medium, Occoquan have on-site classes with teachers who are able to motivate students and serve as role models and mentors. (Lancaster testimony 5-15 to 5-16; Jane Doe II testimony at 3-2 to 3-3; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-82; PI. Exs. 379, 420, 449, 591; Krull Dep. Tr. at 49; Ray (I)

- 54 Dep. Tr. at 83). Some of the best role models women prisoners have are teachers. (Lancaster testimony at 5-16).
181. The only "instructor" available to women enrolled in Atlantic Union College is a monitor who is a GED instructor not qualified to teach college courses. The monitor has his own academic education class scheduled at the same time as the Atlantic Union computer lab time, and thus is only able to stop in the computer lab to handle problems. (Jane Doe II testimony at 3-2 to 3-3).
182. Women inmates enrolled in Atlantic Union courses experience problems in the delivery of the college program that result in limiting the women's access to the classes. (Pi. Exs. 283, 330, 379, 420, 426, 521). Women prisoners at CTF encounter scheduling problems with the delivery of their education programs that are not experienced by similarly situated men. All programming activities for women, including education, vocation, and library hours, are scheduled during the same two and one-half hour period each day. This scheduling limits women's ability to participate in more than one program and results in the women being idle for the majority of the day. (Pi. Exs. 283, 330, 405, 421, 515; Jane Doe II testimony at 3-4, 3-8 to 3-9).
183. The amount of time allotted for women in the Atlantic Union program is insufficient based on Atlantic Union College standards. Evening and weekend computer lab hours for the women were scheduled for January to September 1993, but

- 55 cancelled due to Defendants' inability to provide escorts and staff supervision for the women. (Pi. Exs. 374, 379, 420, 421, 426, 476, 515). Recently, the women's computer lab time was reduced to only three mornings per week in order to permit the male inmates access to the law library where the computer lab is located. (Jane Doe II testimony at 3-4 to 3-6).
184. Defendants routinely fail to file the necessary paperwork for the women's Pell grant applications in time for the women at CTF to register them for the term. (Lancaster testimony at 5-15; Pi. Exs. 374, 420).
185. Books and materials are not received in time to participate in courses paid for by Pell grant monies. (Jane Doe II testimony at 3-5).
186. Pell grant monies obtained for the Atlantic Union College program are not transferable to the college program at the Annex and are not reimbursed when a woman is transferred to another facility or forced to drop out of class due to the failure to receive books. Credits from the Atlantic Union College program are not transferred to the women's college program at the Annex because the UDC course is not a degree program, and thus there is nothing to which the Atlantic Union credits can be transferred. The women cannot take the UDC elective courses to complete the Atlantic Union AA degree program. (Lancaster testimony at 5-15; PI. Ex. 434) .

- 56 Annex 187. Women at the Annex have received college education that is inadequate and not comparable to that for men at Minimum. Defendants do not escort women to class on time, they do not receive sufficient GED courses to qualify them for college courses, and the two elective course offerings through UDC are not part of a degree program. (Lancaster testimony at 5-20 to 5-21; Pi. Exs. 332, 489; Krull Dep. Tr. at 153; Jane Doe VII testimony at 4-100 to 4-102). Education Overall 188. Defendants are aware of the inadequate and inferior education provided to women prisoners, but have failed to implement plans to alter these inadequacies. (Pi. Exs. 227, 228, 282, 291, 330). 189. The lack of basic academic education harms women by denying them the ability to qualify for industry employment, halfway house, parole, work training, or higher education opportunities. (Lancaster testimony at 5-21; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 112; Smith Dep. Tr. at 105-106; Stempson Dep. Tr. at 144). Education is one of the cornerstone responsibilities of prison administrators. Completion of basic education is the key that opens the door to future employment opportunities. (Lancaster testimony at 5-21). 190. Defendants' provision of limited access to education, and their provision of inferior educational programs, denies women the ability to earn good time credits

- 57 pursuant to D.C. Code § 24-429 and D.C. Reg. 604.5 for release from prison. (Lancaster testimony at 5-22; Pi. Ex. 272).
191. Defendants' failure to provide adequate and equal post-secondary education increases women's recidivism because such a program is an effective way of reducing recidivism. (Ryan testimony; PI. Ex. 592). Research has shown that there is an overwhelming positive correlation between correctional education and recidivism. (Ryan testimony).
192. In addition, the lack of education programs reduces the options that women have upon release from prison for obtaining further education and employment. This employment often is paramount in enabling women to obtain housing in the community and to care for and retain custody of their children. (Lancaster testimony at 5-21).
193. The lack of equal and adequate education programs has a detrimental effect on women's morale and contributes to idleness and severe depression in prison. (PI. Ex. 4 05; Smith Dep. Tr. at 105-06).
Vocational Education CTF 194. Defendants provide women at CTF with vocational
education programs that are inadequate and not comparable to those provided to male inmates at Central, Medium, and Occoquan. (Lancaster testimony at 5-25 to 5-26; Pi. Ex. 222).

- 58 195. Vocational education is defined as a program lasting from six to twenty-four months in duration and comprised of both a classroom component and an on the job training component. (Lancaster testimony at 5-22; Ryan testimony). 196. No vocational education programs were offered to women prisoners during the first five months they were housed at CTF. (Pi. Exs. 330, 449). 197. As of October 1992, Defendants provide women at CTF with only one vocational education class in graphic arts, DocuTech, which is open to six minimum-custody women every nine months. Pursuant to a consent decree, female youth offenders (YRA) women are required to be enrolled in vocational programming, and these inmates occupy the majority of the available vocational positions. (Lancaster testimony at 5-22; Jane Doe II testimony at 3-8; Pi. Exs. 294, 306, 426) . 198. Women must have minimum custody status in order to participate in the DocuTech program. However, medium custody women need such a vocational program because they need on the job training, and have the time to complete a comprehensive vocational program. (Lancaster at 5-22; Pi. Exs. 294, 306, 426). 199. Three short job skills classes in the stereotypical female occupations of word processing, typing and sewing are also available to women at CTF. (Def. Answers

- 59 Int. Nos. 10 & 11; PI. Ex. 3 06; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-83 to 4-84). These classes do not satisfy the requirements of a true vocational education program. (Lancaster testimony at 523 to 5-24) .
200. There have been problems with the delivery of the three skills programs to women prisoners. The computer literacy teacher routinely fails to show up for class scheduled at 8:00am. Female inmates also need a 8.0 reading level to participate in some of these courses, and thus the domino effect of the part-time education courses limits their ability to participate in the vocational skills courses. (Lancaster testimony at 5-22 to 5-24).
201. Because women are classified to CTF on the basis of gender, they are denied access to many vocational education and training programs which are available to male prisoners at other institutions. Defendants provide men at Central, Medium, and Occoquan with a wide range of comprehensive vocational education programs including: auto body, auto mechanics, barber science, brickmasonry, building maintenance, business typing, carpentry, culinary arts, drywall/painting, digital electronics, electricity, graphic arts, photography and plumbing. (Def. Answers Int. No. 10; PI. Exs. 215, 216, 235, 267, 478, 490, 491, 508, 516, 517, 621; Lancaster testimony at 5-24; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 75-78; Krull Dep. Tr. at 53-56).

- 60 202. Staffing inadequacies, scheduling conflicts, and escort problems at CTF restrict women's access to vocational education. (Jane Doe II testimony at 3-9 to 3-10; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-83 to 4-84; Pi. Exs. 329, 330, 405). Due to these constraints, the time scheduled for women to participate in the graphic arts program is insufficient to enable them to complete the 1080 hours necessary for certification in the nine month program. (Jane Doe II testimony at 3-10 to 3-11; Pi. Ex. 306). 203. Women at CTF do not have a prevocational Employment Techniques, Awareness and Preparation (ETAP) class. An ETAP class was previously available from October 1992 to July 1993, but escort problems limited women's participation. A prevocational twelve week Lifeskills class has been offered to women prisoners at CTF only two times in two years. (Lancaster testimony at 5-25; Pi. Ex. 374; Brantley testimony). Similarly situated men have both ETAP and Lifeskills classes available to them. (Pi. Exs. 215, 216, 235, 490, 516) . 204. Medium custody, long-term women, who can only be assigned to CTF, have no apprenticeships available to them. (Lancaster testimony at 5-25; Defs. Answers Int. No. 12; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-84). However, similarly situated men have access to a variety of apprenticeships including carpentry, culinary arts, dental technology, electricity, plumbing, upholstery, and boiler plant operations. (Lancaster

- 61 testimony at 5-25; Pi. Exs. 215, 216, 234, 235, 264, 267, 268, 490, 491, 508, 517, 518; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 84-86) .
205. Women prisoners at CTF need vocational programs. Defendants have failed to provide the range of services necessary for both short and long term women prisoners. (Lancaster testimony at 5-25 to 5-26; Ryan testimony).
Annex 206. Defendants provide the women at the Annex with only one vocational education program in graphic arts that does not adequately meet the needs of the women. (Lancaster testimony at 5-28; Pi. Ex. 222). The abbreviated program in graphic arts is available to only a few women and the fifteenweek program is too short to provide sufficient vocational education and training, as one full year is required to gain employable skills. (Lancaster testimony at 5-28). Moreover, women at the Annex are offered the same vocational program that exists at CTF in graphic arts, thus limiting the ability of women incarcerated in DCDC to participate in more than one vocational program. 207. Follow-up on-the-job training to the graphic arts program is not adequately provided, as the women are not routinely hired by the Print Shop to continue their skill development. Currently, only two women work in the print shop. (Pi. Ex. 264; Gilmore testimony; Brown testimony).

- 62 208. Defendants do not provide women at the Annex with equivalent vocational opportunities as similarly situated men. Men have additional vocational opportunities in the DCDC prior to coming to Minimum. Due to the typically longer sentence structure of men, men have already obtained vocational education training by the time they are transferred to Minimum. Once transferred to Minimum, the men continue this training by working on trade details such as plumbing, electrical, and carpentry that are not available to women. (PI. Ex. 379). 209. The need for job readiness skills is particularly critical for female offenders. Women offenders in D.C. have an unemployment rate of 85%, compared to a national average of 45% for female offenders, and an average of 62% for all D.C. inmates. (PI. Exs. 520, 588). The need for skills promoted by vocational training is therefore more acute for female offenders. 210. Defendants' provision of inadequate and inferior vocational education programs significantly harms women because they do not have the opportunity to gain marketable, employable skills that will lead to meaningful employment upon release from prison. (Lancaster testimony at 5-28). 211. Because of the lack of vocational training, women are unable to work in higher grade detail jobs which develop job skills, pay more money, and build on skills taught

- 63 in vocational programs. (Lancaster testimony at 5-31 to 5-32; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-80 to 4-81; Pi. Ex. 238; Krull Dep. Tr. at 54) .
212. Women are precluded from earning good time credits from vocational education that can shorten their term of imprisonment. (Lancaster testimony at 5-29; Pi. Ex. 272; Krull Dep. Tr. at 56).
213. Women are also unable to earn the money needed to support themselves and their dependent children while in prison. (Lancaster testimony at 5-28; Pi. Ex. 238).
Work Opportunities Work Details 214. Defendants provide women at CTF and the Annex
with work details that are inadequate and not comparable to those provided to similarly situated men. (Lancaster testimony at 5-31 to 5-34) . Work details are those job assignments for inmates in the routine duties at the prison that will enable them to learn job skills and develop work habits while maintaining the facility in clean, working order. (Lancaster testimony at 5-29; Pi. Ex. 363). Details are paid under the Non-Industrial Pay System (NIPS) which is a grade system ranging from $6.50 per month to $21 per month. (Pi. Exs. 3 63, 3 79; Lancaster testimony at 5-29; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-81).
215. Defendants provide men at Central, Medium, Occoquan and Minimum with a wide range of details offering on-

- 64 the-job-training including carpentry, welding, electric, plumbing, painting, drywall, brickmasonry, and construction. (Def. Answers Int. 16; Pi. Exs. 278, 359, 370, 371, 372, 379; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 124-25; Krull Dep. Tr. at 61). Neither women at CTF nor at the Annex work on these trade details available to men. (Pi. Exs. 265, 266, 269, 379, 349).
216. Most women prisoners at CTF, with the exception of the few educational aides, work on stereotypical details such as culinary, clerical, and building maintenance (cleanup). Many women, eight on each of the eight units, are assigned only to unit duty which takes only one hour to complete. These women remain idle for the rest of the day. (Lancaster testimony at 5-29 to 5-32; Pi. Ex. 674).
217. The only additional work details proposed for women at CTF are in stereotypical female jobs of nurses aide and housekeeper. (Pi. Exs. 473, 512).
218. Women at the Annex are limited to cleaning, clerical, and some landscape jobs. Women do not work on facilities maintenance work squads on their own compound. (Pi. Exs. 345, 349, 379). Women are also precluded from working on jobs such as the dairy, farm, car wash, and culinary. (PI. Ex. 379; Smith Dep. Tr. at 164-65).
219. Men at Minimum have a greater variety of work details that develop employable skills. (Lancaster testimony at 5-33; Pi. Ex. 674). Men are also employed on work details

- 65 that are offsite, for which they are able to leave the institution. (Lancaster testimony at 5-33).
220. The NIPS pay scale is the same for both men and women prisoners. However, the more skilled jobs, like trades jobs of plumbing, electricity, and welding, receive the higher range of NIPS wages. Thus, the lower skilled jobs that women primarily work in are paid at the lower range of the NIPS scale. (Lancaster testimony at 5-31 to 5-32).
Industries 221. Defendants provide the women at CTF with industrial work opportunities that are inadequate and not comparable to those provided to male inmates at Central, Medium, and Occoquan. (Pi. Ex. 225; Lancaster testimony at 535). A prison industry is run like a private business for profit in that the industry makes a product and employees (inmates) are held accountable for their work performance and attendance. (Lancaster testimony at 5-34; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 122-24) . Industry is paid under a separate pay scale from the work details and the wages range from $80 to $300 per month. (Lancaster testimony at 5-34 to 5-35; Pi. Ex. 225). 222. Although women are in desperate need of job training opportunities, Defendants provide no industries for women at CTF. (Lancaster testimony at 5-35; Ryan testimony; Pi. Ex. 269; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-80). Similarly situated men are provided with eleven different industrial opportunities that earn from $80 - $300 per month: Accounting,

- 66 Furniture Repair, Garment Shop, Laundry, Maintenance, Metro Shop, Metal Shop, Print Shop, Supply, Warehouse. (Def. Answers Int. Nos. 19 & 20; Pi. Exs. 225, 529, 594; Lancaster testimony at 5-35; Krull Dep. Tr. at 58-59).
223. The highest wage a woman at CTF can earn in any job is $21 per month, while the highest wage a man can earn working in an industrial job can reach $300 per month. (Def. Answers Int. No. 23; Pi. Exs. 225, 363, 594; Lancaster testimony at 5-35 to 5-36; Krull Dep. Tr. at 58-59).
224. Women at the Annex are denied equal access to the full range of industrial opportunities at Central based on their gender and stereotypical notions of women. (Lancaster testimony at 5-36 to 5-37; Def. Ex. 215; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 81, 92-94, 114-15, 119-21). Women work in two industries, whereas the men are employed in eleven different industries. (Def. Answers Int. No. 20; Pi. Exs. 264, 344, 621, 662; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 111-13).
225. No valid reason exists for Defendants to exclude women prisoners from all industries at Central. Industrial programs help women pay for child support, motivate the women, and are one of the best programs available for inmates. (Lancaster testimony at 5-36; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 122-23). As the Administrator of Central found, the women have proven to be good workers and there have been surprisingly few problems with the coed work environment. (Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 120-21).

- 67 226. Defendants' exclusion of women from certain shops at the Central Industries on the grounds of the women's lack of strength, security risk, claimed aversion to getting their hands dirty, and the lack of bathrooms devalues women and is characteristic of gender bias. (Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 81, 92-94, 114-15, 119-21; Def. Ex. 215; Brown testimony; Ryan testimony). 227. The women's lack of seniority in the workplace, caused by their shorter sentence structure as compared to the men at Central, results in the women receiving lower wages than men. (Pi. Exs. 362, 662; Brown testimony). 228. Women at the Annex are also excluded from the two new industries for men at Minimum in agriculture and landscape. (Def. Ex. 130; Stempson Dep. Tr. at 159-60; Brown testimony). Work Training 229. Defendants provide women at the Annex with work training furlough opportunities that are inadequate and not comparable to those provided to male inmates at Minimum. (Lancaster testimony at 5-39). The work training furlough is a program available to minimum custody inmates that permits them to leave the institution during the day to work for a private employer at prevailing community wages, and then return to the prison each night. (Lancaster testimony at 537; PI. Exs. 331, 378, 442). Once employed in the program, inmates are required to reimburse the institution $2.00 per

- 68 day for the cost of their incarceration. Inmates are also required to save a certain percentage of funds earned in the work training programs to accumulate savings to aid in their transition back into the community. (Derr (I) Dep. Tr. 1060 8; Smith Dep. Tr. at 141)
230. No work training furloughs are available to women at CTF, although Defendants' plans called for this program to be available to women upon the opening of CTF, and even though some minimum custody women are housed at CTF due to bedspace limitations at the Annex. (Def. Answers Int. No. 22; Pi. Exs. 51, 339, 444).
231. Defendants' implementation of the work training policy severely impacts women by denying them the opportunity to participate equally in this program. Women's participation in the program is merely "token". Only three women were approved for work training in all of 1993, and only two women in 1992. Associate Director for Operations Bill Plaut testified that it would be "appallable" if only two women participated in work training. (Plaut testimony). An average of 50 men from Minimum are employed in work training programs, and at the time of Plaintiffs' expert's tour, 90 men were participating in the program. (Lancaster testimony at 5-37 to 5-38; Def. Answers Int. No. 23; PI. Exs. 344, 346, 369). The District has failed to achieve its own stated goal of increasing work training participation by women. (Pi. Exs. 324, 344, 348, 349, 434).

- 69 232. The few women who have participated in the work training program have been placed in stereotypical jobs such as clerical assistant, telemarketing specialist, and cook. (Lancaster testimony at 5-37; Pi. Ex. 369; Derr (I) Dep. Tr. at 137). Similarly situated men are placed in jobs that lead to higher paying jobs in the community, and some of which pay higher hourly wages in prison, such as barber, construction worker, custodian, truck driver, plumber, and auto mechanic. (Lancaster testimony at 5-38; Pi. Ex. 369; Derr (II) Dep. Tr. at 10-11) . 233. The work training guidelines and procedures deny women equal participation in the work training program because they were designed for male offenders. (Krull Dep. Tr. at 173). The guidelines themselves are designed for men's longer sentences and accessibility to halfway houses. (Krull Dep. Tr. at 172-73). The mandatory 90-day waiting period before an inmate is eligible for work training is arbitrary as applied to female offenders. (Pi. Exs. 378, 432; Derr (II) Dep. Tr. at 37; Krull Dep. Tr. at 116-18; Lancaster testimony at 5-38) . ETAP, a required prerequisite to work training participation, is not offered at CTF, and thus women must take the class at the Annex, thereby delaying their eligibility for work training. (Derr (I) Dep. Tr. at 117-18; Derr (II) Dep. Tr. at 23, 57). 234. There is no valid reason why women prisoners could not be participating in work training in greater

- 70 numbers. The vocational development specialist at the Annex, who also worked with men at Minimum, stated that most women who transferred to the Annex were eligible for work training. (Lancaster testimony at 5-38; Derr (I) Dep. Tr. at 116-18) . Female inmates do not present a significant risk to the community since the majority of women are non-violent offenders. (Lancaster testimony at 5-40).
235. Defendants are aware of, but have failed to remedy, the numerous problems women encounter with the delivery of the work training program. (PI. Exs. 284, 365, 366, 367). Defendants fail to process paperwork necessary to qualify women for the work training program; they fail to provide women with transportation to job interviews; and they fail to provide adequate staff to administer the program for women. (Lancaster testimony at 5-39; Pi. Exs. 365, 366, 367, 368; Derr (I) Dep. Tr. at 113-21, 131; Krull Dep. Tr. at 170).
236. Women are significantly harmed by their inability to participate equally in work training. Women are unable to earn the significant wages that enable them to save money for the transition into the community. (Lancaster testimony at 5-40; Jane Doe XI testimony at 4-144 to 4-149; PI. Ex. 367; Derr (I) Dep. Tr. at 107-08).
Work Opportunities Overall 237. Without significant work opportunities like industry and work training, women are unable to participate in rehabilitative programs that teach skills by replicating the

- 71 real world, facilitate personal growth, and additionally, satisfy requirements for parole eligibility. (Lancaster testimony at 5-40; Jane Doe XI testimony at 4-148 to 4-149; PI. Exs. 367, 378; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 122-24).
238. Due to the lack of work opportunities in details, industries, and work training, women prisoners are also unable to obtain jobs that would continue upon release. This lack of funds and employment prevents women from reintegrating into the community and supporting their families. (Lancaster testimony at 5-40; PI. Ex. 367; Derr (I) Dep. Tr. at 107-09).
23 9. The lack of work opportunities for women prisoners is directly related to the women's recidivism. The reason most women return to prison is the lack of money to take care of themselves, to care for their children, the inability to get a job, and too much responsibility immediately upon release for which they are not prepared. (Lancaster testimony at 5-41) .
Recreation 240. Defendants provide the women at CTF with
recreation activities that are inadequate and not comparable to male inmates at Central, Medium, and Occoquan. (Lancaster testimony at 5-44 to 5-45; PI. Exs. 405, 424).
241. Women at CTF have extremely limited outside recreation time for only one hour, three to five times per week. The minimal scheduled time for daily outdoor recreation

- 72 conflicts with work and other programs and thus denies some women recreation time altogether. Women have recreation in the gym three nights per week for two hours. Unlike the men, women are not permitted to choose to go to the gym or outside during recreation time, but instead must go where the officers or the majority of the group dictate. (Lancaster testimony at 5-41, 5-44, 5-59; Jane Doe II testimony at 3-12 to 3-14; Jane Doe V testimony 4-86 to 4-87; Pi. Exs. 17, 18, 207, 209, 210, 424, 426) .
242. Similarly situated men have outside recreation time "all day long" for 13 hours per day during which they can have informal outside time or participate in formal, organized activities. (Krull Dep. Tr. at 66-67). They have gym time for at least three hours per day, six days per week. (Lancaster testimony at 5-42; Pi. Exs. 17, 207, 209, 210, 495, 496, 497, 508; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 129-31; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 39-40; Krull Dep. Tr. at 66-67).
243. Women at CTF receive the amount of recreation time generally given to segregation inmates who are being punished for some wrong behavior. (Lancaster testimony at 541 to 5-42). Men at Maximum, the most restrictive facility for maximum custody men with behavioral problems or particularly violent offenses, have more recreation time than the medium custody women housed at CTF. (PI. Ex. 661; Roach Dep. Tr. at 16-17). The women at CTF are not similarly situated to this group of men, and thus should receive greater

- 73 privileges than this population with restricted recreation time. (Elzie Dep. Tr. at 44-47; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 43-44).
244. The women at CTF have no regularly planned, organized recreation activities, although programs such as drama, arts & crafts, and leisure skills are called for by the CTF Operation Manual. (Pi. Ex. 51). The CTF recreation yard is too small to permit running, softball, or other organized sports activities. (Lancaster testimony at 5-43; Pi. Exs. 204, 207). Women were not given appropriate clothing for recreation until October 1993. (Pi. Ex. 426).
245. Similarly situated men have a track, ball field, handball wall, pool tables, horseshoes, and basketball courts. They have a wide variety of recreational activities such as sports (including boxing, basketball, softball, flag football, softball, soccer, and volleyball), nightly video movies, rock bands, drama groups, and arts and crafts. Men receive free athletic clothing and equipment from Lorillard Company for turning in empty cigarette packs. (Lancaster testimony at 5-43; PI. Exs. 17, 209, 210, 495, 496, 497, 508; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 128-37; Krull Dep. Tr. at 66, 68).
246. Staffing inadequacies and escort problems at CTF limit women prisoners' access to recreation and contribute to the inadequacy and inferiority in recreational activities. Twenty to thirty minutes of the time allotted for women's recreation time at CTF is spent escorting the women outside or to the gym, thereby greatly reducing the time women have to

- 74 recreate. Women are not given the choice to attend or leave indoor or outdoor recreation without the group escort. (Lancaster testimony at 5-43; Pi. Exs. 213, 330, 374, 405, 424, 42 6; Jane Doe II testimony at 3-12 to 3-14; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-86 to 4-87).
247. There is insufficient staff to supervise and organize recreation for women at CTF. (Lancaster testimony at 5-43 to 5-44; Ryan testimony).
248. Defendants provide women at the Annex with recreation time and activities that are inadequate and not comparable to those provided to male inmates at Minimum. (Lancaster testimony at 5-47).
249. The women's recreation trailer at the Annex is open for only 2-4 hours per day, often during times that conflict with scheduled program and work times. An employee is needed to open the trailer. The size of the trailer precludes large group recreation activities for the women. The trailer is not open during visitation hours on the weekend. Women are permitted to use the men's gym and field only 3 hours each week. They have no designated outdoor recreation space on their own compound to which they have full access. (Lancaster testimony at 5-46; Jane Doe VII testimony at 4-105 to 4-106; Jane Doe P testimony at 4-58 to 4-59; Pi. Exs. 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 331, 477, 637) .
250. Men at Minimum have full-time, daily access to a track, field, weight trailer, and gym located on the Minimum

- 75 compound. They are permitted to recreate during all hours that do not conflict with scheduled visiting in the gym or other special programs. (Lancaster testimony at 5-47; Pi. Exs. 498, 499) .
251. Women at the Annex have less opportunity for recreation than men. (Lancaster testimony at 5-47 to 5-48). Women have ROTC training, two intermural sports, volleyball and basketball that occur once per month, and one team sport, Softball, in the summer. (Pi. Exs. 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 332, 477, 499, 500). Women do not have large group events similar to those available to men at Minimum, such as talent shows and family gatherings. Women are denied participation in the Renaissance Drama Troupe available- to the men. (PI. Exs. 626, 627; Jane Doe VII testimony at 4-108 to 4-117). Women also have insufficient dayroom space for recreation inside the housing units. (Lancaster testimony at 5-49; Pi. Exs. 334, 637) .
252. Men at Minimum have ROTC training and six weekly intermural sports: boxing, basketball, softball, flag football, volleyball, and soccer. The men are able to participate in the Renaissance Drama Troupe. (Lancaster testimony at 5-47; Jane Doe VII testimony at 4-111; Pi. Exs. 498, 499, 626) .
253. Defendants do not provide sufficient staff to ensure that women at the Annex receive equivalent recreation programs as men at Minimum. Staff is required to open the

- 76 recreation trailer for women, escort the women to the gym or field, and to supervise organized recreation at Minimum. (Lancaster testimony at 5-46, 5-48) . Women at the Annex did not have a recreation specialist to supervise and plan activities and open the recreation trailer from June 1992 to late October 1992. (Pi. Exs. 22, 26, 332, 630, 631). Once detailed, the recreation specialist has been utilized in different capacities which results in women being denied adequate and equal recreational opportunities. (Pi. Exs. 22, 24; Jane Doe VII testimony at 4-106; Jane Doe P testimony at 4-59).
254. Defendants are aware of the inadequate and inferior recreation opportunities for women, but have failed to correct the problems. (Pi. Exs. 18, 19, 20, 21, 282, 320, 330). Recreation is the primary component in any prison and is the cornerstone to maintaining a safe and secure environment. (Lancaster testimony at 5-49) .
255. The women are significantly harmed by the inferior and inadequate recreation time and activities. The women at CTF suffer psychological and physical harm caused by their lengthy confinement in a high security, restrictedmovement facility that was never intended to house long-term, general population inmates. (Lancaster testimony at 5-45, 549; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-88).
256. The lack of access to recreation leads to mental and physical health problems, including idleness,

- 77 weight gain, morale problems, depression, and tension among the women. (Lancaster testimony at 5-45, 5-49 to 5-50; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-88).
257. Defendants provide women at CTF with smoking privileges that are not comparable to those provided to male inmates at Central, Medium, and Occoquan. (Pi. Ex. 622; Lancaster testimony at 5-54). Women at CTF are not permitted to smoke at all. (Pi. Exs. 249, 251). The reason for the nosmoking rule at CTF -– that inmates are in intensive treatment programs -– is not applicable to general population women and serves only to deprive women of a privilege given to similarly situated men prisoners. Men at Central, Medium, and Occoquan are permitted to smoke outside, which they have access to most of the day, and in some indoor designated areas. (Lancaster testimony at 5-53 to 5-54; Pi. Ex. 249; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 46-47; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 143-44).
258. Women are harmed by the lack of smoking privileges because they are denied privileges afforded to other inmates simply on the basis of sex. This denial of privileges important to inmates perpetuates societal stereotypes and patronizing views of women and prohibits women from making their own choice. (Lancaster testimony at 5-54) .
Religious Programs 259. Defendants provide women at the Annex with
religious programs that are inadequate and not comparable to the programs provided to similarly situated men at Minimum.

- 78 (Lancaster testimony at 5-52 to 5-53; Jane Doe VII testimony at 4-117 to 4-119; Pi. Exs. 196, 211, 331, 345, 475, 494).
260. Women do not have the full-time access to a chaplain who is available to men on a full-time basis. (Lancaster testimony at 5-50, 5-52; Jane Doe VII testimony at 4-118 to 4-119; PI. Exs. 345, 494; Gilmore Dep. Tr. at 227; Krull Dep. Tr. at 189). The chaplain who is assigned to the women does not perform the services required by Department Order 4410.IB, such as delivering notices of family illness and death and soliciting religious volunteers for programs for the women. (Pi. Exs. 191, 219, 475; Smith Dep. Tr. at 176).
261. Women receive less religious programs and services than men at Minimum. No Muslim services are available to female inmates at the Annex. (Lancaster testimony at 5-52).
262. Women have inadequate space for religious services and studies, as they are denied use of the chapel or any other program space on the men's compound. The limited space also restricts the number of religious volunteers who could come in to work with the women. (Lancaster testimony at 5-52; PI. Exs. 331, 345, 494; Krull Dep. Tr. at 188-89).
263. Women prisoners are significantly harmed by the lack of equal and adequate access to religious programs. Women prisoners have a great need for chaplaincy services because they rely heavily on chaplains and religious volunteers for support, connection with their children, and as

- 79 confidants. For women, the chaplain and religious services are a great source of support, rehabilitation, and preparation for reentry into the community. (Lancaster testimony at 5-51; Minor Dep. Tr. at 24-27, 69-70, 82-87).
Housing 264. Defendants have housed women prisoners under a
series of ad hoc arrangements that were not intended for general population female inmates and that do not provide adequate and comparable programmatic activities for women prisoners. (Lancaster testimony at 5-54 to 5-55; PI. Exs. 211, 291, 321, 328, 330, 665; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-85).
265. The District's internal policy of housing women in co-correctional facilities, and their policy of not providing coeducational programming, sharply limits the availability and quality of the programs for women. (Lancaster testimony at 5-17; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-81 to 4-83) .
266. Women were initially housed at the D.C. Jail or in out-of-state facilities run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). (Pi. Ex. 434; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 41-42).
267. In September 1989, women prisoners began to be housed at the Minimum Annex. (Pi. Ex. 452). The Annex dormitories were converted from old barracks on a Nike missile site and are approximately 40 years old. (Pi. Exs. 331, 350, 434; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 105-06). The Department of Corrections acquired the buildings in the late 1970s, and used them as its

- 80 training academy. The buildings were then used to house male prisoners for one year prior to its housing women prisoners. (PI. Ex. 452; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 105-06). The conversion of the training academy to inmate housing was intended to be temporary. (PI. Ex. 452).
268. In late 1991, the District deliberately decided to return women prisoners to DC facilities to save money. (Lancaster testimony at 5-54; Quander testimony; PI. Exs. 338, 438). As of May 1992, the District planned to house women prisoners, including those returning from the federal BOP and those housed at the Annex, at the newly opened CTF. (PI. Exs. 330, 333, 434, 438; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 43).
269. Between May 1992 and September 1992, the Annex entered "shut down mode" in anticipation of closing, and curtailed programs and services for women. (Pi. Exs. 332, 334, 346; Derr (I) Dep. Tr. at 105; Smith Dep. Tr. at 13).
270. Then due to increasing numbers of women prisoners, the District planned to reopen one dormitory at the Annex to women and open one Annex dormitory, separated by a wooden fence, to men in the Unfoldment substance abuse program. (Pi. Exs. 333, 3 34). Because the programming trailers were to be designated for the men, the Administrators noted that this housing option would create problems in providing basic services to women at the Annex. (Pi. Ex. 334). Therefore, the District's plan was to house only female misdemeanants within 180 days of release at the shared Annex

- 81 facilities because by " [c]onfining the population to shortterm offenders, the risk of a law suit is diminished." (Pi. Ex. 334). However, the District then decided to utilize both Annex dormitories to house women felons and misdemeanants serving less than two years of their sentence, and to house the remaining longer term women at CTF. A few DC women prisoners are still sent to the federal BOP.
271. Toward the end of building completion, the District decided to house female prisoners from Lorton and the federal BOP at CTF. (Pl·. Exs. 330, 338, 350, 438). CTF was designed to house inmates for intensive substance abuse and mental health treatment. (Pi. Exs. 330, 338, 439; Elzie Dep. Tr. at 19). This decision to house women at CTF was justified on the grounds that it would save the District over 4 million dollars in its 1993 budget by eliminating the need to provide expensive mental health services at CTF, and by reducing the cost of care for incarcerated women prisoners. (Pi. Ex. 338). However, CTF's controlled-movement design, requirement of escorts for all programming areas, and the resulting limited access to program and outdoor areas are not proper for the confinement of general population female offenders. (PI. Exs. 51, 3 3 9; Lancaster testimony at 5-54 to 5-55).
272. Defendants' deliberate decision to house female inmates in co-correctional facilities creates a situation different than anywhere else in the country. The cocorrectional facility is staff intensive and requires escorts

- 82 and shared space which limits women's access to programs. (Lancaster testimony at 5-54 to 5-56) .
273. Defendants have failed to take affirmative steps to build the single-sex Women's Facility as planned in the Five Year Operational and Master Plans created in 1988 and 1990. (Lancaster testimony at 5-56 to 5-57; PI. Exs. 452, 481, 482) .
274. Defendants' deliberate decisions are typical of how women prisoners have been treated in the past. Women have been the caboose on the train of corrections, receiving only the leftovers in budgets, programs, and services. Since the early to mid-eighties, such treatment has no longer been condoned, and prison administrators have recognized that female inmates cannot be treated like second-class citizens. (Lancaster testimony at 5-57).
V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Annex 275. The living conditions of the women prisoners
housed at the Minimum Annex pose an unacceptable risk with respect to injury and illness. (Duel testimony at 6-4).
276. The women at the Annex are housed in two barrack-style dormitories that house between 80 and 100 inmates each. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony at 6-8).
277. The dormitories are overcrowded and house about twice as many women as they should in order to maintain an

- 83 acceptably healthy environment. (Duel testimony at 6-48; Genco testimony).
278. Dormitory #6 houses between 80 and 90 women in a single room. The furniture in the dormitory consists of double bunks lined against either side of the building. The bunks are approximately an arm's length apart. (Pi. Ex. 63 7; Duel testimony at 6-8; Jane Doe VII testimony at 4-119).
279. All bunks have heavy foot lockers; only some bunks have vertical lockers. Many of the women store their belongings in cardboard boxes and plastic bags under the bed. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony at 6-9). Other than the bunks and lockers, there is no furniture in the sleeping area of the dormitory. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony at 6-9).
280. The 80 to 90 women in Dormitory #6 share a dayroom that is only 26 feet by 12 feet -– approximately 4 feet per inmate. The room is crowded with chairs and one cardtable. The dayroom houses the only television for the dorm and the only two telephones. The main entrance into and out of the dorm, and the only entrance to the bathroom, is also off the dayroom. (Pi. Ex. 63 7; Duel testimony at 6-9 to 6-10) .
281. The amount of dayroom space in Dormitory #6, especially in light of the lack of any amenities in the sleeping areas, is grossly inadequate. (PI Ex. 637; ACA 34130; ACA 3-4131; Lancaster testimony at 5-49).

- 84 282. The 80 to 90 women in Dormitory #6 share six toilets and seven showers, which produces a ratio of 13 inmates per toilet and 12 per shower, assuming all fixtures are operational. (Duel testimony at 6-15). This is a grossly inadequate ratio, as confirmed by the standards set by both the American Correctional Association (ACA) and the American Public Health Association (APHA), which both require a ratio of no more than 8 inmates per toilet (for females) and 8 per shower. (PI. Ex. 637; ACA 3-4132; ACA 3-4133; Duel testimony at 6-15 to 6-16) . 283. The lack of an adequate number of sanitary fixtures can have an adverse effect on health. (Duel testimony at 6-16 to 6-17). 2 84. Dormitory #7 houses 84 to 94 women in two wings. "A-Wing" houses approximately 60 women in double bunks, while "B-Wing" houses approximately 30 women, also in double bunks. The bunks are about an arm's length apart. (PI. Ex. 637; Duel testimony at 6-7 to 6-8). 285. Some of the bunks have vertical lockers; many do not. All bunks have heavy footlockers. Like Dormitory #6, there are no tables or chairs in the sleeping areas. (Pi. Ex. 63 7; Duel testimony at 6-9). 286. Both wings of Dormitory #7 open onto a dayroom
that is only 31 feet by 24 feet -– approximately 6 feet per
inmate. Most of the available space is taken up by the officer's desk and by the lines of chairs facing the only

- 85 television. The only telephones available for the use of inmates are also in the dayroom. (PI. Ex. 637; Duel testimony at 6-9 to 6-10).
287. The amount of dayroom space in Dormitory #7, especially in light of any amenities in the sleeping areas, is grossly inadequate. (PI Ex. 637; ACA 3-4130; ACA 3-4131; Lancaster testimony at 5-49).
288. The 94 women housed in Dormitory #7 share 6 toilets and 6 showers, resulting in ratios of 16 inmates per toilet and 16 per shower. This is a grossly inadequate ratio, as confirmed by the standards set by both the American Correctional Association (ACA) and the American Public Health Association (APHA), which both require a ratio of no more than 8 inmates per toilet (for females) and 8 per shower. (Pi. Ex. 637; ACA 3-4132; ACA 3-4133; Duel testimony at 6-15 to 6-16).
289. Due to the dayrooms' small size and the large number of women who use them, the noise levels in the Annex dayrooms can reach exceedingly high levels. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony at 6-17 to 6-19).
290. Plaintiffs' environmental health expert measured the noise level in the dayroom in Dormitory #7 and obtained a reading of 74 decibels on the A scale (dBa) in the quietest part of the dayroom, far from the television set. By comparison, a vacuum cleaner from 10 feet away will produce a decibel level of 69 dBa. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony at 617) .

- 86 291. Exposure to consistently high noise levels can produce stress and have an adverse effect on health. (Duel testimony at 6-18) . 292. Another effect of the overcrowding is poor lighting for the lower bunks. Even at midday, a woman on a lower bunk does not have enough light to read or write without eye strain, and yet the dayrooms are too crowded and noisy to provide an alternative for any type of quiet pursuit. (PI. Ex. 637; Duel testimony at 6-19 to 6-20). 293. There is no mechanical ventilation in the dormitories except for a handful of window air conditioners that operate during the summer months. During the winter, almost no fresh air is circulated in the dormitories, which, particularly in light of the number of occupants, leads to an increased risk of airborne illness. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony at 6-11 to 6-12, 6-50 to 6-51). 294. Carbon dioxide levels are a reliable indicator of air quality and, consequently, of the risk of airborne illness. (Duel testimony at 6-12, 6-14 to 6-15). 295. The carbon dioxide readings taken by Plaintiffs' environmental health expert Ward Duel showed that the carbon dioxide levels in the Annex dormitories were unacceptably high and that the air quality was unacceptably poor. (Duel testimony at 6-13 to 6-14). 296. In addition to the poor air quality, poor noise control, poor lighting, and poor access to sanitary fixtures

- 87 caused by the overcrowding at the Annex dormitories, overcrowding itself can cause stress and have adverse health consequences. (Duel testimony at 6-20 to 6-21) .
297. A sample inspection by Plaintiffs' environmental health expert, Ward Duel, revealed that over 40% of the mattresses and pillows in the dormitories were torn. (PI. Ex. 637; Duel testimony at 6-24 to 6-25).
298. Torn mattresses provide an ideal hiding place for bedbugs, lice, and other ectoparasites. It is also impossible to adequately sanitize a torn mattress between users, which can lead to transmission of various skin diseases. (Duel testimony at 6-24 to 6-25).
299. The walls and roofs in both Annex dormitories are very poorly maintained and frequently leak. (Duel testimony at 6-21 to 6-22; Jane Doe XI testimony at 4-149 to 4-150) .
300. During the site visit of Plaintiffs' environmental health and fire safety experts in February 1994, the roof of Dormitory #7 was leaking directly onto an electrical box, which created a severe fire safety hazard. (PI. Ex. 637; Duel testimony at 6-21 to 6-22).
301. The Annex dormitories frequently have no heat or hot water. At times, the water heater must be repaired two or three times a day. (Pi. Exs. 170; 480; Duel testimony at 6-26; Jane Doe VII testimony at 4-120).

- 88 302. The lack of hot water is not only uncomfortable but can have an adverse effect on health by discouraging good personal hygiene. (Duel testimony at 6-26 to 6-27) . 303. Both Annex dormitories are infested with cockroaches, which crawl on the inmates while they sleep. (Duel testimony at 6-22 to 6-23; Jane Doe VII testimony at 4120) . 3 04. The poor condition of the walls and the lockers provides ideal nesting places for cockroaches, as do the torn mattresses and pillows. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony at 6-22 to 6-23) . 305. Cockroaches pose a health risk because they can transmit several kinds of illnesses, including hepatitis and salmonella. The level of cockroaches at the Annex is sufficient to pose a threat for the transmission of such illness. (Duel testimony at 6-23 to 6-24). 306. The poor conditions of the dormitories and the large number of women housed there makes it impossible for the inmates to keep the dorms cleaned. (Jane Doe VII testimony at 4-120 to 4-121; Jane Doe XI testimony at 4-150). 307. The grounds of the Annex are poorly maintained and there is a critical need for an adequate drainage system. (PI. Exs. 172, 486, 637; Duel testimony at 6-27). 308. The dumpsters on Annex grounds are left overfilled and uncovered, thus providing an attraction to

- 89 vermin, skunks, and other wildlife. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony at 6-28 to 6-29).
3 09. The Annex buildings and grounds are in need of an effective preventive maintenance program. (Duel testimony at 6-27).
310. The limited programs available at the Annex are offered in four "relocatable buildings," or trailers. (Duel testimony at 6-29) . The trailers used for substance abuse programs and recreation have been in place for four years and are equipped with toilets and sinks, but those facilities have never been hooked up to a sewage system and are instead used as storerooms. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony at 6-30).
311. The Substance Abuse trailer is used by prisoners and staff for twelve hours a day. (Pi. Ex. 163; Pi. Ex. 637).
312. The women have access to the gym only two nights a week. (Lancaster testimony at 5-46; Jane Doe VII testimony at 4-105 to 4-107; Jane Doe P testimony at 4-58) . On the other days of the week, the women have access only to the recreation trailer, which provides insufficient equipment and opportunity for large-muscle exercise of the type that is necessary to maintain good health. (Pi. Exs. 477, 637; Duel testimony at 6-29 to 6-30).
313. While the men who work at the industries at Central are released to eat in the dining hall, the Annex

- 90 women who work there have their meals delivered to them and eat at their work stations. (Duel testimony at 6-35 to 6-36) .
314. At the time suit was filed and through at least February 1994, the women prisoners who worked at the prison industries at Central ate under unsanitary and unsafe conditions. The meals were delivered in styrofoam containers on the floor of a truck and placed on a dirty table for distribution. By the time the food arrived, it was cold. (PI. Exs. 362, 531, 637; Duel testimony at 6-35 to 6-36; Jane Doe XI testimony at 4-140).
315. Cooked food that is not refrigerated must be maintained at a temperature of 140° or else it will provide an incubation for bacteria and food-related toxins. (Pi. Exs. 531, 637; Duel testimony at 6-35, 6-37).
316. Until at least February of 1994, the women prisoners who worked at the prison industries at Central had no readily accessible sanitary facilities. While the men had bathrooms immediately off the industry floor, the women had to use a single toilet approximately 250 feet down the hall. Because they had to be escorted to the restroom, they were only allowed to go during regularly scheduled breaks, at which time they all had to go together. (Pi. Exs. 3 62, 637; Jane Doe XI testimony at 4-140 to 4-141).
317. Defendants were aware of the conditions at the industry for approximately two years prior to the filing of this action, yet did nothing to abate them until just before

- 91 trial. (Gilmore Dep. Tr. at 32-39; Smith Dep. Tr. at 132-37; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 115-17; Jane Doe XI testimony at 4-143; Brown testimony; Pi. Ex. 362).
318. The food at the Lorton Minimum Security Facility is prepared under unsanitary conditions that can be the source of foodborne illness. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony at 6-31 to 6-33) .
319. The environmental conditions suffered by the women prisoners housed at the Annex pose a substantial risk of serious harm, including an increased risk of anxiety, depression, communicable diseases, and confrontations between inmates and with staff. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony).
320. Defendants have been and are now aware of the conditions at the Minimum Annex and the adverse health risks they posed to the women housed there. (Duel testimony at 6-40 to 6-41). Many of the health risks posed by the conditions at the Annex are self-evident. (Duel testimony at 6-41).
321. The periodic safety and sanitation reports submitted to the Administrator of the Minimum Facility for the Annex dormitories from 1992 to 1994 note a host of problems that were allowed to continue unabated for months and years at a time, including: excessive mold and mildew in the bathrooms; burned out and missing lights (including emergency lights); damaged window screens; exposed electrical wiring or outlets that needed securing; and missing smoke detectors. (PI. Ex. 144; Duel testimony at 6-37, 6-41).

- 92 -
322. For example, in October 1992, the
interdepartmental safety and sanitation inspection of the
Annex revealed that there were no doors on two of the six
toilet stalls in the bathroom for Dormitory #7. This
situation continued unabated through the end of 1992 and all
of 1993, and was not repaired until immediately before the
site inspection conducted by Plaintiffs' environmental health
expert for this litigation in February 1994. (PI. Ex. 144).
323. Knowledge of the conditions at the Annex was
not confined to the Department's environmental inspectors. In
July 1993, the Associate Directors of the Department were
informed by Regina Gilmore, the Department's Acting Chief of
Female Offender Programs that:
[The Annex] buildings "were not initially designed for continued residency and in 198 9 emergency renovations were made to accommodate housing of female residents. In July 1992, the population dramatically decreased when CTF opened and upkeep suffered. In late 1992, the population quickly swelled as female offenders were returned from federal facilities and the Detention Facility transferred more women to manage crowding. . . . Renovations and preventive maintenance have now kept pace and repair needs have reached crisis proportions.
(Pi. Ex. 170 (emphasis added); see also Gilmore Dep. Tr. at
108-11, 126-28; Smith Dep. Tr. at 83-88; McCathorine Dep. Tr.
at 187-99).
324. Among other things, Ms. Gilmore noted that
there was inadequate ventilation and de-humidification in the
showers and bathrooms causing excessive mold and mildew
buildup and rendering some of the showers unusable; that three

- 93 of the four clothes dryers were broken, forcing residents to hang their wet clothes on bed railings and thereby increasing the humidity in sleeping areas; that only one collect call phone was working; that the hot water heater required repair one to three times a day; and that most window casements and frames were rotted and needed replacement. Ms. Gilmore also reported that "Annex staff complained that they do not receive adequate cleaning supplies to include bleach or mildew remover, floor wax and other sanitation solutions." (PI. Ex. 170) .
325. The women prisoners have repeatedly volunteered to help renovate and repair their living quarters. (Pi. Ex. 177; Lancaster testimony at 5-33; Jane Doe XI testimony at 4152 to 4-153) .
326. On June 26, 1993, Jane Doe XI, who had been incarcerated at the Annex for six months after being returned from the federal Bureau of Prisons, wrote the Associate Director of Programs that she had never seen "such run-down, nor deplorable conditions for living quarters." (PI. Ex. 177) .
327. In this letter, Jane Doe XI proposed that the women be allowed to do the necessary repairs at the Annex themselves -– many women had learned skilled trades in the federal prison system, she said, and the Department could "start programs to teach those that do not know." (Pi. Ex. 177). According to Jane Doe XI, the "federal women" were

- 94 willing to "work and help but [needed] the supplies and support to do so." (Pi. Ex. 177).
328. In July 1993, Regina Gilmore also informed the Associate Director of Programs that many residents who had the skills and motivation to repair and renovate the facility remained idle because there was no staff to supervise them. (PI. Ex. 170; Stempson Dep. Tr. at 98-99; Smith Dep. Tr. at 88-89; Lancaster testimony at 5-33) .
329. Little repair work was done at the Annex until the two weeks preceding the site visit by Plaintiffs' environmental health expert on February 23, 1994. (Pi. Ex. 4 80). At that time, among other things, beds were repaired in Dormitory #7; showers and toilet partitions were repaired in both dormitories; the bathroom in Dormitory #7 was painted and plastered; the tiles in the bathroom in Dormitory #7 were repaired; a counter sink top was repaired; the toilet stalls were repaired in both dormitories; damaged window screens were repaired and replaced in both dormitories; the bathroom in Dormitory #7 was touched up with grout and silicone; a sink top in Dormitory #6 was repaired; blinds were installed on the bathroom windows in Dormitory #6; the tile in the bathroom in Dormitory #6 was replaced; toilet paper holders were hung in both dormitories; and toilet seats were replaced in both dormitories. (PI. Exs. 422, 480; Duel testimony at 6-37 to 640; Jane Doe VII testimony at 4-121 to 4-122).

- 95 33 0. Defendants' own documents recognize that poor ventilation "causes disease, nausea, headaches, eye irritation and allergies,-" that light should be a minimum of 20 foot candles in personal grooming areas and 3 0 foot candles in reading and study areas; that noise levels should not raise about 70 dBa; and that food, if refrigerated, should be kept at temperatures of 45°F or below, and if cooked, at 140° or above. (Pi. Exs. 143, 404). 331. The modest repairs and renovations that Defendants have made in the course of this litigation in response to the recommendations made by Plaintiffs' experts and Defendants' own experts have not reduced the risk of illness and injury generated by the living conditions at the Annex to an acceptable level. (Duel testimony at 6-47 to 648) . CTF 332. The living conditions of the women prisoners housed at the CTF pose an unacceptable risk with respect to illness and injury. (Duel testimony at 6-4). 333. The CTF facility consists of a series of multilevel buildings connected by inside walkways. The women are housed in what is known as "E Building." E Building has four housing levels, each with two housing units. Each unit has two self-contained wings housing 32 women each in single cells. The two wings of each unit share a satellite kitchen

- 96 and dining room. (Pi. Ex. 63 8; Duel testimony at 6-52 to 653) .
334. Although the building is new, the women prisoners housed at CTF are subjected to bitterly cold temperatures due to defects in the CTF heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. (Pi. Exs. 145, 159, 638; Duel testimony at 6-54 to 6-56).
335. Prisoners' cells are located on the outer walls of the CTF buildings. These are solid masonry walls, with virtually no insulation and no perimeter heating, and they therefore reflect the outside temperature. Prisoners' beds are placed next to this outer wall. (Duel testimony at 6-53 to 6-54; Jones Dep. Tr. (sealed) at 189).
336. The HVAC system does not provide enough heat to warm these uninsulated cells. (Duel testimony at 6-54 to 655; Ray Dep. Tr. (II) at 162-64; Welch Dep. Tr. at 56-57).
337. As early as January 1993, the Administrator of CTF was reporting that all units in the women's program unit were "complaining of no heat in the rooms." (Pi. Ex. 44 9 (1/4/94 report at DC0030692); PI. Ex. 145).
33 8. In March 1993, Jane Doe K wrote the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs in the hope that something could be done about the heat at CTF:
I come to you expressing the dire need for heat in the Correctional Treatment Facility. It is imperative that someone from your offices comes out to inspect and investigate this building as it relates to the heat situation.

- 97 The institution has provided some of the residents with extra clothing and blankets, but even so, there is a large percentage of the population who did not receive such. This act of kindness is still not enough to protect us from such frigid temperatures. It was a temporary policy . . . . (Pi. Ex. 160). These letters were eventually forwarded to the Department of Corrections Associate Director of Programs and to the Acting Chief of Female Offender Programs. (Pi. Ex. 160) .
339. Jane Doe K never received a reply to her complaint. (Jane Doe K testimony at 6-119).
340. In the winter, the cells at CTF are so cold that ice and icicles form on the inside of the windows. (Jane Doe II testimony at 3-18; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-89).
341. On April 20, 1993, Walter Ridley, who was then the Director of the Department of Corrections, sent a "urgent" memorandum to the Department of Public Works -– who was responsible for the construction of CTF - - o n the subject of "safety and health problems" at the facility. According to Mr. Ridley there were a number of serious problems with the facility, including in "E Building," where the women's unit is located. The letter notes that E building floods each time that it rains and that the cells are "extremely cold with temperatures as low as 40 degrees." (Pi. Ex. 159 (emphasis added)).
342. According to Mr. Ridley, both staff and inmates were experiencing "an increase in colds and flu" due to the cold. (Pi. Ex. 159).

- 98 343. When Plaintiffs' environmental health expert toured the facility in February 1994, he recorded temperatures of 65: in the cells and was told that it was warmer than it had been in some time. (PI. Ex. 638; Duel testimony at 6-54 to 6-56). The temperature was inconsistent across cells and was coldest in the cells at the end of each tier. (PI. Ex. 638; Duel testimony at 6-54). 344. In February 1994, the equipment used to heat the outdoor air coming into the building was broken and Defendants had shut off the ventilation system in order to preserve heat. As a result, no fresh air at all was circulating inside the building. (PI. Ex. 638; Duel testimony at 6-56) . 345. Although some repairs have since been made, David White, the chief of Facilities Maintenance at CTF, has expressed reservations that they will be adequate. (Duel testimony at 6-68). 346. Because of the cold air coming into their cells through the air handling system, many women try to block the air exchange vents in their cells with toilet paper and sanitary napkins in order to preserve heat. (Pi. Exs. 147 (reports of 9/8/93, 8/3/93, 8/17/93), 150, 151; Duel testimony at 6-55; Jane Doe II testimony at 3-36). 347. This improper use of toilet paper and sanitary napkins frequently leads to a shortage of these critical supplies. (Pi. Ex. 330 [DC0018873]; Welch Dep. Tr. at 55;

- 99 Jane Doe II testimony at 3-14 to 3-15; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-92 to 4-93).
348. The temperatures at CTF are such that, until the equipment is repaired, women prisoners should not be housed in the end cells of each tier and should be issued extra blankets and long Johns. (Duel testimony at 6-57; Genco testimony).
349. However, the requests of women prisoners for extra blankets to combat the cold often go unheeded; blankets are given and then taken away; extra clothing is provided only sporadically. (Pi. Ex. 160; Jane Doe II testimony at 3-18; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-89; Jane Doe K testimony at 6-116 to 6-119) .
350. The air handling system at CTF is also excessively noisy. At 4:30 a.m., Plaintiffs' environmental health expert measured the noise level at 66 dBa; in an upper corridor it was nearly 10 decibels louder than that. (Pi. Ex. 63 8; Duel testimony at 6-57).
351. Defendants have been aware of excessive noise levels on the women's housing units since at least October 1992 when an audit was conducted of the CTF facility. (Pi. Ex. 405 [DC0025767]). The former Administrator of the CTF attributed excessive noise levels to the fact that the building was designed to be carpeted, but due to budgetary constraints had not been, and to "women's tendency to talk loud." (PI. Ex. 330 [DC0018872]).

- 100 352. The Department's own policy states that noise levels in inmate housing units shall not exceed 70 dBa in daytime and 45 dBa at night. (Pi. Ex. 143; Duel testimony at 6-18) . 353. CTF also has a pervasive problem with leaking plumbing fixtures. These leaks are often not repaired for a considerable period of time, leading to standing water, and sometimes leaking sewage, in the cells. (Pi. Ex. 638; Duel testimony at 6-60 to 6-62) . 354. One effect of the plumbing defects in the building is that water leaks through to lower floors and causes the ceilings of showers to fall out. (Pi. Exs. 147 (5/6/93 report), 159, 615; Duel testimony at 6-61 to 6-62). 355. Two women prisoners were injured in separate incidents when a shower ceiling collapsed on them. (Pi. Exs. 159, 394 (5/6/93 report) ; Duel testimony at 6-62) . 356. The environmental health problems at the facility are exacerbated by the fact that the units do not have an adequate amount of cleaning supplies. (Duel testimony at 6-62 to 6-63; Jane Doe II testimony at 3-14 to 3-15; Jane Doe V testimony at 4-91). 357. Even though it is a new facility, CTF has also experienced an infestation of mice. (Pi. Exs. 146, 152, 156, 178, 182, 183, 184; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 204-05; Duel testimony at 6-74).

- 101 3 58. The temperature of the "hot" water for the handsinks and for the showers in the housing units at CTF is not hot -– ranging from the high 80's and low 90's. Bycomparison, the ACA recommends hot water temperatures between 100° and 120°. Lack of hot water means that personal hygiene is neglected and that the potential for transmission of disease is more likely. (Pi. Ex. 638; ACA 3-4134; Duel testimony at 6-58). 359. Defendants have temporarily addressed this problem by not running the dishwashers in the morning; however, this is not an acceptable permanent solution. (Duel testimony at 6-68 to 6-69). 360. Laundry procedures at CTF are not sanitary. Institutional laundry from CTF is transported to and from the laundry at the D.C. Jail in unlined canvas carts. Dirty laundry can be the source of illness pathogens which can survive and grow in unclean carts and then be transferred to clean laundry. (Pi. Ex. 638; Duel testimony at 6-58 to 6-59). 361. CTF is in need of an effective preventive maintenance program. (Duel testimony at 6-66). 362. Defendants are aware of the physical conditions at CTF and the risk to health and safety that these conditions pose to the occupants. (PI. Exs. 148, 159, 183, 405; Duel testimony at 6-67). 3 63. Defendants are aware of the poor sanitary conditions on the women's units at CTF. In February 1994, the

- 102 Acting Director of the Women's Program was reassigned to return to her duties as Unit Manager "due to the chronic sanitation problems" experienced on the unit and "the overwhelming need for closer supervision of unit operations." (PI. Ex. 461).
364. The periodic safety and sanitation reports submitted to the Administrator of CTF in 1993 repeatedly show problems with plumbing and heating, including that toilet facilities in E Building were not clean and in good condition; that there was standing water in shower areas; that water was leaking from the ceiling and walls; that there was no heat; and that the air exchange vents were covered to preserve heat. (PI. Ex. 148; Duel testimony at 6-66 to 6-67).
365. According to CTF's own documents, the food at the facility is prepared under unsanitary conditions. The sanitarian at CTF periodically inspects the main and satellite kitchens using a form adapted from the inspection form used by the District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs to determine compliance of food service establishments with the District's laws and regulations. Under District law, a rating of 85% or less is prima facie evidence of failure to comply with the District's food regulations and can lead to revocation or suspension of a license. (23 DCMR §§ 2001.1, 2001.2; Duel testimony at 6-65). Out of 41 self-inspection reports completed between February 1993 and November 1993, 34

- 103 of them showed compliance ratings below 85%. (PI. Ex. 183; Duel testimony at 6-65) .
366. The food temperatures for the "hot" food served to prisoners with special medical diets is routinely in the danger zone that can allow micro-organisms to flourish and multiply in a very short time. (Pi. Ex. 638; Duel testimony at 6-64) .
367. Defendants have been aware that the special diet meals are being served at these dangerous temperatures since at least October 1992. (Pi. Ex. 405 [DC0025747]).
368. In June 1993, the Assistant Administrator of the facility wrote in his monthly report to the facility Administrators that he "personally observed on a couple of occasions that the special diet meals were sent to the units in styrofoam containers. By the time it was served to the residents, it was cold." (Pi. Ex. 426 (6/30/93 report at DC0027164)).
369. In January 1994, the Assistant Administrator of Operations again noted in his monthly report that "residents continue to complain of cold meals." (PI. Ex. 426 (1/31/94 report at DC0027210)).
370. The modest repairs and renovations that Defendants have made in the course of this litigation in response to the recommendations made by Plaintiffs' experts and Defendants' own experts have not reduced the risk of

- 104 illness and injury generated by the living conditions at the CTF to an acceptable level. (Duel testimony at 6-71) .
VI. FIRE SAFETY Annex 371. Women prisoners at the Annex face an immediate
life threatening situation with respect to fire safety. (Pi. Ex. 532; Jaeger testimony at 7-45 to 7-46).
372. The dormitory buildings are of combustible construction and have a heavy combustible load, in part because of the number of occupants and the lack of adequate locker space for the women's personal belongings, forcing many women to store their belongings in cardboard boxes and garbage bags. (Jaeger testimony at 7-7 to 7-9, 7-12).
3 73. Both dormitories have storage areas with large amounts of flammable material, such as paper and cleaning supplies. (Jaeger testimony at 7-9). In addition, Dormitory #7 has combustible wood planking on the walls of the dormitories. (Jaeger testimony at 7-9).
3 74. The heavy combustible load creates a significant exposure to the occupants of the dormitories. (Jaeger testimony at 7-10) .
375. There is no compartmentation in the Annex dormitories to keep a fire from spreading. (Jaeger testimony at 7-ll).

- 105 376. A fire in the sleeping areas could spread from one end of the dormitory to the other in five minutes. (Jaeger testimony at 7-10). 377. At night, all but one of the exits in the dormitories are locked. In a fire emergency, the single unlocked exit, which is off of the dayroom, could be blocked by furniture or by the fire itself. (Jaeger testimony at 713; 7-20 to 7-21). 378. No fire alarm systems are provided in the dormitory buildings. The so-called "fire alarm" in Dormitory #6 is little more than a doorbell. It is not automatic; it is not supervised; it does not have emergency power; it does not alert anybody outside of the building. (Jaeger testimony at 7-15) . 379. The smoke detectors in the sleeping areas of the dormitory provide inadequate fire protection. There are no smoke detectors in the dayrooms, bathrooms, storage rooms, or offices. In Danbury, Connecticut, a fire started in a dormitory bathroom and killed 5 people without ever spreading beyond the bathroom. (Jaeger testimony at 7-18). 380. The smoke detectors also do not provide adequate fire protection. They are not supervised; they have no emergency power; and they do not alert anybody outside the immediate area of the detector. (Jaeger testimony at 7-16). 381. The presence of portable fire extinguishers in the Annex dormitories does not provide sufficient fire

- 106 protection to the occupants of the dormitories. (Jaeger testimony at 7-19).
382. The Annex dormitories are not in compliance with the building code of the District of Columbia and should have been brought up to new building standards when they were converted to a detention and correctional occupancy in 1988. (Jaeger testimony at 7-28 to 7-29).
383. Although the dining room and gymnasium at the main compound has a fire alarm system, it is inoperative due to failure to maintain it properly and must be replaced. (PI. Exs. 52 5, 532; Jaeger testimony at 7-32 to 7-33).
384. On the day of the inspection by Plaintiffs' fire safety expert, the fire exit doors in the gymnasium were locked. Even after the officer unlocked them, the doors were jammed shut and could not be opened for several minutes. (Jaeger testimony at 7-32). On the day of the inspection by Defendants' fire safety expert, the fire exit doors had to be unlocked by maintenance staff because correctional staff could not find the keys to unlock them. (Taylor testimony).
385. The Minimum Security fire emergency procedures are inadequate in that they do not inform staff how to proceed in case of fire, how to summon the Fire Department in case of emergency, or how to escort the Fire Department into the institution. (PI. Ex. 400; Jaeger testimony at 7-21 to 7-22).
386. Although the Minimum Facility's Division Operating Procedures require an annual inspection by the Fire

- 107 Department, there is no evidence that those inspections are being conducted. (Pi. Ex. 400; Jaeger testimony at 7-38).
387. Although some fire drills have been conducted at the Annex, the number and variation of the drills was inadequate. (PI. Ex. 395; Jaeger testimony at 7-22 to 7-25). Drills should be conducted quarterly on each shift. (Jaeger testimony at 7-22 to 7-25).
388. The Annex staff do not receive ongoing fire safety training and are not prepared to deal with a fire emergency. (Jaeger testimony at 7-25 to 7-27).
389. Fire drills and fire safety training are of paramount importance in a detention and correctional facility because the inmates are not considered "capable of selfpreservation, " i.e.. by virtue of their incarceration they cannot always freely evacuate a building. (Jaeger testimony at 7-20, 7-24) .
390. The fire safety conditions at the Annex pose a substantial risk of serious injury to the women who live there. (Jaeger testimony at 7-5).
3 91. Defendants are well aware of the poor fire safety conditions at the Annex. As early as April 1992, the Administrator of the Minimum Security Facility requested that fire alarms be installed in both dorms "as required by the Fire Marshall's inspection and Deputy Director Quander." (Pi. Ex. 485).

- 108 3 92. On December 16, 1992, Corporal Hershel Pleasant, the officer in charge of fire safety at Minimum informed the Acting Assistant Administrator for Operations, Barbara Hart, that "the clothes and other personal belongings of the Residents could not be properly store[d]" because "the facility is out of foot lockers and wall lockers." Corporal Pleasant emphasized that this created a "dilemma" because "residents are using makeshift lockers out of cardboard boxes thus facilitating a fire hazard." (PI. Ex. 398). That situation continues to exist today. (Jaeger testimony at 79) . 3 93. On January 24, 1994, Corporal Pleasant informed Ms. Hart that he had catalogued a number of fire hazards in the dormitories and that "[b]ased upon [his] direct observation, the severity of the deficiencies in most instances would indicate they should be made top priority, but they're merely ignored." (Pi. Ex. 403). 3 94. On April 8, 1994, the Administrator of the Minimum Facility requested funding to fund installation of a fire alarm because "[t]he lack of a working, compliant fire alarm system creates hazardous living and working conditions at the institution. Overcrowding has further exacerbated the risk." (PI. Ex. 525). The Administrator further stated that "[t]he investment in a new fire alarm system is likely to be much less than the liability resulting from a lawsuit" and that "[f]unding of a new fire alarm system is a necessary and

- 109 -
recommended priority because of the unsafe conditions" at the
facility. (PI. Ex. 525).
3 95. With respect to the system at the main
compound, which is inoperative, the Administrator has admitted
that "[h]ad the current system been properly operated and
maintained, a new fire alarm system would not be needed; years
of neglect and improper operation have rendered the current
system inutile." (Pi. Ex. 525).
396. The Administrator of the Minimum Facility and
the Department's Fire Marshal have selected Systems
Engineering, Inc. (SEI) to install a fire alarm system at the
facility. (PI. Ex. 525).
3 97. The proposal submitted by SEI to improve fire
safety at the Minimum facility, including the Annex, states
that:
In SEI's professional opinion, the Minimum Security Facility constitutes an immediate life threatening situation. The problem has been exacerbated by the over-crowding condition of the Minimum Security Facility. There are hundred of inmates and staff and the Minimum Security Facility, and there is no means of fire detection or evacuation.
(PI. Ex. 532).
3 98. The SEI proposal describes the "problems" with
the current system at Minimum as follows:
The Administration Building, the Gym, the Cafeteria, and Dormitories 1 thru 4 have a Fire Control Instrument (FCI) FC-72 fire alarm panel with a Dukane evacuation system. Dormitory 5 has a Firelite Miniscan fire alarm panel. The physical conditions of these fire alarm system are very poor. All the panel reference above are in similar condition. The fire alarm panels are not

- 110 -
operational, meaning they will not initiate alarms, they will not ring evacuation alarms. The Dukane voice evacuation systems have been removed. The field devices are also in very poor condition. The smoke detectors a[re] filthy or painted, the manual stations are broken or inoperable. The devices must be replaced.
The remaining buildings or trailers have no fire protection. The remaining buildings are Dormitory 6, Dormitory 7, Medical Trailer, Program Trailer A, Program Trailer B, Recreation Trailer, Substance Abuse Trailer and the Receiving and Discharging Building.
(Pi. Ex. 532) (emphasis in original). The buildings that SEI
describes as "having no fire protection" are all located at
the Minimum Annex where the women prisoners are housed.
3 99. At the time of trial, no immediate steps were
being taken to address this life threatening situation.
Instead, the Deputy Director had ordered a "survey" conducted.
There was no indication of who was conducting this survey or
when it would be complete. (Quander testimony).
400. Despite their longstanding knowledge of the
unsafe conditions at the Minimum Security Facility, and the
Annex dormitories in particular, Defendants have failed to
take reasonable steps to alleviate these conditions.
CTF
401. Although CTF has a state-of-the-art fire
protection system, the facility does not test its equipment
regularly and thus cannot guarantee that it will actually
operate in case of an emergency. (Jaeger testimony at 7-39 to
7-41).

- Ill 402. Moreover, until otherwise instructed by their own fire safety expert, Defendants did not allow officers on the housing units to carry keys to unlock the fire alarm pull stations on the units. Thus, in the event of a fire emergency, the staff could not use the alarm and the system was essentially inoperable. (Jaeger testimony at 7-43). 403. Water leakage from rain in the CTF buildings creates a severe hazard due to the exposure of electrical equipment. (Jaeger testimony at 7-39). 404. Defendants have stored combustible material in the storage room so close to the ceiling that even if the sprinklers were to go off, they would not be effective because the reach of the water would be very limited. (Jaeger testimony at 7-44 to 7-45, 7-49). 405. The frequency and distribution of fire drills at CTF is inadequate and the operational procedures for responding to fire emergencies by staff are inadequate, so much so that staff and inmates have complained about the lack of fire drills. (Jaeger testimony at 7-43 to 7-44). 406. In July 1993, the Acting Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Eliza Taylor, informed her supervisor that she had "requested a fire drill" and that "[s]taff really needs to go through a mock evacuation drill." Three months later, she again complained that the officer in charge of fire safety "had been approached on several occasions regarding mock evacuation drills." According to Dr. Taylor, "[t]here has to

- 112 be a concerted effort on the part of the medical staff and security because of the difficulty with movement in this facility." (PI. Ex. 394).
407. The fire safety conditions at the CTF are inadequate and below any national standard. (Jaeger testimony at 7-6).
408. The failure to properly maintain the fire alarm, detection, and suppression systems at CTF, and the fact that the fire alarm system at the main Minimum compound was allowed to deteriorate to the point where it is inoperable, shows that this Court's continuing oversight is necessary to ensure that a fire alarm system is properly installed.

DATED:
Prepared by: Peter J. Nickles #53447 Caroline M. Brown #438342 Tracy A. Thomas #435742 COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (202) 662-6000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Co-counsel: Brenda V. Smith #404979 Deborah L. Brake #435006 NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER 1616 P Street, N.W.Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-5160

June L. Green U.S. District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 18th day of July, 1994,
I caused a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Revised Proposed
Findings of Fact, Revised Conclusions of Law, and Revised
Proposed Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief to be
sent by first class mail, postage pre-paid, to:
Maria Amato, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the District of
Columbia Corporation Counsel 441 4th Street, N.W. 6th Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001

 
 Office of Compliance and Accreditation

Government of the District of Columbia DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
9501 Furnace Road Lorton, Virginia 22199
October 17, 1997

Tracy A. Thomas, Esquire Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, D. C. 20044-7566

BE: v.

of District of

.ions

of

et a

Action No. 93-2052

Dear Ms. Thomas:

Enclosed is the September 1997, report responding to the united

States District Court's Order dated June 18, 1997, regarding the

above-re firv^.ced civil action.

Sincerely,

Gloria D. Thaxton-Fox Senior Compliance Monitor
Enclosures cc: Brenda V. Smith, Esquire, National Women's Law Center
Maria Amato, Assistant Corporation Counsel Judy Kleiman, Executive Compliance Officer Regina Gilmore, Acting Contract Monitor File GDTF/gdtf

IDPS-S38C

Women Prisoners/ DC v. DC PC-DC-011-017

FK-ED
2 2

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

D E P A R T M E N T / O F F I C E : Office of Policies and Procedures

I N I T I A T I V E t Uomen Prisoners of DCDC v. p. C
Civil Action No. 93-2052

L E A D PERSON:Ronald J. HcClaln
Chief, Office of Policies t Procedures

TELEPHONE: (202) 673-7410

DATE OF UPDATE: •QctoheT-7t

1997

M&JCR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/AGENCT

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-Compliance If Compliance state how achieved and attached supporting documentation, If any. If Non-compliance state reason, remedy, and new completion date.

Uithin 60 days, the Defendants shall write and follow a Department Order prohibiting sexual harassment involving District of Colwbia Department of Corrections (DCDC) employees and women prisoners. The Defendants shall post and circulate the Department Order in accordance with departmental policy.

5.

Under this policy the DCDC has the

obligation to take appropriate steps

to prevent and remedy sexual

harassment committed by its own

employees.

7.

Penalties for prohibited conduct under

the policy shall be determined by the

Director of the PCOC within 30 days.

1. SEXUAL HARASSMENT
3/20/95 5/15/95 • (Revised)

I
Compliance: DO 3350.2A, "Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates" dated 5/15/9S distributed to OCOC employees. Draft DO 3350.2B revision based upon U. S. Appeals Court's Decision submitted to DOC General Counsel on 2/3/97.

3/20/95 2/11/95

Compliance. Contained In DO 3350.2A. Staff refresher training expected to start by March 1997 based upon changes to Department Order resulting from the U. S. Appeals Court's decision.
Compliance. Contained In DO 3350.2A.

Page 1 of 2

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

IJSPAKIHEJW/OFFICE: Office of Policies and Procedures

INITIATIVE: women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C
Civil Action Ho. 93-2052

L E A D P E R S C N : Ronald J. HcClain Chief, Office of Policies t Procedures

TELEPHONE: (202) 673-7410

DATE OF UPDATE: October 7, 1997

MAJOR TASK

PERSCtVAGQICY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-Compliance If Compliance state how achieved and attached supporting documentation, If any. If Non-compliance state reason, remedy, and
new completion date.

I. SEMML HARASSMENT

11.

Failure of an employee to report any

Betty Green

allegation of sexuat Misconduct or any

facts and circimstances which would

lead a reasonable employee to believe

that sexual misconduct is occurring or

has occurred shall subject the

employe* to discipline.

U.

Any prisoner who is dissatisfied with

Betty Green

any investigation or resolution of an

allegation of sexual harassment may

appeal to the Director of DCDC within

IS days. The Director must respond

within IS days.

3/20/95

Compliance. Original language contained in DO 33S0.2A. Procedures being followed. Court Order dated 8/14/95. language included in 1995 and 1997 employee sexual misconduct training and in revised draft DO 3350.2A. I

3/20/95

Compliance. Procedures contained In DO 3350.2A. Inmates notified In training and in Inmate Bulletin, "Preventing Sexual Misconduct."

Page 2 of 2

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: 0. C. Detention Facility
LEAD PERSON: Walter Fulton Acting Warden
MAJOR TASK

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoner* of DCDC v. D. C . et at. Civil Action No. 93-2052

TELEPHONE: 673-8201

DATE OF UPDATE: October 7, 1997

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/AGENCT

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance11 state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation

1. Sexual Harassment

8a.

Women prisoners shall be able to report Mario Handle

12/93

3/95

instances of sexual harassment through

the existing Inmate Grievance Procedure

(IGP) as specified in Department Order

4030.10.

6b.

The Defendants shall strictly adhere to

the Innate Grievance Procedure and

shall establish an Inmate Grievance

Advisory Committee (IGAC) as required

by Section Vll(c) of Department Order

4030.ID.

9a.

Women prisoners shall also be able to

Mario Handle

12/93

3/95

submit IGP's or complaints concerning

sexual harassment in any form, orally

or in writing, to any DCDC employee,

9b.

who must submit the information, in

writing, to the Warden of the facility

within 24 hours of receiving the

information.

Women prisoners may also submit IGP's or complaints to prisoner representative to the IGAC.

Page of 3

Compliance: As contained in 0.0. 4030.10, Section VII, Subsection F.I. Wherever an Inmate has a dispute or complaint the affected inmate should first seek to resolve this situation through Informal means. These informal means consist of verbally notifying and discussing the complaint with the relevant parties or an appropriate DCDC employee.
Compliance: An IGAC meeting was held on September 30, 1997. The next meeting is scheduled for October 28, 1997.
Compliance: As contained in D.0. 3350.2A, Section (B), 1. Each employee who receives any information, from any source, concerning sexual misconduct is required to report the Information in writing to the affected Warden or Office Chief. Each employee shall make his/her report of sexual misconduct within twenty four (24) hours of receiving the information.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: D. C. Detention Facility
LEAD PERSON: Walter Fulton Acting Warden
MAJOR TASK

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et .1. Civil Action Ho. 93-2052

TELEPHONE: 673-8201

DATE OF UPDATE: October 7, 1997

RESPONSIBLE PERSOM/AGEHCT

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

I. Sexual i ~ « ~ , t

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation

11.

Failure of an employee to report any

Mario Handle

12/93

3/93

Compliance: As contained in D.O. 3350.2A.

allegation of sexual misconduct or any

All known reports of sexual misconduct

facts and circumstances which would

reported within the prescribed 24 hours of

lead a reasonable employee to believe

receiving the Information.

that sexual misconduct Is occurring or

has occurred shall subject the employee to discipline.

i

12.

Upon receipt of any allegation of an

Mario Handle

12/93

3/95

Compliance: The Warden notifies the proper

act of unwelcome sexual intercourse or

Law Enforcement agency as contained In D.O.

any allegation of unwelcome sexual

33S0.2A.

touching, the Defendants must notify

the proper law enforcement agency.

The Defendants shall communicate with

the law enforcement agency concerning

the status of any investigation. The

Defendants must periodically document

the status of policy investigations.

The occurrence of a police

investigation does not relieve the

Defendants of the duty to investigate.

Page 2 of 3

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRAOCIII6 RETORT

DEPAtTMENT/OFFICE: D. C. Detention Facility
LEAD PERSON:Ualter Fulton Acting Uarden
W U O R TASK

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

TELEPHONE: 673-8201

DATE OF UPDATE: October 7, 1997

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation.

5

13.

The identify of the target of the

Mario Handle

12/93

3/95

Compliance: As contained in 0.0. 3350.2A.

alleged sexual harassment shall be

Employees are advised in 60 hours In-Service

revealed only to those uho have an

training that such acts are strictly

{•Mediate need to know, including the

prohibited by all employees for offenses of

alleged harasser(s) or retaliator(s)

this D.O.

and any witnesses. All parties contacted int he course of an

I

investigation will be advised that

any retaliation, reprisal, or breach

of confidentiality is a separate

actionable offense as provided in the

schedule of penalties.

H.

Any prisoner uho is dissatisfied with Mario Handle

any Investigation or resolution of an

allegation of sexual harassment may

appeal to the Director of the DCDC

within IS days of receiving

3/95

Compliance: As contained in D.O. 3350.2A.

Inmates are informed during sexual misconduct

training of appeal procedure and the time

Page 3 of 3

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFPICE:

Training Academy

I N I T I A T I V E : tau Prlaoaara of DCDC v. D. C
Civil Action Mo. »J-J052

LEAD PERSON: Robert H Jackson
Training Academy

TBLIPHONBi (703) 643-6462

DATS OP UPDATE: October 8, 1997

MAJOR TASK

HSKMSIBU FntSON/JUMMCY

coMPunrow D*T«

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non Compliance If Compliance state how achieved and attached supporting documentation, if any. If Non-compliance state reason, remedy, and new completion date.

I . SEXUAL HARASSMENT

15

The Department shall conduct mandatory

Patricia Roberts

training using certified trainers on

sexual misconduct for all DCDC

employees. A consultant from the

National Institute of Corrections

(NIC), mutually agreed upon by the

parties, shall develop the training

plan and material. A "certified trainer1* is defined as any person Mho

has completed the "Train-the-Trainer"

course developed by the NIC

consultant.

a. The training shall include
education concerning the Defendants' policies regarding reporting. investigating, and preventing sexual harassment, and the consequences for violating any policy concerning sexual harassment; and

8/30/95 8/30/95

8/28/95

Compliance. Training began 8/22/95. Annual staff refresher training began 2/3/97.

II

. 8/28/95

Compliance. Training includes education, policies, reporting, investigating, preventing sexual harassment, and consequences for violating policy.

Page 1 of 2

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE : Training Academy
LEAD PERSON: Robert w Jackson
Acting Training Adm> i istrator

MAJOR TASK

IS.

b. All staff who work with female

prisoners shall be trained by

certified trainers within six months.

commencing no later than August 30,

199S. After the initial training of

staff, the training will be included

in the pre service training of all

staff. Annual retraining shall be

conducted to refresh staff on the

Department Order regarding sexual

misconduct.

employees working with female prisoners shall receive a forty-hour
training program on working with female offenders A semiannual. enhancement training on special issues related to working with females offenders will be offered to selected employees.

TILIPROHI: 703/643-6462

I N I T I A T I V E : H e n Prl.on.r. of DCDC v. D. C
Civil Action Mo. 93-2052
DAT! Of UPDATE: October 8, 1997

RESPONSIBLE FIKSOM/AGEKCY

coNPurrioM DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Patricia Roberts

10/95

10/95 1/97

STATUS: Compliance or Non-Compliance If Compliance state how achieved and attached supporting documentation, if any. If Non-compliance state reason, remedy, and new completion date.
Compliance. Implemented In Pre-Service curriculum 10/95. Annual refresher training for all employees began 2/3/97. 60 minute education as part of In-Service training being held weekly and simultaneously at two (2) training sites.

10/31/97

Non-compliance. "The Training Academy requested
and received lesson plan from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) regarding "Working With Female Offenders." The Training Academy has begun creating lesson plana for Department of Corrections employees. The expected completion date is 10/97.

Page 2 of 2

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 1 of 2

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC T. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: October 10, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If 'Non-compliance* slate reason, remedy, and new completion IF 'Compliance" stale how achieved and attach documentation

I. Sexual Harassment

Women prisoners dull be able to report instances of

8.

•exual haraiMnent through the existing Inmate

Lonnie Moore/

Grievance Procedure (K3P) • • apecified in

Toni Perry

Department Order 4030.ID. Hie Defendant* shall

strictly adhere to the Inmate Grievance Procedure

and trull establish an Inmate Grievance Advisory

Conuniaee (K3AC) at required by Section VU(c) of

Department Order 4030 ID.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The women prisoners are able to report instances of sexual harassment through the grievance policy outlined in CCA Policy 14-5, Inmate Grievance Procedures. See attachment S-A. The inmate grievance committee meeting for the month of September was held. See attachment SB of report dated 10710/97.

II.

Failure of an employee to report any allefalkm of

Lonnie Moore

sexual misconduct or any facia and circumstances

which would lead a reasonable employee to believe

that sexual misconduct it occurring or hat occurred

shall subject the employee to discipline.

Upon receipt of any allegation of an act of

12.

unwelcome sexual intercourse or any allegation of

Lonnie Moore

unwelcome sexual touching, the Defendants mutt

notify the proper law enforcement agency. The

Defendant! shall communicate with the law

enforcement agency concerning the status of any

investigation. The Defendants must periodically

document the status of police investigation. The

occurrence of a police investigation doet not relieve

March 16, 1997
March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: All staff have been given a briefing of the new DC Department of Corrections Department Order 335O.2B Sexual Misconduct in pre-service training. CCA/CTF Facility Policy 14-100 is being revised to reflect the changes in die Department Order and will be used once revisions are complete. In-service trainings will begin once pre-service training for new hires is completed.
COMPLIANCE: CCA will handle any allegation of sexual misconduct through the procedures set forth in the DC Department of Corrections Department Order 335O.2B Sexual Misconduct. CCA/CTF Facility Policy 14-100 is being revised to reflect the changes in the Department Order and will be used once revisions are complete. Follow-up on pending investigations will be conducted once a

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC T. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: October 10, 1997

MAJOR TASK
the Defendants of the duty to inveMigate.

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If 'Non-compliance* stale reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance* state how achieved and attach documentation
month by the Grievance Officer.

13.

The identity of the Urge! of the alleged aexual

Lonnie Moore

haraaunent ahall be revealed only to thoae who have

an immediate need to know, including the alleged

haraaaer(i) or retaliatory) and any witnesses. All

parties contacted in the course of an investigation

will be advised that any retaliation, reprisal, or

breech of confidentiality is a separate actionable

offense as provided in the schedule of penalties.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: All supervisors have been briefed on the DC Department of Corrections Department Order 335O.2B Sexual Misconduct, in pre-service training and are aware of the confidentiality issues involved in investigations. CCA/CTF Facility Policy 14-100 is being revised to reflect the changes in the Department Order and will be used once revisions are complete. Investigators are instructed to inform all investigated parties of the penalties of reprisals.

14.

Any prisoner who is dissatisfied with any

Margaret Moore,

investigation or resolution of an allegation of sexual

Director, Dept. of

harassment may appeal to the Director of the DCDC Corrections

within IS days of receiving decision.

The Defendants shall make necessary alterations at

17.

both the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) and

Marvin Voss

the Minimum Security Annex (Annex) within 60

days to ensure that women have privacy in their

living, sleeping and shower areas.

March 16, 1997
March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: All inmates a n informed, according to DC Department of Corrections Department Order 335O.2B Sexual Misconduct, of their rights to appeal when they receive a decision. CCA/CTF Facility Policy 14-100 is being revised to reflect the changes in the Department Order and will be used once revisions are complete.
COMPLIANCE: A contractor has covered the cell windows of units 40, 37, 74, and 92 in the E and D buildings with a beige colored vinyl for privacy.

page 2 of 2

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT
page 1 of 1

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC T. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: OctoberlO, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

II. Obstetrical and Gynecological Care

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If 'Non-compliance' Hale reason, remedy, and new completion IF 'Compliance* Hale how achieved and attach documentation

18.

T h e Defendants shall develop and

Lonnie Moore

implement a protocol concerning restraints

used on pregnant and poslpartum women

which provides that a pregnant prisoners

•hall be transported in the least restrictive

way possible consistent with legitimate

security reasons. Specifically, the protocol

shall provide:

a. The Defendants shall use no restraints on any woman in labor, during delivery, or in recovery immediately after delivery; and

b. During the last trimester of pregnancy up until labor, the Defendants shall use no restraints when transporting a pregnant woman prisoner unless the woman has demonstrated a history of assaultive behavior or has escaped from a correctional facility, in which case, only handcuffs shall be used.

April 4, 1997

COMPLIANCE: When medical staff notes on the tri|> ticket that the female inmate is either in the third trimester of pregnancy, or in labor, the Director of Transcor (the transportation unit) ensures that no restraints are used on the traveling inmate. After delivery, when the inmate is placed in the recovery room, restraint use is resumed. A memorandum that outlines these directions has been distributed, posted, and read in roll call to all officers. In addition, all escorting officers must sign for receipt of the memorandum. See attached memorandum dated June 6, 1997 and numbered 18-A.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 1 of 7

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC T. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: October 10, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance* state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" slate how schieved and attach documentation

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

19.

The Defendant! ahall provide diagnostic evaluation! layc Smith,

for women priionert similar to draw currently

Reception and

provided for men in the Reception and Diagnostic

Diagnostic,

Unit at CTF to determine women prisoner*' needi,

Program Manager

interest*, and requirements lor increased programs

and opportunities in education and vocation. The

procedure for the needs assessment shall be done

by an approved scientific method. These

evaluations ahall be completed in a manner and

lime frame equivalent to the males in the diagnostic

unit, but shall not exceed 120 days from the date of

the female prisoner's transfer to CTF. The

evaluations ahall include educational and vocational

testing- The Defendants shall provide women with

the appropriate available programming called for by

this evaluation within 30 day* of completion of the

diagnostic evaluation.

June 1, 1997

COMPLIANCE:

;

The female inmates who meet the requirements of

diagnostic evaluation have been identified.

Diagnostic studies are being conducted on those

female inmates in accordance with the mandates

of this order.

20.

The Defendants ahall coordinate the scheduling of Mance Langham

academic educational classes, higher education

classes, and vocational training for women in such

a manner as to maximize women prisoners'

participation in as many areas as possible.

March 24, 1997

COMPLIANCE. All academic and vocational claaaes are scheduled to provide a minimum of three hours of instruction five days a week from 8:00-11:00am and 12-3:00pm See attachment 20-A of report dated 4/7/97.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC • . D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: October 10, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" Male reaion, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance* Male how achieved and attach documentation

22.

The Defendants shall develop and

Mance

implement quality assurance programs for Langham

monitoring program delivery to ensure

the continued provision of equal and

adequate education and vocation

programs to women prisoners.

May 31, 1997

COMPLIANCE: A quality assurance evaluation system was developed by CCA for another program. The evaluation form will be revised and adapted as our quality assurance tool for educational and vocational programs. The Principal will conduct the assurance evaluations bimonthly.

page 2 of 7

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 3 of 7

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC T. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: October 10, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" stale reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" stale how achieved and attach documentation

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

23.

The Defendants ahall eiuure that women prisoners

Charles Howard

ire escorted to »n arrive al educational and

vocational program! in a timely manner • •

scheduled in a manner that does not prevent the

programming tuff from performing any of their

duties.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE:

|

The elevator to the education department of the

facility is manually operated by correctional

officers between the hours of t :00am and 5:00pm

in order to escort all inmates to classes in a timely

manner.

25.

The Defendant* ahall provide women prisoners at

Mance Langham

CTF with a nnge of academic education programs

that is equivalent to the range of academic

programs provided to male prisoners at the

Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Women prisoners al CTF are provided the same educational programs that are offered at the Lorton facilities i.e. ABE, OED, and Life Skills. See attachment 20-A of 4/7/94 report.

26.

Women prisoners at CTF ahall be provided with the Mance Langham

opportunity for full-time (three hours per day, five

days per week al CTF) basic education to include

ABE, OED, and Special Education classes.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Women prisoners at CTF are provided full time access to three educational classes: ABE, OED, and life Skills. See class schedule attachment 20-A of the 4/7/97 report. Low functioning inmates arc provided special instruction in smaller groups.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 4 of 7

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC T. D. C . et al. Ciril Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: October 10, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and completion IF "Compliance" stale how achieved and attach documentation

new

IY. PROGRAM EVALUATION

27.

Women pritonen »l CTF shall have accesstooo-

Mance Langham

November 1,

lite higher education program* which ahall include

1997

• four yean B.A. «nd/or B.S. degree program, and

A . A . degree program, and precollege program. At

a minimum, bachelor program* nail be offered in

one area of atudy, and aiaociale program* in two

different area* of atudy leading to a degree.

Defendant* ahall comply with the precollege

requirement of this provirioa within 90 day*.

NON-COMPLIANCE:

|

An initial contract with the University or District

of Columbia (UDC) was signed by Correction*

Corporation of America signed on Jume 17,

1997. A revision to the original contract w u

returned and forwarded to CCA headquarter*.

Thi* revision i* now in the Legal Committeee

hand* for review. A license application was tent

to die DC Education Lkenaure Commiuion to

obtain the ability to provide post-secondary

educational courses to the inmate* in the interim.

28.

The Defendant* ahall offer pritonen financial

Mance Langham

September

arrangement* for Iheae education program* that are

15, 1997

the aame a* thoae arrangement* available to

similarly situated male pritonen.

NON-COMPLIANCE: The contract being negotiated with UDC will provide college course* at no cost to women prisoner*. See attachment 27-A of 4/7/97 report.

Within 90 day*, me Defendant* ahall provide

29.

appropriate substitute teacher* or instructor* during

John Henderson

absence* of regular teacher* or Instructor* of more

than three working day*. The provision of a

substitute teacher or instructor ahall not result in

increasing the clas* *ize beyond acceptable

community standard* for a period of time exceeding

IS consecutive school day*.

April I I , 1997

COMPLIANCE: A certified teacher ha* been designated to cover teacher absence*. See attachment 29-A of 5/7/97 report.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 5 of 7

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC T. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: October 10, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If 'Non-compliance' state reason, remedy, and completion IF "Compliance' state how achieved and attach documentation

new

30.

Defendant* ahall provide women priaonen at CTF

with a range of vocational education program* that

ii equivalent to dierangeof vocational education

program* provided to male priaonen at the

Occoquan, Central and Medium facililie*.

IY. PROGRAM EVALUATION

Mance Langham

September 30, 1997

31.

Defendant* ahall provide women prisoners at CTF

Mance Langham

with two prevocalional program* each to be al leaat

•ix week* in duration. Prevocational program!

include thoae course* which teach peraonal

developmenl akille, living tkill*, and/or employment

•kill* such • • Employment Technique*, Awareneaa

and Preparation (ETAP) and Lifeskill*.

March 26, 1997

COMPLIANCE:

I

Women prisoner* at CTF are preaently provided

with four vocational program*: Computer Literacy

(6 monthi) and Oraphic Art* (12 month*) and

Commercial Cleaning (4 month*). The fourth

program, Interior Renovation, wai added to the

school curriculum on September 30, 1997 when

the instructor for the program waa hired.

COMPLIANCE: Prevocational akilli are provided in the Life Skill* and ETAP claaae*. The claassa are held three hour* daily, five day* a week. The program* include module* in peraonal development akill*, living skill*, and employabilily akills. See attachment 31-A of report dated June 7, 1997.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC ». D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: October 10, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" stale how achieved and attach documentation

Defendant* shall provide women priaonen al CTF

32.

with a minimum of four vocational education

Mance Langham

prognmi, including the one program currently in

place (Docutech). Theie program ahall be

available to female prisoners of all cuaiody levela.

A vocational education program ia any program of

12 to 24 monthi in duration that leachei employable

•kills and contains both a classroom componenl and

an on-lhe-job-training component. Two programs

ahall be operative within 120 dayi of die entry of

this Order.

September 22, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Women prisoners at CTF are presently provided with four vocational programs: Computer Literacy (6 months) and Graphic Arts (12 months) and Commercial Cleaning (4 months). The fourth program. Interior Renovation, waa added to the school curriculum on September 30, 1997 when die instructor for die program was hired.:
1

33.

Defendant* ahall provide women prisoners at CTF

Mance Langham

with at least one apprenticeship programs a* defined

by Department Order.

November 1,1997

NON-COMPLIANCE: There is no accredited apprenticeship program available to die female inmates. The desired program for apprecticeahip baa been identified as Commercial Cleaning and die guidelines have been submitted to the District of Columbia Apprentkeahip Council for review on August 25, 1997. Aresponseia still pending. The Apprentkeahip council will make H* decision during die October meeting.

34

All prevocalional programs, vocational programs,

Mance Langham

and apprenticeships added for women prisoner* at

CTF ahall have the potential for providing women

with job skills marketable in the local labor market.

An important consideration in the Defendants'

selection of programs shall be die wage-earning

capacity upon completion of die program.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The current pre-vocational and vocational programs implemented provide die female inmates with computer, graphic arts, interviewing, and marketability skills dial are valuable in die local job market. The orientation stage of these programs emphasize the value of these skills in die job market.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC T. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: October 10, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If 'Non-compliance* stale reason, remedy, and new completion IF 'Compliance* stale how achieved and attach documentation

Defendants ahall conduct affirmative outreach to

35.

women during die enrollment period for vocational

training. Thii outreach shall entail DCDC auff

meeting with women at leaat one month before the

deadline for program enrollment to inform the

women that the new program are available and lo

offer a full description of the available program!

and any applicable criteria for participation.

Mance Langham

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Alternative outreach services for women are provided during orientation and initial program enrollment by the program instructors. A pamphlet which includes specific programs is given to each female to assist the selection of a new program after completion of the program. See sdachment(s) 3S-A of April 7, 1997 report.

Defendant! ahall ensure that all contractual

36.

programs used lo provide services to women

prieoners are compatible with and fulfill the

provisions of this Order.

.

John Henderson

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: All contractual programs receive a legal review from CCA's Legal Affairs office. Also contracts are cleared by the Contract Monitor of the Department of Correction prior to approval.
page 7 of 7

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 1 of 4

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC r. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: October 10,1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If 'Non-compliance* state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance* state how achieved and attach documentation

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

51.

Within 90 daya, the Defendant* (hall hire a

Marvin Voaa

qualified air balancing contractor to service the

CTF air handling ayatem ao that h providea an

acceptable level of air quality to all areas of the

facility inhabited by prisoner*.

52

In the event that the air balancing and other recent

Marvin Voaa

repain to the heating ayatem at CTF fail to maintain

a minimum cell temperature of 65 degrees F in

every cell, measured at the perimeter

wall, the Defendant* ahall immediately:

Vem AlfordV John

Henderson

a. ceaae housing women in the end

cells of each tier;

Alford/Hendenon

b. provide each woman prisoner with two extra blankets, two pain of thermal underwear, and two pain of wool socks;

Marvin Von

c. explore means of inaulaling or heating the perimeter walla of the cells; and

d. report back to the Court.

March 16, 1997
March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Aareportedin previous reports, air balancing waa done by the Department of Corrections In the past however, CCA baa hired a private contractor to rebalance the air ayatem at CTF. Due to structural changes in the facility, the contractors have beenrecalledto repair and upgrade the air handling system.
COMPLIANCE: The temperature in the cells have not fallen below 65 degrees during mis period. In the event of thai occurence, the Assistant Warden will provide additional doming and blankets and ensure that inmates are not housed in end cells.
Means of insulating or healing the perimeter walla have been explored, however, inaulaling the walla would make the rooms smaller and violate ACA sUndsrds and heating Ihe walls would violate fire regulations. Therefore, we are currently unable to develop a feasible plan. A new strategy will be devised if airrebalancingdoes not preclude the need to modify the walls.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 2 of 4

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC T. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: October 10, 1997

MAJOR TASK

53.

The Defendant! shall develop and implement an

effective rodent prevention program.

•

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance* Hate bow achieved and attach documentation

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

Linda Wall

April 23, 1997

COMPLIANCE: A contract with the Orkin Chemical Company has been negotiated and initialed. Tht contract includes a monthly rodent prevention plan. See attachment 53-A of May 7, 1997 report.

54.

Effective immediately, the Defendants shall enaure that

Larry Colbert

• I I housing units at CTF are iasued a timely, adequate

and appropriate amount of cleaning supplies.

April 30, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The cleaning supply is sufficiently Mocked and PortionPac baa instructed the inmates on the proper use of the materials. The supply of material! ii monitored and distributed to the housing units on a weekly basis.

55.

The Defendants shall uae cart linen or disposable or

Linda Wall

waahable laundry bag! to transport laundry between

C T F and the Jail.

May 2, 1997

COMPLIANCE: A linen service agreement was signed between CTF and Sterling Cleaners on April 4, 1997 and service began on April 7, 1997. Therefore, laundry ia no longer transported between CTF and the Jail. See attachment #55-A of May 7, 1997 report.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 3 of 4

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners or DCDC v. D. C . el al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) $98-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: October 10, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If 'Non-compliance' slate reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

IY. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

56.

Effective immediately, the Defendant! at CTF shall Vern Alford

monitor the foodtemperatureand delivery limei of

• I I food, including special diet meali, delivered to

the satellite kitchen.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Foodtemperatureis manually monitored by the culinary officers and the Safety Manager who use food thermometers and randomly select'the trays to sample al each meal time. Delivery times are monitored by the correctional officers who receive the food on the units.

J7.

The Defendant! shall promulgate and follow a

Marvin Voas

written preventive maintenance plan for the CTF

that includes maintenance of structures, systems,

and equipment.

58.

The Defendants shall ensure that the correctional

Marvin Voas

officers inspect all plumbingfixturesthat requires

repair will be reported immediately upon discovery,

and repaired in a timely manner. The Defendants

shall maintain log* demonstrating compliance with

this requirement.

Match 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: CCA is following the preventive maintenance plan for the facility mat was developed by the Department of Corrections. However, once renovalive construction and other modifications are completed, a new preventive maintenance plan will be promulgated.

September 0, 1997

NON-COMPLIANCE: A protocol for inspecting plumbing fixtures is not currently in place. An operations memorandum will be developed for the daily inspection of plumbing fixtures with immediate reporting to maintenance upon completion of current construction in the facility.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC T. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)08-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: October 10,1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If 'Non-compliance* state reason, remedy, and new completion IF 'Compliance* state how achieved and attach

documentation

59.

Two time* per year, the Defendants ahall cause the District or Columbia DCRA lo conduct inspections

Linda Wall

of the CTF lor compliance with therequirementsof

environmental sanitation, maintenance and food

service delivery. Within 30 days of each

inspection, the Warden of CTF shall obtain the

DCRA 6ndings. The Warden ahall repair, clean,

or otherwise remedy any unsanitary, unsound, or

unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA as

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The DCRA inspection was conducted on Msy 19 and May 20, 1997. The facility received a rating •core of 8 4 * . (See attached memorandum S9-A of report dated June 6, 1997.) The identified violations have been corrected and supporting documents have been attached. See attachment number 59 of report dated June 6, 1997.

soon as feasible but in no event later than 30 days following thereceiptof the DCRA report.

i

page 4 of 4

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page I of 1

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC T. p . C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: October 10,1997

MAJOR TASK

65.

The Defendant* shall conduct and document

mandatory aemi-anmial mining on fire safety

procedure! for all correction*! officer*.

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If 'Non-compliance' Hate reason, remedy, and new completion IF 'Compliance* state how achieved and attach documentation

Y. FIRE SAFETY

Vern Alford

October 29, 1997

NON-COMPLIANCE:

:

When CCA begin* it* aeini-annual training for

correctional officer* in October 1997, fire

prevention procedure* will be included.

Agency Implementation Plan/Tracking Report

DEPT./OFFICE: D.C. Dept. of Corrections Minimum Security F a c i l i t y

INITIATIVEi Women Prisoners of DCDC v . D . C . e t a l Civil Action No. 93-2052 PAGE 1

LEAD PERSON: James C. Riddick

HUMM- (703) 643-1019

nnoimn 10/06/97

mm urn

KS0K1U ffty<**fr'

8. Homen prisoners shall be able Co report instances of sexual harassment through the existing Inmate Grievance Procedure (IOP) as specified i n Department Order 4030.ID. The Defendants; shall s t r i c t l y adhere t o the Inmate Grievance Procedure and shall establish an Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee (IOAC) as required by Section VII (C) of Department Order 4030.ID.
9. Homen prisoners shall also be able t o submit IGP's or complaints concerning sexual harassment i n any form, orally, or in writing, t o any DCDC employee, who must submit the information, in writing, t o the Harden of t h e f a c i l i t y within 24 hours of receiving t h e information. Women prisoners also submit IGP's or complaints t o prisoner representative t o the IGAC.
11. Failure of an employee t o report any allegation of sexual misconduct or any facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable employee to believe that sexual misconduct i s occurring or has occurred shall subject the employee to discipline.

Riddick
Riddick (McNeal)
Riddick (Riley) (McNeal)

catuiisiiui

PLANNED

ACTUAL

On-going

Compliance or Mon-Compliance (If Non-compliance, State Reason and New Completion DateXIf Compliance, State HOM Being Achievert)
Compliance-Committee in place aa required by Department Order.
*
i

On-going Compliance-ensure IGP forms are available t o everyone.

On-going

Compliance-Ensured a l l staff received training and are aware of reporting policy, in accordance to D.O.3350.2A, Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates.

... — - -

/

Agency Implementation Plan/Tracking Report

DEPT./OFFICE: D.C. Dept. of Corrections Minimum Security F a c i l i t y

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v . D . C . e t a l C i v i l Action No. 93-2052 PAGE 2

LEAD PERSON: James C. R i d d i c k

UUBML. (703) 643-1019

wtiiimii 10/06/97

Mm OK

12. Upon receipt of any allegation of an act of unwelcome sexual intercourse or any allegation of unwelcome sexual touching, the Defendants mist notify the proper law enforcement agency. The Defendants shall communicate with the law enforcement agency concerning the status of any Investigation. The Defendants oust periodically document the status of p o l i c e investigations. The occurrence of a police investigation does not relieve the Defendants of the duty to investigate.
13.(b) All parties contacted i n the course of investigation w i l l be advised that any retaliation, reprisal, or breach of confidentiality i s a separate actionable offense as provided in the schedule of penalties.
14. Any prisoner who i s d i s s a t i s f i e d with any investigation or resolution of an allegation of sexual harassment may appeal to the Director of the DCDC within 15 days of receiving written notice of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The Director must respond within IS days.

Riddick (Riley and McNeal)
Riddick

cBvunwpn

PLANNED

ACTUAL
On-going

Compliance or Non-Compliance ( I f Non-complisnct, State deacon and New Completion DateHIf Compliance, State How Being aehim/Mil
Compliance-- No incidents t h i s reporting period.

Compliance -As contained in Department Order 3350.2A, employees are advised that such acts are s t r i c t l y prohibited by a l l employees for offenses of t h i s D.O.
Compliance-At Institutional Level-This mainly applies t o Executive Staff.

Agency IapLeaentatlon Plan/Tracking Report

Ul

DEPT./OFFICE: D.C. Dept. of Corrections XMlTJLATXVBt ffoonen Prisoners of DCDC v . D . C . e t a l

Ul

Minimtrn Security P a s i l i t y

C i v i l Action Ho. 93-2052 PAGE 3

IJMD PBRSCtl: James C. Riddick

IIUMML <703) 643 »W

— BUMI 10/06/97

'SSL

meal ME

H ABJFI)

ACTUAL

Ctsptianca or •on-Coaplianc* (If Boa-ccsptiancc. State Reason and »m Caayleticn

20. Coordinate the scheduling oC acadsnic educational clasaea, higher education claaaea, vocational training, to SMxlati.se womeu'a participation in aa nany areaa as poesible.

Riddick (McNeil)

2/>5

CtovplLance-Academic c l £ a s e s held i n a.m.

C8D) and p.m. (ABB) and UDC c l a s s e s have been

suspended due to budget constraints. Fentale

inmates transported t o Central Facility t o

partvZ^ipate in vocational training ((lament

9iop).

:

^oo

23. ihe Defendants shall ensure that WMr. prisoners are escorted tc and arrive at educational and vocational prograuu In a tisjely Manner as scheduled in a Mtraar that does not prevent t.ie prograaaning staff f row performing asy of zheir duties.

Riddick (Rile/)

2/55

Conpliance-A Patrol & Cacort Officer i s

assigned daily to ensure ccmplisnce. Poet

Orders are i n place for escorting ianatea t o

programs .

24. ProvlSe women priaanera academi'education programt equivalent to ths range of academic programs provided t o nale prisooera at the Hinioust Security Facility.

Riddick (McNeil)

l/>5

Complianc*-January B. '.99S. an sdditional

f u l l trine teacher was assigned t o Annex.but

the h»a been returned to s h i f t due to s

ttandate fron personnel and small class s i z e .

IDC college has alMiys beer. coed.

26. •omen prisoners at the Annex ana CTF shall be provided with the opportunity ot f a l l - t i m (three hours per day, five days per week at CTF and five hours per day, f i v e days per week at the Annex) basic education t o iaclude ABB, 3ED, and Special Education d a i s e s .

Kiddirk (McNeil)

l/>5

Compliance. Effective 8/17/97,Dr.

Cnyemenen's detail as teacter was cancelled

cue to mandate troa D.c. Personnel office

regarding personnel detaile .Mrs.Bonui Gray ia

teaching Dr. Cnyenenen s c l a s s .

Agency Implementation Plan/Tracking Report

DEPT./OFFICEi D.C. Dept. of Corrections Minimum Security F a c i l i t y

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v . D . C . e t a l C i v i l Action No. 93-2052 PAGE 4

LEAD PERSON: James C. R i d d i c k

mcfWM (703) 6*3-1019

mrr IT mil 10/06/97

auainat

29. Within 90 daya. the Defendanta shall provide appropriate aubatitute teachera or inatructors during abaencea of regular teacbera or inatructor of more then three working daya. The proviaion of a aubatitute teacher or inatructor shall not reault in increaaing the claaa aize beyond acceptable community standarda for a period of t i n e exceeding IS consecutive school daya.
35. The Defendants shall conduct affirmative outreach to women during the enrollment period for vocational training. This out reach shall entail DCDC staff meeting with women at least one month before the deadline for program enrollment to inform the women that the new programs are available and to offer a full description of the available programs and any applicable criteria for participation.

Riddick (McNeal)

cannm aw

PLANNED

ACTUAL On-going

Compliance or Mon-Compliance (If Non-coaplfence, State Reason and New Completion OateXlf Compliance, State How Being Achjevadl
Compliance. When a aubatitute teacher ia needed, a teacher from the existing ataff ia assigned to instruct the women. Mrs.Gray's a.m. c l a s s s i z e ia 7 students for GED claaa. Seven atudenta are in the p.m. ABB c l a s s . The conmunity standard for GED and ABB claaa aize ia 30 atudenta. (Verified with Kathy HcCormick of D.C.Public School fcyatem.)

Compliance - Not applicable to the Minimum Annex.

Agency Implementation Plan/Tracking Report

DEPT./OFFICE:D.C. Dept. of Corrections Minimum Security Facility

INITIATIVEi Women Prisoners of DCDC v D.C.,et al Civil Action NO. 93-2052 Page 5

C. Riddick
40. Nlthln 60 days, the Defendants shall provide each woman prisoner housed in the Annex dormitories at least one vertical locker and one foot locker.

(703) 643-1019

Riddick (Riley)

PLANNKD

ACTUAL 3/95

10/06/97
Compliance o r Moo-Compliance (If N o n - c o m p l i a n c e , S t a t e Reaaon and New Completion D a t e ) ( I f Compliance. S t a t e How B e i n g A c h i e v e d )
Coapliance-OIC of the dormitory inspects dormitories and reports any deficiencies in this area to the Property Officer. The Property Officer in turn provides a vertical and/or foot locker.

41. Within 30 daya, the Defendants shall replace a l l torn mattresses and pillowa at the Annex with clean, untorn, fire-retardant mattreaaea and pillowa. The Defendanta shall conduct a regular inspection of a l l mattresses and pillowa and shall, at that time, immediately replace any mattresses that are damaged to a degree that prevents adequate cleaning.
42. The Defendants shall immediately use cart liners or disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry at the Annex.

Riddick (Riley)
Riddick (Riley)

12/95

Compliance - Sanitation & Environmental Officer inapecta mattresses and pillows weekly. All items comply with specificationa in this area. Torn mattresses and pillowa are replaced.

1/95

Compliance-Laundry i s transported in lined laundry carts. Female RfcD Officer places laundry in plastic bags for storage. Laundry is placed on shelves that are lined in plastic.

Agency Implementation Plan/Tracking Report

DEPT./OFFICX:C.C. Dept. of Corrections Minimum Security Facility

INITIATIVE*

Prisoners of DCDC v D.C.,et al Action NO. 93-2052 Page 6

C. Riddick.

4«. Effective ianediately. tfc* Defendants snail ensure that a l l homing ualts at tae Annex are iseuad a tisiely, adequate and appropriate ainsir of cleaning supplies.
tJ. Bnrare a l l bed linen, blanket*, and curtain or draper ie» in Ainex doraltoiriea ace of fire xetazdant aacerial.

««. Conduct fire d r i l l s

hly and

C5. OeCeodants shall conduit an •andatozy seai annual training on fire safety procedures for a l l correctiomal officers.

(703) (43-1019
Riddick (Riley)

ACTUAL

10/06/97
Compliance or skn-Conpliance ( I f Bom o o a p l i a n a e . S t a t e Reason a n d Mew Completion l l l t e ) ( I f Q a a p l i a a o e . St.mtn Hem Re i n g Ac
Compliance - Supplies are leaned weekly to the dona by th« Supply OCfleer

•iddick (Riley)
Rlddlck
(RUCYI
Riddick (Riley>

10/»5
11/13/96 3/97

3/»7
7/31/97 0D-going
9/»233-19-

•aB-caopliaace-Pire rstardwit blankets have been ordered(Bua 2 submitted 10/97 and should be at the vendors by •id-Moweelbez 1997) . D e l i m y expected •id Deeeaber 1997. Venetian blinda vax« insta.led Narcb -997 in lieu of curtains or draperies and they are of fire retardant aaterial.
•on-canplfasce - no fire d r i l l conducted oar tag this pspogt^na period.
Ooapliance-Trained correctional personnel on fire safety procedures. Trainino begum at the institutional level and conducted or. the noted dstea. 3ee attaefcawn^a for at

2

Agency Znpl«Mantation Plan/Tracking Report

D K P T . / O F P I C I J D . C . Dept. of Corrections Minimum Security Facility

Priaoners of DCDC v D.C.,«t al Civil Action NO. 93-2052 Page 7

• J l M l C. Riddlck
6«a Contact weekly impact 10 is and on a l l buildings end grounds.

<70J) 643-1019
RidAick (Riley)

9/4 to

ulO/OS/97
Coapllanse ox Moo-CoapJianc* (If Nao-soapliance.State Keason and Sew Carf>letion Dace) (If Ooapl lance. atat« Bow XIHH *diier»ed>
Coaplianse-Sanitation c Knvironoantal Officer conducts weekly inspections (See attached)

66-j.CcnJucc quarterly inspections of a l l fir* Mftty equipnent. and docuwnt inspection*.

Ridaiak (Riley)

« ( . : . b a u r t Institutional fire Karaoal contacts quarterly inspect ions of the facility.

Kiddlck (Biley)

67 J . The Harden of Mmiaus shall obtain the •iddick

Fir* Depart vent • • report within 10 day* and

(Riley)

proaptly give a copy of the Plaintiffs"

{DCDC Pice

c o n t t l . Tiicreatter, ths BJarTjen ohalL oava* Manual and

any fir* aafety defirJmrir* idntiiri»l in

A. Charl-a)

the Fire Department's report to be nsaedied

within 30 da>a, or shall provide a report Co

the Fire DepcrtsKnt a* to why tie deficiency

cannot be «o restedied and provide a plan to

ieasdy the deficiency within a fvtrther period

in

of time not to exc««d *0 <X*-ru

S/H/97 Coeslians* in conjtinction with specificcss noted in

1/97

Non-Coapllance, (to quarterly luspectiou hma been

conducted oince January X99;.

7/30/97

Coaoliance-OC rirc Harcbal inspected Hinism on 7/JJ/9/. copy of deficiencies, plan for alMtesten pending receipt.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

D E P A R T M E N T / O F F I C E : Minimum Security Facility

I N I T I A T I V E : Women Prisoners of OCOC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

L E A D P E R S O N : Jams Riddick
Acting Warden

T E L E P H O N E : 703/643-2074

DATE OF UPDATE: October 7, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

Status: Compliance or Non-Compllance If Non-Compliance State Reason, Remedy, and planned completion Date. If Compliance state how achieved and attach documentation, if any.

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

39.

Within 9 0 days the Defendants shall:

Anlceto Charles

(b) conduct a vermin eradication program to eliminate the present infestation of vermin. The Defendants shall thereafter promulgate and follow an effective vermin eradication program.

12/13/93 • 01/95

Compliance: A monthly vermin control plan at

the Minimum Security Facility was implemented

in 01/90 to include:

i

• spraying once a month • changed insecticide • female inmates were educated

A Copy of the monthly Pesticide and Rodent Control Sheet is attached to this report.

53.

Defendants shall develop and implement

Ancieto Charles

an effective rodent prevention

program.

12/13/93

01/92

Compliance: A monthly rodent prevention program has been in place since 01/92 at the Minimum Security Facility.
A copy of the monthly Pesticide and Rodent Control Sheet is attached to this report.

Page 1 of 1

o
eg
g
<o

AOXNCY IMPLSMENTATIOM PLAM/TEACKIHO RK?ORT

MtFT./omcBs F a c i l i t i e s Nanageaent UA3 ntKONi a jay Kacoor

nUPKM.

m r - X J U n - n i t <*oaen P i i a n n e r s o f 2C3C r . DC. e t a l . C i v i l A c t i o n Me. > 3 - 3 3 S 2 :

?03-S41-13SC

n m c r UrUTI: October i , 199''

BULTOK T A S K )

KCSECHBIILS
rsasoH / u u n

COMyiiBIlUal DATBl

l»l») Defendants ahall make neceasary altaratlsna at Mlntaiua Security Annex Ml thin «0 days to annire Chat utmmn ha«« priracy in their living, sleeping and i h o m i n n .
(•(>) Defendants shall provide e f f i c i e n t program apace ao that tioawn prisooers can par:icip*ta in equal and ad*quaz« procram wid aervlce as compared t o aaa prisoners. Ttw defendants sliall provi<v at least two additio.-ul tralleca at she annex ( » l t t funrtlonil aaaitary facilitlea) to allow for addltionU. pragraaiinc activitiei.
(«:t3) Nithln one y*ar, the Oefendaati aoa.1 i e p * l i or replace t h e roofs of Ar.nex norm tti and r e t a i n thsai in a vacertigfat condition.

CJUUWBiJi CAMPBELL

(tfm) Within 90 days, the Cefeocanta snail repair -w» »-nei <tor-M s o a i t o [>re'««Bt eh* entry and refjqe at vexnln tad s h a l l conduct » wsrnin aradicatisn prograo t o eliminate the preaer.t Infeiiaticn of verain. Ibe Oefencan-s aliall thereaiter pronulgat* and f o l i o a an efCective vezain eradication program.

CMUMLL

tunm

AC-TM. 1/1T/9S

12/13/93

.10,iO/9S

13/13/94

S/5/95

3/13/M

S/S.'»5

STATUS: Ooaplianos ox Kca-Coapliarc* (If Ccajpliaace s t a t e bow coapllanca waa achieved) (If Moa-Cooafliaace ataKa rsaaoo i—aa>. and planned completion data)
CxnpJlance: Cnpieted apfrcxiaa'-elr 7/21/95, shower enrtaina «ere l n a t a l l e d and wiiultw covers v e i e i n s t a l l e d . {Ooexantation provided 11/lS/SCI Carol lance-. Two trailera were i n s t a l l e d as directed by cour; order. OocunentaUon provided 5/1/9C)
Ctwpllance: Roofs at the Annex d o n s <*" ware replaced as directed ay ccurt crder. OoasMrtatlon providad 5-1-9O
Conpliince: Inspected IS-96 (Docut»n:atlor. provided 11 i3-9t)

o -*
O <N <D »N O
§3
I—
i
i
•-4

AGENCY IMPLBHBIITATION PIAff/TRACKINGI REPORT

ocrr/oprrcst P K I M H « # iian»j«ut u t P ruuoMi *J»y Kapoor

tsunami

lIlTlUIVIi

Hoaen ( r i a o n e r * o f DCDC v . DC. e t a i .

C i / i l Action No. 93-2CS2:

7C3-64i-iis<

n m or VTOKXI octoter 3, 199'*

RUia TASK*

r n j o a / tammct

COMPLBTICHI DATIi

( t i o o ?or a ions • • the Annex donnitorlea arc couble bunk, the Defendants shall., -•cic.hin to days, provide a ninlaum of 20 loot car.dles of prlaoner-conr-ollel light tc «acr. runk.

rxxta*

(IllO: Nitbin (3 days. "-Ve Deterdanta diatl conr.act tte t o i l e t s and band jinxa In every 4nrex t r a i l e r .

CJkKPBSLL

(#112) Within 9C dary*, tha Dafeodnta ahali laprove tha vertliacioa at th* (alAnnast lenaltorlM, (c) print s'aof and <c)gannent ahop io t.Tat the quality of a i t in cheaa arei* la brought up t o an accepzable leval.

TAYLO*

(«11J> Mitrlr. 50 a»y», the Defmdaata rail l.istall a drainage ayscea at the Annex which • i l l ?r»vm: naaardeua «cci»i.laiticaia ot •a tec.

CKMPBIuL

fUKMBt a/13/»«

ACTUAL
2/^3/94

2/13/94 J/l3/«

1/17/95 1/17/95

:/u/>«

J/14/9S

STUBS 1
Coopliaaca or Noo-Caavlianc* (XC Ooapllaaca atata bom oeaplltaca «aa i e ! i l m l ) l i t Moo-CoBBUaac* atata raaaon. raaatff, aa4 planoad ccaplatlaa date)

Mon-Coaollanse • Materlala racelvei] June

17. 19»S. •> Dor.'tory wall outi-tt

in>tailed Au^uat >. 1996.

| 7 Domltoxy ncc inatailed

Monan priscnera reed t i be relocated prior

to installation.

j

Cocailiaoce: 3FACH peraomMl conplatad job as order ty the court. (Docjaentjticn provided 11/15/9C.
Eor.-Coapllance: Ci»« installation of t.»e yartilatiOR aqulpnert i s ceapleted i n Doraitoiy ««. Domicor» »7 tat not been liMcalled (Scheduled cocp.etion. :i/2J/}7> Coanliar.ee: Ventilation has beet lrproved -n print * gtroenl ahopa.

Coapliar.ee: Completed on «>rk orders ttocucenratlor. proxlded 11-7 96

d

AGKNCY IMPUBMEMTATIOK PLAN/TRACKIKG R1PO3T

o
<M
i<O?
<o
<N

DBt./OrrtCI: f a c i l i t i e s Haaagrenwst

ZNITIaTITSt Mo«ea Frisoacxa ef DOC v . DC, e l «~. C i v i l Action Mo 91 a o s 2 :

UEftD m s o « : Ajay Kapoor

YaUraam? /OJ-643-1356

OATS OP m u n i 3-cct-s?

HMD! I U I I

BHMUZBUt FBmSOH / aflsWCY

CSaWLITIOaT DaTIt

PUUQOBD

ATTUA1.

Coapllano* or Soa-CjBplisncs ( i f CkMpllsAoa atats bo* c<wplleaoa waa aehisvadlllf Sos-Coapllaao* atat.* reaawn. rasMly. and plumed eoapLatloa datsl

(#114) Defendants shall prcmilgate and fellow • viittsn preventive Milr.toiancs plan for the Anr.ea donu, the Annex t r a i l e r s , and Annex groundn

11/13/13

1/3/9*

roeB>iianc*i P:e-ran:ivc MaLncenancs work order* art printed «wkt/ for dlatflb'j-isn to Oaneral Tartwan. (war's orders attached t o repor: on 1C/3/J7)

<#135} Within 120 days, the Defancants ahall nova*
lnctall and nalntain a mar.'jal f i r s alaza •yete^i and f^ze detection ayatea vhlch covers a l l • » > • ua«d by w o n prisoners a t Hir.lmm, including the t i m a 3or»«. Tha f i r e detact.on ayatea oust include Broke dstactora In a l l sleaplrc and day » n areas, atd awoke or heat detachers in a l l othar areas.
i

(#1261 Lmiaadaatm m » t repair or replace J-e [Ire alaxa ayate* i n r.ke Adein. Bldg , zh« cafeteria arc gym ac :ka Miilorxi aain cospo-jnd.

TKnon

4/13/«

t/n/*t

i:/i3/>3

</XJ/S6

Ifon Cocapliarce (P;aje;: started JUM 27. 149C) » i r i alarn Installed In t< Dor-iitory August 5. 1994. Mrs alar* •yaten aot icatallea i n »7 KataxLala received. Need famle prisoners relocated prior t o instailaticr..
Compliance [r^callation cocpletsd 2/31/97

(#1271 Cstendanfca nuot I n s t i l l a sprlckler syatea in the Jtamuc Do ma and provide a 20ninute fire-rated enclosure of «torag» r o e n l o o t e d in bcth Dorms.

SHTFTIETT

1S/11/5J

«/li/»

Non-Coapliance: Free, requeat being rolled over fcx Fl-$t, SSAT KJ-9?

A6BMCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKINO SZPORT

«5
DSPT./orriCI) F a c i l l t i s a Hanagerart
O
<n unit MMMNI M»v Kapoor

mmon:

I N I T l A T m i Moaes Priaor.era 3f DCDC v. DC. e t a i . C i v i l Action MO. 93-2052:

7oj-t«3-i3s«

Bats or oraaiBi octobu- i, 1997

MkJOI TMU:
<h

iinomiu
FUflQI / UHKV

ccmnMnm oati:

pumt

ACTCAC.

iruni
Coavllaae* or Mga Cuylliaoa (If Coapllanca atat« bom ccapllane* «•« •ealarad) (If • o a - : < a p l l n c « mtmtm zaavon. r«aao>, aad plaaaad ooaplatlaa d»t»>

V . riRE SAVKTX

(«67) 3f(ecCtTe lanadiatcly. and in accordanc* with Dapareout Outer H». 2920.1A. r.ie Cl»-rict of Colrabia shall: (>)conduct fire aafaty inspections of the Annsx not laaa frequan-ly ;har. «v«ry 12 vmfe'ia.

lCMAi.ik j n t n i t s

i.2/-]/>3

c

cor|>li«c<.e: An Inspection oy the DC Fire

Dapartaant w»o coapl*b»d on 7/30/97. The

next Inspection i* schidulad for t/$«. A

copy of the «r*tt*n ;e:ort from th« JC Pirs

Departmnt 1» pending

|

<D

AGENCY IKPLEHOfTATIOtf PLMf/TRACICIIfG REPORT

OWIJOFOCE: Octafly

2B. ffoaen prisoners shall have some financial assistance for higher education as nales at Central, Occoqaan and Nediun.

£3 • rrOTIOC oUDStltUbc tcACIlcrs
during regular teachers absence J.

or wore than three days.

A.

36. Insure all contract programs

provide conpatible services with order.

R. A.

HOTVU1VE:

October 1» 1997

i win
ACfUM.
3/12/95 5/30/95

loaipliance. All higher education programs receive department appropriate funds

6/12/95
•mm

7/13/95 substitute teacher's list and operational procedures.

OJ
MMCI I

o

c. sum

DlCKtl

8
£

46. Oontloua t o pravid*

8

SMiitMEy <>eillti«s for at Ontral.

R.

(703) 643-6332

(Sate hew o p t i m a UBB
IDKDfUmS (State onenwd vticfpftsfl oapMim dhte).

4/3/95

GGHPUMCB: Additional aanitary facilitiaa provida) in Shop.

MINUTES OF INMATE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE MEETING September 5,1997

Attendees:

Staff:

Warden Moore AW Cross AW Henderson AW Alford
Toni Perry, IGP Coordinator Charles Kirkland, Compliance Officer Carolyn Walston, Business Manager Willette Griffin, IGP's/Medical Dr. Roux, Medical Officer

Inmates:

Linda Grimes, DCDC 246-006 Mario Archibald, DCDC 233-497 Carlos Ramos, DCDC 211-587 Lorenzo Pickett, DCDC 262-067 Steven Wilson, DCDC 197-613 Sheila Williams, DCDC 226-668

E1B C4B DIB Medical D4B D3B

INTRODUCTION

I. Warden Moore opened the meeting with greetings. Ms. Perry stated that a new procedure would be followed where one inmate representative is pre-selected to speak on a specified topic for the whole body. This is to reduce the length of the meeting and allow for better dialogue.

OLD BUSINESS

I. Showing movies to inmate population on weekends: Last movie shown on July 4, 1997. Contract is being put into place to obtain movies. Movies will start being shown on weekends by September 12, 1997.

II. Taking family pictures in visiting hall: Warden stated he is in favor of this activity. Recreation Supervisor Stevenson has done a proposal. Should commence sometime in October once all construction is completed.

III. ARAMARK/Food Conditions:

OCA - Paragraph 8 pgjje 1 of 5

a) All special diets must go to Lorton for approval prior to being issued to inmate.
b) Medical does not approve vegetarian diets - must be approved through the Chaplain.
c) Lateness of food interferes with inmates going to programs. AW Cross stated that this has been caused by inmate staff shortages which results in food being prepared and trayed late. More inmates should be classified and assigned to work in culinary. Until this is done, this issue will continue to be a problem.
d) Addition of wheat bread to menu - Warden to do memorandum to ARAMARK requesting this addition.
e) Addition of bananas to menu - ARAMARK representative stated they would attempt to serve bananas on occasion. Fruit choices are dependent upon market costs.
IV. Exercise Bars and Benches for C-BuiiHipg- Warden expressed concern about the amount of metal in building with all the contractors. Also, maintenance personnel have been busy with the contractors and have been unable to install the bars. Once construction is completed, bars will be installed. It should be noted that inmates are not to use pipes and other building structures as pull up bars.
V. Access to Hot Water to Cook SOUPS. Tea, etc.: Hot pots are being ordered for the units.
VI. Packages:
a) Inmates are in need of underwear, socks, bras. Large shipment is coming in and should be distributed to inmates on an as needed basis.
b) Walkman radios will be allowed. No cassettes or CD players will be allowed. Walkman radios will not be allowed via packages, but will be added to the canteen list. Those inmates who presently have walkmen with cassettes will be allowed to keep them.
c) Sweatsuits will be allowed. Warden stated that they will consider changing the white sweatsuits to red because of complaints that the white ones soil easily.
d) List of additional items to be added to canteen has been taken under advisement and an answer to what will be authorized will be completed by October 1, 1997.

e) Amount of property that can be retained by inmates will be reduced. Inmates will be able to send out excess property through visitors or through the mail at CCA expense. Those inmates thaLpresently have more property than allowed will have a grace period for sending it out.
f) It is taking too long for tennis shoe packages to be signed by Security Chief. This issue will be addressed with the Chief by AW Cross.
NEW BUSINESS
I. Spanish Speaking Inmate Issues:
a) Inmates expressed concern about having to provide translation services to other inmates. While most don't mind providing this service, there are confidentiality issues involved.
b) Inmate Handbook needs to be translated into Spanish. All memos that affect the inmate population need to be translated into Spanish and provided to the inmates. There is a concern that non-English speaking inmates are being penalized when they break rules that they have not received notice about.
c) Sick call lists, canteen list and all other documents for use by the inmate population should be translated into Spanish and made available where appropriate.
II. Legal Phone Calls: Concern was expressed that staff are not allowing inmates to make legal calls. AW Henderson to address with staff.
III. Shakedowns on Medical Units/Regular Shakedowns:
a) Inmates complain that when officers do shakedowns they are not professional and are not respecting their property. Also, property such as watches, radios and other jewelry is being confiscated and not being returned. AW Cross to look into this issue.
b) Shakedowns are being done without the inmate being present. AW Cross to look into this issue.
IV. Indigent Packages: Requested that items like shampoo and hair grease be added to the indigent list. List will be revised and items like shampoo and magic shave will be added. Finalized list of what will be available in indigent package will be provided at next meeting.
V. Holiday Visits: Inmates expressed concern that visit on Labor Day was canceled. It was decided that E and D Buildings will be allowed to visit on holidays.

C Building will not have visits on holidays. Visits for inmates in Medical will be taken under advisement.

VI. Mail:

a) Complaints that mail is not b being picked up on units. AW Cross to ensure that this is done.

b) Numerous complaints have been received about the length of time it takes for money orders to be posted and no notice to inmates about whether a money order was in their letters. Receipt part of money order should be placed in letter prior to it being sent to inmate on unit. AW Cross to handle.

c) Inmates are receiving mail with outdated postmarks. AW Cross stated that it appears that there is a problem with all mail coming into the facility - not just inmate mail. She will be checking with the Post Office to determine what the problem is.

d) Stamps will not be allowed through the mail. Inmates are to purchase stamps via the canteen.

VII. Footlockers: Presently negotiating with Lorton to build more footlockers. May be able to get some from other facilities as they are closed. Eventually, all inmates will be issued footlockers.

VIII. Inmate Movement: Inmate movement will continue to be controlled upon completion of construction.

IX. Recreation:

a) Complaints about lack of escort officers to provide recreation in a timely manner. Often, recreation is not provided at all due to lack of escort officers. AW Henderson will review schedule and determine where changes can be made to ensure that recreation is provided as scheduled.

6*"','/ ^,(

b) C Building inmates complain that from Friday through Tuesday they do not have recreation. Possibility of providing additional recreation time will be considered by staff.

X. Ice Delivery/Water Fountains: Inmates identified water fountains that were in need of repair, missing or needed to be plugged in to provide cold water. Warden stated that they would be fixed.

XI. Appointments at DCGH: Complaints that inmates are not being taken to appointments at DCGH. Medical staff reported that this is often caused by DCGH

not sending trip tickets back with information about future appointments. Also, due to internal staff shortages, DCGH often cancels clinics, and therefore appointments in those clinics, at the last minute. Rescheduling inmates for some clinics can take weeks or months.
XII. Shower doors: Saloon type shower doors will be installed on all units.
XIII. Access to Casemanagers: Complaints that casemanagers are not coming on units regularly to address needs. AW Henderson to resolve.
XTV. Programming in C-B"i1Hing: Because of the transient nature of this unit, no programming will be provided. A seminar is being planned that will teach industrial floor cleaning to selected residents.
XV. Curler Plates for Heating Hot Curlers: Will be ordered.
XVI. Proposal to Make Laundry Detergent, Available only rm Canteen: This proposal will be reviewed prior to implementation due to past problems with inmates who cannot afford (or will not purchase) laundry detergent using soap in the washing machines. Using soap in the machines causes damage to the machines and leaves a residue on the clothes of the next person using the machine.

Office of the Chief

Governmeat of the District of Columbia DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Detention Facility 1901 D Street, 5.E.
WuhiAgton, D.C 20003
FILE Octobor 7, lf»7

TO
no*

i Mario Deputy WardoB>l©r Program*
i eari L wuto ' ^ *'
Chlof, caao xanagaaoBt

•BBJlCTi Minutaa of tha Zamata Oriavanaa Xdviaerr eoaaltta* ea •aptaabar SO, 1 M 7

Yroaonti Carl L* Wbita, Chiof Oasa Manmgwaant (Vraaidlng), fcaenal Vaat, Oaaa lianagor* Idvard Oardaar, Law Librarian, and Dootor John May, Madioal taeaivaz.

laMafca Population

Buaaa Vogt

DCDO S7S-tf« Boutlnraat O B O

latonio Johnson DCOC 881X71 Southwatt Two

Talib Vataoa

BODC ia«77t femtaoaat Vhrao

MalTln Mills fiooc M3471 louthaast Two

Anthony Vhito Bay DCOC If7427 Vorthoast O B O

K a l U riovaxi

DCOC 172113 Morth Taroa

Donald carr

DCOC 111424 Southwott W o

Hiiaborto sanohai DCOC 17994C tonthaast O B O

loitb Pollard Boy B O M 17ti7l vorthvoit O&o

Barry williama DCOC attoss Morthoast Thxaa

Robart Jaokaoa DODO 1077ft Morthoaat Two

Aaroa Millar

DCOC atitta Mortawoot Thxaa

Williaa |. Phifar DODO ltO4tO Morthvoot Two

Allan Oravaa

DCOC 171»3i teuttavaat Thxaa

8 - page 1 of 5

P9* a
ibssat t Traoy Paris* ffardaa'a offioa Operations, and Import Sarvloaa
Quest i Doctor John May, (Medloal Receiver) Our septaaber so asetiag ooaaaaoed at it SO 9.M. 1 B the case Managaaant unit on the second floor. Mr. White introduced Dootor John May of the Medieal fteoeiver, vho raportad aadloal prooaduraa at taa O.c. Jail to tha JUlagatioa- xaith Vollar Bay, DCDO l7*B?a indioatod taat iaamtaa aodioation ia ooafiaoatod aftar baiag traaafarrod from thm Lortoa raaarratios to t&a D.C. Jail. Raaponaat Dootor Joha May took aotaa of thia oo&oara and B O vaaolutioa. vaa raraalad at thia tiso. votai Mo Oparatloaal Staff at taa aaatiag to roapondi allagatioB - Alloa aravaa, P C O C I7i«3t inforaod Dootor May that tna Caataaa ia not providing toothpajta to tha iamata population. Raapoaaai Dr. May indioatad that this iaaaa oaaaot bo roaolvad baoauao tootbpaata is a oorraotional iaaua. Movav«rf aaoh iaaato oas raquaat for dantal appointaant and aayba tha dantiat oaa provido tooth pasta, support sarrioss did not raapond to tha IO*C raquast to attand aaating. lovarar, support Bmrrio%» raportad that tootn pasta is fortheoslng oa 10-7-17.
Allocation - EUBbarto saaohas, DODO 27314c oomplaiaad that ha vas rafuaad his aadiolna and had to wait for fiva (8) hours in a ohalr at tna D.C. flanaral lospital. Mssponsa - Dr. May took notaa and informs* Mr. faaehsi that ha was avars of his ooaplaint. lovavar, Dr. Mayo oonaidarad this ooaplaiat to bo aora porsoaal than a ganaral iaava involving sayoral iimatas.

pa* 3
Allegation - Anthony Whits ••!, DCDC it74S7 iadioatod that aoaa •odioal staff bar* a aagativa attitnda in tarns of providing madiflal aarviosa. That ha ia suffariag fro» a fcaart probloa and ho rsfUSS to tftfco any norm aadieina baeanaa tha aadieino offarad by MSdiosl staff ia aot eoapatlbla to addross hi* haart condition.
ia - Dr. May took aotos and lafocaad Mr. whita that hi a allegation vaa aora of a poraonal ooaplaiat thaa a gaaaral ooaplaiat from tho iaaato populatiea ia Morthaaat oaa.
JO-lagatioa - Aaroa Millar, ©COC a«isaa Ia44«iat«4 that Vorthvaat Vhroa ia ataffad with six (<) iaaataa iatail vorkara. That aaoh aatail vorkar ia raqaaatiag tha «• akia taat «ua to tha larga iasata t«xaorar ia tha iataJto uait. Tha aadioal ataff ia not raapoadiag vithia thraa (») 4aya to raa« tha taat.
ftoapoaaa - Dr. May took aotaa aad iafozaad Mr. Millar that all iaatataa ara afforAad a *• akia taat* Bovarar, atadioal ataff will aoadvot a follov-up oa aay iaawta aot taatod.
Allogatioa - laawta whit*/ DCOC 1#7417 iadloatad that tha aadlqal ataff will aot addraaa aay laaato ia Moxthaaat oaa auffaxiag with • C b * * That thar jail Oooa aot apray tha salt anymora for oraba.
kaapoaaa - Dr. May took aotoa oa thla laauo and found it hard to baliara that hia ataff wonia raf«ao to provioa sodioal attaatioa. la torju of aprayiag, or. May atatad that thia was • oorrootioaal laava.
aotot ao oparationai or support aarrioaa staff aaBbar prassnt to addraaa this conotm.
Allocationi U l a n Qravae, DCDC 171»$I iodioatad that during latariaatitvtieaal traaafar« tha aadieation praaoribad to tha laaataa ia not balno ralooatad to tha inaata iftar roturnlng to tha jail.
ftMDoasst or. Hay took BOtaa and axpltinad to tbs 1OAC that ha was not in position to rsapond baoauaa this is a oorraotioaal
issuo.
Iota t >o oparatioaal ataff aaabar praaaat to addroaa tho confiacatiag of aadioina.
af lBfor»>tiaBi Dr. May iafonad tha lody that Vogotariaa Diata ara raooaaandad by tha chaplain only. Thia ia not haadlo by tho aadioal staff.

Pfl* 4
allegations M«lvim Mills, DCDC 183471 housed la Southeast Two indioeted that one (1) inmate housed la his unit suffers from ••lnziii That uniform staff i n playing tfco vol.* of eootora ia t u n of providing medical services.
ftasponsei Dr. limy took setts and informed tho inmate representatives that all oorreotioaal employees participated ia •aaio Training in tans of providing C M ato.
Allegation • Ulan Graves, DCDO 17itst housed in Southoast Vhraa is raqsasting tha jail to provido propar olotblng auon as scats vhan tks iaaata populatioa ia ia transit to court ato.
sospoasai Dr. May took aotss and lnforaod tbo XQAC that this issuo should bo addraaaad by oorrootions. This issuo was not addrosssd duo to tho ahoanoo of Oporatioaa and support sorrioos.
in olosing/ Dr. Nay inforaod tho ZOXC that «any lanatos abuso tho •odioal raquost syatoa vhoa thoir hoalth ooaooms oaa bo address la tho housing uait. That aaay ohroalo easjplaiaors oa tho "ftogor'S List** rofuso Siodioal troataont.
Chairporson, Mr. vhito thaahod Dr. Kay for attending tho IQAC and responding to the inflate population oonosrns and gripes.
nx. vhito then opened the floor to eorrootional oonoems*
allogationi pollard nay, DCDC 179872 requested that Dr. sty submit his responses in writing to the innate population prior to hid departure.
losponset Mr. White then informed the ianato representatives that he would draft a memorandum in reference to the oonosms of the inmate population.
Allegation - Inmates White Bey DCDC 197427 and Miller DCDC 2flss2 informed this writer that detail workers are not being paid at this time.
lssponsei Mr. White will contact Support lerviooa aad Operation* for a response. On 10-7-17, officer Johnson iadioated that tho officers are aot submitting their names on the paper work.

pg. •
Allegations - Innate Robert Jnekaon, D C S C 1077SS indicated that the »ail is still being lest and the mailing systea is inooapcteat here at to* Jail. Znmatss are not receiving legal nail oa Saturday at the jail.
isspo&sst Mr. Waits will eentaet Support Services aad Operations for a raaponse. oa 10-7-S7, Mr. Fulton indicated due te budget restraints, too jail oanaot have additional help oa Saturdays.
Allocation - Innata Malia Flowers OCDC 171113 of Kortn Thrso iadioafcad that B O rapair work haa baoa ••ndvotad to proraat vatar loaks ia his unit. That ths tslophonos oa tho right sids of tho unit mrm inoporatiTO.
taa ia Varth Vhxaa axa not going to tho Law Library.
Itosponso - Mr. Vhito ooataotod support forvioos to addxoss tfis
vator isaks and ths inopsrativs tslsphoast. Mr. oardasr vill too
oaaftaotad by Mr. Vhito to addrosa tho low library roqusst. On 10-7-t7 this writar disoovsrsd that tho offiosrria tho unit axo proTsntiug noraaa&t to tho library*
allegation - Zaaatoflanofaos,DCDO 273t4< laoioatod that his unit southeast one only has over (1) operative television.
lespoase - support services will be eoataoted by Mr. white
la oloeing, the inmate population threatened to stop oomiag to the IOAC •eatiag due to laeK of response from eorreotional staff.
zaaate Jacxson, 107-7 SS ladioated that he saw Noting Deputy warden for operations, Mr. Corbett the veek prior to the aeetlag and Mr. oorbett said that hs would be at the next Meeting.
vollard ley, 17tI7j is requesting a oopy of the DepartBeatal Order that address the lOAO
The next ZOJMS aeeting is scheduled for October aa, tt»7 at itso P.M. on the seooad floor. Case Management Unit.
submittsd for your information and the record.

D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 40-HOUR EV-SERVICES TRAINING PROGRAM
(SESSION # )

CLASS T n r ATTON;
LASTNAME, FIRST, I. (PLEASE PRINT)
y

S.S.N

/lore:, v ' - .-r c-^—- ) !
' i -;" J

DATE:.

FAC/UNTT

TIME

IN

OUT

SIGNATURE

//°

DATE

/i -°*

Of ^ o $ '•

Mih.

/^~

f?4Z>

q/3c/*7

ytSLL

\^

W1

GT & )

/

Fire Prevention 1 of 4

Item #65

D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 40-HOUR IN-SERV1CES TRAINING PROGRAM
(SESSION # )

CLASS

nrtw*kK» tfn^f^j J&atss. INSTRUCTOR: i f A

CLASS TOrATTON: 0

PATT;

LASTNAME, FIRST, I. (PLEASE PRINT)

S.S.N

j C//fJbrJ L>

FAC/UNTT

TIME

IN

OUT

SIGNATURE

DATE

S'e.C,

r\ \)
S

A-

M 11't

#6

Fire Prevention 2 of 4

Item #65

D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 40-HOUR IN-SERVICES TRAINING PROGRAM
(SESSION # )

CLASS TTTT V- F,,.; /'/>, *.Jt,^ / ^ yjU.y ?/!an" INSTRUCTOR: S,..£ £>,

CLASS i n r ATTON: Cr~i.Uji'!~n£r ly ;-,\-,

DATE:.

LASTNAME, FIRST, I. (PLEASE PRINT)

SAN

FAC/UNTT
fttAJ

TIME

IN

OUT

SIGNATURE

DATE

?fs>

J '

f4 /

/' ', ly'

Vl< fa.

3 •

I

Fire Prev ention 3 of 4

Item #65

D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 40-HOUR IN-SERVICES TRAINING PROGRAM
(SESSION # )

CLASS TITLE:; fj.-u //:-,^.Z.•:•:.• t $„&.*

' INSTRUCTOR:

CLASS LOCATION:.

Zr> DATE:

LASTNAME, FIRST, I. (PLEASE PRINT)

SSJH

FAC/UNIT

TIME

IN

OUT

SIGNATURE

DATE

/«.t'*».7

ITH. * ,

Fire Prevention 4 of 4

][tem #65

September k, 1997

Dorm 6

Sleeping area

_

1. Two lights out 2. Window screen damaged 3. Light reading 3 0ft per candle 4. CO2 reading 498 ppm

Bath room

1. One toilet out of order

2. Handicap shower do not work

3. Shower has poor housekeeping .

4. Light reading in bath room less then 10ft per candle

5. Hot water temp, in bath room 107

6. Hole in screen under face

all around dorm

Dorm 7 1. Ice machine broken
Bath room 1. Light fixtures rusted 2. Light covers broken 3. Light covers dirty
A wing 1. Windows frame on left rotten 2. One light out 3. Two night light out 4. Floor dirty 5. Two light cover missing 6. One light out storage room 7. CO2 reading 426 ppm
Laundry 1. Floor tile missing 2. Laundry room floor dirty
B wing 1. Several windows cracked 2. Floor dirty 3. One windows on right will not close all the way 4. 7wc ia::ress missing

Weekly Inspection
i of /7

Item 66A

FRONT ENTRANCE

WEEKLY INSPECTION REPORT SIX DORMITORY - (Sgt. Newell)
9/10/97

SATHROOM Screen torn our needs replacing Mead soap dishes
DAYROOM fleer "lie needs replacing
SLEEPING AREA
Screen corn out needs replacing windows a r s cracked

uvider reef screen needs r e p l a c i n g . Birds are making nesr

Weekly Inspection
2 of | 7

Item 66A

FRONT ENTRANCE

WEEKLY INSPECTION REPORT SIX DORMITORY - (Sgt. Newell)
9/16/97

3ATHP.0CM Screen corn ou; needs replacing Moei soap dishes
DAYROOM floor rile needs replacing
SLEEPING AREA
£.-.;vKer: t o r n o u : needs replacing windows a r e cracked

ur.rior roof screen r.eeds replacing. Birds are making :\esz

Weekly Inspection
3 of ,q

Item 66A

WEEKLY INSPECTION REPORT SEVEN DORMITORY - ( S g t . Mcpherson)
FRONT ENTRANCE glass cr: BATHROOM r.irrcr needs replacing DAYROOM Ice machine being repaired T.V. ROOM Air .-rendition need face plate HAIR-ROOM Air condition needs face plate one "Light is out A-wing
B-Wing Window broken near back door
LAUNDRYROOM
'•'ii'.: :.-: har.cing outside back of seven dorm

Weekly Inspection 4 of I<J

Item 66A

WEEKLY INSPECTION REPORT SEVEN DORMITORY - (Sgt. Mcpherson)
9/16/97 FRONT ENTRANCE glass tracked BATHROOM mirror needs replacing DAYROOM T.V. ROOM Air condition need face plate HAIR-ROOM Air condition needs face plate one light is out A-wing
B-Wing Window broken near back door LAUNDRYROOM
Wire i s hanging outside back of seven dorm

Weekly Inspection
5 of | 7

Item 66A

Weekly Inspection Form Medical Unit

Date Inspected: V ^ y / /

Time:

Responsible staff person on duty during inspection:

1. Floors:

2. Walls:

_

3. Exir.5 Doors/Signs:

U f)

4. Lighting:

Post Orders:

Fire Extinguishers:

7. Cabinet Security:

Of)

*. Syringe Inventory: QfaUcfff7 C/S^l/S~ 3 1

. Hazardous Wast Containers:

10. 02 Containers Secured:

0iS

11. Staff D r e s s :

_ _ •Record F i l e s : 1.3. S f. a i rwa y s / Ramp s: 14. Her.'./Air C o n d i t i o n i n g :

OK
OK

Locks/Handles: i o . General Furniture:

OK

Ecuicment:

- >-. Telephone: • 9 . Far.5: 2 0 . W'.i./idcws:

nft

an

_..

21. Triage rooms in housing units clean, run/i^ngr^water, nc nonme^:rc.l items stored therein:

Weekly Inspection 6 of

Item 66A

Medical Unit

Page 2

22. Isolated rooms are clean, free of dust and debris: /V> >

23. Equipment requiring sterilizatiqn is Jiandled^ ^anj.tized, er.i property stored:

24. Pharmacy refrigerator temperature is :

25. Thermometer stored properly:

26. Supplies clearly marked:

•27. Storage areas clean and orderly:

28. Stinks and usage identified (re: wash hand signs)

29. Staff sterilization/hygiene supplies are adequate:

30. Ail vents clear and devoid of dust:

31. Linens soiled with hazardous body fluids clearly labeled and

stored separately from other soiled linen in plastic, dis-

so;livveed wast bags:

{&\//1 /fA-\

32. Showers, bath areas clean and unobstructed: Xf//

/Oh*- fi?*J<~'

33. Adeouate handicap facilities:

34./Smoke-and heat detectors working:

3b. Fire alarms system working:

/ V AT

3£. Exit doors not blocked and clearly lighted:

37. Emergency fire evacuation plans for/-hospital patients promin-

ently posted:

(J '

38. Evacuation drills documented:

iire Extinguishers serviced on schedule:

Pauieiits1 bed linen, clothing and body 1 (including hair and

te~th; are clean/sanitary:

'// '*"

t

?r.-ie:-.t's rooms are clean and no obstruction impede passage

s

Ay//"

-iZ. Acf.-quate walkers, wheel chairs, bed pans: / ?/ .

Weekly Inspection 7 of \q

Item 66A

Medical 43. Pharmacy medicine dated (net expired):

Pacie 3
fl/t

Weekly Inspection
8 of ,7

Item 66A

Weekly Inspection Form Culinary Unit

Dace inspected: ^!~ £ I '

Time: J/'£O p.

responsible staff person on duty during inspection:

inspected by: f/ A « M)/^C Title:

1. Lighting:

CJfC

r. Exit Doors/Signs:

•3. Floors:

(\-PPc\

3" t{\-0ULf\ * ft*\

4. Freezer Temperature/Space:

Dishwasher /Temperature:

(X//V_^

. rr-»

J -.T-t

i. Steaia Line/Temperature: - ^ ~. Interior Door:

OIL

:•. Food Covered:

9. Food Lacei: 10 Non Food Items Separated from Food Items:

11. Inventory Lists: ]._;. p.cfr:gerator-Orderly/Temperature:

dt<-

_;. Plunging:

(j/(_

14. Staff Bathroom:

15. Inrr.ar.e Bathroom: if:'. Co-mrers-Cperabie/Clean

1'. stcves-Operafcle/Ciean: 13 Clean/Stocked:

fj l \

"0. Ei<2crricai Ouiiets: (Extension Cords/Wires not near

: 1 arr/j.-- /'wa:er]

/ ^ /<

Weekly Inspection 9 of

Item 66A

CULINARY
21. Seating Area Clean: _____

0C—

Page 2

22. Water Fountain:

(j/C—

23. Resident Chairs/Tables/Benches:

24. Fans:

25. Inmate Work Schedules/Assignments-Posted:
26. Ceiling: A~ggd i V d ? 4-\U*~ lf\ I /IM£l U
2 ' . Meat Slicer:

23. Vermin Control- Last date Extermination:

29. SJ.eeze Bar: 50. Deep Fryer:

C<"6•QLJCr'Cj (Q^

"I. Ice Machine: __;

£)'C-

32. Trash Cans (Clean, Lids): fl&d (Y.ri^ AUd^r Chf_? tl/\

33. Interior/Exterior Hallways and Exterior Grounds: £ ) £ L

34. Staff Dining Room:

(^^

35. Menu Cards:

(3'

36. Trays/Plates/Utensils: Pot rack need cleaning: C'/(__ 37. Menu Posting:

38. Diet Listing:

4 0. Windows-Glass Door Panels are clear/good repair: d.(^Vk<*TU \

••••'.. S;r.oke/Heat Detectors-working/installed:

-,::. /ire Alarm^Sprinkler System working:

•T:. Fir-3 Evacuation Plan posted:

vJT''^

44. F:.re Zxtenquishers/Inspected and in place:

Z:r.pioyee/Inmate apparel appropriate:

CS I C_

Weekly Inspection
io of \n

Item 66A

Culinary 46. Telephone's working:

0{L

•1. Food Stored in Freeze.rs/Refrtgerator:
43. Store Room: (\JL>.C\ lUaii-^Y

Page 3

Weekly Inspection 11 of

Item 66A

Weekly Inspection Form
Medical Unit

Date Inspected: C / *-- //—C/ *J

Time: jf'. CO A-fy?

Responsible zza.lt person on duty during inspection:

1. ricors: 2. Walls: 3. Exits Doors/Signs:

b. r'ost Orcers:

i. ir.T Extinguishers:

f)If'

T. Cabinet Security:

8. Syringe Inventory: j&fcaf for/'CS '/.(siXrP /T>

9. Hazardous Wast Containers:

OlL

10. 02 Containers Secured:

11. Staff Dress:

12. Re-ord Files:

0 ^C

. 3 . Stairways/Ramps:

l-'i. Keat/Air Conditioning:

13. Lccks/Handies: io. Genera* Furniture:
I":. E qu i p n e n t : 1;.. Te J echone:

'-...; '
cv
^ ^' ->* . .»•»

20. Windows:

•'"'" .'*'

2.. T r i a g e rooms in h o u s i n g u n i t s clean, r u n n i n g w a t e r , n o ncr.-

:r.e'.ii- = : i:-5-.s stored t h e r e i n :

.•'- ' Li

Weekly Inspection
12 of fl

Item 66A

Medical Unit

Page 2

22. Isolated rooms are clean, free of dust and debris:

23. Equipment requiring sterilization is handled^ sanitized, and

property stored:

<~/;^- 'IP •?-. <Q-V> A-5,

— —I

24. Pharmacy refrigerator temperature is :

25. Thermometer stored properly:

26. Supplies clearly marked: 27. storage areas clean and orderly:

28. Stinks and usage identified (re: wash hand signs) (Qfc

29. Staff sterilization/hygiene supplies are adequate: •Q//'

30. Ail vents clear and devoid of dust:

31. Linens soiled with hazardous body fluids clearly labeled and stored separately from other soiled linen in plastic, dissolved wast bags: ^

32. Showers, bath areas clean and unobstructed: // f/j" / (Jfi

32. Aaequate handicap facilities:

f) f~^

{_

34. 'Snioke^.and heat detectors working:

!T.. Fire alarms system working:

K) I f

»

_ "

:•<.•. Exit aoors not blocked and clearly lighted: :••' t '—

37. Emergency fire evacuation plans f,or hospital patients promin-

ent, ly posted:

/"*

3G. Evacuation drills documented:

Fire Extinguishers serviced on schedule:

•',o. Patients' bed linen, clothing and body (including hair and

teeth) are clean/sanitary:

{j J7*T"

•II. Patient's rooms are clean and no obstruction impede passage

ways:

» / ; •""'

,

———; • -

j—

42. Adequate walkers, wheel chairs, bed pans:

A / !7~

Weekly Inspection 13 of

Item 66A

Medical

Page 3

'".:-. Pharmacy medicine dared (not expired)

All A-

Weekly Inspection
14 of /y

Item

66A

Weekly Inspection Form Culinary Unit

Date inspected: ^ /2rfl

Time: Q JO Al/fi.

re.-porsible staJf person on duty during inspection: ////{* (A//)'1

Inspected by: /L,. 1. Lighting:

/Zf'Sil^LJ^H^^ Q1\

2. Exit Doors/Signs:

•3. Floors:

A. Freezer Temperature/Space:
5. Dishwasher/Temperature:

UiO I %0Q

6. Steam Line/Temperature: ("7/? f£ Q A ^ ''*.^'•' S^'iCSL U (kJgjy
7. Interior Dcor:

8. Food Covered:
9. Food Label: Pof>;4fr^ £ nL&>^..C ^ a i*c/ Q'Ci-C1~l

10. Nor. Food Items Separated from Food Items:

11. Inventory Lists:

0H—

12. Refrigerator-Orderiy/Temperature: C r\

.&

13. Piu.T_ing:

14. Staff Bathroom: \Qo p & Q ^ i '

13. Inmate Eathroom:

/ " ) • ? "}<' )••• . *•'•'..•'••*•

£* ^

It'. Counters-Operable/Ciean:

1". Stcves-Operable/Clean:

13. Po-3/?ar.s Clean/Stocked:

if*

19. loading Dock: w ^ /< -^ y* f^-./'T 1>1>^"' / _>• .vf d A

2C. Eiectri'-al Cutlets: (Extension Cords/Wires not near

flames /water:

£

Weekly Inspection 15 of

Item 66A

CULINARY
21. Seating Area Clean:

-

Page 2

Hr\

22. Water Fountain:

23. Resident Chairs/Tabies/Benches:

?4. Fans:

25. Inmate Work Schedules/Assignments.-Posted:

26. Ceiling: / V th/U. fjlj^ /T? ^ j ,7 _, /igA-V &/? h*" ••/./

27. Meat Slicer:

f) f*{

J_

28. Vermin Control- Last date Extermination: May OHj hflftx-- tyfCf-^ f 2°. Sieeze Bar:

20. D-eep Fryer:

O JC-

31. Ice Machine:

f\&Q

32. Trash Cans (Clean, Lids): tQ f&\ *C\J&CJ I./

33. Interior/Exterior Hallways and Exterior Grounds: 34. Sceff Dining Room: ^

35. Menu Cards:

_2__i

36. Trays/Plates/Utensiis: Pot rack need cleaning: £r\ l~!. Menu Posting:

38. Diet Listing:

4C. Windows-Glass Dcor Panels are clear/good repair: CfCf'Z.&O

Jl. Smoke/Heat Detectors-working/installed: "''

_1

42. Fire Aiarn/Sprinkler System working: f\-fCW/Y\ yd

A3. Fire Evacuation Plan posted:

fj iL*s

44. Fire Extenquishers/lnspected and in place:

$'L . Employee/Inmate apparel appropriate:

Weekly Inspection 16 of

Item 66A

Culinary

46. Telephone's working:

47. Food Stored in Freezers/Refrigerator:

48. Store Room:

1 *^biA j

Page 3

Weekly Inspection 17 of 17

Item 66A

Oov«ttMm of tbtDtefct of Cohabit DePAtTMENT OP OOUeCTlONS
, Safety 4 Soiutkw PO.B0K.29
U m Vkjink 22199

FILE COPY

September 15, 1997

TO
FROM BUBJ1CT

Jamas Murphy Warden.
Minimum Security Facility
« Aniceto CharlesMltl Chief, Environmental
Safety & Sanitation
t institutional Pesticide Report (September)

On Sept. 10, yuux Facility received it's regular scheduled Pcot Control Treatment. Attached is a Pesticide and Rodent Control Sheet.
cc: Executive Deputy Director Deputy Director for institutions A/Chief, OFACM
Attachment; AC/ejd

v\r»

Attachment 39 and 53 _ page 1 of 2

QDBMT CflMTBftTr

DATE: 10-Sep-97 TIME: 9:00

LOCATION: Minimum Security

« ) RI9UIAR PROGRAM

( ) IMBRG1MCY PROGRAM

TAROET P18TO): Roaches and flies

APPLTCATTQW

AMOUNT

Dialzone 4E

.05% diluted w/water

2 gal

TREATMENT(S): (X) CRACK/CREVICES/SPOT ( ) TOIX AERIAL SPRAY

Bathrooms All dormitories Storage areas Office Academic school

EQUIPMENT: B&G tank and safety equipment as required SERVICES1 COMPLRTKD BY: <3. Brown

Trainee:

Attachment 39 and 53 - Page 2 of 2

MINIMUM SECURITY FACILITY ACADEMIC SCHOOL

FIRST TRIMESTER..SEPTEMBER 29, 1997-JANUARY 23, 1998

ACTIVITY: .
CLASS TIME: <ff'fl>-/l'33/?-*.DAYS ; A l T 72 .H-F TEACHER : ROSTER

NAME

DCDC#

DORM

D.O.B.

01

01

A

i^ljianq

09
0L
Ok 01
01=
07

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

>• i . /

MINIMUM SECURITY FACILITY ACADEMIC SCHOOL

FIRST TRIMESTER..SEPTEMBER 2 9 , 1997-JANUARY 2 3 , 1998

ACTIVITY:

LOCATION:

CLASS TIME: /eg" cg/<5fl»- DAYS : NiXlh^P

ROSTER

NAME

DCDC# DORM

D.O.B.

6L

2'' 0\ l&ni i u£LV£ r W

01

3 • V & T ro.n i Li r\ aQ

61

4> nOOSSry. ritli5S(\

&7

5 • C~fon£5, *S fad^y S>3M3 01

bio

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14 . 15. 16. 17. 18.
19.
20.
c

Scheduled PM Work Order

Lorton Reformatories of Washington, DC

Work Order No.: 50638 PM Page 1 Of 1

Date Printed: 22 OCT 97 13:14

PM Week Due: 37

Date Issued: A R K P 97 7:49

Tag No.: 040053

GENERATOR

Site: 04

Building: T02

Floor: GROUND

Room: O'JTSIDR

Taex Number: 2

Note 1:_CUMMINS NTA-855-G SBR#11485049 300XW

Schedule Rule: 1

Note 2: LOCATED AT DORMITORY 7 WOMENS ANNEX

Tool Code: 000000000008

ELECTRICAL TOOLS

Procedure Code: 52

13 GENERATOR

Supply Code; VAC SOLV GRBSAE
CHECK WIRING-INSULATION FOR LOOSE CONNECTION 2) INSPECT ALL VISABLE

CONNECTORS AND INTERNAL COVERS 3) INSPBCT SAFBTY DBVICBS

& INTERLOCKS FOR PROPER OPERATION; 4) CHECK FDBL LEVEL IN MAIN FUEL

TANK - REPORT READINGS HBRB

» 5) INSPBCT

ENTIRE MACHINE FOR LOOSE FASTJUJEftiJ - TISHTTEN AS INQUIRED; 6) INSPBCT

SUPPORTS FOR SOUNDNESS L STABILITY - REPORT CONDITIONS FOUND

. 7) CHECK ALL GAUGES /WARNING LIGBT81K

CONTROL CABINBT FOR PRQPffP OPERATION.8) CHECK BATTERIES POR FBOPBR

CHARGE/WATER LEVEL REPORT HERE

.9) CHECK

EXHAUST SYSTEM FOR PROPER OPERATION. 10) REMOVE ANY LITTSR/7ORSIC3N

OBJECTS PROM IMMEDIATE VICINITY OP GENERATOR. 11) CHECK ALL EXTERNAL

COVERS FOR PROPER FIT/ALIGNMENT AND WBATHERPROOFINS.

FINISHED UNFINISHED CANCELLED EMPLOYEE

DATE

Eat. Hrs: 0.42 Labor$: p-riority: Shift: Shop: ELK Trade: BLl Employee:
Routine Account: 202 Special Acct. 1: Special Acct. 2:

0.00 Mtrl$: 0.93 Tool$: 0.00 Total$:
ELECTRICAL ELECTRICIAN 1 MAINTENANCE SERVICE

0.00

**************

Lorton Reformatories of Washington, DC

**************

Paragraaph 111 - Page 1 of 5

Scheduled PM Work Order

Lorton Reformatories of Washington. DC

Work: Order No.: 50555 PM

Page l of l

Date Printed: 22 OCT 97 13:14

PM Weak Due: 36

Date Issued: 3 SBP 97 7:50

Tag No.: 040053

GENERATOR

Site: 04

Building: T02

Ploor: GROUND

Room: OUTSIDE

Task Number; 3

Note 1: CUMMINS NTA-855-G S8R#11485049 300KW

Schedule Rule: 1

Note 2: LOCATED AT DORMITORY 7 TOKENS ANNEX

Tool Code: 000000000006

SMALL HAND TOOLS

Procedure Code: 51

13 GENERATOR

Supply Code: HEAVY DUTY LUBE

0IL3/GRJ5ASES

1)CHECK COOLANT LEVEL AND ANTIFRBEZE CONTENT FOR PROPER AMOUNT.

2)CLBAN MACHINE THOROUGHLY INCLUDING RADIATOR SSMI ANNUALLY.5)CKBCK

AIR RESTRICTION GAUGB CHANGE FILTER IF NEEDED.3) START GENERATOR

CHECK GENERAL OPERATION.4)CHECK ALL OIL,TEMP,PUBL PRESSURE OAUOBS

FOR READINGS WITHIN FACTORY SPECIFICATIONS REPORT CONDITION HERB

5)CHBCK ALL EXPOSED FUEL SUPPLY LINB6 FOR

CORROSION,LEAKAGE,GENERAL CONDITION.6) CHECK FOR LEAKS IN COOLING SYSTRM (f T,tmK OIL SYSTEM; 7) CHECK FOR BXCHSSXVB SMOKE AMD EXHAUST

COLOR REPORT CONDITION HERE

;fi)CHBCK OUT

PUT VOLTAGES AND CURRENT REPORT HERE

9) RESET TSST SWITCH AKl'KR TEST CYCLE Rl

SPECIFICATIONS REQUIRE AND INSTITUTIONAL SECURITY PERMITS.10)OBSERVE

TIMING OF TRANSFER SWITCH FOR PROPER OPERATION.11)CHECK AUTOMATIC

SHUT DOWN OP ENGINE; 12) TEST OPERATE SAFETY SHUT-OFF CONTROLS - SKB

MFR MANUAL; 13) INSPECT BATTERY TRICKLE CHARGER FOR PROPER OPERATION;

14)1*- KUUlfFKL) WITH EXTERNAL HEAT X CHANGER CHECK FAN AND ALL

CONTROLS. 15)CHECK ALL FLEXIBLE HOSES & FITTINGS FOR WEAR/LEAKS. 16)

CHECK SUPERCHARGER FLEXIBLE CONNBCTORS FOR LEAKAGE; 17) CHUCK

SPECTROCHSMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES TEST REPORT,CHANGE OIL IF

INDICATED. 16.DRAW OIL SAMPLE IN APRIL YEARLY FOR TESTING.

FINISHED UNFINISHED CANCELLED EMPLOYEE

DATE

Eat. Hrs: 8.00 Labor$:
Priorityi Shift:
Shop: POP Trade: PEP Employee:
Routine Account: 202 Special Acct. 1: Special Acct. 2:

0.00 Mtrl$: 25.00 Tool$: 0.00 Total$:
PLANT OPERATIONS PERSONSL POWER HOUSE EQUIP FOREMAN MAINTENANCE SERVICE

i*
0.00

Supplies: Quantity
0 0 0
o

Item Number 1 2 3 \

Storeroom

**************

Lorton Reformatories of Washington, DC

**************

Paragraph 111 - Page 2 of 5

Scheduled PM Work Order

Lorton Reformatories of Washington, DC

Work Order No.: 50696 PM

Page l Of 1

Dace Printed: 22 OCT 97 13:02

PM Week Due: 37 Tag No.: 100004
Building: T01 Tasx Number; l Schedule Rule: 3

Date ISSUCd: CIRCULATION PUMP
Ploor: 001 Note 1:_B. & 6. #102210 Note 2: LOCATED AT DORM #€

8 SEP 97 Site: 10 Room:

7:53

Tool code 000000000006

SMAltL HAND TOOLS

Procedure Code 8

22/44/24 PUMPS

Supply Code OIL NON-DBTBRQBNT SAE #20

1) REMOVE

DIRT 6 DBDRI8 BUILD-UP FROM PUMP ft MOTOR HOUSINGS; 2) LUBRICATE PUMP

MOTOR BEARINGS - DO NOT OVER LUBRICATE; 3) LUBRICATE PUMP BEARINGS AT

GREASE FITTINGS; 4) INSPECT DISCHARGE LIKE CHUCK VALVB FOR WEAR OR

LEAKAGE; 5) INSPECT PUMP DRIVE COUPLING FOR WEAR OR DAMAGE • REPORT

CONDITIONS FOUND

t 6) BLOW OUT WATER

STRAINER; 7) INSPECT CONDITION OF INSULATION - REPORT CONDITION HERE

8) CLEAN HEAVY CB5A8B, DIBTfitOIL FROM

PUMP;9) INSPECT MECHANICAL SBAL AREA FOR LEAKAGE REPORT CONDITION

HERE

! 10) INSPECT WATER LINKS. FTTTTTH3S &

VALVES FOR LEAKAGE; 11) IwflPBCr ELECTRICAL SWITCHES 6 OTHER DEVICES

POR PROPER OPERATION; 12) INSPECT ELECTRIC WIRING FOR WORN INSULATION

& LOOSE CONNECTIONS; 13) TEST MOTOR INSOLATION RESISTANCE - REPORT

READING HERB

; 14) INSPECT SUPPORTS FOR

SOUNDNESS & STABILITY - REPORT HERE

1

XV FUMf IS WATKK COULhD/NOH KXTKRXOR LUBRICATED USB ABOVE PROCEDURES

THAT APPLY.

PINI3HBD UNFINISHED CANCELLED EMPLOYEE

DATS

Est. Hrs: 0.45 Labor?:
Priorityi
Shift: Shop: PLU
Trade: PL Employee: Routine Account: 202 Special Acct. 1: Special Acct. 2:

0.00 Mtrl$: 0.83 Tool$: 0.00 Total$:
PLUMBING PLUMBER MAINTENANCE SERVICE

0.00

Supplies: Quantity
1
o

Item Number
1 2

Storeroom

**************

Lorton Reformatories of Washington, DC

**************

Paragraph 111 - Page 3 of 5

Scheduled PM Work Order

Lorton Reformatories of Washington, DC

Work Order No.: 51320 P M Page 1 Of 1

Date Printed: 22 OCT 97 13•03

PM Week Due: 39

Date Issued: 23 3BP 97 8:18

Tag No.: 100001

OIL-FIRED BOILER

Site: 10

Building: T01

Ploor: 001

Room:

Task Number: 1

Note 1; BURNHAM #V-36

Schedule Rule: 1

Note 2: LOCATED AT DORM #6

Tool Code: OOOOOOUUUUUb

SMALL HAND TOOLS

Procedure Code: 84

55 OXL BOILER

Supply Code: SAB #10 OIL h VAC

1) CHANGE BURNER NOZZLE ANNUALLY.

2) CLEAN HEAT EXCHANGER ANNUALLY.

3) CHANGE OIL FILTER ANNUALLY.

4) INSPECT ALL OIL SUPPLY LINBS/PITTINQO FOR LEAKS/STABILITY.5) TB3T

ALL SAFETY CONTROLS POR PROPBR OPERATION,REPORT HERE

6) CHECK

BURNER

FOR

.P7R)OCPHBBRCKIGBNOIITLIEORN/FSLMUOBK//ECHFIRM2NBBYOPFEORRATAIDOBNQQ,URABTWE R

T HBRB DRAFT.

SUPPTiY/HRTURN WATTER LINEESS FOR LEAAKKSS.99))CCHHBBCCr ALL EELECCTTRICAL

CONNECTIONS FOR TIGHTNESS AND STABILITY.

NOTE

****IF BOILER EQUIPPED WITH LOW WATER CUT OFF /CHECK FOR PROPBR

OPERATION/CLEAN ANNUALLY.

U'INiSHKD UNF1W1SHKD CANCELLED EMPLOYEE

DATE

Bst. Hre: 2.00 Labor$: Priorityt Shift: Shop: HEQ Trade: MCl Employee:
Routine Account: 202 Special Acct. 1: Special Acct. 2:

0.00 Mtrl$:

1.82 Tool$:

i4 *******

0.00 Total$:

0.00

HEATING EQUIPMENT MECHANIC 1
MAINTENANCE SERVICE

Supplies: Quantity
1 1

Item Number 1 2

Storeroom

**************

Lorton Reformatories of Washington, DC

•*•*******•*••

Paragraph 111 - Page 4 of 5

Scheduled PM Work Order

Lorton Reformatories of Washington, DC

Work Order No.: 51321 PM

Page l Of l

Date Printed: 22 OCT 97 13:06

PM Week Due: 39 Tag No.: 100011
Building: T02

Date Issued: 23 SEP 97 8:18

OIL-FIRED BOILER

Site: 10

Floor: 001

Room:

Task Number: 1

NOte l: BRYAN #D450-W-FDO

Schedule Rule: 1

Note 2:-LOCATED AT DORM #7

Tool Code: 000000000006

SMALL HANS TOOLS

Procedure Code: 84

55 OIL BOILBR

Supply Code; SAB #10 OIL & VAC

1) CHANGB"BURNER NOZZLE ANNUALLY.

2) CLBAN HEAT EXCHANGER ANNUALLY.

3) CHANGE OIL FILTER ANNUALLY.

4) INSPECT ALL OIL SUPPLY LINES/FITTINGS FOR LEAKS/STABIL,ITY. 5) TBST

ALL SAPBTY CONTROLS FOR PROPER OPERATION,REPORT HERB

6) CHECK BURNT?* TOR PROPKW I ON ITTON/SMOKF FBRR OPERATION, REPORT HBRR

.7)CHECK BOILBR PLUB/CHIMNZY POR ADEQUATE DRAPT.

filCHSc* SUPPLY/RETURN WATER LINES FOR LEAKS.9)CHECK ALL ELECTRICAL

CONNECTIONS FOR TIGHTNESS AND STABILITY.

NOTE

****IP BOILER EQUIPPED WITH LOW WATER CUT OFF /CHECK FOR PROPER

OPERATION/CLEAN ANNUALLY.

F I N I S H E D UNITXXVXSHSD CAWCBIdJED B M P I J O T E B

DATE

Bet. Hrs: 2.00 Labor$: Priority: Shift:
Shop: HBO Trade: MCI Employee: Routine Account: 202 Special Acct. 1: Special Acct. 2:

0.00 Mtrl$: 1.82 Tool$: 0.00 Total$:
HEATING EQUIPMENT MECHANIC 1 MAINTENANCE SERVICE

0.00

Supplies: Quantity
1 l

Item Number
1
a

Storeroom

**************

Lorton Reformatories of Washington, DC

**************

Paragraph 111 - Page 5 of 5

 
 Office of Compliance and Accreditation

Government of the District of Columbia DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
9501 Furnace Road Lorton, Virginia 22199
March 2 0 , 1998

Tracy A. Thomas, Esquire Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, D. C. 20044-7566

RE:

Pricmorc n£ the District of

Columbia

gtions

v. District Coluno Civil Action No. 93-2052

Dear Ms. Thomas:.

Enclosed is the February 1998, updated monthly report which

responds to the United States District Court's Order dated

June 16, 1997, regarding the above-referenced civil action.

Sincerely

Gloria D. Thaxton Senior Compliance Monitor

Enclosures cc: Brenda V. Smith, Esquire, National Women's Law Center
Maria Amato, Assistant Corporation Counsel Regina Gilmore, Contract Monitor Judy Kleiman, Executive Compliance Officer File

f

IDPS-838C

Women Prisoners/ DC v. DC PC-DC-011-018

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPART M E N T / O F F I C E : Office of rol.ciwwd Procedures

LEAD PERSON. Rooijj M t a «
Chief, Office of Felicia ft Procedures

TELEPHONE: (202) 673-74I0

INITIATIVE: MfMieaPrlMBcn.(DCDC v. D. C
Ova Acim n-nsi
DATE O F UPDATE: March <S, 1991

MAJOR TASK
j

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

1. SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST INMATE?

STATUS: Compliiawe or Non-Comflianct If CompUaocc ttate how achieved aod attached npporting docwnealalioa, if any. If Non-coapliaace Kate reason, remedy, and new completion date.

4.

Within 60 leys, CIM Defcndwti shal wri(c and follow •

Betty Greea

Department Older arohibiliai K i u f misconduct «|aiut

••males involvmg District of Cvtenbia Department of

Con<xti<>tu(lXX>C)a*0loyeaaBdwom«prisoB«a The

DcfeadwU shall post aad circulate he Department Order ia

accordance with dcpartmeniai polic;

t/2<V9S (IO/IS/97IUv.)

Coapliaac*. DO 3J5O.2B, Soaul Miwoaduct Agaian imUci' daudl O/IJ/97 has been distributed to DCDC employed. All employees havesiped Acfcnowtedcnciil Receipt for D O . 33502B. Scnat Miicwdtcl n i a i n t his bcea rescheduled for February. I99S. The D.O. has beta posted in all inmate bouiri| wits

J.

Undo thii policy * e DCDC luu *e oMi|«iM to take

Betty Green

•(•ion HIBUHCS canmiHedl iy in own cmftoytci.

3/20AS

Conpliamct. Coabwed in DO 33SO.2B. Staff refreiher tuning bcfan 3/4/91 • compliance with (he Department Order dated 10713/97.

7.

Feullict f « prohibiled conduct tadei die policy ihall be

Betty Gneo

detonnined by die Director of die DCDC widiu 30 days.

3/20/93

Ccapliamce. Contained in DO 3350 2B Penalties for prohibited conduct may be fouaMl at ArlachmcaU 1 of the Department Order, also references 0PM Section 1601Z.

Pafe 1 of I

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: D. C. Detention Facility

INITIATIVE: Women 1Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C., et al.

Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Mario Randle Acting Warden

TELEPHONE: 673-8201

DATE OF UPDATE: March 6, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PBRSON/MnHCT

COMPLETION DAT!

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Noncompliance
If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion. IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation.

t. mill inicoanuCT miuin D M U I I

8a.

Women prisoners shall be able

Shirley

to report instances of sexual

Williams

harassment through the existing

Inmate Grievance Procedure

(IGP) as specified in

Department Order 4030.ID.

The Defendants shall strictly adhere to the Inmate Grievance Procedure and shall establish an Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee (IGAC) as required by Section VII(c) of Department Order 4030.Id.

12/93

3/95

Compliance: As contained in DO 3350.2B, VII, Subsection D,1, any inmate may make a confidential report of sexual misconduct through the 24 hour telephone hot line. Sexual misconduct training is provided at intake/orientation, and each Friday. The Department Order is posted on all housing units. Also, inmates can report sexual misconduct through the existing IGP process. There are a total of 57 female inmates housed at CDF at the time of this
writing.
Compliance: An IGAC meeting was held on 2/24/98. The next meeting is scheduled for 3/24/98.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: D. C. Detention F a c i l i t y

INITIATIVIE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v . D. C . , e t a l . C i v i l Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: M a r i o Randle A c t i n g Warden

TELEPHONE: 673-8201

DATE OF UPDATE: March 6, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSOH/AOENCT

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

I f "Hon-coNf>llance" atata reason, tenedy, and new completion. I f "Compliance" atatc how achieved and attach documentation.

1. M m i NIBCOMCT MftUMf IMtTKI

9a.

Women prisoner! shall also be abletosubmit IGPs or complaints concerning sexual misconduct in any

Shirley Hi 11lams

form, orally

Or in writing, to any DC DC employee,

9b.
DC DC employees must submit the information, in writing, to the Warden of the facility within 24 hours of receiving the information.

! 9c.

12/93

3/95

Compliance: As contained in DO 33S0.2B, inmates are given the sexual misconduct 24 hour telephone hot line at intake and orientation. This telephone number Is also posted In areas accessible to inmates and in the Command Center. Sexual misconduct training Is held each Friday (or female Inmates in the training area of CDF. Complaints can also be submitted via an IGP or to any DCDC employee.
Compliance: The female Inmate population is advised that sexual tnisconduct complaints can be submitted to a prisoner representative for the IGAC. Inmates also receive sexual misconduct training. Each employee shaH report Information concerning sexual misconduct immediately to the Warden or Office Chief and submit a written report of each incident to the Warden or Office Chief and the Monitor before the end of his/her work day.

Women prisoners may also submit IGPs or complaints to prisoner representative to the IGAC.

Compliance: The female Inmate population is advised at Make/orientation and sexual misconduct training each Friday that sexual misconduct complaints can be submitted to a prisoner representative for the IGAC.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: D. C. D e t e n t i o n F a c i l i t y

INITIATIVE: Wonen P r i s o n e r s o f DCDC v . D. C . , e t a l . Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Mario Randle Acting Warden

TELEPHONE: 6 7 3 - 8 2 0 1

DATE OF UPDATE: M a r c h 6 , 1 9 9 8

UHJO*. TASK

RESPONSIBLE tUSQM/MnCT

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance
If "Non-compliance" s t a t e reason,
remedy, and new completion. IF "Compliance" s t a t e how achieved and attach documentation.

1

KIWI

i. KXUM. HitcoMBucT wmiwn tmmna

11.

Failure of an employee to report

Shirley

any allegation of sexual misconduct or any facts and circumstances which would lead a

Williams

reasonable employee to believe

that sexual misconduct is

occurring or has occurred shall

discipline.

12/93 3/95

Compliance: Ai contained in DO 3330.2B, all known reports of sexual misconduct should be reported immediately after receiving the information, h is required that each employee report information concerning sexual misconduct immediately to the Warden or Office Chief (this is usually a verbal report) and shall submit a written report of each sexual misconduct incident to the Warden or Office Chief and the Monitor before the end of his/her work day. As reported by Gloria Nelson. Sexual Misconduct Coordinator there are no unresolved Sexual Misconduct Investigations currently at CDF.

12.

Upon receipt of any allegation of an act of

Shirley Williams 12/93 2/95

unwelcome sexual intercourse or any allegation of

unwelcome sexual touching, the defendants shall

communicate with the law enforcement agency. The

defendants shall communicate with the law

enforcement agency concerning the status of any of

any police investigations. The occurrence of a police

investigation does not relieve the defendants of the

duty to investigate.

Compliance: The Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief must immediately notify appropriate law enforcement authority as contained in DO 33 5O.2B. Presently, there are no outstanding investigations. Warden received training on reporting to law enforcement on 2/3/98 or 2/4/98.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: D. C. Detention Facility

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C., et al.

Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Mario Randle Acting Warden

TELEPHONE: 673-8201

DATE OF UPDATE: March 6, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/AOBNCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Noncompliance If "Non-compliance" state reason. remedy, and new completion.
IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation.

1. KWM. HICaa«t MAIMT IMOTU

13.

The identity of the target Shirley

of the alleged sexual

Williams

harassment shall be

revealed only to those who

have an immediate need to

know, including the

alleged harasser(s) or

retaliator(s) and any

i witnesses. All parties contacted in the course of

an investigation will be

advised that any

retaliation, reprisal, or

breach of confidentiality

is a separate actionable

offense as provided in the

schedule of penalties.

12/93

3/95

14.

Any prisoner who is

Shirley

dissatisfied with any

Williams

investigation or

resolution of an

allegation of sexual

harassment may appeal to

the Director of the DCDC

within 15 days of

receiving written notice

of the outcome of the

investigation.

3/95

Compliance as contained in DO 3350.2B, employees are advised in 40 hours annual in-service training that such acts are strictly prohibited by all employees for offenses contained in the DO.
Compliance: As contained in DO 3350.2B, the Warden, Facility Administrator, or Office Chief shall provide a written notice to the inmate within 48 hours as to whether there was evidence that supported a conclusion that sexual misconduct occurred. This notice shall also advise the inmate of appeal procedures as outlined in DO 3350.2B. Inmate are advised of appeal rights as stated in D.O.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: Training Academy

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Jeannette A. Wood Acting Training Administrator

TELEPHONE: (703)643-0228

DATE OF UPDATE : March 9, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-Compliance If Compliance state how achieved and attached supporting documentation, if any. If Non-compliance state reason, remedy, and new completion date.

I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

15.

The Department shall conduct mandatory

Compliance. Training began 8/22/95. Annual mass

training using certified trainers on sexual

PATRICIA ROBERTS

8/30/95

2/4/98

staff refresher training began 2/3/97 and. Training was

misconduct for all DCDC employees. A

terminated at the ended 8/26/97 until further notice

consultant from the National Institute of

because of budget restraints. However, sexual

Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon

misconduct has been provided on an ongoing basis

by the parties, shall develop the training

during in-services, basic correctional training, contract

plan and material. A "certified trainer" is

new hires and volunteers. Effective February 4,5,6,

defined as any person who has

1998, DOC sexual misconduct mass training will occur

completed the "Train-the-Trainer" course

again. Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates D.O.

developed by the NIC consultant.

3350.2b, directive dated October 15, 1997 cancels DO.

3350.2A dated May 15, 1995.

a. The training shall include education concerning the Defendants' policies regarding reporting. investigating, and preventing sexual harassment, and the consequences for violating any policy concerning sexual harassment; and

PATRICIA ROBERTS

8/30/95

2/7/98

Approximately 200 DOC and 19 CCA/CTF manager/supervisors have been trained. The managers and supervisors who did not attend training will be rescheduled within the next 30 days
Compliance. Ongoing annual training which includes education, policies, reporting, investigating, preventing sexual harassment, and consequences for violating policy.

Page I of 2

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: Training Academy

I N I T I A T I V E : Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Jeannette A. Wood Acting Training Administrator

TELEPHONE: 703/643-0228

DATE OF UPDATE: March 9,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-Compliance If Compliance state how achieved and attached supporting documentation, if any. If Non-compliance state reason, remedy, and new completion date.

I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

I

15.

b. All staff who work with female

PATRICIA ROBERTS

10/97

1/98

prisoners shall be trained by certified

trainers within six months, commencing no

later than August 30, 1995. After the initial

training of staff, the training will be included

in the pre-service training of all staff.

Annual retraining shall be conducted to

refresh staff on the Department Order

regarding sexual misconduct

Compliance: After the initial training as cited in Item IS., sexual misconduct training will be included in all pre-service training and annual retraining shall be conducted to refresh staff to include but not limited to the following : purpose, policy, definitions, procedures, dissemination, reporting, annual review and references.

c. Within one year, selected employees working with female prisoners shall receive a forty-hour training program on working with female offenders. A semi-annual, enhancement training on special issues related to working with female offenders will be offered to selected employees.

PATRICIA ROBERTS

10/97

• Non-compliance. The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has been notified for technical assistance in using NIC Women Offenders Lesson Plan, 94-S50I. The Training Academy awaits a response. In the interim, the Academy will facilitate train-the - trainer to implement a two hours workshop for staff at the, Central Detention Facility (CDF), and CTF/CCA to commence in April 1998.

Pag 2 of 2

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: Training Academy

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Jeannette A. Wood Acting Training Administrator

TELEPHONE: (703) 643-0228

DATE OF UPDATE : March 9,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-Compliance If Compliance state how achieved and attached supporting documentation, if any. If Non-compliance state reason, remedy, and new completion date.

I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

16.

Commencing no later than August 30,

Compliance: Effective February 4, 5, and 6, 1998,

1995, the Department shall conduct mandatory training on sexual

PATRICIA ROBERTS

8/30/95

2/4/98

sexual misconduct mass training for supervisors/managers occurred. Training on the new

Harassment using certified trainers for all

Department Order for female inmates will begin March

women prisoners currently in the DC DC.

2, 1998. Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates, D.O.

A consultant from the National Institute

33350.2B, directive dated October 15, 1997 cancels

of Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed

DO. 3350. 2Adated May 15, 1995.

upon by the parties, shall develop the

training plan and materials which will

instruct women prisoners on the

Sexual Misconduct mass training D.O. 335O.2B for all

Department Order on sexual misconduct

employees begin March 2, 1998. This training also

and how to recognize and report sexual

continues to be offered as a part of the ongoing 40 hour

harassment. Training sessions for

inservice training.

women prisoners on sexual harassment

shall be provided within a reasonable

time upon a woman's entry in the D.C.

Department of Corrections.

Page 3 of 3

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 1 of 2

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation

I. Seiual Harassment

4.

Within 60 days, the Defendants shall write

Toni Perry/ John

4nd follow a Department Order prohibiting Henderson

sexual harassment involving District of

Columbia Department of Corrections

(DCDC) employees and women prisoners.

The Defendants shall post and circulate the

Department Order in accordance with

departmental policy.

8.

Women prisoners shall be able to report

Lonnie Moore

instances of sexual harassment through the

existing Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP)

as specified in Department Order 4030 ID.

The Defendants shall strictly adhere to the

Inmate Grievance Procedure and shall

establish an Inmate Grievance Advisory

Committee (1GAC) as required by Section

VII(c) of Department Order 4030 ID

February 2, 1998
March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE:
CCA Policy 14-100, Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates, has been revised to reflect changes in the new Department Order. The policy will be distributed to all staff and the signed receipts will be given to the Sexual Misconduct Coordinator by the COB March 27,1998 and posted in all male and female housing units. See attachment #4-A of report dated 2/7/98.
COMPLIANCE: The women prisoners are able to
report instances of sexual harassment through CCA Policy 14-5, Inmate Grievance Procedures. See attachment 8-A of report dated 11/10/97. The inmate grievance committee meeting for the month of February was postponed until issues from the September meeting were resolved.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation

9.

Women prisoners shall also be able to

Lonnie Moore

submit IGP's or complaints concerning

sexual harassment in any form, orally or in

writing, to any DCDC employee, who must

submit the information, in writing, to the

Warden of the facility within 24 hours or

receiving the information. Women

prisoners may also submit IGP's or

complaints to prisoner representative to the

IGAC.

- March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE:
All staff have been given a briefing of CCA/CTF Facility Policy 14-100, dated January IS, 1997, in pre-service training. Facility Policy 14-100 has been revised to reflect the changes in the new Department Order and will be used during all in-service trainings. Both versions of the policy advise all staff to report all complaints to the Warden by the end of his/her shift. As of the date of this report, there are a total of 205 female inmates in this institution.

11. Failure of an employee to report any

Lonnie Moore

allegation of sexual misconduct or any facts

and circumstances which would lead a

reasonable employee to believe that sexual

misconduct is occurring or has occurred

shall subject the employee to discipline.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: All staff have been given a briefing of
CCA/CTF Facility Policy 14-100, dated January 15,1997, in pre-service training. Facility Policy 14-100 has been revised to reflect the changes in the new Department Order and will be used during all trainings. Inservice trainings began in January 1998.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnic Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

12. Upon receipt of any allegation of an act of
unwelcome sexual intercourse or any allegation of unwelcome sexual touching, the Defendants must notify the proper law enforcement agency. The Defendants shall communicate with the law enforcement Agency concerning the status of any investigation. The Defendants must periodically document the status of police investigations. The occurrence of a police investigation does not relieve the Defendants of the duty to investigate.

Lonnie Moore

13. The identity of the target of the alleged

Lonnie Moore

sexual harassment shall be revealed only to

those who have an immediate need to know,

including the alleged harasser(s) or

retaliator(s) and any witnesses. All parties

contacted in the course of an investigation

will be advised that any retaliation, reprisal,

or breech of confidentiality is a separate

actionable offense as provided in the

schedule of penalties.

COMPLETION DATE
March 16, 1997

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation
COMPLIANCE: CCA will handle any allegation of sexual
misconduct through the procedures set forth in the CCA/ CTF Facility Policy 14-100, dated December 1,1997. CCA/ CTF Facility Policy 14-100 has been revised to reflect the changes in the new Department Order and has been distributed to all staff Additionally, staff training on the new policy has begun. The Command Center post order has been revised to include notifying MPD when an allegation is made. There are two outstanding investigations into allegations as of this date. Follow-up on these investigations will be conducted once a month by the Grievance Officer

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The contracted investigators have been
instructed to inform all investigated parties of the penalties of reprisals. CCA/CTF Facility Policy addresses the issue of reprisals and all staff will be informed of the issue during training. Additionally, all new employees will be trained on CCA/CTF Facility Policy 14-100, dated December 1,1997, in pre-service training. In-service trainings began on February 9,1998.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden'i Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C , et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18,1998

MAJOR TASK
14. Any prisoner who is dissatisfied with any investigation orresolutionof an allegation of sexual harassment may appeal to the Director of the DCDC within IS days of receiving decision.

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY
Margaret Moore, Director, Dept. of Corrections

COMPLETION DATE
March 16, 1997

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation
COMPLIANCE. All inmates are informed, according to
CCA/CTF Facility Policy 14-100, dated December 1,1997, of their rights to appeal when they receive a decision.

17. The Defendants shall make necessary

Marvin Voss

alterations at both the Correctional

Treatment Facility (CTF) and the Minimum

Security Annex (Annex) within 60 days to

ensure that women have privacy in their

living, sleeping and shower areas.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The female inmates have been given
authority to cover their windows to have privacy in their rooms. Until an assessment can be made on the number of female inmates that will be housed, the installation of the Velcro strips and the fabric has been suspended.

page 2 of 2

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 1 of 1

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance'' state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation

IL Obstetrical and Gynecological Care

18. j The Defendants shall develop and implement a protocol concerning restraints used on pregnant and postpartum women which provides that a pregnant prisoners shall be transported in the least restrictive way possible consistent with legitimate security reasons. Specifically, the protocol shall provide:

Lonnie Moore

a. The Defendants shall use no restraints on any woman in labor, during delivery, or in recovery immediately after delivery; and

April 4, 1997

COMPLIANCE: When medical staff notes on the trip ticket
that the female inmate is either in the third trimester of pregnancy, or in labor, the Director of Transcor (the transportation unit) ensures that no restraints are used on the traveling inmate. After delivery, when the inmate has been medically cleared, restraint use is resumed. A memorandum that outlines these directions has been distributed, posted, and read in roll call to all officers. See memorandum numbered 18-A attached to the report dated June 6,1997.

b. During the last trimester of pregnancy up until labor, the Defendants shall use no restraints when transporting a pregnant woman prisoner unless the woman has demonstrated a history of assaultive behavior or has escaped from a correctional facility, in which case, only handcuffs shall be used.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 1 of6

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

i

19 the Defendants shall provide diagnostic

Joyce Mills-

evaluations for women prisoners similar to

Allen, Reception

those currently provided for men in the Reception and Diagnostic Unit at CTF to determine women prisoners' needs, interests,

and Diagnostic, Program Manager

and requirements for increased programs and

opportunities in education and vocation. The

procedure for the needs assessment shall be

done by an approved scientific method. These

evaluations shall be completed in a manner

and time frame equivalent to the males in the

diagnostic unit, but shall not exceed 120 days

from the date of the female prisoner's transfer

to CTF. The evaluations shall include

educational and vocational testing. The

Defendants shall provide women with the

appropriate available programming called for

by this evaluation within 30 days of completion

of the diagnostic evaluation.

December
8, 1998

COMPLIANCE: The female inmates who meet the
requirements of diagnostic evaluation have been identified. Diagnostic studies have been completed on the female inmates of this facility during the last month in accordance with the mandates of this order. In addition, there was a request that was made by Case Management Services Director, Ed Walsh, that all female diagnostic studies be suspended pending the movement of convicted female inmates to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

20.

The Defendants shall coordinate the

Mance Langham

scheduling of academic educational

classes, higher education classes, and

vocational training for women in such a

manner as to maximize women prisoners'

participation in as many areas as possible.

March 24, 1997

COMPLIANCE: All academic and vocational classes are
scheduled to provide a minimum of three hours of instruction five days a week from 8:00-11:00am and 12-3:00pm. See attachment 20-A of report dated 4/7/97. A memorandum has been distributed instructing all services to be scheduled before or after educational classes. See attached memorandum 20-B of report dated 11/10/97.

22. The Defendants shall develop and

Mance Langham

implement quality assurance programs for

monitoring program delivery to ensure the

continued provision of equal and adequate

education and vocation programs to

women prisoners.

May 31, 1997

COMPLIANCE: A quality assurance evaluation system
was developed by CCA for another program. The evaluation form was revised and adapted as our quality assurance tool for educational and vocational programs. The Principal conducts the assurance evaluations bi-monthly.
page 2 of 6

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 3 o f 6

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

i

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

The Defendants shall ensure that women

23.

prisoners are escorted to and arrive at

Charles Howard

educational and vocational programs in a timely

manner as scheduled in a manner that does not

prevent the programming staff from performing

any of their duties.

March 16, 1997

The Defendants shall provide women prisoners

25.

at CTF with a range of academic education

Mance Langham

programs that is equivalent to the range of

academic programs provided to male prisoners

at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.

March 16, 1997

26

Women prisoners at CTF shall be provided with Mance Langhatn

the opportunity for full-time (three hours per

day, five days per week at CTF) basic education

to include ABE, GED, and Special Education

classes.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The new fingerprint-control led elevator
system allows officers to control elevator movement and efficiently escort inmates to the education department and vocational programs in a timely manner.
COMPLIANCE: Women prisoners at CTF are provided the
same educational programs that are offered at the Lotion facilities i.e. ABE, GED, and Life Skills. See attachment 20-A of 4/7/94 report.
COMPLIANCE: Women prisoners at CTF are provided full
time access to three educational classes: ABE, GED, and Life Skills. See class schedule attachment 20-A of the 4/7/97 report. Low functioning inmates are provided special instruction in smaller groups.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 4 of 6

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et «l. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

1

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

27. Women prisoners at CTF shall have access Mance Langham
to on-site higher education programs which shall include a four years B. A. and/or B.S. degree program, and A.A. degree program, and pre-college program. At a minimum, bachelor programs shall be offered in one area of study, and associate programs in two different areas of study leading to a degree. Defendants shall comply with the pre-college requirement of this provision within 90 days.

January 19, 1998

COMPLIANCE: On December IS, 1997 the University of
the District of Columbia return the approved contract. Classes began on January 19, 1998. A Bachelor of Arts program in Urban Studies and two Associate of Arts programs are now offered to the women. Additionally, a precollege program, consisting of Math and English, is offered to the female inmates

28 The Defendants shall offer prisoners

Mance Langham

financial arrangements for these education

programs that are the same as those

arrangements available to similarly situated

male prisoners.

January 19, 1998

COMPLIANCE: The contract with UDC will provide
college courses at no cost to women prisoners. See attachment 27-A of 4/7797 report.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et ml. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance1* state reason, remedy, and
new completion
IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation

29. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall

John Henderson

provide appropriate substitute teachers or

instructors during absences of regular

teachers or instructors of more than three

working days. The provision of a substitute

teacher or instructor shall not result in

increasing the class size beyond acceptable

community standards for a period of time

exceeding IS consecutive school days.

April 11, 1997

COMPLIANCE: A certified teacher has been designated
to cover teacher absences. See attachment 29-A of 5/7/97 report.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 5 of6

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoner! of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

PLANNED ACTUAL

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

30. Defendants shall provide women prisoners Mance Langham
at CTF with a range of vocational education programs that is equivalent to the range of vocational education programs provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.

September 30, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Women prisoners at CTF, in all custody
levels, are presently provided with four vocational programs: Computer Literacy (6 months), Graphic Arts (12 months), Commercial Cleaning (4 months) and Interior Renovation. The interior Renovation program began on September 30, 1997.

31.

Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with two prevocational programs

Mance Langham

each to be at least six weeks in duration.

Prevocational programs include those

courses which teach personal development

skills, living skills, and/or employment

skills such as Employment Techniques,

Awareness and Preparation (ETAP) and

Life Skills.

March 26, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Prevocational skills are provided in the
Life Skills and ETAP classes. The classes are held three hours daily, five days a week. The programs include modules in personal development skills, living skills, and employability skills. See attachment 31-A of report dated June 7, 1997.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoner* of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

Defendants shall provide women prisoners Mance Langham
32. at CTF with a minimum of four vocational
education programs, including the one program currently in place (Docutech). These programs shall be available to female prisoners of all custody levels. A vocational education program is any program of 12 to 24 months in duration that teaches employable skills and contains both a classroom component and an onthe-job-training component. Two programs shall be operative within 120 days of the entry of this Order.

September 30, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Women prisoners at CTF, in all custody
levels, are presently provided with four vocational programs: Computer Literacy (6 months), Graphic Arts (12 months), Commercial Cleaning (4 months) and Interior Renovation. The Interior Renovation program began on September 30, 1997.

33. Defendants shall provide women prisoners Mance Langham March 1,

at CTF with at least one apprenticeship

1998

programs as defined by Department Order.

NON-COMPLIANCE: There is no accredited apprenticeship
program available to the female inmates. A field plan for Computer Literacy has been submitted to the DC Apprenticeship Council.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . ct al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

34 All prevocational programs, vocational

Mance Langham

programs, and apprenticeships added for

women prisoners at CTF shall have the

potential for providing women with job

skills marketable in the local labor market.

i An important consideration in the

Defendants' selection of programs shall be

the wage-earning capacity upon

completion of the program.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The current pre-vocational and
vocational programs implemented provide the female inmates with computer, printing, interviewing, and marketability skills that are valuable in the local job market. The orientation stage of these programs emphasize the value of these skills in the job market.

Defendants shall conduct affirmative

Mance Langham

35. outreach to women during the enrollment

period for vocational training. This

outreach shall entail DCDC staff meeting

with women at least one month before the

deadline for program enrollment to inform

the women that the new programs are

available and to offer a full description of

the available programs and any applicable

criteria for participation.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Alternative outreach services for
women are provided during orientation and initial program enrollment by the Academic Counselor. A pamphlet which includes specific programs is given to each female to assist the selection of a new program after completion of the program. See attachment(s) 3S-A of April 7, 1997 report.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance1' state reason, remedy, and
new completion
IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation

Defendants shall ensure that all contractual John Henderson 36. programs used to provide services to
women prisoners are compatible with and fulfill the provisions of this Order.
I

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: All contractual programs receive a legal
review from CCA's Legal Affairs office. Also contracts are cleared by the Contract Monitor of the Department of Corrections, prior to approval.

page 6 of 6

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 1 of 3

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoner! of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

51. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall hire a Marvin Voss qualified air balancing contractor to service the CTF air handling system so that it provides an acceptable level of air quality to all areas of the facility inhabited by prisoners.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: As reported in previous reports, air
balancing was done by the Department of Conections in the past however, CCA has hired a private contractor to rebalance the air system at CTF. Due to structural changes in the facility, the contractors have been recalled to repair and upgrade the air handling system.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C , et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" stale how achieved and attach documentation

52. In the event that the air balancing and

Marvin Voss

other recent repairs to the heating system at

CTF fail to maintain a minimum cell

temperature of 65 degrees F in every cell,

measured at the perimeter

Vent Alford/John

wall, the Defendants shall immediately:

Henderson

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The temperature in the cells have not
fallen below 65 degrees during this period. In the event of that occurrence, the Assistant Warden will provide additional clothing and blankets and ensure that inmates are not housed in end cells.

' a. cease housing women in the end cells of each tier;

Cross/Henderson

b. provide each woman prisoner with two extra blankets, two pairs of thermal underwear, and two pairs of wool socks;

Marvin Voss

c. explore means of insulating or healing the perimeter walls of the cells; and

d. report back to the Court.

53. The Defendants shall develop and
implement an effective rodent prevention program.

Linda Wall

April 23, 1997

Means of insulating or heating the perimeter walls have been explored, however, insulating the walls would make the rooms smaller and violate safety regulations and heating the walls would violate fire regulations. Therefore, we are currently unable to develop a feasible plan. A new strategy will be devised if air rebalancing does not preclude the need to modify the walls.
A report will be forwarded to the Court on April 16, 1998.
COMPLIANCE: A contract with the Orkin Chemical
Company has been negotiated and initiated. The contract includes a monthly rodent prevention plan. See attachment 53-A of May 7, 1997 report.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 2 of 3

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . el al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

i
54. Effective immediately, the Defendants shall Larry Colbert ensure that all housing units at CTF are issued a timely, adequate and appropriate amount of cleaning supplies.

April 30, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The cleaning supply is sufficiently
stocked and PortionPac has instructed the inmates on the proper use of the materials. The supply of materials is monitored and distributed to the housing units on a bi-weekly basis.

55. The Defendants shall use cart liners or disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry between CTF and the Jail.

Linda Wall

April 7, 1997

COMPLIANCE: A linen service agreement was signed
between CTF and Sterling Cleaners on April 4, 1997 and service began on April 7, 1997. Dirty linen is transported in one cart and clean linen is transported in another cart. All linen is contained in plastic bags for sanitation.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

56. Effective immediately, the Defendants at

Vern Alford

CTF shall monitor the food temperature

and delivery times of all food, including

special diet meals, delivered to the satellite

kitchen.

1

December 1, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Food temperature will be manually
monitored by the culinary officers who use food thermometers and randomly select the trays to sample at each meal time. Delivery times will be monitored by the correctional officers who receive the food on the units. A tracking form has been developed by ARAMARK that monitors the time and temperature of food delivery. See attachment 056-A of report dated February 2, 1998 for copies of the form.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

page 3 of 3

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et «l. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

PLANNED ACTUAL

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

57.

The Defendants shall promulgate and

Marvin Voss

follow a written preventive maintenance

plan for the CTF that includes

maintenance of structures, systems, and

equipment.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: CCA has completed and has
implemented the CHIEF system. The CHIEF system generates the preventive maintenance plan for the entire facility.

58.

The Defendants shall ensure that the

Marvin Voss

correctional officers inspect all plumbing

fixtures that requires repair will be

reported immediately upon discovery,

and repaired in a timely manner. The

Defendants shall maintain logs

demonstrating compliance with this

requirement.

November 24, 1997

COMPLIANCE: An addendum will be made to the
housing unit officer post order to include recording all plumbing problems in the maintenance log book. Maintenance procedures ' require a daily review of the maintenance log book on each housing unit by maintenance personnel. See attachment #58 of report dated 12/10/97.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C et «J. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

59.

Two times per year, the Defendants shall Linda Wall

cause the District of Columbia DCRA to

conduct inspections of the CTF for

compliance with the requirements of

environmental sanitation, maintenance

and food service delivery. Within 30

days of each inspection, the Warden of 1 CTF shall obtain the DCRA findings.

The Warden shall repair, clean, or

otherwise remedy any unsanitary,

unsound, or unsafe practice or condition

identified by DCRA as soon as feasible

but in no event later than 30 days

following the receipt of the DCRA report.

May 19, 1997

NON-COMPLIANCE: The DCRA inspection was conducted,-—
on October 14, 15, and 16^499jUT-rie1acfiiry received a rating score of 92%. (See attached memorandum 59-A of report dated November 10, 1997.) The official report from DCRA has been requested but has not been received from DCRA. Abatements have not been indicated and thereby cannot be completed. The completion date of any abatements will be scheduled upon receipt of the DCRA report.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

page 1 of 1
INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: March 18,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

i

V. FIRE SAFETY

65. The Defendants shall conduct and

Vem Alford

document mandatory semi-annual training

on fire safety procedures for all

correctional officers.

June 18, 1998

NON-COMPLIANCE: CCA completed its pre-service training for new hires in January 1998. Semi-annual in-service training for currently hired correctional officers including fire prevention procedures has not begun but will be scheduled to begin within 90 days.

Office of the Chief Classification and Parole

tPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Detention Facility 1901 D Street. S.E.
Washington. DC 20003

Page 1 and 3 redacted Page 2 not disclosed

March 10, 1998

MEMORANDUM

TO

Shirley Williams

Acting Deputy Warden for Programs

PROM

Chief Case Management

SUBJECT:

Minutes of the Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee (IGAC) on February 24, 1998 at 1:30 p.m. on the second floor

Present: Ms. Violet Hicks, Warden's Office, Mrs. Gloria Thaxton Fox, Compliance Monitor, Mr. Harold Watson, Case Manager and Mr. Carl L. White, Chief Case Management.
Absent: Representative(s) from Support Services and Operations.
Inmate Population
Inmate Allen Graves, DCDCi 171-938, Southwest Three, Cell «3 Male Inmate Representative Gilfredo Lopez, DCDCf 268-588, Southwest Three, Cell #6, Inmate Betty Parker, DCDCi 276-394, Southwest One.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Mr. Carl L. white who presented the correctional staff to the IGAC.

r~

-3-
Mr. Edward Garner, Law Librarian entered the meeting to assist Mr. White, Chairman.to draft a plan having all units representatives to meet in the Law'Library. Inmates Graves and Lopes need to gather information from each housing unit.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 2:15 p.m.
March 24, 1998, is the next scheduled meeting on the second floor in the Case Management Unit at 1:30 p.m.
Submitted for the record and your information.
CLW/mah
cc: Ms. Violet Hicks Edward Gardner Gloria Fox

AMAMAilCOiMEOIONALSEiyiCES

773*2
I

.' *•**

*

••

.•

i 3o

•a

•»

•

VLS OfTKEk tSKfUIVMB

MEdLTMdT wmk

• •w
A .51

'

•>

f

r

mmmmar #

AMAMARICOUECIIONALi Maamon

*

t

•

J '*

-er-

3 .50

( -

?

•

I

JUK&MBTUnME

•

*

omen*i oaunmE
•

*|
_ . .x^.v ...j..

j/g

MMamarnunciammur
% r
t ••.

p»gy°

5«/i'

A/^7l>,

13L..

AMAMAE£

SERVICES

ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
MEAL TRAY VERIFICATION SHEET

BATE- > -

ft''f?

WOT- £A

MEAL PERIOD -

KEGVLAR MEALS DOTS TOTAL MEALS
TOTAL TKAYSSENT TO THE UNIT 9

ARAMARK SUPERVISOR (PRINT NAME) ARAMARK SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE
CULINARY OFFICER (PRINT NAME) CULINARY OFFICER SIGNATURE .
UNIT OFFICER (PRINTNAME) UNIT OFFICER SIGNATURE

OFFICER NAME

COURTRAGLUNCHES # . SIGNATURE

TOTAL SNACK RAGS SENT ARAMARK DIET CLERK SIGNATURE TOTAL SNACKRAGS RECEIVED AT UNIT* UNIT OFFICER 'S SIGNATURE

De*>~r*

Medperim

E*m//'t • &*< itfLm Stmxk Ci

ftfrttffc

, _ _ defreej 1tew** (

•AlK

(ft**~ie*ieB Other Hem

nmCvde* ^£
l<& term . /flJu detna

Umki

Nmme »fOfficer

Sirmmtmre

vmrtl -CTF

ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
MEAL TRAT VERIFICATION SHEET

REGULAR MEALS DIETS TOTAL MEALS

^3 17

TOTAL TRATS SENT TO THE UNIT *

ARAMARK SUPERVISOR (FRINTNAME) ARAMARK SUFERVISOR SIGNATURE
CULJNART OFFICER (FRINTNAME) CULINARY OFFICER SIGNATURE
UNTI OFFICER (FRINTNAME) UNIT OFFICER SIGNATURE

LuA
D0i'**

OFFICER NAME

COURTRAGLUNCHES #. SIGNATURE

TOTAL SNACK RAGS SENT 4RAMAKK DIET CLERK SIGNATURE TOTAL SNACK RAGS RECEIVED AT UNTT 9 UNIT OFFICER 'S SIGNATURE

F—4Ttmftr*mr*R*a V-VrnkUr*

*-t Mtalptrmd

MatmCveU9

Emtnt hhC "&*,? ILC'l, tern

Vm*ik

tem s Rcptnft C*?i&C

OOuritm U&,'-U, tt>•" *«"MS OUUTwttti

CUT*

NmmetfTOmetr

/ S P dbpvB
4f£M£&

vmA7-CTF

ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
MEAL TRAT VERIFICATION SBEET
DATE-
mar-
MEAL PERIOD

MBGULAM AtJt

2Q-

14

TOTAL MEALS

TOTAL TRATSSENT TO THE UNIT #

ARAMARKSUPERVISOR (PRINT NAME) ARAMARK SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE
CUUNARTOFFICER (PRINTNAME) CUUNARTOFFICER SIGNATURE .
UNIT OFFICER (PRINT NAME) UNIT OFFICER SIGNATURE

c ( {'/_r

OFFICER NAME

COURTRAGLUNCHES # . SIGNATURE

TOTAL SNACK RAGS SENT ARAMARK DIET CLERK SIGNATURE TOTAL SNACK RAGS RECEIVED AT UNIT* UNIT OFFICER'S SIGNATURE

W909 Mtt$f9fWttn mMCtp * V H MJfMm
!**'?•'(*•<} f • TkmT.lSti

Mtdnfigd/Stee^Unn Mtmm Crete § *f loH/Hft. " ^ ^ /(flS"' rfiirirr

*Ut# NmmeiTOtfctr CTF

•SfrlMfHtt

ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
MEAL TRAY VERIFICATION SHEET

UNITMEAL PERIOD-

REGULAR MEALS DIETS TOTAL MEALS
TRAYS SENT TO THE UNIT »

ARAMARK SUPERVISOR (PRINT NAME) ARAMARK SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE '
CULINARY OFFICER (PRINT NAME) CULINARY OFFICER SIGNATURE .
UNIT OFFICER (PRINT NAME) UNIT OFFICER SIGNATURE

f^/jyjJSJh^

OFFICER NAME

COURTBAG LUNCHES #. SIGNATURE

ARAMARK DIET CLERK SIGNATURE TOTAL SNACK BAGS RECEIVED ATA UNIT OFFICER 'S SIGNATURE

TOTAL SNACK BAGS SENT

F—4 Temperature Recap - Unit Level

Dote 3 ~ 949-^9

Time

Meal period

Menu Cycle*

Entree Vegetable &rt>»£ Other ium~~aa(D§/tLi

degrees Starch degrees Beverage fcg.P degrees Other item

13$,*/ degrees degrees ietrea

Name«fOfficer_

Signature

vm/97-CTF

ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
MEAL TRAY VERIFICATION SHEET
i? UNIT-
MEAL PERIOD - (
REGULAR MEALS DIETS TOTAL MEALS
JTRAYSSENT TO THE UNIT *
^JMA£4JUr5C/?£Jn^OJt (PRINT NAME) ARAMARK SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE ' ISK J JLf CULINARY OFFICER (PRINT NAME) CULINARY OFFICER SIGNATURE .
UNIT OFFICER (PRINT NAME) UNIT OFFICER SIGNATURE

OFFICER NAME

T BAG LUNCHES* SIGNATURE

ARAMARK DIET CLERK SIGNATURE TOTAL SNACK BAGS RECEIVED AT/t UNIT OFFICER 'S SIGNATURE J

TOTAL SNACK MAGS SENT

F—d Temperature Recap - Unit Level

Date o ? - / 3 T - ^

Tune V/Y Mealoeriod 7)iWlrtr Menu Cycle §_

Entree Vegetablem Other item bre J/.

degrees Starch. AS.f degrees Beveragge
degrees Other hem AfoL. TAMO.

degrees degrees fO, */ degrees

Unit*

Name of Officer

Signature

vm/97-CTF

ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
MEAL TEAT VERIFICATIONSHEET
DATE-
manr-

DIETS TOTAL MEALS
TOTAL TRATS SENT TO THE UNIT

f. 3/

14. AMAMAMK SUPERVISOR (PRINTNAME}

CVUNART OFFICER (PRINTNAME) CUUNART OFFICER StGiATURE .
UNIT OFFICER (PRINT NAME) UNIT OFFICER SIGNATURE

OFFICER NAME

COURTRAGLUNCHES ff. SIGNATURE

TOTAL SNACK RAGS SENT ARAMARK DIET CLERK SIGNATURE TOTAL SNACK RAGS RECEIVED AT UNIT 9. UNIT OFFICER 'SSIGNATURE

F~4T»

~/f<rV

rm*c:K **tMa*perimi6te*iZSZitt mmCickW f

&*.

t

"

s SmtkO.
*m<
m Otiurktm

(tip itfrut
fir ifn*

Umit

NnumfOmetr

Sifmatmn

ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
MEAL TRAT VERIFICATION SHEET
DATE UNIT MEAL PERIOD-
REGULAR MEALS DOTS TOTAL MEALS
TOTAL TRAYS SENT TO THE UNIT
ARAMARK SUPERVISOR (PRINT NAME) AMAMAMKSVPEMVJSOM SKNATVKB
CUUNAMY OFFICE* (HUNT NAME) CULINARY OFFKEMSKNATVME .
UNIT OFFICER (PRINT NAME) UNIT OFFICER SIGNATURE

OFFICER NAME

COURTMAGLUNCHES » . SIGNATURE

VTALSTiACK RAGS SENT

#

ARAMARKDIETCLERKSIGNATURE Jfi ^

TOTAL SNACK BAGS RECEIVED AT UNIT •

UNIT OFFICER 'S SIGNATURE

ur Vtt€UbU_

OWf#

Nmmemf Officer

•m/97-CTF

M**B*riu5)\Jnt- UtmmCyeU*

Odur

A <
Stgnmmre

Vf* derrta

 
 Government of the District of Columbia DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
9501 Furnace Road Lorton, Virginia 22199
Office of Compliance and Accreditation
April 17, 1998
Tracy A. Thomas, Esquire Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, D. C. 20044-7566
BE: Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections v. District of Columbia, et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052
Dear Ms. Thomas: Enclosed is the March 1998, updated monthly report which responds to the United States District Court's order dated June 16, 1997, regarding the above-referenced civil action.
Sincerely,
Gloria D. Thaxton Senior Compliance Monitor
Enclosures cc: Brenda V. Smith, Esquire, National Women's Law Center
Maria Amato, Assistant Corporation Counsel Regina Gilmore, Contract Monitor Judy Kleiman, Executive Compliance Officer File GDT/gdt

Women Prisoners/ DC v. DC
iiiiniiiiiDiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

r FILED
rtWHiiTiWlTwN CLERK U.S.DISTRICTCOURT

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DC MRTMENT/OPFICE: om« O/FOIMMI «d rnueduro

LEAD PERSON: rWd J Mocuu
CkJcf. Office «f MiciciAProcedure.

T l L E r t l O N E : (202) «7>-74IO

INITIATIVE: WmanawnrfDCDC ».P. C
Cc.it Act»« «l-20S2 DATE OV UTOATX: April 7.1991

MAJOR TASK

RESrONSIBLB FBIUOOVACINCV

COMPLETION DA1B

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: CompluiKc or Ncn-CcmpKaiice IfCo«iplw>e«]MabowMbiev«dMd«rbclKi) wpportoe doauMMMin, if *ay. If Non-coapUaue MMc rcuon, moody, isd a*w eoraplnoii dale

j

L SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST INMATES

4.

W i * i « 60 day*. Ibe DefoftdMU ihell write n d follow •

B«nyOra*D

DeparSacal ( M g prokiWdtt* uguul mucoaatal igiinst

• O D M M a m M o e O u k k l oTCohiaM* D w m w M of

C o m a i u u (DCDC) uiployen end woawa priwoan Tke

Dcfewfcmi dMil poM « d amtatt tie D c f M w n l Onkt is

uconUiK* witi i « n n v i w i l policy.

W(V»S ()VI}/»7Rcv.)

CoapJuuMt: DO 335O.2B, "Ss<W Miicoukacl AgiiiM b u M i 1 dtted HVI5W kas been duttibntod •> DCDC employed. AB ORfloy*M k m f i c u d AcbuiwUdgmeni Receipt far D.O. W5O2B Stnal Mifcoadwt aitaiag conunsced Pskniary. I W « . TkeD.O. kat been polled ia a l iaaialc hmuiog unilt.

5.

VM4a Ibii polity * c DCPC h u Ow obUgMion u> u k i

Betty Green

Vpropn>t« Mop la prevcat tod reaxly Mwnt mueond«cl

• f u n d immitt ( O M U « I 4fcyk i t n mploycca.

7.

P t u l d a ta piakibiod cnUncl u d o (be pokey i l w l be

HetyGracn

<klanlM< by dw Diiicwc of Ike DCOC widun 30 <b>i.

V20/9S

Coaplimc*. Coolimcd io DO 13 JO I B . SUIT rtfnaiw D u n n * b t p d Vim ia oonpliaiise wilk Ibe Dcpanrneni Ordei dieitd IO/IS/77.

A

1/2Q/95

Compliuioc. CoMaiaid in DO JJSO I B PtDallia fc» pruhliicd

\)

conduct any be fouai al AlickmeM 1 of Ike DepcnrncM Order, abo

icfeitnce DPM Swiion loOIJ.

Jl

i of i
•8 IJ

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DKPAJRTMBNT/OFnCE: Training Academy

INITIATIVK: W o — Fris—en of DCDC v. D.C CMlAeoaa No. 93-2052

J

L E A D PERSON: JeaoMtte A. Wood

TELEPHONE: (703)643-0221

u c

Acting Tranfcg Adsnioistnaor

DATE OP UPDATE: April 7 , 1 9 *

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PRRSON/AGRNCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Naa-Camplianoe If Compliance state how achieved and attached supportiag documentation, if aay. If Non-ooaipliaace state reason, remedy, and new compieooa dale.

I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

15.

The Department ahaU coaduct mandatory

Compliance. Tnaung began 8/22/95. Annual mass

trainiag uaiag certified tniaen oa sexual

PATRICIA ROBERTS

1/30/95

2/4/91

staff refresher traiaing began 2/3/97 and. Traiaing was

misoonduct for aM DCDC employees. A

terminated at the ended S/26V97 •Mil father notice

caansltaiit from the National Institute of

because of badget icsfeaiots. However, sexual

Contcticas (NIC), mutmally agreed upon

miacondact has been provided on aa ongoing basis

by the parties, shal develop (he training

during ia-services, basic convctional trainiag, contract

plan and Biatsrial. A "certified trainer* is

new hires aad volunteers. Effective Febraary 4,5,6,

defined at aay person who has

1998, DOC sexual miscoaduct mass training was

I

canplotod the Traia-the-Trafaer" c a m e

conducted. S e n a l Misconduct Agaiast Inmates DX).

developed by the NIC a n s u k u t

3350.2b, directive dated October 15,1997 cancels DO.

33SOOA dated May 15, 1995.

a. The training shall iadnde edacation concenuag the DctadaataT policies reganttag reporting, iavestiganag, aad preventing sexual
mscqoences for violaiiag any policy ooaocming sexual harasfmeat; and

PATRICIA ROBERTS

ft/30/95

1T1 191

Compliance. Ongoing annual trainaig which includes edacauon, policies, reporting, investigating, preventing sexual harassment, and consequences for violating policy.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT
o •J

DErARTMIKIIDniCt: iraiaingAcadeny

INITIATrVE: Wemea f r i w e n af PCDC ». P.C Ova AefJra N«L M MS2

L E A D FEKSON: JeaaneOe A. Wood Acting Tnaing AdninistratDr

TELCPBOM: 703/643-0221

DATE OF UPDATE: April 7,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBIJE PERSON/AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: CompKaace or Non-Camplianoc If Compliance stale how achieved and attached supporting docamenfatioa, if aay. If Noa-coopa'ance state reason, remedy, and new completion dale.

I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

15.

b. All staff who work with femak

PATRICIA ROBERTS

10/97

pnsoaen abaH be t n u e d by ctatified

tnuMis wifcia fix f"»«fc« ooauneacing ao

lattr than August 30,1995. After the kitiaJ

k Ike pre^ovioe tnniB« or all staff. Aaaoal RMJaing shall be cooductDd to re6«sb staff on tbeDqiarbneal Order regarding sexual mncoadiict

1/9S

CompHmcc: After fie initial (rasing as cited ia Item 15..

sexual aiiicoadafl miming will be inchuJcd in all pre-acrvicc

tniaiogmdmBumt Ktnimiag shall be conducted to refiesh

staff lo inchide bat art Iknitsd to the following :

purpose, policy, dcraiitkmi, proeedurei, dissenikiatioo,

reportinsL annual review and rcfercoces.

c. Within one year.! ele >d employ,

working with female pi

shall receive

a forty-hour traniag piugtam on workiag

with fenule orleaden. A semi-annual,

enbanceasent trainaig on special issues

related to working with female offenders

will be offered to selected employees.

PATRICIA ROBERTS

Noo-compGaaoe. The National Institute of Conections (NIC) has beea notified for technical assistance in using NIC Women Offenders Lesson Plan, 94-S5O1. The Traiaiag Academy awaits a response. In the interim, the Academy will facilitate uain-the - trainer to implement a two hour workshop for staff at the, Centnl Detention Facility (CDF), and CTF/CCA lo oommence m/«ael998.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

n •I

n

D e P A R T M E N T / o m c i : Trammg Academy

IN111AT1VE: Women P r t — e n >f PCDC v. P . C

c

CWil Action No. 93-2052

j

u

L E A D PERSON: Jeaaaelte A. Wood

TELEPHONE: (703)643-0228

DATE O r UPDATE: April 8, 19M

Acting Trailing Administrator

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-Compliance ITCompliance S U E how achieved and attached suppottiag docameatatioa, if aay. IfNon-complia sicreason,remedy, aad new oompMMn

I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

16.

CUmmeacmg no later Nun Aagust 30,

Compliance: Eflective Febraary 4, S. aad 6,1991,

1995. Ibe Deparawart than oondKt

PATRICIA ROBERTS 1/30/93

2/4/9S

•anal misconduct mass tniaing for

mandatory tnniag oa sexual

sapenrison/managen occurred. Tramiag oa the new

Uaiasamenl asiag certified tramen for all

Department Orderforfemale inmate* began March 2,

women prisoners currmly in (he DCDC.

1991. Sexual Miscoadud Against Innales, D.O.

A consultant from me Natioaal I

33350.2B, directive dated October IS, 1997 cancels

ofComctiMt (NICX muniaUy agreed

D.O. 3350.2A dated May 15, I99S.

apoa by the parties, shaM develop me

tramkc plan and taateriak which w i l

iastroct women prisoners oa the Department Older on sexaal mil

Sexual Misconduct mass training D.O. 3350J2B for all employees begin March 2,199S. This training also

and how to recognize aad report sexual

coatmues to be oflered as a part of the ongoiag 40 hoar

hamsment Traiamg sessions for

inscrvice traiaiog.

wosoem prisoaen on sexual harassment

shall be provided within a reasonable

time upon a womaa's entry in the D.C.

Department of Convctioas.

u r»

Page One
si

n

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

'j

DEPAR'

'/Office: D. C. Detention Facility

INITIATIVE: W O — P Prlion«r» of DCDC v. D. C. , «t al •

i

LEAD PERSON: Hario fUndie

Acting Harden

TELEPHONE: 6*73-8201

Civil Action Mo. 93-2052
DATE OF UPDATE: 1998

April 7,

MAJOR CJUK

RHMMaiBLB

COMFUTIOM D*TB

STATUS: Compliance or Konzonpliance If "Non-compliance" state reason,

remedy, and new completion.

IF "Compliance" state how

achieved and attach

i

PLANNED

documentation.

ACTUAL

Ba. Woacn prisoners shall b* «bl«

Shirley

12/93

3/95

Coirpliant. Women inmates are

to report instances of sexual

Williams

able to make confidential

haraaamant through the existing

reports of sexual misconduct

Innate Grievance Procedure

via the IGP process. Further,

?

(ICP) as specified in

Department Order 4030.ID.

woaen Inmates can make reports via the 24-hour telephone hot

line, the number of which is

posted in at least two areas in

on

all housing units along with Department Order 3350.2B.

8b. The Defendants shall strictly
adhere to the Inmate Grievance Procedure and shall establish an Innate Grievance Advisory Contittee (IGAC) as required by Section Vll(c) of Department Order 4030.Id.
T, -3

Compliance; An IGAC meeting was held on 3/24/98. The next meeting is scheduled for 4/24/96. IGP meeting minutes are attached.

n

Page Two

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: D. C. D e t e n t i o n f a c i l i t y
o

XMITXATIVK: Woewn P r i e o n e r i of DCDC v . D. C . , e t a l . C i v i l Action Mo. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Mario Randle A c t i n g Warden

MUL»PBOWI: 675-8201

DATE OF UFDATS: A p r i l 7 , 1 9 9 8

i

MAJOR TASK

KUMMHBU

00KMJTI0H DAT*

SI f1MMrVcIt:t-

J(atc ^ M acblatttd lad a t i u k

i/k

9a.

WOMB p i m m A a «ke b. «Ui «•

Shirl«y Hllllins

f a n , orally or in wriliag lo any DCDC caytoycc.

12/93

3/»5

Comptanl. Woman pfteonara are kwducted In Mhoonduot training on (nowtoreportncidanta of a*xuil nwoonduot Indudng K*P kwrn, willing or oral reporting to any DCDC empioya*.

9b.

r t r n r iiiylnj m umil wlniil In »rfi»—liiia, iii writkfcU*>W afnccmnftwi

9c.

Women pritOMn auy aba nifcnit I G F l «

«—pUim W priwoo rfyi if nfivt lo * e 1OAC.

CompBant: Th*tomalakimat* popuMlon k advtead ttiat MKual miaoonduct oomptahti can b« MiornMed lo • prtMnar lapraatataHM for lha K3AC. kwralas alao receive sexual mlaoonduot kaMno- Each employe* anal report Information concerning earns! mlaeondiict bnmedMelytothe Wanton or Office Chief and e u b n * a written report of each Incidenttothe Warden or Office Chief and • » Monitor before the end of Ne/her work day
Caroptant Women prleonera are adviud hi Intalio/Mentalion Ininkig each Friday that compMnta of eexual mlaoonduot may atao be eubmUkdtoprisoner repreatntaHwea of tie IGAC.

"3

Page Three
7M

OKPARIMKNT/orrZCX: D. C. Datantion F a c i l i t y

miTIATZVI: Woaan Prlaooara of PCDC v. P. C.. at a l .

Civil Action Mo. 93-2052

I

LEAD MUSON: Mario lUndle Acting Harden

TBIXPHOHE: 6T3-82C1

DATE o r UPDATE: April 7, 1996

Ic

MUM tftM

uirannu

DAT*

STATUS: Compliance or Non-conpliance If "Non-coiopllanca" s t a t * raaaon, raiMdy, and new coaplation.

IF "Coupllanca" stata how achlavad

and attach docunantation.

11.

fillura of in aaployaa to raporr any all*g«tl3R of ••jual nl«conduct or any facti and

Shirlay Willlaau

ciccuaurtancaa which would l«»d a

raaaonabla •aployaa zo ballava

that aaaual adaeeoduet t*

occurring or haa occurrad ahall

subj«cs tht »of:loy«a te

diaciplln*.

12/93 3/»S

12.

Ursa nsdpl of any ilhgaiiaa ofm act of

ShifkjWilUamt 12/93 2/95

m u l iataraaww or aay adtpiioa of

CnaapBiant ThnaanlManoeauoimriMcfOuhiiTto nfoa«inl iiaainaifcji 1 i t i l i * i i iinmian
CwaylaMMifc Rqnm afanaul aoh MCR npoMd to law auiaftfmiqpartaf aarioal

r saasamiDf * • «a»it of aay aaiofagvartipliont. TbaecaMaefofatoBat
-*•*• -
M l f

Page Four DEMKnaMT/OPFICB: O. C. Detention F a c i l i t y

XNTTIATXVB: Wo—n prisoners of pax: v. P. C . at at. Civil Action Mo. 13-2052

UAD RMOM: Mario Stand:* Acting Warcer,

TEUEPBOME: 6 ? 3 - 8 2 0 1

DAIK OF UPDATO: A p r i l 7 , l » S S

KAJ3R TASK

M S FORBIBLC

CCUWLMltXCm DATE

PLANKED

ACTJAX

STATUS: Conp.lance cr Kon-compliance If "llon-ccnpllance" state reason, remedy, and nev ccrplction. IF "COKipli^n=o" s t a t e ho;* achieved and
attach

J

5

13.

Tit* Identity ef -he targat of tha Shirley

allagad asxual harastnant shall

Mlllltc*

12/93

3/95

Compliance as contained in 00 3350.2B, employees are advised in 40 hours annual

ba ravvtlad cr.ly to thoaa vho

1n~servlce training that such acts are

hiv* an lanadlata nsad *o knov,

strictly prohibited by all enplcyees for

including the all*g»d hacasiar(c)

offenses contained in the CO.

or rataliator(a) and any

wltn«3«*s. All parties con'actad

in the course of an investigation

will be advised that any

retaliation, reprisal, or breach

of canfIdentlality Is a separate

actionable offense as provided In

the schedule of penalties.

14.

Any prisoner wtio Is dissatisfied

Shirley

with any Investigation or

HlUlaaa

resolution of an allegation of

sexual harassment nay appeiL to

the Director of the CCDC within

15 days of receiving written

notice of the outcoaw of tne

Investigation.

3/95

Compliant: The inmate la acivlaed ol appeal rights *rd procedures if dissatisfied with outcome of any investigation n specified in 33S0.2B, VII, K.

16.

Coisnenclng r.c later -han August

5hit)«y

33, 1995, the Department shall

ll

conduct mandatory training on

aexual harassment using certified

trainers for all woman prisoners

currently In the CCDC. A

consultant frcia the National

Instl-u-e of Corrections IMfC),

•utuaily agreed upon by the

cartIts. shall develop the

training plan and materials which

will instruct women prisoners on

the Depsrtrvent Order on sexual

slscar.duct anc how to recognlie

»nd report sexual harassment.

Training saeslons fcr wes-.eti

prisoners or. sexual harassment

shall be provided within a
•3
reasonable time upon a woman's

J

entry In the P.". DOC.

Coiepllant; Mandatory training In sexue! misconduct for ill females is conductac on a weekly basis. Tracking is maintained via a sign-in sheet a.-id by forms designed by the monitors of this decree, which are signed by the inmate and maintained In the inetltutlsnal (elder. Attendance logs are maintained by tht "ralner and the Chief Case Managers.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 1 of 2

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden'i Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-20S2

LEAD PERSON: Louie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation

L Sexual Harassment

4.

Within 60 days, the Defendants shall write bnd follow a Department Order prohibiting sexual harassment involving District of

Toni Perry/ John Henderson

Columbia Department of Corrections

(DCDC) employees and women prisoners.

The Defendants shall post and circulate the

Department Order in accordance with

departmental policy.

8.

Women prisoners shall be able to report instances of sexual harassment through the

Lonnie Moore

existing Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP)

as specified in Department Order 4030.ID.

The Defendants shall strictly adhere to the

Inmate Grievance Procedure and shall

establish an Inmate Grievance Advisory

Committee (IGAC) as required by Section

Vll(c) of Department Order 4030.ID.

February 2, 1998
March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE:
CCA Policy 14-100, Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates, has been revised to reflect changes in the new Department Order. The policy has been distributed to all staff and the signed receipts were given to the Sexual Misconduct Coordinator, Toni Perry, and posted in all male and female housing units. See attachment #4-A of report dated 2/7/98.
COMPLIANCE: The women prisoners are able to
report instances of sexual harassment through CCA Policy 14-5, Inmate Grievance Procedures. See attachment 8-A of report dated 11/10/97. The inmate grievance committee meeting for the month of March was postponed until issues from the September meeting were resolved.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation

9. Women prisoners shall also be able to

Lonnie Moore

submit IGP's or complaints concerning

sexual harassment in any form, orally or in

writing, to any DCDC employee, who must

submit the information, in writing, to the

Warden of the facility within 24 hours or

receiving the information. Women

prisoners may also submit IGP's or

complaints to prisoner representative to the

IGAC.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE:
All staff have been given a briefing of CCA/CTF Facility Policy 14-100, dated January IS, 1997, in pre-service training. Facility Policy 14-100 has been revised to reflect the changes in the new Department Order and will be used during all in-service trainings. Both versions of the policy advise all staff to report all complaints to the Warden by the end of his/her shift As of the date of this report, there are a total of 20S female inmates in this institution.

10. The Defendants shall establish a

Lonnie Moore

confidential hotline, under the supervision

of the Director of the DCDC, through which

women prisoners can report allegation s of

sexual harassment.

October 21, 1997

COMPLIANCE:
The Sexual Misconduct Hotline has been in opeation prior lo Ihe slated completion date however, the completion date is the dale the first call was received on the line. The Hotline is monitored by CCA's Sexual Misconduct Coordinator, Toni Perry.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

11 Failure of an employee to report any

Lonnie Moore

allegation of sexual misconduct or any facts

and circumstances which would lead a

reasonable employee to believe that sexual

misconduct is occurring or has occurred

shall subject the employee to discipline.

i

COMPLETION DATE
March 16, 1997

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation
COMPLIANCE: All staff have been given a briefing of
CCA/CTF Facility Policy 14-100, dated January IS, 1997, in pre-service training. There has been no discovered failure of any employee to report sexual misconduct.

12. Upon receipt of any allegation of an act of
unwelcome sexual intercourse or any allegation of unwelcome sexual touching, the Defendants must notify the proper law enforcement agency. The Defendants shall communicate with the law enforcement agency concerning the status of any investigation. The Defendants must periodically document the status of police investigations. The occurrence of a police investigation does not relieve the Defendants of the duty to investigate.

Lonnie Moore

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: CCA will handle any allegation of sexual
misconduct through the procedures set forth in the CCA/ CTF Facility Policy 14-100, dated December 1,1997. The Command Center post order has been revised to include notifying MPD when an allegation is made. There are two outstanding investigations into allegations as of this date. Follow-up on these investigations will be conducted once a month by the Grievance Officer.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Loaaie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

13. The identity of the target of the alleged

Lonnie Moore

sexual harassment shall be revealed only to

those who have an immediate need to know,

including the alleged harasser(s) or

retaliatory) and any witnesses. All parties

contacted in the course of an investigation

will be advised that any retaliation, reprisal,

pi breech of confidentiality is a separate

actionable offense as provided in the

schedule of penalties.

14.

Any prisoner who is dissatisfied with any investigation or resolution of an allegation

of sexual harassment may appeal to the

Director of the DCDC within IS days of

receiving decision.

Margaret Moore, Director, Dept. of Corrections

15. The Department shall conduct mandatory

Jeanette Boykins

training using certified trainers on sexual

misconduct for all DCDC employees. A

consultant from the National Institute of

Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon by

the parties, shall develop the training plan

and material. A "certified trainer" is

defined as any person who has comleted the

"Train-the-Trainer" course deveoped by the

NIC consultant.

COMPLETION DATE
March 16, 1997

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation
COMPLIANCE: The contracted investigators have been
instructed to infonn all investigated parties of the penalties of reprisals. CCA/CTF Facility Policy addresses the issue of reprisals and all staff will be informed of the issue during training. Additionally, all new employees will be trained on CCA/CTF Facility Policy 14-100, dated December 1, 1997, in pre-service training. In-service trainings began on February 9, 1998.

March 16, 1997
January 30, 1998

COMPLIANCE: All inmates are informed, according to
CTF Facility Policy of their rights to appeal when they receive a decision. There have been no known appeals to any investigation.
COMPLIANCE:
The Train-thc-Trainers classes have been completed. There are seven certified trainers for this building.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden1! Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Loaak Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)699-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

17. The Defendants shall make necessary

Marvin Voss

alterations at both the Correctional

Treatment Facility (CTF) and the Minimum

Security Annex (Annex) within 60 days to

ensure that women have privacy in their

living, sleeping and shower areas.

COMPLETION DATE
March 16, 1997

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation
COMPLIANCE: The female inmates have been given
authority to cover their windows to have privacy in their rooms. Until an assessment can be made on the number of female inmates that will be housed, the installation of the Velcro strips and the fabric has been suspended.

page 2 of 2

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 1 of 1

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office LEAD PERSON: Louie Moore

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C. et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" stale how achieved and attach
documentation

IL Obstetrical and Gynecological Care

18. , The Defendants shall develop and implement a protocol concerning restraints used on pregnant and postpartum women which provides that a pregnant prisoners shall be transported in the least restrictive way possible consistent with legitimate security reasons. Specifically, the protocol shall provide:

Lonnie Moore

a. The Defendants shall use no restraints on any woman in labor, during delivery, or in recovery immediately after delivery, and

April 4, 1997

COMPLIANCE: When medical staff notes on the trip ticket
that the female inmate is either in the third trimester of pregnancy, or in labor, the Director of Transcor (the transportation unit) ensures that no restraints are used on the traveling inmate. After delivery, when the inmate has been medically cleared, restraint use is resumed. A memorandum that outlines these directions has been distributed, posted, and read in roll call to all officers. See memorandum numbered 18-A attached to the report dated June 6, 1997.

b. During the last trimester of pregnancy up until labor, the Defendants shall use no restraints when transporting a pregnant woman prisoner unless the woman has demonstrated a history of assaultive behavior or has escaped from a correctional facility, in which case, only handcuffs shall be used.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 1 of6

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" stale how achieved and attach documentation

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

19. The Defendants shall provide diagnostic

Joyce Mills-

evaluations for women prisoners similar to those currently provided for men in the Reception and Diagnostic Unit at CTF to determine women prisoners' needs, interests,

Allen, Reception and Diagnostic, Program Manager

and requirements for increased programs and

opportunities in education and vocation. The

procedure for the needs assessment shall be

done by an approved scientific method. These

evaluations shall be completed in a manner

and time frame equivalent to the males in the

diagnostic unit, but shall not exceed 120 days

from the date of the female prisoner's transfer

to CTF. The evaluations shall include

educational and vocational testing. The

Defendants shall provide women with the

appropriate available programming called for

by this evaluation within 30 days of completion

of the diagnostic evaluation.

December 8, 1998

COMPLIANCE: The female inmates who meet the
requirements of diagnostic evaluation have been identified. Diagnostic studies have been completed on the female inmates of this facility during the last month in accordance with the mandates of this order. In addition, there was a request that was made by Case Management Services Director, Ed Walsh, that all female diagnostic studies be suspended pending the movement of convicted female inmates to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoner* of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

20.

The Defendants shall coordinate the

Mance Langham

scheduling of academic educational

classes, higher education classes, and

vocational training for women in such a

manner as to maximize women prisoners'

participation in as many areas as possible.

March 24, 1997

COMPLIANCE: All academic and vocational classes are
scheduled to provide a minimum of three hours of instniction five days a week from 8:00-11:00am and 12-3:00pm. See attachment 20-A of report dated 4/7/97. A memorandum has been distributed instructing all services to be scheduled before or after educational classes. See attached memorandum 20-B of report dated 11/10/97.

22. The Defendants shall develop and

Mance Langham

implement quality assurance programs for

monitoring program delivery to ensure the

continued provision of equal and adequate

education and vocation programs to

women prisoners.

May 31, 1997

COMPLIANCE: A quality assurance evaluation system
was developed by CCA for another program. The evaluation form was revised and adapted as our quality assurance tool for educational and vocational programs. The Principal conducts the assurance evaluations bi-monthly.
page 2 of6

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 3 of6

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCAAVardea'i Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

!

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

23.

The Defendants shall ensure that women prisoners are escorted to and arrive at

Charles Howard

educational and vocational programs in a timely

manner as scheduled in a manner that does not

prevent the programming staff from performing

any of their duties.

March 16, 1997

25.

The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a range of academic education

ManceLangham

programs that is equivalent to the range of

academic programs provided to male prisoners

at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The new fingerprint-controlled elevator
system allows officers to control elevator movement and efficiently escort inmates to the education department and vocational programs in a timely manner.
COMPLIANCE: Women prisoners at CTF are provided the
same educational programs that are offered at the Lorton facilities i.e. ABE, GED, and Life Skills See attachment 20-A of 4/7/94 report.

26. Women prisoners at CTF shall be provided with ManceLangham
the opportunity for full-time (three hours per day, five days per week at CTF) basic education to include ABE, GED, and Special Education classes.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Women prisoners at CTF are provided full
time access to three educational classes: ABE, GED, and Life Skills. See class schedule attachment 20-A of the 4/7/97 report. Low functioning inmates are provided special instruction in smaller groups.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 4 of 6

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden'* Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

!

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

27. Women prisoners at CTF shall have access Mance Langham
to on-site higher education programs which shall include a four years B.A. and/or B.S. degree program, and A. A. degree program, and pre-college program. At a minimum, bachelor programs shall be offered in one area of study, and associate programs in two different areas of study leading to a degree. Defendants shall comply with the pre-college requirement of this provision within 90 days.

January 19, 1998

COMPLIANCE: On December IS, 1997 the University of
the District of Columbia return the approved contract. Classes began on January 19, 1998. A Bachelor of Arts program in Urban Studies and two Associate of Arts programs are now offered to the women. Additionally, a precollege program, consisting of Math and English, is offered to the female inmates

28. The Defendants shall offer prisoners

Mance Langham

financial arrangements for these education

programs that are the same as those

arrangements available to similarly situated

male prisoners.

January 19, 1998

COMPLIANCE: The contract with UDC will provide
college courses at no cost to women prisoners. See attachment 27-A of 4/7/97 report.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

29. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall

John Henderson

provide appropriate substitute teachers or

instructors during absences of regular

teachers or instructors of more than three

working days. The provision of a substitute

teacher or instructor shall not result in

jjitcreasing the class size beyond acceptable

community standards for a period of time

exceeding IS consecutive school days.

COMPLETION DATE
April 11, 1997

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation
COMPLIANCE: A certified teacher has been designated
to cover teacher absences. See attachment 29-A of 5/7/97 report.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 5 of6

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden'i Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners or DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" slate reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" stale how achieved and attach documentation

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

1
30. Defendants shall provide women prisoners Mance Langham at CTF with a range of vocational education programs that is equivalent to the range of vocational education programs provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.

September 30, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Women prisoners at CTF, in all custody
levels, are presently provided with four vocational programs: Computer Literacy (6 months), Graphic Arts (12 months), Commercial Cleaning (4 months) and Interior Renovation. The Interior Renovation program began on September 30, 1997.

31.

Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with two prevocational programs

Mance Langham

each to be at least six weeks in duration.

Prevocational programs include those

courses which teach personal development

skills, living skills, and/or employment

skills such as Employment Techniques,

Awareness and Preparation (ETAP) and

Life Skills.

March 26, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Prevocational skills are provided in the
Life Skills and ETAP classes. The classes are held three hours daily, five days a week. The programs include modules in personal development skills, living skills, and employability skills. See attachment 31-A of report dated June 7, 1997

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Unnic Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

Defendants shall provide women prisoners Mance Langham 32. at CTF with a minimum of four vocational
education programs, including the one program currently in place (Docutech). These programs shall be available to female prisoners of all custody levels. A vocational education program is any program of 12 to 24 months in duration that teaches employable skills and contains both a classroom component and an onthe-job-training component. Two programs shall be operative within 120 days of the entry of this Order.

September 30,1997

COMPLIANCE: Women prisoners at CTF, in all custody
levels, are presently provided with four vocational programs: Computer Literacy (6 months), Graphic Arts (12 months), Commercial Cleaning (4 months) and Interior Renovation. The Interior Renovation program began on September 30, 1997.

33. Defendants shall provide women prisoners Mance Langham April 31,

at CTF with at least one apprenticeship

1998

programs as defined by Department Order.

NON-COMPLIANCE: There is no accredited apprenticeship
program available to the female inmates. On March 3, 1998, the DC Apprenticeship Council acknowledged in writing that a copy of the standards were received and were being reviewed. The Director of the Council assured CCA's Principal that the review should be complete by March 31, 1998.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Unnic Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

34 All prevocalional programs, vocational

Mance Langham

programs, and apprenticeships added for

women prisoners at CTF shall have the

potential for providing women with job

skills marketable in the local labor market.

|An important consideration in the

(defendants' selection of programs shall be

the wage-earning capacity upon

completion of the program.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The current pre-vocational and
vocational programs implemented provide the female inmates with computer, printing, interviewing, and marketability skills that are valuable in the local job market. The orientation stage of these programs emphasize the value of these skills in the job market.

Defendants shall conduct affirmative

Mance Langham

35. outreach to women during the enrollment

period for vocational training. This

outreach shall entail DCDC staff meeting

with women at least one month before the

deadline for program enrollment to inform

the women that the new programs are

available and to offer a full description of

the available programs and any applicable

criteria for participation.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Alternative outreach services for
women are provided during orientation and initial program enrollment by the Academic Counselor. A pamphlet which includes specific programs is given to each female to assist the selection of a new program after completion of the program. See attachment(s) 3S-A of April 7, 1997 report.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden'i Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnic Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

Defendants shall ensure that all contractual John Henderson 36. programs used to provide services to
women prisoners are compatible with and fulfill the provisions of this Order.
1

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: All contractual programs receive a legal
review from CCA's Legal Affairs office. Also contracts are cleared by the Contract Monitor of the Department of Corrections, prior to approval.

page 6 of6

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 1 of 3

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Wardea'i Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Louie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

51. jtVithin 90 days, the Defendants shall hire a Marvin Voss qualified air balancing contractor to service the CTF air handling system so that it provides an acceptable level of air quality to all areas of the facility inhabited by prisoners.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: As reported in previous reports, air
balancing was done by the Department of Corrections in the past however, CCA has hired a private contractor to rebalance the air system at CTF. Due to structural changes in the facility, the contractors have been recalled to repair and upgrade the air handling system.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoner! of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

52. In the event that the air balancing and

Marvin Voss

other recent repairs to the heating system at

CTF fail to maintain a minimum cell

temperature of 65 degrees F in every cell,

measured at the perimeter

Vern Alford/John

wall, the Defendants shall immediately:

Henderson

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The temperature in the cells have not
fallen below 65 degrees during this period. In the event of that occurrence, the Assistant Warden will provide additional clothing and blankets and ensure that inmates are not housed in end cells.

1 a. cease housing women in the end cells of each tier;

Cross/Henderson

b. provide each woman prisoner with two extra blankets, two pairs of thermal underwear, and two pairs of wool socks;

Marvin Voss

c. explore means of insulating or heating the perimeter walls of the cells; and

d. report back to the Court.

Means of insulating or heating the perimeter walls have been explored, however, insulating the walls would make the rooms smaller and violate safety regulations and heating the walls would violate fire regulations. Therefore, we are currently unable to develop a feasible plan. A new strategy will be devised if air rebalancing does not preclude the need to modify the walls.
Areportwill be forwarded to the Court on April 16, 1998.

53. The Defendants shall develop and implement an effective rodent prevention program.

Linda Wall

April 23, 1997

COMPLIANCE: A contract with the Orkin Chemical
Company has been negotiated and initiated. The contract includes a monthly rodent prevention plan. See attachment 53-A of May 7, 1997 report.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 2 of 3

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden'i Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" stale how achieved and attach documentation

PLANNED ACTUAL

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

I
54. ; Effective immediately, the Defendants shall Larry Colbert
ensure that all housing units at CTF are issued a timely, adequate and appropriate amount of cleaning supplies.

April 30, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The cleaning supply is sufficiently
stocked and PortionPac has instructed the inmates on the proper use of the materials. The supply of materials is monitored and distributed to the housing units on a bi-weekly basis.

55. The Defendants shall use cart liners or
disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry between CTF and the Jail.

Linda Wall

April 7, 1997

COMPLIANCE: A linen service agreement was signed
between CTF and Sterling Cleaners on April 4, 1997 and service began on April 7, 1997. CTF is considering starting its own laundry service and has made a number of trial runs of the equipment. The Facility has ordered washable laundry bags for transporting inmate clothing which should arrive by the end of May.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Loanie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

56. Effective immediately, the Defendants at

Vern Alford

CTF shall monitor the food temperature

and delivery times of all food, including

special diet meals, delivered to the satellite

kitchen.

i

December 1, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Food temperatures are manually
monitored by the culinary officers who use food thermometers and randomly select the trays to sample at each meal time. Delivery times will be monitored by the correctional officers who receive the food on the units. A tracking form has been developed by ARAMARK that monitors the time and temperature of food delivery. See attachment #56-A of report dated April 9,1998.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

page 3 of 3

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden'i Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoner! of DCDC v. D. G . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Louie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" stale reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

PLANNED ACTUAL

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL BEALTH

57.

The Defendants shall promulgate and

Marvin Voss

follow a written preventive maintenance

plan for the CTF that includes

maintenance of structures, systems, and

equipment.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: As of January 26, 1998, CCA has
implemented the CHIEF system. MaixmoAdvantage, which is a part of the CHIEF system, generates the preventive maintenance plan for the entire facility.

58.

The Defendants shall ensure that the

Marvin Voss

correctional officers inspect all plumbing

fixtures that requires repair will be

reported immediately upon discovery,

and repaired in a timely manner. The

Defendants shall maintain logs

demonstrating compliance with this

requirement.

November 24,1997

COMPLIANCE: The post order dated March 6, 1998 for
the housing unit officer instructs officers to record plumbing problems in the maintenance log book. (See attachment #58 of report dated 4/9/97.) Maintenance procedures require a daily review of the maintenance log book on each housing unit by maintenance personnel.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden'i Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonaic Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

59.

Two times per year, the Defendants shall Linda Wall

cause the District of Columbia DCRA to

conduct inspections of the CTF for

compliance with the requirements of

environmental sanitation, maintenance

and food service delivery. Within 30

l days of each inspection, the Warden of CTF shall obtain the DCRA findings.

The Warden shall repair, clean, or

otherwise remedy any unsanitary,

unsound, or unsafe practice or condition

identified by DCRA as soon as feasible

but in no event later than 30 days

following the receipt of the DCRA report.

May 29, 1997

NON-COMPLIANCE: The DCRA inspection was conducted
on October 14, IS, and 16, 1997. The facility received a rating score of 92%. (See attached memorandum 59-A of report dated November 10, 1997.) The official report from DCRA has been received. Abatements have been indicated and thereby scheduled to be completed. The completion date of any abatements will be scheduled for May 29, 1998.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

page I of 1
INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: L o u i e Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: April 9,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

!

V. FIRE SAFETY

65. The Defendants shall conduct and

Vern Alford

document mandatory semi-annual training

on fire safety procedures for all

correctional officers.

June 18, 1998

NON-COMPLIANCE: CCA completed its pre-service training
for new hires in January 1998. Semi-annual inservice training for currently hired correctional officers including fire prevention procedures has not begun but will be scheduled to begin within 90 days.

Office of OK Chid Cltuificaiioa u 4 Parak

Government of the Duma of Columbia DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Detention Facility 190] D Street. S.E. Washington. D.C. 20003

Attachment No. 8B (Page 1 of 3)

March 57, 1998

MEMORAND—UM 1/7 It
TO ' Actintf Depuuttyy^Aajjrden for Prograas

FROM i Carl L. Mhita Chiaf Case Management

SUBJECT}

Minutes of the Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee (IBAC) on March E<», 1998, at li30 p.m. on the second floor

PRESENTS

Ms. Violet Hicks, Warden's Office, Mrs. Gloria Thaxton, Compliance Monitor, Deputy warden, Ms. Joyce Jones, Support Services, Mr. Hitt, Material Handling Foreman, Mr. Nelson, Canteen, and Case Manageaent Carl White

ABSENTi

Representative(s) from Operations, and Mr. Edward Garner, Law Librarian

Inaate Population
Allen Graves, DCDC* 171-938, Southwest Three, Call »3 and Antoinette Queen, DCOC«-821-4S8, Southwast One, Cell #11, Inaata GiIfredo Lopez* DCDC# 268-588 absent due to Court appointment, Southwast Three.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Mr. Carl L. White Mho presented the correctional staff to the I6AC.

Attachemnt No. 8B (Page 3 of 3> Page 2 of 3 not disclosed
The eeeting Mas adiourned at approximately 8:30 p.*. April 28, 1998, is the next scheduled Meeting on the second floor in the Case Management Unit at li30 p.*. Submitted for the record and your information. CU/mah cct Hs. Violet Hicks
Mr. EdMard Garner Hs. Gloria Thaxton 1BAC

ARAM/ nK CORRECTIONAL SER^CES

£1 A.

6 O7

Of&CEESQQNATUtX

UMJ-nn*. '

7NMXUGS

VEDATUNIT*

~*£ALnAYVEMIFICAnONSHEET E-_
mar-

AMAMKSVFEtVBOmSlGN. UNAMTOFTKEMSnaUTURE
I I

T&EALMEA1S

9*

•• v

'AW 9»

• f

P b

CtMMTMAaLONCHES*

LSNA
OFFKEM.'SSKHA

 
 Women Prisoners/ DC v. DC

Office of Compliance and Accreditation

IB • •

•• • • •

• • • • • • •» i • • • • • •• • • • •

PC-DC-011-020

Government of the District of Columbia

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

9501 Furnace Road

Lorton, Virginia 22199

May 2 9 , 1 9 9 8
Lisa J. Stevenson, Esquire Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, D. C. 20044-7566

FILED
JUN 2 2 1998
NANGY MHI CI. .. in I i ,iwION, OiRX
U.S, DISTRICT COURT

RE!

iscners of the District of

v. pis La Department of Oor lections

CiivviiTl Action No. 93-2052

Dear Ms. Stevenson:

Enclosed is the April 1998, updated monthly report which

responds to the United States District Court's Order dated

June 16, 1997, regarding the Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C.

law suit.

Sincerely,

Gloria D. Thaxton Senior Compliance Monitor
Enclosures cc: Brenda V. Smith, Esquire, National Women's Law Center
Maria Amato, Assistant Corporation Counsel Regina Gilmore, Contract Monitor Judy Kleiman, Executive Compliance Officer File GDT/gdt

IDPS-838C

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: office of Policies and
L E A D PERSON: Ronald J Mcciam
Chief. Office of Policies * Procedures

TCLEmONE: (202)673-7410

INITIATIVE: wt«PH—entfpcnc ».DC CMArtMH-NB
DATE Or UPDATE: May 6. 1991

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST INMATES

STATUS: Compliance or Non-CompHaM» If O>s*phaa«c slate bow achieved end attached aapporting docanMataafcm,ifany. If NoM-COMplitMC< itltO ICMM, fBHWdy, Hid MW CORkfHCtiOvl OMO.

Within 60 diys. the Defendants d u l l write md follow • Department Order prohibiting sexual miiconduct against innulei involving Diitrict of Cohimbii Department of Correctioaa ( D C D Q eaiployeea and women priaonen. The DefendanU shall poat and circulate the Department Order ia accordance with departmental policy.

Betty Green

3/20795 (10/15/97 Rev.)

Compliance: D O 3350J B . "Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates* dated 10/15/97 has been distributed to D C D C employees. All employees haw signed Actaiowleugmutl Receipt for D O 335O.2B. Sexual Misconduct framing commenced February. 1991. The D O . has been posted in all iamate bossing units.

Under *1« policy the DCDC baa the oWiption to take appropriate etept to prevent and remedy sexual miaconduct aiainat inmatea committed by in own employeea.

Betty Green

3/2W95

ConpHaaet. Contamed m DO 335O.2B Staff leftether M W a | b e p * 2/4maeam|iHaacewMilkeDepartnMtil Order dated 10/15797.

Penaltiu for prohibited conduct under the policy shall be determined by the Director of the DCDC within 30 daya.

Betty Green

3/20/95

Compliance Contained Is DO 3350 2B. Penalties for prohibited conduct may be found at Attachment I of the Department Order, also references DPM Section 1601.2.

Page I of I

Page One

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

bE PARTMENT/OFFICE: D. C. D e t e n t i o n F a c i l i t y

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoner* of DCDC v . D. C. , e t a l .

LEAD PERSON: Mario Randle Acting Warden

TELEPHONE: 673-6201

Civil Action No. 93-2052 DATE OF UPDATE:

May 1, 1 9 9 8

MAJOR TASK

niHwnu
MntaoM/AoiMcr

OONTLBTION DAT1

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Noncompliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion. IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation.

4.
Ba.
8b.

Within 60 days, the Defendants ahall write and follow a Department Order prohibiting aexual harassment Involving Dlatrlct of Columbia Department of Corrections employees and women prisoners. The Defendants shall post and circulate the Department Order in accordance with departmental policy.

Shirley Williams

Women prisoners shall be able to report Instances of sexual harassment through the existing Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) specified In Department Order 4030.ID.
The Defendants shall strictly adhere to the Inmate Grievance Procedure and shall establish an Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee (IGAC) as required by Section VII(c) of Department Order 4030.Id.

12/93

3/95

Compliant. Poat Order was amended to reflect prohibition against sexual harassment/Misconduct. See attachment to report dated 5/7/98.

Compliant. Women Inmates are able to make confidential reports of sexual Misconduct via the IGP process. As of 5/14/98 there were 73 female Inmates housed at CDF. Further, woman inmates can stake reports via the 24-hour telephone hot line, the number of which is posted In at least two areas In all housing units along with Department Order 3350.2B.
Compliance: An IGAC meeting was held on 3/24/98. The next Meeting Is scheduled for 4/24/98. IGP meeting minutes are attached.

Page Two
C3

v.

CM

DIVJUHMKMT/OTrXCE: D. C. D*t*ntion raei.ll.ty

XMITIATTVS: Hoama t r l t o n u * of DCSC v . P. C . , « t a l .

Cl-rU AotloD Ho. 93-2052

XXM) PBRSOM: Mario ftandla Acting Waxdan

DATE OF UPDATB: May 7 , 1998

MAJOR TASK

COMVLETIOH DAM

nI t*rl.3-Hfa<

9a.

Womn prfiOMn dull th» b* akk to mbmk IOPI S h i r l a y

or cnapUioU concmbf KXMI mhovudact in toy

fun. an»y «r °n wiWnfto«ny OCDC or«>Uy«*.

12/93

3/15

Comf*Ml. WanwnpilfantnamlrMkueladin SmnM Mboonduel Mrthfl en howtorapart Inddanta ofMnuai irtMonduot hdodlnfl WP form, wrifcp or oral raportlng to any OCDC wmifayw.

9b.

DCDC m^o>w« MUK ofanh 4M iofcroaka^ in

uiftfal to the Winlcn of*. OriHty ««Ma 14 koun

of nccixinc A* brfimiuliiMl

o

9C.

Wamm prlunoi «»y tbe wbai* KSFi or

n m i«f«Mnta«\« v>ft*IOAC.

,'n

: Each anvloyaa thaireportbi MtV
VrOPNf\ Of OlnM CflM WQ OUMIWftWlnRft WpCfl Of
•toh IneUirt to Iw W « * n H OMO* Chtofand tw Motor bafbm «w md •( hMwr wnk day.

p

I flfo OCMOOQ In

MaWortanMloii friktog *ach Friday l u t eornfMnl* of

aamial mtoomduet imy ata ba aubmMtd to pitoenar

rapnaanMhiaa «f Iw IOAC.

-t,
Page Three

DEfAXTMBNT/orprcB: D. C. Detention raolllty

INITIAT1VB: S/OBMII »rls«naca •* DCDC v. 0. C., at aX. Civil Action Mo. 13-2051

LEAD PBASON: Marie Handle A=tlng tfarC«r.

nLBMOME: 6T3-3201

DATS or WDATB: Kay 7, 1 M B

MAJOR TASK

HBSPOHSiaU rmaoM/AMMcr

COMPLBTIOW OATI MANNED ACTUAL

STA7US: Cavpllap.ce or Hsn-sonpllance
If "Nor-csopllar.ce" state reascnr ranedy, tr.d new completion. IF "Coapllance" state hsv achieved and attish doevnentatien.

.. „»»••• i.-,..«,..-„

13.

Tht Identity of the target af the Shirley

alleged sexual harassment shall

Kllliasu

bi cavaalad only tc thoca vivo

have an lMedlata naad to xnav,

Including tha alleged hara*ser(e:-

oc retaliator(s) and any

witnesses. All pirtlaa contacted

in tha soursa of an Investigation

will ba advised that any

ratallitlon, reprisal, or breach

of confidentiality It a separata

actionable offense aa provided in

tha schedule of penalties.

12/M

3/93

Soapliar.ce as contained In CO 3J30.2B,
employees are advlaad In O hojrs ar.aual ln-aerviea training that such acts are strictly prohibited by all eoployeis for effanses contained In tha CO.

14.

Any pdaonar who la diatatlsfled

Shirley

vith any lrtvectlgatlon or

Kllllana

raaelution of an allegatlor. of

sexual haraaaacnt nay appeal to

tha Director ot "he DCCC within

15 days of receiving written

notice of the outeone of tha

lnvastlgatlon.

3/95

Coispllant: Tha innate Is advised of
appeal rights ar.d pzocadurea It dissatisfied with outcoae of any Investigation es specified In 3350. IB. VII, K. Iimates are advised of their appeal right* and procedures in the
Sexual Mlseond-jet Training. They have a right to appeal It. If they are dissatisfied with the outeone of any investigation thay are alfarded the
right to appeal.

in

IS.

Tha Department ahall conduct

Shirley

mandatory training using

ffilUans

certified trainers on sexual

•lsoor.duct for all SC3C enployasa. A consultant tcom tha

National Institute of Corrections

•;:>IC|, actually agreed jpo.i by

tha parties, shall develop the

training clan and r.atarlal. A

"ear-lflad trairer' Is defined ai

any person xho has eorplattd the

"Trair.-the-Tr»lrnt" course devalopcd oy the NIC consultant.

Hit

Compliant. Starting Hi* employees not

trsined are on WIOC, AVfO», or

Conpensatocy Leave.

Facility

DC DOC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: D. C. Detention

INITIATIVE: AUDIT REMEDIAL PLAN "Women Prisoners v. D.C. CA 93-2052.

LEAD PERSON: Mario Randle Acting Warden
MAJOR TASK

TELEPHONE: 673-8201

MSPOHSIBU PIRSOH/AOtMCr

COMPLETION DATE
PLANNED ACTUAL

DATE OF UPDATE: May 7, 1998

16.

Commencing no later than August 30,1995, the Department shall conduct mandatory training on sexual harassment using certified trainers for all women prisoners currently in the DCDC. A consultant from the National Institute of Corrections (NICX mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall develop the training plan and materials which will instruct women prisoners on the Department Order on sexual misconduct and how to recognize and report sexual harassment Training sessions Tor women prisoners on sexual harassment shall be provided within a reasonable tome upon a woman's entry in the D.C. DOC.

Shirley HI 1 Hams

1994

Compliant. Mandatory training In sexual misconduct foe all females Is conducted on a weekly basis. Tracking Is maintained via a sign-In sheet and by torms designed by the monitors of this decree, which are signed by the inmate and maintained In the Institutional folder. Attendance logs are maintained by the trainer and the Chief Case Managers.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

to

UJJ

o

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: Trailing Academy

INITIATIVE: W M I M Prha a f D C P C y . B . C CM! Artie* Nn. 93-2*52

L E A D PERSON: J. A. Wood. MA. LPC Actug Tnming AdnUstmnr

TELEPHONE: (703)643-0221

DATE OV UPDATE: May 7,1991

f

STATUS: ComplMoearNaa-CanpBuce

10 Csl

If ConpBsnce ttale how acUewedrnd attached

cn ;

COMPLETION DATE

•nppoite^ docmnCaiiMi if aoy.

RESPONSIBLE

If Non-ceaplhoce jtate ICMOD, nnedy, a d new

MAJOR TASK

PERSON/AGENCY

PLANNED

ACTUAL

completkai date.

is.
CD O> I u>
0 >-
UJ in

I. SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AOAINST INMATES

The Dsputmat dnH ccnokctnaodatofy baoiag usmg certified trainen m Mocaal miKOoductfbraUDCDCeaaployvet. A consultant fan the National inatftnte of Conectioni (NIC), nutaaUy agreed upon by (he patiei, Aafl develop the tnhkif planaadnalrriaL A"coriiriedvaiBer"ls defined u aay penon who ha* camplded the "TraaHhe-Tntnai" ooune developed by Ike NIC conrakant

PATRICIA ROBERTS

2/4/9t

CoaopHance. Training began «/22/95. Aonmlnuss staffrefleshertraining began 2/3/97 and. Training was tnrnnnaled<»t/26797. However, aemal niicavkct has bean provided on on ongoing basis daring mservices, bask canectt»nl training, contract new hires and volunteers. Effective February 4,5,6,199S. DOC
itnUagwucmducted. Sexual Mbeonduct Against Inmatet D.0.3350Jb, dincttve dated Oetobar IS, 1997 cancels D . 0 . 3 3 5 0 4 A dated May 15,1995.

a. Taetninbtgahall include edocatkm eooceniDg lbs Defendants' poEciei RganliDg reporting, aivetrigatim. mi preventing sexusl hw»fifff"i*, and ftieconaequcacei for viohtkig my policy coacemng sexual harasMncot; aid

PATRICIA ROBEDRTS •730/95

7/1191

Compliance. Ongoing

training which includes

. policies, raf ting, favotjgatJng, preveattng

sexoal hansanent, sexnal miiconduct, and

consequences tor violating policy.

in o
3 •!
to
en
>-
CO

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

D E P A R T M B n W f f l C t : Training Academy

IMTIATIVE: CM1 Aetfea No. 97-2052

L E A D PEKSOFf: J. A. Wood, MA, LPC Acting Training AdnuuHntor

TELKPHONK: 703/643-0221

DATE OP UPDATE: I f a y T . l f M

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE n»SON/AGENCV

COMPLBITONDATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: ComplkncaorNiiB-Ccnplknoe
npporting docunaiMiaa, if my
I f NOB-WMHplMMI

I. SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST INMATES

15.

». AM ittff who woik widi female

PATRICIA ROBERTS 10/97

priwwen dull bo tnkied by certified

trainers within nx nontht, conuiencing no

faderfanAufait 30,1995. After the initial

inking of *MO. thefemininewfll bo (nckided

in ike pre-service Maiag of al rtatt.

Annual retraifling dull be conducted to

refresh ita/Ton the Dcputmeat Order

rejftfdBg iflscuH niscoidnci

1/91

CamtOmuK Altar tie Mlfcl InaWng m eked In Item I I ,

IteaUprMEntee

conducted to refivah

jtarTtohtciMdebwt not United to the fblowng:

|NBpO90^ pCNBfi v6nUD0OSt pnVCOQTOa, 4fttffllwHntFM,
f^j^Miia^ —mil iBvkrW ttd mfliwicw.

c. Whhia one year, i wtakkig wiA female prisoner* dull receive a forty-how traniag program on working withfemaleofleukn. Aseni-auul, enhancement training on special inuet rotated to woddag whh female offinden will be offered to selected employees.

PATRICIA ROBERTS

10/97

Hon-compliance. Tlw National Inttitiile of CDrrectiou (NIC) haa contacted (heTnmingAdmkutntor to provide technical asiisCanoe • otmg NIC Women OffendenLeiMDPlan,94-SS0l. The Training Adniniatntar witt be working with NIC over the next two months in developng the tenon plan and tminiig the trainers regarding thb matte*.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: Training Academy
LEAD PERSON: J. A. Wood, MA, LPC Acting Training Administrator

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C Civil Action No. 93-2052

TELEPHONE: (703) 643-0228

DATE OF UPDATE : May 7,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-Compliance If Compliance state how achieved and attached supporting documentation, if any. If Non-compliance state reason, remedy, and new completion date.

I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT MISCONDUCT AGAINST INMATES

16.

Commencing no later man August 30,

Compliance: Effective February 4, 5, and 6, 1998,

1995, die Department shall conduct

PATRICIA ROBERTS 8/30/95

2/4/98

sexual misconduct mass training for

mandatory training on sexual

supervisors/managers occurred. Training on the new

Harassment using certified trainers for all

Department Order for female inmates begun March 2,

women prisoners currently in the DCDC.

1998. Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates, D.O.

A consultant from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed

33350.2B, directive dated October 15, 1997 cancels D.O. 3350.2A dated May 15, 1995.

upon by the parties, shall develop the

training plan and materials which will

instruct women prisoners on the

Sexual Misconduct mass training D.O. 335O.2B for all

Department Order on sexual misconduct

employees begun March 2,1998. A second mass

and how to recognize and report sexual

training D.O. 3350.2B will begin on June 1,1998

harassment Training sessions for

through June 26, 1998.

women prisoners on sexual harassment shall be provided within a reasonable

This training also continues to be offered as a part of the

time upon a woman's entry in the D.C.

ongoing 40 hour inservice training.

Department of Corrections.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation

L SexMal HarassoMBt

4.

Within 60 days, the Defendants shall write

Toni Perry/ John

and follow a Department Order prohibiting Henderson

sexual harassment involving District of

Columbia Department of Corrections

(DCDC) employees and women prisoners.

The Defendants shall post and circulate the

Department Order in accordance with

departmental policy.

February 2, 1998

COMPLIANCE:
CCA Policy 14-100. Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates, has been revised to reflect changes in the new Department Order. The policy has been distributed to all staff and the signed receipts were given to the Sexual Misconduct Coordinator, Toni Perry, and posted in all male and female housing units. See attachment #4-A of report dated 2/7/98.

8.

Women prisoners shall be able to report

Lonnie Moore

instances of ferial harassment through the

existing Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP)

as specified in Department Order 4030.1D.

The Defendants shall strictly adhere to the

Inmate Grievance Procedure and shall

establish an Inmate Grievance Advisory

Committee (IGAC) as required by Section

VD(c) of Department Order 4030.1D.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The women prisoners are able to
report instances of sexual harassment through CCA Policy 14-5, Inmate Grievance Procedures. See attachment 8-A of report dated 11/10/97. The inmate grievance committee meeting for the month of April was held on April 30, 1998. See attachment #8B of report dated 5/11/98.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation

9.

Women prisoners shall also be able to

Lonnie Moore

submit IGP's or complaints concerning

sexual harassment in any form, orally or in

writing, to any DCDC employee, who must

submit the information, in writing, to the

Warden of the facility within 24 hours or

receiving the information. Women prisoners

may also submit IGP's or complaints to

prisoner representative to the IGAC.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE:
All staff have been given a briefing of CCA/CTF Facility Policy 14-100, dated January IS, 1997, in pre-service training. Facility Policy 14-100 has been revised to reflect the changes in the new Department Order and will be used during all in-service trainings. Both versions of the policy advise all staff to report all complaints to the Warden by the end of his/her shift. Inmates can report complaints to the Sexual Misconduct Hotline which was installed in October 1997.

As of the date of this report, there are a total of 198 female inmates in this institution.

10. The Defendants shall establish a confidential Lonnie Moore
hotline, under the supervision of the Director of die DCDC, through which women prisoners can report allegation s of sexual harassment.

October 21, 1997

COMPLIANCE:
The Sexual Misconduct Hotline has been in opeation prior to the stated completion date however, the completion date is the date the first call was received on the line. The Hotline is monitored by CCA's Sexual Misconduct Coordinator, Toni Perry.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

11. Failure of an employee to report any

Lonnie Moore

allegation of sexual misconduct or any facts

and circumstances which would lead a

reasonable employee to believe that sexual

misconduct is occurring or has occurred

shall subject the employee to discipline.

COMPLETION DATE
March 16, 1997

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation
COMPLIANCE: All staff have been given a briefing of
CCA/CTF Facility Policy 14-100, dated January 15, 1997, in pre-service training. There has been no discovered failure of any employee to . report sexual misconduct.

12. Upon receipt of any allegation of an act of

Lonnie Moore

unwelcome sexual intercourse or any

allegation of unwelcome sexual touching,

the Defendants must notify the proper law

enforcement agency. The Defendants shall

communicate with the law enforcement

agency concerning the status of any

investigation. The Defendants must

periodically document the status of police

investigations. The occurrence of a police

investigation does not relieve the Defendants

of the duty to investigate.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: CCA will handle any allegation of sexual
misconduct through the procedures set forth in the CCA/ CTF Facility Policy 14-100, dated December 1,1997. The Command Center post order has been revised to include notifying MPD when an allegation is made. There are two outstanding investigations into allegations as of this date. Follow-up on these investigations will be conducted once a month by the Grievance Officer.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnle Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

13. The identity of the target of the alleged

Lonnie Moore

sexual harassment shall be revealed only to

those who have an immediate need to know,

including the alleged harasser(s) or

retaliatory) and any witnesses. All parties

contacted in the course of an investigation

will be advised that any retaliation, reprisal,

or breech of confidentiality is a separate

actionable offense as provided in the

schedule of penalties.

14. Any prisoner who is dissatisfied with any

Margaret Moore,

investigation or resolution of an allegation of Director, Dept. of

sexual harassment may appeal to die

Corrections

Director of the DCDC within IS days of

receiving decision.

COMPLETION DATE
March 16, 1997
March 16, 1997

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation
COMPLIANCE: The contracted investigators have been
instructed to inform all investigated parties of the penalties of reprisals. CCA/CTF Facility Policy addresses the issue of reprisals and all staff will be informed of the issue during training. Additionally, all new employees will be trained on CCA/CTF Facility Policy 14-100, dated December 1,1997, in pre-service training. In-service trainings began on February 9,1998.
COMPLIANCE: All inmates are informed, according to
CTF Facility Policy of their rights to appeal when they receive a decision. There have been no appeals for this reporting period.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

15. The Department shall conduct mandatory

Jeanette Boykins

training using certified trainers on sexual

misconduct for all DCDC employees. A

consultant from the National Institute of

Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon by

the parties, shall develop the training plan

and material. A "certified trainer" is defined

as any person who has completed the "Train-

the-Trainer" course developed by the NIC

consultant.

a. The training shall include education concerning the Defendants' policies regarding reporting, investigating, and preventing sexual harassment, and the consequences for violating any policy concerning sexual harassment; and

b. All staff who work with female prisoners shall be trained by certified trainers within six months commencing no later than August 30,1995. After the initial training of staff, the training will be included in the pre-service training of all staff. Annual retraining shall be conducted to refresh staff on the Department Order regarding sexual misconduct.

COMPLETION DATE

. STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation

January 30, 1998
January 30, 1998
March 6, 1998

COMPLIANCE:
The Training Manager for this facility has completed the Train-the-Trainers classes. All current staff have received training on sexual misconduct. Sexual Misconduct is included in the training plan for pre-service orientation.
a. The trainuig for sexual misconduct has been completed for all staff. The training addressed CCA Policy 14-100 which includes procedures for reporting, investigating and preventing sexual harassment, and the consequences for violating any policy concerning sexual harassment.
b. All staff have been trained by cerified trainers as of March 6,1998. Sexuaf Misconduct training is a required course in the pre-service curriculum. Annual refresher training will begin in June 1998.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

c. Within one year, selected employee* working with female prisoners shall receive a forty hour training program on working with female offenders. A semi-annual, enhancement training on special issues related to working with female offenders will be offered to selected employees.

Jeanette Boykins

16. Commencing no later than August 30,1995, Lonnie Moore
the Department shall conduct mandatory training on sexual harassment using certified trainers for all women prisoners currently in the DCDC. A consultant from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall develop the training plan and materials which will instruct women prisoners on the Department Order on sexual misconduct and how to recognize and report sexual harassment. Training sessions for women prisoners on sexual harassment shall be provided within a reasonable time upon a woman's entry in the D.C. Department of Corrections.

COMPLETION DATE
March 16, 1998
March 16, 1997

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation
c. The initial forty hours Working with Female Offenders training session was conducted on March 16-20, 1998.
The semi-annual special issues training are Domestic Violence which was conducted on March 23, 1998 and Rape Crisis which will be conducted on June 5, 1998. See staff attendance rosters attached to report dated May 11,1998.
COMPLIANCE:
The training for the women prisoners is generally conducted at the DC Jail. However, because there have been a number o f inmates who did not receive the training, Sexual Misconduct trainings are conducted in the C and D buildings weekly. Additionally, all male inmates have been given the same training by the seven certified trainers for this building.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners ofDCDC v. D. C et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnle Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

17. The Defendants shall make necessary

Marvin Voss

alterations at both die Correctional

Treatment Facility (CTF) and the Minimum

Security Annex (Annex) within 60 days to

ensure that women have privacy in their

living, sleeping and shower areas.

COMPLETION DATE
March 16, 1997

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation
COMPLIANCE: The female inmates have been given
authority to cover their windows to have privacy in their rooms. The coverings that are used can be of fabric, cardboard, or paper. Until an assessment can be made on die number of female inmates that will be housed, die installation of die Velcro strips and die fabric has been suspended.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

D E P A R T M E N T / O F F I C E : CCA/Warden's Office LEAD PERSON: Lonnle Moore

I N I T I A T I V E : Women Prisoners of D C D C v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED A C T U A L

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance I f "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and
new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach
documentation

I I . Obstetrical and Gynecological Care

18.

The Defendant* shall develop and implement Lonnie Moore

a protocol concerning restraints used on

pregnant and postpartum women which

provides that a pregnant prisoners shall be

transported in the least restrictive way

possible consistent with legitimate security

reasons. Specifically, the protocol shall

provide:

a. The Defendants shall use no restraints on any woman in labor, during delivery, or in recovery immediately after delivery; and

April 4, 1997

COMPLIANCE: When medical staff notes on the trip ticket
that the female inmate is either in the third trimester of pregnancy, or in labor, the Director of Transcor (the transportation unit) ensures that no restraints are used on the traveling inmate. After delivery, when the inmate has been medically cleared, restraint use is resumed. A memorandum that outlines these directions has been distributed, posted, and read in roll call to all officers. See memorandum numbered 18-A attached to the report dated June 6,1997.

b. During the last trimester of pregnancy up until labor, the Defendants shall use no restraints when transporting a pregnant woman prisoner unless the woman has demonstrated a history of assaultive behavior or has escaped from a correctional facility, in which case, only handcuffs shall be used.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. P. C et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

PLANNED ACTUAL

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

19. The Defendants shall provide diagnostic

Joyce Mills-

evaluations for women prisoners similar to those currently provided formen in the Reception sad Diagnostic Unit at CTF to determine women prisoners' needs, interests,

Allen, Reception and Diagnostic, Program Manager

and requirements for increased programs and

opportunities in education and vocation. The

procedure for die needs assessment shall be

done by an approved scientific method. These

evaluations shall be completed in •manner and

time frame equivalent to die males in the

diagnostic unit, but shall not exceed 120 days

from die date of die female prisoner's transfer

to CTF. The evaluations shall include

educational and vocational testing. The

Defendants shall provide women with die

appropriate available programming called for

by this evaluation within 30 days of completion

of the diagnostic evaluation.

December 8,1997

COMPLIANCE: The female inmates who meet the
requirements of diagnostic evaluation have been identified. Diagnostic studies have been completed on three female inmates of this facility during the month of April in accordance with the mandates of mis order.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

20. The Defendants shall coordinate the
scheduling of academic educational classes, higher education classes, and vocational training for women in such a manner as to maximize women prisoners' participation in as many areas as possible.

Mance Langham

March 24, 1997

COMPLIANCE: AH academic and vocational classes are
scheduled to provide a minimum of three hours of instruction five days a week from 8:00-11:00am and 12-3:00pm. See attachment 20-A of report dated 4/7/97. A memorandum has been distributed instructing all services to be scheduled before or after educational classes. See attached memorandum 20-B of report dated 11/10/97.

22. The Defendants shall develop and

Mance Langham

implement quality assurance programs for

monitoring program delivery to ensure the

continued provision of equal and adequate

education and vocation programs to

women prisoners.

May 31, 1997

COMPLIANCE: A quality assurance evaluation system
was developed by CCA for another program. The evaluation form was revised and adapted as our quality assurance tool for educational and vocational programs. The Principal conducts the assurance evaluations bi-monthly.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

PLANNED ACTUAL

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

23.

The Defendants shall ensure that women prisoners are escorted to and arrive at

Charles Howard

educational and vocational programs in a timely

manner as scheduled in a manner that does not

prevent the programming staff from performing

any of their duties.

March 16, 1997

The Defendants shall provide women prisoners 25. at CTF with a range of academic education

Mance Langham

programs that is equivalent to the range of

academic programs provided to male prisoners

at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The new fingerprint-controlled elevator
system allows officers to control elevator movement and efficiently escort inmates to the education department and vocational programs in a timely manner.
COMPLIANCE: Women prisoners at CTF are provided the
same educational programs that are offered at the Lorton facilities i.e. ABE, GED, and Life Skills See attachment 20-A of 4/7/94 report.

26. Women prisoners at CTF shall be provided with Mince Langham the opportunity for full-time (three hours per day, five days per week at CTF) basic education to include ABE, GED, and Special Education classes.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Women prisoners at CTF are provided full
time access to three educational classes: ABE, GED, and Life Skills. See class schedule attachment 20-A of the 4/7/97 report. Low functioning inmates are provided special instruction in smaller groups.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPAJITMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIV E: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

PLANNED ACTUAL

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

27.

Women prisoners at CTF shall have access to on-site higher education programs which

Mance Langham

shall include a four years B.A. and/or B.S.

degree program, and A.A. degree program,

and pre-college program. At a minimum,

bachelor programs shall be offered in one

area of study, and associate programs in

two different areas of study leading to a

degree. Defendants shall comply with the

pre-college requirement of this provision

within 90 days.

January 19, 1998

COMPLIANCE: On December 15,1997 the University of
the District of Columbia returned the approved contract. Classes began on January 19, 1998. A Bachelor of Arts program in Business Management and an Associate of Arts in Paralegal are now offered to all eligible women. English Composition is offered as a pre-college elective.

28. The Defendants shall offer prisoners

Mance Langham

financial arrangements for these education

programs that are the same as those

arrangements available to similarly situated

male prisoners.

January 19, 1998

COMPLIANCE: The contract with UDC will provide
college courses at no cost to women prisoners. See attachment 27-A of 4/7/97 report.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliancc If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

29. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall

John Henderson

provide appropriate substitute teachen or

instructors during absences of regular

teachers or instructors of more than three

working days. The provision of a substitute

teacher or instructor shall not result in

increasing the class size beyond acceptable

community standards for a period of tune

exceeding IS consecutive school days.

April 11, 1997

COMPLIANCE: A certified teacher has been designated
to cover teacher absences. See attachment 29-A of 5/7/97 report.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

PLANNED ACTUAL

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

30. Defendants shall provide women prisoners Mance Langham
at CTF with a range of vocational education programs that is equivalent to the range of vocational education programs provided to male prisoners at die Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.

September 30,1997

COMPLIANCE: Women prisoners at CTF, in all custody
levels, are presently provided with four vocational programs: Computer Literacy (6 months), Graphic Arts (12 months), Commercial Cleaning (4 months) and Interior Renovation. The Interior Renovation program began on September 30,1997.

31.

Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with two prevocational programs

each to be at least six weeks in duration.

Prevocational programs include those

courses which teach personal development

skills, living skills, and/or employment

skills such as Employment Techniques,

Awareness and Preparation (ETAP) and

Life Skills.

Mance Langham

March 26, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Prevocational skills are provided in the
Life Skills and ETAP classes. The classes are held three hours daily, five days a week. The programs include modules in personal development skills, living skills, and employability skills. See attachment 31-A of report dated June 7,1997.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11, 1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

Defendants shall provide women prisoners Mance Langham
32. at CTF with a minimum of four vocational
education programs, including the one program currently in place (Docutech). These programs shall be available to female prisoners of all custody levels. A vocational education program is any program of 12 to 24 months in duration mat teaches employable skills and contains both a classroom component and an on-thejob-training component Two programs shall be operative within 120 days of the entry of this Order.

September 30,1997

COMPLIANCE: Women prisoners at CTF, in all custody
levels, are presently provided with four vocational programs: Computer Literacy (6 months), Graphic Arts (12 months), Commercial Cleaning (4 months) and Interior Renovation. The Interior Renovation program began on September 30,1997.

33. Defendants shall provide women prisoners
at CTF with at least one apprenticeship programs as defined by Department Order.

Mance Langham June 15, 1998

NON-COMPLIANCE: There is no accredited apprenticeship
program available to the female inmates. On April 6,1998, CCA received the review of their proposal to the DC Apprenticeship Council. The Council did not approve the apprenticeship program. A meeting has been scheduled between the Apprenticeship Council, Corporation Counsel and CCA to address the denial.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11.1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

34 All prevocational programs, vocational

Mance Langham

programs, and apprenticeships added for

women prisoners at CTF shall have the

potential for providing women with job

skills marketable in the local labor market.

An important consideration in the

Defendants' selection of programs shall be

the wage-earning capacity upon completion

of the program.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The current pre-vocational and
vocational programs implemented provide the female inmates with computer, printing, interviewing, and marketability skills that are valuable in the local job market. The orientation stage of these programs emphasize the value of these skills in the job market. There is currently no apprenticeship program offered to any inmates in this facility.

Defendants shall conduct affirmative
35. outreach to women during the enrollment
period for vocational training. This outreach shall entail DCDC staff meeting with women at least one month before the deadline for program enrollment to inform the women that the new programs are available and to offer a full description of the available programs and any applicable

Mance Langham

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Alternative outreach services for
women are provided during orientation and initial program enrollment by the Academic Counselor. A pamphlet which includes specific programs is given to each female to assist the selection of a new program after completion of the program. See attachments) 3S-A of April 7, 1997 report.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. pr C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11, 1998

MAJOR TASK criteria for participation.

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

Defendants shall ensure that all contractual
36. programs used to provide services to
women prisoners are compatible with and fulfill the provisions of mis Order.

John Henderson

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: All contractual programs receive a legal
review from CCA's Legal Affairs office. Also contracts are cleared by the Contract Monitor of the Department of Corrections, prior to approval.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

51. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall hire • Marvin Voss
qualified air balancing contractor to service die CTF air handling system so that it provides an acceptable level of air quality to all areas of the facility inhabited by prisoners.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: As reported in previous reports, air
balancing was done by the Department of Corrections in the past however, CCA has hired a private contractor to rebalance the air system at CTF. Due to structural changes in the facility, the contractors have been recalled to repair and upgrade the air handling system.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

52. In the event that the air balancing and other Marvin Voss

recent repairs to the heating system at CTF

fail to maintain a minimum cell temperature

of 65 degrees F in every cell, measured at

the perimeter

Vern Alford/ John

wall, the Defendants shall immediately:

Henderson

a. cease housing women in the end cells of each tier;

Henderson

b. provide each woman prisoner with two extra blankets, two pairs of thermal underwear, and two pairs of wool socks;

Marvin Voss

March 16, 1997

NON-COMPLIANCE: The temperature in the cells have not
fallen below 65 degrees during this period.

a. In the event that the temperature falls below 65 degrees in the cells, the Assistant Warden for Operations will ensure that inmates are not housed in end cells.

b. In the event that the temperature falls below 65 degrees in the cells, the Assistant Warden for Operations will provide additional clothing and blankets.

c. explore means of insulating or heating the perimeter walls of the cells; and
d. report back to the Court.

c. As a test case, Precision Mechanical has insulated the inside of the cell walls on unit El A. An authorization for insulating all the end cells has been submitted to Corporate Office. A response is forthcoming. See attachment #52A (dated 11/97) of report dated May 11,1998.

d. A report of the temperatures in each cell is being constructed and will be submitted to the court on May 26,1998.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. p . C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11,1998

MAJOR TASK
53. The Defendants shall develop and implement an effective rodent prevention program.

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY
Linda Wall

COMPLETION DATE
April 23, 1997

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation
COMPLIANCE: A contract with the Orkin Chemical
Company has been negotiated and initiated. The contract includes a monthly rodent prevention plan. See attachment S3-A of May 7,1997 report.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

54.

Effective immediately, the Defendants shall Larry Colbert

ensure that all housing units at CTF are

issued a timely, adequate and appropriate

amount of cleaning supplies.

April 30, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The cleaning supply is sufficiently
stocked and PortionPac has instructed the inmates on the proper use of the materials. The supply of materials is monitored and distributed to the housing units on a bi-weekly basis. See attachment #52A of report dated 5/11/98.

55. The Defendants shall use cart liners or

Linda Wall

disposable or washable laundry bags to

transport laundry between CTF and the Jail.

April 7, 1997

COMPLIANCE: A linen service agreement was signed
between CTF and Sterling Cleaners on April 4, 1997 and service began on April 7,1997. CTF is considering starting its own laundry service and has made a number of trial runs of (he equipment. The Facility has received the washable laundry bags it ordered for transporting inmate clothing. Separate laundry carts are used to transport laundry.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

56. Effective immediately, the Defendants at

VernAlford

CTF shall monitor the food temperature and

delivery times of all food, including special

diet meals, delivered to the satellite kitchen.

December 1,1997

COMPLIANCE: Food temperatures are manually
monitored by the culinary officers who use food thermometers and randomly select the trays to sample at each meal time. Delivery times will be monitored by the correctional officers who receive the food on the units. A tracking form has been developed by ARAMARK that monitors the time and temperature of food delivery. See attachment #56-A of report dated May 11,1998.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

57.

The Defendants shall promulgate and

Marvin Voss

follow a written preventive maintenance

plan for the CTF that includes

maintenance of structures, systems, and

equipment.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: As of January 26, 1998, CCA has
implemented the CHIEF system. MaixmoAdvantage, which is a part of the CHIEF system, generates the preventive maintenance plan for the entire facility.

38.

The Defendants shall ensure that the correctional officers inspect all plumbing

Marvin Voss

fixtures that requires repair will be

reported immediately upon discovery, and

repaired in a timely manner. The

Defendants shall maintain logs

demonstrating compliance with this

requirement.

November 24,1997

COMPLIANCE: The post order dated March 6, 1998 for
the housing unit officer instructs officers to record plumbing problems in the maintenance log book. (See attachment #58 of report dated 4/9/97.) Maintenance procedures require a daily review of the maintenance log book on each housing unit by maintenance personnel.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C, et al. CivU Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnle Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11,1998

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and ' new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

59.

Two times per year, the Defendants shall Linda Wall

cause the District of Columbia DCRA to

conduct inspections of the CTF for

compliance with the requirements of

environmental sanitation, maintenance

and food service delivery. Within 30

days of each inspection, the Warden of

CTF shall obtain the DCRA findings.

The Warden shall repair, clean, or

otherwise remedy any unsanitary,

unsound, or unsafe practice or condition

identified by DCRA as soon as feasible

but in no event later than 30 days

following the receipt of the DCRA report.

May 29, 1997

COMPLIANCE The DCRA inspection was conducted on
May 4-8,1998. The facility received a rating score of 94%. (See attached memorandum S9-A of report dated May 11,1997.) The official report from DCRA has not been received.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCAAVarden'i Oflice

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C . et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3007

DATE OF UPDATE: May 11,1998

MAJOR TASK .

RESPONSIBLE PERSON or AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE PLANNED ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" state reason, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" state how achieved and attach documentation

V. FIRE SAFETY

65. The Defendants shall conduct and

VemAlford

document mandatory semi-annual training

on fire safety procedures for all

correctional officers.

June 18, 1998

NON-COMPLIANCE: CCA completed its pre-service training for new hires in January 1998. Semi-annual in-service training for currently hired correctional officers including fire prevention procedures has not begun but will be scheduled to begin within 90 days.

StlVT B*:DC JAIL

; 4 - 8 - 3 8 ; 1 2 : 1 2 ;CDF ASST. ADM. PROHS-CCA/CTF HE . , . « . , Attachment No.
(Page 1 of 27)

O.C. CENTRAL DETENTION FACILITY POST ORDER
SOUTHWEST ONE HOUSING UNIT October 16, 1997

I. Purposet The purpose of this order is to set forth procedures for the operation of Southwest One Bousing Unit for Fenale Inmates on General Population, Intake, Administrative Segregation, Protective Custody, Total Separation, and Special Handling status in the D.C. Detention Facility.

II. Policy; It is the policy of the D.C. Central Detention Pacility to operate housing units consistent with District Court Orders, Departmental Orders and regulations which dictate a safe, clean, secure and humane environment for inmates committed to our charge until they may be released from custody through due process of law or transferred to other facilities.

III. Applicability; To all employees involved in the management, service or operation of cell block Southeast Three.

IV. Issuances Affected or Referencedi

A. Cancellations; All previous editions of Post Orders for General Population Housing Units are canceled upon the effective date of this order.

B. Referencesz

1. Department Order 5 0 1 0 . 4 , dated February 16, 1989, Subject: "Post Orders".

2. American Correctional A s s o c i a t i o n Standards 3-ALDF3A-05, 3-ALDF-3A-06, 3-ALDP-3A-09, 3-ALDF-3A-10, 3-ALDF-3A-11, 3 ALDF-3A-12, 3-ALDF-3A-31, 3-ALDF-4E-34.

3. Basic Regulations for a l l employees 2.15, Subject: "Quarters Post".

4. DOP S 0 1 0 . 3 , dated Hay 27, 1988, Subject:

y

"Contraband".

5. DOP 4210.2B, dated December 22, 1995, Subject "Non-Industrial Inmates Pay System".

6. Department Order 3350.2A, dated Nay 15, 1995, Subject: "Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates'1.

SENT BY:DC JAIL

, 4- 8-88 ; 12 = 12 ;CDF ASST. ADM. PRGMS-CCA/CTF HE A t t a c h m e n t N o . 4 (Page 2 of 27)

7. DOP 4100.2B, dated January 3, 1996, Subject: "Environmental and Sanitation Program".
8. DOP 5121.IB, dated July 3, 1997, Subject: "Key Control".
9. DOP 5010.2A, dated July 1, 1997, Subject: "Official Innate Counts 6 Inmate Movement Control".
10. Department Order 6080.2A, dated August 28, 1995, Subject: "Suicide Prevention".
11. Department Order 1281.1, dated January IB, 1996, Subject: "Reporting of Significant Incidents and Extraordinary Occurrences".
12. DOP 6010.13B, dated August 12, 1996, Subject: . "Emergent/Urgent Care Notification and Response".
V. Definitions: As used in this document, the following definitions will apply:
A. Intake Inmates Any person committed to the Detention Facility except Lorton recommits and recommits from the Correctional Treatment Facility.
B. Administrative Segregation; A form of separation from the general population administered by the classification committee when the continued presence of the inmate in the general population would pose a serious threat to life, property, self, staff or other inmates.
C. Protective CUBtodys A form of separation from the general population for inmates requesting or requiring protection froa other inmates or those placed on Protective Custody by court order. The inmate status is reviewed periodically by the classification committee. Inmate status may be that of communal recreation or, non-communal recreation.
D. Special Handlings A form of separation from the General Population assigned to those Inmates whose history represents extreme cases of one or more of the following criteria; threat to self, threat to other (staff or inmates), or escape risk.
G. Total Separation; A form ot separation from the general population assigned to those Inmates, generally by court order, whose appearance in the presence of other inmates would pose a serious threat to self, or other inmates.

SEJVT BY:K JAIL

. 4- 8-98 ; 12:13 ;CDF ASST. AON. PRGMS-CCA/CTF HI A t t a c h m e n t N o (Page 3 of 27)

F. Punitive Segregation; A form of separation from the general population assigned to those inmates that have been found guilty of an institutional infraction and have received total loss of all privileges. Punitive Segregation will not exceed 14 consecutive days.
G. Sexual Misconduct: Sexual behavior which is directed towards inmates under the purview of the D.C. Department of Corrections. This inappropriate behavior may be directed at innates by a D.C.D.C. employee, volunteer, visitor, agent or individual working on behalf of the Department. Sexual misconduct towards inmates includes acts or attempts to commit acts of sexual abuse* sexual assault, sexual obscenity, and invasion of privacy. Sexual misconduct includes conversations or correspondence which demonstrates or suggests a romantic or intimate relationship between an inmate and employee. Sexual contact between and inmate and employee is sexual misconduct even if the inmate "consents".
H. Retaliation: An act of vengeance, covert or overt action, or threat oC action, taken against an inmate in response to the inmate's complaint of sexual misconduct or cooperation in the reporting or investigation of sexual misconduct, regardless of the merits or the disposition of the complaint. Examples of acts of retaliation are unnecessary discipline, intimidation, unnecessary changes in work or program assignments, unjustified transfers to other institutions or unjustified placement in involuntary protective custody, unjustified denials of privileges or services.
I. Invasion of Privacyi The act of observing, attempting to observe, or interfering in an inmate's personal affairs without a sound penological reason. Invasion of privacy includes failure of an employee of the opposite sex to announce his/her presence when entering an inmates' housing unit."
VI. PROCEDURES;
A. intake Inmates
1. Upon completion of R&D processing, all newly committed Female Inmates shall be housed in single cells on administrative segregation status within the Intake Housing Unit until they have been medically screened, interviewed by Intake Case Management staff and assigned to the appropriate housing by the Compliance Team.
B. Admission to administrative Segregation, Protective Custody, Total Separation and Special Handling; An inmate may be placed on Administrative Segregation by the Warden, Deputy Warden, Adjustment Board or by the Shift Supervisor when the inmate:

i t i \ l d l UL JAIL

- 4 - 8-38 ; 12:13 ;CDF ASST. ADM. PRM*S-«XA/CTF HE A t t a c h m e n t N o . (Page 4 of 27)

1. Is awaiting hearing for a violation of institution rules or regulations.
2. Is awaiting investigation of a serious violation of institution rules or regulations.

act.

3. Is awaiting investigation or trial for a criminal

4. Request admission to administrative segregation for his own protection or the staff determines the admission to or continuation in the administrative segregation is necessary for the inmate's own protection.

5. Is pending transfer or is in holdover status during transfer.

6. Is pending classification.

7. Is placed in administrative segregation following a hearing front the Disciplinary Board oc the Shift Supervisor.

8. Documentation: A memorandum detailing the reason for placing the inmate in administrative segregation or protective custody shall be prepared and forwarded to members of the Adjustment Board and placed in the inmate folder.

C. Conditions of Administrative Segregation, Total Separation, Special Handling and Protective Custody: Inmates housed in administrative segregation shall be afforded the same privileges given inmates in general population as is consistent with existing resources available and the security needs of the unit. Unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, these inmates will be allowed personal property and exercise periods exceeding those provided for inmates housed in Disciplinary Detention. Visiting and correspondence privileges accorded the general population shall be accorded the general population shall be allowed to inmates in administrative segregation. No restriction shall be placed upon an inmate's contact with courts or legal councel.

D. Exercise periods shall be available as follows;
1. Special Handling; One hour out of cell time on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Inmates will not have any contact with any other Inmate within the unit. Inmates may engage in recreation, shower, personal phone calls, etc.
2. Protective Custody; One hour out of cell time on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Inmates will not have any contact with any other Inmate within the unit. Inmates may engage in recreation, shower, personal phone calls, etc.

SENT BY:DC JAIL

. 4- 8-98 ; 12-14 ;CDF ASST. ADM. PRGfliS-OCA/CTF HI A t t a c h m e n t N o . (page 5 of 27)

3. Administrative Segregation Status: With reviews after 14 days, will be permitted one (1) hour out of cell time every third day for showers, phone calls, and recreation.
4. Out of cell recreation will be conducted by Shift Two and Shift Three. Shift Two will start recreation and Shift Three will continue where Shift Two left off.
E. Placement in Adjustment Segregation: A Inmate may be placed in Adjustment Segregation by direction of the Institution Adjustment Board. Such assignment will follow a hearing in which the Inmate has been found to have committed a serious act of misconduct which warrants this sanction. Inmates found to have committed acts of misconduct should not be placed in Adjustment Segregation unless their presence in general population poses a serious threat to staff, or other inmates or to the security of the institution.
F. Intake Inmates; Inmates on intake status or who have not been medically cleared or approved for General Population status are not authorised out of cell recreation. Intake inmates will be permitted out of their cell for showers every other day.
G. General Population: Inmates on General Population that are housed on the partitioned left side will be allowed to have recreation on the right side with the other general population.
H. Housing Assignment:
1. Intake Inmates will be housed on the partitioned left side of the unit.
2» Special Status Inmates will be housed on the partitioned left side of the unit.
3. Following the initial intake process, the Adjustment/Housing Board along with the Compliance Team will determine the appropriate housing assignment based on the charge, sentence, record review, intake summary, general profile of availability.
1. Change of Housing Assignment: Inmates may be reassigned from one housing unit to another for any of the following:
1. Change of status from unsentenced to sentenced.
2. Approval for detail that requires a housing unit change.
3. Compliance team approval of an innate or staff request.

SEIVT BY:DC JAIL

- 4 - 8-98 ; 12:14 ;CDF ASST. ADM. PRCiMS-CCA/CTF A t t a c h m e n t N o . (page 6 of 27)

4. Disciplinary action per D.O. 5300.IB will- from time to time dictate reassignment as punitive segregation for violation of the aforementioned.
5. Change of status from General Population to Special Custody Status, i.e. Protective Custody, Special Handling.
J. Accountability for Housing Beasslgnments:
1. In all cases of inmate housing reassignnent or change, it is the responsibility of the Compliance Team to coordinate movement with the officer in charge of the housing unit who will document it by log book entry indicating name, DCDC Number, and Housing Unit to which reassigned. Mo innate will be assigned froi one cell to another without the approval of the Compliance Team. All reassignmenta will be telephonically coamunicated to the Count Book Officer by the sending and receiving O.I.C.'s.
K. Cell Assignment; Inmates are not to be moved from cell to cell without approval from a supervisor and the compliance teas.
1. Prior to an inmate being placed in a cell, the cell will be inspected for contraband, cleanliness, damage, mattress and mattress cover accountability, and ensure that the plumbing and lighting work.
2. This inspection will be indicated on the inmate's wing card. After an inmate has been assigned to the cell, daily inspections will be made and any new damage found will be charged to the inmate by a disciplinary report.
3. Prior to an inmate beir.J moved from a cell, the cell will be Inspected and the new inspection will be compared 10 the inspection on the wing card.
L. Security;
1. Housing units will be manned in accordance with the facility manning level. Dnder no circumstances will the unit be left with only one officer.
2. All exterior/interior doors are to be secured at all times except for authorized and directly supervised movement. During movement, the sallyport principle shall apply with no more
than one door/gate opened at one time.
3. Cell doors shall remain closed at all tines. During out of cell time, all doors will remain closed and be opened once every hour for inmate needs. Cell doors will not be opened in the group setting. To prevent theft, assaults, and

SENT BY^DC JAIL

; 4- 8-98 ; 12 = 15 ;CDF ASST. ADM. PRGMS-CCA/CTF HEAJ A t t a c h m e n t N o .
(Page 7 of 27)

unauthorized cell entry, the assigned officers will ensure that a cell door is only opened for the innate assigned to that cell.
4. Correctional Officers shall patrol all tiers regularly to provide security, cell control, discourage contraband trafficking and maintain appropriate surveillance consistent with Basic Regulations for all employees, 2.15 "Quarters Post". Patrols will be recorded in the unit log book indicating the area checked and the officer conducting the check.
(a) Security checks should be made and recorded every 30 minutes, unless emergencies or scheduled activities (sick call, canteen, feeding, and etc.) inhibit such. A security check will be made immediately prior to any of these activities and will resume immediately following such. The log book will reflect what activity is in progress that restricts the security check. Housing units with more than two officers assigned will assign one officer to the activity and the other offleer(s) will continue with the 30 minute security checks.
(b) During patrols, the officers will ensure that any inmate laying on the floor is not in distress or needing assistance.
5. Tiers are to be cleared at all times, free from loitering and clothes drying on the rails.
6. Inmates will not be allowed to loiter in the sallyport area.
7. The key to the Housing Onit Control Nodule door will never be left in the door lock. This door will never be opened with-inmates in the sallyport or while a side gate is open.
8. Only one Officer will be in the Control Module at a time. No chairs or other furniture will be in the sallyport area. Only one chair will be allowed in the Control Module.
9. The Control Module lights must be left on at all times.
10. Restraints will always be placed on status inmates prior to opening their cell door. If an inmate refuses to cooperate, a supervisor will be summoned to the scene prior to any action being taken.
11. Restraints will always be removed from the inmate after the cell door is closed. Restraints will never be left on an inmate in the cell.

SENT BY:DC JAIL

: 4 - 8-38 ; 12:15 ;OF ASST. ADM. PRGMSX3CA/CIF ! ^ a c t o e n t No 4 (Page 8 of 27)

12. All incidents or situations that could lead to an incident or unsafe condition, will be immediately reported to a shift supervisor.
13. Staff will not bring any personal items into the housing unit; i.e. civilian clothing and coats, briefcases, newspapers, magazines, books, food items, medication, handbags or purses, radios, televisions, and etc.
14. Prior to any assigned officer departing the housing unit, the Command Center will be notified.
15. Reporting of Significant Incidents or Extraordinary Occurrences; Staff are to be familiar with D.O. 1281.1, Reporting of Significant Incidents and Extraordinary Occurrences. Failure to comply with this directive can result in corrective/ adverse action.
a. On any reportable incident, each staff member assigned will complete Form DCDC-1 and turn it in to the Shift Supervisor within thirty (30) minutes of the incident.
b. No staff member will depart the Facility prior to submitting a completed and legible Form DCDC-1.
16. Bar and Window Inspections;
(a) Daily on Shift Two and Shift Three, each window and bar will be struck with the wooden mallet insuring the integrity of each.
(b) All bars, doors, and windows will be physically checked on each shift for damage, tampering, and integrity. The inspection is to be recorded on the Bar and Window form and turned into the Command Center. If a serious condition is found, the Zone Supervisor will be contacted immediately and logged in the maintenance book.
17. Hostage Situation;
(a) It is the policy of the D.C. Department of Corrections that any person(s) held hostage will be considered under duress and that any order issued by such persons, regardless of their position of authority, are to be addressed as informational only. "Under no circumstances* will iruMtes be permitted to effect egress (escape) from this facility due to a hostage situation.

SENT BY=DC JAIL

i 4- 8-98 ; 12 = 16 ;CDF ASST. ADM. PRGMS-CCA/CTF H Attachemnt Mo. 4 (Page 9 of 27)

M. Inmate Search Procedures:
1. All Inmates entering or exiting the housing unit will be searched for contraband. Inmates may only have a comb and handkerchief in their possession whan exiting tha unit. They may also have their legal papers when going to court or a legal visit. Religious Materials are authorized when attending religious activities.
2. After 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday when the visiting halls are closed, inmates returning from legal visits will be strip searched prior to entry into the housing unit.
3. All inmates will be searched (frisked) upon returning to the unit. When officers have probable.cause to believe an inmate is in possession of contraband they may be • strip searched. All strip searches will be conducted with a witness.
4. All innates receiving contact visits will be strip searched for contraband.
5. During cell searches, inmates will have handcuffs applied prior to opening the cell door.
N. Equipment Controls The unit OIC will be responsible for maintaining an inventory of all cellblock equipment, Post Orders, keys, first aid kit, Ambu Bag, emergency flashlight, restraints, nail-clippers, and etc. A copy of D.O. 3350.2A must be posted on each side of the housing unit. Any discrepancy will be immediately reported to the Zone Supervisor and/or Shift Commander. -Precise accountability for all equipment will be maintained at all tii
1. Accountability for keys, restraints and the posted D.O. 3350.2A will be by physical inventory at each shift change with an entry in the unit log book and the relieving officer's signature on the count sheet submitted to the Command Center.
2. The First Aid Kit will be checked to make sure that the seal has not been broken. If the seal has been broken the nurses station will be notified at once for re-stocking and a new seal. This notification will be recorded in the log book, indicating the date, time, and the name of the person notified. The Zone Supervisor will be notified if the seal is broken or the first aid kit is missing. The broken seal will also be indicated on the equipment inventory sheet until it has been replaced.
3. If it is necessary to use the Pirst Aid Kit, the employee must record in the log book the reason for breaking the seal and the items used from the kit.

SEtvTT BY.DC JAIL

; 4 - 8-98 ; 1 2 1 6 ;CDF ASST. AON. PRGMS^CCA/CIF H A t t a c h m e n t N o 4 (Page 10 of 27)

0. Count Procedures:

1. Counts shall be conducted at any time designated by the Shift Supervisor. Foraal counts will be conducted at the following time:

11 Shift

12 Shift

»3 Shift

12:00 a.m.
1:00 a.m. 2:00 a.m. 3:00 a.m. 4:00 a.m.

8:00 a.m.

4:00 p.m. 8:30 p.m.

2. All counts will be conducted with the inmates secured in their cells, except the inmates who will be moved to the Visiting Hall for Legal Visits. The Visiting Hall officer, will count inmates on any subsequent recounts. The Count Supervisor will be notified of inmate movement to legal visits.

3. All officers assigned to the housing unit will participate in the formal count. It is mandatory that the QIC of the unit be present for all formal counts. Officers will make individual counts and not count in tandem.

4. inmates are to remain quiet and in their cell until the counting officer finishes making the count.

5. Any disruption of the count process by inmates will be cause for disciplinary action. While counting, officers must allow nothing short of an emergency bo distract them.

6. Numerous escapes have been affected by the skillful use of dummies. Officers must be positive they see a human body before counting an inmaLe as present.

7. The counting officers will remain in the unit until the count is verified as correct

8. When making night counts, flashlights should be used judiciously but enough light should be thrown on the inmate to ensure that a dummy is not beinq counted. Rather than counting an inmate on the basis of a part of clothing, hair, or shoes, tho officer must be certain of seeing flesh.

9. Each count must be made accurately and promptly. If there is any doubt as to the correctness or t-he count, a recount must be made.

10. When counting in individual room areas, each inmaLe must be in her cell facing the door for counts during day-1 ight hours. At night, when the inmates are in bed, the officer must

10

JAIL

4- 8-98 : 12:17 ,CDF ASST. ADM. PRGMSKXA/CTF I t A t t a c h m e n t NO

be certain to see the innate and not a dummy. The officer is required to see "flesh" in making accurate counts. Inmates wearing bathrobes, having handkerchiefs or bath towels around their heads or those who are completely covered while in bed, should be inspected.
11. No inmate will participate in the housing unit count.
12. Each count is telephoned into the Count Supervisor during the official count. The officer-in-charqe will immediately prepare a Count Slip, forward this slip to the Count Book and remain in the count area until the count clears. The Pnit O.l.c. will ensure that the Count Slip is turned In to the Count Book within twenty (20) minutes from the time the Count was called for.
P. Movement Controls All inmate movement In and out of the unit, except for supervised group movement or under officer escort, will be controlled by movement pass. The identity of all inmates exiting the unit will be verified by the Control Module Officer using the picture on the 3 x 5 wing card.
1. Each unit will maintain a running count sheet of inmate movement to reflect an accurate total count of all inmates in the unit.
2. The running count sheet will reflect Name, DCDC Number, time out, time in, and movement to and from the total count of inmates in the unit.
3. Between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. inmate movement will be by officer escort only.
4. At least once each hour, the Count Hook Officer will be contacted to verify the housing unit base count.
Q. Contrabands
L. Inmates are not permitted to have milk crates, matches, cigarette lighters, furniture, any glass or metal items/objects* or any other contraband in their cell. Cleaning materials are not allowed to be kept in the ceils (mops, buckets, brooms, scouring powder, disinfectant, and etc.).
2. Bedding, clothing or any other material shall not be attached to cell bars or utilized in such a manner that would obstruct visibility into the cells or tiers, or not used for it's intended purposes) i.e., blanket on floor for rugs, towel for foot rug. etc. Inmates misuse of government issued clothing and/or bedding are subject to Disciplinary Action.
11

SEW BY:DC JAIL

; 4- 8-88 ; 12=17 ;CDF ASST. ADM. PRGMS^CCA/CIT HE A t t a c h m e n t No (Page 12 of 27)

3. No items are to be attached to the walls or windows.
R. Conduct:
1. Staff are required to conduct themselves in a professional manner and adhere to the Departmental Policies regarding Sexual Harassment and Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates.
2. Sexual Misconduct:
(a) it is the policy of the D.C. Department of Corrections to prohibit acts of sexual misconduct against inmates and to fully investigate and discipline persons who violate D.o. 3350.2A. The D.C. Department of Corrections prohibits retaliation against inmates who file sexual misconduct complaints.
(b) Any employee who receives any information, from any source, concerning sexual misconduct is required to immediately report the information or incident to the Warden, A written report of such , must be submitted to the Warden prior to the end of the work shift. All information regarding sexual misconduct is confidential and will not be shared or discussed with anyone other than the Warden or investigative panel.
(c) All male employees will audibly announce themselves upon entering Southwest One and prior to entering a tier.
(d) Retaliation, reprisal, and/or breach of confidentiality is prohibited and will not be tolerated7
(e) The Metropolitan Police Department Sex Squad is to be immediately notified of all sexual misconduct complaints.
3. Inmates are expected to conduct themselves in a manner socially acceptable to communal housing by respecting each others space and keeping their person and assigned areas clean and presentable at all times. All rules and regulations are to be adhered to.
4. All inmates are to wear identification wrist bands at all times. Identification bands will reflect the inmate's name and DCDC number. Inmates without armbands are to be immediately reported to the Zone Supervisor along with a Disciplinary Report. The innate will be prohibited from all activities (mail, canteen, visiting, and etc.) until the armband is reissued, through established procedures, on or before the next work day.
12

BYDC JAIL

•• 4- 8-98 ; 12:17 ;CDF ASST. ADM. PRGNS-CCA/CTF H Attachment No. 4 (Page 13 o f 27)

S. Sick Call:
1. inmates will be given the opportunity to sign up for Sick Call five (5) days per week in the general population units and seven (7) days per week in the status units.
2. Inaates on general population will pick up the Sick Call request forms from the unit control module or may be obtained from the Medical Staff. The completed forms will be placed in the appropriate locked box and picked up by the medical staff. Correctional Staff will net handle the request forms that have been filled out.
3. A nurse will go cell to cell in the status units issuing and picking up the request forms from the inmates. The housing unit O.I.C. will ensure the nurse is expeditiously escorted from cell to cell.
4. A compiled Sick Call list will be issued to the Shift One Commander by the medical department. The Shift One housing unit O.I.C. will ensure all the inmates on the list are accounted for and pass the information on to Shift Two. The Zone Supervisor will be notified of any inmate not accounted for. All listed inmates will be located and this information given to the medical staff conducting Sick Call.
5. When the Hadical Staff arrive to conduct Sick Call, the Correctional Staff will give full cooperation to the Medical Staff. Sick call will not be delayed* postponed or canceled by any staff member. Any delay or problem with sick call will be reported to the Shift Commander immediately and logged in the unit logbook. It is the housing unit officers responsibility to identify, locate, and have the inmates readily available for Sick Call.
6. All inmates on the Sick Call list must either be seen by the medical staff, sign a refusal in the presence of the medical staff, or have gone on a legal visit, social visit, to court, medical trip, or parole hearing. If Sick Call is scheduled for the morning hours, inmates on the sick call list may not attend morning outside recreation unless they have been seen by medical or signed a refusal in the presence of the medical staff. If Sick Call is scheduled for the afternoon hours, inmates on the sick call list may not attend afternoon outside recreation unless they have been seen by medical or signed a medical refusal in the presence of the medical staff, if there is any doubt whether an inmate may miss sick call the Zone Supervisor will be contacted for guidance.

13

HOC ML

I***' 1M6 «» « I . Ml. M«n/OT f fS^TTSfI7

7. Upon completion of Sick Call, the medical-staff will hand the unit O.Z.C. a medical form indicating the inmates unaccounted for and any comments from the medical staff. The O.I.C. will sign this form and return ic to the Doctor. The Doctor will submit this form to the Operations Commander for any appropriate action.
8. Medical Emergencies: in case of Medical Emergencies (life threatening), the Nurses Station is to be notified by the Emergency Direct Line or extension 3-8458 or 38459. The employee making the call will give all necessary information to the Nurse or Physician, i.e., location of the injured or ill person, type of injury or illness, and whether the person is conscious. The assigned officers ace to take immediate life saving measures as required through C.P.R. Training and Suicide Prevention Training until the Medical Staff arrive and relieve them. Officers will assist the medical team until they are no longer needed. The Shift Commander will be notified of all medical emergencies as soon as possible after contacting the medical staff. All staff are to be familiar with D.O. 6080.2A "Suicide Prevention".
9. Unscheduled medical problems;
(a) When an inmate requests medical attention, the officer will call a Nurse on extension 3-84S8 or 3-8459 and ask the nurse to call back on the direct-line phone.
(b) When the nurse or doctor calls back on the direct-line the officer will answer the phone and arrange for the inmate to take the call in the sallyport.
(c) The officer will connect to the sallyport phone by pressing the transfer button on the control module phone.
(d) The inmate will be instructed to lift up the receiver and talk to the medical staff. When the inmate picks up the receiver the officer will press the transfer button again.
(e) When the inmate begins speaking the officer will immediately hang up their phone.
(f) After speaking with the inmate on the telephone, the medical staff will call back and speak to the officer explaining the disposition of the case.
(g) If the inmate cannot or will not speak on the phone with the physician, the innate will either be taken to the medical unit or the physician will respond to the housing unit.
14

SENT BY:DC JAIL

: 4- 8-98 ; 12 = 18 ;CDF ASST. ADM. PRGMS-CCA/CI? W A t t a c h m e n t N o . 4 (Page 15 of 27)

(h) All telephone or personal contact with the nedical unit will be logged in the housing unit log book.
T. Mail;
1. Incoming mail will be distributed by the number three shift daily. The officer distributing mail will require an armband identification for reception of letters and other aail.
2. All incoming privileged correspondence (Legal Mail) will be delivered by Mail Room personnel and will be opened with the inmate concerned in attendance. Privileged Correspondence will be checked for contraband only and not censored or read by the staff.
3. All privileged correspondence will be receipted for by the addressee in the "Legal Mail" Log Book by the Mail Room Officer.
4. Inmates will not handle other innate'a mail.
5. Inmates receiving magazines and newspapers by subscription* will receive these items promptly without staff or other inmates viewing them first. Newspapers 3 days old will be considered contraband and disposed of by staff during cell inspections and shakedowns.
°* *«*!•' Pood tray8 will be delivered from the culinary via the food service elevator to each level. Trays will immediately be served without interruption unless an emergency exists. All assigned staff will be present during the feeding process.
« 1. Housing unit officers are responsible for inspecting food trays for contraband and quantity. Opon receiving the food cart, the O.I.C. will immediately count the number of trays and sign for the amount of trays received. All discrepancies will be noted on the receipt and the culinary unit notified of the discrepancy. A log book entry will be made showing quantity of food trays delivered.
2. Food carts will be placed in the dining area for distribution and tray collection. Both sallyport doors will be closed while trays are dispensed and the sallyport area will remain free of inmates.
3. Pood trays will not be dispensed from the sallyport area or through an open sallyport door.
4. The issuing of food trays will be directly supervised by an officer. Any inaates involved with the feeding process vill wear plastic gloves and a covering over their hair.
15

_ _ - Rvty. ,AI.
SENT BYDC JAIL

; 4 - 8-38 ; 12=19 -CDF ASST. ADM. PRGNSHCCA/CTF A t t a c h m e n t N o . 4
(page lg Qf 2?)

5. No inmate shall retain food items In theL^c cell following meals with the exception of fresh fruit served that day only. Fruit will not be allowed to accunulate from one day to another.
6. Special diet trays/bags will be issued promptly and directly to the innate requiring the diet. The inmate will sign their complete name Cor the tray. The officer or detail inmates will not sign for the inmate.
7. Any discrepancies of food trays, concerns or problems will be immediately reported to the Zone Supervisor, who will consult with the Pood Service Supervisor.
8. At the completion of the meal, A L L trays will be removed from the unit and taken to the food service elevator.
V. Canteen: Inmates will place orders for canteen items on Sunday prior to 12:00 midnight. Canteen slips will be placed in an envelope in the Control Module (bubble) for collection by canteen personnel the following morning.
1. Canteen orders will be delivered by the Canteen Staff per the approved schedule.
2. All inmates will be locked down in their cells while canteen is being delivered.
3. Canteen staff will ensure that each inmate is positively identified and sign for their canteen as being delivered.
4. No canteen order will be left behind for delivery by Correctional Staff.
5. Any discrepancies on the canteen slip will be annotated on the bottom of the individual canteen slip by the issuing canteen staff in the presence of the inmate.
W. Hecreation; Outside recreation will be by a published schedule (weather permitting). Cancellation of outside recreation will be made by the Deputy Harden /Programs, Deputy Harden /Operations, or the Harden.
1. Out of cell time for general population inmates will commence at 9:00 a.m., except for the one day each week specified for heavy cleaning. Inmates not participating in the heavy cleaning will be kept in their cells until the cleaning is finished.
16

JAIL

; 4- a-38 ; 12:13 :CDF ASST. ADM. PRGMS-CCA/CIF HE A t t a c h m e n t N o .

(Page 17: of 2'

2. Inmates will be afforded out of cell recreation until 11:00 p.a. daily, excluding the time inmates are in their cells for the official counts at 7:00 a.a., 3:00 p.m., and 8:30 p.m.
3. Officers will not arbitrarily detain innates in the cells without the approval of a Lieutenant or above. This approval must be logged in the unit log book.
X. Social Visits*
1. Social visits will be froa 12:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.a. Monday through Saturday.
2. Inmates will be afforded a total of two (2) hours of visiting per week. No single visit will be less than thirty (30) minutes.
3. Social Visits will be granted two days a week based on the inmates first initial as follows:
A thru H - Monday and Thursday
I thru P - Tuesday and Friday
Q thru Z - Wednesday and Saturday
4. Social Visits will be conducted on the saae level on which the inmate is housed when open.
5. Movement to the visiting ball will be by movement pass issued by the housing unit officer after information is received from Visitors Control that an inmate has a visit.
6. inmates will be pat searched when leaving the unit, and upon returning to the unit. Only a comb and handkerchief may be taken to and from the visiting hall. If there is a suspicion of contraband the inmate is to be strip searched in the presence of a witness.
7. Movements to and from the visiting hall will be recorded on the movement (Running) count sheet.
y. Legal Visits; Legal visitation is authorized seven (7) days a week, twenty-four (24) hours a day, including during count times.
1. Legal Visits will be conducted on the same level on which the inmate is housed during the tine that visiting halls are opened for Social Visits. At all other times. Legal Visits are conducted in the visiting hall located on the Second Level.
17

4- 8-38 ; 12:20 ;O)F ASST. ADM. PKBS-CCA/CIF HE A t t a c h m e n t No. ( P a g e 18 o f 27)
2. Inmates receiving Legal Visits after normal visiting hours will be escorted from and to the housing unit by the Administrative Module Two officer.
3. Legal Visits in progress at 8:00 p.m. on the Eirst and third level will be escorted to the second level visiting hall for completion of their visit.
4. Inmates going on legal visits may have a comb, handkerchief, pen or pencil, and legal papers in their possession. Inmates receiving legal visits during the hours that the visiting halls are closed, will be strip searched for contraband when returning to the unit.
Z. Telephone Privileges; Pay telephones are installed in all housing units for use by inmates only during out of cell tine.
1. All pay phones will be turned off during feeding and while the count is being conducted.
2. The Control Nodule (bubble) telephone will never be used for legal or personal calls by inmates. The C*P (Casemanager) office is the only authorized telephone for inmate legal calls in each unit.
3. Personal pay telephone use shall be unlimited for all inmates on General Population status.
4. Telephone calls to attorneys will be conducted by the Case Managers upon receipt of a request form as soon as reasonably possible. After verification of the identity of the attorney, such communication shall be private.
5. Emergency legal and long distance calls shall be scheduled through the Office of the Case Manager or Chaplain, by submission of a request form.
AA. Linen and Clothing Exchangei inmates are required to change their Linen and Clothing. Each Inmate is' required to turn in two (2) sheets and one' (1) towel for linen exchange on each linen exchange day. The practice of inmates using llnon or jumpsuits for more than one week is forbidden. Inmates refusing to turn in linen or jumpsuits will be issued a disciplinary report. Tnmates possessing more than the allotted amount of linen or clothing are subject to disciplinary action.
1. The O.I.C. in charge of the unit will ensure that the assigned staff with the detail inmates go from cell to cell to collect the linens and jumpsuits, keeping an accurate accountability of these items.
18

SENT BY.'DC JAIL

> 4 - 8-38 ; 12:20 ;CDF ASST. ADM. PRGMS-CCA/CIf hT A t t a c h m e n t N o . (Page 1<? of 27!

2. The officers, upon receiving the laundered items, will ensure each innate is given the exact nunber of items they turned ia.
3. Scheduled Clothing Change is as follows:
X - JUMPSUITS * LIHBH - NO-1, NE-1, NW-1, SO-1, SE-1, SW-1.
TUESDAY - JUMPSUITS 6 LIHEH - NO-2, NB-2, NW-2, SO-2, SB-2, SW-2.
WEDMCSDAY - JDXPSUITS ft LIHEH - NO-3, NE-3, NW-3. SO-3, SE-3, SW-3.
THTOSPAY - Female Units exchange Jumpsuits.
FRIDAY - Work shoes for Detail Culinary, work related jumpsuits for Off-Unit 6 Outside Environmental.
0. Files and accords;
1. Onit Log Book; The unit log book is a written record of events occurring on the unit and listed chronologically on a daily basis to reflect, but not United to, the following:
a. Date, Day, Shift Nunber and names of officers assigned to the unit for that shift.
b. Equipment inventory and inmate count. The log book should reflect any innate assignnent to, or reassignnent froa the housing unit.
c. Departure from the unit of any assigned officer for lunch, etc., shoving tine out and in.
d. All security checks, to include window and bar and census checks. The log will indicate the nane of the officer making the checks and the areas checked.
e. Tine of all official counts, nane of officers making the count, the unit count and the tine the count cleared.
f. Tine and nane of all staff nenbers entering the unit. i.e. supervisors, nedical personnel. Officers not assigned to the unit, who enter will be logged in, to include nature of business. General visitation on units, to include sallyport area is prohibited.
g. All incidents, emergencies, medical emergencies, special occurrences, and etc. are to be recorded and reported to the Zone Supervisor.
19

BY:OC JAIL

: 4- 8-98 : 1221 :0r ASST. M L PBaS-CCA/OT I

h. All log book entries are to be written legibly and accurately. The log book is an official document and should be treated as such.
2. Movement Sheet: A movement sheet will be maintained in each unit to reflect all inmate movement from and into the unit. The sheet will reflect Name, DCDC Number, destination and the time. Dp to the minute maintenance of the movement sheet is mandatory.
3. Card File; In order to identify and process movement of inmates in the facility, it is essential to know the location of an inmate at any given time. Eacb housing unit will maintain a 3 x 5 card file system on all inmates housed in the unit. Data on the 3 x 5 card will include the inmates name, DCDC number 3 x 5 card will be turned over to the escort officer. An
will never have the 3 x 5 wing card in their possession.
4. Maintenance Logbook: A Maintenance Logbook will be Kept to record all maintenance deficiencies to Include plumbing, electrical, locks, lighting, leaks, cracks, and etc.
a. On a daily basis, each shift will record all maintenance deficiencies in the Maintenance Logbook.
b. The logbook will be kept in the bubble and not in the sallyport. The Maintenance Staff will enter the unit to check the Logbook and sign off after correcting the deficiency. The maintenance log book will not be given to an inmate.
V. Barber/Beauty Services
1, Barber and Beauty Service will be restricted to the area designated for this purpose. Not more than one (01) inmate will be allowed to use this service at any one time. Any breakage of Barber/Beauty equipment will be immediately reported to the Command Center and the environmental supervisor. Only inmates approved for this detail are allowed to perform this service.
W. Hail Clippers; The inmate population will be afforded the opportunity to groom their nails. The collowing procedures will be strictly adhered to, and all security precautions are to be taken while administering this process.
1. The nail clippers and equipment are a part of the unit's inventory. In the event that the nail clippers and/or equipment are not accounted for, the supervisor on duty will be immediately notified.
2. Each user will clean and sanitize the nail dippers with an alcohol swab prior to it being issued to the next person.
20

BY:DC JAIL

; 4- 8-98 ; 12:21 ;CDF AST. ADM. fWSrKM/OF H A t t a c h m e n t Ho_ ( P a g e 2J o f 2 7 )

3. On Shift Two, every Saturday and Sunday morning the Nail Clipper Sign-up List will be circulated around the unit allowing the inmates to sign up for this service. The housing unit staff will then allow one innate at a tine in the sallyport to groom their nails. Each inmate will be limited to no more than five minutes to groom their nails. As each inmate finishes, the officer will insure that the inmate sanitizes che clippers with an alcohol swab and the equipment is accounted for before allowing the inmate to exit the sallyport and the next inmate to enter the sallyport.
4. Alcohol Swaps are to be picked from the Infirmary medical staff.when needed.
X. Onit Operation Proceduresr At the conclusion of Roll Call, all housing unit officers will proceed directly to their housing unit assignment, unless instructed to report to shakedown. Upon entering the Number One (1) Gate, all rooms within the sallyport area should be checked. It is the responsibility of the officers being relieved to pass on pertinent information to all officer assigned, and have the post secured, sanitation in order and ready for inventory of keys, equipment and the counts of inmates. The relieving officers will check the unit and equipment, all discrepancies will be reported to the Shift Supervisor and resolved prior to relieving the offgoing shift.
1. Mumber One Shift (11:30 p.m. -» 8:00 a.m.);
11:45 p.m. - Inventory keys and unit equipment. Report any discrepancies to shift supervisor. If discrepancies exist, both the off-going and on-coming zone supervisors will respond to the unit for resolution. The Post Orders will be read and each officer will certify such by signing the post order compliance sheet indicating that procedures are understood and will be followed. Conduct an official count of the unit and call it into the Count Supervisor. Sign the count sheet and turn it over to the Count Supervisor. Conduct Bar and Window check, sanitation inspection, and unit census.
12:00 a.m. - Process court sheet to ascertain number of inmates scheduled for court. Conduct security check.
12:30 a.m. - Conduct security check.
1:00 a.m. - Conduct Official Count.
1:30 a.m. - Conduct security check.
2:00 a.m. * Conduct Official Count.
21

SENT BY:DC JAIL

: 4 - 8-98 ; 12 = 22 ;CDF ASST. ADM. PRGMS^CCA/CIF m A t t a c h m e n t N o . (Page 2J, of 27)

2:30 a.m. - Sanitation Inspection of housing unit for cleanliness. Conduct security check.
3:00 a.m. - Conduct Official Count.
3:30 a.m. - Conduct security check.
3:45 a.a. - Inmates scheduled for court appearance are awakened, property inventoried, and prepared for court.
4:00 a.m. - Official count conducted.
4:01 a.m. - Inmate feeding. Upon completion of feeding, all inmates are returned to their cell except detail workers.
4:30 a.m. - Conduct security check.
5:00 a.m. - Convoy officer will pick up inmates for court, notify Command Center and Floor Control Officer of number of inmates departing unit. Nodule Officer will give 3 x 5 wing cards to the Convoy Officer.
5:30 a.m. - Conduct security check.
6:00 a.m. - Conduct security check.
6:30 a.m. * Conduct security check.
7:00 a.m. - All inmates to include detail inmates are secured in their cells. An overall inspection and security check of the unit is conducted.
7:30 a.m. - Conduct security check.
2. Number Two Shift (7:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.)
7:45 a.m. - Inventory Keys and Unit Equipment. Report any discrepancies to shift supervisor. If discrepancies exist, both the off-going and on-coming zone supervisors will respond to the unit for resolution. Conduct an official count of the unit and call it into the Count Supervisor. Sign the count sheet and turn it over to the Count Supervisor. The Post Orders will be read and each officer will certify such by signing the post order compliance sheet indicating that procedures are understood and will be followed.
8:15 a.m. - Conduct Bar and Window inspection and forward to Command Center.
22

BY.OC JAIL

; 4 - 8-38 ; 12:22 ;CDF ASST. ADM. PRGNS^CCA/CTF A t t a c h m e n t Ho_ 4 (Page 23 of 27)

9:00 a.a. - Commence out of cell recreation and Sick Call for inmates that are on the sick call list. Conduct security check.
9:30 a.m. - Sanitation inspection of housing unit for cleanliness. Conduct security check.
10:00 a.m. - Conduct security check.
10:30 a.m. - Conduct security check.
11:00 a.m. - Food carts on unit* commence feeding of the unit. Immediately after feeding, cleaning of the feeding area.
11:30 a.m. - Conduct security check.
12:00 p.m. - Security Cheek of unit.
1:00 p.m. - Security Check of unit.
1:30 p.m. - Security Check of unit.
2:00 p.m. - Security Check of unit.
2:30 p.m. - Security Check of unit.
3:00 p.m. - Conduct security check of unit. Make sure unit is clean and all equipment accounted for.
3:30 p.m. - Conduct security check of unit and prepare unit for shift change.
3- Mumber Three Shift (3:30 p.m. - 12:00 p.m.!
3:45 p.m. - Inventory Keys and Unit Equipment. Report any discrepancies to shift supervisor. If discrepancies exist, both the off-going and on-coming zone supervisors will respond to the unit for resolution. Conduct an official count of the unit and call it into the Count Supervisor. Sign the count sheet and turn it over to the Count Supervisor. The Post Orders will be read and each officer will certify such by signing the post order compliance sheet indicating that procedures are understood and will be followed.
4:00 p.m. - Conduct official census of unit and forward to Command Center, conduct window and bar security inspection. After count is cleared, inmates are let out for recreation.
4:30 p.m. - Sanitation Inspection and conduct security check of unit.
23

RY-nc JAIL BY-DC JAIL

! 4" 8-38 ' 12:23 :OJF ASST. ADM. PKHS-CCA/CTF Attachment No. 4

* »

(Page 2f of 27)

5:00 p.n. - Unit feeding as food cart arrives.
5:30 p.m. - Conduct security check of unit.
6:00 p.a. - Security check of unit. Innates scheduled for daily medication are assembled and prepared for pick up by Infirmary Patrol/Sick Call officer.
6:30 p.m. - Conduct security check of unit.
7:00 p.m. - Conduct security check of unit.
7:30 p.m. - Conduct security, check of unit.
8:00 p.m. - Conduct security check of unit.
8:15 p.m. - Unit prepared for official count. .
8:30 p.m. - Official count conducted and called into the Count Supervisor. Count slip prepared and forwarded to the Count Supervisor.
9:00 p.m. - After count clears, innates are let out of cells for inside recreation. Conduct security check of unit.
. 9:30 p.m. - Conduct security check of the unit.
10:00 p.m. - Security check of unit.
10:30 p.m. - Security check of unit.
11:00 p.m. - Inmates returned to their cells. Unit cleaned, all equipment accounted for and unit prepared for oncoming shift.
11:30 p.m. - Conduct security check of unit.
Y. Sanitation: It is the policy of the Central Detention Facility to provide a safe and healthful environment for all employees and inmates; and to provide a system of progressive inspections to reduce safety and environmental hazards and to insure that a high level of sanitation is maintained. 0.0.P. 4100.2B will be adhered to and enforced by all staff assigned.
1. The O.I.C. on each shift will conduct daily inspections of their housing units and insure compliance with sanitation and environmental guidelines. The O.I.C. Daily Inspection Report will be completed and submitted to the appropriate Zone Lieutenant.
24

SEW BY-DC JAIL

: 4" 8-98 ; 1 2 : 2 3 : Q ) F ASST- ADM- P * 0 1 3 " 0 * ' 0 1 1

Attachment No. 4 (Page 2$ of 27)

2. During the cell inspection, any damage, writing or drawings on the walla will be noted and cause for disciplinary action against the innate.
3. It is mandatory for each Cell Block O.I.C. to maintain a copy of the Central Detention Facility*s Housekeeping Manual and to become thoroughly familiar with the cleaning procedures set forth in it.
4. The O.I.C. will be responsible for instructing detail inmates in appropriate cleaning procedures and certifying that tasks are accomplished as stipulated in the Housekeeping Manual.
5. Individual Cell/Room. Inspection Forms will be issued to inmates failing to comply with the standards set in 0.0.P. 4100.2B. Disciplinary Reports will be submitted against repeat offenders.
6. Every Thursday, on Shift Two, will be designated as the day for maximum cleaning. All chase closets will be thoroughly cleaned/ getting rid of all standing water, dust, debris, and etc.
7. Inmates will not be allowed to keep an excessive amount of newspapers in their cells. This creates a fire hazard and breeding ground for insects.
Z. In—te Property; Inmate property will never be handled by other inmates and will be maintained in a secure area.
1. If an inmate is scheduled for court, the inmate and a Shift One.Officer will inventory and lock up the property. If the inmate fails to return from court. Shift 13 Officers will inventory the property and turn it into the R&D Property Office. If the Property Office is not open, the property will be turned over to the R&D O.I.C. to be secured.
2. if an inmate is admitted to D.C. General Hospital, the appropriate Shift will immediately inventory the property and turn it into R«D Property Office. The Shift Three O.I.C. will ensure that this was accomplished.
3. Anytime an inmate's property is moved without the inmate present, it will be inventoried on the proper form and signed by the Officer doing the inventory. A copy of the Inventory form will be forwarded to the Major's Office.
AA. On-Onit Detail Inmates; On unit detail will be assigned in accordance with DOP 4210.2b.
25

B Y * JA.L

• 4- « i « = » « » ASST. iBL P H ^ / O F Attactaentf No. f 4

1. An inmate will be assigned to the on unit detail after completion of the classification Form, and a favorable recommendation by the Case Manager and the Onit OZCs for each shift. All four persons must agree before the person is placed on detail.
2. Removal from detail will only be accomplished through the Classification Process. An Inmate Personnel Action Form will be filled out and sent to the Housing Board. In cases of disciplinary actions* a copy of the O.R. will be attached to the Inmate Personnel Action Form.
BB. Fire and fire Evacuation; After a supervisor assesses the situation and determines that a unit must be evacuated, the following procedures are to be followed:
1. Command Center will be notified, who will then . dispatch officers to assist in the evacuation and open doors to the evacuation routes.
2. The main gate and side gate will be opened and a officer stationed at the main gate to count the inmates as they leave.
3. Open the cells a tier at a time, if possible, evacuating the inmate out of the block, down the recreation yard stairwell to the recreation yard, where the officer stationed at the yard door will count the inmate as they enter the yard. This count will be compared to the count as they left the unit to ensure all inmates are accounted for on the yard. If it Is possible the female inmates will be evacuated to the female recreation yard.
4. After all inmates are out, the last officer in the unit will check the unit, if possible, to make sure no one is left in any area of the unit. When the officer leaves the unit, the last thing he/she will do is remove the keys, wing cards and log book from the unit and turn them into the Command Center. The Control Module door is to be left open for the Fire Department.
5. In case electricity is out, manual controls will be used. The control module door key will be used to open the utility doors in the sallyport that houses the controls. Set the controls to manual from electric and open the cell doors. If all doors do not open at this time, the officer must take the manual release key to each cell and insert it in the slot above each door and manually release the door. Proceed with the evacuation.
CC. SMOKING: At this time, smoking is allowed in the housing unit. Smoking is prohibitted in the control bubble.
26

w : K MIL

; 4- M i i 12=2* < « ASST. IOL ™*-«CA/CIF » Atta=h*entfNo.)4

DD. Franklin vs. District of Columbia:
1. Non-English speaking inmates are allowed the same privileges as any other inmate. They will not be discriminated against and if necessary bi-lingual interpreters will be utilized for communication purposes, to include, all housing hearings. Adjustment Board hearings. Case Management concerns, medical and etc.
VI. Responsibility;
A. The Major for Operations shall be responsible for the implementation of this procedure.
B. Shift Commanders, Zone Supervisors and assigned eellblock officers shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with this procedure.
VII. Effective Pate: This Post Order is effective upon receipt.

ty Warden for Operations

SENT BY:DC JAIL
Offset**

; 5-13-88 ; 12:50 ;d)F ASST. ADM. PRGMS-CCA/Attachment N o . 8 & (Page 1 of 4)
Govenunent oftbe District of Colombia DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Detention Facility 1901D Street. S.R Washington, DC. 200Q3

May -12, 1998

MEMORANDUM

TO

:

FROM :

SUBJECT;

Shirley WillU Acting Deputy Warden for Programs
Carl L. White Chief Case Management Unit Two Chairperson, IGAC
Minutes of the Inmate Advisory Grievance Committee (IGAC) on April 28, 1998 at 1:30 p.m. on the second floor (Case Management)

RB

: Minutes from Meeting on April 28, 1998

Present: Ms. Violet Hicks, Warden's Office, Ms Gloria Thaxton, Compliance Monitor, Tony Savage, Legal Instrument Examiner, Record office and Lastarsa Hunt, Inmate Fiance Office.
Absent: Deputy Warden for Support Services, Ms Joyce Jones, A/Deputy Warden for Programs, Ms. Shirley Williams, and Deputy Warden for operations, Mr. Steve Smith.
Inmate Population Present SW3-13 Male Representative, Allen Graves, 171-938 SW1-70 Female Representative, Yvonne Joyner, DCDC 270-244 and Gilfredo Lopez, DCDC 268-588, Southwest Three, Cell 06. The meeting was called to order by Chief, Case Management, Mr. Carl L. White who presented the Correctional Staff to the IGAC. The below noted minutes are as follows:
Allegation - Allen Graves, DCDC 171938 indicated in the meeting that it takes two or three weeks before inmates are aware of how much money is credited to their accounts.
Response - Mr. Hunt, Inmate Fiance responded by saying that the process begans in the mail room. Once Inmate Fiance receives the list of money orders, our office is required to post all money orders within twenty four hours, Inmate Fiance is not suffering from a lack of staff coverage. Mr. Hunt futhor advised the IGAC that the mailroom receives the mail from the U.S. Post Office, writes up the money orders and then send the orders to the mail room. Afterwards, Inmate Fiance sends a copy back to the mail room.

(.in

o i m - JAIL

. b-ia-Stt ; 12:51 IU* ASST. ADM. PRGMS-CCA/CH ^ t a c n n e n t No
(page 3/ of 4 )

Allegation: Innate Graves advised Mr. Hunt that inmates are being credited for canteen items that are not in stock, why have items on the list if the merchandise is not available.
Response: Mr. Hunt responded by saying that is appears to be a inventory problem in terms of available goods. My office has nothing to do with the canteen inventory, you will have to address this issue with'the employees in charge of canteen throughout the Agency. I have no problem coming to the unit to address a inmate's finanicial concerns.
Statement; Inmate Gilfredo Lopez, OCDC 268588 stated that none of the Hispanic inmates he talked to are experiencing financial concerns.
Response: Mr. Hunt advised the Hispanic respresentative that Hispanic inmates never come back to pick up their money after being release from incarceration. It is there right to come back and acquire their money. The money is safe for ten years.
Allegations: Inmate Yvonne Joyner, DCOC 270244 stated that some of the female inmates are not experiencing assistance inquiring about their accounts.
Response: Mr. Hunt advised the female representative to have staff call inmate fiance before 1:00 p.m. and after 3:30 p.m.
Allegations: Inmate Graves, DCDC 171-938 asked the Legal Instrument Examiner, Mr. Tony Savage about street time regarding D.c. Parole Violators.
Response: Mr. Savage advised the male respresentative that all street time has been taken back due to Mathew Hoble vs. United States Parole Conniesion. This decision will hav» a significant impact on the Department's population management process as fewer inmates will be released at currently projected Mandatory Release dates (MR) and parole violators could serve longer sentences. Each institutional record office will have to identify all inmates affected by the Hoble Decision using their institutional tickles files and print out which will be supplied by the Data Management. All inmates with mandatory release dates within the next thirty (30) days should have their sentences recomputed immediately.
Statement: Mr. White informed Mr. Savage that many inmates in the intake units are complaining about their computation.
Response_i Mr. Savage advised the meeting that someone from the Record Offica can be requested to give a overview and meet on the second floor. Mr. Savage further advised the meeting that jail credit time comes under D.C. Code 2430.

SENT BY:DC JAIL

; 5-13-98 ; 12:51 -CDF ASST. ADM. PRGMS<CA/C A t t a c h m e n t No
(Page 3 of 4)

Statement: Innate Graves, 171-938 requested the uniform staff be present at the next I6AC meeting, also, that narcotics anonymous and alcohol anonymous meetings were stopped at the D.C. Jail.

Allegations: Inmate Graves, 171-938 informed the meeting that the inmate population was being denied due process beyond the Warden's level at the D.C. Jail. The D.C. Jail is not providing the yellow forms to address grievances to the Executive Director or Director's office.

Response - Compliance Monitor, Gloria Thaxton indicated that the

yellow forms are available Department Vide. In addition, all

\ staff have to do is contact Industries at the Lorton reservation.

CT>g^ )flhf Allen is the contact person to notify in terms of ordering

^

yellow forms.

Statement - Inmate Lopez, 268-588 is requesting to meet with all Hispanic representatives in the Law Library on May 14, 1998 at 1:30 p.m.

Allegation - Inmate Joyner DCDC 270-244 reported that the female inmates are receiving dirty straighing combs in terms of their hair.

Response - Ms. Hicks took notes and will contact Support Services.

Allegation - Inmate Joyner stated that the female intakes have a television that is not being used. Can the intake television be switched with the inoperative television in the general poulation.

Response - Ms. Hicks toook notes and will report this matter to the Warden.

Allegation - Inmate Joyner stated that female inmates are receiving one jumpsuit and imates have to wear the same clothes fro* seven to eight days, there is only one washer and dryer in the unit.

Response - Ms. Hicks responded by saying she received IGP's in reference to the female concerns that R and D is not giving up tee shirts to the female population. Also, many females are comlaining that it is too cold on the intake side. Support Services will be notified.

Allegation - Inmate Graves informed the meeting that male inmates are being discriminated against due to female inmates receiving robes and male inmates are not receiving robes.

Response - Ms. Hicks took notes and will contact the Deputy Warden for Support Services.

SEM BY:OC JAIL

; 5-13-98 ; 12 = 52 .CDF ASST. ADM. PRGMS-CCA/C1 A t t a c h m e n t N o . 8B (Page 4 of 4)

Allegation - Innate Graves complained about the double ceiling in Southwest three and that this issue was addressed to the Acting Warden, Mr. Randle. Innate Graves further advised the neeting that Mr. Randle quoted the Depaxtnent Order that allows adninistration to implement this process for thirty days.
Response - Ms. Hicks took notes and will advise the Warden's office that Innate Graves will address this issue by any means necessary*
Allegation - Innate Graves stated that the telephones are inoperative in Southeast Two and the first floor visiting hall.
- Ms. Hicks will notify Deputy Warden/ Ms. Joyce Jones of Support Services. The neeting was adjourned at approximately 2:40 p.n. May 26, 1998, is the next scheduled meeting on the second floor in the Case Management Unit at 1:30 p.n.
Submitted for the record and your information.
cc: Violet Hicks, Warden's Office Gloria Thaxton, Compliance Edward Gardner, Law Library Innate Grievance Advisory Committee

Attacherant No. t (Page 1 of 7)

COMECTIONS COWOUVTIOfl OFAMEi Co(TKtionj| Treatment Facility
LonowUoo/e

MEMORANDUM
LLJNMATES

Subj: Date:

re
Warden
April Meeting - Inmate Grievance Committee
April 27,1998

The April meeting of the CTF Inmate Grievance Committee will be held on Thursday, April 30,1998 at 1:00 p.m. Since the Committee has been dormantfora period of time, the main purpose of this meeting will be to address problems of general concern to the inmate population.
If you should have an item that you want added to the agenda of this meeting, please forward them to the member of the committee that represents your building/program or you can send them directly to Ms. Toni Perry, Grievance Coordinator. Minutes of the meeting will be posted in each unit during the week of May 4, 1998.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Mario Archibald DCDC 223-407

D-Buildincr

Michael Hill Carlos Ramos Henrietta Meeks Ronald Lee

DCDC 178-056 DCDC 211-587 DCDC 195-271 DCDC 270-085

Gwendolyn Levi DCDC 272-729 Robert Walker . DCDC 132-606
Medical Clinton Eldndge DCDC 199-305

Attachment No. 8B (Page 2 of 7)
C0UECTWN5 COtPORATION OF AMERICA Correctional Treatment Facility
CCA/CTF Inmate Grievance Committee Meetin Minutes
April 30. 1998
Attendance V
Staff Warden Lonnie Moore Assistant Warden Henderson Toni Perry, IGP Coordinator Sherrie Hill, Admin. Asst. Marvin Voss, Maintenance Supr. Charles Howard, Chief of Security Wilette Griffin, Health Services Mance Langham, Principal Mr. White, ARAMARK
William Alexander, DCDC 134-224 Michael Hill, DCDC 178-056 Henrietta Meeks, DCDC 195-271 Gwendolyn Levi, DCDC 272-729 Clinton Eldridge, DCDC 199-305 Ronald Lee, DCDC 227-085 Robert Walker, DCDC 132-606
Mail a) Mail is being delivered late at night, sometimes at 2:00 or 3:00 a.m.
b) Money orders are not being posted in a timely fashion.
RESPONSE: Chief Howard continues to monitor the mail delivery system and will determine what procedures may need to be changed to ensure timely
1901 East Street. SE. Washington, O.C. 20003. Phone: 202-698-3000, Fax: 202-673-8042

Attachment No. 81 (Page 3 of 7)
delivery. Also, there is a vacant position in the mail room. Position has been posted. II. Visitation a) Visitation is delayed if a change is made to an inmate's visitor list. b) Inmates are not notified when a visitor arrives, resulting in delayed and/or canceled visits. c) Visitors are waiting 11/2 to 2 hours before the inmate is brought down for the visit. d) Officers have a negative attitude toward visitors • numerous complaints have been made. e) The dress code for visitors is not clear and officers impose it arbitrarily (for example: some officers are prohibiting visitors who come wearing tshirts). f) Visitor identification is left in the openforanyone to see during the time they are in the visiting room. g) The issue of out-of-state and special visits needs to be resolved and the policy made clear to the inmate population. RESPONSE: Visitation procedures are being reviewed and the procedures will be changed based upon this review. Further information will be forthcoming to the inmate population. HI. Medical Issues a) Nurses are not responding to sick calL b) Medicines are not being brought to inmates on schedule. c) Staff and supplies have been cut to save CCA money. d) Medical units are not sanitary.

Atcacnment No. £ (Page 4 of 7)
e) It appears that the process for being seen by a doctor on the weekends is different than during the week. The is the question of whether there is a doctor on duty on the weekends.
f) Need clarification of who is eligible for the Medical/Geriatric Parole Act. RESPONSE: Inmates are not being denied medical needs to save money. All supplies and medications necessaryforthe delivery of medical services are ordered by medical staff. No purchase orders of this nature are denied. Sanitation issues on the unit are being addressed. The delivery of medical services; Le. sick call procedures, delivery of medications and doctor availability, is being closely monitored by Executive staff of the CTF and the DOC Contract Monitor. Improvements have been made and further procedural changes will ensure that many of the past problems will be rectified. AW Programs needs to ensure that casemanagement staff address the issue of providing information to inmates about the Medical/Geriatric Parole Act. Copies of the policy/procedures should be made available to those inmates that request one.
IV. Law Library a) Law library hours are not sufficient, inmates should be allowed more access to the law library. b) Because of the current schedule, inmates must choose between going to the law library or eating. c) Handicapped inmates are denied access to the law library.
RESPONSE: Handicapped inmates are not denied access to the law library.
A review will be made to determine whether the hours of the law library can be expanded.
The restriction on the number of inmates that can go to the library at any one time has been lifted to increase access.

Attachment No. 8B (Page 5 of 7)
V. Parole and Classification a) Parole certificates are not issued in a timely fashion according to the date stamped on the certificate. b) Inmates want original document (Notice of Action). c) Women want to be a part of the Aftercare Program in the DC Lifeline Program. RESPONSE: Certificates are issued by the Parole Board and go to DOC Case/Unit Management prior to being given to staff at CTF. The time lag is between the Parole Board processing the notice of action and the time that it remains in Case/Unit Management prior to being given to CTF staff. The AW for Programs will speak to Case/Unit Management to determine what the delay is in their office (since they are physically located within the CTF, it should be possible to decrease the amount of time it takes the documents to be given to CTF staff). The AW Programs will also check with the Parole Board to see if inmates can get the original Notice ofAction. The Aftercare Program will not be co-ed. It will have to be determined if a separate programforwomen can be arranged. VI. Food a) Food does not arrive on time and is undercooked. b) The trays are wet and dirty. RESPONSE: A new procedure has been put into place to decrease the amount of time it takes for food to be transported to the unit. Also, tray liners have been ordered to maintain food temperatures. Additional trays have been ordered by ARAMARK so that there are enough trays to allow those that have been washed to dry completely before being used again.

Attachment No (Page 6 of 7)
VII. Shakedown Procedures a) More than two officers are going into cells during shakedowns. This causes a problem when property is lost because there is no accountability of staff.
r
b) Legal material is being taken during shakedowns and not returned to inmates. RESPONSE: Shift supervisors and officers are being trained on proper search and shakedown procedures. The issue of taking legal documents will be reviewed. More information will be provided a subsequent meetings. All property confiscated should be logged on the proper confiscationformand placed in the contraband locker. Chief Howard will ensure that this procedure is followed. CCA will continue to individually address all complaints of lost property. Executive staff is now present at most scheduled shakedowns to monitor and ensure that proper procedures are followed. VII. Sanitation Issues a) Vents in cells are dirty and have a foul odor. Cells need to be exterminated for bugs. RESPONSE: A proposal has been done to flush the drains and sewer system of the CTF. This should resolve the issue of the odor coming from the drains and the bugs which are living in the residue in the drains. Also, regular extermination is occurring and during the next visit, the Safety/Sanitation Manager will ensure that these problem areas are addressed.
Vm. Telephone a) Family members are still being billed long distance charges for local calls.

Attachment No. 81 7 of 7)
b) Blocks are being placed on phones without the family member's knowledge. RESPONSE: Any billing disputes are resolved by a copy of the bill being forwarded to either the Warden or the Inmate Grievance Coordinator. Invisions will then be contacted, after the bill is provided, to resolve any billing disputes. Any blocks that are on phones are either the result of the bill not being paid or a family member (usually a child) hitting the button on the phone which automatically places the block. Any requests for blocks to be removed (which are not the result of unpaid bills) are forwarded to Invisions for resolution through the Inmate Grievance Coordinator. Conclusion Since this was the last meeting attended by Warden Lonnie Moore prior to his transfer, it was generally decided that these issues would be brought to the attention of the new Warden at the next meeting.

Attachment No. 54
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FACILITY MONTHLY CLEANING SUPPLIES ISSUE SCHEDULE FOR (MAY 1998)

SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY j THURSDAY

BL

11

FRIDAY
a

SATURDAY

WEEK ONE

ALL
MEDICAL
BUILDING < ONLIT

BUILDING

BUILDING
dim

ALL OFFICE AREAS

WEEK TWO
17

NO ISSUE FOR WEEK TWO

WEEK MEDICAL FOUR UNITS BUlLDINa
ONLY

BUILDING ONLY

BUILDING ONLY

ALL OFFICE AREAS

WEEK FOUR

M> ISSUE FOR WEEK FOUR

note: NEXT SCHEDULED PICK-UP WILL BE MAY4.1998 thru MAY7.1998 as Week One
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT YOU MUST PICK UP YOUR SUPPLIES ON THE DAYS INDICATED ON THIS CALENDAR. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN DISTRIBUTION AT THE CONVENIENCE OF SUPPLY MANAGEMENT. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS TO ENSURE THAT A STAFF PERSON IS DESIGNATED TO PICK UP SUPPLIES. ISSUANCE OF ALL
SUPPLIES WILL BE CONDUCTED DURING WEEK TWO AND WEEK FOUR THE ISSUES OF
SUPPLIES FOR WEEK FOUR WELL CONSIST OF TOILET PAPER, CHEMICALS, (TAMPONS and SANITARYNAPKINS IFNEEDED). PICK UP TIME FOR SUPPLIES IS AS FOLLOWS 8:00 A.M. UNTIL 12:00 PJVL FOR ALL AREAS INDICATED. ANY QUESTIONS OR CHANGES TO THIS SCHEDULE MUST PLEASE CONTACT MRS. WALSTON, BUSINESS MANAGER, AT X-3016

Attachment 1 5c (Page 1 of 7)

,'

Training Activity Enrollment/Attendance Roster

/
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OP AMERICA

DC CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FACUJTY

—^—M^^^^^^^•^^••••••••^•••^••••aB«MSfc»^^y^y*p^jw^i^M^jp^^™^^y^wwf™T^^H'TTTT'^™^r^"r'rni"*TFTT'^^^"J^~^~r~^"~~~~~~~

(Monday; 3/16/91

r.r \'.""' "T'Si; ^SWrWSw^y?*lr^^f 8:00 aa 9:00 aa

• Historical Perspective

I jeanette Davls-Boykins 9:00 a* 10:00 a

The Wonen Offender/Profile

I Jeanette Davls-Boykins 10:00 a i 12:00 :

V i c t l a : Child Abuse & Doaestle VJLo. Dr. Essie Knuckle 1:00 pa 4:30 p.

Daily Evaluation

3:00 p.m.

VOKKIWG ITITH

(March 16-20. 1998) 40

2. Feunell. Lloyd 3. Frazier, Lawton 4. Jones,
5. Morton. Kola 6. Quarles, Albe 7. Sanderson, Anrella 8. Sinclair, Dennis

Training Activity Enrollment/Attendance Roster

Attachment No. 15c (Page 2 of 7)

isms
(Tuesda r) 3/17/ 8 •

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
OC CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FACILITY

^^Sa^Haa^^MMaaaaaai S a a S a a k s a M ^ E^&aaaaa^K^M

Staff Offender lelationahlps | Jacqoellne 6111 Barrey | 8:0P aa 12:00 n

L 0 • CH

|12:OO no m 1:00

ProKraa Planning Paradiga

Albersynla Qoarles

|l:00 pa 5:00 pa
1

(March 16-20, 1998) 40 boura

2. Fennell, Lloyd 3. Fraaler, Lavton 4. Jonea. Axnall
liorton. Kola Ovaries, Albersynla 7. Sanderson. Anrella Sinclair. Dennla

500 - 90
ITS-00-73/J

No. 15c (Page 3 of 7)
Training Activity EnroHmaiM/AttMidanc* Roster
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
DC CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FACILITY

Wed.)

3/18/98} legal Issues L D 1 CH Offender P

12:00

12:00

1:00

Ms. Brown, D.C. Genera . 1:00 pi 5:00

Ms. Johnson, DC LlfeJLL m

(March 16-20, 1998) 40

6. Qoarles, 7. Sanderson, Aurelia

Attachment No. 15c (Page 4 of 7)

Training Activity Enrollment/Attendance Rocttr

/

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMUERICA

/

DC CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FACILITY

Thura.) 3/19/98 Offender Assessment & PI

Intermediate Sanctions Dally Evaluation

2:30 4:45 (March 16-20, 1998) 40 hoars

3. Frailer, Lavton 4. Jones* Amell
5. Morton. Eola 6. Quarlc8, Albersynla
7. Sanderson, Anrella 8. Sinclair, Dennis

Training Activity Enroitment/Attendanc* Roster

Attachment No. 15c (Page 5 of 7)

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
DC CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FAOUTY

Concents of Trea

Sharon Mays Jacks

Identification ft Utilization of

Sheila Balscy

The Pregnant Female overaxi Evaluation

HDBKIMG VITB FEMALE OFFBKDKRS

(March 16-20, 1998) 40

Fomell* Lloyd Frazier. Lawton Jones* Arnell
Queries, Albersynla Sanderson,
Sinclair, Denai

Training Activity Enrollment/Attendance Roster

Attachment No. 15c (Page 6 of 7)

SPECIAL ISSUES TSADHH6

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
DC CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FACIUTY

(Monday;

Domestic Violence

12 no, n Center* Prince George*a 1:00 vm 3:00 County

3. frazler, Lawton 4. Gable, Joanne
6. Ongta, Patricia 7. Boblnson* Carlltta 8. Sinclair, Dennla /, 9. atabuah, Bancy
D.C. UFELDtt (D Building)
/> hi A/6. fry
. Mt'nri I JtA/e-JT

Training Activity EnroflnMtrt/AttMidanca Roster

Attachment No. 15 (Page 7 of 7)

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
OC CORRECTIONAL TRL4TUENT FACILITY

(Monday

H B M M | BBMfflMllilHBIIIMWBIliWiffl

3/23/91 Domestic Yldlence

ElnaTa Sokora

10:00 «j

•

3:00 i

// ^

AMAMAil

Attachment No. 56 (Page 1 of 9)

AMAMAil
> •*

Attachment No. 5 (Page 2 of 9)
11 36

*•»

.

-

IJULLL

Attachemnt No. 56 (Page of 3 of 9)

Attachment No. 56 (Page 4 of 9)
ABAMABKCOMSECHONALSERVICES
MEALTUIX
33
vnvirar i

I! •
HAMI r

y

* . .. *.

COnMTMAGUmCHKX9 m _ h
aroma*

•

•

TTOFFKEl'SSIGNATnME mi ,.,.„__, •

L*&

Attachment NO. 56 (Page 5 of 9)
AMAMAMKCOtMECnONALSEByiCES
46
fr\> B U
trie
CBUBIFSiri

\SBxnas:
JKtWU*.

UKAL
mar-
WZML

t !

42

ft.

MM. (KUNTNAMtiQ

COUMTM461VNCBES*

•mALSHACKMAGSSZ
•
TAM- iS^AUt MASS B'tf^ % MVQtfr ^jjT uNBTW

* DATE*

«

'ft

Attachment No. 56 (Page 9 of 9)

s >
TOTAL TWdTXXmirTOTBBaar f 31
E} U' C

stram rnmm IJTMUWJ

fJCEMNAMB

. r

f

"TfyMskjJ /n
/
caMaKritf0£imc ' an

4LSXACXBA6SMECEIFEDATmiT» 'OFFKEM.*35KttAl

i v we i untiatt <» an.
BRA a umm

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTION REPORT

Nam* of Licit—

Trading ae Food Service I

I Retail Stort

Other |

Offiear of Firm Impact. Time. | Sanitation Rating 9f?

Data.
. Customer I . Numetr of Sample* Collected .

NOTICE TO ESTABLISHMENT Thla iaipiedoa w u coMfucted to determine compliance with DieUfct regulation*.

Effectiva action iwiat be 4ahaathiadeu to corioctaU underlaid

other underfilled deffdendee

•mat be corrected Minc&^undar"RaiBerfca''. Paflun to mate the indicated correction within the tpwUiMl U M mar mult ia i

praeaadian baiaf iaittaMd Mr the «ate«Maaat tharaot

A. STRUCTUU 1. noenc dm — f l y 4raiaal

iBfoodiwpair propariy

2. Wato. caflfaic aad owjrhaad: Claaa • aaafly ctoanahla • ao acattag paiat • is gsodf rapair

3. Ughtlag: adaqnato tor operation

C MEAT aarf MEAT

onm POOM
(b» Trichinae taiaingpork

for appropriate product coa-

S. Condition: food adoMvee need

-onir

4. VaatOaUoa: ate.
5 Tuilafihwjaint roomk deanproparfy eoaacractad1-*^ —«*•

inatweighu 4. Tamperatiifeofpntentialr/haiaraoMafood: 4«*Far
leaa of 14O«T or more - froaaafeodaat 0»F or below

g Handwaahing fadUti»K adequate • property located •

DEM«MT8C| C*

7 PhnBotar patabkwiUraoppijr niaainfwataraor ",' '.' no ovarhaad waata Kqae to
B. EQUIPMENT 1.

hot and cold
MOinUTSA

2. Refcig«bKltnd hottoodholding eapahbof maintaining proper foot . repair • proviaion fo^ aeperation of raw and

3. Focd Contact »urfao«»ofeiiuipnient i

•ndcooeJagvtanauai eopatruetedi

• freaifcreda. crevkee. A * * ™ * , « P«** - "******•

aeefly dianeemhlatl H f * ^ *SfMa'***"

"*

•aaited l>eforeeaeB^{ironeftecfi

availablefareUaaina) « * eeaWaiag

wUSn^
forclMainf 6. CookiBfumta. hood»i»nd;fOterr

in good repair

I. Outer

appropriate aad waahabla reatraiau

a. Good apparent health

(a) good peraooal hygteaa • head waehad and deea -

<b> Certified
E. CTNEBAL tool 0 %

DBMSUTSD

General atorege: ttoragaareaa dean, adequate end proparif otffiiod • food prodact ingrediaBta, otanaua aad Saglo eervke itema protected ton eoatamiaatkw • aouadttaeneand deea Haeaa eeparated • eoatenta of
perlr labeS^^eeaddlad aad atored
3. Oparatiiig M*«hodK teed protected dariagdapla^

propariy eonetructad and naed

REMARKS:^/.

*i i'pn BV

RECEIVED B

EXHIBIT FILED SEPARATELY UNDER SEAL

EXHIBIT FILED SEPARATELY UNDER SEAL

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et aJU,

Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action ) No. 93-2052 JLG

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

)

et aJU,

)

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND TO ENFORCE THE COURT'S ORDER FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiffs bring this motion for contempt and to
enforce the Court's Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief due to the defendants' continuing failure to implement the relief first ordered by this Court in December 1994. See Revised Court Order dated June 16, 1997, attached as Exhibit A. On December 13, 1994, the Court found that defendants violated the women prisoners' constitutional and statutory rights, and awarded plaintiffs declaratory and injunctive relief. The relief relevant to this current motion included required remedies in the areas of sexual misconduct, environmental and fire safety at the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF), and equal programming at CTF. This relief remained intact through subsequent modifications to other provisions of the Order in August 1995, and June 1997. For over three and one-half years, defendants have failed to abide
Women Prisoners/DC v. DC

PC-DC-011-022

- 2-

by the Court's Order, and their persistent violations must be

redressed by the Court.

BACKGROUND

Pursuant to an order of the Court in April 1995,

plaintiffs have been monitoring defendants' compliance with

the Order through monthly compliance reports self-reported by

the District. Due to the often inaccurate and incomplete

information provided in these reports, plaintiffs petitioned

the Court on January 11, 1997, to appoint a court expert under

Federal Rule of Evidence 703 to investigate and report on the

) true status of defendants' compliance with the Order.

Plaintiffs then withdrew that motion pursuant to an agreement
4

r^

with the District under which DCDC employee, Regina Gilmore,

conducted a special audit providing the factual information

regarding compliance which plaintiffs sought. The parties had

originally anticipated that the Gilmore Audit would be

completed by August 15, 1997. Plaintiffs agreed to several

extensions of this deadline, and the Gilmore Audit was finally

completed on October 10, 1997.

The Gilmore Audit revealed significant outstanding

areas of non-compliance in all areas of ordered relief. See

Gilmore Audit, attached as Exhibit B (without attachments).

Much of this information differed significantly from

information which had previously been self-reported by the,

District in its monthly compliance reports. The parties then

engaged in detailed and productive discussions regarding the

- 3Audit, which did result in a few areas of additional compliance. In March and April 1998, the District for the first time allowed plaintiffs' counsel access to confidential documents related to sexual misconduct investigations so that plaintiffs could evaluate whether these investigations were conforming to the Court's Order.
Despite these cooperative efforts, the bottom line remains that the defendants are not complying with the Court's Order in many critical areas. There are still approximately 271 female inmates incarcerated by the D.C. Department of Corrections. See May 1998 Mon. Rep, attached as Exhibit C. Many women prisoners were transferred by the defendants in January 1998 out of the D.C. Department of Corrections to facilities in West Virginia and Connecticut run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The 271 women still remaining in D.C. are housed at the D.C. Jail (73 women) and CTF (198 women), and generally include presentence, misdemeanant, and pregnant inmates.^ The Annex was permanently closed to female inmates in January 1998, and will be closed permanently to all inmates as part of the Lorton Closure Act. Accordingly, plaintiffs do not seek enforcement of the provisions of the
i7 The CTF is now managed by a private corporation, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) pursuant to a contract with the District of Columbia which began on March 15, 1997. Pursuant to that contract, CCA agreed to assume all obligations of the DCDC under court orders, including the orders in this case. See Operations and Management Agreement, Article 1.1 (definition of "court order"); Article 5.1 (duties and obligations). Thus, CCA is bound by this Court's Order.

- 4Order pertaining to the Minimum Security Annex. However, the remaining relief which the defendants have failed to implement simply must be enforced, as relief for the plaintiffs is more than three years overdue. I. THE RELIEF IS NECESSARY TO REMEDY A VIOLATION OF THE
WOMEN PRISONERS' FEDERAL RIGHTS. Courts traditionally have the inherent power to find
a party in contempt for disobeying the provisions of its orders. International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 831 (1994); National Organization of Women v. Operation Rescue, 37 F.3d 646, 659-60 (D.C. Cir. 1994). This "inherent contempt authority" is a "power 'necessary to the exercise of all others.'" Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 831. The underlying rationale for a contempt proceeding is that "all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly." NLRB v. Cincinnati Bronze. Inc., 829 F.2d 585, 590 (6th Cir. 1987); Glover v. Johnson, 931 F. Supp. 1360, 1363 (E.D. Mich. 1996), rev'd in part on other grounds, 138 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 1998) . Thus, the Court here has broad authority to impose judicial sanctions to "coerce the defendant into compliance with the court's order." Bagwell. 512 U.S. at 829.
The Order at issue here was originally entered by this Court on December 13, 1994. After a three-week trial, the Court found numerous violations of the federal rights of the women prisoners in the custody of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections at the Jail, Minimum Security Annex, and the Correctional Treatment Facility ("CTF"). The Court

- 5first found that the incidents of sexual misconduct, poor obstetrical and gynecological care, lack of fire safety, and severe environmental conditions constituted violations of the Eighth Amendment. Women Prisoners v. District of Columbia. 877 F. Supp. 634, 662-71 (D.D.C. 1994). The court also found that the educational and vocational opportunities available to female prisoners were substantially inferior to those provided to similarly situated male prisoners, in violation of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 672-79.
Based upon these findings, the Court entered an order setting forth the remedies to be provided by the Defendants. Id. at 679-90. The relief relevant to this contempt motion included required remedies in the area of sexual misconduct at both the Jail and CTF, environmental and fire safety at CTF, and equal programming at CTF.
The relief imposed by the Court was narrowly tailored to fit the scope of the violations. Upon review of the Order entered after trial, this Court held that the provisions of the Order were "consistent with the limiting principles which district courts in this Circuit must apply when devising remedies for unlawful prison conditions." Women Prisoners v. District of Columbia, 899 F. Supp. 659, 672-73 (D.D.C. 1995). The Court specifically found that the relief ordered "faithfully follow[ed]" the guiding mandates set by this Circuit in Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 844 F.2d 828,

- 6841 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Women Prisoners. 899 F. Supp. at 672. The relief ordered by this Court has withstood subsequent challenges brought by the defendants in the form of a motion for modification, and upon appellate review before the Court of Appeals. See Women Prisoners, 899 F. Supp. at 659; Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia v. District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 910 (D.C. Cir. 1996) . Upon remand from the Court of Appeals, and upon Joint Stipulated Motion of the parties, this Court entered its Final Revised Order which serves as the law of this case on June 16, 1997.
The constitutional violations that this Court found in 1994 still exist today and have not been cured. From 1994 to the present, the defendants have proved either unwilling or unable to remedy the violations cited by the Court. The need for the relief ordered by the Court is just as urgent today as it was four years ago. Thus, plaintiffs respectfully urge the Court to take the necessary steps to ensure that the provisions of its Order are enforced.
To find defendants in contempt, the Court must find that the defendant did not comply with the Court's prior order. Glover v. Johnson, 75 F.3d 264, 266 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 67 (1996). The test for compliance is not whether a defendant made a good faith effort, but rather whether the defendant took "all reasonable steps" to obey the court's order. Glover v. Johnson. 934 F.2d 703, 708 (6th Cir. 1991) ; Morales Feliciano v. Parole Board of the Commonwealth
T T

- 7of Puerto Rico, 887 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1989), cert, denied. 110 S. Ct. 1511 (1990). Once plaintiffs prove a prima facie showing of a violation of the court's order, defendants have the burden of proving inability to comply. Huber v. Marine Midland Bank. 51 F.3d 5, 10 (2d Cir. 1995). II. DEFENDANTS HAVE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER.
Defendants concede in their own monthly reports and in the Gilmore Audit that they have violated many paragraphs of the Court's Order. The report of the Special Officer, Grace Lopes, found similar violations in her report of May 1995. Across the board, defendants have failed for the past three years to institute the types of remedies ordered by this Court. As a result, women prisoners continue to be exposed to incidents of sexual assault, sexual harassment, frigid temperatures, unhealthy food, unsafe living conditions, and inferior programming. These harms stemming from a violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights must be remedied by the defendants, as ordered by this Court.
A. Defendants Have Failed to Comply with Critical Provisions of the Order Pertaining to Sexual Misconduct. Defendants have failed to comply with the provisions
of the Court Order pertaining to the prevention, investigation, and remediation of sexual misconduct by prison staff against female inmates. Plaintiffs' review of the sexual misconduct investigation files, as well as the monthly compliance reports, confirms the findings of the earlier

- 8Gilmore audit that defendants have failed to implement the Court-ordered relief which is critical to eliminating a hostile sexualized environment, such as training, discipline, investigation, and reporting.
1. General duty to investigate and prevent sexual misconduct. Under the terms of the Court Order, defendants have
an obligation to "take appropriate steps to prevent and remedy sexual harassment committed by its own employees." (Court Order H 5 ) . At the time of trial, the Court found that although the Defendants had "policies and procedures to address sexual misconduct," those policies and procedures were "of little value because the Defendants address the problem of sexual harassment of women prisoners with no specific staff training, inconsistent reporting practices, cursory investigations, and timid sanctions." Women Prisoners, 877 F. Supp. at 640. The deficiencies found by the Court in December 1994 still continue to present a problem today.
First, plaintiffs found, upon review of the investigation files, that although the quality of investigating and reporting has improved, defendants continue to find a lack of probable cause in almost all of the cases. Of the approximately 63 files that plaintiffs reviewed, a probable cause finding was made in only ten cases. Plaintiffs have attached a chart summarizing the findings of each of the investigation files reviewed. See Sexual Misconduct Chart, attached as Exhibit D (under seal). It is still true, as the

- 9Court found in 1994, that where the evidence is reduced to a dispute between the inmate and the staff member, defendants generally side with the employee unless the complainant's allegations could be "verified" or "substantiated." For example, in a recent investigation in September 1997, the investigator concluded that the complainant's statement could not be verified because the inmate was on medication and therefore her testimony was unreliable. See Sexual Investigation Report, attached as Exhibit E (under seal).
Although the defendants have taken steps to improve the investigation procedures by contracting out to private firms, and training in-house investigators, the benefits of any improved investigative system are lost because defendants fail to follow up on recommendations made by the private firms. None of the files reviewed by plaintiffs contained any documentation regarding disciplinary steps taken by the defendants, or any policy, staffing or other bureaucratic changes made to ensure that the situation does not occur again. Defendants acknowledge that, up until recently, recommendations have not been implemented because the reports containing the recommendations were kept confidential and consequently were not forwarded to the individuals who could implement the recommended changes. See Amato ltr. of June 5, 1998, attached as Exhibit F (without attachments). Moreover, it appears that recommendations made in reports that find no

- 10 probable cause are disregarded completely, even though the investigator finds areas of concern that need improvement.
Plaintiffs' review of the sexual misconduct files also revealed that defendants have in several cases applied an improper definition of sexual misconduct. Defendants have found no probable cause in several cases based upon the rationale that a "specific intent of sexual gratification" must exist. For example, in a report completed in June 1997, the investigator found no probable cause of sexual harassment where a visiting inmate was strip-searched by an officer at the Jail who asked to see her breasts and vagina because the officer was concerned about the inmate's gender. See Sexual Misconduct Report, attached as Exhibit G (under seal). The investigator concluded that because the intent of the officer was not "sexual" in nature, no sexual harassment had occurred. This finding is clearly contrary to the plain language of the Court's definition of sexual harassment, and defeats the purpose of the sexual misconduct policy, which is to eradicate a "hostile and sexualized environment" at the prison facilities.
Of additional and significant concern to plaintiffs is the fact that CCA has hired the same perpetrators previously identified as "bad actors" at the Jail or Annex. A review of the investigative files revealed that several of the "bad actors" terminated by the Department of Corrections have reappeared at CTF and are working with women. Clearly,

- 11 defendants are not taking the necessary steps to prevent incidents of sexual misconduct if they are allowing known perpetrators to continue to work with female inmates. For example, two complaints filed in October 1997 and February 1998 involve an individual correctional officer who featured prominently as a "bad actor" in the original trial back in December 1994. See Sexual Misconduct Complaints, attached as Exhibit H (under seal). Investigators from Special Officer Lopes' office have previously expressed concern that there are no safeguards in place to assure that "bad actors" are not rehired by another contractor or by the Department of Corrections.
Finally, defendants have allowed staff members to resign rather than pursue criminal investigations under the District of Columbia law which makes a felony offense sexual contact, consensual or otherwise, between a staff member and an inmate. D.C. Code Ann. § 22-4113 - 4117 (1997) . For example, two investigations initiated against a staff member at CTF in June 1997 were closed after the staff member was allowed to resign, despite the fact that one of the investigators found probable cause that the staff member had been involved in a sexual relationship with a female inmate. See Sexual Misconduct Reports, attached as Exhibit I (under seal). Under the provisions of the Court Order, defendants were required to report the incident to the police department
• i

- 12 not just to let the staff member resign quietly without repercussion.
2. Adoption of penalties for prohibited conduct In accordance with the terms of the Court Order, defendants were required to determine the "penalties for prohibited conduct" as defined by the Court-defined sexual misconduct policy. (Court Order fl 7 ) . Although the Department of Corrections' policy contains a table of penalties, in compliance with the Court Order, the CCA policy in operation at CTF does not provide enumerated penalties for violations of the sexual misconduct policy. Instead, the policy merely states that the Warden will take "appropriate disciplinary action against employees who are found to have engaged in sexual misconduct." CCA policy 14-100, at 14.100.5(I)(4), attached as Exhibit J. In order to ensure the effectiveness of the sexual misconduct policy, a progressive table of penalties must be in place at CTF, as clearly required by the Court Order. 3. Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee at CTF Under the terms of the Court Order, defendants are required to "strictly adhere" to the Inmate Grievance procedures, and must establish an Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee as required by Department Order 4030.ID. (Court Order 1 8 ) . Despite this clear mandate, the Inmate Grievance Committee has not met regularly at CTF. There were no

- 13 committee meetings between September 1997 and April 1998. See, e.g., Sept. 97 Mon. Rep.; Apr. 98 Mon. Rep., attached as Exhibits K and L respectively. CTF finally convened an inmate grievance committee meeting on April 30, 1998, more than seven months after the last meeting. See May 1998 Mon. Rep, Ex. C. The inmate grievance committee plays a critical role in enabling the female inmates to voice their complaints, and it is essential that the committee convene regularly as required by the Court's Order.
4. Establishment of Confidential Hot Line Under the terms of the Court Order, defendants were required to establish a confidential hot line, through which women prisoners could report allegations of sexual harassment. (Court Order 1 10). Defendants have only sporadically complied with the requirement of providing a confidential hot line. The Gilmore audit reported that neither the Jail nor CTF had an operational hot line as of October 15, 1997. See Ex. B, at p.8. The Jail had previously operated a hot line, but its operation was suspended after the termination of the duties of the Special Officer of the Court. See Ex. B, at p. 8. After the Gilmore Audit, CTF implemented an operational hot line, which received its first call on October 21, 1997. See May 1998 Mon. Rep, Ex. C. However, the Jail did not implement an operational hot line until some time in February 1998.
T r

- 14 5. Reporting of sexual misconduct to law
enforcement agency. Under the terms of the Court Order, defendants are required to notify the "proper law enforcement agency" upon "receipt of any allegation of any act of unwelcome sexual intercourse or any allegation of unwelcome sexual touching." (Court Order 1 12). The Gilmore Audit found, based upon a review of sexual misconduct complaint reports, that defendants were not in compliance with Paragraph 12 of the Court Order. The Auditor's review of investigations of sexual misconduct involving female inmates at the Jail for the period 9/1/96 to 6/30/97 revealed that "no cases were reported to the Metropolitan Police Department." Ex. B, at p. 29. Similarly, the Auditor found at CTF that several sexual misconduct complaints that should have been reported to the police department were not reported. Ex. B, at p. 78. The Auditor found that both facilities did not have an accurate understanding of "the circumstances of a sexual misconduct incident that warrants referral to the MPD." Plaintiffs' own review of the sexual misconduct investigations in March 1998 also found that defendants are only sporadically reporting complaints to the Metropolitan Police Department. For example, a female inmate at CTF originally filed a complaint in August 1997 alleging sexual abuse by a staff member. The Metropolitan Police Department was not contacted until mid-September, after the inmate filed

- 15 an additional complaint demanding that she be allowed to talk to the police department. See Sexual Misconduct Report, attached as Exhibit M (under seal). Similarly, two allegations of sexual misconduct filed against a staff member at Annex in June and July of 1997 were not referred to the police department, as required by the Court Order. See Ex. I.
6. Allowance of 15 days for appeal. The Court Order requires that any inmate who is dissatisfied with the resolution of a sexual investigation be allowed to appeal to the Director of DCDC "within 15 days of receiving written notice of the outcome of the investigation." (Court Order 1 14). Contrary to the Court Order, both the Jail and CTF have adopted sexual misconduct policies that only provide the inmates with five days to appeal the results of a sexual misconduct investigation. See CCA Policy 14-100, at 14100.5(L), Ex. J. ("[A]n inmate who is dissatisfied with the investigation or resolution of a complaint of sexual misconduct . . . may appeal by letter to the Director of the DCDC through the DCDC Contract Monitor within five (5) Calendar days of receiving written notice of the outcome of the investigation." (emphasis added); D.O. 3350.2B (VII)(K)(1) (same), attached as Exhibit N. The allowance of only five days to appeal a decision fails to comply with the plain terms of the Court's Order, and, more importantly, hampers an

- 16 inmate's ability to retain an attorney and/or obtain advice on how to proceed with an appeal.
7. Training of employees and female inmates. Under the terms of the Court Order, defendants are required to conduct various staff and inmate training programs on sexual misconduct issues. (Court Order HU 15, 16). Despite the important role training plays in ensuring that incidents of sexual misconduct are minimized, defendants have failed to comply with training provisions of the Court Order. Defendants concede in their monthly reports that they have never provided the sexual misconduct training at the Jail mandated by paragraph 15(c) of the Court Order, which requires a forty-hour training program for selected employees working with female prisoners, and semi-annual enhancement training. See May 1998 Mon. Rep, Ex. C. 8. Alterations to ensure privacy at CTF. Under the terms of the Court Order, defendants were required to make "necessary alterations" at CTF within 6 0 days of the date of the order to "ensure that women have privacy in their living, sleeping and shower areas." (Court Order H 17). In October 1997, the Gilmore Audit reported that, although CTF had taken some steps to ensure privacy, such as adopting a mandatory announcement policy, there remained a problem with privacy in the dormitory area -- male inmates and employees could still see in through female inmates' cell windows at night. See Ex. B, at p. 81 ("With lights on in the

- 17 cell in E Building, vision of the woman's nude silhouette is not significantly reduced.").
More than seven months later, defendants have not made any alterations to eliminate this problem. A proposed permanent measure to alter the windows, including installing velcro strips for removable curtains, was suspended in March of this year, pending a determination of how many female inmates at CTF would be transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. See May 1998 Mon. Rep, Ex. C. Instead, CTF has resorted to allowing the women to cover their windows with "fabric, cardboard or paper." Ex. C. This temporary measure is clearly insufficient and cannot satisfy the defendants' obligations to make alterations to the facility as required by the Court Order. Moreover, it presents an unnecessary security risk and compromises the safety of everyone at the facility.
B. Defendants Have Failed to Comply with Court-ordered Relief Regarding Environmental Conditions at CTF. Under the terms of the Court Order, defendants are
required to take specified steps to remedy the environmental conditions at the CTF facility, including: (1) hiring a contractor to provide "an acceptable level of air quality to all areas of the facility" (f 51); (2) take steps to "maintain a minimum cell temperature of 65° in every cell," and "report back to the court" (f 52); (3) "develop and implement an effective rodent program" (1 53); (4) "monitor food

- 18 temperature and delivery times of all foods" (H 56); and (5) implement DCRA recommendations within thirty days {% 59) .
Despite the fact that a private contractor, Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA"), has taken over the management of the Correctional Treatment Facility, the same severe environmental problems that the Court documented in its, opinion continue to exist at the facility. See Women Prisoners, 877 F. Supp. at 649-50.
1. Air quality and temperature. Under the terms of the Court's Order, defendants were required to hire a qualified air balancing contractor to service the CTF air handling system so that it provides "an acceptable level of air quality." (Court Order U 51). Although a contractor was hired in March 1997, the facility continues to suffer from poor levels of air quality. For example, the DCRA inspection in October 1997 noted "dirty ventilation" as a problem in numerous areas throughout the facility, including the dormitories, infirmary, and the medical unit. See DCRA Rep. Oct. 1997, attached as Exhibit 0. Also, in the April 30, 1998 Inmate Grievance Committee meeting minutes, inmates reported that "vents in cells are dirty and have a foul odor." See May 1998 Mon. Rep., Ex. C. CTF concedes that the air system again needs to be "rebalanced" and reports that it has recalled the contractors to "repair and upgrade the air handling system." See May 1998 Mon. Rep., Ex. C. It is clear that, close to four years after the Court

- 19 first ordered that the air balancing system be fixed, no significant progress has been made.
What is even more troubling, however, is defendants' failure to remedy the air temperature problems in the cells at CTF. (Court Order H 52). Defendants concede in the monthly reports that they are not in compliance with the Court's requirement to fix the heating problems which result in cell temperatures dropping below 65°. See, e.g.. Mar. 1998 Mon. Rep., attached as Exhibit P; Apr. 1998 Mon. Rep., Ex. L. As recently as April of this year, defendants admitted that they are "unable to develop a feasible plan." See April 1998 Mon. Rep., Ex. M. In their last report, Defendants indicated that they have sought authorization for "insulating all the end cells." See May 1998 Mon. Rep., Ex. C. Although plaintiffs welcome any steps to improve the heating situation, such measures are long overdue, and, in any event, will not remedy the deficiencies in any of the other cells that have perimeter walls.
Despite the fact that Defendants acknowledge they have not fixed the problem, they have failed to report back to the Court on their lack of progress, as clearly required by the Court Order. (Court Order \ 52(d)). Defendants originally promised that a report would be filed with the Court on March 16, 1998, a date which has since been postponed numerous times. The current self-imposed deadline of May 26, 1998, set

- 20 in defendants' most recent report, has come and gone with no report filed that plaintiffs are aware of.
2. Effective Rodent Program. The Court Order mandates that defendants implement an "effective rodent program." (Court Order 1 53, emphasis added). Although Defendants report "compliance" with paragraph 53 of the Court's Order, all evidence indicates to the contrary -- rodent infestation continues to be a prevalent and serious problem at CTF. Defendants assert that they complied with the provisions of paragraph 53 back in April 1997 by negotiating a contract with Orkin Chemical Company. However, a DCRA environmental inspection report conducted on October 14-15 1997 cited CTF for failure to implement "effective vermin control." DCRA Report, Oct. 1997, Ex. 0. The investigator noted that "evidence of mice droppings were found in the dry storage area, bread storage area, oven area, dishwashing area, [and] equipment storage area" in the Culinary unit at CTF. Ex. 0. Defendants should not be allowed to escape their obligations under the Order simply by claiming that they implemented a program, regardless of the obvious poor results. 3. Food Temperature and Delivery Time Almost three years after the Court entered its original order, the exact same food preparation problems that threatened the health of the women prisoners at CTF continue to plague the culinary operations at CTF. See Women

- 21 Prisoners. 877 F. Supp. at 650 (finding that "inadequate food preparation threatens residents at CTF").
Contrary to all evidence, defendants have reported ongoing "compliance" with the food temperature monitoring requirement of paragraph 56 of the Court Order. However, CTF has been cited twice by DCRA in the last eight months for serving food at "potentially hazardous levels." DCRA Oct. 1997 Rep., Ex. 0; May 1998 Mon. Rep., Ex. C. To begin with, in the October 14-15 1997 report, DCRA gave CTF an over-all 50% sanitation rating for food service, citing health regulation deficiencies ranging from dirty floors, walls and ceilings, lack of proper hair restraints, faulty refrigeration, and dirty trays and pans. See Ex. 0.
On the specific issue of food temperature, the investigator reported that food delivered to the units "were not at safety temperatures." Ex. 0. Moreover, food trays took "approximately 27 to 3 0 minutes after being served to arrive at cell blocks." Ex. 0. In a recent DCRA investigation performed on May 8, 1998, CTF was again cited for serving food at potentially hazardous levels. See May 1998 Mon. Rep., Ex. C. The investigator found that "hot food arrived at the cell block at 109° - 125°F," well below the required level of 140° or higher, and cold food arrived at "67° to 77°F," well above the required level of 45° or less. Ex. Q.-1
-' Plaintiffs have not received a copy of the entire report of the inspection conducted May 7 - May 9, 1998. Instead,
(continued...)

- 22 Defendants' violation of the Court Order is further documented by CTF's own food monitoring forms, which record food temperature on randomly selected meals and regularly report food temperatures at hazardous levels. For example, the ARAMARK food monitoring sheets submitted with the March and April 1998 report indicate eleven separate incidents of food being served at unhealthy temperatures, such as a meat pattie served at 113°F (27° below the minimum accepted temperature), and turkey noodles served at 118°F. See Exs. L, P. In addition, at a recent Inmate Grievance Committee Meeting held on April 30, 1998 (the first one in more than seven months), the inmate representatives reported that "[f]ood does not arrive on time and is undercooked," and "[t]he trays are wet and dirty." See May. 1998 Mon. Rep., Ex. C. 5. Implement DCRA Recommendations Paragraph 59 of the Court Order requires that DCRA inspect CTF two times per yeaif. After each inspection, the Warden is required to obtain a copy of the report within 3 0 days after the inspection, and to remedy any unsanitary practice or condition within 3 0 days following receipt of the report. (Court Order 1 59).
-' (. ..continued) plaintiffs have only received a copy of the worksheet for the last day of the inspection, on which the facility received a rate of 92%. It has been counsel's experience that the ratings on the last day are the most favorable.
T r

- 23 Defendants conceded in their May compliance report that, as of the date of the report, they had not yet taken any steps to remedy the violations cited by DCRA in its October 17, 1997 report. Despite the fact that defendants attached the DCRA culinary inspection worksheet for October 17, 1997 to the November 1997 compliance report, defendants assert that they did not receive an "official report" until sometime around April 9, 1998, and thus were not able to correct any deficiencies. Ex. L.2/ Plaintiffs find it incredulous that it would take more than five months for CTF to receive a copy of the report. In any event, once the defendants did receive a copy of the "official report" that they were waiting for, they still did not remedy the violations cited by DCRA. In the last compliance report Plaintiffs received, Defendants forecast the completion date for repairs as May 29, 1998, more than seven months after the original inspection was performed. Ex. C. Plaintiffs have not received any documentation to date to suggest that the repairs were completed.
-' It is also worth noting that defendants reported in November 1997 that they received a 92% rating in the DCRA inspection, attaching as documentation the culinary inspection sheet for October 17, 1997. Plaintiffs did not learn, until they received their own copy of the DCRA report through other means, that, in fact, CTF initially received a rating of 50% for the first two days of inspection, October 14-15, 1997, and that the 92% rating was received only on the third day that the inspector returned to inspect the facility.

- 24 C. Defendants Have Failed to Comply with Court-ordered
Relief Regarding Fire Safety Conditions at CTF Under the terms of the Court Order, defendants are required to "conduct and document mandatory semi-annual training on fire safety procedures for all correctional officers." (Court Order 1 65). Defendants concede through their monthly compliance reports that they have failed to perform the semi-annual training for all correctional officers at CTF. See, e.g., Exs. C, L, P. Although new hires received training in fire safety procedures in January 1998, CTF has been promising for months that it would conduct training for the remaining employees, originally forecasting that such training would occur in October 1997, but now asserting that fire training will occur within the next ninety days. See Oct. 1997 Mon. Rep, attached as Exhibit Q; May 1998 Mon. Rep., Ex. C. In addition to failing to provide the necessary training, the DCRA Environmental Inspection Reports suggests that there are other areas of significant concern. The October 1997 DCRA report cited CTF for the presence of fire extinguishers on the floor, empty fire extinguishers, and covered smoke detectors. Ex. 0. D. Defendants Have Failed to Comply with Court-ordered Relief Regarding Programming at CTF Under the terms of the Court Order, defendants are required to take certain steps to ensure that women prisoners at CTF receive the same or equivalent educational

- 25 opportunities as similarly-situated men, including: (1) providing diagnostic evaluations for women prisoners transferred to CTF (K 19); (2) providing at least one apprenticeship program to women at CTF (f33); and (3) providing on-site higher education programs, including a fouryear college program (f 27). Despite the clear mandates of the Court, defendants have failed to make reasonable efforts to provide equal educational opportunities to the women at CTF.
1. Diagnostic evaluations. On April 9, 1998, defendants suspended diagnostic evaluations for women transferred to CTF, "pending the movement of convicted female inmates to the Federal Bureau of Prisons." See Exs. L, P. Defendants have represented on numerous occasions that the women prisoners currently at CTF will be transferred out to Federal Bureau Prisons. Despite these representations, no such transfer has occurred and 198 female inmates remain at the institution, (as of May 9, 1998) . Plaintiffs have seen no documentation of any formal decision to transfer the women out of CTF. Until such time, defendants must continue to perform the diagnostic evaluations on all women prisoners transferred to the facility. Without such evaluations, the women will not be eligible for programming at

- 26 CTF, or at the Federal Bureau of Prisons facility that they are ultimately (if ever) transferred to.-7
2. Apprenticeship Program. Defendants have for a long time conceded that they are in violation of their Court-ordered obligations to provide an apprenticeship program for women prisoners at CTF. (Court Order 1 33). There has been not been an apprenticeship program for women at any time during the past four years. Although defendants appear to have taken some steps to try and put an apprenticeship program in place (including submitting a proposal to the DC Apprenticeship Council), they concede in their most recent report that they have failed in their efforts, and "there is no accredited apprenticeship program available to the female inmates." See May 1998 Mon. Rep., Ex. C. Until defendants implement an apprenticeship program, the women at CTF will continue to be deprived of a vocational opportunity made available to men. 3. College programs. Under the terms of the Court Order, defendants were required to provide women prisoners at CTF access to a fouryear college program no later than February 1996. (Court Order % 27). Defendants failed to carry out the mandates of this order until December 1997, and classes only just began in
17 Defendants now report that as of June 5, 1998, diagnostic evaluations have been reinstituted and women previously transferred to CTF have been diagnosed. However, in light of defendants' past behavior defendants must be enjoined from arbitrarily suspending court-ordered relief.

- 27 January 1998. Thus, the women inmates at CTF were deprived of the opportunity to participate in college classes for two years, despite their clear entitlement to such a program under the Court's Order. III. PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO RELIEF FOR THE DEFENDANTS'
PERSISTENT VIOLATIONS OF THE COURT ORDER. A. The Court Should Impose Prospective Per Diem Fines.
Many of the provisions of the Order which defendants have failed to implement require only simple, affirmative action to remedy the problem. For example, the Court's Order requires that the District follow its Inmate Grievance Policy, which includes routine Inmate Grievance Committee meetings. Yet CTF failed to have these routine meetings for the past seven months. As to these provisions, the Court should impose daily fines until the defendants comply with the specific provisions. •
The Court has the inherent power to impose civil contempt sanctions in the form of per diem fines to remedy violations of its orders. Such prospective fines imposed for the defendants' continued failure to perform simple, affirmative acts are clearly within the power of the Court to impose. Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 833-37 (recognizing court may impose civil contempt sanctions for "discrete, readily ascertainable acts")/ National Organization of Women, 37 F.3d at 659 (noting that court may impose civil contempt sanctions such as "compensatory fines, coercive imprisonment, and per

- 28 -

diem fines to coerce compliance with affirmative court

orders").

Thus, the Court should give the defendants 45 days

to comply with the following specific paragraphs:

H 7

CCA must provide written penalties for sexual

misconduct

11 8 1 14
1 15 (b) 11 15 (c) 1 15 (c) 11 17 1 19 1 33 11 52 (d)

CCA must hold Inmate Grievance Committee meeting
Revise Department Order and CCA policy to allow 15 days for inmate to appeal adverse decision on sexual misconduct investigation.
Conduct annual refresher training at Jail
Conduct 40 hour training for staff working with female inmates
Conduct enhancement training on working with female inmates
Make alterations at CTF to ensure women's privacy in cells.
Provide diagnostic evaluations for women
Provide one apprenticeship program for women
Report back to court on why air balancing and alternative measures have failed to eliminate extreme cold temperatures for women prisoners at CTF.

H 59

Remedy deficiencies found in DCRA inspection at CTF on October 14, 1997, finding substantial health hazards, sanitation problems, and food delivery problems

H 65

Conduct training at CTF on fire safety procedures.

If defendants have not complied with these

provisions within 45 days, a fine of $50 per day should be

imposed for the first 30 days thereafter, escalating to $100

- 29 per day for the next 60 days, and then doubling every 3 0 days thereafter.
B. The Court Should Appoint an Expert to Report on Compliance.
Other provisions of the Order are more complex, and cannot easily be remedied by one discrete act. The Order requires that defendants "investigate and prevent" sexual misconduct, and properly train and discipline staff regarding sexual misconduct. (Court Order HI 5, 11, 12, 15). Defendants have clearly demonstrated their inability to comply with these provisions. Despite their representations that they view sexual misconduct as an important issue, defendants nevertheless have failed to implement the basic relief of training their employees, disciplining employees, or notifying the police department of sexual misconduct allegations. The District has demonstrated its own inability to cure the systemic problems with training, investigation, and reporting, which plaintiffs' experts testified at trial were critical to eliminating a hostile, sexualized environment that perpetuates sexual misconduct in prison. Aside from the Gilmore Audit, defendants are also unable even to accurately report on the status of these various provisions in their monthly reports. Thus, an independent expert is clearly needed to evaluate whether defendants are complying with the Order.
As to these specific provisions involving continuing obligations to remedy sexual misconduct, plaintiffs request

- 30 that the Court appoint an expert to investigate and report to the Court within 120 days on the defendants' compliance with these provisions, and any recommended remedial measures. Plaintiffs then request a hearing within 30 days of the expert's report.
C. The Court Should Award Plaintiffs Their Reasonable Attorneys7 Fees and Costs. Plaintiffs have invested significant time in
investigating the state of defendants' compliance with the Order, obtaining reliable factual information, and in negotiating with the defendants in the hopes of resolving the noncompliance by agreement. Yet none of these efforts has successfully resolved the outstanding areas of noncompliance. Thus, plaintiffs were forced to bring this motion for contempt before the Court in order to enforce the relief ordered.

- 31 Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in enforcing the relief ordered by the Court.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 22, 1998

P d t e r j 7 NicKTein* 53447 Caroline M. Brown # 438342 Lisa Stevenson # 457628 COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (202) 662-6000
Brenda V. Smith # 404979 Deborah L. Brake # 435006 NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER 11 Dupont Circle NW Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 588-5180
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF

)

COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

)

et a‰.,
v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Plaintiffs,

)
) ) Civil Action ) No. 93-2052 JLG ) ) ) )

et âL·.,

)

)

Defendants. ) )

PLAINTIFFS' REVISED PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Court
hereby makes its conclusions of law: GENERAL
1. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(3).
2. The Court has pendent jurisdiction to consider the state law claims. John Doe v. District of Columbia, 697 F.2d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
3. This case was properly certified as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2). The class is defined as all women prisoners who are incarcerated in the District of Columbia correctional system as of October 1, 1993, and all women prisoners who will hereafter be incarcerated in the D.C. correctional system.

Women Prisoners of DC Department of Corrections v. District of Columbia

PC-DC-0011-0026

- 2SEXUAL MISCONDUCT Equal Protection 4. Sexual harassment by a person acting under color of state law is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that is actionable under 4 2 U.S.C. § 1983. Pontarelli v. Stone. 930 F.2d 104, 113-114 (1st Cir. 1991); Starrett v. Wadlev. 876 F.2d 808, 814 (10th Cir. 1989); Bohen v. City of East Chicago, Ind., 799 F.2d 1180, 1185 (7th Cir. 1986); Poulsen v. Citv of North Tonawanda. N.Y.. 811 F. Supp. 884, 894 (W.D.N.Y. 1993). The equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment provides the same guarantee of protection to the residents of the District of Columbia as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does to residents of the fifty states. Boiling v. S h a m e . 347 U.S. 497 (1954) . 5. Defendants, as supervisors, exhibit reckless indifference to their employees' violations of women prisoners' constitutional rights and therefore are liable for the sexual harassment perpetrated by their employees, who are acting under color of state law. Murphy v. Chicago Transit Auth.. 638 F. Supp. 464, 470 (N.D. 111. 1986). 6. Defendants, as supervisors, are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because of their failure to take corrective action after being put on notice that their employees were harassing women prisoners on the basis of gender. Murphy v. Chicago Transit Auth., 638 F. Supp. 464, 470 (N.D. 111. 1986) .

- 37. Defendant District of Columbia and its agencies are liable to the class of women prisoners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because its policies or customs have deprived the women of rights secured by the U.S. Constitution and federal laws. Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (197 8 ) ; Starrett v. Wadlev, 876 F.2d 808, 818 (10th Cir. 1989); Morgan v. District of Columbia. 824 F.2d 1049, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Poulsen v. City of North Tonawanda. N.Y.. 811 F. Supp. 884, 896 (W.D.N.Y. 1993) . 8. The policies or customs that have led to the constitutional harm include the Defendants' "actual practice" and not necessarily what is found in the District's laws and regulations. LaShawn A. v. Dixon,. 762 F. Supp. 959, 990 (D.D.C. 1991), aff'd in part, rev'd in part. 990 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1993), cert, denied. 114 S. Ct. 691 (1994); Parker v. District of Columbia. 850 F.2d 708, 714 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert, denied. 489 U.S. 1065 (1989); Havnesworth v. Miller. 820 F.2d 1245, 1248 & n.l (D.C. Cir. 1987); Poulsen v. City of North Tonawanda. N.Y., 811 F. Supp. 884, 896 (W.D.N.Y. 1993). 9. Defendants' deliberate indifference towards women prisoners, including the failure to train its employees on proper treatment of women prisoners, constitutes a policy or custom that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Canton v. Harris. 489 U.S. 378, 389 (1989); Parker v. District of Columbia. 850 F.2d 708, 714 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert, denied.

- 4489 U.S. 1065 (1989); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 824 F.2d 1049, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1987) .
Constitutional Right to Bodily Privacy 10. Women prisoners have a constitutional right to bodily privacy. Fortner v. Thomas, 983 F.2d 1024, 1030 (11th Cir. 1993); Bowling v. Enomoto, 415 F. Supp. 210, 203 (N.D. Cal. 1981)("Inmates retain [a] constitutional right to privacy in [her] own person."); Forts v. Ward. 621 F.2d 1210, 1213 (2d Cir. 1980)("Inmates retain some residual privacy rights."). 11. Defendants have violated women prisoners' constitutional right to privacy by failing to prevent and remedy "the unrestricted observation of their genitals and bodily functions by prison officials of the opposite sex under normal prison conditions." Bowling v. Enomoto. 415 F. Supp. 210, 204 (N.D. Cal. 1981). 12. Defendants have violated women prisoners' constitutional right to privacy by failing to prevent and remedy the involuntary exposure of women prisoners' genitals to persons of the opposite sex. Lee v. Downs, 641 F.2d 1117, 1119 (4th Cir. 1981). 13. Defendants have violated women prisoners' constitutional right to privacy by failing to remedy and prevent women prisoners from being viewed completely or partially unclothed by men. Forts v. Ward. 621 F.2d 1210, 1214 (2d Cir. 1980) .

- 5Eighth Amendment 14. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual assault of women prisoners constitutes unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain that is inflicted "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm." Hudson v. McMillian. 112 S. Ct. 995, 998 (1992). 15. Plaintiffs have suffered significant injury from sexual harassment and sexual misconduct by DCDC employees. Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1526 (9th Cir. 1993) (en bane); United States v. Clark. No. 91-2059, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 2815, *2-3 (10th Cir. 1992). 16. Sexual harassment and sexual misconduct suffered by women prisoners constitutes an unconstitutional condition of confinement to which Defendants have been deliberately indifferent. Hovater v. Robinson. 1 F.3d 1063, 1066 (10th Cir. 1993); McKenzie v. Wisconsin Dep't of Corrections. 138 F.R.D. 554, 555 (E.D. Wis. 1991); Fair v. Brown. No. K85-535, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13428, *4O (W.D. Mich. 1990); Garnett v. Keener. 541 F. Supp. 241 (M.D. Pa. 1982); Battle v. Seaao. 431 S.E.2d 148, 149 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) . 17. Defendants' deliberate indifference to the sexual harassment and sexual misconduct suffered by women prisoners is established by their knowledge of this conduct and their failure to remedy the abuse. Farmer v. Brennan, No.

- 692-345, slip op. at 10-11 (U.S. June 6, 1994); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 300-02 (1991).
18. Knowledge of a significant risk of serious injury can be inferred from "the very fact that the risk was obvious." Farmer v. Brennan, No. 92-345, slip op. at 16 (U.S. June 6, 1994) .
Due Process 19. Defendants have violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by punishing pretrial detainees without due process of law. Bell v. Wolfish. 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). See Campbell v. McGruder. 580 F.2d 521, 531 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
D.C. Code 20. The sexual harassment and sexual misconduct to which women prisoners are subjected is a violation of D.C. Code § 24-442 which requires Defendants to be responsible for the safekeeping, care, protection, instruction, and discipline of all persons committed to its correctional institutions. John Doe v. District of Columbia. 697 F.2d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 1983); District of Columbia v. Mitchell. 533 A.2d 629 (D.C. App. 1987) . 21. By housing women in co-correctional facilities and then failing to protect them from sexual harassment and sexual misconduct, Defendants have failed to house women prisoners in appropriate facilities in violation of D.C. Code § 24-425. Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia. 841 F.2d

- 71133 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Pitts v. Meese. 684 F. Supp. 303 (D.D.C. 1987), aff'd, 866 F.2d 1450 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
GYNECOLOGICAL AND OBSTETRICAL CARE Eighth Amendment
22. The Eighth Amendment prohibits Defendants from maintaining a system of medical care characterized by deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of women prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble. 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976); Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro. 834 F.2d 326, 350 (3d Cir. 1987), cert, denied. 486 U.S. 1006 (1988); French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1254 (7th Cir. 1985), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 817 (1986); We11man v. Faulkner. 715 F.2d 269, 271 (7th Cir. 1983), cert, denied. 468 U.S. 1217 (1984); Ramos v. Lamm. 639 F.2d 559, 574 (10th Cir. 1980), cert, denied, 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Inmates of Allegheny City Jail v. Pierce. 612 F.2d 754, 762 (3d Cir. 1979); Todaro v. Ward. 431 F. Supp. 1129, 1132 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd. 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1977), aff'd. 652 F.2d 54 (1981).
23. Adequate gynecological and obstetrical care is a serious medical need of women. See, e.g.. Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro. 834 F.2d 326, 348 (3d Cir. 1987), cert, denied. 486 U.S. 1006 (1988); Archer v. Dutcher. 733 F.2d 14, 16 (2d Cir. 1984); Todaro v. Ward. 431 F. Supp. 1129 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1977).

- 824. Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of women prisoners at CTF, and thus have violated the Eighth Amendment. See Wilson v. Seiter. 501 U.S. 294 (1991); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976); Eades v. Thompson. 823 F.2d 1055, 1060-61 (7th Cir. 1987); Duncan v. Duckworth. 644 F.2d 653, 654 (7th Cir. 1981); Todaro v. Ward, 565 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1977). 25. Defendants' deliberate indifference is established by their knowledge that their practices and procedures placed women prisoners at CTF at a substantial risk of serious injury, including gynecological infection, sterility, cancer, complication during pregnancy, infant deformity, and infant mortality. Farmer v. Brennan. No. 92345, slip op. at 10-11 (U.S. June 6, 1994); Helling v. McKinnev. 113 S. Ct. 2475 (1993); Boretti v. Wiscomb. 930 F.2d 1150, 1155 (6th Cir. 1991); DeGidio v. Punq. 920 F.2d 525, 533 (8th Cir. 1990) . 26. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment because there are systematic and gross deficiencies in the procedures which Defendants use to provide gynecological and obstetrical care to women prisoners, effectively delaying and denying women prisoners access to adequate care. See Estelle v. Gamble. 429 U.S. 97, 104-105 (1976); Kaminskv v. Rosenblum. 929 F.2d 922, 926 (2d Cir. 1991); Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro. 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir. 1987); Ancata v. Prison Health Servs.. Inc.. 769 F.2d 700, 704

- 9(11th Cir. 1985); Archer v. Dutcher. 733 F.2d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 1984); Wellman v. Faulkner. 715 F.2d 269, 272 (7th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 468 U.S. 1217 (1984); Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 577 (10th Cir. 1980), cert, denied. 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Todaro v. Ward, 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1977), aff'd, 652 F. 2d 52 (1981); Hurst v. Phelps, 579 F.2d 940, 941-942 (5th Cir. 1978); Isaac v. Jones. 529 F. Supp. 175, 180 (N.D. 111. 1981).
27. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide women prisoners with adequate preventive health care, routine gynecological examinations, and health education. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982); Lareau v. Manson, 651 F.2d 96, 109 (2d Cir. 1981); Ramos v. Lamm. 639 F.2d 559, 574 (10th Cir. 1980).
28. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to carry-out prescribed medical treatment. Johnson v. Hay. 931 F.2d 456, 461 (8th Cir. 1991); Boretti v. Wiscomb. 930 F.2d 1150, 1154 (6th Cir. 1991); Gill v. Moonev. 824 F.2d 192, 196 (2d Cir. 1987); Jorden v. Farrier, 788 F.2d 1347, 1349 (8th Cir. 1986); Kelsev v. Ewina. 652 F.2d 4, 5-6 (8th Cir. 1981); Todaro v. Ward. 431 F. Supp. 1129, 1151 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1977), aff'd. 652 F. 2d 52 (1981); Riddick v. Bass, 586 F. Supp. 881, 882-883 (E.D. Va. 1984) .
D.C. Code 29. Defendants' failure to provide adequate staff, equipment, and facilities for the delivery of health services

- 10 to women prisoners violates D.C. Code §§ 24-442, which imposes on Defendants an affirmative duty of care with respect to the health care provided to prisoners. District of Columbia v. Mitchell. 533 A.2d 629, 648 (D.C. App. 1987); Yarbauah v. Roach. 736 F. Supp. 318, 319 (D.D.C. 1990).
PROGRAMS 30. Defendants' provision of unequal programs and opportunities to women prisoners on the basis of a facial classification of segregating prisoners based on sex demonstrates intent to discriminate as a matter of law under both the equal protection and Title IX analyses. Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hoaan. 458 U.S. 718, 724-25 (1982); Klinger v. Nebraska Dep't of Correctional Servs., 824 F. Supp. 1374, 1388, 1433 (D. Neb. 1993); Canterino v. Barber. 564 F. Supp. 711, 714 (W.D.Ky. 1983) ("Canterino III"); Glover v. Johnson, 478 F. Supp. 1075, 1080 (E.D. Mich. 1979). 31. Women prisoners are "similarly situated" to those men prisoners with similar custody levels, sentence structures, and general purposes of incarceration and programming. Klinger v. Nebraska Dep't of Correctional Servs.. 824 F. Supp. 1374, 1359, 1431-34 (D. Neb. 1993); Glover v. Johnson, 478 F. Supp. 1075, 1082 (E.D. Mich. 1979). See, e.g.. McCoy v. Nevada Dep't of Prison, 776 F. Supp. 521, 533 (D. Nev. 1991); Bukhari v. Hutto, 487 F. Supp. 1162, 1171 (E.D.Va. 1980).

- 11 Title IX 32. Title IX, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688, which prohibits sex discrimination in education programs and activities by entities receiving federal financial assistance, applies to prisons such as the District of Columbia Department of Corrections that receive federal funds. Klinger v. Nebraska Dep't of Correctional Servs.. 824 F. Supp. 1374, 1359, 1431 (D. Neb. 1993) ; Beehler v. Jeffes. 664 F. Supp. 931, 940 (M.D.Pa. 1986), aff'd without opinion. 989 F.2d 486 (3d Cir. 1993); Canterino v. Barber. 564 F. Supp. 711, 714-15 (W.D.Ky. 1983) ("Canterino III"); Canterino v. Wilson. 546 F. Supp. 174, 209-10 (W.D. Ky. 1982), rev'd in part on other grounds. 869 F.2d 948 (6th Cir. 1989). 33. Defendants have provided women prisoners with unequal opportunity in programs and activities in the areas of education, vocation, apprentice training, occupational work training, and industries in violation of Title IX. Klinger v. Nebraska Dep't of Correctional Servs.. 824 F. Supp. 1374, 1432 (D. Neb. 1993); Canterino v. Barber. 564 F. Supp. 711, 714-15 (W.D.Ky. 1983) ("Canterino III"): Canterino v. Wilson. 546 F. Supp. 174, 210 (W.D. Ky. 1982), rev'd in part on other grounds, 869 F.2d 948 (6th Cir. 1989); 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.31, 106.34, Pt. 100, App. B, VII-A & VII-B. Equal Protection 34. Defendants' facial classification of prisoners based on sex triggers intermediate or "heightened" scrutiny

- 12 under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. J.E.B. v. Alabama, 114 S. Ct. 1419 (1994); Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 724-25 (1982); Pitts v. Thornburgh, 866 F.2d 1450, 1455 (D.C. Cir. 1989) . See Klinger v. Nebraska Dep't of Correctional Servs.. 824 F. Supp. 1374, 1390-91 (D. Neb. 1993); Canterino v. Wilson, 546 F. Supp. 174, 210 (W.D. Ky. 1982), rev'd in part on other grounds, 869 F.2d 948 (6th Cir. 1989); Bukhari v. Hutto, 487 F. Supp. 1162, 1171 (E.D.Va. 1980); Glover v. Johnson. 478 F. Supp. 1075, 1078-83 (E.D. Mich. 1979). See also Boiling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) .
35. Defendants have failed to provide women prisoners with programs and opportunities in education, vocation, work, recreation, religion, and privileges in parity with those provided to similarly situated men prisoners in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Klinaer v. Nebraska Dep't of Correctional Servs.. 824 F. Supp. 1374, 1398-1411, 1427-29 (D. Neb. 1993) (education, vocation, recreation); Glover v. Johnson. 721 F. Supp. 808, 827, 835-36, 841 (E.D. Mich. 1989) ("Glover III") (education); Canterino v. Wilson. 546 F. Supp. 174, 212, 215 (W.D. Ky. 1982) (vocation, work, recreation), rev'd in part, 869 F.2d 948 (study and work release programs); Glover v. Johnson. 478 F. Supp. 1075, 1086-93 (E.D. Mich. 1979) (vocation, work). See Pitts v. Thornburgh. 866 F.2d 1450, 1461-63 (D.C. Cir.

- 13 1989); Pitts v. Meese, 684 F. Supp. 303, 313 (D.D.C. 1987), a £ f d, 866 F.2d 1450 (D.C. Cir. 1989) .
36. There is no "exceedingly persuasive justification" for Defendants' gender-based classification and therefore it cannot survive constitutional scrutiny. J.E.B. v. Alabama, 114 S. Ct. 1419, 1425 (1994); Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hoaan, 458 U.S. 718, 724-25 (1982).
D.C. Code 37. Defendants have provided women prisoners with inadequate programs and opportunities in education, vocation, work, recreation, and religion in violation of state law which requires Defendants to exercise reasonable care in the provision of care and instruction to all inmates. D.C. Code § 24-442. See Fulwood v. Clemmer, 206 F. Supp. 370 (D.D.C. 1962) . 38. By continually housing women under a series of ad hoc arrangements that do not provide equal and adequate programs and services to women prisoners, Defendants have failed to house women prisoners in appropriate institutions in violation of state law. D.C. Code Ann. § 24-425. Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia. 841 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Pitts v. Meese, 684 F. Supp. 303 (D.D.C. 1987), aff'd. 866 F.2d 1450 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT Eighth Amendment
39. Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the risk associated with the physical conditions of confinement of the women prisoners who are housed at the Annex and at CTF. Farmer v. Brennan, No. 92-345, slip op. at 10-11 (U.S. June 6, 1994); Wilson v. Seiter. 501 U.S. 294 (1991).
40. Defendants' deliberate indifference to the physical conditions of confinement of the women prisoners is established by their knowledge of these conditions and the subsequent failure to take reasonable steps to remedy them. Farmer v. Brennan, No. 92-345, slip op. at 10-11 (U.S. June 6, 1994); Wilson v. Seiter. 501 U.S. 294, 300-02 (1991).
41. Defendants' knowledge of a significant risk of serious injury can be inferred by "the long duration of a cruel prison condition." Wilson v. Seiter. 501 U.S. 294, 300 (1991).
42. Defendants' knowledge of a significant risk of serious injury can be inferred from "the very fact that the risk was obvious." Farmer v. Brennan. No. 92-345, slip op. at 16 (U.S. June 6, 1994).
43. In a suit for injunctive relief, such as this one, knowledge of a significant risk of serious injury can be obtained in the course of litigation. Farmer v. Brennan. No. 92-345, slip op. at 20 & n.9 (U.S. June 6, 1994).
44. Defendants' deliberate indifference to the physical conditions of confinement of the women prisoners who

- 15 are housed at the Annex and at CTF satisfies the "subjective" component of Eighth Amendment analysis. Farmer v. Brennan, No. 92-345, slip op. at 10-11 (U.S. June 6, 1994); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 303 (1991).
45. The "objective" component of Eighth Amendment is likewise satisfied because Defendants have deprived the woman prisoners at the Annex and CTF of "essential human needs" including warmth, sanitation, exercise, food that is safe to eat, and basic safety and security in their environment. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991); Rhodes v. Chapman. 452 U.S. 337, 348 (1981); Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry. 844 F.2d 828, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
46. Some of the women prisoners' conditions of confinement establish an Eighth Amendment violation "in combination," even though each would not do so alone, because "they have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need . . . for example, a low cell temperature at night combined with a failure to issue blankets." Wilson v. Seiter. 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991); Rhodes v. Chapman. 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981); Inmates of Occoauan v. Barry. 844 F.2d 828, 836-37 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Doe v. District of Columbia. 701 F.2d 948, 961 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
47. The overcrowding at the Annex, while itself not an Eighth Amendment violation, Rhodes v. Chapman. 452 U.S. 337, 348 (1981), has so overtaxed the facility that the

- 16 resulting unhealthy and unsafe environment constitutes a deprivation of adequate shelter and security and an Eighth Amendment violation. Williams v. Griffin. 952 F.2d 820, 82425 (4th Cir. 1993); Williams v. Adams, 935 F.2d 960, 962 (8th Cir. 1991); Tillerv v. Owens. 907 F.2d 418, 423 (3rd Cir. 1990); Akao v. Shimoda, 832 F.2d 119, 120 (9th Cir. 1987), cert, denied, 485 U.S. 993 (1988); Toussaint v. Yockey, 722 F.2d 1490, 1492 (9th Cir. 1984).
48. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect the women prisoners from excessively cold or hot temperatures and by failing to provide decent ventilation and insulation. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991); French v. Owens. 777 F.2d 1250, 1255 (7th Cir. 1985), cert, denied. 479 U.S. 817 (1986); Madison County Jail Inmates v. Thompson. 773 F.2d 834, 838-39 (7th Cir. 1985); Hoptowit v. Spellman. 753 F.2d 779, 784 (9th Cir. 1985); Ramos v. Lamm. 639 F.2d 559, 566 (10th Cir. 1980), cert, denied. 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Hutchinas v. Corum. 501 F. Supp. 1276, 1282 (W.D. Mo. 1980) .
49. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by depriving the women prisoners of a safe and sanitary environment through their failure to provide proper plumbing, adequate hot water, adequate lighting, and adequate cleaning supplies and their failure to follow sanitary laundry procedures. French v. Owens. 777 F.2d 1250, 1252 (7th Cir. 1985), cert, denied. 479 U.S. 817 (1986); Madison County Jail

- 17 Inmates v. Thompson, 773 F.2d 834, 838-39 (7th Cir. 1985); Hoptowit v. Spel·lman, 753 F.2d 779, 783-84 (9th Cir. 1985); Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 569-70 (10th Cir. 1980), cert, denied. 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Hite v. Leeke. 564 F.2d 670, 672 (4th Cir. 1977).
50. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide food that has been prepared under safe and sanitary conditions. French v. Owens. 777 F.2d 1250, 1255 (7th Cir. 1985), cert, denied. 479 U.S. 817 (1986); Madison County Jail Inmates v. Thompson, 773 F.2d 834, 838-39 (7th Cir. 1985); Ramos v. Lamm. 639 F.2d 559, 571 (10th Cir. 1980), cert, denied.. 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Lightfoot v. Walker. 486 F. Supp. 504, 524 (S.D. 111. 1980).
51. The presence of vermin is evidence of a failure to maintain facilities in a constitutionally adequate manner. Kost v. Kozakiewics. 1 F.3d 176, 188 (3rd Cir. 1993) : Hoptowit v. Spellman. 753 F.2d 779, 784 (9th Cir. 1985) ; We11man v. Faulkner. 715 F.2d 269, 274 (7th Cir. 1983), cert, denied. 468 U.S. 1217 (1984) .
52. Prisoners have the right not to be subjected to the unreasonable threat of injury or death by fire and need not wait until actual casualties occur in order to obtain relief. Inmates of Occoouan v. Barry, 717 F. Supp. 854, 867 (D.D.C. 1989); see also Helling v. McKinnev. 113 S. Ct. 2475, 2479-80 (1993). Therefore, Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide an adequate level of

- 18 fire safety at CTF and the Annex. Hoptowit v. Spellman. 753 F.2d 779, 783 (9th Cir. 1985); Santana v. Callazo. 714 F.2d 1172, 1183 (1st Cir. 1983), cert, denied. 466 U.S. 974 (1984); Leeds v. Watson. 630 F.2d 674, 675 (9th Cir. 1980); Hutchings v. Corum. 501 F. Supp. 1276, 1293 (W.D. Mo. 1980) .
D.C. Code 53. The physical conditions of confinement of the women prisoners at the Annex and CTF constitute violations of D.C. Code § 24-442 which requires Defendants to be responsible for the safekeeping, care, and protection of all persons committed to its correctional institutions. John Doe v. District of Columbia. 697 F.2d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 1983); District of Columbia v. Mitchell. 533 A.2d -629 (D.C. App. 1987) . 54. Defendants have failed to house women prisoners in appropriate facilities in violation of D.C. Code § 24-425. Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia. 841 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Pitts v. Meese. 684 F. Supp. 303 (D.D.C. 1987), aff'd. 866 F.2d 1450 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
NEED FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 55. When conditions of confinement violate constitutional rights, a federal court must "discharge [its] duty to protect constitutional rights" by entering an order for injunctive relief. Rhodes v. Chapman. 452 U.S. 337, 352 (1981). 56. Even in those instances where Defendants have taken steps to address the constitutional violations,

- 19 injunctive relief is still appropriate if Defendants have not proven that they will not "revert to their obduracy upon cessation of the litigation." Farmer v. Brennan. No. 92-345, slip op. at 20 n.9 (U.S. June 6, 1994).
57. In this regard, the Court can take notice of Defendants' long record of willful, contemptuous, and contumacious behavior in related litigation involving the D.C. prison system.

DATED:
Prepared by:
Peter J. Nickles #53447 Caroline M. Brown #43 8342 Tracy A. Thomas #435742
COVINGTON & BURLING 12 01 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (202) 662-6000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Co-counsel:
Brenda V. Smith #404979 Deborah L·. Brake #435006 NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER 1616 P Street, N.W. Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-5160

June L. Green U.S. District Judge

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,

V .
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,

Defendants.

) Civil Action ) No. 93-2052 JLG ) )
) ) ) ) ) )

PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
I. GENERAL 1. The profile of the woman prisoner in D.C. is
97% African-American, 85% unemployed, 82% single parent and primary caretaker, 7% sentenced for violent crimes, and 57% sentenced for drug law violations. The women have histories of substance abuse, past•sexual and physical abuse, and suffer from severe emotional problems including depression and dependence. (Pi. Exs. 289, 290, 292, 339, 341, 434, 520; Ryan deposition; Minor Dep. Tr. at 24-27) .
II. SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT Physical Sexual Conduct 2. D.C. Department of Corrections (DCDC) employees
use physical force and threats of physical force to make women
• n u p i p i i Women Prisoners of DC Department of Corrections v. District of Columbia

- 2prisoners engage in sexual activity. (Pi. Exs. 88, 502, 504, 596; Fiester deposition and testimony; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 14 9-51; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 64).
3. DCDC employees coerce women prisoners into engaging in sexual activity through the use of threats, including threats of escape reports and disciplinary reports. (PI. Ex. 68; Fiester deposition and testimony; Krull Dep. Tr. at 146-49).
4. DCDC employees coerce women prisoners into having sexual contacts in exchange for goods and favors, including cigarettes, money, candy, food, and preferential treatment. (Derr (II) Dep. Tr. at 75; Fiester deposition and testimony; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 57-59, 137-3 9; Jones Dep. Tr. at 23-32).
5. DCDC employees initiate and/or engage in inappropriate sexual activity with women prisoners. (Pi. Exs. 80, 83, 85, 98, 104, 502, 506, 657; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 58-59; Brummell Dep. Tr. at 14, 21, 85; Derr (II) Dep. Tr. at 78, 81, 88-89; Fiester deposition and testimony; Gilmore Dep. Tr. at 216; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 57-59, 73-74, 118-20, 137-39, 14345, 147, 150-51; Jones Dep. Tr. at 113, 159-64, 167-79; Krull Dep. Tr. at 233, 263; Perry Dep. Tr. at 166-68; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 162-63; Ray (II) Dep. Tr. at 125-26; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 199; Smith Dep. Tr. at 200-10).
6. Women prisoners are unable to truly consent to physical sexual contact with employees due to the extreme

- 3positions of power employees have over women prisoners, coupled with the fact that women prisoners are completely dependent upon the employees for their care, well-being, and security. (Fiester deposition and testimony; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 81-82; Krull Dep. Tr. at 201; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 23 2; Minor Dep. Tr. at 123-24; Perry Dep. Tr. at 175; Roach Dep. Tr. at 102).
7. DCDC employees allow women prisoners to have sexual relations with other residents. (Fiester deposition and testimony; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 67-70; Jones Dep. Tr. at 149-54) .
8. DCDC employees touch women prisoners in an inappropriate and unwanted sexual manner. (Pi. Exs. 69, 73, 10, 596; Brummell Dep. Tr. at 85; Fiester deposition and testimony; Gilmore Dep. Tr. at 202; Jones Dep. Tr. at 137, 140-41) .
9. DCDC employees expose their bodies to women prisoners. (Pi. Ex. 69; Fiester deposition and testimony).
10. DCDC employees encourage or coerce women prisoners to "flash" for them and to expose their bodies to employees. (Pi. Exs. 84, 88; Fiester deposition and testimony).
11. Defendants are aware that physical sexual contact occurs between DCDC employees and women prisoners. (PI. Exs. 66, 69, 73, 83, 85, 86, 97, 104, 502, 504, 506; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 57-60; Brummell Dep. Tr. at 13-104, 68-82;

- 4Fiester deposition and testimony; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 93-94, 127-67; P. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 152-56; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 23-156; Jones Dep. Tr. at 21-47, 110-88; Krull Dep. Tr. at 232-49, 269-70; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 119-26, 260-65; Perry Dep. Tr. at 160-75; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 151-52; Ray (II) Dep. Tr. at 125-30; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 199-200, 202-04, 208-16; Roach Dep. Tr. at 108-14; Welch Dep. Tr. at 62-67, 79-82).
12. Defendants fail to adequately address sexual misconduct at the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF), the Minimum Security Annex (Annex), and the Jail. (Pi. Ex. 66, 69, 73, 83, 85, 86, 97, 104, 502, 504, 506; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 57-60; Fiester deposition and testimony; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 93-113; P. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 152-56; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 23-156; Jones Dep. Tr. at`21-47, 122-88; Krull Dep. Tr. at 232-49, 269-70; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 222-23, 225-26; Perry Dep. Tr. at 160-75; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 165-66, 171-72, 181-82, Ray (II) Dep. Tr. at 125-30; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 199-200, 20204, 214-15; Roach Dep. Tr. at 111-14; Welch Dep. Tr. at 62-67, 79-82) .
13. Although sexual contact between employees and inmates is forbidden, the Defendants' written policy on the Employee Inmate Relationship does not address sexual contact between employees and inmates. (Pi. Ex. 106; Fiester deposition and testimony; Gilmore Dep. Tr. at 197).

- 5Verbal Sexual Comments
14. Women prisoners at CTF, the Annex, and the Jail are subjected to inappropriate verbal sexual comments, advances and propositions by DCDC employees in every aspect of their incarceration. (Pi. Exs. 67, 72, 74-78, 82, 84, 101; Fiester deposition and testimony; Jones Dep. Tr. at 144; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 57; Stempson Dep. Tr. at 170-72).
15. Defendants are aware that women prisoners at CTF, the Annex, and the Jail are subjected to inappropriate verbal sexual comments, advances and propositions by DCDC employees in every aspect of their incarceration. (PI. Exs. 67, 72, 74-78, 82, 84, 101; Fiester deposition and testimony; Jones Dep. Tr. at 144; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 57; Stempson Dep. Tr. at 168-72).
16. Women prisoners at the Annex are subjected to inappropriate verbal sexual comments, advances and propositions by male inmates when the women walk from the Annex to the Minimum security compound for daily meals. (Fiester deposition and testimony; Gilmore Dep. Tr. at 205-06; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 157-58).
17. Male correctional officers at the Minimum compound encourage the behavior of the male inmates by laughing and making no effort to stop the harassment of women prisoners. (Fiester deposition and testimony).
18. Women prisoners at the Annex are subjected to inappropriate verbal sexual comments, advances and

- 6propositions by male inmates and DCDC employees in Industries at the Central Facility. (Derr (II) Dep. Tr. at 88-90; Fiester deposition and testimony; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 92-111; Stempson Dep. Tr. at 133).
19. Defendants' employees witness and are aware that women prisoners are subjected to inappropriate verbal sexual comments, advances and propositions by male inmates at Minimum. (Fiester deposition and testimony; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 157-58; Gilmore Dep. Tr. at 205-06) .
20. Defendants' policy prohibiting sexual harassment does not apply to sexual harassment of inmates. (Pi. Ex. 107).
Invasion of Privacy 21. Defendants fail to prevent the invasion of
women residents' privacy. (Fiester deposition and testimony). 22. Male employees frequently enter the women's
living areas without announcing their presence in contravention of Defendants' internal policy. (Fiester deposition and testimony; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 32-33, 44).
23. Male employees frequently view the female
``v
residents without clothing as a result of their failure to announce their presence in the women's living areas. (PI. Ex. 330; Fiester deposition and testimony).
24. Male residents are able to view the interior of women's housing areas at CTF from the recreation yard and from

- 7their cells. (Pi. Ex. 330; Fiester deposition and testimony; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 218-19) .
Environment 25. Sexual misconduct, sexual harassment and
invasions of privacy create a hostile, sexualized environment at CTF, Minimum, and the Jail. (Fiester deposition and testimony; Lancaster deposition and testimony; Minor Dep. Tr. at 15-22, 94-124, 126-29; Ray (II) Dep. Tr. at 111-12; 13234) .
26. DCDC employees allow women on housing units to be inappropriately attired, in contravention of their internal policy, in the presence of male employees, which contributes to a hostile, sexualized environment. (Pi. Exs. 3 26, 33 0, 3 57; Fiester deposition and testimony; Hawkins Dep. Tr. at 151-52; Krull Dep. Tr. at 199; Lancaster deposition and testimony).
Effect on Women 27. Defendants are aware that incarcerated women as
a population generally have low self esteem and a high incidence of depression, and that many women prisoners have experienced rape, sexual assault, or sexual abuse prior to being incarcerated. (Fiester deposition and testimony; Lancaster deposition and testimony; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 13741; Ryan Dep. Tr. at 407-08).
28. The sexualized environment and sexual contact between DCDC employees and women prisoners exacerbates the

- 8women's existing low self esteem and depression. (Fiester deposition and testimony; Ryan Dep. Tr. at 407-08) .
29. Women prisoners with histories of rape, sexual abuse, or sexual assault who are subjected to sexual comments, advances, or contacts experience increased depression, guilt, self-blame, anger, and hostility. Additionally, the process of resolving problems related to prior abuse is severely damaged. (Fiester deposition and testimony).
30. Women prisoners who are not directly subjected to sexual comments or physical contact who observe this behavior may experience psychological distress, including feelings of helplessness and frustration, and may have recurrences of memories of past abuse. (Fiester deposition and testimony).
31. Coerced sexual contact in exchange for goods and preferential treatment encourages and reinforces pathological behavior in women prisoners, including reinforcing the idea that women can use their bodies as commodities and that their value is primarily as sexual objects. (Fiester deposition and testimony).
32. Sexual assault or rape can cause women prisoners to experience severe depressive and anxiety disorders, significant physical symptoms, and symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. (Fiester deposition and testimony).

- 933. Women residents experience embarrassment and stress due to the unnecessary invasion of privacy. (Fiester deposition and testimony). Reporting Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment 34. Instructions for filing an Inmate Grievance Procedure are not uniformly posted which restricts women prisoners' access to this procedure for reporting incidents of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. (Fiester deposition and testimony; Krull Dep. Tr. at 230). 35. The existing Inmate Grievance Procedure does not adequately address women's concerns for confidentiality. (Fiester deposition and testimony; Perry Dep. Tr. at 164-65; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 148-49; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 210; Smith Dep. Tr. at 218). 36. Defendants' employees are not uniformly aware of the procedure for reporting incidents of sexual misconduct within the institution. (Fiester deposition and testimony; Elzie Dep. Tr. at 77; Ali Dep. Tr. at 140; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 158-59). 37. Employees' are not uniformly aware of procedures for reporting allegations of sexual misconduct to law enforcement agencies. (Henderson Dep. Tr. at 115, 146; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 243). 38. Sexual misconduct involving force or threats of force are not routinely reported to law enforcement agencies.

- 10 (PI. Exs. 73, 87, 90, 91, 154, 502; Fiester deposition and testimony; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 161).
39. On the occasion that an incident of sexual misconduct involving force or threats of force is reported to law enforcement agencies, the facility often fails to communicate with the law enforcement agency to ascertain the outcome of the investigation. (Fiester deposition and testimony; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 95, 146, 151, 156-57).
40. Employees receive allegations of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment from women and fail to report the allegations. (Fiester deposition and testimony; P. Jackson Dep. Tr. 152-56; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 72; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 240; Perry Dep. Tr. at 161; Welch Dep. Tr. at 6267, 72).
Investigating Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment 41. Defendants fail to adequately investigate
reports of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. (Pi. Exs. 66, 69, 73, 83, 85, 86, 97, 104, 502, 504, 506; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 57-60; Derr (II) Dep. Tr. at 105-06; Fiester deposition and testimony; Hawkins Dep. Tr. at 176-80; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 93-113, 115; P. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 81-82, 152-56; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 23-156, 161; Jones Dep. Tr. at 21-47, 12288; Krull Dep. Tr. at 227-28, 232-49, 269-70; Lancaster deposition and testimony; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 222-23, 22526; Perry Dep. Tr. at 160-75; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 165-66, 17172, 181-82, Ray (II) Dep. Tr. at 125-30; Riddick Dep. Tr. at

- 11 199-200, 202-04, 214-15; Roach Dep. Tr. at 111-14; Welch Dep. Tr. at 62-67, 79-82) .
42. No uniform investigatory procedures exist for investigating allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment. (Fiester deposition and testimony; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 85; Krull Dep. Tr. at 227; Lancaster deposition and testimony).
43. There are excessive delays in the investigation and timely resolution of prisoners' claims of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. (Fiester deposition and testimony).
44. Defendants fail to take appropriate action during the course of an investigation of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. (Pi. Exs. 72, 80, 67, 82, 86, 502, 504, 596; Elzie (sealed) Dep. Tr. at 16; Fiester deposition and testimony).
45. Defendants routinely fail to investigate, or conduct deficient investigations of, allegations of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. (Pi. Exs. 68, 80, 84, 85, 91, 98; Brummell Dep. Tr. at 91; Derr (II) Dep. Tr. at 68-71, 75-76; Elzie (sealed) Dep. Tr. at 13-14; Fiester deposition and testimony; Hawkins Dep. Tr. at 176-80; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 164-66; Y. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 67-74, 119-20, 137-39, 143, 148; Jones Dep. Tr. at 31-32, 159-60, 163-64, 167-79; Krull Dep. Tr. at 233, 244-49, 263-68; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 153-58, 182; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 213; Smith Dep. Tr. at 200).

- 12 46. Defendants routinely determine that sexual misconduct or sexual harassment has not occurred when the evidence consists of an inmate's word against an employee's word. (Pi. Exs. 67, 74-78, 82, 86; Fiester deposition and testimony). 47. Defendants routinely fail to make a finding of whether sexual misconduct or sexual harassment occurred. (Pi. Exs. 67, 82, 86, 88, 98, 502, 504, 596; Brummell Dep. Tr. at 95-97; Fiester deposition and testimony; Jones Dep. Tr. at 178-79; Lancaster deposition and testimony; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 166; Smith Dep. Tr. at 200; Stempson Dep. Tr. at 169-72). 48. Defendants fail to discipline employees for sexual misconduct or sexual harassment. (Pi. Exs. 83, 101, 104, 502; Brummell Dep. Tr. at 68; Fiester deposition and testimony; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 132; Lancaster deposition and testimony; Roach Dep. Tr. at 112; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 162, 189). 49. Defendants do not conduct an internal investigation when an allegation of sexual misconduct is referred to a law enforcement agency. (Elzie (sealed) Dep. Tr. at 9; Henderson Dep. Tr. at 14 9, 156-57). 50. Defendants' recent policy regarding the use of outside investigators for allegations of sexual harassment applies only to sexual harassment of employees. (Pi. Ex. 433; Gilmore Dep. Tr. at 212-14; Jones Dep. Tr. at 125). 51. The inaction of the Defendants in investigating allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment

- 13 increases the women's reluctance to report sexual misconduct or sexual harassment. (Fiester deposition and testimony).
Training 52. Defendants fail to adequately train their
employees regarding sexual harassment and sexual misconduct between employees and inmates. (Pi. Ex. 356; Fiester deposition and testimony; Lancaster deposition and testimony; Stempson Dep. Tr. at 182-83; Welch Dep. Tr. at 76).
53. Defendants' two hour training component on sexual harassment pertains only to the sexual harassment of employees. (Pi. Exs. 115, 116).
Ill. MEDICAL CARE Gynecological Care 54. Defendants have failed to provide adequate
gynecological care precluding prevention, early identification, treatment, and monitoring of gynecological conditions. (Major deposition and testimony).
55. Defendants' failure to provide adequate gynecological and obstetrical care has caused women prisoners unnecessary physical and psychological stress and pain. (Major deposition and testimony).
56. By not providing adequate gynecological care, Defendants have also significantly increased the risk that women prisoners will suffer harm in the future. (Major deposition and testimony).

- 14 --Examination and Testing
57. Defendants are aware that women prisoners at CTF are in a high risk category for gynecological diseases such as syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, breast, uterine, and cervical cancer, and for developing complications during pregnancy. A study conducted by Defendants revealed that approximately ten percent of all women prisoners are HIV positive. (PI. Exs. 297, 660, 667; W. Hall Dep. Tr. at 46, 51; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 152-55; Welch Dep. Tr. at 44-46; Jane Doe III Dep. Tr. at 27-29) .
58. Contrary to Defendants' own written policies and correctional health care standards, testing for sexuallytransmitted diseases often does not take place within the prescribed period of time or a reasonable time thereafter. (PI. Exs. 561, 563, 643, Major deposition and testimony).
59. Defendants do not perform required routine gynecological examinations on all women within prescribed periods of time. (Pi. Ex. 254; Jane Doe II Dep. Tr. at 61-126; Major deposition and testimony).
60. Minimally acceptable standards of care require Defendants to provide women prisoners with AIDS or who are HIV positive with more frequent gynecological examination, which Defendants have failed to do. (Major testimony).
--Treatment and Follow-Up 61. Defendants have repeatedly failed to provide
adequate treatment and follow-up of gynecological conditions

- 15 even though it is Defendants' policy "to provide clinically appropriate periodic health examinations and follow-up care to inmates." (Pi. Exs. 254, 483; Hawkins Dep. Tr. at 64-65; Jane Doe II Dep. Tr. at 61-126; Jane Doe PP Dep. Tr. at 12-14).
62. As a result of Defendants' failure to provide treatment and follow-up gynecological care, Defendants have caused women prisoners to experience unnecessary pain and stress, and have increased the women prisoners' risk of developing further complications related to their medical conditions. (Major deposition and testimony).
--Health Education 63. Defendants do not provide adequate health
education to women prisoners incarcerated at CTF as required by Defendants' written policies and correctional health care standards. (PI. Exs. 570, 643, 645; W. Hall Dep. Tr. at 181182; Welch Dep. Tr. at 31-32).
64. Health education is particularly important for women incarcerated at CTF because they are at high risk of contracting and/or transmitting sexually-transmitted diseases and developing other gynecological conditions. (Pi. Ex. 667; Ali Dep. Tr. at 89; Major testimony).
65. Health education is also important because women prisoners are sexually active while incarcerated at CTF. (PI. Ex. 1, 557; Ali Dep. Tr. at 124-25; P. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 85-86; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 268-71; Ray (I) Dep. Tr. at 92-98; Taylor Dep. Tr. at 121-22, 153-58).

- 16 -
66. Failure to provide adequate health education puts the women at CTF at increased risk of developing serious gynecological problems. (Major deposition and testimony).
--Abortion Counseling 67. Defendants' written policy provides that non-
directive counseling shall be provided to all incarcerated women who are contemplating seeking an abortion. (Pi. Ex. 5 ) .
68. Defendants have violated their own policy and have failed to provide adequate abortion counseling to pregnant women. (Pi. Exs. 434, 658, 659).
69. Indicative of Defendants' failure to ensure that women receive non-directive counseling is Defendants' decision, approved by then Director Ridley, to allow only representatives of the "Sanctity of Life Ministry" "to assist [Defendants] in providing quality program opportunities for the pregnant inmates in our facilities," believing that that organization would have a "major impact" and "would provide quality programming for this population." (Pi. Exs. 658, 659; Krull Dep. Tr. at 159-61).
70. Defendants have failed to provide adequate counseling in at least three instances where women indicated they wanted, and ultimately obtained, an abortion. (Welch Dep. Tr. at 61-62; Major testimony).
71. In at least one instance, one woman prisoner at CTF indicated that she wanted an abortion, yet she never obtained one. She never received any counseling concerning

- 17 the options available to her. She is now approximately nine months pregnant. (Major testimony).
Prenatal Care 72. Defendants have a written policy requiring them
to provide comprehensive medical care and counseling to all pregnant women prisoners. (Pi. Exs. 2, 339).
73. Defendants have violated their own policy by failing to provide pregnant women prisoners with adequate prenatal care. Indeed, even Defendants recognize that there is a "lack of gender specific care in the areas of pre-natal • and postnatal education and care." (Pi. Exs. 434, 601; Majordeposition and testimony).
74. Defendants are aware that the failure to provide adequate prenatal care and counseling to pregnant women prisoners at CTF increases the risk of infant deformity and mortality; increases the health risks associated with pregnancy for women; precludes bonding between mother and child; and puts newborn children at greater risk of being placed in inappropriate child care arrangements. (Pi. Exs. 295, 297, 298, 606, 651; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 271-75) .
75. Defendants' failure to provide adequate prenatal care and counseling also causes a pregnant woman prisoner at CTF to endure stress unnecessarily because of fear that she and her fetus are not receiving proper care. Such stress is in addition to the general anxiety suffered by women who are pregnant while incarcerated. As the former Chief of

- 18 Mental Health Services at DCDC has stated: "To experience pregnancy in the harsh environment of incarceration must be considered a most cruel punishment." (PI. Ex. 2 97; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 271-75; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 301-02).
--Commencement of Prenatal Care 76. Defendants do not commence prenatal care
immediately after they have reason to know that a woman prisoner is pregnant. Indeed, some pregnant women have resided at CTF for two months before receiving any prenatal care and in some instances, women prisoners have received virtually no prenatal care. (Jane Doe A Dep. Tr. at 35-3 9; Jane Doe L Dep. Tr. at 25-33; Major deposition and testimony).
77. Defendants have also failed to provide pregnant women prisoners with regularly scheduled prenatal check-ups. Jane Doe S4, for example, had to sign up for sick call to attempt to receive prenatal care, stating on the sick call list for April 12, 1993: "I need prenatal care bad." (Pi. Ex. 254; Jane Doe A Dep. Tr. at 35=39; Jane Doe L Dep. Tr. at 2533; Major deposition and testimony).
--Lack of Prenatal Protocol 78. One of the most glaring defects in the prenatal
care provided to women at CTF is the lack of a written prenatal protocol, which would outline in detail the medical care that pregnant women should receive and the specified

- 19 times during which they should receive that care. (Pi. Ex. 642; Major deposition and testimony).
79. CTF also does not utilize risk assessment forms, such as PROPRAS forms, which are critical in minimizing maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. (PI. Exs. 642, 667) .
80. Dr. Charles Hall, the CTF ob/gyn physician, prepared "prenatal guidelines" at the request of Dr. Eliza Taylor. The "Guidelines for Care of Pregnant Inmates at CTF," are a one-page, seven-sentenced document, prepared subsequentto the filing of Plaintiffs' lawsuit and subsequent to the initial site visit of CTF by Plaintiffs' medical expert. (PI. Ex. 457; C. Hall Dep. Tr. at 121-24).
81. These "guidelines" do not constitute an adequate prenatal protocol. (PI. Ex. 642; Major deposition and testimony).
--Transportation 82. Transportation to and from D.C. General
Hospital is an integral part of the provision of medical care to women prisoners at CTF because most pregnant women prisoners incarcerated at CTF receive their primary prenatal care at D.C. General Hospital. (C. Hall Dep. Tr. at 111; Jones Dep. Tr. at 63).
83. Defendants have failed to provide an adequate transportation system for ensuring that women are able to keep

- 20 their prenatal appointments at D.C. General Hospital. (Pi. Exs. 59, 389; Major deposition and testimony).
84. Correctional officers are often not available to transport women to DCGH for OB/GYN appointments. Even when transportation is available, it is often so late that an appointment has to be cancelled or a woman is forced to refuse an appointment after arriving at DCGH because she has had to wait too long after arrival before being seen by medical personnel. (Pi. Exs. 59, 389; Ali Dep. Tr. at 103-104; Jane Doe QQQ testimony).
85. As a result of Defendants' failure to transport women to medical facilities outside CTF in a timely manner, some women have not been able to receive prenatal medical visits at appropriate intervals. In some instances, there is considerable delay before a woman is seen at a rescheduled appointment. (Pi. Ex. 389).
86. In April 1994, Jane Doe QQQ had an appointment at DCGH to be tested for gestational diabetes. Because of the nature of the test, she was told not to eat that morning before the test was taken. At the time, Jane Doe QQQ was approximately eight months pregnant and there was a history of diabetes in her family. Her appointment was scheduled for 7:30 am but because she did not arrive at DCGH until approximately 8:30 am she had to wait in a main waiting area, with restraints on, for almost three hours. She eventually refused to receive the test at DCGH because she had been

- 21 waiting almost three hours to take the test and although eight months pregnant, had not eaten any food since the night before. (Jane Doe QQQ testimony).
87. Rescheduling an appointment does not necessarily alleviate the harm caused by the initial missed appointment because there are a variety of standard tests that all pregnant women should receive within a prescribed period of time in order to be effective tools for evaluating the medical condition of the pregnant woman and the fetus. (Pi. Ex. 642; Major deposition and testimony).
88. Defendants are aware that providing escorts to. B.C. General Hospital is a problem. (PI. Ex. 59; Jane Doe III Dep. Tr. at 84-85) .
89. Defendants have even maintained statistics in some of the Chief Medical Officer's monthly reports to Dr. William Hall comparing the number of appointments scheduled at DCGH with the number of prisoners actually seen by DCGH personnel. (PI. Ex. 3 94).
90. In addition to delaying and denying access to care by using an inadequate transportation system, Defendants also have no written policy regarding the use of restraints on pregnant women. Incredibly, leg shackles and handcuffs have been used on pregnant women while they were in labor. (Ali Dep. Tr. at 162-163; Jone Dep. Tr. at 14-17; Jane Doe L Dep. Tr. at 33-41).

- 22 91. Use of such restraints during pregnancy, particularly during the later part of pregnancy, delivery, and within six weeks of labor, is inhumane and medically inappropriate. (Major testimony). --Nutrition 92. Defendants have also failed to meet the nutritional needs of pregnant women prisoners. 93. Defendants' Health Services Division Operating Procedure for pregnant women prisoners specifically provides that "[a]ny dietary recommendations made by D.C. General Hospital shall be followed." (Pi. Ex. 2; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 170) . 94. Yet, D.C. General Hospital physician orders regarding nutritional supplements for pregnant women at CTF have not been followed by CTF medical personnel. (Jane Doe QQQ testimony). 95. All pregnant women prisoners have not received prenatal vitamins and iron tablets in a timely manner. (Major deposition and testimony). 96. All pregnant women have not received an adequate amount of food, and the food they receive has often been cold or not cooked thoroughly. (Riddick Dep. Tr. at 22830; Jane Doe QQQ testimony). 97. Women in the pregnancy housing unit do not have access to boiling water in the evening, preventing them from

- 23 supplementing their diets with hot foods in the evening. (Jane Doe QQQ testimony).
--Exercise 98. Women prisoners also do not have access to
regularly scheduled prenatal exercise classes and opportunities to receive fresh air. Defendants have offered virtually no prenatal exercises classes since the opening of CTF in May 1992. (Jane Doe QQQ testimony; Major testimony).
--Prenatal Education 99. Defendants have failed to inform all pregnant
women of the existence of the prenatal education classes that_ are available, on the occasions where such classes have been offered. (Jane Doe QQQ testimony; Major deposition and testimony).
100. In addition, staff at CTF have failed to provide pregnant women prisoners with adequate educational material regarding all aspects of proper prenatal care. (PI. Ex. 434; Major deposition and testimony).
--Child Placement Counseling 101. Defendants are aware of the necessity of
providing adequate child placement counseling to pregnant women prisoners, particularly in light of the fact that "the greatest number of abandoned infants in the area hospitals belong to the women who are incarcerated within [Defendants'] institutions." (Pi. Exs. 44, 45, 46, 47, 434, 601, 605;

- 24 Gilmore Dep. Tr. at 79-80; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 3 04-06; Minor Dep. Tr. at 26, 32-33) .
102. Once Defendants become aware that a woman prisoner is pregnant, it is in the best interest of the woman, her unborn child, and Defendants to begin counseling the woman as soon as possible regarding the variety of child care arrangements available to her. Indeed, Defendants' written policy provides that counseling regarding child placement shall take place as soon as the pregnancy is known. (Pi. Ex. 8) .
103. Similarly, ACA standard 3-4387 states: "[w]ritten policy, procedure, and practice require that comprehensive counseling and assistance are provided to pregnant inmates in keeping with their expressed desires in planning for their unborn children." (Pi. Ex. 643).
104. Nevertheless, Defendants, in violation of their own policy and in contradiction of recognized correctional health care standards, have failed to provide pregnant women prisoners with adequate counseling regarding child care arrangements. In some instances, Defendants have failed to provide any counseling regarding child care arrangements until after a child's birth. (Pi. Exs. 8, 434, 458, 643; Jane Doe L Dep. Tr. at 42-43) .
105. The counseling that Defendants provide is deficient because it often does not explore the variety of alternative child care arrangements available, but instead,

- 25 focuses on adoption alone. (Jane Doe QQQ testimony; Major testimony).
106. Indeed, Defendants' promotion of adoption as the preferred child care arrangement has led some women prisoners to avoid seeking counseling from Defendants altogether because they believe Defendants will not provide appropriate assistance in making alternative child care arrangements. (Jane Doe QQQ testimony; Major testimony).
107. Defendants have also failed to provide women prisoners with adequate opportunities to discuss child care arrangements with family members and other interested personswell in advance of their child's birth. (PI. Ex. 9 ) .
108. In several instances, women prisoners like Jane Doe 0 and Jane Doe T4 have lost custody of children born during incarceration because of the lack of counseling and assistance from Defendants regarding placement of their children. (McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 123-24) .
109. In addition, Defendants' failure to provide adequate counseling to women prisoners regarding child care arrangements causes women prisoners to suffer unnecessary stress during their pregnancies because they fear that proper child care arrangements will not be made in advance of their children's birth or if they are made, will be made in haste and without informed consideration. (Pi. Ex. 9; Krull Dep. Tr. at 96; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 120-26; Major testimony).

- 26 110. As expressed to then Director Ridley by the members of Defendants' Task Force on Pregnant Female Offenders: "Staff knew only too well the pain and suffering of a resident who, upon the birth of her child, was returned to custody. Staff knew only too well the agony of the pregnant resident who was also HIV positive and who suffered for the fate of her unborn child. Staff knew only too well the misery of the woman resident whose child was placed in foster care with an unknown person in an unknown part of the city." (Pi. Exs. 601, 307, 434, 605, 625; McMurtry Dep. Tr. at 120-26) . 111. In some instances, Defendants' failure to provide adequate counseling has been so deficient that some newborn children of members of the Plaintiff class have had to remain at D.C. General Hospital or at other hospitals after birth as "boarder babies" for an extended period of time. (PI. Exs. 434, 458, 539) . 112. Moreover, each day that such children remain boarder babies, their mothers endure unnecessary stress because of the circumstances in which the children are living. Often, this stress is not alleviated, but exacerbated while children remain boarder babies because Defendants have no established policy for arranging opportunities for women prisoners to visit with their infants boarding at D.C. General Hospital. This is so even though Defendants have deemed it essential to provide sufficient opportunities for contact and

- 27 bonding between mother and child. (Pi. Exs. 48, 341, 458; P. Jackson Dep. Tr. at 119-121; Ray (II) Dep. Tr. at 16-19) .
113. Jane Doe W V , for example, gave birth to a baby boy on October 19, 1992. Ad hoc arrangements were made for her to visit her baby on November 25, 1992 and December 15, 1992. However, there was no specific written policy regarding visitation with babies and no other visitation was arranged. When she went to visit her child, Jane Doe W V was transported in full restraints. Jane Doe V W ' s baby boy remained a "boarder baby" at DCGH for almost four months until he was discharged to Jane Doe V W ' s maternal aunt on February 17, 1993. (PI. Exs. 48, 458).
Postparturn Care --Postpartum Examination
114. Women who have had a normal vaginal delivery should receive a postpartum examination approximately six weeks after delivery. (Pi. Ex. 642; C. Hall Dep. Tr. at 75; Major deposition and testimony).
115. Women who have had a cesarean section or certain complications during pregnancy or delivery should have a postpartum examination within two weeks of delivery in addition to the six-week examination. (C. Hall Dep. Tr. at 76-78; Major deposition and testimony).
116. Most women incarcerated at CTF receive their postpartum care at D.C. General Hospital. (C. Hall Dep. Tr. at 74) .

- 28 117. Defendants do not provide adequate postpartum care to women prisoners. Jane Doe L, for example, has not received her "six-week check-up" almost one year after having given birth. Jane Doe L Dep. (Jane Doe A Dep. Tr. at 35-3 9; Jane Doe L Dep. Tr. at 18-25; Major deposition and testimony). 118. Defendants are aware that women who do not receive adequate postpartum care face a risk that problems associated with delivery and postpartum recovery go undetected. Jane Doe L, for example, continues to suffer significant back pain almost ten months after giving birth. In addition, Jane Doe L's menstrual periods have been very irregular since the delivery. Although Jane Doe L does not know whether giving birth caused these medical conditions, Defendants have not provided her with appropriate postpartum care to be able to make that determination and, if necessary, to recommend an appropriate course of treatment. (Jane Doe L Dep. Tr. at 18-25, 44-45; Major deposition and testimony). --Postpartum Counseling 119. Postpartum counseling is necessary for a woman who suffers from postpartum depression or depression resulting from the separation from her child, or for a woman whose pregnancy ends in miscarriage, stillbirth, or death shortly after birth. Postpartum counseling is also necessary for a woman whose child has not been placed with an appropriate care taker and thus remains at D.C. General Hospital as a "boarder baby." Defendants have failed to provide adequate postpartum

- 29 counseling to women in these circumstances. (Pi. Ex. 48; Major testimony).
120. Jane Doe UUU, for example, gave birth to a baby in November 1992. The baby, however, had medical problems and had to remain at DCGH. Unfortunately, Jane Doe UUU's baby died soon thereafter. On December 4, 1992, she went to review the remains of her three-week old baby and to sign documents regarding the child. Jane Doe UUU received no counseling regarding her baby's death. (Pi. Ex. 48).
121. Jane Doe XXX gave birth to a baby girl on June 6, 1992. On Sunday October 10, 1992 an employee of Defendant CTF received a telephone call from a physician at Children's Hospital informing him that Jane Doe XXX's infant daughter had died. Jane Doe XXX received no counseling regarding her baby's death. (PI. Ex. 48).
Coordination of Medical Care 122. Defendants do not follow the Memorandum of
Understanding between D.C. General Hospital and the Department of Corrections exists to facilitate communication between the two institutions and to identify areas of responsibility accorded to each. This Memorandum of Understanding, effective since 1991, specifically addresses important aspects in the provision of care, including accessing medical information, interagency communication, quality assurance, and continuity of care (Pi. Exs. 455, 667; Clark Dep. Tr. at 287-91; Major deposition and testimony).

- 30 123. As a result, there is a lack of communication and coordination at 3 levels: (1) medical to medical (i.e., Doctor to Doctor); (2) nurse to nurse (DCGH to CTF); and (3) DCGH Medical to DOC-CTF custody staff. (Pi. Ex. 667; Clark Dep. Tr. at 287-91; Major deposition and testimony). 124. Defendants' failure to comply with the Memorandum of Understanding and the lack of effective coordination and communication between D.C. General Hospital and CTF, negatively affects Defendants' ability to provide adequate gynecological and obstetrical care to women prisoners incarcerated at CTF. (Pi. Ex. 667; Major deposition and testimony). 125. No liaison performs the responsibilities as directed by the Memorandum of Understanding. (Pi. Ex. 6 67; Major testimony). 126. Defendants fail to conduct regular meetings as directed by the Memorandum of Understanding. (Pi. Ex. 445, 667; Clark Dep. Tr. at 122-23, 143). 127. Medical information concerning individual patients is not routinely shared between medical personnel at the two institutions, nor is there any communication among health care providers about the quality of obstetrical or gynecological care provided to CTF women prisoners at DCGH. (PI. Ex. 667; C. Hall Dep. Tr. at 151; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 271-73; Major testimony).

- 31 128. There is no written policy or protocol for determining in what instances women should receive obstetrical or gynecological care at DCGH rather than at CTF. Instead, the decision is left up to the individual members of the medical staff at CTF. (C. Hall Dep. Tr. at 114-15; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 271-73). 129. There is no coordinated effort to reduce the number of "boarder babies" at DCGH by providing comprehensive and coordinated social services to pregnant women prisoners at CTF. (PI. Ex. 434; W. Hall Dep. Tr. at 188-91). 13 0. Although Defendants are aware that women prisoners at CTF are often unable to keep scheduled medical appointments at D.C. General Hospital because correctional officers are unavailable to take them, no effective effort has been made to remedy this problem. (Pi. Ex. 389). 131. Fifth, D.C. General Hospital physician orders are not followed by follow-up care physicians at CTF. (Jane Doe QQQ testimony).
IV. PROGRAMS General 132. Although Defendants have written documents
professing the goal to provide equitable programs for female offenders as compared to similarly situated male offenders, "while simultaneously meeting the uniquely gender-related needs of the incarcerated female," they have failed to achieve

- 32 this goal mandated by the Constitution and federal and state law. (PI. Exs. 51, 211, 281, 284, 289, 291, 312, 323, 338, 339, 347, 348, 350, 434, 482, 665).
133. In September 1993, Defendants admitted that they were housing 99.5% of the female D.C. Code offenders "without having planned, developed, and implemented either programs or resources to meet the long-term treatment needs of this unique population." (PI. Ex. 665).
134. The Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) houses 256 medium custody, general population female inmates serving sentences of two years to life. (Pi. Exs. 319, 434; Elzie Dep. Tr. at 44-47).
13 5. Medium custody men can be sent to one or more of several institutions depending upon a variety of penological goals ranging from sentence-serving to programming to preparing for release. (Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 43-45; Krull Dep. Tr. at 34-39). Men often transfer along the continuum and are assigned to each of these facilities for a period of time. (Braxton Dep. Tr. at 17)
.136. Medium custody men can be housed at the Occoquan reservation, a high-medium facility consisting of multiple dormitories located on a reservation. (Pi. Exs. 452, 508, 621; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 16; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 43-45; Krull Dep. Tr. at 36-37).
137. Medium custody men can also be housed at the Central Facility, a medium-medium facility. Central is the

- 33 District's master program facility that provides male inmates with the opportunity "to participate in high intensity and comprehensive programming." (Pi. Exs. 452, 508, 621; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 17; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 43-45; Krull Dep. Tr. at 34-39).
138. Medium custody men within five years of release can also be housed at the Medium Facility, a low-medium institution. (PI. Exs. 452, 508, 621; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 17; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 43-45; Krull Dep. Tr. at. 34-39)
139. Women prisoners at CTF are similarly situated to men prisoners at Central, Medium, and Occoquan. (Lancaster deposition and testimony; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 41-42).
140. The male inmates housed at CTF are not similarly situated to the women prisoners in the women's unit at CTF, but are special population inmates participating in the voluntary, 12-18 month prerelease substance abuse treatment program, or the 30-45 day Reception and Diagnostic evaluation process. (PI. Exs. 319, 425; Minor Dep. Tr. at 7174; Ray (I) Dep. Tr. at 90; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 40; Jane Doe V Dep. Tr. at 69).
141. The Minimum Security Facility houses minimum custody male inmates who are within two years of a presumptive release date. (Pi. Exs. 346, 452, 621).
142. The Minimum Security Annex houses 178 minimum
custody female inmates who are within two years of a presumptive release date. (PI. Exs. 346, 434, 621).

- 34 143. Women prisoners at the Annex are similarly situated to men prisoners at Minimum. (Lancaster deposition and testimony; Ryan deposition). 144. The legal concept of parity is one that has a practical meaning to prison administrators and one that is endorsed by the American Correctional Association (ACA). (Pi. Exs. 319, 589; Lancaster deposition and testimony). The ACA requires that: "Correctional systems must be guided by the principle of parity. Female offenders must receive the equivalent range of services available to other offenders, including opportunities for individualized programming and services that recognize the unique needs of this population." (PI. Ex. 589). 145. Defendants, the District of Columbia and the D.C. Department of Corrections, receive federal financial assistance. (Pi. Ex. 602; Def. Answers Int. No. 2 ) . Academic Education 146. Defendants provide women at CTF with education programs that are inadequate and inferior as compared to those provided to male inmates at Central, Medium, and Occoquan. (Lancaster deposition and testimony). 147. Adult female inmates do not receive reception and diagnostic studies, available to similarly situated male inmates, and thus there is no comprehensive educational, vocational, and psychological testing for the women's needs

- 35 and interests to guide appropriate programmatic solutions. (Pi. Exs. 281, 663, 665; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 45, 62).
148. Defendants provide women at CTF with only parttime academic education classes, but provide the men at Central, Medium, and Occoquan with the opportunity for fulltime classes. (Pi. Exs. 217, 242, 343, 490, 661; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 61; Krull Dep. Tr. at 42, 47). No evening classes are available to the women as originally planned at CTF. (Pi. Exs. 330, 444).
149. No college education program was available to women prisoners at CTF from May 1992 to January 1993. (Pi. Exs. 330, 344, 449).
150. Defendants do not provide women at CTF with a four year college degree program. (Pi. Exs. 420, 591; Jane Doe V Dep. Tr. at 119-20; 125-26).
151. Men at Central, Medium, and Occoquan are provided with four-year B.A. and B.S. programs run by the University of the District of Columbia (UDC) and Park College in a variety of fields like urban studies and media technology. (Def. Answers Int. No. 7; Pi. Exs. 215, 216, 235, 472, 516, 528; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 66-70; Krull Dep. Tr. at 48-49; Jane Doe V Dep. Tr. at 119-20; 125-26).
152. Women at CTF are offered one associates' degree program through Atlantic Union College in the area of "general studies" and a corresponding one-year precollege certificate program. (Pi. Exs. 383, 420, 591).

- 36 153. Men at Central, Medium, and Occoquan are offered associates' degree programs through UDC and Park College. UDC offers a precollege program and an associates' degree program in a variety of fields including accounting, computer science, legal assistance, media technology, urban studies, and business management. Men at Central, Medium, and Occoquan are provided with more fields of study and variety of courses than women at CTF. (Pi. Exs. 215, 216, 235, 375, 376, 389, 526; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 68-69; Krull Dep. Tr. at 50). 154. Defendants require women at CTF to finance the two-year Atlantic Union program with grant monies. However, similarly situated men are offered two and four year college programs through UDC at no cost, which do not require personal payment or application for grant monies. UDC also offers inmates the opportunity to receive their first semester free once released into the community. (Pi. Exs. 215, 216, 235, 420; Braxton Dep. Tr. 24-25). 155. The Atlantic Union program for women at CTF is taught by "electronic distance learning" through a computer. Men at Central, Medium, Occoquan have on-site classes with teachers who are able to motivate students and serve as role models and mentors. (PI. Exs. 379, 420, 449, 591; Krull Dep. Tr. at 49; Ray (I) Dep. Tr. at 83). 156. Defendants impede the access of women inmates to the Atlantic Union courses they desire by abdicating their responsibilities to the college and by creating unnecessary

- 37 barriers to women's full access to and participation in the program. (Pi. Exs. 283, 330, 379, 420, 426, 521).
157. Women prisoners at CTF encounter scheduling problems with the delivery of their education programs that are not experienced by similarly situated men. All programming activities for women, including education, vocation, and library hours, are scheduled during the same two and one-half hour period each day. This scheduling limits women's ability to participate in more than one program and results in the women being idle for the majority of the day. (PI. Exs. 283, 330, 405, 421, 515).
158. The amount of time allotted for women in the Atlantic Union program is insufficient based on Atlantic Union College standards. Evening and weekend computer lab hours for the women were scheduled for January to September 1993, but cancelled due to Defendants' inability to provide escorts and staff supervision for the women. (Pi. Exs. 374, 379, 420, 421, 426, 476, 515) .
159. Defendants routinely fail to file the necessary paperwork for the women's Pell grant applications in time for the women at CTF to register them for the term. (Pi. Ex. 3 74, 420) .
160. Books and materials are not received in time to participate in courses paid for by Pell grant monies.
161. Credits and Pell grant monies obtained for the Atlantic Union College program are not transferable to the

- 38 college program at the Annex and are not reimbursed when a woman is transferred to another facility or forced to drop out of class due to the failure to receive books. (Pi. Ex. 434)
162. The physical plant of CTF creates serious limitations on the programs and activities available to the women. CTF was designed as a controlled-movement treatment facility for substance abuse, mental health, and diagnostics that required intensive staffing. (Pi. Exs. 51, 330, 338, 405, 439; Elzie Dep. Tr. at 19). Defendants' placement of general population women prisoners in this controlled environment necessitates staff escorts to access centralized . programming areas. (Pi. Exs. 339, 612).
163. Defendants' failure to appropriately staff the CTF women's unit results in programming staff being utilized to perform security escorts which in turn decreases program opportunities for women in all areas including education. (PI. Exs. 319, 329, 330, 343. 405, 426, 665). Defendants' decision to substitute correctional officers for counselors has also reduced the program opportunities available to women. (PI. Exs. 51, 405, 444).
164. Defendants do not offer educational instruction on the women's housing units as recommended by the CTF internal auditors, which would eliminate the strict reliance on escorts for programming. (Pi. Exs. 330, 338, 339, 405).
165. Similarly situated men at Medium and Central move freely around the facility and can easily access

- 39 education programs. (Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 64-65; Krull Dep. Tr. at 68). Similarly situated men at Occoquan, which is a controlled-movement facility, use a pass system instead of an escort system allowing them free access to all programs. (Braxton Dep. Tr. at 22-24). Such a pass system has not been adopted at CTF. (PI. Ex. 374).
166. The District's internal policy of housing women in co-correctional facilities, and their policy of not providing coeducational programming, sharply limits the availability and quality of the education programs for women. (Lancaster deposition and testimony; Jane Doe V Dep. Tr. at 122-23)
167. Defendants provide women at the Annex with education programs that are inadequate and inferior as compared to those provided to male inmates at Minimum. (Lancaster deposition and testimony).
168. Defendants did not provide academic school to the women prisoners at the Annex for over seven months over the time period between May 1992 and October 1993. Defendants cancelled school three different times: for four months when the air conditioner was broken at the Annex trailer; a second time when the sole teacher was sick; and a third time when the Annex entered "shut down mode" for three months in anticipation of the transfer of all women to CTF. No substitute teachers were detailed to the Annex to provide education for the women, nor were women permitted to enroll in

- 40 the classes for men at Minimum. (Pi. Exs. 345, 470; Jane Doe VII deposition and testimony).
169. The basic education Defendants provide to the women at the Annex is inadequate because the one teacher can only offer part-time ABE and part-time GED classes. Part-time education is insufficient to provide the required educational programming to those women who need the instruction. The scheduling of the classes during the day overlaps with work time for many women, and thus denies them the opportunity to participate in educational classes. Defendants also provide women with less educational equipment such as computers and typewriters than men at Minimum. (Pi. Exs. 332, 345, 362, 470, 488; Jane Doe VII deposition and testimony).
170. Women at the Annex have received inadequate and inferior college education because Defendants do not escort them to class on time, they do not receive sufficient GED courses to qualify them for college courses, and the two elective course offerings through UDC are not part of a degree program. (Pi. Exs. 332, 489; Krull Dep. Tr. at 153; Jane Doe VII deposition and testimony).
171. Defendants are aware of the inadequate and inferior education provided to women prisoners, but have failed to implement plans to alter these inadequacies. (Pi. Exs. 227, 228, 282, 291, 330; Jane Doe VI Dep. Tr. at 100-01).
172. The lack of basic academic education harms women by denying them the ability to qualify for industry

- 41 employment, halfway house, parole, and work training. (Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 112; Smith Dep. Tr. at 105-106; Stempson Dep. Tr. at 144).
173. Defendants' provision of limited access to education, and their provision of inferior educational programs, denies women the ability to earn good time credits pursuant to D.C. Code § 24-429 and D.C. Reg. 604.5 for release from prison. (PI. Ex. 272).
174. Defendants' failure to provide adequate and equal post-secondary education increases women's recidivism rate because such a program is an effective way of reducing recidivism. (Pi. Ex. 592).
175. In addition, the lack of education programs reduces the options that women have upon release from prison for obtaining further education and employment. This employment is paramount in enabling women to obtain housing in the community and to care for and retain custody of their children. (Lancaster deposition and testimony).
176. The lack of equal and adequate education programs has a detrimental effect on women's morale and contributes to idleness and severe depression in prison. (PI. Ex. 405; Smith Dep. Tr. at 105-06; Lancaster deposition and testimony).
Vocational Education 111. Defendants provide women at CTF with vocational
education programs that are inadequate and inferior as

- 42 compared to those provided to male inmates at Central, Medium, and Occoquan. (PI. Ex. 222; Lancaster deposition and testimony).
178. No vocational education programs were offered to women prisoners during the first five months they were housed at CTF. (Pi. Exs. 330, 449).
179. As of October 1992, Defendants provide women at CTF with only one vocational education class in graphic arts which is open to six minimum-custody women every nine months. Pursuant to a consent decree, female youth offenders (YRA) women are required to be enrolled in vocational programming, and these inmates occupy the majority of the available vocational positions. (Pi. Exs. 294, 426). Three short skills classes in the stereotypical female occupations of word processing, typing and sewing are also available to women. (Def. Answers Int. Nos. 10 & 11; Pi. Ex. 306; Jane Doe V. Dep. Tr. at 127-28) .
180. Because women are classified to CTF on the basis of gender, they are denied access to many vocational education and training programs which are available to male prisoners. Defendants provide men at Central, Medium, and Occoquan with a wide range of comprehensive vocational education programs including: auto body, auto mechanics, barber science, brickmasonry, building maintenance, business typing, carpentry, culinary arts, drywall/painting, digital electronics, electricity, graphic arts, photography and

- 43 plumbing. (Def. Answers Int. No. 10; Pi. Exs. 215, 216, 235, 267, 478, 490, 491, 508, 516, 517, 621; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 75-78; Krull Dep. Tr. at 53-56).
181. Staffing inadequacies and escort problems at CTF restrict women's access to vocational education. (Pi. Exs. 329, 330, 405). Due to these constraints, the time scheduled for women to participate in the graphic arts program is insufficient to enable them to complete the 1080 hours necessary for certification in the nine month program. (Pi. Ex. 306).
182. Women at CTF do not have a prevocational Employment Techniques, Awareness and Preparation (ETAP) class, and the prevocational twelve week Lifeskills class was offered only one time. (Pi. Ex. 374). Similarly situated men have both ETAP and L·ifeskills classes available to them. (Pi. Exs. 215, 216, 235, 490, 516).
183. Medium custody, long-term women, who can only be assigned to CTF, have no apprenticeships available to them. (Defs. Answers Int. No. 12; Jane Doe V Dep. Tr. at 128). However, similarly situated men have access to a variety of apprenticeships including carpentry, culinary arts, dental technology, electricity, plumbing, upholstery, and boiler plant operations. (Pi. Exs. 215, 216, 234, 235, 264, 267, 268, 490, 491, 508, 517, 518; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 84-86).
184. Defendants provide the women at the Annex with only one vocational education program in graphic arts that

- 44 does not adequately meet the needs of the women. (PI. Ex. 222). The abbreviated program in graphic arts is available to only a few women and the fifteen-week program is too short to provide sufficient vocational education and training. Followup on-the-job training is not adequately provided as the women are not routinely hired by the Print Shop to continue their skill development.
185. Defendants do not provide women at the Annex with equivalent vocational opportunities as similarly situated men. Men have different vocational opportunities in the DCDC and thus different vocational needs than women prisoners during minimum custody incarceration. Due to the typically longer sentence structure of men, men have already obtained vocational education training by the time they are transferred to Minimum. Once transferred to Minimum, the men continue this training by working on trade details that are not available to women. (Lancaster deposition and testimony).
186. The need for job readiness skills is particularly evident among female offenders. Women offenders in D.C. have an unemployment rate of 85%, compared to a national average of 45% for female offenders, and an average of 62% for all D.C. inmates. (Pi. Exs. 520, 588; Ryan deposition). The need for skills promoted by vocational training is therefore more acute for female offenders.
187. Defendants' provision of inadequate and inferior vocational education programs significantly harms

- 45 women because they do not have the opportunity to gain marketable, employable skills that will lead to meaningful employment upon release from prison. (Jane Doe VI Dep. Tr. at 112-16).
188. Because of the lack of vocational training, women are unable to work in higher grade detail jobs which develop job skills, pay more money, and build on skills taught in vocational programs. (Pi. Ex. 238; Krull Dep. Tr. at 54).
189. Women are precluded from earning good time credits from vocational education that can shorten their term of imprisonment. (PI. Ex. 272; Krull Dep. Tr. at 56).
190. Women are also unable to earn the money needed to support themselves and their dependent children while in prison. (PI. Ex. 238).
Work Opportunities 191. Defendants provide women at CTF and the Annex
with work details that are inadequate and inferior as compared to those provided to similarly situated men. (Lancaster deposition and testimony). Work details are those job assignments for inmates that will enable them to learn job skills and develop work habits while maintaining the facility in clean, working order. (Pi. Ex. 363). Details are paid under the Non-Industrial Pay System (NIPS) which is a grade system ranging from $6.50 per month to $21 per month. (Pi. Exs. 363, 379).

- 46 192. Defendants provide men at Central, Medium, Occoquan and Minimum with a wide range of details offering onthe-job-training including carpentry, welding, electric, plumbing, painting, drywall, brickmasonry, and construction. (Def. Answers Int. 16; Pi. Exs. 278, 359, 370, 371, 372, 379; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 124-25; Krull Dep. Tr. at 61). Neither women at CTF nor at the Annex work on these trade details available to men. (Pi. Exs. 265, 266, 269, 379, 349). 193. The only additional work details proposed for women at CTF are in stereotypical female jobs of nurses aide and housekeeper. (Pi. Exs. 473, 512). 194. Women at the Annex are limited to cleaning, clerical, and some landscape jobs. Women do not work on facilities maintenance work squads on their own compound. (Pi. Exs. 345, 349, 379). Women are also precluded from working on jobs such as the dairy, farm, car wash, and culinary. (Pi. Ex. 3 79; Smith Dep. Tr. at 164-65) 195. Defendants provide the women at CTF with industrial work opportunities that are inadequate and inferior as compared to those provided to male inmates at Central, Medium, and Occoquan. (Pi. Ex. 225; Lancaster deposition and testimony; Jane Doe V Dep. Tr. at 128-29). A prison industry is run like a private business for profit in that the industry makes a product and employees (inmates) are held accountable for their work performance and attendance. (Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 122-24).

- 47 196. Although women are in desperate need of job training opportunities, Defendants provide no industries for women at CTF. (Pi. Ex. 2 6 9; Jane Doe V Dep. Tr. at 128-29) . Similarly situated men are provided with eleven different industrial opportunities that earn from $200 - $300 per month: Accounting, Furniture Repair, Garment Shop, Laundry, Maintenance, Metro Shop, Metal Shop, Print Shop, Supply, Warehouse. (Def. Answers Int. Nos. 19 & 20; Pi. Exs. 225, 529, 594; Krull Dep. Tr. at 58-59) . 197. The highest wage a woman at CTF can earn in any job is $21 per month, while the highest wage a man can earn working in an industrial job can reach $3 00 per month. (Def. Answers Int. No. 23; Pi. Exs. 3 63, 5 94; Krull Dep. Tr. at 5859) . 198. Women at the Annex are denied equal access to the full range of industrial opportunities at Central based on their gender and stereotypical notions of women. (Ryan Report; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 81, 92-94, 114-15, 119-21). Women work in two industries, whereas the men are employed in eleven different industries. (Def. Answers Int. No. 20; Pi. Exs. 264, 344, 621, 662; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 111-13) . 199. Defendants' exclusion of women from certain shops at the Central Industries on the grounds of the women's lack of strength and the lack of bathrooms devalues women and is characteristic of gender bias. (Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 81, 92-94, 114-15, 119-21; Ryan Report).

- 48 200. The women's lack of seniority in the workplace, caused by their shorter sentence structure as compared to the men at Central, results in the women receiving lower wages than men. (Pi. Exs. 362, 662). 201. Women at the Annex are also excluded from the two new industries at Minimum in agriculture and landscape. (Def. Ex. 130; Stempson Dep. Tr. at 159-60; Ryan Report). 202. Defendants provide women at the Annex with work training furlough opportunities that are inadequate and inferior as compared to those provided to male inmates at Minimum. (Lancaster deposition and testimony). The work training furlough is a program available to minimum custody inmates that permits them to leave the institution during the day to work for a private employer at prevailing community wages, and then return to the prison each night. (Pi. Exs. 331, 378, 442). Once employed in the program, inmates are required to reimburse the institution $2.00 per day for the cost of their incarceration. Inmates are also required to save a certain percentage of funds earned in the work training programs to accumulate savings to aid in their transition back into the community. (Derr (I) Dep. Tr. 106-08; Smith Dep. Tr. at 141) 203. No work training furloughs are available to women at CTF, although Defendants' plans called for this program to be available to women upon the opening of CTF. (Def. Answers Int. No. 22; PI. Exs. 51, 339, 444).

- 49 204. Defendants' implementation of the work training policy severely impacts women by denying them the opportunity to participate equally in this program. Only three women were approved for work training in all of 1993, and only two women in 1992. An average of 50 men from Minimum are employed in work training programs at any one time. (Def. Answers Int. No. 23; PI. Exs. 344, 346, 369). The District has failed to achieve its own stated goal of increasing work training participation by women. (PI. Exs. 324, 344, 348, 349, 434). 205. The few women who have participated in the work training program have been placed in stereotypical jobs such as clerical assistant, telemarketing specialist, and cook. (PI. Ex. 369; Derr (I) Dep. Tr. at 137). Similarly situated men are placed in jobs that lead to higher paying jobs in the community, and some of which pay higher hourly wages in prison, such as barber, construction worker, custodian, truck driver, plumber, and auto mechanic. (Pi. Ex. 369; Derr (II) Dep. Tr. at 10-11). 206. The work training guidelines and procedures deny women equal participation in the work training program because they were designed for male offenders. (Krull Dep. Tr. at 173). The guidelines themselves are designed for men's longer sentences and accessibility to halfway houses. (Krull Dep. Tr. at 172-73) . The mandatory 90-day waiting period before an inmate is eligible for work training is arbitrary as

- 50 applied to female offenders. (Pi. Exs. 378, 432; Krull Dep. Tr. at 116-18; Lancaster deposition and testimony).
2 07. Defendants are aware of, but have failed to remedy, the numerous problems women encounter with the delivery of the work training program. (PI. Exs. 284, 365, 366, 367). Defendants fail to process paperwork necessary to qualify women for the work training program; they fail to provide women with transportation to job interviews; and they fail to provide adequate staff to administer the program for women. (Pi. Exs. 365, 366, 367, 368; Derr (I) Dep. Tr. at 113-21, 131; Krull Dep. Tr. at 170).
208. Women are significantly harmed by their inability to participate equally in work training. Women are unable to earn the significant wages that enable them to save money for the transition into the community. (Pi. Ex. 367; Derr (I) Dep. Tr. at 107-08).
209. Without significant work opportunities like industry and work training, women are unable to participate in rehabilitative programs that teach skills by replicating the real world, facilitate personal growth, and additionally, satisfy requirements for parole eligibility. (PI. Exs. 367, 378; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 122-24).
210. Women are also unable to obtain jobs that would continue upon release. This lack of funds and employment prevents women from reintegrating into the community and

- 51 supporting their families. (PI. Ex. 367; Derr (I) Dep. Tr. at 107-09).
Recreation 211. Defendants provide the women at CTF with
recreation activities that are inadequate and inferior as compared to male inmates at Central, Medium, and Occoquan. (Pi. Exs. 405, 424; Lancaster deposition and testimony).
212. Women at CTF have outside recreation time for only one hour, three to five times per week. The scheduled time for outdoor recreation conflicts with work and other programs and thus denies some women recreation time altogether. Women have recreation in the gym three nights per week for two hours. Unlike the men, women are not permitted to choose to go to the gym or outside during recreation time, but instead must go where the officers or the majority of the group dictate. (Pi. Exs. 17, 18, 207, 209, 210, 424, 426; Jane Doe V Dep. Tr. at 72-73, 136-44).
213. Similarly situated men have outside recreation time "all day long" for 13 hours per day. (Krull Dep. Tr. at 66-67). They have gym time for at least three hours per day, six days per week. (Pi. Exs. 17, 207, 209, 210, 495, 496, 497, 508; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 129-31; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 3940; Krull Dep. Tr. at 66-67).
214. Men at Maximum, the most restrictive facility for maximum custody men with behavioral problems or particularly violent offenses, have more recreation time than

- 52 the women at CTF. (Pi. Ex. 6 61; Roach Dep. Tr. at 16-17). The women at CTF are not similarly situated to this group of men, and thus should receive greater privileges than this population with restricted recreation time. (Elzie Dep. Tr. at 44-47; Riddick Dep. Tr. at 43-44).
215. The women at CTF have no regularly planned recreation activities, although programs such as drama, arts & crafts, and leisure skills are called for by the CTF Operation Manual. (Pi. Ex. 51). The CTF recreation yard is too small to permit running, softball, or other organized sports activities. (Pi. Exs. 204, 207; Jane Doe V Dep. Tr. 72-73, 136-44.) Women were not given appropriate clothing for recreation until October 1993. (Pi. Ex. 426).
216. Similarly situated men have a track, ball field, handball wall, pool tables, horseshoes, and basketball courts. They have a wide variety of recreational activities such as sports (including boxing, basketball, softball, flag football, softball, soccer, and volleyball), nightly video movies, rock bands, drama groups, and arts and crafts. Men receive free athletic clothing and equipment from Lorillard Company for turning in empty cigarette packs. (PI. Exs. 17, 209, 210, 495, 496, 497, 508; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 128-37; Krull Dep. Tr. at 66, 68).
217. Staffing inadequacies and escort problems at CTF limit women prisoners' access to recreation and contribute to the inadequacy and inferiority in recreational activities.

- 53 Twenty to thirty minutes of the time allotted for women's recreation time at CTF is spent escorting the women outside or to the gym, thereby greatly reducing the time women have to recreate. Women are not permitted to attend or leave indoor or outdoor recreation without the group escort. (PI. Exs. 213, 330, 374, 405, 424, 426; Jane Doe V Dep. Tr. at 141-42) .
218. Defendants provide women at the Annex with recreation activities that are not equivalent to those provided to male inmates at Minimum. (Lancaster deposition and testimony).
219. The women's recreation trailer at the Annex is open for only 2-4 hours per day, often during times that conflict with scheduled program and work times. Women are permitted to use the men's gým and field only 3 hours each week. They have no designated outdoor recreation space on their own compound to which they have full access. (PI. Exs. 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 331, 477, 637; Jane Doe VII deposition and testimony).
220. Women are not permitted outside on the Annex compound during visiting hours because, according to Defendants, the male inmates from Minimum jump the fence and enter the Annex grounds undetected during visiting hours. (Smith Dep. Tr. at 189-90; Jane Doe VII deposition and testimony).
221. Men at Minimum have full-time, daily access to a track, field, weight trailer, and gym located on the Minimum

- 54 compound. They are permitted to recreate during all hours that do not conflict with scheduled visiting in the gym or other special programs. (PI. Exs. 498, 499).
222. Women at the Annex have less opportunity for recreation than men. (Lancaster deposition and testimony). Women have ROTC training, two intermural sports, volleyball and basketball that occur once per month, and one team sport, Softball, in the summer. (Pi. Exs. 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 332, 477, 499, 500). Women are denied participation in the Renaissance Drama Troupe available to the men. (Pi. Exs. 626, 627; Jane Doe VII deposition and testimony). Women also have insufficient dayroom space for recreation inside the housing units. (PI. Ex. 334, 637).
223. Men at Minimum have ROTC training and six weekly intermural sports: boxing, basketball, softball, flag football, volleyball, and soccer. The men are able to participate in the Renaissance Drama Troupe. (Pi. Exs. 498, 499, 626) .
224. Defendants do not provide sufficient staff to ensure that women at the Annex receive equivalent recreation programs as men at Minimum. Women at the Annex did not have a recreation specialist to supervise and plan activities and open the recreation trailer from June 1992 to late October 1992. (PI. Exs. 22, 26, 332, 630, 631). Once detailed, the recreation specialist has been utilized in different capacities which results in women being denied adequate and

- 55 equal recreational opportunities. (Pi. Exs. 22, 24; Jane Doe VII deposition and testimony).
225. Defendants are aware of the inadequate and inferior recreation opportunities for women, but have failed to correct the problems. (PI. Exs. 18, 19, 20, 21, 282, 320, 3 3 0; Jane Doe V Dep. Tr. at 136).
226. The women are significantly harmed by the inferior and inadequate recreation time and activities. The women at CTF suffer psychological and physical harm caused by their lengthy confinement in a high security, restrictedmovement facility that was never intended to house long-term,_ general population inmates. (Lancaster deposition and testimony; Jane Doe V Dep. Tr. at 69-72) .
227. The lack of access to recreation leads to idleness and weight gain which contribute to morale problems, depression, and tension among the women. (Lancaster deposition and testimony; Jane Doe V Dep. Tr. at 69-72, 145; Jane Doe VII Dep. Tr. at 71-72).
228. Defendants provide women at CTF with smoking privileges that are inadequate and inferior as compared to those provided to male inmates at Central, Medium, and Occoquan. (PI. Ex. 622; Lancaster deposition and testimony). Women at CTF are not permitted to smoke at all. (Pi. Exs. 249, 251) . The reason for the no-smoking rule at CTF -– that inmates are in intensive treatment programs - - i s not applicable to general population women and serves only to

- 56 deprive women of a privilege given to similarly situated men prisoners. Men at Central, Medium, and Occoquan are permitted to smoke outside, which they have access to most of the day, and in some indoor designated areas. (PI. Ex. 24 9; Braxton Dep. Tr. at 46-47; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 143-44) .
22 9. Women are harmed by the lack of smoking privileges because they are denied privileges afforded to other inmates simply on the basis of sex. This denial of privileges important to inmates perpetuates societal stereotypes and patronizing views of women. (Lancaster deposition and testimony).
Religious Programs 230. Defendants do not provide women at the Annex
with the equivalent range of religious services and programs as they provide to similarly situated men at Minimum. (Pi. Exs. 196, 211, 331, 345, 475, 494; Jane Doe VII Dep. Tr.).
231. Women do not have the full-time access to a chaplain that is available to men. (Pi. Exs. 345, 494; Krull Dep. Tr. at 189; Jane Doe VII deposition and testimony). The chaplain who is assigned to the women does not perform the services required by Department Order 4410.IB, such as delivering notices of family illness and death and soliciting religious volunteers for programs for the women. (Pi. Exs. 191, 219, 475; Smith Dep. Tr. at 176).
232. Women have inadequate space for religious services and studies, as they are denied use of the chapel or

- 57 any other program space on the men's compound. (Pi. Exs. 331, 345, 494; Krull Dep. Tr. at 188-89).
233. Women prisoners are significantly harmed by the lack of equal and adequate access to religious programs. Women prisoners have a great need for chaplaincy services because they rely heavily on chaplains and religious volunteers for support, connection with their children, and as confidants. For women, the chaplain and religious services are a great source of support, rehabilitation, and preparation for reentry into the community. (Lancaster deposition and testimony; Minor Dep. Tr. at 24-27, 69-70, 82-87).
Housing 234. Defendants have housed women prisoners under a
series of ad hoc arrangements that were not intended for general population female inmates and that do not provide adequate and comparable programmatic activities for women prisoners. (Pi. Exs. 211, 291, 321, 328, 330, 665; Jane Doe V Dep. Tr. at 69-73).
23 5. Women were initially housed at the D.C. Jail or in out-of-state facilities run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). (Pi. Ex. 434; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 41-42).
236. In September 1989, women prisoners began to be housed at the Minimum Annex. (Pi. Ex. 452). The Annex dormitories were converted from old barracks on a Nike missile site and are approximately 40 years old. (Pi. Exs. 331, 350, 434; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 105-06). The Department of Corrections

- 58 acquired the buildings in the late 1970s, and used them as its training academy. The buildings were then used to house male prisoners for one year prior to its housing women prisoners. (PI. Ex. 452; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 105-06). The conversion of the training academy to inmate housing was intended to be temporary. (Pi. Ex. 452).
237. In late 1991, the District agreed to the return of 1200 prisoners housed in the BOP, including most of the female offenders. (Pi. Ex. 438; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 43). As of May 1992, the District planned to house women prisoners, including those returning from the federal BOP and those housed at the Annex, at the newly opened CTF. (Pi. Exs. 33 0, 333, 434, 438; Plaut Dep. Tr. at 43).
23 8. Between May 1992 and September 1992, the Annex entered "shut down mode" in anticipation of closing, and curtailed programs and services for women. (Pi. Exs. 332, 334, 346; Derr (I) Dep. Tr. at 105; Smith Dep. Tr. at 13).
239. Then due to increasing numbers of women prisoners, the District planned to reopen one dormitory at the Annex to women and open one Annex dormitory, separated by a wooden fence, to men in the Unfoldment substance abuse program. (Pi. Exs. 33 3, 334). Because the programming trailers were to be designated for the men, the Administrators noted that this housing option would create problems in providing basic services to women at the Annex. (Pi. Ex. 334). Therefore, the District's plan was to house only female

- 59 misdemeanants within 180 days of release at the shared Annex facilities because by "[c]onfining the population to shortterm offenders, the risk of a law suit is diminished." (Pi. Ex. 334). However, the District then decided to utilize the both Annex dormitories to house women felons and misdemeanants serving less than two years of their sentence, and to house the remaining longer term women at CTF. A few DC women prisoners are still sent to the federal BOP.
240. Toward the end of building completion, the District decided to house female prisoners from Lorton and the federal BOP at CTF. (PI. Exs. 330, 338, 350, 438). CTF was designed to house inmates for intensive substance abuse and mental health treatment. (PI. Exs. 330, 338, 439; Elzie Dep. Tr. at 19). This decision to house women at CTF was justified on the grounds that it would save the District over 4 million dollars in its 1993 budget by eliminating the need to provide expensive mental health services at CTF, and by reducing the cost of care for incarcerated women prisoners. (Pi. Ex. 338). However, CTF's controlled-movement design, requirement of escorts for all programming areas, and the resulting limited access to program and outdoor areas are not proper for the confinement of general population female offenders. (PI. Exs. 51, 339; Lancaster deposition and testimony).

- 60 V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
L¤rton Minimum Security Annex 241. The women prisoners at the Annex are housed in
two barrack-style dormitories that house between 80 and 100 inmates each. (PI. Ex. 637; Duel testimony).
242. Dormitory #6 houses between 80 and 90 women in a single room. The furniture in the dormitory consists of double bunks lined against either side of the building. The bunks are approximately an arm's length apart. (Pi. Ex. 63 7; Duel testimony).
243. All bunks have heavy foot lockers; only some bunks have vertical lockers. The sleeping area itself has no tables and no chairs. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony).
244. The 80 to 90 women in Dormitory #6 share a dayroom that is only 26 feet by 12 feet -– approximately 4 feet per inmate. The room is crowded with chairs and one cardtable. The dayroom houses the only television for the dorm and the only two telephones. The main entrance into and out of the dorm, and the only entrance to the bathroom, is also off the dayroom. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony).
245. The amount of dayroom space in Dormitory #6, especially in light of the lack of any amenities in the sleeping areas, is grossly inadequate. (PI Ex. 637; ACA 34130; ACA 3-4131; Duel testimony).
246. The 80 to 90 women in Dormitory #6 share six toilets and seven showers. Under the standards set by both

- 61 the American Correctional Association (ACA) and the American Public Health Association (APHA), this is a grossly inadequate ratio. (Pi. Ex. 637; ACA 3-4132; ACA 3-4133; Duel testimony).
247. Dormitory #7 houses 84 to 94 women in two wings. "A-Wing" houses approximately 60 women in double bunks, while "B-Wing" houses approximately 3 0 women, also in double bunks. The bunks are about an arm's length apart. (PI Ex. 637; Duel testimony).
248. Some of the bunks have vertical lockers; many do not. All bunks have heavy footlockers. Like Dormitory #6, there are no tables or chairs in the sleeping areas. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony).
24 9. Both wings of Dormitory #7 open onto a dayroom that is only 31 feet by 24 feet -– approximately 6 feet per inmate. Most of the available space is taken up by the officer's desk and by the lines of chairs facing the only television. The dayroom in Dormitory #7 has two washers and driers for the personal clothing of the inmates. The only telephones available for the use of inmates are also in the dayroom. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony).
250. The amount of dayroom space in Dormitory #6, especially in light of any amenities in the sleeping areas, is grossly inadequate. (Pi Ex. 637; ACA 3-4130; ACA 3-4131) .
251. The 94 women housed in Dormitory #7 share 6 toilets, 6 showers (unpartitioned), and 5 sinks. Under the standards set by both the ACA and the APHA, this is a grossly

- 62 inadequate ratio. (Pi. Ex. 637; ACA 3-4132; ACA 3-4133; Duel testimony).
252. Due to the dayrooms' small size and the large number of women who use them, the noise levels in the Annex dayrooms can reach exceedingly high levels. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony).
253. Another effect of the overcrowding is poor lighting for the lower bunks. Even at midday, a woman on a lower bunk does not have enough light to read or write without eye strain, and yet the dayrooms are too crowded and noisy to provide an alternative for any type of quiet pursuit.. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony).
254. There is no mechanical ventilation in the dormitories except for a handful of window air conditioners that operate during the summer months. During the winter, almost no fresh air is circulated in the dormitories, leading to a very high levels of carbon dioxide, especially while the women are sleeping. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony).
255. High levels of carbon dioxide are a reliable indicator that ventilation is poor and that the risk of airborne illness is high. (Duel testimony).
256. A sample inspection by Plaintiffs' environmental health expert revealed that over 40% of the mattresses and pillows in the dormitories were torn. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony).

- 63 257. The walls and roofs in both Annex dormitories are very poorly maintained and frequently leak. During the site visit of Plaintiffs' environmental health and fire safety experts in February 1994, the roof of Dormitory #7 was leaking directly onto an electrical box, which created a severe fire safety hazard. (PI. Ex. 637; Duel testimony). 258. The Annex dormitories frequently have no heat or hot water. At times, the water heater must be repaired two or three times a day. (Pi. Ex. 170; Pi. Ex. 480; Duel testimony). 259. Both Annex dormitories are infested with cockroaches. The poor condition of the walls and the lockers provides ideal nesting places for cockroaches, as do the torn mattresses and pillows. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony; Jane Doe PP Dep. Tr. at 21-22). 260. The grounds of the Annex are poorly maintained and there is a critical need for an adequate drainage system. (PI. Exs. 162, 172, 486, 637; Duel testimony). 261. The dumpsters on Annex grounds are left overfilled and uncovered, thus providing an attraction to vermin, skunks, and other wildlife. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony). In the summer, the dumpsters breed maggots and flies. (Duel testimony). 262. The limited programs available at the Annex are offered in four relocatable buildings (trailers). The two trailers furthest from the dormitories, which are used for

- 64 substance abuse programs and recreation, are equipped with toilets and sinks, but those facilities have never been hooked up to a sewage system and are instead used as storerooms. (PI. Ex. 637; Duel testimony).
263. The Substance Abuse trailer is used by prisoners and staff for twelve hours a day. (PI. Ex. 163; PI. Ex. 63 7; Duel testimony).
264. The women have access to the gym only two nights a week. (Findings ¶ 232). On the other days of the week, the women have access only to the recreation trailer, which provides insufficient equipment and opportunity for large-muscle exercise of the type that is necessary to maintain good health. (Pi. Exs. 637, 477; Duel testimony).
265. At the time suit was filed and through at least February 1994, the women prisoners who worked at the prison industries at Central ate under unsanitary and unsafe conditions. While the men are released to eat in the dining hall, the women have their meals delivered to them and eat at their work stations. The meals were delivered in styrofoam containers on the floor of a truck and placed on a dirty table for distribution. By the time the food arrived, it was cold. (Pi. Exs. 353, 637; Duel testimony).
266. Cooked food that is not refrigerated must be maintained at a temperature of 140° or else it will provide an incubation for bacteria and food-related toxins. (Pi. Exs. 637, 531; Duel testimony).

- 65 267. The women prisoners who work at the prison industries at Central have no readily accessible sanitary facilities. While the men have bathrooms immediately off the industry floor, the women have access to a single toilet approximately 250 feet down the hall. Because they must be escorted to the restroom, they are only allowed to go during regularly scheduled breaks, at which time they must all go together. (PI. Exs. 362, 637; Duel testimony). 268. Defendants were aware of the conditions at the industry for some time prior to the filing of this action, yet did nothing to abate them until just recently. (Gilmore Dep._ Tr. at 32-39; Smith Dep. Tr. at 132-37; Gibbons Dep. Tr. at 115-17) . 269. The food at the Lorton Minimum Security Facility is prepared under unsanitary conditions, and the kitchen is infested with vermin. (Pi. Ex. 637; Duel testimony). 270. The laundry practices at the Annex pose a potential risk to the women prisoners housed there. Institutional laundry from the Annex is transported to and from the laundry at Central in unlined plastic carts. Dirty laundry can be the source of illness pathogens which can survive and grow in unclean carts and then be transferred to clean laundry. (PI. Ex. 637; Duel testimony). 271. In addition, the laundry at Central washes blankets and jumpsuits at temperatures that would not

- 67 screens; exposed electrical wiring or outlets that needed securing; and missing smoke detectors. (Pi. Ex. 144; Duel testimony).
275. In October 1992, the interdepartmental safety and sanitation inspection of the Annex revealed that there were no doors on two of the six toilet stalls in the bathroom for Dormitory #7. This situation continued unabated through the end of 1992 and all of 1993, and was not repaired until immediately before the site inspection conducted by Plaintiffs' environmental health expert for this litigation in February 1994. (Pi. Ex. 144; Duel testimony).
276. Knowledge of the conditions at the Annex was not confined to the Department's environmental inspectors. In July 1993, the Associate Directors of the Department were informed that repair needs at the Annex had reach "crisis proportions." (Pi. Exs. 170, 434; Gilmore Dep. Tr. at 108-11, 126-28; Smith Dep. Tr. at 83-88; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 18799; Duel testimony).
277. The women prisoners have repeatedly volunteered to help renovate and repair their living quarters. (Pi. Exs. 169, 177).
278. Those residents who had the skills and motivation to repair and renovate the facility remained idle because there was no staff to supervise them. (Pi. Ex. 170; Stempson Dep. Tr. at 98-99; Smith Dep. Tr. at 88-89) .

- 68 279. Much of the repair work that has been done at the Annex was done in the two weeks preceding the site visit by plaintiffs' environmental health expert on February 23, 1994. (PI. Exs. 422, 480; Duel testimony) (beds were repaired in Dormitory #7; showers and toilet partitions were repaired in both dormitories; the bathroom in Dormitory #7 was painted and plastered; the tiles in the bathroom in Dormitory #7 were repaired; a counter sink top was repaired; the toilet stalls were repaired in both dormitories; damaged window screens were repaired and replaced in both dormitories; the bathroom in Dormitory #7 was touched up with grout and silicone; a sink top in Dormitory #6 was repaired; blinds were installed on the bathroom windows in Dormitory #6; the tile in the bathroom in Dormitory #6 was replaced; toilet paper holders were hung in both dormitories; and toilet seats were replaced in both dormitories). 280. The modest repairs and renovations that Defendants have made in response to the recommendations made by Plaintiffs' experts and Defendants' own experts have not significantly reduced the risk of illness and injury generated by the living conditions at the Annex. (Duel testimony). Correctional Treatment Facility 281. The construction of CTF finished in 1992. The facility consists of a series of multi-level buildings connected by inside walkways. The women are housed in what's known as "E Building." E Building has four ousing levels,

- 69 each with two housing units. Each unit has two self-contained wings housing 32 women each in single cells. The two wings of each unit share a satellite kitchen and dining room. (Pi. Ex. 638; Duel testimony).
282. Although the building is new, the women prisoners housed at CTF are subjected to bitterly cold temperatures and leaking walls and ceilings due to construction defects in the CTF building. (PI. Exs. 145, 159, 449 (1/4/93 report), 638; Duel testimony).
283. Prisoners' cells are located on the outer walls of the CTF buildings. These are solid masonry walls, with virtually no insulation and no perimeter heating, and they therefore reflect the outside temperature. Prisoners' beds are placed next to this outer wall. (Duel testimony; Jones Dep. Tr. (sealed) at 189).
284. The HVAC system does not provide enough heat to warm these uninsulated cells. (Duel testimony; Ray Dep. Tr. (II) at 162-64; Welch Dep. Tr. at 56-57). Cells at CTF are "extremely cold with temperatures as low as 40 degrees." (Pi. Ex. 159).
285. Both staff and inmates have experienced "an increase in colds and flu" due to the poor conditions. (Pi. Exs. 159, 425).
286. The cold temperatures are as prevalent in the warm weather as in the cold. (Pi. Ex. 430 (4/26/93 report; 8/31/93 report)).

- 70 287. The requests of women prisoners for extra blankets to combat the cold often go unheeded; blankets are given and then taken away; extra clothing is provided only sporadically. (Pi. Exs. 160, 430 (2/26/93 report), 649; Jane Doe III Dep. Tr. at 73-75; Jane Doe IV Dep. Tr. at 72-75; Jane Doe V Dep. Tr. at 10 9; Jane Doe VI Dep. Tr. at 78-7 9; Jane Doe IX Dep. Tr. at 71-73; Jane Doe A Dep. Tr. at 52; Jane Doe E Dep. Tr. at 10 5; Jane Doe W Dep. Tr. at 7-8; Jane Doe FF Dep. Tr. at 10-12) . 288. Because of the cold air, many women try to block the air exchange vents in their cells with toilet paper, and sanitary napkins in order to preserve heat. (Pi. Exs. 147 (reports of 9/8/93, 8/3/93, 8/17/93), 150, 151). 289. This improper use of toilet paper and sanitary napkins frequently leads to a shortage of these critical supplies. (Pi. Ex. 609; Welch Dep. Tr. at 55; Jane Doe II Dep. Tr. at 150; Jane Doe III Dep. Tr. at 68; Jane Doe IV Dep. Tr. at 63-64; Jane Doe V Dep. Tr. at 97-98; Jane Doe IX Dep. Tr. at 54-55; Jane Doe E Dep. Tr. at 102-03). 290. Although the Acting Administrator of CTF reported in December 1993 that the facility had finally "complete[d] work on the heating system," PI. Ex. 428 (12/3/93 report), when Plaintiffs' environmental health expert toured the facility two months later, he recorded temperatures of 65° in the cells and was told that it was warmer than it had been in some time. (PI. Ex. 638; Duel testimony). The temperature

- 71 was inconsistent across cells and was coldest in the cells at the end of each tier. (Pi. Ex. 638; Duel testimony).
291. In February 1994, the equipment used to heat the outdoor air coming into the building was broken and Defendants had shut off the ventilation system in order to preserve heat. As a result, no fresh air at all was circulating inside the building. (Pi. Ex. 638; Duel testimony).
292. The lack of adequate ventilation is particularly dangerous for the incarcerated population, many of whom have or have been exposed to tuberculosis, an airborne disease currently prevalent in prisons across the country. (Duel testimony). In May 1993, for example, over 120 residents of CTF were on TB prophylaxis. (PI. Ex. 394). This is the only month for which such statistics were reported.
293. The air handling system at CTF is also excessively noisy. At 4:30 a.m., Plaintiffs' environmental health expert measured the noise level at 66 dBa; in an upper corridor it was nearly 10 decibels louder than that. (Pi. Ex. 638; Duel testimony).
294. Defendants have been aware of excessive noise levels on the women's housing units since at least October 1992 when an audit was conducted of the CTF facility. (Pi. Ex. 405). The former Administrator of the CTF attributed excessive noise levels to the fact that the building was designed to be carpeted, but due to budgetary constraints had

- 72 not been, and to "women's tendency to talk loud." (Pi. Ex. 330) .
2 95. The Department's own policy states that noise levels in inmate housing units shall not exceed 70 dBa in daytime and 45 dBa at night. (PI. Ex. 143; Duel testimony).
296. The CTF has had a recurring problem with leaks around windows. Sometimes even the walls themselves "sweat" water during rainstorms. (PI. Exs. 15 9, 615).
297. CTF also has a pervasive problem with leaking plumbing fixtures. These leaks are often not repaired for a considerable period of time, leading to standing water, and sometimes leaking sewage, in the cells. (PI. Ex. 638; Duel testimony).
298. One effect of the plumbing defects in the building is that water leaks through to lower floors and causes the ceilings of showers to fall out. (PI. Exs. 147 (5/6/93 report), 154, 155, 158, 159, 615; Duel testimony).
2 99. Two women prisoners were injured in separate incidents when a shower ceiling collapsed on them. (PI. Exs. 55, 147 (5/6/93 report), 159; Duel testimony).
300. Another plumbing defect is found in the toilets in the Behavior Management Unit, where women can be housed for disciplinary infractions. These toilets (which are located in each cell) must be flushed simultaneously or else they overflow, due to a lack of back siphonage devices. (PI. Ex. 151) .

- 73 301. The environmental health problems at the facility are exacerbated by the fact that the units do not have an adequate amount of cleaning supplies. (Pi. Exs. 43 0 (2/26/93 report), 617; Duel testimony; Jane Doe III Dep. Tr. at 63-69; Jane Doe IV Dep. Tr. at 62-63; Jane Doe V Dep. Tr. at 94-96; Jane Doe VI Dep. Tr. at 72-76; Jane Doe XI Dep. Tr. at 124-27) . 302. Even though it is a new facility, CTF has also experienced an infestation of mice. (Pi. Exs. 146, 152, 156, 178, 182, 183, 184; McCathorine Dep. Tr. at 204-05; Duel testimony). 3 03. The temperature of the water for the handsinks and for the showers in the housing units at CTF is not hot -– ranging from the high 80's and low 90's. By comparison, the ACA recommends hot water temperatures between 100° and 120°. Lack of hot water means that personal hygiene is neglected and that the potential for transmission of disease is more likely. (PI. Ex. 638; ACA 3-4134; Duel testimony). 3 04. Laundry procedures at CTF are not sanitary. Institutional laundry from CTF is transported to and from the laundry at the D.C. Jail in unlined canvas carts. Dirty laundry can be the source of illness pathogens which can survive and grow in unclean carts and then be transferred to clean laundry. (PI. Ex. 638; Duel testimony).

- 74 305. Defendants are aware of the physical conditions at CTF and the risk to health and safety that these conditions pose. (Duel testimony; PI. Ex. 148; Pi. Ex. 159) 306. The periodic safety and sanitation reports submitted to the Administrator of CTF in 1993 repeatedly show problems with plumbing and heating, including that toilet facilities in E Building were not clean and in good condition; that there was standing water in shower areas; that water was leaking from the ceiling and walls; that there was no heat; and that the air exchange vents were covered to preserve heat. (PI. Ex. 148; Duel testimony). 307. Defendants are aware of the poor sanitary conditions on the women's units at CTF. The former Administrator of CTF noted that conditions on the women's unit "reflects poor supervision, poor housekeeping and no management of equipment and supplies." (PI. Ex. 147 (5/6/93 report). In February 1994, the Acting Director of the Women's Program was reassigned to return to her duties as Unit Manager "due to the chronic sanitation problems" experienced on the unit and "the overwhelming need for closer supervision of unit operations." (Pi. Ex. 461). 308. The food at CTF is prepared under unsanitary conditions. (PI. Ex. 638; Duel testimony). 309. The sanitarian at CTF periodically inspects the main and satellite kitchens using a form adapted from the inspection form used by the District to determine compliance

- 75 of food service establishments with the District's laws and regulations. Under District law, a rating of 85% or less is prima facie evidence of failure to comply with the District's food regulations and can lead to revocation or suspension of a license. (23 DCMR §§ 2001.1, 2001.2).
310. Out of 41 self-inspection reports completed between February 1993 and November 1993, 34 of them showed compliance ratings below 85%. (Pi. Ex. 183; Duel testimony).
311. The food temperatures for the "hot" food served to prisoners with special medical diets is routinely in the danger zone that can allow micro-organisms to flourish and multiply in a very short time. (Pi. Ex. 638; Duel testimony).
312. Defendants are aware that the special diet meals are being served at these dangerous temperatures. (PI. Exs. 405, 426 (6/30/93 report; l/3l/94 report); Duel testimony).
313. The environmental conditions suffered by the women prisoners housed at CTF pose a substantial risk of serious harm, including an increased risk of anxiety, depression, communicable diseases, and confrontations between inmates and with staff. (PI. Ex. 159; Duel testimony).
314. Defendants are aware that the conditions at CTF pose a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmates. (Pi. Exs. 143, 159, 183, 405, 425, 426 (6/30/93 report; l/3l/94 report)).

- 76 VI. FIRE SAFETY
Lorton Minimum Securitv Annex 315. Women prisoners at the Annex face potentially-
fatal fire hazards both in their dormitories and on the main compound at Minimum. (Jaeger testimony).
316. The dormitory buildings are of combustible construction and have a high combustible load, in part because of the large number of occupants and the lack of adequate locker space for the women's personal belongings. Many people store their belongings in cardboard boxes or hang their clothes from the bunkbeds. In addition, Dormitory #7 has wood planking on the walls of the dormitories. (Jaeger testimony).
317. Both dormitories have storage areas with large amounts of flammable material, such as paper and cleaning supplies. A fire in these areas could spread quickly through the sleeping area of the dormitories. (Jaeger testimony).
318. No fire alarm systems are provided in the dormitory buildings. The so-called "fire alarm" in Dormitory #6 is little more than a doorbell. (Jaeger testimony).
319. The smoke detectors in the sleeping areas of the dormitory do not provide adequate fire detection. There are no smoke detectors in the areas where a fire is most likely to start, i.e.. offices, storage rooms, and bathrooms. (Jaeger testimony).
320. Although the dining room and gymnasium at the main compound has a fire alarm system, it is inoperative due

- 77 to failure to maintain it properly and must be replaced. (PI. Exs. 525, 532; Jaeger testimony).
321. On the day of the inspection by Plaintiffs' fire safety expert, the fire exit doors in the gymnasium were locked. Even after the officer unlocked them, the doors were jammed shut and could not be opened for several minutes. Such a delay could be fatal in case of fire. (Jaeger testimony).
322. Although some fire drills have been conducted at the Annex, the number and variation of the drills was inadequate. In two years, Defendants conducted only two drills. (Pi. Ex. 395; Jaeger testimony).
323. The Annex staff do not receive ongoing fire safety training and are not prepared to deal with a fire emergency. (Jaeger testimony).
324. The fire safety conditions at the Annex pose a substantial risk of serious injury to the women who live there. (Jaeger testimony).
325. The fire safety conditions at the Annex "should be made top priority, but they're merely ignored." (Pi. Ex. 403; Jaeger testimony).
326. Defendants are aware of the poor fire safety conditions at the Annex and the risk that they pose. (Pi. Ex. 334, 398, 403, 485, 525, 532; Jaeger testimony).
Correctional Treatment Facility 327. Although CTF has a state-of-the-art fire
protection system, the facility does not test its equipment

- 78 regularly and thus cannot guarantee that it will actually operate in case of an emergency. (Jaeger testimony).
328. Moreover, until otherwise instruced by their own fire safety expert, Defendants did not allow officers on the housing units to carry keys to unlock the fire alarm pull stations on the units. Thus, in the event of a fire emergency, the staff could not use the alarm. (Jaeger testimony).
329. Water leakage from rain in the CTF buildings creates a severe hazard due to the exposure of electrical equipment. (Jaeger testimony).
330. Defendants have stored combustible material in the storage room so close to the ceiling that even if the sprinklers were to go off, they would not be effective because the reach of the water would be very limited. (Jaeger testimony).
331. The frequency and distribution of fire drills at CTF is inadequate and the operational procedures for responding to fire emergencies by staff are inadequate, so much so that staff has complained about the lack of fire drills. (PI. Ex. 3 94; Jaeger testimony).
332. The fire safety conditions at the CTF pose a substantial risk of serious injury to the women who live there. (Jaeger testimony).

- 79 333. Defendants are aware of the fire safetyconditions at the CTF and the risk that they pose. (Jaeger testimony).

DATED:
Prepared by:
Peter J. Nickles #53447 Caroline M. Brown #4 3 8342 Tracy A. Thomas #435742
COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (202) 662-6000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Co-counsel:
Brenda V. Smith #404979 Deborah L. Brake #435006 NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER Ì616 P Street, N.W. Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-5160

June L. Green U.S. District Judge

- 80 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 8th day of June, 19 94,
I caused a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief to be sent by first class
mail, postage pre-paid, to:
Maria Amato, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the District of
Columbia Corporation Counsel 441 4th Street, N.W. 6th Floor South Washington, D.C. 20001

 
 300-H.00-Oa¯Od
iiiiii
!a A suoipauoQ jo ;u8Luµedea o a jo sJ9uosµd
¯D¯a 9¾3 u j ps^B-ieoJEOuT s q USUIOM x i ¾ P u ç ' £ 6 6 I ' I J3qo`¾oo ? o s`e
go ¾DTJ¾sxa siî^ UT ps^BiaojEDUT oqw S J 9 U O S T J ¢ Î uauiOM ¯[TB s ç P 9 U T 3 9 P ST s s e p s q ¿ · (z) (q) £3
pup ' ( T ) ( q ) e s ' («) £3 ¯d ' A T D ¯H ¯ps SSE¯[O T2 S B pa¯rgx¾aaD Åx^sdoad SHM SSBO
M £ 8 6 I `x^ÇD •D¯a) STTI 'e¯çquin¯[oo go ^OTa^sxa ¯A s o a uqop *SUITÇ¯[° j s p x s u o o o¾ uoT^D¯¡:psTanÇ ¾uspu9d s ç q ¾;tnoo
¯ ( £ ) £ í · £ I ' I £ £ I §§ `D'S'D. 82 uo¯p^D¯ppsTjnC aa¾¾Biu ¾DeÇqns
3° suoisn¯[ouoo s^x '¾o¾g go sßuxpuxg Euxoñsaog sm uodn paseg
M`\TI ÄO SNOISÛ¶DNOD QaSOdOHd

JO
(

DTP ZSOZ-E6 'ON ( ITATD ( (

•¯[i= ¾ a 'SNOIiDaHHOO dO iN3WlHVdaa ¾THWíTTOD .30 ¿OIHXSia 3H1 JO SH3NOSIHd N3WOM

viawmoD JO ÌDIHÌSIÖ ani iDiH¿sia saivis aai,iNn

- 2-
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT Equal Protection 4. Sexual harassment by a person acting under color of state law is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pontarelli v. Stone. 930 F.2d 104, 113-114 (1st Cir. 1991); Starrett v. Wadlev, 876 F.2d 808, 814 (10th Cir. 1989); Bohen v. City of East Chicago. Ind.. 799 F.2d 1180, 1185 (7th Cir. 1986); Poulsen v. Citv of North Tonawanda. N.Y.. 811 F. Supp. 884, 894 (W.D.N.Y. 1993). The equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment provides the same guarantee of protection to the residents of the District of Columbia as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does to residents of the fifty states. Boiling v. Sharoe. 347 U.S. 497 (1954). 5. Defendants, as supervisors, exhibit reckless indifference to their employees' violations of women prisoners' constitutional rights and therefore are liable for the sexual harassment perpetrated by their employees, who are acting under color of state law. Murphy v. Chicago Transit Authority. 638 F. Supp. 464, 470 (N.D. 111. 1986). 6. Defendants, as supervisors, are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because of their failure to take corrective action after being put on notice that their employees were harassing women prisoners on the basis of gender. Murphy v.

- 3Chicago Transit Authority. 638 F. Supp. 464, 470 (N.D. 111. 1986) .
7. Defendant District of Columbia and its agencies are liable to the class of women prisoners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because its policies or customs have deprived the women of rights secured by the U.S. Constitution and federal laws. Monell v. Pep't of Soc. Servs.. 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Starrett v. Wadlev, 876 F.2d 808, 818 (10th Cir. 1989); Morgan v. District of Columbia. 824 F.2d 1049, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Poulsen v. City of North Tonawanda. N.Y.. 811 F. Supp. 884, 896 (W.D.N.Y. 1993).
8. The policies or customs that have led to the constitutional harm include the Defendants' "actual practice" and not necessarily what is found in the District's laws and regulations. LaShawn A. v. Dixon, 762 F. Supp. 959, 990 (D.D.C. 1991), aff'd in part, rev'd in part. 990 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1993), cert, denied. 114 S. Ct. 691 (1994); Parker v. District of Columbia. 850 F.2d 708, 714 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert, denied. 489 U.S. 1065 (1989); Havnesworth v. Miller. 820 F.2d 1245, 1248 & n.l (D.C. Cir. 1987) ; Poulsen v. City of North Tonawanda. N.Y.. 811 F. Supp. 884, 896 (W.D.N.Y. 1993).
9. Defendants' deliberate indifference towards women prisoners, including the failure to train its employees on proper treatment of women prisoners, constitutes a policy or custom that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Canton v. Harris. 489 U.S. 378, 389 (1989); Parker v. District of

- 4Columbia, 850 F¯.2d 708, 714 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert, denied. 489 U.S. 1065 (1989); Morgan v. District of Columbia. 824 F.2d 1049, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Constitutional Right to Bodily Privacy 10. Women prisoners have a constitutional right to bodily privacy. Fortner v. Thomas, 983 F.2d 1024, 1030 (11th Cir. 1993); Bowling v. Enomoto. 415 F. Supp. 210, 203 (N.D. Cal. 1981)("Inmates retain [a] constitutional right to privacy in [her] own person."); Forts v. Ward. 621 F.2d 1210, 1213 (2d Cir. 1980)("Inmates retain some residual privacy rights."). 11. Defendants have violated women prisoners' constitutional right to privacy by failing to prevent and remedy "the unrestricted observation of their genitals and bodily functions by prison officials of the opposite sex under normal prison conditions." Bowling v. Enomoto. 415 F. Supp. 210, 204 (N.D. Cal. 1981). 12. Defendants have violated women prisoners' constitutional right to privacy by failing to prevent and remedy the involuntary exposure of women prisoners' genitals to persons of the opposite sex. Lee v. Downs. 641 F.2d 1117, 1119 (4th Cir. 1981). 13. Defendants have violated women prisoners' constitutional right to privacy by failing to remedy and prevent women prisoners from being viewed completely or

- 5partially unclothed by men. Forts v. Ward. 621 F.2d 1210, 1214 (2d Cir. 1980) .
Eighth Amendment 14. Defendants' failure to prevent and remedy the sexual assault of women prisoners constitutes unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain that is inflicted "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm." Hudson v. McMillian. 112 S. Ct. 995, 998 (1992). 15. Plaintiffs have suffered significant injury from sexual harassment and sexual misconduct by DCDC employees. Jordan v. Gardner. 986 F.2d 1521, 1526 (9th Cir. 1993) (en bane); United States v. Clark. No. 91-2059, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 2815, *2-3 (10th Cir. 1992). 16. Sexual harassment and sexual misconduct suffered by women prisoners constitutes an unconstitutional condition of confinement to which Defendants have been deliberately indifferent. Hovater v. Robinson. 1 F.3d 1063, 1066 (10th Cir. 1993); McKenzie v. Wisconsin Dep't of Corrections. 138 F.R.D. 554, 555 (E.D. Wis 1991); Fair v. Brown. No. K85-535, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13428, *4O (W.D. Mich. 1990); Garnett v. Keoner. 541 F. Supp. 241 (M.D. Pa. 1982); Battle v. Seago, 431 S.E.2d 148, 149 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) . 17. Defendants' deliberate indifference to the sexual harassment and sexual misconduct suffered by women prisoners is established by their knowledge of this conduct

- 6and their failure to remedy the abuse. Farmer v. Brennan, No. 92-345, slip op. at 10-11 (U.S. June 6, 1994); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 300-02 (1391) .
18. Knowledge of a significant risk of serious injury can be inferred from "the very fact that the risk was obvious." Farmer v. Brennan, No. 92-345, slip op. at 16 (U.S. June 6, 1994).
Due Process 19. Defendants have violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by punishing pretrial detainees without due process of law. Bell v. Wolfish. 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). See Campbell v. McGruder. 580 F.2d 521, 531 (D.C. Cir. 1978) .
D.C. Code 20. The sexual harassment and sexual misconduct to which women prisoners are subjected is a violation of D.C. Code § 24-442 which requires Defendants to be responsible for the safekeeping, care, protection, instruction, and discipline of all persons committed to its correctional institutions. John Doe v. District of Columbia. 697 F.2d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 1983); District of Columbia v. Mitchell. 533 A.2d 629 (D.C. App. 1987) . 21. By housing women in co-correctional facilities and then failing to protect them from sexual harassment and sexual misconduct, Defendants have failed to house women prisoners in appropriate facilities in violation of D.C. Code

- 7§ 24-425. Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia. 841 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Pitts v. Meese. 684 F. Supp. 303 (D.D.C. 1987), affld, 866 F.2d 1450 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
GYNECOLOGICAL AND OBSTETRICAL CARE Eighth Amendment
22. The Eighth Amendment prohibits Defendants from maintaining a system of medical care characterized by deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of women prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble. 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976); Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 350 (3d Cir. 1987), cert, denied. 486 U.S. 1006 (1988); French v. Owens. 777 F.2d 1250, 1254 (7th Cir. 1985), cert, denied. 479 U.S. 817 (1986); Wellman v. Faulkner. 715 F.2d 269, 271 (7th Cir. 1983), 'cert. denied. 468 U.S. 1217 (1984); Ramos v. Lamm. 639 F.2d 559, 574 (10th Cir. 1980), cert, denied. 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Inmates of Allegheny City Jail v. Pierce. 612 F.2d 754, 762 (3d Cir. 1979); Todaro v. Ward. 431 F. Supp. 1129, 1132 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd. 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1977), aff'd. 652 F.2d 54 (1981).
23. Adequate gynecological and obstetrical care is a serious medical need of women. See, e.g.. Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro. 834 F.2d 326, 348 (3d Cir. 1987), cert, denied. 486 U.S. 1006 (1988); Archer v. Dutcher. 733 F.2d 14, 16 (2d Cir. 1984); Todaro v. Ward. 431 F. Supp. 1129 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd. 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1977).

- 8-
24. Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of women prisoners at CTF, and thus have violated the Eighth Amendment. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991); Estelle v. Gamble. 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976); Eades v. Thompson, 823 F.2d 1055, 1060-61 (7th Cir. 1987); Duncan v. Duckworth. 644 F.2d 653, 654 (7th Cir. 1981) ; Todaro v. Ward, 565 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1977) .
25. Defendants' deliberate indifference is established by their knowledge that their practices and procedures placed women prisoners at CTF at a substantial risk of serious injury, including gynecological infection, sterility, cancer, complication during pregnancy, infant deformity, and infant mortality. Farmer v. Brennan, No. 92345, slip op. at 10-11 (U.S. June 6, 1994); Helling v. McKinnev. 113 S. Ct. 2475 (1993); Boretti v. Wiscomb. 930 F.2d 1150, 1155 (6th Cir. 1991); DeGidio v. Pung. 920 F.2d 525, 533 (8th Cir. 1990); see, e.g., Lightfoot v. Walker, 486 F. Supp. 504, 511 (S.D. 111. 1980) (noting risk of developing musculoskeletal pain and tension from lack of exercise); Martino v. Carey. 563 F. Supp. 984, 990-991 (D. Or. 1983) (noting "health and lives of inmates have been or are threatened by such conditions" including "little or no effort at preventive health care").
26. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment because there are systematic and gross deficiencies in the procedures which Defendants use to provide gynecological and

- 9obstetrical care to women prisoners, effectively delaying and denying women prisoners access to adequate care. See Estelle v. Gamble. 429 U.S. 97, 104-105 (1976); Kaminsky v. Rosenblum, 929 F.2d 922, 926 (2d Cir. 1991); Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates v. L·anzaro. 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir. 1987); Ancata v. Prison Health Services, Inc.. 769 F.2d 700, 704 (11th Cir. 1985); Archer v. Dutcher. 733 F.2d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 1984); Wel·lman v. Faulkner. 715 F.2d 269, 272 (7th Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 468 U.S. 1217 (1984); Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 577 (10th Cir. 1980), cert, denied. 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Todaro v. Ward. 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1977), aff'd. 652 F. 2d 52 (1981); Hurst v. Phelps. 579 F.2d 940, 941-942 (5th Cir. 1978); Isaac v. Jones. 529 F. Supp. 175, 180 (N.D. 111. 1981) .
27. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide women prisoners with adequate preventive health care, routine gynecological examinations, and health education. See Hoptowit v. Rav. 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982); Lareau v. Manson. 651 F.2d 96, 109 (2d Cir. 1981); Ramos v. Lamm. 639 F.2d 559, 574 (10th Cir. 1980).
28. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to carry-out prescribed medical treatment. Johnson v. Hay. 931 F.2d 456, 461 (8th Cir. 1991); Boretti v. Wiscomb. 930 F.2d 1150, 1154 (6th Cir. 1991); Gill v. Moonev. 824 F.2d 192, 196 (2d Cir. 1987); Jorden v. Farrier. 788 F.2d 1347, 1349 (8th Cir. 1986); Kelsey v. Ewina. 652 F.2d 4, 5-6 (8th

- 10 Cir. 1981); Todaro v. Ward. 431 F. Supp. 1129, 1151 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1977), aff'd, 652 F. 2d 52 (1981); Riddick v. Bass. 586 F. Supp. 881, 882-883 (E.D. Va. 1984) .
D.C. Code 29. Defendants' failure to provide adequate staff, equipment, and facilities for the delivery of health services to women prisoners violates D.C. Code §§ 24-442, which imposes on Defendants an affirmative duty of care with respect to the health care provided to prisoners. District of Columbia v. Mitchell. 533 A.2d 629, 648 (D.C. App. 1987); Yarbauah v. Roach. 736 F. Supp. 318, 319 (D.D.C. 1990).
PROGRAMS 30. Defendants' provision of unequal programs and opportunities to women prisoners on the basis of a facial classification of segregating prisoners based on sex demonstrates intent to discriminate as a matter of law under both the equal protection and Title IX analyses. Mississippi University for Women v. Hoqan. 458 U.S. 718, 724-25 (1982) ; Klinger v. Nebraska Dep't of Correctional Services. 824 F. Supp. 1374, 1388, 1433 (D. Neb. 1993); Canterino v. Barber, 564 F. Supp. 711, 714 (W.D.Ky. 1983) ("Canterino III") ; Glover v. Johnson. 478 F. Supp. 1075, 1080 (E.D. Mich. 1979). 31. Women prisoners are "similarly situated" to those men prisoners with similar custody levels, sentence structures, and general purposes of incarceration and

- 11 programming. Klinger v. Nebraska Dep't of Correctional Services. 824 F. Supp. 1374, 1359, 1431-34 (D. Neb. 1993) ; Glover v. Johnson. 478 F. Supp. 1075, 1082 (E.D. Mich. 1979) . See, e.g., McCoy v. Nevada Dep't of Prison. 776 F. Supp. 521, 533 (D. Nev. 1991); Bukhari v. Kutto. 487 F. Supp. 1162, 1171 (E.D.Va. 1980).
Title IX 32. Title IX, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688, which prohibits sex discrimination in education programs and activities by entities receiving federal financial assistance, applies to prisons such as the District of Columbia Department of Corrections that receive federal funds. Klinger v. Nebraska Dep't of Correctional Services. 824 F. Supp. 1374, 1359, 1431 (D. Neb. 1993); Beehler v. Jeffes. 664 F. Supp. 931, 940 (M.D.Pa. 1986), aff'd without opinion. 989 F.2d 486 (3d Cir. 1993); Canterino v. Barber. 564 F. Supp. 711, 714-15 (W.D.Ky. 1983) ("Canterino III"); Canterino v. Wilson. 546 F. Supp. 174, 209-10 (W.D. Ky. 1982), rev'd in part on other grounds. 869 F.2d 948 (6th Cir. 1989) . 33. Defendants have provided women prisoners with unequal opportunity in programs and activities in the areas of education, vocation, apprentice training, occupational work training, and industries in violation of Title IX. Klinger v. Nebraska Dep't of Correctional Services. 824 F. Supp. 1374, 1432 (D. Neb. 1993); Canterino v. Barber. 564 F. Supp. 711, 714-15 (W.D.Ky. 1983) ("Canterino III") : Canterino v. Wilson.

- 12 546 F. Supp. 174, 210 (W.D. Ky. 1982), rev'd in part on other grounds. 869 F.2d 948 (6th Cir. 1989); 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.31, 106.34, Pt. 100, App. B, VII-A & VII-B.
Equal Protection 34. Defendants' facial classification of prisoners based on sex triggers intermediate or "heightened" scrutiny under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. J.E.B. v. Alabama. 114 S. Ct. 1419 (1994); Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan. 458 U.S. 718, 724-25 (1982) ; Pitts v. Thornburgh. 866 F.2d 1450, l455¯(D.C. Cir. 1989). See Klinger v. Nebraska Dep't of Correctional Services. 824 F. Supp. 1374, 1390-91 (D. Neb. 1993); Canterino v. Wilson. 546 F. Supp. 174, 210 (W.D. Ky. 1982), rev'd in part on other grounds. 869 F.2d 948 (6th Cir.' 1989); Bukhari v. Hutto. 487 F. Supp. 1162, 1171 (E.D.Va. 1980); Glover v. Johnson. 478 F. Supp. 1075, 1078-83 (E.D. Mich. 1979) . See. also Boiling v. Sharpe. 347 U.S. 497 (1954). 35. Defendants have failed to provide women prisoners with programs and opportunities in education, vocation, work, recreation, religion, and privileges in parity with those provided to similarly situated men prisoners in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Klinqer v. Nebraska Dep't of Correctional Services, 824 F. Supp. 1374, 1398-1411, 1427-29 (D. Neb. 1993) (education, vocation, recreation); Glover v. Johnson. 721 F.

¯ 13 ¯ Supp. 808, 827; 835-36, 841 (E.D. Mich. 1989) ("Glover III") (education); Canterino v. Wilson. 546 F. Supp. 174, 212, 215 (W.D. Ky. 1982) (vocation, work, recreation), rev'd in part, 869 F.2d 948 (study and work release programs); Glover v. Johnson, 478 F. Supp. 1075, 1086-93 (E.D. Mich. 1979) (vocation, work). See Pitts v. Thornburgh. 866 F.2d 1450, 1461-63 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Pitts v. Meese. 684 F. Supp. 303, 313 (D.D.C. 1987), aff#d. 866 F.2d 1450 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
36. There is no "exceedingly persuasive justification" for Defendants' gender-based classification and therefore it cannot survive constitutional scrutiny. J.E.B. v. Alabama. 114 S. Ct. 1419, 1425 (1994); Mississippi University for Women v. Hoaan. 458 U.S. 718, 724-25 (1982) .
D.C. Code 37. Defendants have provided women prisoners with inadequate programs and opportunities in education, vocation, work, recreation, and religion in violation of state law which requires Defendants to exercise reasonable care in the provision of care and instruction to all inmates. D.C. Code § 24-442. See Fulwood v. Clemmer, 206 F. Supp. 370 (D.D.C. 1962) . 38. By continually housing women under a series of ad hoc arrangements that do not provide equal and adequate programs and services to women prisoners, Defendants have failed to house women prisoners in appropriate institutions in violation of state law. D.C. Code Ann. § 24-425. Twelve John

- 14 Does v. District of Columbia. 841 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Pitts v. Meese. 684 F. Supp. 303 (D.D.C. 1987), aff'd, 866 F.2d 1450 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS CF CONFINEMENT Eighth Amendment
39. Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the risk associated with the physical conditions of confinement of the women prisoners who are housed at the Annex and at CTF. Farmer v. Brennan, No. 92-345, slip op. at 10-11 (U.S. June 6, 1994); Wilson v. Seiter. 501 U.S. 294 (1991).
40. Defendants' deliberate indifference to the physical conditions of confinement of the women prisoners is established by their knowledge of these conditions and the subsequent failure to remedy thenr. Farmer v. Brennan, No. 92345, slip op. at 10-11 (U.S. June 6, 1994); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 300-02 (1991).
41. Defendants' knowledge of a significant risk of serious injury can be inferred by "the long duration of a cruel prison condition." Wilson v. Seiter. 501 U.S. 2 94, 3 00 (1991).
42. Defendants' knowledge of a significant risk of serious injury can be inferred from "the very fact that the risk was obvious." Farmer v. Brennan, No. 92-345, slip op. at 16 (U.S. June 6, 1994).
43. In a suit for injunctive relief, such as this one, knowledge of a signficant risk of serious injury can be

obtained in the course of litigation. Farmer v. Brennan. No. 92-345, slip op. at 20 & n.9 (U.S. June 6, 1994).
44. Defendants' deliberate indifference to the physical conditions of confinement of the women prisoners who are housed at the Annex and at CTF satisfies the "subjective" component of Eighth Amendment analysis. Farmer v. Brennan. No. 92-345, slip op. at 10-11 (U.S. June 6, 1994); Wilson v. Seiter. 501 U.S. 294, 298, 303 (1991).
45. The "objective" component of Eighth Amendment is likewise satisfied because Defendants have deprived the woman prisoners at the Annex and CTF of "essential human needs" including warmth, sanitation, exercise, food that is safe to eat, and basic safety and security in their environment. Wilson v. Seiter. 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991); Rhodes v. Chapman. 452 U.S. 337, 348 (1981); Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry. 844 F.2d 828, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1988) .
46. Some of the women prisoners' conditions of confinement establish an Eighth Amendment violation "in combination," even though each would not do so alone, because "they have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need . . . for example, a low cell temperature at night combined with a failure to issue blankets." Wilson v. Seiter. 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991); Rhodes v. Chapman. 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981); Doe v. District of Columbia. 701 F.2d 948, 961 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry. 844 F.2d 828, 836-37 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

- 16 47. The overcrowding at the Annex, while itself not an Eighth Amendment violation, Rhodes v. Chapjman, 452 U.S. 337, 348 (1981), has so overtaxed the facility that the resulting unhealthy and unsafe environment constitutes a deprivation of adequate shelter and security and an Eighth Amendment violation. Williams v. Griffin. 952 F.2d 820, 82425 (4th Cir. 1993); Williams v. Adams. 935 F.2d 960, 962 (8th Cir. 1991); Tillery v. Owens. 907 F.2d 418, 423 (3rd Cir. 1990); Akao v. Shimoda. 832 F.2d 119, 120 (9th Cir. 1987), cert, denied. 485 U.S. 993 (1988); Toussaint v. Yockey. 722 F.2d 1490, 1492 (9th Cir. 1984) . 48. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect the women prisoners from excessively cold or hot temperatures and by failing to provide decent ventilation and insulation. Wilson v. Seiter. 501 U.S. 294 (1991); French v. Owens. 777 F.2d 1250, 1255 (7th Cir. 1985), cert, denied. 479 U.S. 817 (1986); Madison County Jail Inmates v. Thompson. 773 F.2d 834, 838-39 (7th Cir. 1985); Hoptowit v. Spellman. 753 F.2d 779, 784 (9th Cir. 1985); Ramos v. Lamm. 639 F.2d 559, 566 (10th Cir. 1980), cert, denied. 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Hutchinqs v. Corum. 501 F. Supp. 1276, 1282 (W.D. Mo. 1980). 49. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by depriving the women prisoners of a safe and sanitary environment through their failure to provide proper plumbing, adequate hot water, adequate lighting, and adequate cleaning

- 17 supplies and their failure to follow sanitary laundry procedures. French v. Owens. 777 F.2d 1250, 1252 (7th Cir. 1985), cert, denied. 479 U.S. 817 (1986); Madison County Jail Inmates v. Thompson, 773 F.2d 834, 838-39 (7th Cir. 1985); Hoptowit v. Spellman. 753 F.2d 779, 783-84 (9th Cir. 1985); Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 569-70 (10th Cir. 1980), cert, denied. 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Hite v. Leeke. 564 F.2d 670, 672 (4th Cir. 1977).
50. Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide food that has been prepared under safe and sanitary conditions. French v. Owens. 777 F.2d 1250, 1255 (7th Cir. 1985), cert, denied. 479 U.S. 817 (1986); Madison County Jail Inmates v. Thompson, 773 F.2d 834, 838-39 (7th Cir. 1985); Ramos v. Lamm. 639¯ F.2d 559, 571 (10th Cir. 1980), cert, denied.. 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Liahtfoot v. Walker. 486 F. Supp. 504, 524 (S.D. 111. 1980).
51. The presence of vermin is evidence of a failure to maintain facilities in a constitutionally adequate manner. Kost v. Kozakiewics. 1 F.3d 176, 188 (3rd Cir. 1993); Hoptowit v. Spellman. 753 F.2d 779, 784 (9th Cir. 1985); Wellman v. Faulkner. 715 F.2d 269, 274 (7th Cir. 1983), cert, denied. 468 U.S. 1217 (1984).
52. Prisoners have the right not to be subjected to the unreasonable threat of injury or death by fire and need not wait until actual casualties occur in order to obtain relief. Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry. 717 F. Supp. 854, 867

- 18 (D.D.C. 198a); see also Helling v. McKinney. 113 S. Ct. 2475, 2479-80 (1993). Therefore, Defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide an adequate level of fire safety at CTF and the Annex. Hoptowit v. 5pellman. 753 F.2d 779, 783 (9th Cir. 1985); Santana v. Callazo. 714 F.2d 1172, 1183 (1st Cir. 1983), cert, denied. 466 U.S. 974 (1984); Leeds v. Watson. 630 F.2d 674, 675 (9th Cir. 1980); Hutchinas v. Corum. 501 F. Supp. 1276, 1293 (W.D. Mo. 1980) .
D.C. Code 53. The physical conditions of confinement of the women prisoners at the Annex and CTF constitute violations of D.C. Code § 24-442 which requires Defendants to be responsible for the safekeeping, care, and protection of all persons committed to its correctional institutions. John Doe v. District of Columbia. 697 F.2d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 1983); District of Columbia v. Mitchell. 533 A.2d 629 (D.C. App. 1987). 54. Defendants have failed to house women prisoners in appropriate facilities in violation of D.C. Code § 24-425. Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia. 841 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Pitts v. Meese. 684 F. Supp. 303 (D.D.C. 1987), aff'd. 866 F.2d 1450 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

DATED:

June L·. Green U.S. District Judge

- 19 -
Prepared by:
Peter J. Nickles #53447 Caroline M. Brown #438342 Tracy A. Thomas #435742
COVINGTON & BURLING 12 01 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (202) 662-6000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Co-counsel:
Brenda V. Smith #404979 Deborah L·. Brake #435006 NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER 1616 P Street, N.W. Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-5160

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF

)

COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

)

et a ‰ ,

)

)

Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action

) No. 93-2052 JLG

)

v.

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

)

et aJU,

)

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED ORDER FOR DECLARATORY AND INJÜNCTIVE RELIEF Based upon the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby ORDERED that, 1. Defendants' actions and inactions violated and continue to violate the Plaintiff class members' rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (1988), and the District of Columbia Code §§ 24-442 and 24-425; and 2. Defendants are enjoined from engaging in any action or conduct, or from failing to act in any way, that violates the Plaintiffs' above-mentioned rights; and 3. Plaintiffs are awarded the costs of this suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees; and 4. Defendants are ordered to take all action necessary to remedy and prevent the violations of the Plaintiffs' above-mentioned rights. Defendants are ordered to

Women Prisoners of DC Department of Corrections v. District of Columbia
PC-DC-0011-0029

- 2take the following specific measures in the areas of sexual misconduct, medical care, programs and opportunities, and environmental and fire safety:
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT Department Order 5. Within 60 days, Defendants shall write and
follow a Department Order prohibiting sexual harassment and sexual misconduct involving DCDC employees and women prisoners. Defendants shall post and circulate the Department Order in accordance with departmental policy.
6. Under this policy the Department of Corrections has the obligation to take appropriate steps to prevent and remedy sexual harassment and sexual misconduct committed by its own employees, its contractors, and by other inmates.
7. Defendants shall appoint one person to monitor allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct at each facility in which women prisoners are housed, subject to approval by Plaintiffs' counsel. The monitor shall log in each allegation of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, monitor the investigations of the allegations, and keep records of the resolution, including disciplinary actions, of such claims. The monitor shall submit monthly reports containing this information to the Administrator of the facility.

- 38. Prohibited conduct under the policy shall be defined as:
a. Sexual harassment and sexual misconduct, including:
(1) all sexual activity between an employee and an inmate including any act of sexual intercourse, oral sex, or sexual touching and any attempt to commit these acts, regardless of whether the conduct is unwelcome by the inmate;
(2) all sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature by any DCDC employee, regardless of whether the conduct is unwelcome by the inmate; and
(3) all unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature by another inmate.
b. Gender-based harassment, including: (1) verbal or physical conduct by either
DCDC employees or other inmates that denigrates, shows hostility or aversion toward an inmate because of her gender, including: epithets; slurs; negative stereotyping; hostile or intimidating acts that relate to gender; and
(2) written or graphic material that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward an individual or group because of gender and that is placed on walls,

- 4 bulletin boards, or otherwise publicized within the correctional environment.
c. Invasions of women prisoners' privacy by male employees, including the failure of any male employee to announce his presence when entering a female housing unit.
d. Retaliation for reporting complaints of, assisting any individual in making a report of, or cooperating in an investigation of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, regardless of the merits or the disposition of the underlying complaint. Retaliatory conduct includes:
(1) disciplining, changing work or program assignments of, transferring to another facility of, or placing under involuntary protective custody any inmate; and
(2) any breach of confidentiality by any employee concerning any report of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct.
e. Any interference with investigations of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct.
9. Penalties for prohibited conduct under the policy shall be administered as follows:
a. A written record of each disciplinary action taken pursuant to this policy will be placed in the offending employee's personnel file and will also be sent to the monitor and to the Administrator of the facility. A

- 5written record of each allegation shall also be sent to the monitor and to the Administrator of the facility.
b. An employee's first alleged violation of this policy will result in non-disciplinary oral counseling, as recommended by Defendants' expert penologist.
c. An employee's first proven offense of actual or attempted sexual contact with an inmate will result in permanent dismissal.
d. Discipline for successive violations, other than actual or attempted sexual contact with an inmate, shall be progressive in that each separate instance of proven sexual harassment or sexual misconduct by the offending employee shall result in increasingly severe disciplinary action.
e. An employee's commission of acts of gender-based harassment, invasions of privacy, or acts of sexual harassment or misconduct other than actual or attempted sexual activity will result in a written warning, suspension without pay, or permanent discharge upon the first proven offense, depending on the nature and severity of the misconduct, and suspension without pay or permanent discharge upon the second proven ofí«r`.se.
f. Any i :-i of retaliation or interference with investigation will :··s.lt in suspension without pay or permanent discharge upon - :¯.- first proven offense, depending

- 6on the nature and severity of the retaliatory acts, and permanent discharge upon the second proven offense.
g. In the event that reinstatement is required by law, under no circumstances shall the reinstated employee be assigned to any facility that houses women.
10. Women prisoners shall be able to report instances of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct through the existing Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP). Defendants shall strictly adhere to the Inmate Grievance Procedure and shall establish an Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee (IGAC) as specified in Department Order 4030.ID.
11. Women prisoners shall also be able to submit IGPs or complaints concerning sexual harassment or sexual misconduct in any form, orally or in writing, to any DCDC employee, who must submit the information, in writing, to the monitor and to the Administrator of the facility within 24 hours of receiving the information. Women prisoners may also submit IGPs or complaints to an inmate representative to the IGAC.
12. Defendants shall establish a confidential hotline, under the supervision of the monitor, through which women prisoners can report allegations of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. Anonymous complaints, regardless of how they are reported, will be taken seriously and investigated.
13. Defendants shall arrange for an Inmate Advocate System to assist women prisoners in all stages of reporting

- 7and investigating allegations of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. The Inmate Advocate shall be a person or agency with experience representing inmates such as the Prisoners' Rights Program of the Public Defender Service. The Inmate Advocate System shall be implemented subject to the approval of Plaintiffs' counsel.
14. Each employee shall be required to report any information, from any source, concerning sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, in writing, to the Administrator of the facility and to the monitor within 24 hours of receiving the information. Employees are required to report all information concerning sexual harassment or sexual misconduct regardless of whether an inmate or another employee files an independent report. If an inmate so requests, the inmate shall be treated as an anonymous informant. Failure to report any suspected incident of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct by any employee shall subject the employee to discipline.
15. The monitor shall ensure that each reported violation of the policy is thoroughly investigated and documented. If the monitor determines that an outside investigation is warranted, and in all instances alleging actual or attempted sexual contact, the allegation shall be referred to a fact finding committee comprised of three trained outside investigators within 24 hours of receipt of an allegation. The members of the fact finding committee may be selected from the external investigators used by the

- 8Department to investigate sexual harassment of employees. In the event that an outside investigation does not occur, the monitor must state, in writing, the reasons for using an internal investigation. The allegation must then be fully investigated by a department employee who has received training in the investigation of sexual misconduct. Both internal and outside investigations must comply with the following procedures:
a. All investigators shall conduct a thorough investigation, including interviewing the accuser, the accused, all potential witnesses, and anyone who may have knowledge of the incident. All persons contacted in the course of an investigation shall be informed of the confidentiality of the investigation and the penalty for breach of confidentiality. All investigations shall include detailed documentation, including written witness statements or written transcripts or summaries of witness interviews.
b. All investigators shall consider any past allegation of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct against the employee.
c. The committee shall consider any medical or physical evidence in appropriate cases. The absence of medical or physical evidence or corroborating witnesses in no way relieves the committee of its duty to investigate.
d. During the course of any investigation, the accused employee shall be ordered to have no contact of

- 9any kind with the complaining woman prisoner. In all allegations of actual or attempted sexual contact, the accused employee shall have no contact of any kind with any women prisoners.
e. The committee shall submit a final written report, which shall include factual findings by each member, to the monitor and to the Administrator of the institution no later than 14 days after receipt of the allegation. The final written report will include a finding of whether it is more likely than not that the alleged conduct occurred. An investigator in an internal investigation shall also submit a written report.
f. The monitor will determine, based upon the facts as found by the committee or the investigator, whether it is more likely than not that a violation of the policy occurred. The monitor shall forward the committee report or the investigative report and her/his conclusion regarding whether the policy was violated to the Administrator of the institution. The Administrator shall take appropriate action as detailed in the schedule of penalties.
g. The complaining woman prisoner shall be informed, in writing, of the outcome of the investigation, within 48 hours of the monitor's findings.
16. Upon receipt of any allegation of an act of sexual intercourse or any allegation of nonconsensual sexual touching, the monitor must notify the proper law enforcement

- 10 agency. This reporting in no way relieves the institution of their duty to investigate internally.
a. The monitor shall have responsibility for communicating with the law enforcement agency concerning the status of any external investigation. The monitor must make weekly inquiries into the status of the investigation, and document these status findings in writing at weekly intervals.
b. A determination by the law enforcement agency not to bring charges shall not be a determinative factor in the internal investigation of whether it is more likely than not that the Department Order has been violated.
17. The identity of the target of the alleged contact shall be revealed only to those who have an immediate need to know, including the fact finding committee, the alleged harasser(s) or retaliator(s) and any witnesses. All parties contacted in the course of an investigation will be advised that any retaliation, reprisal, or breach of confidentiality is a separate actionable offense as provided in the schedule of penalties.
18. Any inmate who is dissatisfied with any investigation or resolution of an allegation of sexual harassment or sexual misccr.duct may appeal to the Director of the Department of Correcr . r.s within 15 days of receiving written notice of the out ~·«1? of an investigation. The Director must respond witr.. r. 15 days.

- 11 Training 19. Within 60 days, Defendants shall choose a trainer from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon by the parties, to conduct mandatory training on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct for DCDC employees. Within 90 days of selection, the NIC trainer shall commence training on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct for all DCDC employees who work with women prisoners.
a. The training shall include education concerning the Defendants' policies regarding reporting, investigating, and preventing sexual harassment and sexual misconduct, and the consequences for violating any policy concerning sexual harassment and sexual misconduct.
b. In addition to roll call training, formal training sessions on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct shall be conducted on a monthly basis for the first year succeeding entry of the consent decree, and on a quarterly basis in all years thereafter that this decree shall remain in effect.
c. Defendants must maintain a minimum number of trained investigators, to be determined by the monitor, throughout each institution in which women are housed. Investigators will attend additional full-day training seminars conducted annually by the trainer.
20. Within 60 days, Defendants shall choose an outside consultant, mutually agreed upon by the parties, to

- 12 conduct training on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct for women prisoners. Within 90 days of selection, the trainer shall develop a training program and materials and commence training to inform and educate women prisoners about how to recognize and report sexual harassment and sexual misconduct.
a. The training materials must be included in the orientation that each woman receives upon intake or classification at each facility.
b. Formal training sessions for women prisoners on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct shall be conducted on a monthly basis for the first year succeeding entry of the consent decree, and on a quarterly basis in all years thereafter that this decree shall remain in effect.
Task Force 21. Within 6 0 days, Defendants shall establish a Task Force at each institution in which women prisoners are housed to review and investigate all outstanding allegations of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. The members of the Task Force must be comprised of trained outside investigators and may be selected from the external investigators used by the Department to investigate sexual harassment of employees. The Task Force shall make every effort to resolve each outstanding allegation of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, and shall submit s report on each allegation to the monitor, to the Administrator of the facility, and to the Director of the D.C. Department of Corrections.

- 13 Recruitment and Employment 22. Defendants' employee recruitment and selection process shall include background checks on all prospective employees to ensure that no one with a background of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct is hired by the Department of Corrections. Privacy 23. Defendants shall make necessary alterations at both the Correctional Treatment Facility and the Minimum Security Annex within 60 days to ensure that women have privacy in their living, sleeping and shower areas. These steps include providing shades, curtains or special coating for outside windows at CTF to prevent male inmates from seeing into women's cells.
II. OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL CARE 24. Defendants shall hire within 60 days: a. a nurse midwife in a half-time position
who shall provide clinical and health educational services to the entire female inmate population.
b. an additional nurse practitioner or physician's assistant with special training in obstetrics and gynecology to provide clinical services to women prisoners at CTF.
25. The CTF OB/GYN Clinic shall maintain its current regularly-scheduled hours.

- 14 26. Defendants shall establish a prenatal clinic at CTF for women who receive their primary prenatal care at CTF. This clinic shall operate at least one half-day each week. Pregnant women shall not be required to make appointments for the prenatal clinic through the sick-call process, but rather, shall have scheduled appointments for the clinic. A pregnant woman may also receive prenatal care outside of these regularly-scheduled appointments. 27. Defendants shall maintain statistics on the number of pregnant women and the birth outcomes of infants whose mothers delivered while incarcerated. Intake Screening. 28. In addition to the general health interview and observation performed for male prisoners, the intake screening for all women prisoners shall include specific inquiry about her use of contraceptives or intrauterine devices, history of pregnancy, last known menstrual period, current likelihood and history of sexually transmitted diseases (including syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, vaginitis, herpes, and HIV), and pattern of drug use, including injection drug use. 29. In accordance with Department of Corrections policy, Defendants shall inform all women prisoners of the procedure to access health services while incarcerated. 30. A urinary HCG pregnancy test shall be performed on all women at the time of intake screening. The results of such testing shall be made available within 15 minutes. Women

- 15 shall be informed of the results in a confidential manner by appropriate medical personnel and provided with access to information and counseling about the options for carrying the pregnancy to term or for termination. Routine prenatal care shall be initiated immediately for pregnant women.
31. Pregnant women who are chemically addicted to narcotics or barbiturates shall be evaluated by an obstetrician trained in the treatment of pregnant women with addictions. Treatment of the chemical dependency shall not be undertaken without informing the woman of the medical risks that such treatment may pose to her health, the maintenance of the pregnancy, and to the fetus and obtaining her informed consent.
32. Pregnant prisoners whose existing methadone treatment program has been confirmed shall be evaluated and continued on the methadone dosage deemed medically appropriate after consultation with the prior treatment program. Defendants shall consult with the prior treating facility, or when circumstances do not permit prior consultation, as soon as practicable, but in no event later than 72 hours after the initial dose was administered at the Jail. If a prisoner requires methadone before :i is possible to determine what her past dosage was, methadcr.~ licensed medical staff shall administer what they cons.i»r a medically appropriate dose based on the available meì. ¾l information. The basis for making a dosage decision r -. *r.ge and the substance of all

- 16 consultation with prior treating facilities shall be made part of the prisoner's medical record.
33. For pregnant women prisoners at CTF who are on a methadone maintenance program, Defendants shall arrange to have methadone dispensed on-site.
Health Appraisal. 34. In addition to the health appraisal conducted for male prisoners, Defendants shall conduct a gynecological examination, including a pelvic examination and evaluation, a breast examination accompanied by patient education, a Pap smear, a chlamydia and gonorrhea culture, and a serology for syphilis. Any unusual vaginal discharge shall be examined microscopically at this time. In accordance with the CTF Operations manual and National¯Commission on Correctional Healthcare (NCCHC) and American Correctional Association (ACA) standards, this health appraisal shall occur within fourteen (14) days of admission into the Department of Corrections, unless there is documentation of a complete and comparable health appraisal within the previous 90 days. 35. Defendants shall develop an appropriate health appraisal form to correspond with the aspects of the health appraisal for women noted in paragraph (1). Routine Gynecological Care. 36. Defendants shall develop and implement within 90 days protocols concerning routine and follow-up care for common gynecological problems including syphilis, gonorrhea,

- 17 chlamydia, and pelvic inflammatory disease; pap tests; pelvic examinations; breast examinations; education in family planning, including information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of contraceptive techniques; and mammography for high-risk women, in accordance with standards of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG).
37. Defendants shall provide medical care in accordance with existing gynecological protocols that satisfy ACOG standards.
38. Defendants shall provide gynecological care within the time frames and in a manner consistent with a gynecological protocol unless a physician determines that in his or her medical judgment it is not medically appropriate for such care to be provided in accordance with the protocol, in which case the reasons for this determination shall be entered into the patient's medical record.
39. At a minimum, the protocol concerning the provision of gynecological care shall provide that Defendants shall offer and make available pap tests to all women at CTF every 6 months.
40. Defendants shall maintain a list of abnormal pap results and, within 7 days of receipt of an abnormal pap result, shall notify the patient of the abnormal result and develop and initiate a course of treatment.
41. All women who receive an abnormal pap test result shall be scheduled for a repeat pap test at three-month

- 18 intervals until the pap test results are normal. Once the pap test results are normal, a pap test shall take place every 6 months. If a colposcopy is required, it shall be performed in a manner and within time frames accepted as appropriate by ACOG standards.
42. Defendants shall implement within 60 days a tracking system to insure that all women receive appropriate preventative gynecological care at regular intervals.
43. Defendants shall make available all forms of FDA-approved contraception to women prisoners at CTF as long as CTF remains a co-correctional facility. Defendants shall educate women receiving such contraception regarding the benefits, side effects, and effectiveness of various contraceptive devises.
Pregnancy 44. Defendants shall administer a urinary HCG pregnancy test to any woman who requests one within 24 hours of her request. Defendants shall notify a woman of her test results within 15 minutes. In the event a serum pregnancy test is required, Defendants shall notify the woman of the results within 7 calendar days. 45. If a pregnancy test reveals that a woman is pregnant, Defendants will provide her with information and non-directive counseling regarding the full range of options including carrying the pregnancy to term and abortion. Defendants may provide this counseling themselves or may

- 19 contract with outside agencies with expertise in this area to provide these services.
46. If a woman is released prior to the time that results of her pregnancy test are received by CTF medical personnel, Defendants shall forward the test results to her at her last known mailing address.
47. In accordance with Department of Corrections policy, if a woman expresses interest in obtaining an abortion, Defendants shall immediately make counseling available to her either directly or through referral to family planning services provided in the community.
48. Defendants shall ensure that access to family and friends is available to women who desire consultation on a course of action related to the pregnancy.
49. Defendants shall offer a woman prisoner seeking an abortion assistance in making arrangements for the abortion in timely fashion. The assistance shall include transportation to and from the site of the abortion.
50. Defendants shall develop a written policy for handling disciplinary infractions by pregnant women which allows the institution to maintain its interest in security, while at the same time protecting the health of the pregnant woman and the fetus. In particular, pregnant women are not to be placed in the Behavior Management Unit (BMU) because the rooms in the Unit do not have mattresses and because residents of BMU must remain locked down for 23 hours of the day with

- 20 only 1 hour of exercise. The policy shall also provide that even during segregation for disciplinary infractions, pregnant prisoners will continue to receive their special medical diet, medication, including prenatal vitamins, and scheduled medical appointments. The Defendants shall promulgate such a policy within 60 days of the date of this Agreement.
51. Defendants shall provide pregnant women with the same access to educational and vocational education programs, industries, work training, work details, recreation, religious and other services as it allows to other women prisoners.
52. Defendants shall develop and implement a protocol concerning restraints used on pregnant and postpartum women which provides that a pregnant prisoner shall be transported in the least restrictive way possible consistent with legitimate security concerns. Specifically, the protocol shall provide:
a. Defendants shall use no restraints on any woman in labor, during delivery, or in recovery immediately after delivery.
b. At all other times Defendants shall use no restraints when transport: r.q a pregnant woman prisoner unless the woman has demonstrateì Ì history of assaultive behavior or has escaped from a corre ¯* . r.ai facility, in which case handcuffs only shall be a., w*»d.

- 21 c. Under no circumstances shall shackles, leg irons or waist chains be used for postpartum women within six weeks of delivery or later if medically indicated. 53. Because of the logistical difficulties in transporting prisoners, D.C. General Hospital must keep all pregnant women at D.C. General Hospital who have started labor and whom have been referred to D.C. General Hospital by qualified medical personnel. Prenatal Care 54. Defendants shall prepare a detailed written prenatal protocol for women who receive their primary prenatal care at CTF in accordance with ACOG standards. The protocol shall also provide guidelines to define "high risk pregnancy." High risk pregnancies shall be considered to include at a minimum those women with histories of alcohol and drug abuse, sexually-transmitted diseases, diabetes or anemia, older women, women with poor obstetrical histories, and women expecting multiple births. 55. Women who are deemed to have a high risk pregnancy shall within 10 days of arriving at CTF be referred to the D.C. General Hospital prenatal high-risk clinic and shall receive their primary prenatal care at D.C. General Hospital. 56. Defendants shall arrange for each pregnant woman prisoner to see an obstetrician at monthly intervals during the first two trimesters of her pregnancy, bimonthly

- 22 during the seventh and eighth months, and weekly during the ninth month. Defendants shall arrange for women who are experiencing high risk pregnancies to see an obstetrician at shorter than routine intervals until it is determined that the pregnancy is progressing normally.
57. Defendants shall implement a tracking system to insure that all pregnant women are regularly scheduled and seen for prenatal and postpartum care, including those who receive their primary prenatal care at D.C. General Hospital.
58. Defendants shall, in conjunction with its dietitian, D.C. Office of Maternal and Child Health, and the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Service Clinic at D.C. General Hospital, develop and submit to Plaintiffs' counsel within 3 0 days a special diet which meets the increased nutritional needs of pregnant women in accordance with ACOG standards.
59. Pregnancy diets shall be provided to a woman prisoner as soon as it is determined that she is pregnant.
60. Special medical diets, such as those required for pregnant diabetics, shall be provided within 72 hours of diagnosing the medical condition for which a special diet is needed.
61. Defendants shall explore the possibility of arranging for WIC registration for pregnant prisoners so that they can take advantage of the food program and health education offered by the WIC program.

- 23 62. Pregnant prisoners shall receive prenatal vitamins in two-week dosages and shall be allowed to keep their vitamins in their rooms. 63. Because many women experience nausea while pregnant, Defendants shall accommodate requests for flexible meal times and diet by allowing pregnant women prisoners on the pregnancy unit at CTF to store foods in the refrigerators in the satellite kitchens on each unit. 64. Defendants shall permit a woman prisoner to feed her baby at D.C. General Hospital while the woman remains at D.C. General Hospital. 65. The Defendants shall develop a routine visiting program for women whose children remain in D.C. General Hospital. These women shall be allowed to visit their children at D.C. General Hospital every day. Postpartum Care 66. Defendants shall provide postpartum medical care, including an examination four to six weeks after delivery. If a cesarean section was performed or if any complications arose during delivery, an examination shall also be performed two weeks after delivery. 67. If a woman leaves CTF prior to receiving a postpartum medical exam, Defendants shall refer her to an appropriate health care provider for postpartum care. 68. Defendants shall provide postpartum follow-up medical care to women, including appropriate pain medication,

- 24 cold packs, sitz baths, and other remedies for postpartum medical complications.
69. Within two days of delivery, Defendants must determine whether postpartum counseling is needed. If needed, counseling shall begin immediately.
70. Defendants shall provide postpartum counseling in all cases where there has been a still-birth, death of a child shortly after birth, or when a child is critically ill.
Social Services 71. Pregnant women who are expected to be incarcerated during the time of delivery shall receive counseling regarding child placement no later than the during the second trimester of the pregnancy, or if admitted to the Department of Corrections during the third trimester, no later than 14 days after incarceration. 72. Defendants shall designate a representative who shall develop and maintain contacts with licensing child placing agencies including the Department of Human Services. Defendants shall provide training to its social workers on the range of options available for child placement including third-party placement with family or friends, foster care placement, and adoption. No one method of placement shall be preferred over the other. Rather, each woman shall be given information about each of the options and encouraged to make the choice that meets her needs and resources.

- 25 73. Defendants shall designate a representative who shall attend meetings of the Boarder Baby Project which is coordinated by the Child and Family Services Division of the Department of Human Services. The Defendants shall use the services of the project to prevent or shorten the time during which children of incarcerated women board at D.C. General Hospital. 74. Defendants shall designate a representative who shall develop referral relationships with programs that provide residential treatment for pregnant women, such as St. Ann's Infant Home and New Expectations. The Defendants shall refer appropriate pregnant prisoners to these programs in a timely manner. 75. If a woman is arranging for placement for her child, Defendants shall permit the mother-to-be one leave, either by furlough or with escort, to inspect the site in advance of birth. 76. Within 6 months, Defendants shall develop a comprehensive family visiting and counseling program at CTF which provides for structured visitations, developmentally appropriate activities for children of different ages, family counseling, individual ccur.se 1 ing, case management and appropriate referrals. r·*î«ndants shall consider using existing models such as t:¯.·* PRISON MATCH, TALK, and Community MATCH programs.

- 26 Health Education 77. The nurse midwife shall implement within 90 days a health education program that satisfies American Public Health Association (APHA) and NCCHC standards, including but not limited to health education concerning sexuallytransmitted diseases, and breast and cervical cancer. Education shall consist of written material, audio-visual material, and lectures. Education material should also be made available in the CTF library. 78. Defendants shall maintain adequate documentation on the program so that it can be evaluated by Plaintiffs' 60 days after implementation. Emergency Care 79. Defendants shall have at least one medical personnel available at CTF twenty-four hours each day. 80. CTF medical personnel shall have telephone access to the OB/GYN physician at CTF during evening and weekend hours. 81. If a woman prisoner is in need of emergency obstetrical or gynecological care during evening or weekend hours, she shall be taken immediately to the emergency area in the OB/GYN clinic at D.C. General Hospital, unless employees providing obstetrical and/or gynecological care at D.C. General Hospital determine that the main emergency room at D.C. General Hospital would be more medically appropriate.

- 27 Continuity of Care 82. Defendants shall provide each woman prisoner who is discharged from custody with the following:
a. a supply of essential medications that is sufficient for several days or until she may be reasonably expected to be able to obtain necessary follow-up in her community;
b. referrals to services in the community to insure continuity of care.
83. If a woman is released prior to the time that results of any gynecological or obstetrical are received by CTF medical personnel, Defendants shall forward the test results to her at her last known mailing address.
Transportation 84. Defendants shall provide sufficient resources to insure that prisoners are transported to medical appointments in a timely fashion, including a sufficient number of security staff to transport prisoners, appropriate and sufficient transport vehicles, and appropriate waiting areas. 85. Defendants shall modify their transportation procedures so that prisoners are not required to wait for more than one hour at D.C. General Hospital before receiving medical care. 86. If a woman prisoner misses a medical appointment for any reason, Defendants shall reschedule the

- 28 appointment for the earliest available date. Defendants shall use best efforts to insure that the rescheduled appointment occurs no later than two weeks after the originally scheduled but missed appointment, and sooner if medically necessary.
Coordination of Care 87. Defendants shall comply fully with all provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Corrections and D.C. General Hospital. 88. At least one member of the medical staff at CTF shall participate in seventy-five percent of the obstetrical/gynecological grand rounds conducted at D.C. General Hospital. 89. Defendants shall assign a physician, or a member of the medical staff at CTF, who provides obstetrical or gynecological care, to serve as a liaison between CTF medical personnel and D.C. General Hospital. 90. Defendants shall explore the possibility of sending all cultures for pap smears taken at CTF directly to D.C. General Hospital for evaluation rather than to an outside contractor. Implementation and Tracking of Physician Orders. 91. Defendants shall maintain the content of each medical record in an orderly and confidential manner. Defendants shall use a "problem list" or "flow sheet" to document medical problems and course of treatment.

- 29 92. For all pregnant women prisoners, Defendants shall maintain a medical chart on the POPRAS form pregnancy chart, or an equivalent form, together with a regular medical chart. All medical visits to or by the responsible physician or primary healthcare provider, orders for laboratory tests, laboratory test results and other notes and orders relating to the medical care of pregnant women prisoners shall be recorded on the POPRAS form or shall be reduced to a consult form. 93. Defendants shall develop a new consultation form that provides adequate clinical information to D.C. General Hospital and insures that adequate information is provided by D.C. General Hospital to CTF medical personnel. 94. Defendants shall institute, maintain and follow a system to coordinate the implementation and tracking of physician orders so that gynecological and obstetrical care will be provided within the time ordered and in any event in a timely fashion. Such orders include outside consultations, specialty care, inpatient stays, x-rays, and diagnostic and laboratory tests and procedures, regardless of whether these orders are to be filled inside or outside the facility. This system shall be reflected in written procedural guidelines, a copy of which shall be provided to counsel for Plaintiffs within 60 days. Orders for medication are not to be tracked under this system. 95. Defendants shall implement procedures to insure that medical and administrative staff follow the advice of

- 30 D.C. General Hospital medical personnel and that each woman prisoner receives all medications, therapies, and follow-up care as prescribed by D.C. General Hospital medical personnel.
96. Documentation shall be required whenever medical staff elects not to follow the instructions of a consulting physician at D.C. General Hospital or elsewhere. This documentation should include the justification for not providing the therapy ordered. Only medically-based justifications shall be permissible.
97. For all prisoners who are discharged from D.C. General Hospital or other medical facilities to CTF, CTF medical personnel shall promptly obtain a discharge summary and maintain the summary in the prisoner's medical record.
98. The Chief Medical Officer of CTF or physician designee must review all medical paper work which accompanies a woman prisoner back from an outside medical trip, and all results of lab tests or other records of ordered care on the date that they arrive at CTF. If the Chief Medical Officer or the designee determines that review by the physician who ordered the care is necessary before the next scheduled appointment with this physician, then this physician must review and initial these papers on his or her next day in the facility. If indicated by * r.e results, the Chief Medical Officer or designee shall · i<e immediate action.
99. Defendants .sr.ïll develop and implement a mechanism for CTF medical ;··:`i¯r.nel and D.C. General Hospital

- 31 medical personnel to communicate when necessary via telephone to clarify questions concerning a patient's history, condition, or treatment.
100. Inmates shall receive notice of results of laboratory or diagnostic tests which are of no clinical significance within seven calendar days of the receipt in the facility of the results of such test.
101. In the case of non-emergency abnormal laboratory or diagnostic tests results of clinical significance, the inmate will be seen by the ordering physician, or if that physician is unavailable, by the Medical Officer, within 24 hours of the receipt in the facility of the results of such test. At such time the physician will explain the result to the patient and order such follow-up care as is appropriate.
102. Defendants shall modify the procedure by which a woman prisoner refuses medical care. Specifically, Defendants shall require that a woman prisoner who refuses medical care do so in the presence of licensed medical personnel who can answer the patient's questions and counsel the patient concerning the consequences of a refusal. In accordance with Department of Corrections policy regarding quality assurance, the reasons for refusal shall be analyzed regularly as part of a comprehensive and up-to-date quality assurance program. This quality assurance activity shall be documented.

- 32 III. PROGRAM EVALUATION
103. Defendants shall conduct a needs assessment of all women prisoners to determine their needs, interests, and requirements for increased programs and opportunities in academic education, vocation, work, religion, recreation, parenting, and medical care. The procedure for the needs assessment shall be done by an approved scientific method, and shall be subject to outside consultant auditing.
104. Defendants shall provide diagnostic evaluations for women prisoners similar to those currently provided for men in the Reception and Diagnostic Unit at CTF to determine the needs and interest of women. These evaluations shall be completed within 30-45 days of a female inmate's transfer to CTF or to any other facility where women are initially incarcerated after sentencing. The evaluations shall include educational testing, vocational testing, psychological testing, and child care placement counseling. Defendants shall provide women with the appropriate programming called for by this evaluation within 60 days of their arrival at the facility.
105. Defendants shall coordinate the scheduling of academic educational classes, higher education classes, vocational training, recreation time and activities, law library hours, substance abuse treatment, psychological services and work in prison details for women in such a manner

- 33 as to maximize women prisoners' participation in as many areas as possible simultaneously.
106. Defendants shall provide sufficient program space so that women prisoners can participate in equal and adequate programs and services as compared to men prisoners. Defendants shall provide at least 2 additional trailers at the Annex with sanitary facilities to allow for additional programming activities, including but not limited to vocational programs, religious programs, visiting, and parenting classes.
107. Defendants shall develop and implement a quality assurance programs for monitoring program delivery to ensure the continued provision of equal and adequate programs to women prisoners.
IV. PROGRAMS ¯- STAFFING 108. Defendants shall increase the number of staff
posted or detailed at the women's unit at CTF and at the Annex to ensure that women prisoners are escorted to programs, recreation, employment, and medical care on time as scheduled. Sufficient staff shall be provided so that adequate escorts are provided without detracting programming staff from their responsibilities.
109. Within 30 days, Defendants shall employ an outside consultant to conduct a custody staffing pattern analysis for both the women's unit at CTF and the Annex to

- 34 determine the appropriate number of security and program staff necessary to provide equal and adequate programs and services to the women prisoners. Defendants shall implement the staffing pattern recommended by the outside consultant, unless the Court otherwise orders.
V. ACADEMIC EDUCATION. 110. Defendants shall provide women prisoners with a
range of academic education programs in parity with those provided to men prisoners of similar custody status.
111. Women prisoners at any facility shall be provided with the opportunity for full-time (5 hours per day 5 days per week) basic education to include ABE, GED, and Special Education classes offered both during the day and in the evening to accommodate the maximum number of students. a) Defendants shall immediately provide 2 full-time basic education teachers for ABE, GED, and Special Education classes during the day at the Annex. Defendants shall provide 1 parttime evening teacher for ABE and GED classes in order to allow women who participate in work training, work details, community action squads or industries to complete basic education instruction.
112. Women prisoners at any facility shall have access to on-site higher education programs which shall include a four-year B.A. and/or B.S. degree program, an A.A. degree program, a certification program, and a precollege

- 35 program. The bachelor and associate programs shall be offered in a variety of fields, and at a minimum shall each offer 3 different areas of study leading to a degree.
113. Defendants shall offer women prisoners financial arrangements for these education programs that are the same as those arrangements available to men prisoners. Within 90 days, Defendants shall make the University of the District of Columbia B.A. and A.A. programs available to women prisoners at CTF.
114. Defendants shall immediately provide women prisoners at CTF with at least 40 hours of access per week to the Atlantic Union computers. Women shall be scheduled to access the computer during educational program time and during free time, including evenings and weekends. Women prisoners shall be provided with an equal number of computers as the men prisoners at CTF enrolled in the Atlantic Union program. Trained inmates shall work as educational aides in the labs to provide the students with computer assistance as needed.
115. Defendants shall immediately process the applications for Atlantic Union in a complete and timely manner. Women shall be provided with all books and course materials at least 2 weeks before the start of a course. The women shall receive subs* »:.* :ve tutorial guidance in the course work from qualifies ••locators.
116. Defendants .;r.ii: immediately provide appropriate, alternative •••»--.<"rs or instructors during

- 36 absences of regular teachers or instructors for more than 3 working days to ensure continuity of the academic classes, vocational training programs, and work programs. The provision of an alternate teacher or instructor shall not result in consolidating two classes into one or increasing the class size.
VI. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 117. Defendants shall provide women prisoners with a
range of vocational education programs in parity with those provided to men prisoners of similar custody status.
118. Defendants shall provide women prisoners with 2 prevocational programs each to be at least 6 weeks in duration. Prevocational programs include those courses which teach personal development skills, living skills, and/or employment skills and includes such DOC programs as Employment Techniques, Awareness and Preparation (ETAP) and Lifeskills.
119. Defendants shall maintain the 3 vocational skill-building courses currently in place at CTF in the areas of sewing, computer literacy, and typing.
120. Defendants shall provide women prisoners with a minimum of 4 vocational education programs. A vocational education program is any program of 6 months or more duration that teaches employable skills and contains both a classroom component and an on-the-job-training component. Two programs shall be operative within 120 days of the entry of this Order.

- 37 -

121. Defendants shall provide women prisoners with

non-traditional vocational education programs that are in an

occupational area traditionally served by men.

122.

Defendants shall provide women prisoners

with at least 2 apprenticeship programs as defined by

department order.

123. All prevocational programs, vocational

programs, and apprenticeships added for women prisoners shall

have the potential for providing women with job skills

marketable in the local labor market.

124. Defendants shall conduct affirmative outreach

to women during the enrollment period for vocational training.

This outreach shall entail DCDC staff meeting with women at

least 1 month before the deadline for program enrollment to

inform the women that the new programs are available and to

offer a full description of the available program. The staff

member shall inform the women of any applicable criteria for

participation, the work hours, the wage status, the

certificate eligibility, and the good time credits that can be

earned. The staff shall encourage and motivate women to

participate in all vocational education programs.

125. Defendants shall ensure that all contractual

programs used to provide services to women prisoners are

compatible with and fulfill the provisions of this Order.

- 38 VII. WORK OPPORTUNITIES
126. Defendants shall provide women prisoners with a range of work opportunities in parity with those provided to men prisoners of similar custody status.
127. Defendants shall employ women prisoners on all work details available at the facility where women prisoners are housed. These details shall include maintenance and trades such as plumbing, carpentry, and electrical.
128. Defendants shall increase industrial opportunities for women prisoners at the Annex by employing women equally in the Furniture Repair shop, the Upholstery shop, and the industries available at Minimum such as agriculture. In addition, Defendants shall maintain women prisoners' employment in the Garment Shop and Print Shop.
129. Defendants will provide at least 3 employment opportunities for women at CTF that pay an industrial wage.
130. Defendants shall revise the guidelines and practices for work training eligibility within 30 days to take into account the different sentence structure of female offenders and to permit women's maximum participation in work training.
131. Defendants will immediately provide a work training program to all women prisoners who are eligible under the revised guidelines, including those who are housed at CTF as stated in the CTF Operations Manual.

- 39 132. Defendants shall immediately increase the number of women participating in work training so that every eligible woman prisoner is participating in the program. 133. Within 30 days of entry of this Order, Defendants shall complete and submit work training packets for each woman prisoner eligible for work training under current Departmental Order 4920.3C and expedite the approval process. 134. Within 120 days, Defendants shall develop a tickler system for each woman prisoner identifying critical dates for eligibility for programs, halfway house release, and parole. Defendants shall provide each women prisoner with a form at initial classification identifying these dates. 135. Defendants shall submit required paperwork for work training approval 45 days prior to a woman prisoner's eligibility date in order to complete the process by the date of eligibility. In the event that a woman arrives at the institution with less than 45 days until she is eligible for work training, Defendants shall expedite the paperwork. 136. Defendants shall not deny a woman prisoner the opportunity to participate in work training based on her arrival at the Annex or classification to minimum custody status within the last 90 days or because of her impending eligibility for halfway house placement or parole. 137. Defendants shall provide adequate staff, including case managers and vocational development specialists, to enable the women prisoners to be informed of

- 40 their work training eligibility and to complete the necessary paperwork in the required time frame.
138. Defendants shall increase the number of vocational development specialists at the Annex from 1 to 2 full-time positions. One of these specialists shall serve as an on-site coordinator who conducts testing, classes, counseling, and completes necessary paperwork. The second specialist shall serve as an off-site coordinator and shall be responsible for developing jobs, including non-traditional employment, and transporting women to interviews. Defendants shall provide the off-site coordinator with an appropriate vehicle for transporting women for job interviews and for performing job development activities.
139. Workshops will be conducted for all those eligible for work training to assist women prisoners in their employment pursuit. The workshops will provide information on barriers to employment, motivation, interviewing techniques, resume preparation, and job retention.
VIII. RECREATION 140. Defendants shall provide women prisoners with a
recreation in parity with * hat provided to men prisoners of similar custody status.
141. Defendants -.-.ill immediately provide all women prisoners, including pregr. ir.- prisoners subject to medical approval, with recreation ¯ i tys per week for at least 5 hours

- 41 per day. Women shall have the option of going outside or to indoor recreation facilities during this time period. This recreation schedule shall be effective at CTF within 3 0 days of this Order.
142. Women shall be given access to the same variety of recreation activities as are available to men, including large group events like revivals, family days, and holiday events; regularly scheduled intermurals in at least 3 sports; and concerts and drama presentations. Women shall be given access to arts and crafts activities during the hours of recreation. Defendants shall provide women prisoners with drama activities, such as the Renaissance Drama Troupe currently available to men.
143. Defendants shall schedule recreation time for women when it will allow for the maximum number of women to participate, and at least 2 of the hours shall be afterschool/afterwork hours to provide as much recreation time as possible to all women.
144. Defendants shall immediately open the recreation trailer at the Annex for at least 8 hours per day, 7 days a week. At least 3 of these hours shall be during unscheduled work or program hours. Correctional officers shall open and supervise the trailer when the recreation specialist is off duty. The recreation specialist shall not be assigned or pulled away from her duties as a recreation

- 42 specialist for the women at the Annex, except in the case of an emergency.
145. Defendants shall improve the Annex grounds byadding a basketball court, volleyball pit, and outdoor tables to accommodate the recreational needs of the women at the Annex.
146. Defendants shall improve the recreation yard at CTF by adding a volleyball pit, outdoor tables, and other recreational equipment in order to provide increased recreational opportunities for women prisoners.
147. Defendants shall provide women prisoners with the same smoking privileges as are provided to men prisoners of similar custody status.
IX. RELIGIOUS SERVICES AND PROGRAMS 148. Defendants shall provide women prisoners with a
range of religious programs and services in parity with that provided to men prisoners of similar custody status.
149. Within 60 days, Defendants shall provide fulltime chaplaincy services to all women prisoners 5 days per week through a staff chaplain, volunteer chaplain, or a combination of staff. Chaplain hours shall include evening hours during the week to accommodate those women working on details, industry, or in the community.

- 43 150. Defendants shall adhere to the Department Order which requires that the chaplain deliver all notices of death or family illness to the women. 151. The women at each facility shall have the same range of different religious services available to them as are provided to male inmates of similar custody levels. This requires that the women at the Annex immediately be provided with Muslim religious services and additional religious study, and be permitted to fully participate in all group religious activities such as revivals or mass communions.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH The Annex 152. Within one year, Defendants shall reduce the
population of the Annex so that no more than 90 women are housed in both dormitories combined.
153. Within thirty days, Defendants shall provide each woman prisoner housed at the Annex with at least one vertical locker and one footlocker.
154. Within thirty days, Defendants shall replace all torn mattresses and pillows with clean, untorn, fireretardant mattresses and pillows. Defendants shall conduct a weekly inspection of all mattresses and pillows on the day when bedding is removed for laundering and shall at that time immediately replace any mattresses that are torn.

- 44 155. Within ninety days, Defendants shall make the necessary repairs to make the Annex dormitories resistant to entry and refuge of vermin and shall conduct a vermin eradication program to eliminate the present infestation of vermin. Defendants shall thereafter promulgate and follow an effective vermin eradication program. 156. Within sixty days, Defendants shall provide a minimum of 30 foot candles of inmate-controlled light to each bunk for reading purposes and a minimum of 20 foot candles to all bath and personal grooming areas. A minimum of 10 footcandles of light shall be provided in all other residential areas. 157. Within one year, Defendants shall repair or replace the roofs of Dormitory 6 and Dormitory 7 and retain them in a watertight condition. 158. Effective immediately, Defendants shall ensure that all housing units are issued a timely, adequate and appropriate amount of cleaning supplies, laundry detergent, sanitary napkins, and toilet paper. 159. For sanitary purposes, the bed linen provided to all women prisoners, wherever they are housed, shall include a washable mattress cover. 160. Defendants shall use cart liners or disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry between the Annex and the laundry at Central.

- 45 161. Within sixty days, Defendants shall connect the toilets and handsinks in the trailers used for recreation and the substance abuse programs. 162. Within ninety days, Defendants shall provide additional and readily accessible sanitary facilities for women in the industries at Central. 163. Effective immediately, Defendants shall provide the women working at Central industries with a sanitary location separate from their work station for eating meals. 164. Defendants shall promulgate and follow a written preventive maintenance plan for the Annex dormitories, the Annex trailers, and the Annex grounds. 165. Not less frequently than quarterly, Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) to inspect the Minimum Security Annex for compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation, maintenance and food service delivery. The first such inspection shall be conducted within 45 days. Following each quarterly inspection, DCRA shall submit its findings to the Administrator of the Minimum Security Facility and to Plaintiffs' counsel within 3 0 days. The Administrator shall within 30 days thereafter repair, clean, or otherwise remedy any unsanitary, unsound, r unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA, prov:i~i that, following the first inspection, Defendants shall repair all deficiencies noted by DCRA within 30 days if feas.:>. but in no event later than 90

- 46 days following the receipt of the DCRA report. The Administrator shall submit the facility's report on remedial measures taken and planned with specific dates for such action to counsel for Plaintiffs within thirty days of receipt of the report by DCRA. In subsequent reports, DCRA shall note whether any unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition previously identified by DCRA remains unremedied, and shall make such recommendations to the Administrator as shall aid the Administrator in improving environmental health and sanitation at the facility.
CTF 166. Within 120 days, Defendants shall move the thermostats that regulate the air temperature from the air handling units on the roof to the end of the corridor in each housing tier. 167. Within ninety days, Defendants shall hire a qualified air balancing contractor to service the air handling system so that it provides fresh or recirculated filtered air to all areas of the facility inhabited by inmates and complies with the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62-89, as updated. 168. In the event that the measures specified above fail to reduce the noise level produced by the air handling system to an acceptable level, Defendants shall propose to Plaintiffs' counsel remedial measures to be taken with respect to such noise.

- 47 169. In the event that the measures specified above fail to maintain a minimum cell temperature of 65¤F in every cell, measured at the perimeter wall, Defendants shall immediately:
a. cease housing women in the end cells of each tier;
b. provide each woman prisoner with 2 extra blankets, 2 pairs of thermal underwear, and 2 pairs of wool socks; and
c. allow any woman prisoner at CTF who so desires to wear a sweater, jacket, or sweatshirt over the prison-issued jumpsuit, if such sweater, jacket, or sweatshirt cannot fit comfortably under the jumpsuit; and
d. explore means of insulating or heating the perimeter walls of the cells.
170. Defendants shall continue their efforts to maintain a temperature of 100° or higher for the hot water at CTF, including by using single service dishes for the breakfast meal (and not using the dishwashers in the satellite kitchen).
171. Within thirty days, Defendants shall install metal or hard rubber skirting or door sills under the doors in the stairwells at CTF to prevent rodents from travelling from the stairwells to the housing units.
172. Effective immediately, Defendants shall ensure that all housing units are issued a timely, adequate and

- 48 appropriate amount of cleaning supplies, laundry detergent, sanitary napkins, and toilet paper.
173. For sanitary purposes, the bed linen provided to all women prisoners shall include a washable mattress cover.
174. Defendants shall use cart liners or disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry between CTF and the Jail.
175. Defendants shall take immediate steps to purchase and use adequate food transport carts and warmers for all prisoners receiving special diets and shall monitor the food temperature and delivery times of all foods to the satellite kitchens.
176. The temperature of the refrigerator in the pharmacy shall be adjusted to maintain temperatures between
36OF and 46 ¤F.
177. Within sixty days, Defendants shall promulgate and follow a written preventive maintenance plan for the CTF that includes maintenance of structures, systems, and equipment, and such plan shall be submitted to counsel for Plaintiffs for approval.
178. Defendants shall ensure that the correctional officers inspect all plumbing fixtures on each shift, and shall ensure that any plumbing fixture that requires repair will be reported immediately upon discovery, and repaired within 24 hours in all but exceptional cases, and in any event

- 49 within 48 hours. Defendants shall maintain logs demonstrating compliance with this requirement which shall be made available to counsel for Plaintiffs upon request.
179. As required by the laws of the District of Columbia, Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs ("DCRA") to conduct quarterly inspections of the Correctional Treatment Facility for compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation, maintenance and food service delivery. The precise schedule for the quarterly inspections shall be determined in the first instance by DCRA. However, the first such DCRA inspection shall be conducted within 45 days of the entry of this Consent Decree. Following each quarterly inspection, DCRA shall submit its findings to the Administrator of the Correctional Treatment Facility and to Plaintiffs' counsel within 3 0 days. The Administrator shall within 30 days thereafter repair, clean, or otherwise remedy any unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA, provided that, following the first inspection, Defendants shall repair all deficiencies noted by DCRA within 30 days if feasible, but in no event later than 90 days following the receipt of the DCRA report. The Administrator shall submit the facility's report on remedial measures taken and planned with specific dates for such action to counsel for Plaintiffs within thirty days of receipt of the report by DCRA. In subsequent reports, DCRA shall note

- 50 whether any unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition previously identified by DCRA remains unremedied, and shall make such recommendations to the Administrator as shall aid the Administrator in improving environmental health and sanitation at the facility.
XI. FIRE SAFETY The Annex 180. Within 120 days, Defendants shall install and
maintain a fire alarm system and fire detection system at the Minimum Security Facility, including Dormitories 6 and 7. Said system shall conform with the requirements of the National Fire Protection Association Standards No. 101. This would include:
a. a manual fire alarm system; b. a fire detection system with smoke detectors in all sleeping and dayroom areas, and either smoke or heat detectors in all other areas, including offices, bathrooms, boiler rooms, etc.; c. an automatic retransmission of the above systems to a constantly attended location outside of the dormitory buildings; and d. repair `r replacement of the fire alarm system in the kitchen, d::¯. ;:·.3 room, and gymnasium at the main compound.

- 51 181. Defendants shall provide a 20-minute fire-rated enclosure of the offices in both dormitories. 182. Defendants shall provide a 1-hour fire-rated enclosure of the storage rooms in both dormitories. 183. Defendants shall remove any storage lockers containing cleaning and paper supplies from the sleeping and dayroom areas to the storage room. 184. Defendants shall ensure that all bed linens, blankets, and curtains or draperies in the dormitories are of fire-retardant material. 185. Defendants shall remove all wood panelling and planking used as interior finishes on the walls of the dormitory buildings. 186. Effective immediately, Defendants shall maintain clear aisles of at least three feet in width between the sleeping areas and the exits of the dayroom. 187. Defendants shall repair the exit doors in the gymnasium so that, when unlocked, they open freely. 188. Effective immediately, in each dormitory building, Defendants shall conduct fire drills twelve (12) times per year, four (4) times per shift, and shall keep written documentation of all such drills. 189. Defendants shall develop and document mandatory semi-annual training on fire safety procedures for all correctional officers.

- 52 190. Effective immediately, and in accordance with Minimum Division Operation Procedure (DOP) No. 2910.1, Defendants shall:
a. conduct weekly inspections of all building and grounds for fire hazards, and document such inspections;
b. conduct monthly inspections of all fire safety equipment, and document such inspections;
c. ensure that the Department Fire Marshal conducts quarterly inspections of the Facility.
191. Effective immediately, and in accordance with Department Order No. 2920.1A, the District of Columbia Fire Department shall conduct fire safety inspections of the Minimum Security Annex not less frequently than every six months. The Fire Department shall furnish its report to the defendant Administrator of the Facility and Plaintiffs' counsel within 10 days. Thereafter the Administrator shall cause any fire safety deficiencies identified in the Fire Department's report to be remedied within 3 0 days, or shall provide a report to the Fire Department and Plaintiffs' counsel as to why the deficiency cannot be so remedied and provide a plan to remedy the deficiency within a further period of time not to exceed 90 days.
CTF 192. Defendants shall repair the water leakage from rain, particularly in the vicinity of the high-voltage

- 53 electrical conduit in the culinary storage room located in the CTF basement.
193. Defendants shall reduce the storage in the culinary storage room to no less than eighteen (18) inches below the sprinkler heads.
194. Defendants shall institute and carry out a testing and maintenance program for the standpipe, sprinkler system, and fire pump at CTF, in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association Standard No. 25 ("Inspection, Testing, & Maintenance of Water-Based Extinguishing Systems").
195. Defendants shall conduct fire drills twelve (12) times per year, four (4) times per shift, and shall keep written documentation of all such drills.
196. In all other respects, Defendants shall maintain their current fire safety program and fire evacuation procedures, as set forth in CTF DOP No. 2910.1A.

- 54 XII. REPORTING.
197. Defendants shall file monthly reports with the Court concerning compliance with the foregoing ordered measures.
198. The Court may request that Defendants provide special reports or information concerning compliance with this Remedial Order, and Defendants shall provide such information promptly within 10 business days.

SO ORDERED THIS

DAY OF

, 1994.

June L. Green United States District Judge

 
 Profile of the Female Offender Population
m

prepared by: Office of Planning Analysis / Department of Corrections #
Walter B. Ridley Director

NIC

eo

FORMATION CEHTER

OOVWtltWT Of THi ottnucn or

Women Prisoners/DC v. DC PC-DC-011-031

Doris James Wilson Program Analyst January 7,

Executive Summary: Profile of the Female Offender Population Report
The profile of the female offender is derived from a review of current demographic patterns and criminal behavior of incarcerated women in the Department of Corrections' institutions. The report focuses on critical elements that will identify characteristics of the women who are being imprisoned. It also gives an overview of program or treatment needs for women offenders to ensure a smoother transition back to community upon release and to reduce recidivism.
An examination of population trends, section II of the report, shows an astronomical rate of increase in the female offender population over the last nine years. From 1984 to September 1992 female offenders increased 147 percent, rising steadily from 349 to 861. 1985 and 1989 were peak growth years, with a slowing so far in the nineties. Based on current trends, the female offender population is projected to increase 17 percent, from 920 in 1992 to 1,080 by 1996.
Sections III and IV of the report present data on the demographic characteristics of the incarcerated female population on September 30, 1992, and incarceration trends by offense category, respectively. Most of the women offenders are African American (97 percent), between 26 and 35 years of age (52 percent). Ironically, a major portion of the women have a twelfth grade education (42 percent), with 10 percent even having a higher education; but the field of employment reflects primarily low paying jobs or unemployment at the time of arrest (85 percent).
Generally, the pattern of admissions for female offenders showed very little change from 1989 to 1992. For violent crimes (such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery or assault), the percentage is small, while the highest distribution is for non-violent offenses, such as forgery/embezzlement, bail violation/contempt, or the unauthorized use of a vehicle. In September 1992, about 7 percent of the women were admitted to the correctional system for violent offenses, 34 percent were admitted for narcotics offenses, and 58 percent for other non-violent offenses.
Other crime statistics for female offenders presented in the report include charge status, average time served, sentence length and expiration/parole releases by offense. By charge status, 79 percent of the women were sentenced, with the remaining 21 percent classified as pretriai or other. The average time served and sentence length data expectedly were larger for violent offenses than non-violent offenses. For example, women convicted of murder served on average 9.8 year^ in 1991, compared to 1.8 years for drug sales and 1.9 years for drug possession. The actuil time served by women offenders was more consistent with the minimum sentence imposed for offenses, rather than the maximum sentence.

The offender release data show that drug sales violators represented the largest proportion (over 50 percent) of expiration and parole releases in 1992.
Thp final section of the report reviews programming needs of the female offenders, some self-reported in May 1992 by women housed at the Minimum Security Annex. It also details the goals of the female program established at the Correctional Treatment Facility which opened in May 1992. The women offenders identified visitation of children, custody and responsibility of children, education, vocational training, prenatal care, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and AIDS treatment as critical areas of need among women offenders.
The CTF Women's Program is designed to expand the service delivery system to women offenders, with goals and objectives that focus on many of the self-reported needs and concerns. For instance, programming will be available to provide pregnant females with education and reproduction counseling, pre- and postnatal care, child development education anU family relationship counseling. The CTF Substance Abuse Program, which has a 32-bed female offender unit, offers intensive treatment emphasizing individual and group therapy; educational enhancement; art, spiritual, music and recreation therapy; mental health counseling; community/family support; and pre-release and aftercare support management. In addition to having access to the centrally located resources at CTF — education library, religious, recreation, medical, mental health, and volunteer programs -- other services will be established in the Women's Program to further implement the service delivery objectives for female offenders.
Since the dramatic increase in the absolute number of female offenders, two questions have repeatedly confronted the Department of Corrections:
Where will the expanding female offender population be housed, particularly considering the recent policy shift to reduce the dependency on federal facilities for women offenders from the District; and
How can more programs or treatment be made available to women to reduce recidivism and to combat the social malaise that underlie women criminality.
The challenge is to set a policy framework for developing effective recommendations in response to these questions. This report provides some of the information that is the foundation for this decision making process.

mr •

I I — • • ! ii

Profile of the Female OfTender Population
I. Introduction II. Population Trends III. Demographic Characteristics IV. Incarceration Trends by Offense V. Programming Needs/CTF Women's Program VI. Conclusion

Tables
1. Growth in the Female Offender Population, 1984 - September 1992 2. Female Offender Population Projections
3. Female Offenders by Department of Corrections Institutions, September 1992 4. Female Offenders in Federal Bureau of Prison Facilities, 1984 - September 1992 5. Female Offenders by Race and Marital Status, September 1992 6. Admissions of Female Offenders by Offense, 1989 - September 1992 7. Percentage Distribution of Admissions of Female Offenders by Offense,
1989 - September 1992 8. Female Offenders by Charge Status, 1991 and September 1992 9. Female Offenders by Felon or Misdemeanor Classification, September 1992 10. Newly Sentenced Females by Offense 1989 - September 1992 11. Percentage Distribution of Newly Sentenced Females by Offense, 1989 - September
1992
12. Average Time Served in Years by Female Offenders by Offense, 1988 - September
1992 13. Average Minimum Sentence in Years Imposed on Female Offenders by Offense, 1989 •
September 1992 14. Average Maximum Sentence in Years Imposed on Female Offenders by Offense, 1989
September 1992 15. Average Minimum, and Maximum Sentence Served by Female Offenders, 1989 -
September 1992 ,. 16. Expiration Releases offiFemale Offenders by Offense, 1989 - September 1992

-ran i • — " I T •

J — I B I « rr

17. Percentage Distnbution of Expirauon Releases of Female Offenders by Offense, 1989 September 1992
18. Parole Releases of Female Offenders by Offense, 1989 - September 1992 19. Percentage Distnbution of Parole Release of Female Offenders by Offense, 1989 -
September 1992
Figures 1. Female Offender Population Growth, 1984 - September 1992 2. Female Offenders by Race, September 1992 3. Female Offenders by Age, September 1992 4. Female Offenders by Education Level, September 1992 5. Female Offenders by Occupation, September 1992 6. Women Admissions by Offense, September 1992
1 i

Profile of the Female Offender Population
I. Introduction
Over the past nine years, female offenders have represented the fastest growing incarcerated population in the District, as well as nationwide. Between 1984 and September 1992, the female offender population rose steadily from 349 to 861 an increase of 147 percent. Nationally, from 1980 to 1989 women in prison increased by 202 percent, compared to an increase of 112 percent for the male population, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The record increase in the number of incarcerated women in the District requires a closer examination of who is being imprisoned, what type of crimes are being committed and how much time is being served by women for their criminal behavior. In 1991 the Office of Planning Analysis prepared a Female Offender Population Analysis report which included demographic, crime and incarceration statistics on women offenders. This report updates that analysis, primarily with data up to September 1992.
In addition, the service needs of female offenders are discussed at the end of this report. In previous years, corrections departments have made little investments in programs for women because of their relatively small numbers, compared to the total population. However, the dramatic increase in the absolute number of female offenders has created an urgent need for expanded female-specific programs and other policies for the equitable treatment of female offenders. The data in this report are a benchmark for determining the initial programming needs of this population.
Specific findings as of September 1992 include the following:
The number of female offenders declined 9.6 percent from 967 to 874 between 1990 and 1991, due primarily to releases from the Federal Bureau of Prison (FBP) facilities.
As of September 1^92, the female population had declined to 861 or 1.5 percent.
Women offenders fromW District being held in FBP facilities dropped to 7.7 percent from 22.8 percent in 1991.

irurn n

™—nr

About 37 percent (or 292) of the Department of Corrections' female offender population are housed at the new Correctional Treatment Facility.
Over 80 percent of women offenders were single.
About 85 percent of female offenders were unemployed at the time of arrests.
At least 10 percent of women offenders had some higher education.
Over 50 percent of the incarcerated women were between 26 and 35 years of age.
Most women (58 percent) were admitted for non-violent offenses (excluding narcotics violations), such as forgery, morals, unauthorized use of a vehicle, or bail violation/contempt.
Although the total number of women admitted for drug-related crimes declined between 1989 and 1991, these offenses still represented a significant proportion of women admissions (34 percent).
Drug sales offenders represented 54 percent of the females released to parole.

Female Offender Population Trends
Rate of Growth: After a spiraling increase in the number of women in the District's correctional system during the late 1980s, data for the 1990s are showing a dramatic reduction in the rate of incarceration. The female population increased just 12.6 percent in 1990, down from a percentage increase of around 21 percent in 1988 and 27 percent in 1989 (Table 1). Surprisingly, in 1991 the female population declined almost 10 percent, due primarily to releases from Federal Bureau of Prison facilities.
Equally unexpected, the female offender population declined again (1.5 percent) as of September 1992. Earlier reports had indicated that the female population would continue to escalate, fueled by commitments for narcotics violations. New commitment for drug offenses, however, decreased 30 percent between 1989 and 1991, and as of September 1992, drug commitments were down almost 38 percent. In fact, new commitments were down in almost all offense categories in 1991, except for burglary and weapons violations (see Section IV: Incarceration Trends by Offense, page 12).

Table 1: Growth in the Female Offender Population, 1984 - 1992*

Calendar Total

Percentage Total

Percentage

Year Females Change

DOC Pop Female

1984 349

—

7,072

4.9

1985 485

38.9

8,197

5.9

1986 493

1.6

8,931

5.5

1987 558

13.2

9,710

5.7

1988 676

21.1

10,242

6.6

1989 859

27.1

12,206

7.0

1990 967

12.6

11,712

8.3

1991 874

-9.6

11,668

7.5

1992 861

-1.5

11,548

7.5

Source: D.C. Department of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis.

"Monthly average population; 1992 average is based on nine months, January to September

1992.

,(

Figure 1 compares the rate of change for the female offender population to that for total Department of Corrections population between 1984 and 1992. The trend shows that 1985 and 1989 were peak years for both groups, although the growth rate for female offenders far exceeded the growth in total population during those years. While the total incarcerated population has been relatively stable in 1990, the female offender population has been erratic, taking a steep drop in 1991 but recording only a marginal decline in 1992.

Figure 1 Female Offender Population Growth
1984 - September 1992
P«rc«nt«g« Chang*
30 r
20 h
10 t-

-10h
-20
1984 1965 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

D.C. Department of Correction* Office of Planning Analyala

Female Offenders

Total Population

Even with the record increases in the total number of incarcerated women, proportionally

they still represent a relatively small segment of the imprisoned population. Nationwide, in

1990 women were only 5.7 percent of the prison population and 9 percent of the jail

population. In the District, where the jails and prisons are combined in one system, women

were 4.9 percent of the ujital in 1984, increasing to 8.3 percent in 1990 (Table 1). As of

September 1992, women represented less than 8 percent of the total incarcerated population

in the District.

•*

Female Population Projections: Aside from the recent decreases, for the next five years the female population is projected to increase (Table 2). Currently, the population totals 861, but by the end of 1992 it is projected to reach 920, an increase of 6.9 percent. Between 1992 and 1996, the female offender population is projected to increase 17 percent, from 920 to 1.080.

Table 2: Female Offender Population Projections*

Projected

Percentage

Year

Population

Change

1992

920

1993

960

4.3

1994 1,000

4.2

1995 1.040

4.0

1996 1,080

3.8

Source: D.C. Department of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis.

"A linear regression was used to calculate the population projection, using actual data from 1987 to 1991 and estimating the future years.

The following assumptions underlie the female population forecast:
• New commitments for women will increase moderately in response to an increase in non-violent offenses such as narcotics sales and bail violation/contempt.
• Women will serve slightly longer sentences over the next three years. In 1990, the average time served was 1.8 years, with an increase to 2.0 years in 1991 and 2.2 years in 1992.
• The continuing growth of drug-related commitments, accompanied with longer lengths of stay, will account for a major pan of the projected increase in the female offender population.
• The implementation of a comprehensive range of treatment/services in the CTF for women and the &se of alternatives to confinement (such as home monitoring) will moderate the nujmber of imprisoned women.

Female Population Management: Housing for the female offender population has always been a major issue for the Department of Corrections. Initially, there were too few women to require separate housing, which resulted in women with more than a one-year sentence being housed primarily in Federal Bureau of Prison facilities. Currently, the dramatic increase in the number of women offenders and a change in trie policy to use federal facilities has revitalized the housing issue.
In September 1992, 31 percent of the female offenders in Department of Corrections' institutions were housed in the Central Detention Facility, more commonly known as the D.C. Jail (Table 3). These women are usually pretnai prisoners awaiting sentencing or inmates who are serving sentences of up to one year. Some sentenced females who are awaiting transfer to other institutions are also housed in the jail.
The Department opened the new Correctional Treatment Facility in May 1992, which will offer - among other programs - specific programming/services for incarcerated women. Currently, plans are to house approximately 256 female offenders in the CTF Female Offenders Program, with space also available for females in the CTF Substance Abuse Program. Around 37 percent of the Department's female offender population were housed at the CTF in September 1992.
The remaining female offenders were housed within other Department of Corrections' facilities, including the Minimum Security Annex (18 percent), the Washington Halfway House for Women (3 percent), Extended House (10 percent) and Community Correctional Center fl (2 percent).

Table 3: Female Offenders by Department of Corrections Institution, September 1992*

Institution

Black White Other

Total

Minimum Security

134

7

D.C. Jail

236

6

CTF

286

6

WHHW

24

0

ccc tn
Extended House

15

0

78

1

Total

773

20

0

141

1

243

0

292

0

24

0

15

1

80

2

795

Source: D.C. Department of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis.

This table does not include the female offender population held in the Federal Bureau of Prison facilities. It reflects (data for the population held in Department of Corrections' institutions for September 3(5, 1992, which differ from monthly average data in other tables.

As previously noted. Federal Bureau of Prison facilities have been used to house women offenders from the District with long-term sentences. In 1985 over 50 percent of the total incarcerated women population were in federal institutions (Table 4). That number has decreased consistently beginning in 1989. By Septerr^er 1992, just 7.7 percent of the District's female population were in federal institutions.

Table 4: Female Offender Population in Federal Bureau of Prison Facilities, 1984 - 1992*

Calendar DOC

FBP

Total Percentage

Year

Women Women Women

FBP

1984

223

126

349

36.1

1985

217

268

485

55.3

1986

238

255

493

51.7

1987

309

249

558

44.6

1988

400

276

676

40.8

1989

621

238

859

27.7

1990

739 228

967

23.6

1991

681

193

874

22.8

1992

795

66

861

7.7

Source: D.C. Department of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis.

"Monthly average population; 1992 average is based on nine months, January to September 1992.

Ed. Demographic Characteristics of Female Offenders*
Race and Age Distribution: The female offender population has always been predominantly African American, reflecting the racial makeup of the District, as well as the trend for minonues to be over-represented in incarcerated populations nationwide. As of September 1992. 97 percent of female population were African American, 2.5 percent were white and 0.3 percent were other races (Figure 2).
Most of the women are between the 26 and 35 years of age (52 percent). As shown in Figure 3, the next largest group was made up of those 36 to 40 years of age, representing 22 percent of the population. The youngest age group (18 to 20) and the oldest (51 to 60) have always been relatively small proportion of the population, 0.3 percent and 1.5 percent respectively, in September 1992.
Marital Status: Regardless of race, the distribution of female offenders by marital status remains virtually unchanged (Table 5). Over 80 percent of incarcerated women were single, 7.0 percent were married, 2.1 percent were divorced and 7.5 percent were separated. Also, the percentages changed very little from 1991.
Educational Background: 42.3 percent of the female population had a twelfth grade education (Figure 4). About 10 percent had some higher education, and a significantly large percentage (46.7) had between a seventh and eleventh grade education. Educational data, however, is self-reported and may not be indicative of the actual level of literacy.
Employment History: At the time of arrest 85 percent of the female offenders indicated that they were unemployed. Of those who were employed, most were in miscellaneous (lowskilled) job categories or the services field (Figure 5). Just 0.3 percent of the women were in a professional occupation although you would expect a somewhat larger percentage given the number who had some higher education.
The data reflect the characteristics of the population for September 30, 1992.

Figure 2
Female Offenders by Race September 1992
D.C. Department of Corrections Office of Planning Analysis

* « • Oraua*

Ftgur« 3
Female Offenders by Age September 1992

51.8
41-50 51-60 -
O.C. Oapartmant of Correction* Offlc* of Planning Analyala

Table 5: Female Offenders by Race and Marital SUtus, September 1992*

White Black Other

Total

Percent

Single Marned Divorce Separated Widowed Unknown Total

16 620

1

637

2

54

0

56

1

16

0

17

1

58

1

60

0

10

0

10

0

15

0

15

20 773

2

795

80.1 7.0 2.1 7.5 1.3 1.9 100

Source: D.C. Department of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis, September 30, 1992.

This table does not include females housed in the Federal Bureau of Prison.

10

Figure 4
Female Offenders by Education Level September 1992
Percent
50 42.3
40
30 i

0-6

7-9

10-11

12

education L*V«I

Source: D.C. Department of Corrections Office of Planning Analysis

13/above

Figure 5
Female Offenders by Occupation September 1992

Factory/Machinery

0.1

Construction Work 0.1

Professional 0.3

Clerical/Sales

0.5

Services

Farming/Fishing

Miscellaneous

Unemployed

O.C. Department of Corrections Office of Planning Analysis

85.2 Percent

FV. Incarceration Trends bv Offense
Admissions: Generally, a very small proportion of female offenders commit violent offenses, like murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery or assault. Most women are incarcerated for non-violent offenses such as the unauthorized use of a vehicle, forgery/embezzlement, morals acts, or bail violation/contempt of court. More than a third of the women who are in prison were convicted of narcotics offenses -- drug possession or drug sales. Figure 6 shows that in September 1992 7.4 percent of female offenders admitted to the District's corrections system were incarcerated for violent crimes compared to 58.3 percent for non-violent offenses. Admissions for drug violations were 34.3 percent of the total.
The distribution of women serving time by offense changed very little from 1989 to 1992 (Tables 6 and 7). In 1989, 1.0 percent of women serving time were committed for Murder 1 or Murder 2/manslaughter, and that figure was still around 1.0 percent in 1992. There was also no significant difference in the proportion of women incarcerated for non-violent offenses from 1989 to 1992.
Drug sales and drug possession offenses, however, continue to have an appreciable influence on imprisonment of women in the District. Although the absolute number of women committed for drug offenses declined 18.7 percent between 1989 and 1991, proportionately drug law violations remained the most common offenses for which women were committed, around 35 percent over the last three years.
Charge Status/Felon or Misdemeanor: Most of the female offender population was classified as sentenced (79 percent) in September 1992 (Table 8), while 15.7 percent had pretrial status.
The proportion of females incarcerated for the commission of a felony was 87 percent in September 1992. Misdemeanor violations made up 13 percent of the female offender population (Table 9).
Newly Sentenced Women: Data show that the majority of newly sentenced women were committed for non-violent offenses, such as drug sales (32 percent), drug possession (8 percent), morals (6.2 percent) and bail violation/contempt (26 percent). This distribution has remained relatively constant over the last three years (Tables 10 and 11).
Average Time Served: The average time served by females convicted of violent crimes was expectedly larger than for non-violent offenses (Table 12). The average time served for murder or murder 2/att$mpted manslaughter, for example, was 5.8 and 4.4 years, respectively. By contrast, the average time served for the unauthorized use of a vehicle was 2.5 years, and for bail iviolation/contempt, 1.2 years. The smallest amount of time served was 5 months for forgery/embezzlement or weapons violations.
12

The average time served for drug sales was 2.3 years, and for drug possession it was 2.4 years. This reflects about a 27 percent increase in average time served for narcotics offenses since 1988.
Sentence Length: Generally, the time served by an offender is greater than the minimum sentence imposed but less than the maximum. Looking at narcotics violations again, the average minimum sentence imposed is between 13 months and 19 months, compared to the 2.4 years of average time served (Table 13).
The maximum sentence imposed for drug sales has remained around 5 years from 1989 to 1992; and the maximum sentence for drug possession fluctuated between 2.5 and 5.8 years over the period (Table 14). Table 15 shows that overall the minimum and maximum sentence imposed for women has changed very little between 1989 and 1992, staying around 1.8 and 5.8 years respectively.
Expiration/Parole Releases: Of the total expiration releases of female offenders, drug sales violators represented the largest proportion (53.4 percent), with drug possession representing 9.7 percent of the releases. In previous years, bail violations/contempt of court comprised a greater proportion of expiration releases, around 29 percent in 1990 and 1991,but as of September 1992 these offenses represented only 9.1 percent of the expiration releases of female offenders (Tables 16 and 17).
In 1991,200 female offenders were released to parole, compared to 221 in 1990 (Table 18). Drug sales offenders comprised the largest proportion of parole releases -- 115 (52 percent) and 125 (63 percent) of the female population in 1990 and 1991,respectively (Tables 19). As of September 1992, 74 or 54 percent of the female offenders released to parole had been held for drug sales crimes.
Flgur* 6
Women Admissions by Offense September 1992

VtoMnt

Drug Violation*

0 C 0H*ln»i«t •< CanvwMM Otfto*i -•T—1- — i nnwna

Othar Noi^vlotont

13

Table 6: Admissions of Female Offenders by Offense, 1989 - September 1992

Offense

1989

1990

1991

1992

Murder 1 Mur.2/Man.
Rape
Robbery Assault
Burglary Larcenv UUV Forgery/Emb Weapons Drug Sales Drug Possession Morals Bail V/Contmpt Other Total

11 15
0
60 65
28
172 18 92 32 709 248 384 324 545 2,703

4
i0
1 72 61 23 141 18 75 22 669 166 429 315 326 2,332

10 12
0
63 63 25
123 11 62
20 643 135 392 289 290 2,138

5
4
1 35 48 14
66 8 30 14
352 81 191 181 232
1,262

Source: D.C. Department of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis.

14

Table 7: Percentage Distribution of Admissions of Female Offenders by Offense, 1989 - September 1992

Offense

198!?

1990

1991

1992

Murderl Mur.2/Man. Rape Robbery Assault' Burglary Larceny UUV Forgery/Emb Weapons Drug Sales Drug Possession Morals Bail V/Contmpt Other Total

0.4 0.6 -2.2 2.4 1.0 6.4 0.7 3.4 1.2 26.2 9.2 14.2 12.0 20.4 100

0.2 0.4 -3.1 2.6 1.0 6.0 0.8 3.2 0.9 28.7 7.1 18.4 13.5 14.0 100

0.5 0.6 -2.9 2.9 1.2 5.8 0.5 2.9 0.9 30.1 6.3 18.3 13.5 13.6 100

0.4 0.3 0.1 2.8 3.8 1.1 5.2 0.6 2.4 1.1 27.9 6.4 15.1 14.3 18.4 100

Source: D.C. Department of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis.

15

Table 8: Female Offenders by Charge Status 1991 and September 1992

Charge Status

1991

1992

Number Percent

Number Percent

Sentenced Pretnal Other Total

593

79.7

120

16.1

31

4.2

744 100

630

79.2

125

15.7

40

5.0

795

100

Source: D.C. Department of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis, computerized files, September 30, 1992.

Table 9: Female Offenders by Felon or Misdemeanor Classification, September 1992

Race
White Black Other Total

Felon
11 682
1 694

Misdemeanor
9 91
1 101

Source: D.C. Department of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis, computerized files, September 30, 1992.

'I
16

Table 10: Newly Sentenced Females by Offense, 1989 - September 1992

Offense
Murder 1 Mur.2/Man. Rape Robbery Assault Burglary Larceny UUV Forgery/Emb Weapons* Drug Sales Drug Possession Morals Bail V./Contmpt Traffic Fugitive other Total

1989
2
4 0 23 23 9 103 6 33 11 238 196 82 160 5 0 224 1,119

1990
0 6 1 20 26 7 70 10 26 14 248 109 58 201 7 1 50 854

1991
0 5 0 17 16 9 64 2 19 19 228 76 38 156 7 0 38 694

1992
3 5 1 12 13 6 41 4 10 11 149 41 29 121 ->
Am
0 17 465

Source: D.C. Department of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis.

"The weapons charges include possession of a gun, possession of a prohibited weapon, carrying a pistol without a license, carrying a dangerous weapon, and possession of unregistered ammunition.

17

Table 11: Percentage Distribution of Newly Sentenced Females by Offense, 1989 - September 1992

Offense
Murder 1 Mur.2/Man. Rape Robbery Assault Burglary Larceny
uuv
Forgery/Emb Weapons Drug Sales Drug Possession Morals Bail V/Contmpt Traffic Fugitive other Total

1989
0.2
0.4 —
2.1 2.1 0.8 9.2 0.5 2.9 1.0 21.3 17.5 7.3 14.3 0.4 — 20.0 100

1990
__
0.7 0.1 2.3 3.0 0.8 8.2 1.2 3.0 1.6 29.0 12.8 6.8 23.5 0.8 0.1 5.9 100

1991
0.7 ~ 2.4 2.3 1.3 9.2 0.3 2.7 2.7 32.9 11.0 5.5 22.5 1.0 — 5.5 100

1992
0.6
1.1
0.2 2.6 2.8 1.3 8.8 0.9 2.2
2.4
32.0 8.8 6.2 26.0 0.4 — 3.7 100

Source: D.C. Depanment of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis.

18

Table 12: Average Time Served in Years by Female Offenders by Offense 1988 - September 1992

Offense

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

Homicide

6.5

6.3

5.7

9.8

8.7

Man./Att. Horn.

3.5

3.2

5.2

5.3

4.4

Robbery

4.8

9.7

4.4

2.7

1.0

Assault

3.5

5.6

2.9

2.8

1.9

Burglary

3.9

3.5

3.6

—

—

Larceny

5.1

2.5

1.7

1.6

1.6

UUV

8.6

0.7

2.1

4.9

2.5

Forgery/ Emb

1.9

4.4

2.7

1.7

0.5

Weapons

1.7

0.7

—

2.8

0.5

Drug Sales

1.8

2.1

1.7

1.8

2.3

Drug Possession

1.6

1.1

1.2

1.9

2.4

Bail V./Contmpt 1.6

1.6

1.2

1.4

1.2

Sex

—

5.8

0.3

1.0

—

Other

6.4

1.5

1.3

2.7

1.6

All offenses

2.9

2.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

Source: D.C. Department of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis.

19

Table 13: Average Minimum Sentence in Years Imposed on Female Offenders by Offense, 1989 - September 1992

Offense

1989

1990

1991

1992

Murder 1

--

Mur.2/Man.

4.0

Rape

--

Robbery

2.7

Assault

2.2

Burglary

3.0

Larceny

1.2

UUV

1.1

Forgery/Emb

0.9

Weapons

--

Drug Sales

1.8

Drug Possession

1.3

Bail V./Contmpt

0.9

Other

1.3

--

--

10.0

10.0

5.6

5.0

7.0

1.4

2.8

1.3

3.0

1.9

0.5

3.0

-

1.0

--

1.9

-

1.3

1.2

0.6

0.7

1.0

2.3

-

5.0

1.7

1.9

1.7

1.6

1.4

0.8

0.9

0.9

1.2

1.6

1.2

Source: DC Department of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis.

Table 14: Average Maximum Sentence in Years Imposed on Female Offenders by Offense, 1989 - September 1992

Offense

1989

1990

1991

1992

Murder 1

_

_.

._

30.0

Mur.2/Man.

13.2

30.0

21.4

15.0

Rape

—

21.0

—

—

Robbery

8.0

4.0

9.3

4.0

Assault

6.7

9.1

5.6

3.0

Burglary

9.0

13.5

—

3.0

Larceny

3.9

—

5.7

—

UUV

3.4

—

4.0

3.4

Forgery/Emb

2.8

2.0

2.5

4.0

Weapons

—

7.0

~

15.0

Drug Sales

5.4

5.4

5.9

5.9

Drug Possession

3.8

5.8

4.2

2.5

Bail V./Contmpt ,'

2.6

2.9

2.5

—

Other

|

4.6

t

3.9

5.2

4.0

Source: D.C. Department of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis.

20

Table 15: Average Minimum and Maximum Sentence Served by Female Offenders, 1989 - September 1992

1989

1990

1991

1992

Minimum Maximum

1.8

1.7

1.8

1.8

5.3

5.6

5.9

6.0

Source: D.C. Department of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis.

Table 16: Expiration Releases of Female Offenders by Offense, 1989 - September 1992

Offense

1989

1990

1991

1992

Homicide

Mur.2/Man.

1

Robbery

10

Assault

8

Burglary

10

Larceny

79

uuv

4

Forgery/Emb

27

Weapons

11

Drug Sales

103

Drug Possession

155

Morals

73

Bail V./Contmpt

156

Traffic

4

Fugitive

5

other

217

Total

863

6

1

1

1

8

8

6

11

13

11

7

8

—

54

53

4

9

0

2

19

16

1

5

5

2

99

88

94

80

64

17

60

35

—

163

134

16

7

6

—

5

8

—

37

24

16

565

463

176

Source: D.C. Department of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis.

21

Table 17: Percentage Distribution of Expiration Releases of Female Offenders by Offense, 1989 - September 1992

Offense
Homicide Mur.2/Man. Robbery Assault Burglary Larceny
uuv
Forgery/Emb Weapons Drug Sales Drug Possession Morals Bail V./Contmpt Traffic Fugitive Other Total

1989
„
0.1 1.2 0.9 1.2 9.2 0.5 3.1 1.3 11.9
18.0
8.5
18.1
0.5 0.6
25.1
100

1990
__
0.2 1.4 1.9 1.2 9.6 1.6 3.4 0.9
17.5 14.2 10.6 28.8
1.2 0.9 6.5 100

1991
..
0.2 1.7 2.8 1.7 11.4 — 3.5 1.1 19.0 13.8 7.6 28.9 1.3 1.7 5.2 100

1992
3.4 0.6 3.4 6.3 — 2.3 1.1 0.6 1.1 53.4 9.7 — 9.1 — — 9.1 100

Source: D.C. Department of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis.

22
in

Table 18: Parole Releases of Female Offenders by Offense, 1989 - September 1992

Offense

1989

1990

1991

1992

Mur.2/Man.

2

Robbery

4

Assault

5

Burglary

1

Larceny

6

UUV

4

Forgery/Emb

7

Weapons

2

Drug Sales

52

Drug Possession

26

Morals

0

Bail V./Contmpt

6

Other

5

Total

120

2

2

4

5

13

4

9

5

9

5

1

-

10

4

2

3

1

3

8

9

1

0

5

4

115

125

74

22

7

9

3

0

-

34

22

13

5

6

13

221

200

136

Source: D.C. Depanment of Corrections, Planning Analysis Division.

23

Table 19: PereenUge Distribution of Parole Releases of Female Offenders by Offense, 1989 - September 1992

Offense

1989

1990

1991

1992

Mur.2/Man.

1.7

Robbery

3.3

Assault

4.2

Burglary

0.8

Larceny

5.0

UUV

3.3

Forgery/Emb

5.8

Weapons

1.7

Drug Sales

43.3

Drug Possession

21.7

Morals

—

Bail V/Contmpt

5.0

Other

4.2

0.9

1.0

2.9

2.3

6.5

2.9

4.1

2.5

6.6

2.3

0.5

—

4.5

2.0

1.5

1.4

0.5

2.2

3.6

4.5

0.7

—

2.5

2.9

52.0

62.5

54.4

10.0

3.5

6.6

1.4

—

—

15.4

11.0

9.6

2.3

3.0

9.6

Source: D.C. Department of Corrections, Office of Planning Analysis.

24

V. Programming Needs/CTF Women's Program
Research on female offenders by the American Correctional Association has shown that substantial social problems underlie female criminality. Many are single mothers with custody of their children, receiving little or no financial support from the fathers. They are most often unemployed or concentrated in low-paying, low-skilled jobs when working. Drug addiction, physical/sexual abuse, and poor medical treatment are other chronic maladies of the female offender population. In addition, they often need help in establishing independence, maintaining self-esteem, and developing the interpersonal skills necessary for healthy, positive relationships and effective parenting techniques.
During a symposium in May 1992, sponsored by the National Women's Law Center, women offenders housed at the District's Minimum Security Annex detailed needed programs and services, some that are not female-specific but have been inadequate over the years,. Among the needed services and concerns that they outlined were: basic medical and gynecological care, substance abuse treatment, HTV treatment/counseling, family counseling/life-style therapy, prenatal and postpartum care, and work release/vocational training.
In establishing the Correctional Treatment Facility's Women's Prograqf the Department of Corrections is expanding the service delivery system to address the special needs and characteristics of its female offender population. The goals|of the program are:
to provide women with treatment and transitional services that address their unique needs,
to promote and facilitate positive interaction between the woman and her family and community,
to increase the female offender's chances of establishing a healthy, socially responsible life in the community upon release,
to provide a level of programs and services for female residents that is comparable to those available to male residents,
to maintain a safe and secure environment that promotes positive staff-resident relations and establishes an atmosphere conducive to productive programming,
to provide pregnant females with education and counseling related to reproduction, pre-and post-natal care, child development and family relationships,
25

to offer mental health programs and services to female offenders, and to provide women with work participation opportunities.
Women housed at the CTF will also have access to other centrally located resources including education and library services, religious and volunteer services, recreation and leisure skills programs, medical services, and mental health services. The CTF Substance Abuse Program has a 32-bed unit for female offenders. The intensive substance abuse treatment emphasizes group therapy; educational enhancement; art, spiritual, music and recreation therapy; mental health counseling; community/family support; and pre-release and aftercare support management. Other services will be established in the CTF Women's Program to further implement the service delivery objectives for female offenders.
VI. Conclusion
The foregoing profile of female offenders has policy implications for both the Department of Corrections and other District government agencies. The economic and social issues that are fueling the unprecedented growth in the female offender population cannot be addressed by incarceration alone. Even though the Department of Corrections continues to provide a myriad of social services within the institutions, it will be necessary to develop linkages with other outside agencies such as Human Services and Employment Services. For a smoother transition back to the community, the women offenders will need an after-care setting that includes employment, affordable housing and child assistance programming. In addition, many female offenders may be better served by alternatives to incarceration, such as community placement. Since the majority of females are incarcerated for narcotics violations or other non-violent offenses, community placement which will enable them to obtain mental health therapy, basic family life skills, and marketable job skills may have a greater impact on preventing additional criminal conduct.
26

District of Columbia Department of Corrections
4.0 WOMEN'S PROGRAM 4.1 Program Mission and Goals 4.2 Organizational Structure and Staff Roles
Figure 4-1 Organizational Structure 4.3 Unit Allocation
Figure 4-2 Processing of Work Participation Female Unit Figure 4-3 Women's Unit Housing 4.4 Criteria for Placement in the Program 4.5 The Treatment Program 4.6 Daily Routine Figure 4-4 Daily Activity Schedule 4.7 Use of Centralized Resources 4.8 Program Operation
i
CTF Operations Manual

District of Columbia Department of Corrections
4.1 MISSION AND GOALS
The D.C. Department of Corrections recognizes that the female offender possesses special needs and characteristics. Far too often, these issues have been neglected due to the relatively small numbers of female offenders in the correctional system. In establishing the CTF Women's Program, the Department establishes a commitment to programming for female offenders within its service delivery system.
The female offender within the DCDC system is typically a young, single, unemployed black women with dependent children. She is likely to have a history of substance abuse. Half the female offenders within the DC system have not finished high school or obtained a GED; slightly more than half are incarcerated for drug-related crimes. Overall, the profile of the female offender in the DC system reflects the national picture: female offenders are women who need help in establishing independence and maintaining self-esteem. They need education and job skills to increase their employment potential. They typically lack the interpersonal skills necessary for healthy, positive relationships and effective parenting.
The CTF Women's Program, consistent with the Department's overall philosophy, is committed to providing women with meaningful opportunities to gain these skills and initiate positive change. Furthermore, this program is grounded in the belief that intensive transitional services - that is, programming that is aimed toward building skills and establishing a structure for the offender's life after release -- are an effective intervention.
The goals of the Correctional Treatment Facility Women's Program are:
• To provide female offenders with treatment and transitional services that address their unique needs. These services are provided as part of the Department-wide service delivery system and according to relevant American Correctional Association (ACA) standards.
• To promote and facilitate positive interaction between the transitional offender and her family and community.
• To increase the female offender's chances of establishing a healthy, socially responsible life in the community upon release.
• To provide a level of programs and services for female residents that is comparable to those available to male residents.
• To maintain a safe and secure environment that promotes positive staff-resident relations and establishes an atmosphere conducive to productive programming.
i'
• To provide pregnant females with education and counseling related to reproduction, pre- and post-natal care, child development and family relationships.
• To offer Mental Health programs and services to female offenders.
• To provide female offenders with work participation opportunities.

CTF Operations Manual

Section 4 - Women's Program

District of Columbia Department of Corrections
4.2 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND STAFF ROLES
Figure 4-1 illustrates the organizational structure for the women's program at the CTF. The staff for the female unit will act as a team to provide services and treatment programs. Each of the specific staff roles are described below.
Assistant Administrator for Women's Programs. The Assistant Administrator is responsible for the supervision of all staff assigned to the female treatment unit. He or she is responsible for chairing the program's interdisciplinary team and for coordinating and supervising all program and treatment related activities for females which take place in the treatment unit. The Clinical Social Workers, Unit Managers and Vocational Development Specialist report directly to the Unit Director. The Assistant Administrator is responsible for designing and redefining the treatment program to better serve the needs of the female population. The Assistant Administrator is also responsible for assuring that security policy and procedures are adhered to and security is maintained at all times. This position reports directly to the Administrator of the CTF.
Unit Manager. There are two (2) Unit Managers for the women's program. The Unit Managers report directly to the Unit Director. The Unit Manager is responsible for coordinating and supervising all of the program and service delivery in the housing units. This includes responsibility for administration of unit programs as well as planning, developing, and implementing group and individual programs tailored to the needs of female offenders. Correctional Counselors and Case Managers report to the Unit Manager assigned to the housing units illustrated on the organizational chart. The Unit Manager organizes, directs, and implements policy and procedures in the units, and evaluates the performance of the unit staff in executing these procedures. The Unit Managers coordinates unit operations with other units as well as other programs and operations within the facility. The Unit Managers also consult with institutional administration, security personnel, and residents as necessary in the resolution of emergency or extraordinary correctional problems.
Case Managers. There are three (3) Case Managers for the eight (8) female units. They report directly to the unit manager. Their role is key to the transitional program. They are responsible for the development, implementation and management of an effective treatment program which will include pre-release and aftercare components. The Case Managers are expected to establish and maintain productive and working relationships with relevant community agencies and organizations that can provide assistance to the female population in employment, housing, day care, and other relevant services, including the D.C. Board of Parole, for female residents to effectively re-enter the community. Their participation in treatment team meetings will be required when certain female cases are under review. The Case Manager will also assist in ongoing and discharge planning for females in intensive-intermediate treatment who are eligible for parole or mandatory discharge to the community.
One Case Manager will be assigned directly to the two misdemeanant units, and the other Case Managers will each be assigned to three housing units, as indicated on the organizational chart.

CTF Operations Manual

Section 4 - Women's Program

District of Columbia Department of Corrections
Clinical Social Worker. One Clinical Social Worker is assigned to the female treatment unit. The Clinical Social Worker reports directly to the Unit Director and is a senior member of the unit's interdisciplinary treatment team and the unit management team. The Clinical Social Worker will provide the development, implementation, refinement and management of the program's therapeutic environment in coordination with the Unit Director. He/she is responsible for directing foe-aciivities of and providingjjlinical supervision for the-Correctional Counse4ors7~Hp/shfiJs^o responsible for assisting in coordinating all treatment interventions for the females with the Case Managers according to the individualized treatment plan and providing clinical leadership, education, and training for program staff. The Clinical Social Worker will participate in jhe jrjtftrrikniplinary treatment team meetings.
Vocational Development Specialist. The Vocational Development Specialist reports directly to the Unit Director. This staff person will work closely with the other staff assigned to the Work Participation Housing Unit. The duties include development of vocational testing and evaluation programs, vocational counseling, consulting with work supervisors concerning work habits, interviewing residents on matters related to vocational goals, employability, and vocational and educational requirements for career goals, seeking employment opportunities for female offenders in the community, and maintaining files and records on each case. The Vocational Development Specialist will work closely with the Case Managers to develop appropriate vocational programs for female offenders.
Correctional Counselor. The Correctional Counselor will be the operational manager of an assigned housing unit, and is responsible for coordinating activities of a multidisciplinary team of staff members who are assigned to work within the unit. The units are conceptualized as small, self-contained "institutions" operating in a semi-autonomous fashion within the confines of a larger facility. This concept has the objective of providing improved resident treatment and rehabilitation programs and strategies by dividing large numbers of residents into smaller, well-defined groups who are housed together throughout the length of their institutional stay; and who work in a close, intensive treatment relationship with a multidisciplinary, relatively permanently assigned team of staff members, who have decision-making authority within aspects of programming and institutional living.
There are seventy (70) Correctional Counselors who report directly to the Unit Managers. They are assisted in their clinical and functional activities by the Case Managers and indirectly, on an as needed basis, by the Clinical Social Worker. Counselors primarily serve as case monitors for females in their unit. They participate in the interdisciplinary treatment team process for their caseload, similar to the Case Managers for the implementation of the individual treatment plans. They are providers of treatment and education modules, support groups, and counseling under the clinical guidance of the Clinical Social Worker and the Case Managers. Correctional Counselors are cross-trair)ed in, and conduct, all security functions necessary to maintain a safe and secure treatment environment that meets with all correctional standards.
» Clerk. The three (3) clerks in|the female unit provide basic clerical services to the Unit Director and Unit Managers. Clerks 'are responsible for maintaining department orders, institutional procedures, and unit operating procedures, comprehensive documentation and filing of all records, report, case histories, case analysis, resident programs, work participation reports, memoranda and other correspondence. Confidential records must be maintained in secure files

CTF Operations Manual

Section 4 - Women's Program

District o- Columbia Department of Corrections

4.3 UNIT ALLOCATION

Female offenders at the DC CTF will be located in Building E, which contains eight 32-bed housing units, for a total of 256 beds. Each of the four floors in the building have two 32-bed living units, with core support offices for administration, as well as a dining room, separating the two units. In addition to the 32 single rooms, each living unit contains office space, counseling rooms, a medical triage room, and other space to support programming activities that will occur within the living unit. Females housed at the DC CTF will access programs in the central program area on a scheduled basis, escorted by a correctional counselor. Scheduled programs and treatment activities will also occur within the living unit for females that reside in the unit.

The housing unit allocation is as follows:

Level 40 (first floor): Core Office Space:

Unit 1 Misdemeanant (A)

32 beds

Unit 2 Misdemeanant (B)

32 beds

Unit Director, Case Manager (Units 1 and 2), Clerk

Level 57 (second floor): Core Office Space:

Unit 3 Felon (A) Unit 4 Work Participation (B)

32 beds 32 beds

Unit Manager (Units 1-5), Vocational Development Specialist, Clerk

Level 74 (third floor): Core Office Space:

Unit 5 Felon (A) Unit 6 Felon (B)

32 beds 32 beds

Case Manager (Units 3-5), Clinical Social Worker

Level 96 (fourth floor): Core Office Space:

Unit 7 Pregnant Females (A)

32 beds

Unit 8 Felon/Youth Rehab. Act (B) 32 beds

Unit Manager (Units 6-8), Case Manager (Units 6-8), Clerk

In addition to these housing units, one 32-bed female unit is included in the 256 bed substance abuse program. Programs and treatment offered to these female offenders will be described in the substance abuse program portion of the operations manual.
The level of programmingjand daily routine will vary slightly within the program:
• Misdemeanant Units (1 and 2). Residents of these units will primarily be engaged in ciaytime work assignments and evening programming. If a misdemeanant carries a total sentence of one year or more, she may elect to pursue daytime programming as well. In the event that she tests below an eighth grade level, daytime participation in central education programming will be mandatory. All misdemeanants will pursue evening programming.

CTF Operations Manual

Section 4 - Women's Program

FIGURE 4-2 PROCESSING OF WORK PARTICIPANTS (FLOW CHART)

District of Columbia Department of Corrections

1/
CTF Operations Manual

Section 4 - Women's Program

District of Columbia Department of Corrections
- Leisure Skills Development. Female residents will be encouraged to develop positive leisure pursuits by accessing the art and craft areas located in the central recreation area. Instruction will be provided by volunteers, with counseling staff supervision.
• Spiritual Awareness. Principles for healthy character development will be addressed through a variety of media, including presentations on different religious traditions and demonstrations of different spiritual awareness techniques (e.g., meditation, yoga, t'ai-chi). Residents will be encouraged to practice these techniques. Volunteers, consultant staff, and chaplains will provide these interventions, which will be coordinated through the Unit Managers.
The second method of service delivery will be the classroom-style Intervention. The majority of psychoeducational modules, life skills modules, and education classes are delivered in this setting. Many of these classes are structured to be highly interactive, with the instructor and students working together to achieve the learning objectives. The goal of this type of service delivery is not to "talk at" the student, but to encourage and help the student in the learning process. Independent projects and homework will be assigned to help the student develop learning skills, and pre- and post-tests will be utilized to ascertain how effectively the material has been absorbed.
Academic and vocational education and life skills programming will be delivered by Education Services staff. Most psychoeducational modules will be taught by unit counseling staff trained in module delivery.
Classroom-style interventions include the following:
• Education/Literacy Training. High expectations will be placed on residents to upgrade their literacy and numeracy skills. Daily classroom instruction and study time will be provided. Literacy skills will also be developed through psychoeducational modules, which include readings and written assignments. Literacy development will provide a functional opportunity for residents to set goals and work to achieve them. The SAT will be administered to residents when they enter and leave the program to provide data on resident progress for program evaluation purposes.
• Vocational/Career Development. Vocational education will be available in word processing and secretarial skills. In addition, residents will work with the Vocational Development Specialist to locate job possibilities and develop interview/placement strategies.
• Goal Setting/Time Management. This module provides a structured method for identifying personal goals and organizing resources to accomplish them. Participants will explore and develop realistic short- and long-term goals and formulate a functional strategy through which the goals can be attained. As an outcome, participants will have learned a process they can apply to analyzing the feasibility or their expectations, setting realistic goals, and developing an incremental framework ijpr achievement.
• Recognizing and Regulating Anxiety. This module provides a structured process for identifying personal expressions of anxiety and learning practical methods for regulation. The process for addressing anxiety will evolve within the context of preventing anxiety from inhibiting

CTF Operations Manual

Section 4 - Women's Program

District of Columbia Department of Corrections
Life Skills. Life skills training will be offered to provide residents with skills in obtaining employment, acquiring and maintaining housing, applying for government assistance programs (if applicable), managing money, and negotiating other aspects of the transition to the community.
Community Linkage. Case Managers, the Clinical Social Worker, and other program staff will assist the resident in developing linkages to community-based services, including mental health or substance abuse treatment, medical care, education or career development, and leisure resources.
Discharge Plan Development. In cooperation with the Case Manager, the resident will develop a concrete plan for life outside the facility, including housing, school or work, child care, and leisure resources. While the resident will sign this plan, it will not be binding. It will, however, set forth the resident's strategy for post-release living.
Treatment Planning and Monitoring
While the CTF Women's Program will not utilize a formal Treatment Team approach, each resident's needs will be addressed through an update of the individual program plan developed during classification. When a resident is transferred to the CTF Women's Program, her Case Manager will review the program plan and diagnostic evaluation (if present in the record). If the resident has not received a diagnostic evaluation, some tests may be ordered to ascertain her level of functioning. These tests would be administered and scored by staff from the CTF Reception and Diagnostic component on an as-needed basis.
The Case Manager, Unit Manager, Clinical Social Worker, Vocational Development Specialist, Correctional Counselor, and a representative of Education Services will meet in a treatment planning session. At that session, they will develop a plan to address the resident's needs through the resources available within the CTF. This planning session will occur within 15 days of admission. The treatment plan will be explained to the resident, who will sign it to indicate her acceptance and willingness to participate. The resident will receive a copy of the final treatment plan, signed by herself and the treatment team.
All staff listed above will meet bi-weekly to review treatment plans. Written progress reports from Education Services will suffice unless a specific problem exists.
1 I

CTF Operations Manual

Section 4 - Women's Program

Figure 4-3b Women's Housing Unit, Upper Level

District of Columbia Department of Corrections
CTF Substance Abuse Program. Women with moderate substance abuse histories and/or some prior treatment would receive an appropriate level of treatment in the program.
• If the resident has shown some motivation for treatment, such as participation in other programs offered by the Department (substance abuse, education, etc.), she would be considered a good candidate for admission to the program.
• If the resident is pregnant, she will be placed in the CTF unless her custody requirements prevent it.
Sentenced residents may apply for admission to the CTF Women's Program by notifying their Case Manager that they wish to be considered. The Case Manager will review the resident's record and make a preliminary determination on whether or not she is a good candidate for CTF admission. The resident's interest will be noted in her record. If the resident appears to be a good candidate, classification review will be scheduled. All medium or minimum custody residents will automatically be considered for placement in the CTF upon regular classification review.

1 i
'I
CTF Operations Manual

Section 4 - Women's Program

c -EMALE OFFELNDERS PROC;RAM
DAIL Y ACTIVITY S<3HEDULE-FU LL PROGRAMItoiNG ASSIGhIMENT

MONDAY

TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY

THURSDAY

FRIDAY

500 WORK WAKE-UP WORrTWAKE-UP WORK WAKE-UP WORK WAKE UP WORK WAKE-UP

5:30

WAKE UP

WAKE UP

WAKE-UP

WAKE-UP

WAKE-UP

6 00 BREAKFAST

BREAKFAST

BREAKFAST

BREAKFAST

BREAKFAST

630

7:00 UNIT DETAILS/ UNIT DETAILS/ UNIT DETAILS/ UNIT DETAILS/ UNIT DETAILS/

7:30

SICK CALL

SICK CALL

SICK CALL

SICK CALL

SICK CALL

7:30

COUNT

COUNT

COUNT

COUNT

COUNT

8.00

8:30 CENTRALIZED CENTRALIZED CENTRALIZED CENTRALIZED CENTRALIZED

9:00 EDUCATION

EDUCATION

EDUCATION

EDUCATION

EDUCATION

9:30

10:00

10 30

ON-UNIT

ONUNIT

ONUNIT

ONUNIT

ONUNIT

11:00 PROGRAMS

PROGRAMS

PROGRAMS

PROGRAMS

PROGRAMS

11:30

LUNCH/

LUNCH/

LUNCH/

LUNCH/

LUNCH/

12:00 UNIT DETAILS

UNIT DETAILS

UNIT DETAILS

UNIT DETAILS

UNIT DETAILS

12 30

1 00 RECREATION

RECREATION

RECREATION

RECREATION

RECREATION

1:30

2 00

2:30 CENTRALIZED CENTRALIZED CENTRALIZED CENTRALIZED CENTRALIZED

3:00 EDUCATION

EDUCATION

EDUCATION

EDUCATION

EDUCATION

3:30

3.30

COUNT

COUNT

COUNT

COUNT

COUNT

4:00

MAIL CALL

MAIL CALL

MAIL CALL

MAIL CALL

MAIL CALL

4:30

DINNER/

DINNER/

DINNER/

DINNER/

DINNER/

5:00 UNIT DETAILS

UNIT DETAILS

UNIT DETAILS

UNIT DETAILS

UNIT DETAILS

5:30

UNIT

UNIT

UNIT

6:00 PROGRAMS

VISITATION

PROGRAMS

VISITATION

PROGRAMS

6:30 JHair Care Open)^ (Hair Care Open) (Hair Care Open) (Hair Care Open) (Hair Care Open}

7:00

ISLAMIC

7:30 UNIT PROGRAMS UNIT PROGRAMS UNIT PROGRAMS UNIT PROGRAMS

SERVICES

8:00

8:30 TV/TELEPHONE TV/TELEPHONE f TV/TELEPHONE TV/TELEPHONE TV/TELEPHONE

9:00

LAUNDRY

LAUNDRY

LAUNDRY

LAUNDRY

LAUNDRY

9.30

STUDY

STUDY

STUDY

STUDY

STUDY

10:00

SHOWERS

SHOWERS

SHOWERS

SHOWERS

SHOWERS

10:30

11:00 LIGHTS OUT

LIGHTS OUT

LIGHTS OUT

LIGHTS OUT

LIGHTS OUT

11.30

COUNT

COUNT

COUNT

COUNT

COUNT

SATURDAY WORK WAKE-UP
WAKE UP BREAKFAST
UNIT DETAILS/ SICK CALL COUNT
VISITATION (8AM- 1PM)
LIBRARY ACCESS
LUNCH/ UNIT DETAILS
VISITS END
CENTRALIZED SERVICES
COUNT FREE DINNER/ UNIT DETAILS
FREE ONUNIT
TV/TELEPHONE LAUNDRY STUDY SHOWERS
LIGHTS OUT COUNT

SUNDAY WORK WAKE-UP
WAKE-UP BREAKFAST
UNIT DETAILS/ SICK CALL COUNT
VISITATION (8AM-1PM)
RELIGIOUS SERVICES
LUNCH/ " " " ' UNIT DETAILS
VISITS END
CENTRALIZED SERVICES
COUNT FREE DINNER/ UNIT DETAILS __
FREE ONUNIT
TV/TELEPHONE LAUNDRY STUDY SHOWERS
LIGHTS OUT COUNT

NOTE: Industries involvement may take place for these residents daily trom 5:30 to 9:30 p.m.

Figure 4-4a

c :EMALE OFFEINDERS PROGiRAM

DAlLY ACTIVITY S(:HEDULE - PR EGNANTWOJWEN'S UNIT

MONDAY

5:00 WORK WAKE-UP

5 30

WAKE-UP

600 BREAKFAST

TUESDAY WORK WAKE UP
WAKE-UP BREAKFAST

WEDNESDAY WORK WAKE-UP
WAKE-UP BREAKFAST

THURSDAY WORK WAKE-UP
WAKE-UP BREAKFAST

FRIDAY WORK WAKE-UP
WAKE-UP BREAKFAST

6:30

7:00 UNIT DETAILS/

7:30

SICK CALL

7:30

COUNT

UNIT DETAILS/ SICK CALL COUNT

UNIT DETAILS/ SICK CALL COUNT

UNIT DETAILS/ SICK CALL COUNT

UNIT DETAILS/ SICK CALL COUNT

8:00

8:30 CENTRALIZED CENTRALIZED

9:00 EDUCATION

EDUCATION

9:30

OR WORK I OR WORK

CENTRALIZED EDUCATION OR WORK

CENTRALIZED EDUCATION OR WORK

CENTRALIZED EDUCATION OR WORK

10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30
1:00

RECRE^IiON REST
LUNCH/ UNIT DETAILS
ON-UNIT PROGRAMS

RECREATION REST
LUNCH/ UNIT DETAILS
ON-UNIT PROGRAMS

RECREATION REST
LUNCH/ UNIT DETAILS
ON-UNIT PROGRAMS

RECREATION REST
LUNCH/ UNIT DETAILS
ON-UNIT PROGRAMS

RECREATION REST
LUNCH/ UNIT DETAILS
ON-UNIT PROGRAMS

1:30 2 00 2:30 3:00 3:30 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30

REST CENTRALIZED
EDUCATION FREE COUNT
MAIL CALL DINNER/
UNIT DETAILS UNIT
PROGRAMS (Hair Care Open)
UNIT PROGRAMS

REST CENTRALIZED
EDUCATION FREE COUNT
MAIL CALL DINNER/
UNIT DETAILS
VISITATION (Hair Care Open)
UNIT PROGRAMS

REST CENTRALIZED
EDUCATION FREE COUNT
MAIL CALL DINNER/
UNIT DETAILS UNIT
PROGRAMS (Hair Care Open)
UNIT PROGRAMS

REST CENTRALIZED
EDUCATION FREE COUNT
MAIL CALL DINNER/ UNIT DETAILS
VISITATION (Hair Care Open)
UNIT PROGRAMS

REST CENTRALIZED
EDUCATION FREE COUNT
MAIL CALL DINNER/
UNIT DETAILS UNIT
PROGRAMS (Hair Care Open)
ISLAMIC SERVICES

8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00

TV/TELEPHONE LAUNDRY STUDY SHOWERS

TV/TELEPHONE LAUNDRY STUDY SHOWERS

TV/TELEPHONE LAUNDRY STUDY SHOWERS

TWTELEPHONE LAUNDRY STUDY SHOWERS

TV/TELEPHONE LAUNDRY STUDY SHOWERS

10:30 11:00 11:30

LIGHTS OUT COUNT

LIGHTS OUT COUNT

LIGHTS OUT COUNT

LIGHTS OUT COUNT

LIGHTS OUT COUNT

SATURDAY WORK WAKE UP
WAKE UP BREAKFAST

SUNDAY WORK WAKE-UP
WAKE-UP BREAKFAST

UNIT DETAILS/ SICK CALL COUNT

UNIT DETAILS/ SICK CALL COUNT

VISITATION (8AM- 1PM)

VISITATION (8AM- 1PM)

LIBRARY ACCESS

RELIGIOUS SERVICES

LUNCH/ UNIT DETAILS

LUNCH/ UNIT DETAILS

VISITS END

VISITS END

CENTRALIZED SERVICES

CENTRALIZED SERVICES

COUNT ~H FREE DINNER/ UNIT DETAILS

COUNT FREE DINNER/ UNIT DETAILS

FREE ON-UNIT

FREE ON-UNIT

TV/TELEPHONE LAUNDRY STUDY SHOWERS

TV/TELEPHONE LAUNDRY STUDY SHOWERS

LIGHTS OUT COUNT

LIGHTS OUT COUNT

Figure 4-4c

UNIT RULES

District of Columbia Department of Corrections

1. All residents are responsible for the cleanliness of the entire unit.

2.

You must be awake and dressed, with your bed made and personal area clean, by 6:00

AM, Monday through Friday.

3. You may, if not in programs or on detail, lay on your bed fully dressed with no covers or shoes on.

4.

You must be in your room for all counts.

5. Smoking is not permitted. Possession of cigarettes, matches, and lighters is prohibited.

6. No loud noise, abusive or obscene language, running, or horseplay is permitted.

7. Use of radios will be quiet after 11:00 p.m. Television will be turned off at 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 11:00 p.m. on weekends, except with special permission. Personal radios will be used with headphones at all times.

8. Unless medically or legally excused, you must participate in your assigned program and be on time.

9. Use trash cans at all times.

10. Dispose sanitation items in a proper manner (trash cans).

11. All property, except for shoes under the bed, must be properly stored.
12. Escape zones, off limit areas, and restricted zones as identified by signs are strictly obeyed.

13. When participating in outside activities, there will be no cursing or loud yelling.

14. Open sexual displays are not permitted.

15. Interference with ongoing programs is prohibited.

16. Proper attire is expected at all times. Short-shorts, tank or halter tops, and sheer clothes or nightwear are nol acceptable. Shower shoes will not be permitted off the housing units.

17. You are expected to maintain adequate personal hygiene. Showers must be taken regularly, and clean clothes are expected at all times.

18. The linen exchange schedule will be adhered to.

19. Visiting between housing units or in other residents' rooms is prohibited.

CTF Operations Manual

Section 4 - Women's Program

District of Columbia Department of Corrections
units; in addition, obstetrics rounds will be conducted weekly on the unit by an obstetrician. All other services will be provided in accordance with CTF procedure.
Mental Health Services. Mental health care for females will be provided in accordance with Department and CTF policy. Residents may self-refer or be referred for examination by the psychologist consultant to the program. He or she will determine the need for follow-up care, including psychiatric examination for prescription of medication. If the resident can be maintained on medication, she may continue as a resident of the CTF program. If a dedicated mental health environment is required, transfer to the Central Detention Facility will be initiated.
Emergency mental health care will be provided in accordance with Department policy.

CTF Operations Manual

Section 4 - Women's Program

FEMALE OFFENDER PROGRAMS

Goal.
The Department's goal is to ensure that female offenders have access to adequate programming opportunities that are comparable to those provided to male inmates. To achieve this goal, the Department intends to:
1. Enhance access to work details and programming opportunities for women housed in the Detention Facility and in the Minimum Security Annex.
2. Develop one 32-bed substance abuse treatment unit, one 32-bed mental health unit, and one 32-bed diagnostic unit for women in the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF).
3. Construct a facility to house sentenced female DC Code violators as part of the Facilities Master Plan.

Current Operation.
The Department has approximately 480 women housed in the Detention Facility and about 165 in the Minimum Security Annex. About 280 female offenders are housed in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Current programming opportunities for women include academic and vocational education, job skills training, life skills training, medical education, the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Program (DAATP), photography and graphic arts, sewing classes, and jazz dance. Academic classes include Adult Basic Education (ABE), General Education Development (GED), and Chapter I. Vocational training in housekeeping and typing are currently offered.
Since publication of the Master Plan, the Department has achieved these objectives:
• Established a position to coordinate Female Offender Programs.
• Expanded program offerings for pretrial and sentenced female offenders.
• Converted the Minimum Security Annex to housing for female offenders and developed a plan to permit work training for eligible women.

Action Plan.

'

i

1990:

' I

ii

• Increase substance abuse services to women in the general population and

begin to develop intensive treatment programs for the substance abuse

and mental health units in the CTF.

• Open a pilot substance abuse program for women to parallel the existing

unit for men and serve as a model for the CTF unit for women.

46

Expand program services to women housed at the Minimum Security Annex, focusing particularly on work training for eligible women.
Select a new uniform for female offenders and develop a plan for expanded clothing allowances for women.
Develop programs to meet the needs of women sentenced under the Youth Rehabilitation Act (YRA).
Expand self-image programs to include women housed in Community Correctional Centers.
Increase opportunities for women in non-industrial pay and vocational programs.
Develop an audit checklist for programs offered to female offenders.
Plan programming for additional women to be housed at the Minimum Security Annex in cooperation with the Associate Director for Institutions and the Administrator, Minimum Security Facility.
Develop plans for the 1991 Female Offenders Conference to be held in Washington, D.C.
1991:
Expand vocational training programs for women which can be conducted in the housing units at the Detention Facility.
Begin planning activities for a new 500-bed Women's Facility based on the Department's Facilities Master Plan schedule and approved capital authority.
Increase Community Correctional Center (CCC) space for females and simplify the transfer procedure for sentenced misdemeanant females to CCCs as they approach release.
Enhance the delivery of short-term programs in exercise and nutrition in cooperation with the Office of Education and Recreation.
1992:
Continue planning activities for the 500-bed Women's Facility.
Recruit and hire staff for the new Women's Facility.
Open the mental health}, substance abuse, and reception and diagnostic units for women in the1/ CTF in cooperation with the Associate Director for Institutions and the CTF Administrator.
1993:
Open the Women's Facility in cooperation with the Associate Director for Institutions.
47

WOMEN'S FACILITY Proposed Configuration The proposed Women's Facility will house 500 women in segments of 250 beds each supported by a central service core and a common perimeter. No security custody level has been assigned to this facility. However, the proposed configuration is designed to provide flexibility to manage two distinctly different populations usir.g one administration. This facility, which will be located on Lorton Road between trie current Central Facility and Occoquan Facilities, cannot be expanded due to the site topography around it. The Women's Facility will contain four housing units with a central core service unit separating the complex into two facilities with two housing units each. The core services in the Women's Facility include: gatehouse, locksmith, armory, visitor waiting center,institutional administration offices and control center, visitation center, meeting rooms, offices, mailroom, pharmacy, dental/medical satellite facilities, program services, program rooms and offices, chapel, storage facilities, academic school, classrooms, libraries, law library, mechanical rooms, janitors' offices, inmate dining, staff dining, offices, food preparation, kitchen, storage, vocational education, classrooms, laboratories, offices, arts/crafts, gymnasiums, industries shops, buildings maintenance offices and shops, administrative segregation, and punitive segregation facilities. There are four towers connected by a perimeter fence. Each tower includes plumbing, sanitary sewer and provision for electronic detection system between towers. The electronic detection system decreases the number of towers required at the institution and increases the distance between towers.
'' i.
78

GUARD s

•*)WT"> LOCP «OAO

TOWER »— LJT. i

. ; INNER LOOP BOAO ~

VEHICULAR SALLY PORT

GUARO TOWER

WOMEN'S FACILITY

SCALE

0 100 200

400

•00

NORTH
/"? \

79

Cost Estimate
Target Capacity: 500 beds Buildings:
Four housing units at 28,000 sq. ft. each costing $2,500,000.00 each or approximately $90.00 per sq. ft.

Cost of four housing units Core Services:

$ 10,000,000.00

Women's Facility includes: gatehouse, locksmith, armory, visitor waiting center, institutional administration offices and control center, visitation center, meeting rooms, offices, mail room, pharmacy, dental/medical satellite facilities, program services, program rooms and offices, chapel, storage facilities, academic school, classrooms, libraries, law library, mechanical rooms, janitors' offices, inmate dining, staff dining, offices, food preparation, kitchen, storage, vocational education, classrooms, laboratories, offices, arts/crafts, gymnasiur.s, industries shops, building aamtenance offices and shops, administrative segregation, and punitive segregation facilities.

At 100,000 sq. ft. costing $10,000,000.00 or approximately $100.00 per sq. ft.

Cost

$ 10,000,000.00

Towers:

Each tower includes plumbing, sanitary sewer and provision for electronic detection system between towers. The electronic detection system decreases the number of towers required at the institutions and increases the distance between towers. Each tower and electrical system associated with it will cost $250,000.00.

Cost of four towers

S 1,000,000.00

Site Development includes:

Cleaning, cutting and removal of topsoil if disposal is on site.
Waterlines: domestic/service and fire lines, hydrants/sewage/gas service, storm drainagei/inlets/outlets/retention ponds, walks, inner and outer loop roads/parking lot/fencing/sallyport/site lighting/razor ribbon/gates

Cost

.1

$ 6,000,000.00

80

Equipment includes:

Laundry/office furniture/cell furniture/barber shop/maintenance equipment /medical/dental/kitchen

Cost

$ 4,000,000.00

Landscaping includes:

Trees/shrubs/grass/topsoil/equipment

Cost

•

$ 1,000,000.00

Total Estimated Cost

$ 32,000,000.00

31

 
 (Soueronunt of ttit District of (Enlambia
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
JUDICIARY SOUARC 441 FOURTH ST . N W WASHINGTON D C 20001
Women Prisoners/DC v. DC

IN REPLY REFER TO

PC-DC-011-032

June 5, 1998

Lisa Stevenson, Esquire Covington and Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. P.O. Box 7566 Washington, D.C. 20044
re: Women Prisoners v. D . C . CA 93-2052
Dear Lisa,

FILED
JUN 2 2 1998
tftHWHlTTINGTON, CLERK I.S. DISTRICT COURT

I am writing this letter in response to your correspondence dated May 1, 1998. In reviewing your concerns about the investigation of incidents of sexual misconduct, it appears that most of the problems cited arose from outdated investigation packets. We have made significant improvements in our procedures as well as the quality and consistency of investigations of sexual misconduct.

On behalf of the D.C. Department of Corrections' facilities in Lorton and the Jail, we submit the following. The CCA has forwarded a response to the issues involving the CTF, and that correspondence is enclosed with attachments.

1. Sexual Misconduct Coordinators:

Department Order

3350.2B was amended to appoint a staff member to serve as the

sexual misconduct coordinator. Gloria Nelson is the coordinator

for Lorton and the Jail; Tony Perry is the coordinator at the CTF.

The coordinators are the neutral parties who review all complaints

regarding sexual misconduct and interview the complainants to

determine if the behavior complained of constitutes sexual

misconduct to be referred for investigation.

The coordinators are the administrative liaison for law enforcement agencies in cases of sexual acts or contact. The coordinators contact law enforcement at least monthly to check on the status of on-going investigations. They also arrange interviews or other investigative procedures to accommodate law enforcement investigators.

The coordinators notify the respondent and appropriate department officials of complaints referred for investigation or when a complaint does not constitute sexual misconduct.

The coordinators appoint investigators or refer cases to contract investigators. They provide technical assistance and guidance to the investigators. For example, the coordinator reviews their investigation plans which are prepared at the commencement of a case and comments or amends where appropriate. The plan remains fluid for revision as new circumstances develop.
The coordinators manage the confidential sexual misconduct hotlines. They also oversee and monitor all training required under the court order. They participate in and often conduct training, including training of inmates, staff and investigators.
The coordinators maintain the central filing systems. Ms. Nelson is the custodian of investigation packets for incident in Lorton and the Jail, and Ms. Perry maintains the packets for the CTF. A copy is maintained of the complaints and related documents including the cease and desist order to the accused, investigation report, notice of findings to the victim and accused, correspondence, appeals and appeal findings, correspondence from attorneys, employee disciplinary action and remedial action.
2. Investigators; In February, 1998, approximately 28 individuals were appointed to be sexual misconduct investigators in the DCDC and CTF and were trained on investigative techniques. The training was conducted by United States Investigations Services, Inc. This has resulted in a more comprehensive and technical investigation, and report consistent with standards and protocol in that field.
The investigators are a cross section of employees and includes correctional officers, sergeants, lieutenants, a captain, correctional treatment specialists, a legal instrument examiner, an assistant warden, a health services executive assistant, a guidance counselor, a facilities manager, a social worker and acting principals. The investigators are ethnically diverse and include males and females.
The investigators were selected on the following basis:
-knowledge of the legal aspect of sexual misconduct against inmates and the rights of all involved;
-experience in the resolution of general inmate or employee complaints;
-Familiarity with the organizational structure, policy and practices of the department and facilities;
-demonstrated credibility with inmates, employees and managers;
-demonstrated ability and experience in presenting concise summaries of facts and sound conclusions and recommendations;
-WTT

-The investigators are trained facilitators, with whom others feel comfortable find it easy to confide.
-The investigators have not been investigated, found for cause or disciplined for sexual misconduct or sexual harassment.
The implementation of these initiatives has greatly improved the quality of reports. The investigators have been trained in preparing investigative plans that are reviewed by the sexual misconduct coordinator. They have been trained by US IS to interview all witnesses and run down all leads in a case.
Your concern that investigators make operational recommendations or cite staffing problems that you believe are not implemented has been resolved. Because the reports are confidential, appropriate management were unlikely to see the recommendations posed by the investigator in the report. Moreover, many of the recommendations were simply invalid. Often, the investigators would make recommendations outside their area of expertise. For example, a social worker would recommend a change in security staffing in a manner that would actually breach appropriate security practices. In order to address the problem, we have removed the recommendations section form the report and ask them to submit any ideas in a separate memo to the appropriate deputy director without revealing the identities of the individuals involved in the incident.
Enclosed you will find a copy of the IGP Minutes for the Central Detention Facility (a/k/a D.C. Jail or CDF).
Also enclosed you will find the CCA's response to your concerns in a memo directed to me from the new Warden and the attachments to which her memo refers. The new warden, Mary Buell, has made significant progress in the short time she is here and I have been very impressed with her committment to women prisoners.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments.
rely,
faria Amato, Esq. Chief, Civil Rights and Government Services Section

 
 COUNSEL

ID:

RPR 1 0 ' 9 8 10 :02 No . 0 0 1 P . 0 2

OC COWWCTIQNAL TBBATMiNT FACILITY

PAOI 1 of •

CHAFTIftU: SVfJtCT:
ipptonva OATI:

INMAT1 ffiQHTf UXUAi MIICONtUCT A0A1NTT INMA7CS JAMUARY 1B. 1t«7 OICIMMft 1.1IJ7

POLICY 14.100
RLED •
JUN 2 2 1998 <

14-100.1

WAPDW
PURPOSE; To utobtiirr peftoy ragardtos, taxuaJ misoontfuot agoinot inrnatoaj to dfacouraga and prvvant tfwjit rntHonduttt f|iln«t irnntUttf and » Mtabllch untferm proetdurw for reporting, InvDttigrtfnf, «nd adjudiettina InaJdanta of ««a»J mltconduet. H*f««rt«r, r*f«r*ncv to ktvwMt9«tfen tnd •dludiottan pfoatdur** <«r Mmsio^tft «f UMU«1 mliMnduat tfiaN at*o Inolud* comptalntt af r*t*MatJon and &Mte»i of oonfidantfalfty. AUTHOMTYj
corportM policy*

pvnon amploytd by tho DCOC to aarvc • • th« ort**fta monitor of CCA't mantgtnwm w w m m wtm OCPC ano aarv* n th» DCOC oi on-cita

a votuntMTi oontJ»w wgrkw, or any parton who Is patd by CCA to ssrvt as tt»

Thi porion teeutad of t o u a l miteonduot.

. Raatraim, rmarfaranoa, coarclon. or a covan or ovart act of v«ng»«nc«, Motion or ttv*«t of Mti&n, takan asatrart an inmtw tn rwpena* to th« lnm«te'* «emp(*int of sexual mlaoonduot or eoopwrton In tha ropeittng or inv«tifl««ioo 9* «mua! fndoondwow r«u«Ula«« gf trw nwtta or tha aHapMttitlon • • th» oppm^^siw. ix«mppi«« of a*t» of rataQafton aro unrwoflMary dlavlpttnai Intlmtdatlont unnacaaaary ehcnoaa )n work or proBTam aa»»Bnni«nuj gr**«tm«i uvnarV* <• othw i««itut»on« or unjuitifwd tHaoamant m Invoiwrrtwy p/otactlva auatody; gnjwtlfled daniali of privflaoaa or tan/teas.

Mhaotirfuat -Saxual bahavfor by a CCA •mptoyaa, volunroar, agant or Individual g on Mhatf of CCA that ta dtraotsd towao InmoMt undtr th* etra, euatody or iuporv(a»on of tha DCOC » CCA. StXUll irtwonduct w w r d hmatta irxstudaa »oti or •tttmpts to commit aeta nf usuM ibuaa. w u a l hOfMsmant or invaalon of pnvtoy,
Mxual miacoftd«et irwfcidaa oofwanationa or corraaftondaftco which tai Of S U M * " * • rsmamio or Intlnuu nlatJonahlD botw«on an lnm«t« and
amplayoa
M * I*

« n * oor eea*«r«44dd a«xual a « or awviuU nontaot u dafWiad bv DC Cod*. •aotions 22-4101 tVouQft 22*4109; or

p.

Any sawal act or aoxual eontaot oaiwaan an amp»v«t i"d in

(toa OC Coda. Saatton 21-4113 through 22-4114). *«xua< contact *r«M

but not ba Umitad to. tha touchlhg of any ow«w« ot NStoirao

Froparty af CCA OC CorractJanil Tnttitwai Women Prisoners/DC v. DC
>C-DC-011-033

-& 10:19a

CCFPQRflTIGN COUNSEL

ID:

•

•

J*

DC COflftECTtONAl. TT«ATMflNT PAGIUTY

RPR 1OP93

1Q:Q3 No.OO^ P.03

PAOE a af 9

OOUCV 1

14-100.* 14-10O.D

body part for aaxual raatona. SaxuaJ contact ootwoan i n mmata and •mploveo it imual Hbuaa •*«> If t)i« inmtta *eentanta,"

2.

$mxnmi M»fm^|fy>frt |j 49ftnod ttt

a.

Varbai or pnyafcal aaxuat contact ihit craatas a hotttla, offinatva, or

intimidating aftvironmant. ThJ» inotucax QDtcana or saxufflly «f(«nsiva

edvancw, gwturfi, and c*nmam»;

6.

InfluaAaing ar making premlaaa invoMna. among oth^r thlnga, «n

tfwwta'a M#atv. ouatody. prtvtor, neuaing. privf1«Qoa. work dotafl, ar

program ttalua in axerwiga for taxuai favon; mfHwiclrQ or thraatanii^

an Inmata'a a«fa«y, ouataay, pitvaay* heuatno, pAvifo—. wmk d«Mit v

orogram acatua btc«ga« « M trwmta hat rafua«d to auomtt to a aaxuai

a#v«n*«i or

9.

Craartlng an Intimklatkif. hoaUta, or offarwiva amrirvnmant to an indWidual

or to othara who obaaxvt taxuaty offanalva bahtv*or and/or aaxuaty

offanaivo longuago.

>*

t f w t o w a f QMwm* • Tha aot of floaarving, mampttna to obaarvo, of

m an Inwmm'a paraonal iffalra without o aound ponotoglcal roaaofL Uivaatan af

prfvioy I M K K J M fvJum of i n omptoyoa of tht oppoatto tax to announce hU/har

Dfoaanoo whan amanng an Inmaw'a howing unlu

MLICVi

tt la tho poUoy of CCA to prohtbrt amptoyaaa from angaglng )n romantto raiotlanariipo with Inmotti. Aoa of MXMOI mtaoonouot agilran inmata* or maUatlon «gam»i lnmai«« who mfutv to aybmtt to taxual idvanoaa am prohlbltad. Furthar, ratalfatton aoainat Indhriduaia booauao of thair knvorvamant m tha mporurtg or invaatlgaiion of a taxuai miaconduot comptalnt It proWbttod, CCA wM M y tnvactigate and diaoEptina pariona who vioiota thla djroatlva.

A. INMATI NOTIFICATIONS

1.

laafi mmatt ahaJI ba notfffad of tha proWb Won agatmt a«x»a( miaoonduct

and of tha raqutramania In ihla dlvoottva. laeft Inmat* • * • « ba

wtth wrfnan (rrformition on Mxual mlaconduet and how to report

infaoonduat.

2.

Tha CT? ahai taka approflitata ataea to Donwmmteata thia direotiva to

with madlnB and tanguagt oTtflcurbaa or phyaleal Umitatlons.

3.

Thta diraottva 010(1&• povtad on Inmrnxm butimHn bovda. piaoad In low

lovvftoa, and at •ppropriata, in WMiuto pubHcatlona,

«TAFP NOTIRCAT1QNS

T N I dtraettv* af»d any otnor wrtnan dlrMttvw part«iiiing to tor handling iHtflationa of taxual mlaco<*suei agafnsi tnmataa 6haM o*
and tharaaftar madt raodHv avaiiawa xo aooti CTP w n p i M

3.

Vatumaara, agama and Individual! who conduct bualnaa* in tfta CTF fh«n

raoahra notification of tho proWbWoft against aaxual mtaconduot including

for pmvonttof*. rvpcrrlno. Uwutiottlon. and adludloailon.

at CCA DC CamNttontT TrNtmont Fooittly

i-CFFCRPTIQN COUNSEL

ID:

APR 1 0 ' 9 8

1C:Q3 No.GOl P.04

PC COrWtCffONAl. TAlATMfNT rAO«.(TY

PAQC 3 «f 0

f»OUCY 14-<Q<J

C

CCAEMPLOVEIS

o.

each amployv* will strictly a«n«r« to thia policy by •nswrtng

M«/hor conduct dooa not eonithuto orpremota itiual

rrufconauct*

fc.. EMh employ** who raearva* Infonmnion, from any •ouraa, eoncamfng aoxual misconduct or who obtarvoo (naWama of tflKuX mtooonduvt. is nquirtd to imm*dl«T^y report th« fnformatloil Of InokMm d k w t y to th« Wardtn Of » l h » Nghsit mnhb^ oftteltt on dwty t t tfw time erfth«

Falur* of an «mptoy— to raport an «ll*tfrtfo»v or any raen and eii«umatanota that wouftf la«d a ruaorwbta pcrvon to baOov* mat •aiuaj mlaoonduat la oceurfng or hm ooourraoi. than tubioot tna cmetoyta to dlioto**.

No atnployta, managar or auporvtaor. oasaot tha (nvaatisator who la anlgnad to tho gpmpWm, whmti oonduot an Inquiry or InvotttQattoft f*tai tut otowmwanooi ralatod to tho attoojtiont.

Any intadaranoa with on kivtrtgatton of aascual mlaeondgot or

mfumt to anawar Draoor quflttfona during an offlalal (nvactigitlon,

may bo around* f

tfdi

2. MANAOEffS AND

in addition to nteeomlbintlaa of aH a m ^ o i — , m a n a o f and suparvlaor* ah»> b«. fttponilN* for tha fallowing;

a . ' Ail aaxuoJ acts and aaxuai eartttat anaR tnwnodlotaty tm raportad, by tho Wardon or ma hlf hast ranking staff parson on duty, to tho appropnato low antoroomam autnerttloa.

»,

Whan MMrtl a«ta ar Micual aonta«t >* ttltaoao. th« on seana

luporvteor ahtQ awnotfataiy aacurt tha ortma tcano.

0.

Tho aiiagod victim ihaH Irnmodlttafy ba fllvan tha nac«aa*/y

amarcancv traotmant without comprwnlaJno the htcgrtty of tna

QhytJoaJ tvtdonco, tf daamod nooanarv by inatitutional madieat

paraonnol. thf tnrrarta thaN bo tronoporwd to an auttlda madical

faoHHy.

1.

Tho Official who rvcotvaa Wit wntftoir* rmiat t«k« imm»dlat«

aotfon In aeeordanoa wMi thU dlractfvo to aniurt tna ufatv of

tha tnmata.

a.

*«1HK« to tako mhnr aporoDrtats ictton, «a daftfta* \n thia

diracttvo, whan taxuat mitoondvot is aliagad or hat baan

dfltaminad t» howo oeeurrad. shaK sutojaot tho mantgar or

auparvtior to disetpttnory prooaduras.

3.

9CXUAI MI1CON0UCT cgOftDINATOR

Tho Coordinator ih#U mak« i n apprapnato avalgatlon o* •« taxu«l mlaoonduet comp'»inta rteoivad from «) aoureai and »h*n ba tha only authority re*»antibf« f v lni«atlnq • Mxuai nuxnnnduet InvMtioation.

of CCA DC Carraatlonal traannant Faattty

10-*D<'-('8

C0UN3.

ID:

HPR 10*98 10:04 Ho.001 P.05

PC COMSCTiCMAL T f t l A T M W f ACH.ITY

PA<N * *f a

POUCV 14-160

0.

SEXUAL MUCQNQUCT CDMnAINT WPOnTlNG PftOCIDUBSS FOA

INMATE*

1.

Any inmata m»* m*ka 9 oonfMantiat w o r t of m u a l mifoonduct through

tha twanty-tour (24) hour tolaphona rwttt*e. Thi> mi/ncar tnj« b« gwan

M Inmataa i t Intaka and at oHarrmion and th»n be ooarad (n araoa

•OMftlOM to inmatt* and in tho Command Center.

An )nmat* may fK* a «amM( mucooooct Qompiatnt to am fac/ffiy

a Qrt«viAo« y

y forwvcffr« « l«Wf or «ill<!ng CCA't (lOPt, M tfttertbttf in Softer 14-«. i n n u n

'* dated J«MMry 1S. 1997. Th» irmat* m»y fil» th» oo 1$ M a«mM9tney/ at O t m w In CCA Wtoy 14-0 and rorw«ra tt

S.

Aniftmaumiy vtrbaily »dv*M *ny amployta ol aets or attampttd act of

SEXUAL MI9CCN0UCT OQMPtAfMT UKHT1NQ

POft STAfP

1 . Uffh amptov«o wtw raoahxa any (irfomwion. from any tovrw,
oanoinfc>g taiuial mtooonduec la raquUvd to imm*a:WteVv mpvi tha Manmtton or tnettant to tt» Wardaft or tha> MQlwat rvittno ataff paraen who !• en duly at tha ttm* of lha InoWam. to addtten. «««h «mp»ov« wit auBvnfc a wrtttan ftpotx of aaoh aaxuaJ m(aoondu«t fneitfant to tha Wvrtfan anrt th« CurHf—I Mart lor twtor* th« •no «f hi»/h«r warti toy uaktg Poffoy M MieUant Mapar«ne>

2.

Tha Wardan (or » a riighOft rantdna tun paraon on duty) ahad maka

ImmadUta varbal notMoaHon 10 tho Coordinator wtian «xua(

It

3. TTn Waroan anatl forward ona oopy of ma wrtrtan nxu«f
rtoorti to ttw Coofdtrutor by tha and o< tha wort M y .

F.

THB C0O«0INAT0«

1,

If tha Coordinator raoatvoa an altagation of aaxuai abv*# via tn«

taJaphona hoi Una or diraat oorraapood«near Ttia complaint must ba

varfeatty raeortad frmwdiataty to tho wardon, Tha Coordinator wit

Ofovtdo *(Wo* up wrtttan nqtffloation ta V* Wwdan ov tho oloaa of the

Mtftnandfty*

Whan tha CooraiMtor notttea tha Warden of oom^inw of i«mj*l 109 or aaxuai oontatt, tho Wanjan mutt iwwiadlataty notify tha aoorgpnita t«w •rrforoemant wthgrhtaa.

Tha Coordinator ahaH oOmrmirOoata with tha law anforcamartt toancy cortoarhMB tha atatua of any invoatioattefl- Tha Coordinator mu«t dooumam tha statut of polloa Invaatigation* avary thirty t3O) oay». Tba. oo0ymmoa of a poUaa invoattotten doaa not mitava CCA of the duty to
tha eemotttr* nf MWUM mltcondwct.

Tha Cooftfnator rhan conduct an mtaka acraaning in»rviaw with t»*e oofflptafnam raga/Oiflfl tfto faeon of ««u«i wwenowe; to dawrmma whather tha conduct Gomol«iA4d of co**tftuta* vaxual rrwiconduct and whathar tha uwaatiaatien anatl prgotad.

CCA OC CorraottonU Traatmam

CCFPCRPTION COUNSEL

ID:

RPR 1 0 ' 9 8 1 0 = 0 5 N o . C O ! P . 0 6

DO CORRCCTKINAL TAEATMCMT PACIUTV

f»*a« ( p f »

POUCV

6.

If th« Coordinator rtqui/os guidance ragafding iaxu«f mi*eonouct

eampUinti, hv/t^a *h*ll eonauir with th» Aaoietant Corporation C

aailgnad to tha woman priaonars' oiass action taw I U U or tna CCA

C»t«or«t« O

fl.

Tho Coortftnator shall notify tho Wardm, vortatty «nd in writing, of #ach

comototm warding aoxuol miaconduot and wnother tha complaint to

rofarrod for Invaotigatton.

f.

tf tho oomptelnt la raforrod for tnvoatigaton. tho Coordinator shall provioa

wmttri notttiottton to i n * roapanotm, idvtatr^ of mo comptakii,

invoatlQotton precodunM* oonfldomMilHy raauJramam* and tna pr

of oommuntetttOR. mttrnMttton or ratajiooon 19aInn tno inmra.

••

Th« Coofdlnator ahoil than forwaro: m« eampialnt and tho esmplaim

tmoka/aoraanlna form to tho

t.

Ho d«tinnlr«tton \t mad* by tho Cuonfinotar that tho eomptomt fllod an

bohotf of i n tnmoto dooa not Invofvo ooxual miaoonduot tno Coordlnotor

thai dvny tho QloJnv Howovor, If tho eompiaM «(ooo otat» 0 vtatotien of

•nothor potfoy, tha CoordJnawf «ha(l rofor tho ownpWnt to tha Wortfon

fofdlopothfon. Tho Ooonjuwtoy aftifl ^ n d nottoo of tho rojootion of tho

oomslajnt whan it dooo not oonotituto aoxuol mJaeonduct. to iho

Wtriocv tho eamplotfunl (H tho comptotnont \» 0 thtrt porcy Iniomwn.

tho notloo wU bo iom to tho vtotim) and to tfio Attittant Corporation

Counooi.

<9<

INT6RIM PfMCCOURBt OUWWJ MVMT1QAT1QN

1.

Undor oppreprtata aJmumtianoaa tho Wordtn moy trantf or or plan a

roopondont on otimtntotrstivs lotvo ponding tho owtoomo of an

2.

An omptoyM who hat boon tranaforrod during on invoattgatfon of aoxuai

miaoonduot agolmt a f«noM mnito aholl not 00 ptrmmad to wufk wtm

famala affondora undor any otnar oJreumataAoos. TroruCor Offioora whe

am undor lnva*ttoatioo for 00x1*1 mtocondun aoolnat a famaia inmatw

ihaH not bo Mtienid to assort any tomalo inmau. An omployoo who

tai boon OawrTonod 10 navo ongagad In aoxuoJ rruaeonduet agatnai a

fomalo tnmato aholl not M ptmrittod to work with fomoto offondora undar

3.

Whonovor tho daolalen la rr*do rm* to tranato «r pao* a raipandaiw an

tdntfnjnnitlvo ***• P«noJnB tho outcomo d art Irmsttgation. tna

roapondom mall not bv owl«nod to work in any aroa whtne ha/aha la

Ufcaly to corno M o flornact with tho eomptolnam. Tho rocpondant «h«ii

00 Btfvtiod oy tno worsan to ma** an Unrna««ta nipcrt If an tnmgnwmnt

plaooo htmAiar In contact with tho OOmeWnam. Tha raapondant aha!

alto bo oaviaod that any oomaoi wtm tno imiwut may ba ««u«« to'

tfaotottntry totion.

4.

Thoj Woroon ahal dofiWo If It H opproprioTo to rotum on amployw to

nta^w ongio«i wniKplaao aftor tha Invoatigatran ia eomplottd-

5.

Whon ipproonata and nooooaary, tho Wardon moy motco tporopnata

howolng aoeommgaationa for tr» inmaw. Ifton *rw)l ba m«j« to

min(mt«a any d(tturo«neo of tho ^moto'a houamg loeatton or progmm

aotivrtiaa during irm nvaatigauon of panding

Miu

ftooorty Q< CCA OC Corroctlonal Tioatmant "oolttty

.1 10:19»l

rr

r

rrppGRpTIDN COUNSfc.

ID:

nr*R 10*98 10=05 No.QQl P.07

OC COWECTinVAt TWATMWfT rACItrTV

PACF fl nf 0

pOL|CY 14.1 CO

H,

3IXUAL MISCONDUCT INVMTIQATIONS

1 • Tha tnvattigitor mall conduct«thorough and ot>,«ctiv« mvoitigtrw of ill attagittona, Tha invaitlgation tnatl Inofutfa Inftrviawlno. tha eamo»*naM, tha Informant, th« aUaoad victim it en* information (• rMtfvad from anothtr aouroa. tha ratpondwit. witnawat, and rha rmnawtng til ooourmma and pftytteal avtfanca.

a.

Trw lnv»«ajTor tfutt comaet t t * CMMIn«tar dWotly for inwview

Wha^uflng and oeordtnvdon. A l ( n r a t M «nd ttf«t«y*«3 lhcfl rmo^v« at

total I N M ( » day* vtfvano* neitea of «oh«4U»d i n w v * w » a M «M4 b* •dvtMd of tha> right to («sri and/or union rwrtwnatian. Tht Waffl»n

•nan •naur* mat vm Rmr«tl !• «MowM « I«9«I ««n upon raquwt t

tha pfwanoo of eoun«al<

r»p»—mtikin, tha hvaatt^awr wfl aspHrin that only tKi owton bafng

It^

hM

^uaattoAi bvt ha/iha oafl eo«olt w«h the

prior to anawartim

A,

t h a mvwtff ator ahaH advtaa aaah Individual Intarvfawad (n tha «ouma of

i n kwuaquton tn«t any hdmfcJatfgn, rvtaflatioo or breaoh of

MflfManilaRty by an amalovM H a woarata offanM wnieft fa aubfaec to

tfMpllnarr aetton.

C. Tha kiv*st(«ater than «>aft a tHtWrmat oataMng toatWnony ffam 0Ofnpl»M«n, raapondam and wtmaaa-

Tha InvMtf ^ator thai parmtt tha ampioyaa or inmata to read and maka any naoaaaanr oofiaoflona/ahatiqaa to Vm wawnant pcior to d y i n g ft. Thf n m of tha eonftdarmil Ifrforrmm will fea daiatad from tha oopiai of

7,

Tha tnvaatteator in»* tubmtt a final wimtn nport to tha Wftrdtn vmWn

thirty ( » ) daya (wa»udino KturdHyn. Swta*y» »ni t-9«> ^oW»v»» »f

knowfadfta ol tha tnoMont. Tha raport will Irwhioa tna invoatiB*tWi

factual linoinBf and a oonotuiten aa to wnatfo Uw« !• «vioanc* to

luppart a tanahNton that saxuit mlaoonduat hai eeourrad. Thtt raport

wfl ba provtdad to tha Cooitftnator.

1.

Coo<ia of »axurt rrttworWet Invatttoattena. whara tha oompiitnam

f

tnmaia, than ba forwartao! to tha Zottnxn Monitor.

a.

Tha Wardw anal pravtda a wrttt^i notta* to th# i«m«t». witWn forty-

alojtt (49) haura aa to whatftar tfwra wat ovidanea that wpponad •

oonolualafi that MMUaJ w*wandual «MUfr*d. Th« naties *h«M •*•*» inform

tha tflfmta of aoptal praoaduraa. Tha Imnata ahall t « n Hknowi«*am*nt

of raaelpt of tH« natica and Via Warden thW forvmrd a copy tft thi

CoonHnator.

a.

In aaaaa v#htra tha comptakti wat mada by an individual othar tt«n tn«

allaaad victim, tha thW oartv ktfonnanww*tnt«« thtll not b« nob«td of

Wa flndtnflt and faoommaodJttont* Tha tffactad iomata »haM howivir

raoaKw notification of tf* ftrNflnnt.

4.

Tha Wardan ahall inform tna amp4«yaa or tha invattigawr1! Knumw *rwi

raaammafioationa and • " • * w*w wpn*»ri*i8 ataoipttnonr « * * • " « a * n «

who ara found to hava angooad In »xu*t miteonduct.

of CCA DC CarraathMaf Traatmofit F»c»Ty

CCRPQRflTION COUNSE,

ID:

flPR 1 0 ' 9 8 1 0 -06 N o . 0 0 1 P . 0 3

OC COftACCTKWAL TRBATWtMT FACltfTY

*AOC 7 of ft

POLICY 14-14Q

6.

Within fiftoon U9I cilandor day» of racaiet of th* »»p©a. tho Wanton or dppropriat* manrfgtmont offlel*l

w.M uk«

wntrtn

approprtata disciplinary Mtlon igtrttt «maioy»« who « • dwrrnrnad

H of »xuai

fl. Tfc* Wardan shall tfvtl* U» CoordlnffOf In writing o* dffolpihary aottan ttkon apatn*t $n •fnploy« w»9 W N dtUfmrtud to tevg a n ^ * ^ in wanjNi miiconduct. b r u f h of confldinttaltv o; rasUttton »gaiA*t «n tnmm. H*/Ah* tfuu * t M tdvlH ttt* Coortin«tof in witting of taitm purcuint M oih«r foomwntitUun> rwuKlno from the tnvtfftgitton, r*«»rtf«u o f » finding of M M M ! miteonovvt

J.

COMROWTUUTY

1.

Th# M W M I ffilgwn^Mt awnptfJnt and aJI d M u m w n CMWTJAMC to th«

MwpOimt Inotudkip th« Idtmtty of th« Infonntm. th« rttooftfam v* tht

vtorim* wM b« hamiad (n t tonMftndal mafitMv and wM ftrty b« mrailari

«n a n«M to know bo**, io M o b * th» roopontfam, w l t n t w a , ttia

6oovdlnatwt ana tf» Wardan. Tha iaamtty Qilaf «ha« ba

bahavlor

a.

y IrmNM who reports an tot of aaauad miaoonduot may raqwaat and b«

trttipd M an anonvmoui Informant.

To furthar maintlte oonfMafltWhy, wrtttan noitfloatien of tha fnvooHQMon to •rryuyMl vhoU « • laauad o>aet(y fr*m th* CMrtiAktor, Inmno nottftettton thafl bo hondlod • • >oa«i moil.

4.

I t o h potty aomaoiod In tho oouna of on ktvasVeotlon w » bo idvtead

that any ImlmMattan. ntaflatinn, or bfaaoh of confldofttiomv \$ 9 separott

•otionibio dlooiplnary offonoo.

K.

C0UMUUN9

Saaaf upon on (ntmta'a raquaat, an Inmata who haa aoan th* victim at nmjoi mlieondun wlB bo pn>vldod payohotogleal aoynaoUng by a mamti haafth profaaatonol* Any afnployaa who foaaivaa a Mpon of M S I M I miaeonduot witl tdvtw tfw (mitto that p*yehotoo*aal oounoaHng i$ ovattoWO.

L. INMAT1AMAU

i

1.

Altai raoa4pt of notico* an tnmato who I* dtaaatt«*«d with tha

invoaiJflwttan or rotolutton Of a oomplalm of M X U I I miaconduet, or wa

inmota'a atnmwy, may appa«l bv latter \P th« Pifaotar af tha DCOC

thfooph tha OCOC Comma Monitor wrtWn flvo Itt) oaltndar daya of

rOOOMnfl wrtnon nolteo of tim ouwom* ef tha fnvaatipetfan.

An Inmam, at vm i r m i t t ' i tttomov. may submit a wrtcttn '*qu#*t

by tho Inivttta to thi Coerdinotar In ordar to ravlaw tha *vaat)Qiten

Tho Cofirdinaiar must rovfow «ntf adit tno rtpOft to r«mova

IMomittton, inetudVig out not limftad to tha idomify of

!Mofmw\t<t», madlool Infomution, panomot

a

Infaimation or ^formation thot v»« oompfowtoo aacurhv lotuaa.

unadltad »«d adtud vtrston ahan ba mointalnad to tta Caordinatof'a

TTto Ofroetor will notify tho Inmoto and tho Wardw in writin* o» th* roogttt Of tho appaal within tan (101 flotanaar o»>«. n^« otrvctor shod forward a copy of • • dooumont* r»i«vim to tho «pp*ai to mo
Cooroinnor.

•foporiy ** CCA OC emotional Trootmom Factor*

10:19a

CCRFCPflTION COUNSEL

ID:

R R R lO'gg 1O:Q? No.001 P.09

OC C O W K m O N A L TRBATMeNT FACILITY

PAQI a of 9

POLICY 14-100

4. M.

An appasl wilt not oa|*v tha Implementation of •uthorized ma?ug«mant Ktiona.

'Prsvantlon of Saxuil Mltoonduot Training* training will b« davetopcd end conducted for atl CCA employee*, vohmtaata and inmatM.

1.

I M P L O Y I I TRAINING

a.

Tha Training Managar t h a i conduct mandatory Prt>sarvt« and

annual in-aarvfoe training for al paid employaea and contract

employee. Certified tralnafa on -»r«vemlon of Sexual

Mieconduct Ag«lnet Inmatoe* shaM conduct training which ihall

include education oonoamlna DC law and CCA/CTF poHoia* mnil

prooaduraa far raooonlxlna;. pmw%nt*ng. rvportJno,

d

and dtaalpilnint ampfovata for acta of aaxual miaconduet.

b*

tpachlad amployttoa ahaB noalva forty (40) hour* *< sp«ctellkad

tnHntng In working wfih fcrnaM otfandan. tamt-«nmial

anhaneamam training on apadit Iwuaa- ralating to worklno with

famalo offandara wtH ba oonduetod for aataet amployMa.

1.

INMATi TRAIMWO

•.

Tha Warden ahafi anaum that training for inmatva in th«

pravantfon of taaaa) miaoenduet aojJntr inmata* fa oondwetad al

Ortentttkm whan a«oh tnmatt la trenafarrad Into tha faeHlty. Tha

training ahalt Irwtuda aducaton caneamfng DC law and CCA

poHctea for racognttfofi, pmantionf raoortlng, tnvaitioation and '

dlaorplna. Inmitaa ahaH bo advtaod of tho prohibttlon of s&xual

mtaeonduot. AddWonotty* Inmatu thafl b* laauad an

tnfonnattonal handout daotgnad to ha0 raaoeniza and report

Mxual miKonduot to Inoiudo th» uao of tha confidential hetllna

tolaphono numbar, Dooumamatton of bimata training ihall ba

ma>m*nod in tha Irwnata'J Inttltuttonal record and tho atiandarne

roatar ihatt ba milritatnod by tha Aaaiatam Wardan for frograma.

N.

EMPLOYBJ DISOfVNARY CAUSCt

1.

CCA will tmpoao ttrtngtm dlaeipiinary action against pemona found m

violation of thta pottoy. up to and Inohidlng tanrrinatlon.

t.

Mlnagan and auparviaora who fan to roport or taka app^oprlata actions

whtn Mataneoa or complaints of tvxual rrOsoonduet against innMtta ar«

brought to thsfr attantion wtR alao ba subjoet to dtao«piinary aotkm, uo to

and- Including termination.

O.

DISSIMtNATlON:

1.

Tha Wardan will l«au« a oopy Of tMa Poiiey to aaeh emplovaa, supervftor

and managar under hla/hsr authority.

2.

Tha Program Managar/ 9uparvfaor ihaB ansure that all ntw •mpiov««s.

sxoant Corraottonal OffJoara< raoaiv* a «opy of thi« dir«etlva wrthin *tv«

(5) day* of entry on outy.

3.

Thd Training Managar ahaH anawra trwt •« naw Corraotlonat

m e n * a copy of thta pottoy wfthln fiva (0) dayt of entry on duty.

m—mm*l+m1

ID:

HPR 10*98 10:07 No.001 P.10

OC CORRECTIONAL TKfiATMElfT FAClirTV

PAGI » of 9

POLICY 14- tOO

14-100.S 14*100.7 14-100.8 14-100.9

Seth Ineumbant and rtfw amotov*«« fhalt «tgn <of rtcaiot ofthii policy on tnt •Aekrtowiadojnant* form (Attacnmant I I which ahatt b« forward«d to tha Coordinator for flung.

P.

1 >

The Coordinator thali maintain a Central filing and reporting ayatam for

InoWanti o+ laxual mltconduot agafnat Inoiatat wNoh »hail inctuOa: a

C9pV Of a)t oompt«!n« end r«l«t»d dooumanUtian; reports rrwHidlnfl

InVMttgativa lindlngs; GwrvapoKaneat a p p u l * and •oc*«i flndlnaa;

oofTHpondanet from anomavt; and disciplinary tcxiorn tikan agairwt

2.

Tho Coordinator aftaH malmaki ttatiatios wfwfi thai tnehjda tha foliowtng

d t t i i th« number of cor^ptamts racaivtd; tha numb«r ofcomolatna m

wMoh a ftndfog ofMxuat rnlaaonduet waa mad«: th« numba/ of

eampUlRta in wMeh a finding atno aaxuai mboonduot W M mad»; and

dJMajMln« W* againat amptoytM and othar adnttntctntiv* aotloiui

3.

On a ouartarty baala, tht Coofdlnatof ahal eompfla and provfda th»

Proyam Anatyala Ottfoar« OCOC with th« Infonnationrao>iiradIn
(fitajb

RSVOW: Tnta polloy wlH ba rtviwvtd aa natdad by th# vica frasfdant. Uvo* Affair*.

AD staff and piuqiawa. ATTACHMCNTtii Aekrowladomant •orm

YI 1Q.9BT. nrrff to

^i ftflf ff

A^riap

L i f t . W«m«,

erf tt» Ditrtet fit

w, ftft. rft^ Ptewnhf 13.19BA.

« M i CCA

QAmvnem

Thto PaHiwtot» h> » - d to ^nb.netten wWt CCA M c i r B-3. Crima SctWl

of CCA OC CwaaflbralTrMtmam Padttty

10:19a

 
 Office of Compliance and Accreditation

Government of the District of Columbia DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
9501 Furnace Road Lorton, Virginia 22199
September IS, 1997

Tracy A. Thomas, Esquire Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, D. C. 20044-7566

FILED
<5 6

RE: Women Prisoners of the D i s t r i c t ? W ™ 1 ^ ' Columbia Department of Oorrections v. District of Columbia, et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052
Dear Ms. Thomas: Enclosed is the August 1997, report responding to the United States District Court's Order dated June 18, 1997, regarding the above-referenced civil action.
Sincerely,

Gloria D. Thaxton-Fox Senior Compliance Monitor
Enclosures cc: Brenda V. Smith, Esquire, National Women's Law Center
Maria Amato, Assistant Corporation Counsel Regina Gilmore, Acting Contract Monitor Judy Kleiman, Executive Compliance Officer GDTF/gdtf

IDPS-B39C

Women Prisoners/DC v. DC

PC-DC-011-039

mil

•mil—n—r

T

AQUCY IMPLBIIBMTATIOII PLAN/TMCKIatO RBFORT

DEFAR1CMBHT/OFFICKl Office of Pollciee and Procedures

INITIATETEt

Women P r i s o n e r * o f DCDC v . 0 - C Civil Action Ho. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Ronald J. HcClaln Chltf, Office of Policies I Procedures

TEiEPMONE: ( 2 0 2 ) 475-7410

DATE Of UPOAIE: Septenter 5 , 1997

MKKK TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-Conpliance I f Compliance state how achieved and attached supporting documentation, i f any. I f Non-compliance state reason, remedy, and new completion date.

i'"
Within 60 dayt, the Defendants shall w r i t e and follow a Department Order prohibiting sexual harassment Involving D i s t r i c t of Col until a Department of Corrections (OCOC) employees and women p r i s o n e r s . The Defendants shall post and c i r c u l a t e the Department Order I n accordance with departmental policy.

5.

Under t h i s p o l i c y the OCOC has t h e

obligation to take appropriate steps

to prevent and remedy sexual

harassment committed by i t s own

employees.

1 . SEXUAL HARASSMENT •etty Green
Betty Green

7.

Penalties for prohibited conduct under

Betty Green

the policy shall be determined by the

D i r e c t o r of the DCDC w i t h i n 30 days.

3/20/95 5/15/95 (Revised)

Compliance: DO 3350.ZA, "Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates" dated 5/15/95 distributed to DCOC employees. Draft DO 3350.2B revision based upon U. S. Appeals Court's Decision submitted to DOC General Counsel on 2 / 3 / 9 7 .

3/20/95 2/11/95

Compliance. Contained In DO 3350.2A. Staff refresher t r a i n i n g expected to s t a r t by Harch 1997 based upon changes to Department Order resulting from the U. S. Appeals Court's decision.
Conpllance. Contained in DO 3350.2A.

Page 1 of 2

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

DEPAR»ttmyOFFICE I

Office of Pol fete* and Procedures

INITIATIVE: Uowen Prisoner* of OCDC v . P.
Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSCN:

Ronald J. HcCtaln ChUf, Office of Policies ft Procedures

TELEPHONE: (202) 673-7410

DATE OF UPDATE:Sept

5. 1997

STATUS: Conptlance or Non-Compliance

COMPLETION DATE

I f Compliance state how achieved and attached supporting documentation, i f any.

RESPCrCIBIE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

I f Hon-co*plfance state reason, remedy, and new completion date.

MAJGRTASK
i

I . SEXUAL HARASSMENT

11.

Failure of an employee to report any

Betty Green

a l l e g a t i o n of sexual Misconduct or any

facts and circumstances which would

lead a reasonable employee to be! (eve

that sexual silsconduct fs occurring or

has occurred shall subject the

employee to d i s c i p l i n e .

U.

Any prisoner who I t d i s s a t i s f i e d with

any investigation or resolution of an

a l l e g a t i o n of sexual harassment nay

appeal to the Director of DCDC within

15 days. The Director Bust respond

u t t h l n 15 daya.

Betty Green

3/20/95

Compliance. Original language contained In DO 3350.2A. Procedures being followed. Court Order dated B/U/95, language Included In 1995 •nd 1997 employee sexual miaconduct training and in revised draft DO 3350.2A.

3/20/95

Compliance. Procedures contained In DO 3350.2A. Inmates notified In training and In Inmate Bulletin, "Preventing Sexual Misconduct."

Pago 2 of 2

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

CEPftKMNT/OFFICE: Training Academy

I N I T I A T I V E : Uornen Prisoners of DCOC v. 0. C Civil Action Ho. 93 2052

I£AD PBRSCN: Earthal Foster Training Acad—y

TELEPHONE: <703) 643-6462

DATE OF UPDATE: September 5, 1997

MAKH TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSM/AGEHCT

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-Conplfsnee
If Compliance state how achieved and attached supporting documentstion. If any.
If Non-compliance state reason, remedy, and new completion date.

1 . SEXUAL HARASSHEMT

15.

The Department shall conduct Mandatory

Glorious Burress

t r a i n i n g ualng c e r t i f i e d t r a i n e r * on

•exual Misconduct for a l l DCOC

employees. A consultant froa tha

National I n s t l t u t a of Corrections

( N I C ) , Mutually agreed upon by the

parties, shall develop tha training

plan and M a t e r i a l . A " c e r t i f i e d

t r a i n e r " is defined as any person who

has completed the "Trafn-the-Trafner"

course developed by tha NIC

consultant.

==—•
8/30/95

a. The training shall Include education concerning the Defendants' policies regarding reporting. Investigating, and preventing sexual harassment, and the consequences for v i o l a t i n g any policy concerning sexuat harassment; and

81ortow furr«w

avsom

8/28/95

Compliance. Training began 8/22/95. Annual ataff refresher training began 2/3/97.

•/2B/9S

Compliance. Training includes education. policies, reporting. Investigating, preventing sexuat harassment, and consequences for violating policy.

Page 1 of 2

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

EEPAREMDir/OFFTCE:

Training Academy

I £ M > PERSCN: Earthai Foster Training Administrator

KAJCR TASK

TELEPHONE: 7 0 5 / 6 4 3 - 6 4 6 2

INITIATIV E l Women P r i s o n e r * of DCDC v . P . C
C i v i l Action No. 93-2052
OftTE Of UPOME: September 5 . 1997

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

1 . SEXUAL HARASSMENT

STATUS: Compliance or Non-Compllance I f Compliance t t a t e hou achieved and attached •importing documentation. I f any. I f Non-compliance s t a t e reason, remedy, and new completion d a t e .

15.

b. All staff who work with female

Glorious Burress

prisoners shall be trained by

certified trainers ufthln six months,

commencing no later than August 30,

1995. After the initial training of

staff, the training will be Included

In the prc-scrvice training of a l l

staff. Annual retraining shall be

conducted to refresh staff on tht

Department Order regarding sexual

Misconduct.

c. within one year, selected entiloyees working with female prisoners shall receive a forty-hour training program on working with female offenders. A semi-annual, enhancement training on special issues related to working with females offenders will be offered to selected employees.

fit or taut Burres*

10/95 10/97

10/95 1/97

Compliance. Implemented in Pre-Service curriculum 10/95. Annual refresher training for ell employees began 2/3/97. 60 minute education as part of In-Servlce training being held weekly and simultaneously at two (2) training sites.

7/24/94

Non-compliance. "The Training Academy requested and received lesson plan from the National Institute of Corrections <MIC> regarding "Working with Female Offenders." The Training Academy has begun creating lesson plans for Department of Corrections employees. The expected completion date is 10/97.

Page 2 of 2

:sE.M t i l UC J A I L

iI

I
s

i ! i

iilii
] il

I:i
I 11 -ill el lli

if
^ ft .6
ill!
3
f iii
1*

r
\u I
HI I!
• I.

Ell LA.

ii

f:

Ii

11 1 i

'I It

i ill. Iifl ii

ji
ill

5 •

ill9 i
If

I i!

II

*I

I I

f?

J

P

il'
llii Ii!!!

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 1 of 2

DEPARTMENT/OmCE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoner! of DCDC w.D. C . d al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Louie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: September 7,1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/AGEN CY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Noa-compliance I f "Non-compliance* state reaeon, remedy, and new completion I F 'Compliance' state bow achieved and attach documentation

I. Sexual Harassment

I.

Women priaoaeit shall be able lo report instance! o f

Lonnie Moore

sexual b a n u m t a i through the existing Inmate

Grievance Procedure (KJP) ae specified in

Department Order 4O3O.ID. T I M Defendant! shall

strictly adhere lo the Inmate Oricvance Procedure

and shall establish an InmUe Orievance Advisory

Comraince (KJAC) as required by Section VO(c) o f

Department Order 4030.ID.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The women prisoners are able lo report instance* o f sexual haraaament mrough me grievance policy outlined in CCA Policy 14-5. Inmate Oricvance Procedure!. Sec attachment S-A. The inmate grievance committee meeting for the month of August was held oa September 5, 1997 al 10:00 am. See attachment I B of report dated 9/t#97.

II.

Faihire o f an employee to report any allegelion o f

LoMlaMMfs

aexual nsiiconducl or any facia and circumstance*

which would lead a reasonable employe* to believa

lhal aenial misconduct i i occurring or hat occurred

ahall aubjecl the employee to discipline.

Upon receipt of any allegation of an act of

12.

unwelcome eenul intercourse or any allegation of

LonnkMoor*

unwelcome aexual touching, the Defendants must

notify the proper b w enforcement agency. The

Defendants ahall communicate with the b w

enforcement agency concerning the t u t u * of any

investigation. The Defendants mutt periodically

document ma MMUB of police investigation!. The

occurrence of a polka investigation does not relievu

the Defendant! of the duly to investigate.

March 16, 1997
March 16, 1997

OQAtTUANCE: All staff have been given a briefing of D C Department of Correction* Department Order 3JJO.2A, Sexual Misconduct Again* Inmate• in pre-aervke training. In-aervicc tiainings will begin once pra-tervkc training for new hires i i completed.
COMPLIANCE: C C A will handle any sllegation of sexual mi (conduct through the procedures set forth in the DC Department of Corrections Department Order 33SO.2A. S a n u l Misconduct Against Inmate*. Follow-up on pending investigations will be conducted once a month by the Oricvance Officer.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office LEAD PERSON: Low*: Moon

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC ?. D. C . et »l. Civil Action No. 93-2052

TELEPHONE: (2«2)«9S-30M

DATE OF UPDATE: September 7, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/AGEN CY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If'Non-compliance* state reason, remedy, and new completion I F "Compliance" staU how achieved and attach documentation

13.

The identity of ma target of the alleged sexual

Lonnie Moore

harassment abaH to n v w M only «o noes who have

an immediate need lo know, including the alleged

harae*er(i) or Klalialor(a) and any witnesses. All

panic* contacted in the coune of an investigation

will be advised thai any raUlialion, rcpriaal, or

breech of confidentiality ia a scparat* actionable

offenaa aa provided in we schedule of penalties.

March 16, 1»7

COMPLIANCE: All supervisors have been briefed on the D C Department of Corrections Department Order 333O.2A, Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates, in pra-aervice training and are aware of the confidentiality issuei involved io investigations. Investigators are instructed to inform all investigated parties of the penalties of reprisals.

14.

Any prisoner who is dissatisfied with any

Margaret Moon,

investigation or reaohilion of an allegation of sexual

Director, Dept. of

harassment may appeal lo the Director of the D C D C

Corrections

within IS days of receiving decision.

March 16. 1997

COMPLIANCE All inmate* are informed, accordiiuj to Department of Corrections Department Order 33SO.2A, Sexual Misconduct Against Inmsics. of neir rights lo appeal when they receive a decision.

17.

The Defendant* shall make necessary attention* at

Marvin Voai

both lbs Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) and

lbs Minimum Security Annex (Annex) within 60

days lo ensure that women have privacy in their

living, sleeping and shower areas.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE; A contraclor has covered the cell windows of uniU 40, 57, 74, and 93 in the E and D buildings with a beige colored vinyl for privacy.

page 2 of 2

AGENCY UVIPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page I of I

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC T. D. C . ft al. CMI Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lorn** Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) WS-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: September 7, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliant or Non-compliance If'Non-conqpliance" Mate rcaaon, remedy, and new completion IF 'Compliance* ateta bow achieved and idach docunKnUlkm

11. Obstetrical and Gynecological Care

18.

The Defendant! ihatl develop and

Lonnte Moore

impktnenl a protocol concerning restraints

used on pregnant and postpartum women

which provides that a pregnant prisoners

shall be transported in the least restrictive

way possible consistent with legitimate

security reasons. Specifically, the protocol

shall provide:

a. The Defendants shall use no restraints on any woman in labor, during delivery, or in recovery immediately after delivery; and

b. During the last trimester of pregnancy up until labor, the Defendants shall use no restraints when transporting a pregnant woman prisoner unless the woman his demonstrated a history of assaultive behavior or has escaped from a correctional facility, in which case, only handcuffs shall be used.

April 4, 1997
•

COMPLIANCE: When medical staff notes on the trip ticket that the female inmalc is either in the third trimester of pregnancy, or in labor, (he Director of Transcor (the transportation unit) ensures that no restraints are used on the traveling inmalc. After delivery, when the inmate is placed in the recovery room, restraint use is resumed. A memorandum that outlines these directions has been distributed, posted, and read in roll call lo all officers. In addition, all escorting officers must sign for receipt of the memorandum. See attached memorandum dated June 6, 1997 and numbered 18 A.

1

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT
page 1 of 7

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners or DCDC T. D. C. el al. CifU Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: September 7, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance I f 'Non-compliance* aute rcaaon, remedy, and new completion I F 'Compliance' stale how achieved and attach documentation

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

T I M Defendants shall provide diagnostic evaluations for women prisoner! similar to moss currently provided foe men in the Reception and Diagnostic Unit at C T F lo determine women prisoners' assdi, inleresu, and r e t i r e m e n t ! foe increased programs and opportunities in education and vocation. Tba procedure for the needs assessment ahall ba dooe by M approved tcieaiirK malbod. Theaa avaJualtoM ahall ba completed in a manner and turn frame equivalent lo me make in me diagnostic unit, but enall not exceed 120 daya from iba dale o f n c fcawte priaoner'i Iramfer lo C T F . The cvahulione aliall include educaiional tnd vocational Uating. The DefendanU ahall provide women with me appropriate available programming called for by m i l evaluation within 90 daya of completion o f the diagnostic evaluation.

laye Smith, Reception and Diagnostic, Program Manager

June 1, 1997 -

COMPLIANCE: The female inmalea who meet the require menu of diagnoetic evaluation have been identified. Diagnostic studtci are being conducted on tboK female inmates in accordance w i n me mandalca of this order.

20.

The DefendanU ahall coordinate the scheduling o f

Mance Langham

academic educational c U i w t , higher education

claetei, and vocational training for women in such

a manner a i to maximize women prieonera'

participation in ai many areaa aa poeajbk.

March 24, IW7

COMPLIANCE: All academic and vocational clauei are scheduled to provide a minimum of three n o u n of instruction daily from t : 0 0 - l l : 0 0 a n i and 123:00pm. See attachment 20-A of report dated 4/7/97.

'

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/YVardcn's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC T. D. C . etAI. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Loonie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: September 7, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

The Defendants iluill develop and implement qiulity assurance program* foe monitoring prognm delivery to ensure the continued provision of equal and adequate education and vocation programs to women prisoner*.

Mance Langham

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliant or Non-compliance If "Non-complianca* Mate I U I M , remedy, and new completion IP "Compliance* Mats how achieved end attach documcniaiioii

May 31, 1997

COMPLIANCE: • A quality assurance evaluation system was developed by CCA for another program. The evaluation form will be revised and adapted as our quality assurance tool for educational and vocational programs. The Principal will conduct the assurance evaluations bimonthly.

page 2 of 7

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 3 of 7

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC T. D. C . d al. Citil Action No. 93-2652

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: September?, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-complianca If "Non-compliance" elate rcaeon, remedy, and new completion IF "Compliance" Male bowachieved and attach documentation

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

23.

The Defendant* atoll etwure thai women priaonen

Chariea Howard

e n cacocUd to anarrive at educational and

vocational program! in a timely manner • •

achedukd in a manner that doci not prevent lbs

programming tuff from performing any of their

dutiet.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The elevator to theeducation department of ihe facility it manually operated bycorrection*! officers between thehoun of S :00ejn and5 OOpm la order to eacort all inmate• lo cbeaea in a timely manner.

25.

TKe DefcndenU ahell provide women priaonen at

Mance' Langham

CTF with a range of academic education program*

that ii equivalent tothe range of academic

program* provided lo male priionen al the

Occoquan, Central and Medium facililka.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Women priaonen al CTFareprovided the ume educational program* that are offered ar the Lorton hcilitica I.e. ABE, GED, and Life Skilli. Sec attachment 20-Aof 4/7/94 report.

26.

Women priaonera al CTF ahall be provided withthe Mancc Langham

opportunity for Aril-lime (three houra per day, five

dayi per week al CTF) baite education lo include

ABE, OED, and Special Education clauei.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Women priaonera at CTFarc provided full time accei* lo ihrec educational claaaca: ABE, OED, and Life Skills. Secclau achedulc attachment 20-A of the 4/7/97 report. Low funcuooiog inmate• are provided special inauuetion in unaller groupi.

1

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 4 of 7

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners or DCDC f. D. C el «J. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Loanie Moore

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: September 7, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" aUU reason, remedy, end completion IP 'Compliance" state bow achieved sod stUch documentation.

new

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

27.

Women prisoners el C T F abell have K c e u to on-

Mance langham

September

site higher education programs which shall include

IS, 1997

• four yeara B.A. tad/or B.5. degree program, and

A . A . ikgre* program, and prccoMegc program. At

• minimum, bachelor program! shall I M offered in

one area of study, and aeaociate program! in two

different areas of study leading lo • degree.

Defendant* ahall comply with (he precolkge

requirement of mia proviiion wilbia 90 days.

NON-COMPLIANCE: Corrections Corporation of America i i f ned and delivered e contra! for services agreement lo the University of District o f Columbia on Jume 17, 1997. We have made several inquiriei to the University to sign we contract. Anhough the contract has not been returned, U D C staff have conducted two registration sessions with C T F females.

2S.

The Defendant* ahall offer p r i n n c n financial

Mancc Langham

September

• m n g c m e n U for iheee education program* IbM a n

15, 1997 "

U M SWIM aa those arrangements available to

similarly eituaud male priaonera.

NON-COMPLIANCE: The contract being negotiated with U D C will provide college courses st no coal to women prisoners. See attachment 27-A of 4/7/97 report.

29.

Within 90 daye, Ihe Defendants ahaH provide

John Henderson

appropriate substitute teachers or instructors during

•faiences of regular uachcra or inetruclon o f more

then three working day a. The provision of a

•ubstituta teacher or instructor ahall not result in

incnaaing the cbaa size beyond acceptable

community standards for a period of time exceeding

1 ) consecutive school days.

April 11, 1997

COMPLIANCE: A certified teacher has been designated to cover teacher absences. Sec attachment 29-A of 5/7/97 report.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 5 of 7

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCAWarden1. Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoner* of DCDC T. D. C . et a). Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: LtnnieMoora

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: September 7, 1997

MAJOR TASK

30.

Defendant! ahall provide women priaontn M CTF

with a nngt of vocaiioMl aducalioa programs IhM

•s equivalent lo the range of vocatiooal education

program! provided to male priaonen at ne

Occoouan, Central and Medium (acilWai.

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance* stale reason, remedy, and new completion IP 'Compliance* stale bow achieved and attach documentation

IV. PROGRAM EVALUATION

Mance Langham

September 11, 1W7

NON-COMPLIANCE: Women prieooen at CTF are presently provided whh Ihree vocational programa: Computer Uuncy (6 months) and Oraphk Arts (12 monthe) and Commercial Cleaning (4 months). A curriculum haa been developed lo include one additional vocational program (Interior Renovation). Interviews for an inMucior hive been conducted by a panel. The panel has submitted iu recommendation to the Warden for the fiinal decision.

31.

Defendant* ahall provide women priaonen it CTF

Mance Langham

with two prevocational program* each lo be at leael

six weeks in duration. Pravocstional prognms

include ihoat count* which teach pertonal

development skills, living skills, and/or employment

tkilli auch aa Employment Technique!, Awarcneii

and Preparation (ETAP) and Ufeikilli.

March 26, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Provocation*! skills are provided in the Life Skills and ETAP classes. The classes sre held ill re e hours daily, five days a week. The programs include modulei in person* 1 development skills, living skills, and employsbility skill*. See attachment 31-A of report dated June 7, 1997.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office LEAD PERSON: Louie Moon

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC T. D. C . et «J. Civil Action No. 93-2052

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: September 7, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance I f 'Non-compliance* state reason, remedy, and new completion I F 'Compliance' stale how achieved and attach documentation

Defendants shall provide women prisoners at C T P

Mance Laoghara

32.

w i n • minimum o f four vocational education

programs, including ibe ona prognm currently In

pUcc (Doculech). These programs shall be

available to female prisoner* of all custody Icvela.

A vocational education program ia any program o f

12 to 24 months in duration that leaches employable

•kill* and contains b o n a classroom component m d

an on-the-job-trainiag component. T w o programs

ehall be operative within 120 daya o f the entiy o f

Ihia Order.

September 22. 1997

NON-COMPLIANCE: ' Women prisoner* at C T F arc presently provided with three vocational programs: Computer Literacy, Commercial Cleaning, and Graphic Arts. CCA i i developing curriculum to include one additional vocational program: Interior Renovation. A panel haa been assembled to aclcct the candidates thai qualify for the position. The Warden will make the final selection. The projected start-up dale for the Interior renovation prograntis September 22, 1997.

33.

Defendants ehall provide women priaonera at C T F

Mance Langham

with al leaat one appreotkeehip programs aa defined

by Department Older.

Sepcmbcr 1 , 1997

NON-COMPLIANCE: T h e n is no accredited apprentice n i p program available to the female inmates due to the lack of aa accredited employe*. The desired program for apprcclkeahip has been identified aa Commercial Cleaning and A c guideline have been submitted to me District o f Columbia Apprenticeship Council for review on August 25, 1997. A response i* still pending.

34

All prevocalional program*, vocational programs,

Mance Lanfham

and apprenticeship* added for women priaonera at

C T F shall have the potential for providing women

with job skills marketable in the local labor market.

An important consideration in the Defendants'

selection of programs shall be the wage-earning

capacity upon completion of the program.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: The current pre-vocational and vocational programs implemented provide the female icunalei with computer, printing, interviewing, and marketability skills that a n valuable in the local job market. The orientation stage of these programs emphasize the vslue o f these skills in the job market.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Wwden'i Office LEAD PERSON: Louie Moon

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoner* of DCDT *. D. C et al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

TELEPHONE: (202)698-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: September 7. 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance* elate reason, remedy, and new compkuoo IF "Compliance* aute bow achieved and attach documentation

Defendants shall conduct affirmative outreach to

33.

women during the earoUrnenl period for vocational

mining, This outreach shall entail DCDC tuff

nweting with women M leaat one month befon dM

deadline for profn m enrollment to inform the

women that the ww program* are available and to

offer a lull description of the available prognnu

and any applicable criteria for participation.

Mancc Lengham

Defendant! iball anaurc ihM all contractual

tt.

prognnu used to provide service! to women

priaoncn an compatible win and fulfill the

provision! of this Order.

John Hcndenon

March 16, 199?

COMPLIANCE: Alternative outreach service! for women arc provided during orientation and initial program enrollment by me program iutruclors. A pamphlet which include* specific programs i* given to each female to a Mist the selection of * new program after completion of the program See atUchmert(B) 3S-A of April 7, 1997 report.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: All contractual program! receive a legal review fromCCA'i Legal Affair! office. AlsocootiacU arc cleared by the Contract Monitor of the Department of Correction prior to approval.
page 7 of 7

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

...

page 1 of 4

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Wavden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC ?. D. C rt al. Civil Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Lonnfc Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) 08-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: September 7, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If 'Non-compliance* elala reason, remedy, and new completion IF 'Compliance* alala how achieved and attach documentation

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

51.

Within 90 dayi, ihc Defendant* ahaN bin •

Marvin Voai

qualified air balancing contractor lo acrvtc* lh«

CTF air handling l y t t m ao thai k provide! an

acceptable level of air quality lo all areas of she

facility inhabited by priaonera.

52.

In the event that the air balancing and other recent

Marvin Voea

repair* lo tfa* healing lyitem at CTF fail lo maintain

a minimum cell temperature of 65 degree! F in

every cell, measured al the perimeter

wall, the Defendant! ahall immediately:

Carolyn Croat/

John Henderson

a. ceaaa housing women in toe and

cclla of each tier;

Croaa/Hendcraon

b. provide each woman prieontr with n m « x l n btankeU, two pain of thermal underwear, Mai two pain of wool aocka;

Marvin V o u

c. explore meant of inmlaling or healing aW perimeter walla of the cella; and

d. report back to ihe Court.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE: Ai reported in previous report!, air balancing waa done by the Department of Correction! in ihe part however, CCA hai hired a private contractor to rebalance the air lyatem ai CTF- Contncior* will be repairing and upgrading Ihc air handling. See attachment memorandum #5I-A of April 7, 1997 report.

March 16,

COMPLIANCE:

1997

The temperature u iba celli have not fallen below

65 degree! during Ibja period. In Ihe event of thai

occurence, the Assistant Warden will provide

additional clothing and blanket! and ensure lhai

•

inntalci are not bouaed in end cell*.

Meant of inaulaliog or beating the perimeter walli have been explored, however, ineulaiing ihe walli would make die roonu imtller and violate ACA aUndarda and healing the walli would violate fire regulation!. Therefore, we arc currently unable lo develop a feasible plan. A new strategy will be devised if air rebalancing doci not preclude the need lo modify Ihc walli.
-

1

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT pace 2 of 4

DEPARTMENT/OfTICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners or DCDC T. D. C . et ai. Cif U Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Loanic Moore

TELEPHONE: (202) (98-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: September 7, 1997

MAJOR TASK

53.

TIM Dchndanu shell develop and implement u

effective rodent prevention program.

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" Mate reason, remedy. «nd new completkm IF 'Compliance" Mate bow achieved and attach documentation

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

Oladyi TbooMi

April 13. 1997

COMPLIANCE: A contract with the Orkin Chemical Company baa been negotuUed end initialed. The contract inchidea a nwmihly rodent prevention plan. Set attachment 53-A of May 7, 1997 report.

S4.

Effective immedialejy, tb« Defcndanta ahall m a i n ihal

Larry C a * i l

all housing unila al CTF a n iaaued a timely, adequate

and appropriate amount of cleaning supplier

April JO, 1997

COMPLIANCE:
The cleaning aupply ia wfTkiemJy Mocked and PoitionpK ha* inMiucled the iooiaKi on ihc proper uae of Ibe material!. The supply of malarial! U moaiumd and diauibuud U> me bouMDg unka on a weekly buii.

55.

The Defendant* ahaH uae cart Hnen or disposable or

CHadyi Thomaa

waahabla laundry bagi lo transport laundry between

CTF and the Jail.

May 2, 1997

COMPLIANCE:
A linen service agteemeni w n ligned between CTF and Sterling Cleaners on April 4, 1997 and service began on April 7. 1997. Therefore, laundry it no longer transported between CTF and the Jail. See attachment 155-A of May 7, 1997 report.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 3 of 4

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Wsrden's Office

INITUTIVE: Women Prisonm of DC DC ». D. C . etal. CITII Action No.93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Untie Moon

TELEPHONE: (2«2)«M-300«

DATE OF UPDATE: September 7,1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

STATUS: Compliance or Non-compliance If "Non-compliance" «uu rcaaon, remedy, and new completion IF 'Compliance* alala bow achieved and attach documentation

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

56.

Effective Immediately, m» Defendant! at CTF dull Carolyn Croat

moaitor the food temperature ami delivery llmea of

•S food, iacMdug apecial diet mult, delivered lo

tha MUUiu Uttbca.

March 16, 1997

COMPLIANCE Food Umpenmin'%•manual!} monitored by the culinary offic«n and the aankalioa manager who U M food mermomeUra and randomly aclccl die tnyiloHmpla at each meal time. Delivery tixnei an monHored by the correctional ofTiccn who receive the food on the uniti.

57.

Tba Defendant* mall promulgate and follow •

Marvin Vow

written preventive maintenance plan for the CTF

thai include! maintenance of etructum, eyateme,

and eauipmca*.

Much 16, 1997

COMHJANCE CCA i* following die preventive maintenance plan for the facility that waa developed by die Department of Correction*. However, once rcoovativc coaatruction and other modification! an completed, a new preventive maintenance plan will be promulgated.

St.

The Defendant! ahall ciuure dial DM correctional

Mania V M

officer! inspect all plumbing fixturei that require!

repairwill bereportedimmediately upon diecovery,

and repaired in a timely manner. The Defendant*

ahall maintain log* demoaetrating compliance with

Ihii retirement.

September 10, 1997

NOftK»MPUANCE: A protocol for inapecttng plumbing fixture) it not currently in place. An operation) memorandum will be developed for die daily uupection of phimbing fixturce with immediau reporting lo maintenance upon completion of current conatruction in die facility.

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE: CCA/Warden's Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC ». D. C . et -J. Civil Action No, 93-2052

LEAD PERSON: Urn-tie Moore

TELEPHONE: (291) 4*8-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: September 7, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/ AGENCY

Two limei par year, na Defendant* anall C U I M lb« District of Columbia DCRA lo conduct inspection* of DM CTF lor compliance with the requirements of environmental »anitatk*, maintenance and food service delivery. Within 30 days of each inspection, dM Warden of CTF shall obtain the DCRA findings. The Warden ehall repair, clean, or otherwise remedy any unMnhary, unaound, or unaab practice or condition identified by DCRA u too* u fektibW but m no *vtnt b u t than 30 dayt fotlowint ne receipt of wa DCRA report.

Gladys Thomaa

COMPLETION DATE
March 16. 1997

STATUS: Compliance or Non^ompliance If "Non-compliance" Male reason, remedy, ind new completion IF "Compliance* Mate bo* achieved and Miach documentation
COMPLIANCE: The DCRA inspection w u conducted on May |9 and May 20, 1997. The bcilily received a fatiaf •conor 1 4 V (See attached memorandum 59-A of report dated June 6. 1997.) Th« identified violation! nave been corrected and •upportinf documents have been attached. Sec etuchmeot number 59 of report dated June 6, 1997.

page 4 of 4

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT page 1 of]

DEPARTMENT/OmCE: CCA/Wbnkn'i Office

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoner* of DCW? v. D. C . ct >l.

Civil Action No. 93-2052

,

LEAD PERSON: Lonnie Moore

TELEPHONE: (282) W8-3000

DATE OF UPDATE: September 7, 1997

MAJOR TASK

RESPONSIBLE COMPLETION DATE STATUS: Compliance or Non-conplianct

PERSON/

If *Noa-compliance* Hale icaeon, remedy, and new

.

AGENCY

completion. IF 'Compliance* Male now achieved and attach

documentation

PLANNED

ACTUAL

V. FIRE SAFETY

65.

TIM Dtfendanla ahall conduct and document

Carolyn CIOM

October 29,

mandatory acmi-annuaJ training on fin aaftly

1997

procedure! for all correctional offken.

NON-COMPLIANCE: WIMB CCA bcgiiu ju •emi-annual (raining for correctional officer* in October 1997, fire prevention procedure! will be included.

Agency Implementation Plan/Tracking Report

DEPT./OFFICEi D.C. Dept. of Corrections Minimum Security F a c i l i t y

INITIATIVE: Women P r i s o n e r s of DCDC v . D . C . , e t a l C i v i l A c t i o n No. 93-2052 PAGE 1

LEAD PERSON: JameB F . Murphy

UUBOK. (703) M3-1019

Dun ctTO|I09/10/97

MUM U K

HW1'«H1

6. Women prisoners shall be able to report Instances of sexual harassment through the existing Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGF) as specified in Department Order 4030.ID. The Defendants shall s t r i c t l y adhere to the Inmate Grievance Procedure and shall establish an Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee (IGAC) as required by Section VII (Ct of Department Order 4030.ID.
». Women prisoner* shall also be able to submit IGP's or complaints concerning sexual harassment in any form, orally, or in writing, to any DCDC employee, who must submit the information, in writing, to the Harden of the f a c i l i t y within 24 hours of receiving Che information. Women prisoners also submit IGP's or complaints to prisoner representative to the IGAC.
11. Failure of an employee t o report any allegation of sexual misconduct or any facts and circumatances which would lead a reasonable employee to believe that sexual misconduct i s occurring or has occurred shall subject the employee to discipline.

Murphy
Murphy (Moore)
Murphy (Riley) (Moore)

PLANNED

ACTUAL
On-going

Confiliance or Non-Compliance (If Non-corptiance, State Keason and Mew Completion DateXlf Compliance, State How Being Arht*v»H)
Cotnpliance-Comnittee in place as required by Department Order.

Outgoing Compliance-eMure 10* forma are available to everyone.

On going

Compliance Ensured a l l ataff received training and are aware of reporting policy, in accordance to D.O.3350.2A, Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates.

Agency Implementation Plan/Tracking Report

DBPT./OFFICRi D.C. Dept. of Corrections Minimum Security F a c i l i t y

INITIATIVEi Women Prisoners of DCDC v . D . C e t al C i v i l Action No. 93-2052 PAGE 2

LEAD PERSON: Jamee P. Murphy

UUnflfc. (703) 643-1019

n*if a iiwii 0 9 / 1 0 / 9 7

mm w«

12. Upon receipt of any a l l e g a t i o n of an act of unwelcome lexual intercourse or any a l l e g a t i o n of unwelcome sexual touching, the Defendant* must notify the proper law enforcement agency. TheDefendant! snail communicate with the lawenforcement agency concerning the status of any i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The Defendants must p e r i o d i c a l l y document the s t a t u s of police i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . The occurrence of a police investigation does not relieve the Defendants of the duty t o investigate.
13.(b) All parties contacted in the course of investigation w i l l be advised that any retaliation, reprisal, or breach of confidentiality i s a separate actionable offense as provided in the schedule of penalties.
14. Any prisoner who i s d i s s a t i s f i e d with any investigation or resolution of an a l l e g a t i o n of sexual harassment nay appeal to the Director of the DCDC within 15 days of receiving written notice of the investigation. TheDirector must respond within 15 days.

Murphy (Rlley and Moore)
Hurphy

ammo) Mil

PLANNED

ACTUAL
On-going

Compliance or Non-Conplisnce (If Kon-coropHsnce, State Reason and New Completion Dste)(lf Compliance, State How Being Achieved!
Compliance - No incidents t h i s reporting period.

Compliance -As contained in Department Order 33S0.2A, employees are advised that such acts are s t r i c t l y prohibited by a l l employees for Defenses of this D.O.
Contpliance-At Institutional Level-This mainly applies to Executive staff.

Agency Implementation Plan/Tracking Report

DEPT./OFFICBi D.C. Dept. of Corrections Minimum Security F a c i l i t y

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v . D . C e t a l C i v i l Action No. 93-2052 PAGE 3

LEAD PERSON: James P. Murphy

iiLiaut- (703) 643-1019

wit a n^n 09/10/97

HMIIftHI

20. Coordinate the scheduling of academic educational classes, higher education classes, vocational training, to maximize women's participation in as many areas as possible.

Murphy (Moore)

23. The Defendants shall ensure that women prisoners are escorted to and arrive at educational and vocational programs in a timely manner as scheduled in a manner that does not prevent the programming staff from performing anyof their duties.

Murphy (Riley)

24. Provide women prisoners academic education programs equivalent to the range of academic programs provided to male prisoners at the Minimum Security
Facility.

Murphy (Moore)

26. Women prisoners at the Annex and CTF shall be provided with the opportunity of full-time (three hours pet day, five days per week at CTF and five hours per day, five daye per week at the Annex)basic education to includeABB, GED, and Special Education classes.

Murphy (Moore)

COTUI10NMII

PLANNED

ACTUAL

2/95

Compliance or Hon-Compl fance (If Non-cooptiance, State Reason andNew Completion Dar*1flf rrmpliancp St«tc Hnu R*tna Arhif>vt-ril
Compliance-UDC classes are held evenings which maximizes the inmates' opportunity to work.

2/95

Compliance-A Patrol &Escort Officer is assigned daily to ensure compliance. Post Orders are in place for escorting inmates to programs.

1/95 1/95

Compliance-January 8, 1995, an additional full time teacher was assigned to Annex,but she has been returned to shift due to a mandate from personnel and smal1 class size. UDC college has always been coed.
Compliance. Effective 8/17/97,Dr. Onyemenem's detail as teacher was cancelled due to mandate from D.C. Personnel Office regarding personnel detaila,Mra.Emma Gray is teaching Dr. Onyemenem'a class.

Agency Implementation Plan/Tracking Report

DEPT./OFFICE! D.C. Dept. of Corrections Minimum Security F a c i l i t y

INITIATIVE: Women P r i s o n e r s o f DCDC v . D . C . , e t a l C i v i l A c t i o n No. 9 3 - 2 0 5 2 PAGE 4

LEAD PERSON: Jamee P. Murphy

iutfS*. (703) 643-1019

wit tf imu. 09/10/97

mm urn

29- Within 90 days, the Defendants ehall provide appropriate substitute teachers or instructors during absences of regular teachers or instructor of wore then three working days. The provision of a substitute teacher or instructor shall not result in increasing the class slxe beyond acceptable co—unity standards for a period of ti«e exceeding 15 consecutive school days.
35. The Defendants shall conduct affirmative outreach to women during the enrollment period for vocational training. This out reach shall entail DCDC staff meeting with women at least one month before the deadline for program enrollment to inform the women that the new programs are available and to offer a full description of the available programs andany applicable criteria for participation.

Murphy (Moore)

cnnniotMn

PLANNED

ACTUAL On-going

Compliance or Non-Compliance (If Non-compliance, State Reason and New Couplet ion Date)(lf Compliance, State How Being Arhii'Y'-ril
Compliance. When a substitute teacher i s needed, a teacher from the existing staff la assigned to Instruct the women. See memo8 attached t o June reporting. Mrs.Gray's a.n. class size is 3 students for GED c l a s s . Eighteen studente are in the p.m. ABE claae.The community standard for GED and MB clasa s i i e i s 30 students. (Verified with Kathy HcCormick of DC.Public School System.)

Compliance - Not a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e Minimum Annex.

Agency Implementation Plan/Tracking Report

DEPT./OFFICEiD.C. Dept. of C o r r e c t i o n s Minimum S e c u r i t y F a c i l i t y

INITIATIVE: Women P r i s o n e r s o f DCDC v D . C . , e t a l Civil Action NO. 93-2052 Page 5

LIU Nun.Janei T. Hurphy
W M TAM
40. Hithin «0 days, the Defendant• shall provide each woman prisoner housed in the Annex dormitories at least one vertical locker and on* foot locker.

ULUWML (709} 6431019

"•"inn

OWLaTinH MTO

PLANNED

ACTUAL

Murphy (Riley)

3/95

MTI of utfiMi, n«»/in/<»7
Compliance or Non Compliance (If Non-compliance,State Reason and Hew Completion Date)(If Compliance. State How Beinq Achieved)
Compliance-OIC of the dormitory inspects dormitories and reports any deficiencies in t h i s area to the Property Officer. The Property Officer in turn provide* a v e r t i c a l and/or foot locker-

41. Hithin 30 daya, the Defendants s h a l l replace a l l torn mattresses and pillows at the Annex with clean, untorn, f i r e - r e t a r d a n t mattresses and pillows. The Defendants shall conduct a regular inspection of a l l mattresses and pillows and s h a l l , at that time, immediately replace any mattresses that are damaged to a degree that prevents adequate cleaning.
42. The Defendants shall immediately use cart liners or disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry at the Annex.

Murphy (RileyJ
Hurphy (Riley)

12/95

Compliance - Sanitation & Environmental Officer inspects mattresses and pillows weekly. All items comply with specifications in thia area. Torn mattresses and pillows are replaced.

1/95

Compliance-Laundry is transported in 1ined laundry c a r t s . Female R&D Officer places laundry in plastic bags for storage. Laundry is placed on shelves that are lined in plastic.

Agency Implementation Plan/Tracking Report

DEPT./OFFICEiD.C. Dept. of Corrections Minimum Security Facility

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v D.C.,et al Civil Action NO. 93-2052 Page 6

U M niw.JMCi P. Murphy
•WOK 1MB
44. Effective immediately, the Defendant* •hall ensure that all housing units at the Annex are issued a timely, adequate and appropriate amount of cleaning supplies.
63. Ensure all bed linen, blankets, and curtain or draperies in Annex dormitories are of fire retardant material.
64. Conduct fire drills monthly and document.
65. Defendants shall conduct and document mandatory semi-annual training on fire safety procedures for all correctional officers.

nLuansi <703> 643-1019

camixttoa u > n

PLANNED

ACTUAL

Murphy (Riley)

1/9S

U T . rg ltmnil 09/10/97
Compliance or Hon-Compliance {If Non-compliance.State Reason and New Completion Date) (If Compliance, State How Beinq Achieved)
Compliance - Supplies are issued weekly to the d o m e by the Supply Officer.

Murphy (Riley)
Murphy (Riley)
Murphy (Riley)

10/95 11/13/96 3/97

3/97 7/31/97 On going

Compliance-Bed linen fc blankets are fire retardant. They are made at Industries out of materials that are fire retardant. Venetian blinds were installed March 1997.
Compliance-Minimum Security Facility Fire Marshall conducts fire drills monthly. Fire drill reports attached.
Compliance-Trained correctional personnel on fire safety procedures. Continuing process under the 40 hour Mandatory (per the Director) Employee Training. Developing and incorporating second training session for Btaff . List of staff who attended 40 hr. training for month of August attached.

Agency Implementation Plan/Tracking Report

DBPT./OFFICEiD.C. Dept. of Corrections Minimum Security Facility

INITIATIVE: Women Prisoners of DCDC v D.C.,et al Civil Action NO. 93-2052 Page 7

uu win J I M I P. Murphy awsa nm
66a. Conduct weekly inspections and document on all buildings and grounds.

ttoWMt (703) 643-1019
»•—"-'
PLANNED Murphy (Riley)

ACTUAL
6/8 to 8/27

«T! Of .»»!• 09/10/97
Compliance or Non-Compliance (If Non-compliance,State Reason and New Completion Date) (If Compliance, State How Beinq Achieved)
Compliance-Sanitation t Environmental Officer conducts weekly inspections.(See attached!

6€.b.Conduct quarterly inspections of all fire safety equipment, and document inspections.
66.c. Ensure Institutional Fire Harahal conducts quarterly inspections of the facility.
67 b The Harden oC Hinimum shall obtain the Fire Department's report within 10 days and promptly give a copy of the Plaintiffs' counsel. Thereafter, the Harden shall cause any fire safety deficiencies identified in the Fire Department's report to be remedied within 30 days, or shall provide a report to the Fire Department as to why the deficiency cannot be B O remedied and provide a plan to remedy the deficiency within a further period of time not to exceed 90 days.

Murphy (Riley)
Murphy (Riley)
Murphy (Riley) (DCDC Fire Marshal and A. Charles)

5/ie/97

Compliance in conjunction with specifics noted in 067.

5/18/97 7/30/97

Compliance in conjunction with specifics noted in 167. Quarterly report attached to report dated 5/18/97.
Compliance-DC Fire Harahal inspected Minimum on 7/30/97. Copy of deficiencies, plan for abatement pending receipt.

JtCBfCT HmWBffMTZOII PtMt/WCKIHO

DCFT./OfFICt: Otpirty Director for P i o y w

INITUTfVC: Wonwn frtomri ». OC CA 93-2052

TB.9H0NC: UOH 717 7 7 M

MAJOR TASK

PEHSON f AOTNCT

28. Women prisoners shall have some financial assistance for higher education as males at Central, Occoquan and Medium.

J. itiofim
A. MM-Simmont

V). proviae suoscitute teac'R'er's' during regular teachers absence or more than three days. 36. Insure a l l contract programs provide compatible services with order.

J. Ttomn A. HW-Sknmom
J . TnOTMS
R. GUnon

COMPICTION OATI

PIAMMEO

*C1UAt

3/12/95 5/30/95

6/12/95 7/13/95

6/t2A5

6/12/95

OATt OF UfDATt:
September 2, 1997
STATVI: COMPIMMCI OR MOH'CONVIMMCC
C. . • . W M M
Compliance* All higher education programs receive department appropriate funds
compliance, rormuiatea a substitute teacher's l i s t and operational procedures. CofflpHsnct. IncmiM for ntw piopunu.

AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/TRACKING REPORT

D E P A R T M E N T / O F F I C E I Office of Environmental
Safety and Sanitation

INITIATIVE:

Women Prisoners of DCDC v. D. C et a l . C i v i l Action No. 93-2052

LEAD PERSON:

Ajak Kapoor Acting Chief Facilities Henegemnt

H&KR TASK

TELEPHONE 1 703/643-2074

D A T E O F U P D A T E : September 5, 1997

RESPONSIBLE PERSON/AGENCY

COMPLETION DATE

PLANNED

ACTUAL

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

Status: Compliance or Non-Compliance I f Non-Compliance State Reason, Remedy,
and planned completion Date. I f Compliance state how achieved and attach documentation. I f any.

39.

Within 90 days the Defendants s h a l l :

Anlccto Charles

(b> conduct a vermin eradication program to eliminate the present Infestation of vermin. The Defendants shall thereafter promulgate and follow an a f f e c t i v e vermin eradication program.

53.

Defendants shall develop and implement

Ancteto Charles

an effective rodent prevention

program.

01/95 01/92

Compliance: A monthly vermin control plan at the Mint nun Security F a c i l i t y was Implemented in 01/90 to Include:
• spraying once e month • changed Insecticide • female Inmates were educated
The monthly Pesticide and Rodent program was not conducted this month because of the lack of man-power.
*' Compliance: A monthly rodent prevention program has been In place since 01/92 at the Minimum Security F a c i l i t y .
A copy of the monthly Pesticide and Rodent Control Sheet I s attached to t h i s report.

fmttC 1 Of 1

I »« 1

» " I p»p|AOjd « J » N DPPy :*3ut|]dyK>3

S6/C0/M W/tL/21

u»mn| M

- X ] | ) | M j )tJ)tWs «m ) • t«|j]tnpu) • m U| UMKM JOf • • I M l l 3 * * Xj*i(int
•|qfflt»39l X)| pi*j put )u*|3|>>nt •PIAOjd 01 «nu|)uO3 )|«(|« l)UtpU*^«0

Ni

IK |4*}UMri3Op l|3«tt* pU« p«A»|tpl HOlj • ) « ] 3u«ndno3H n
pui 'Apawsj 'UOIB»J 9)«tf M; 3ua | 4 » 3 :sniV!S

1W13V

QSNNVld

3111SMMS3I

xsviw r w

lidl 'S JsqmidS! :; ivodn JO 3ivo

J \mAnins '3 puoMAVV iHOSVM OVil

ZS0Z-C6 '°N uoiiay 1}A|3 • ' 3 "d "* 0030 | ° •J»uo«|Jj uavon

SS|Jl * f U | / 3 O M :33lJJ0/lN3Ml»dM

DNDOVffl/hWld

AOTKCY IMFLBHENI&TION PLAH/TRACKtNG REPORT

DaVr/nrricXi FacUitlea Xanaosawnt UOD t U O l i Ajay latcor

nunnai

nmutnii TOJ-HI UK

«o«en Prisoners of DCDC v. DC, et al Civil Action Ho. 33 2052:
Dan O» UVfXTK: September 10. ~-»97

• u a i TlfKi

USTOMIBU PIMOa / aOMCY

(#j*t Defenduit* shall rake nec*«e*ry alterations tt both -Jw CTfind U N Kinioon Becurit} Annex within (0 (UTO to ensure t b i t voufl ba*» privacy 13 their XWiag, alecping ami ehover trwit.
l«<5) Detsadtnta »h«:i provide auf^lcLeat progxMn «fi*c* »c *b»t WDMII priaonaraMr. participate m aqvaV andadaquau projraMs •ad B*rrlc« •• ccnpftrat to a«n pricorara. Th* d*C«ndant> shall provide at leaa: two *<Mitloa*l trail«TB at the inrex {with (uactlocal sanitary tarUlit«s) to allow for additional progcaaaai^ «ctivltl«i.

ow;acu.
CMC1B8LL

(#;03) Mlthln one y»ar, theDefendant* shall atmsaXL rayair or rap.ac* tb* rsofi oi Aonax Dot* Cc7
and r»t*ln L^MK i s a watertight condition.

(•tC«l sitHil »0 iay*. theUef«ndants soali repair :heJLinex Jozotfl I O U to prevm; cf.r an-ry and retuga sC vesoir and AaLl caddict a vernln •ralloatlor. progtA to *1 Imitate the px*«ent InfMtatlaa of v«rvin. The Defandasts shall thereafter proavlgat* a.-id 'ollow an eftectiv* varain axsdicaticn proarac.

CMt?BSLL

CCMfUtTIOH DA7Kt

7U»IED
:/u/»«

ACTTW,
1/17/95

I2/LJ/9S

12/20/9E

12/ll/M

5/S/3S

3/U/M

5/i/9S

•taTOS; CsHpllaac* or Nc«-C««p}iascs {Zf Ccttpllaac* atat* bow avapliaitca waa aebiawdt (If Hoo-Coavlianea state raason, rsiafly, aaC plaaaed coa«tl«tLoa dM.«t
CoaaplJance-- CcnpJ*t*d SDproxfMately 7/2L/SS, Bmci: curtalr.v «MI« inatalled and window cov«ra mr« l n i u i s d tDocinRTtatioo piuW.ded 11/1^/961
Oorflllanre Two CrcLlecs M I I itiaLalled ta directed by couxt crdar. tDocunantatior. provl led S/1/96)
CoopKance; ROD fa at ;ne Annex doras ««7 vecc replacad • • diieclei! by tourt o;d«i ;DoCI.IT.ta:ion ?row'dod 5-1 9t)
OQBf>ltanc«: Inspected l-S-96 ;oocunetitaLiDn provided ii-l3-»6>

40ENCY IMPLBMENTKTIOV BLAN/TWaCKIHG REPORT

DBrr./Q*rxci: Facilities ftamagMasat LBftft m m i AJsy Xafoor

ZMITI*Ttni TKLamcOHt 703 -<43 13S«

MoBMn fi.BOnari of OCOC v . EC, et s i . C i v i l fccUoa KO. 9J-20M:
IAT1 GT anHTIi Septanbsr 1C. 1997

w « niK:

KUP3MIXHJR HBSOM / MBKT

ccmrtMTzoa n ? s *

(•131) Ftar ii Lang as tfca JUMX d o m l u t l s a s i * double bwk, ttM Defendants shall, within CO day*, piovida a artni«u* of 13 -?oot carvSlex ot prt»oiwr-cortroll«d l i f h e to each

rAnos

( ^ J t ) Mlthir £3 cay*, the fcefsndaittft «h»ii connect ^h* f o i l e e * «nd hand tlafca i o <v*t/ JUuisjf t n i l « c .
<|U3I Klthir «0 d»y». th# Br^rn4an£.« shall impiov* tb« v«tntl]*tloa> s t the (•)Annex dor*ltoti«», I'ctprint sbop aid (c; g a n e n t shop so that t h s quality oC a i r .n tlwsc a:eas ia brcu^ht up t* an acosptabl* l e v e l .
(11131 Within 9fi **fB. the tefeiuluit* shall i a a t « l l m draiaag* syatcv a. ths Annex which mill prevsax aaxaxdou* sccusi-latidju z>t Mtar.

CUUBBU.

ILMHID

ACTUAL

2/11/94 3/1J/M

1/17/9S 1/17/9S

3/l»/>4

3/14/»S

ffCUOBi
Ca^>lt*3c« or Mcii'CcspllsAC* (If CoB^Xlsncs *tat« how cMtpliSBcs was soblsnrad) (If >oc-C(aa»ltsac* vtats riasoo. trnnmitf, sn£ p l i t a t d coaplatian d«t*(
Itoii-Crt^illenreT MAtstials received Juns 17, 1S9C 16 Ttotnltory waLl a i t l e t s installed August 5. .996 fl Vatnltoiy no: i n s t a l L d Koscn prlsoneca need to b<* rel^csted jrlar t,o iast«L~_atlcr..
Co*c>liance O&kCK ftraoaTel cs>f>leted Job aa oidcr by th* court, fDecuHematicn frovirfed 11/15/IO
CuMplianc* (n cl Mco-Conpl.l«nc«: f*t (The icoiallaticn of ths verti)*tion s(}u'pnert i s completed J-i Dormitory rt. Dormitory #7 has not been Itisla led) GcheduL«o cospleticn, 9/2S/97
Co«pl.*.nc»: r^Mpietfed or. wort orders. socus.«.iCat.lon pcovidad 11-7-96

ixpLnanrrAXioif PLAV/TRACKIMQ MPOKT

HOT/OTVICBi r e a i l U l e e thiM^wtnt L I U natMMi fcjay Xapw>r

IMXTIAnVBi

Vav»n Pcivonaza o£ DCDC v . DC, « t «1 . Civil Action 5c. 91-2)52:
DUB or n o n i : io-scp-97

um niti

axavcaiaiKJi
maai / awn

93HMKIOI DAIIt

(•114) 3e5cnd«-it* »iall praniL9Bte •nd follow 3PFAKD a written Pr*v«ntiv* Maintenance (la.1 fcx the Annex dona, tzm An.iax trailers, and Annex growia.

<|12i) Vi:his 120 daya, the Defendants eheK i n s t a l l and iwLntaia a annual Eire m'.mn. *y»tc« Mod Cir# dstacttcn ayeten «his!i coveie a l l ireao uaed by wancn prlaor.cr* at MlnlMm, i n c l i d l i g thft IIIIPK Onrwm- 1t-p firp
detect ion ayatm nuec include amofc* Jetect.ora In a l l fl«aplng and day roan ar««e. and ancle or h*mz detectors In a l l oUier areaa-
(|13() Oef*nd*.-ite rmimt n p t i r or i«plac« &h« (Ire alinn aya:.f!H io the Admlr. Blcg., the cafeteria and $yw at: the Hlnlnun -i^lr. conp»jnd.
(1121) ^crendar.ts 3kist Install e iprlaKler •y«t«*r In th» kmtx Dona and prcrvid* l 20nin-Jte fire-t«^«d encluiur* of stiiiaae rooas located In botr. Dcrna.

FAYlCIt rAYLOB

?utmx>
12/li/S3

AJCTUU.
1/2/54

4/U/94

C/27/M

C/IJ/M
c/tJ/M

inTDfi
Compliance cr •oc-Coaalltcce (If CtM»li*E«* • * • * . • kcw coaplianca • • • acbl«v*dl (If MonCoapliance i t a t * reeaoe, immm&r. «nd planned cosftletlam d«t«t
Ccapliance: Ptmieiiti*w Nelntenence work order* art printed weekly fsr d l i t r i b c t l o n to Genet aL Formtn . iwuik ordvsra B^tBched *u report on «/L0/»1>
Men Cocpllar.ce: (Protect started Juix 37, 1996! Fire •L«rn mat*! led In 46 Do re i t cry Augu*t 3, 1CM.Tire Bierc aysrev not installed -o a? Natexlals received, need !CK*1: prisenrra relocated pilot :o Ii»_*llaLior..
Oonpilanoe: in«t«llai-on ccnpleted 2,28/3T
Hni Cu fU*i.Ce : Pioc lequC^L bftirg tollac OVM for FY-»7. S9AD l*J-97

mPLMBMTATIOir PLUr/imAOCIll3 BKPOKT

VBPT./OfriCIt r k c i l l t l M Hmn*g9wmnt U U HlSOIr Ally *afooi

XVITXATI7BI Motaen P r i t o n e r * 3 f DCDC T DC. *t al . " i v l l A c t i o n MO. 91-2052

vmtMMtma* 'Oi t o : j i t

MT1 OF t m a r i i SepL«abex 10, 1997

MOW TJLHi

mrattiiu raHM / AGUKV

camnn unti

fUUMID V. ?!.« IATC1T

<t**) Iffectlv* Iwediataly, and i n accordant* wlTh Dciartvant Order KO. 2920.]*, th» Dt»tricz of Clotrabii ahal-: (a)ccid-jct fire ••r»ty inspections of tbt Xmex not l u i CKaauBntly ciuit ««ncy U aooclu.

ROHMJ) JDtKIMC

12/13/93

ATTtnL

rnnii CoBpllaoc* o i Him r»w|i1 Ian a UE C«fitlu>«« at«t« aowficav'.tKBC*w*s aohl«\*d) HC •oo-Cci«|kllBiie« #tkt* n * « o o , tmrnmij, and p l i u « d c o a p l i t l o a d t t t l
Oxapliancez An inap*«:tLcn by ~he DC, f l i e £«p«ctiaer.c vsa conpleced or. 7/J0/97. 1b« nott irftpec'.ion I s scfaciluled fut 6/91. Acxpy cf tha tfTittan raport fro* t(w O.C, Fic« D«parntn«t l a pfe«ati*3-

:

MINIMUM SECURITY FACILITY STAFF FORTY HOURS IN-SERVICE TRAINING
FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST Charles Thomas Sheila Tritle Margaret Taylor Sabrina Watkins
Kevin Washington Derek Thomas
Reginald Starr Albert Tyalor Robert Smith Anita Stovall
"••T

Government of the District of Columbia DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Minimum Security Facility Box 5000
Lonon. Virginia 22199
September 2, 1997

MEMORANDUM

TO

James F. Murphy

Acting Warden

THROUGH: Acting Deputy Warden for Operations

John,E. Pendergraph

FROM

utlonTire Marshall

SUBJECT: Fire Drill fOr August

A fire drill was conducted in Six and Seven dorm. Starting time for the drill was 5:10 a.m. endine time was 5:12 a.m. for six dorm and 5:18 a.m. for seven dorm. Seven dorm radio number 13 was not working, so the communication was not good. The second officer Cpl. Johnson was in the Medical trailer when the fire drill was called. There were a total of sixty-three (63) inmates present during the drill. The following Correctional staff were present during the drill Lt. C. Parker. Lt. Johnson, Cpi. G. Brown, Cpl. Jenkins, Cpl. Suber, Cpl. T. Johnson, and Cpl. Pearson. Control Center was notified when the drill staned and ended and the communication with the control center was good.

Fire. Drill j_,fi^

FIRE DRIIXS

INSTITUTION TIME DRILL STARTED_ TIME DRILL ENDED

5 '• \O

EVALUATION

Were officers Jcnowi edgeable of evacuation plans? TISsZ :IC

Mocic Drilla Evacuation

Was the department's fire marshal present? YES NO

Comaunication with control. GOOD^/ BAD

Was air-pack monitor on the scene to help with evacuation

search and rescue operation? YES

M^

Were all exits utilized? YES -/-NO

EVALUATE

BT
db L

DEPARTMENT FIRE MARSHAX

INSTITUTION TIRE HARSHAL

C

Ci

Weekly Inspection Form Culinary Unit

Date Inspected: [}p* '/ -^7 /

Time:

responsible staff person on duty during inspection : // n •

Inspected by: C / tj'tCXJJt^

Title: (_OJ

Lighting: #/*£ ii^hi O^Ct //I

2. Exit Doors/Signs:
3. Floors:

Q t\

4. Freezer Temperature/Space: _

5. Dishwasher/Temperature: 6. Steam Line/Temperature: nOf&QGs,

I 7SLJ I (~>

7. Interior Door:

^

8. Food Covered:

—

9. Food Label: fD$f/K /Cj/7^V f5L6Z'*L 5 flpDCJ/*$ &

10. Non Food Items Separated from Food Items:

11. Inventory Lists:

I

12. Refrigerator-Orderly/Temperature:

tff% fCE^ft&t/^

13. Plumbing: M #

14. Staff Bathroom:

Qj

15. Inmate Bathroom:

C//C~

16. Counters-Operable/Clean:

17. Stoves-Operable/Clean: Qr\

18. Pots/Pans Clean/Stocked: 19. Loading Dock:

C/£

20. Electrical Outlets: (Extension Corols/Wires not near flames/water)

131 J\ fittfilt/

1314

II Illl II ~*: 1 T V f ~ l J

I ••

CULINARY

;

21. Seating Area Clear.:

Page 2

22 . Water Fountain:

23. Resident Chairs/Tables/Benches:

24. Fans: ~P,i r\A
,C
25. Inmate Work Schedules/Assignments-Posted:

—r*

26. Ceiling:

/

\

•>'

2 r-

Meat Slicer:

/./. <

28. Vermin Control- Last date Extermination:.^

29. Sleeze Bar: L fU(^KfCi Ts", y O.dJ* r

30. Deep Fryer:

31. Ice Machine:

32. Trash Cans (Clean, Lids):

•

/

/

;

33. Interior/Exterior Hallways and Exterior Grounds:

34. Staff Dining Room:

35. Menu Cards:

36. Trays/Plates/Utensils: Pot rack need cleaning:

37. Menu Posting:

38. Diet Listing: 40. Windows-Glass Door Panels are clear/good repair:

/ IZtlitittL*

41. Smoke/HeaWDetectors-working/installed:

42. Fire Alarm/Sprinkler System working: Cj fr((f\ I /y ft

43. Fire Evacuation Plan posted:

Dl( '

44. Fire Extenquishers/Inspected and in place: */ >C

45. Employee/Inmate apparel appropriate:

U\**-

Culinary .

•' -,

4 6 . Telephone's working:

ciL

47. Food Stored in Freezers/Refrigerator:

48. Store Room:

r - ' '" -''•->

• -

Page 3

Weekly Inspection Fcrm Medical Unit

Date Inspe ted: Y) -' ixs —^/ ~~7

Time: ''?

Responsible staff person on duty during inspection:

1. Floors: 2. Walls:

Zt /?//.

3. Exits Doers/Signs:

-1. Lighting:

5. Post Orders:

6. Fire Extinguishers:

7. Cabinet Security:

8. Syringe Inventory; H Q.m^fU<J

a Hazardous Wast Containers: 10. 02 Containers Secured:

(j[
OI

6*J&*s/

11. Staff Dress:

12. Record Files:

.13. Stairways/Ramps: Qf\

HSS

14. Heat/Air Conditioning:

15. Locks/Handles:

16. General Furniture:

17. Equipment:

(j((

IS. Telephone:

19. Fans: 20. Windows:

file

21. Triage rooms in housing units clean, running water, no non

medical items stored therein:

if)L

_^__^^_

Medical Unit

' ,.'

•

Fage 2

22. Isolated rooms are clean, free of dust and debris: ^'/(

23. Equipment requiring sterilization is handled, sanitized, ar^cl

property stored:

n i^'->QdSAbl ~*---

24. Pharmacy refrigerator temperature is : H '^ /"-'

25. Thermometer stored properly: 26. Supplies clearly marked:

tji *5 L/u

27. storage areas clean and orderly:

28. Stinks and usage identified (re: wash hand signs

29. Staff sterilization/hygiene supplies are adequate:

30. All vents clear and devoid of dust:

31. Linens soiled with hazardous body fluids clearly labeled and

stored separately from other soiled ALi-nen in plastic, d i s -

solved wast bags:

ftj

j fT

32. Showers, bath areas clean and unobstructed: X I //I

33. Adequate handicap facilities: 34. Smoke and heat detectors working: 35. Fire alarms system working: .

Q/U
AJ

36. Exit doors not blocked and clearly lighted:

37. Emergency fire evacuation plans for hospital patients promin-

ently posted:

l)K_

38. Evacuation drills documented:

CYC

39. Fire Extinguishers serviced on schedule:

OtC

40. Patients' bed linen, clothing and body (including hair and

teeth) are clean/sanitary:

Mi )-\ft

41. Patient's rooms are clean and, jifl obstruction impede passage ways:

42. Adequate walkers, wheel chairs, bed pans:

fl//h

r •*•

Medical 43. Pharmacy medicine dated {not expired)
(f

FRONT ENTRANCE

WEEKLY INSPECTION REPORT SIX DORMITORY - (Sgt. Newell)
8/08/97

BATHROOM Screens torn out needs replacing need soap dishes
DAYROOM floor tile needs replacing -
SLEEPING AREA Screen torn out needs replacing windows are cracked

under roof screen needs replacing. Birds are making nest

•

*"*•;.

WEEKLY INSPECTION REPORT SEVEN DORMITORY - (Sgt. Mcpherson)
FRONT ENTRANCE glass cracked BATHROOM mirror needs replacing DAYROOM Ice machine being repaired T.V. ROOM Air condition need face plate HAIR-ROOM Air condition needs face plate one light is out A-wing B-Wing Window broken near back door LAUNDRYROOM
Wire is hanging outside back of seven dorm
t of

Weekly Inspection Form Meaical Ur.it

Date Inspected: \ "*"//" '/ /

Time: f

Responsible staff person on duty during inspection:

if,/'

Floors: Walls:

Clc
QIC

Exits Doors/Signs: Lighting:

u
HiC

Post Orders: Fire Extinguishers:

C f\

Cabinet Security: _
S. Syringe Inventory: JfjQ p
9. Hazardous Wast Containers: 10 C2 Containers Secured: 11 Staff Dress:
Record Files:

\~' /•
f\
6;

/
i \O HO

Uf\

Stairways/Ramps:

(\ nc

i*i Heat/Air Conditioning: 15 Lccks/Kandles: J.6 General Furniture:
Equipment: IS Telephone:
19 Fans: /\l/ft

f >
Q(L
OK
C f
L//x

•C 'J Windows:

21. Triage rooms in housing units clean, runnliinngg//^waater, no non

medical items stored therein:

iLJA.

Medical Unit

• <,., •

.

• „

21- Isolated rooms are d e a n , free of CTJSL aiici :.3c;.;: !

?~ge 2

2 3. Equipment requiring sterilization is handled, sar.iticeri, ar.c

property stored:

{ \,<. l^"-> i V 1\t-—i—

2 4. Phar-ary refrigerator temperature is :

__________!_____

25 . Thermometer stored properly:

V-; i

T'r. S u p p k : e s clearly marked:

C ^

Storage areas clean and orderly:

C_K—

JL C Stinks and usage identified (re: wash hand signs' ( f-. 2.1. Staff sterilization/hygiene supplies are adequate: L jL

r-iC. Ail vents, clear and devoid of dust:

(,'[<.

31. Linens soiled with hazardous body fluids clearly labeled ana

stored separately from other soiled linen in plastic, dir-

soived wast bags:

hi in

32. Showers, bath areas clean and unobstructed: /

33. Adequate handicap facilities:

L_!_L

'SK. Smoke and heat detectors working:

35. Fire alarms system working:

/\J P

36. Exit doors not blocked and clearly lighted: f, A--

37. Emergency fire evacuation plans for hospital patients promin-

ently posted:

Q

38. Evacuation drills documented:

9. rire Extinguishers serviced on schedule:

QJL

40. Patients' bed linen, clothing and body /(including hair and

teeth) are clean/sanitary:

K< iff

t

41. Patient's rooms are clean and _ac*!obstruction impede passage

ways:

/

42. Adequate walkers, wheel chairs, bed pans:

/J//j

Tm

r^r™~: • m • iri i ° i • " • H T M n

\ •»J • ; 1

43. Pharmacy medicine dated (not expired):

(JL

/I
T'Wk I III

Weekly Inspection Form Culinary Unit

Date Inspected:

Time:

responsible staff person on duty during inspection:

Inspected by: Q^^i^CA

Title: Cc(

1. Lighting: 2. Exit Doors/Signs:

OK

3. Floors: 4. Freezer Temperature/Space: 5. Dishwasher/Temperature: 6. Steam Line/Temperature: 7. Interior Door: 8. Food Covered: 9. Food Label:

nK ITL
7,.
OcadU <0k
01/ QIC

10. Non Food Items Separated from Food Items:

11. Inventory Lists:

OIC

12. Refrigerator-Orderly/Temperature:

13. Plumbing:

jjcJU'fl.i UfldJp/

14. Staff Bathroom:

if]

15. Inmate Bathroom: 16. Counters-Operable/Clean: 17. Stoves-Operable/Clean: _ 18. Pots/Pans Clean/Stocked:

ok.
)4occl f\-ta:</
OL

19. Loading Dock:

20. Electrical Outlets: (Extension Cordsr^vpcs not near

flames/water)

•

^ A-

T" H ii in

CULINARY

'

21. Seating Area Clear.:

Page 2

22. Water Fountain:

0 L~

23 . Resident Chairs/Tables/Benches :

OIL-

24. Fans: jO) (\ "'blfclJ.l r t^/l

25. Inmate Work Schedules/Assignments-Posted: f)\C-

26. Ceiling: % . *UU? f\^ldt> T ? ^|Qk.'fl,i/k f'A
27. Meat Slicer: 28. Vermin Control- Last date Extermination: Mny Pr, 3 r10" — . O"~^=> /* /

29. Sleeze Bar:

Q.

30. Deep Fryer:

31. Ice Machine:

32. Trash Cans (Clean, Lids): MiMJ 0 |T6£> O lO

33. Interior/Exterior Hallways andExterior Grounds: Q/C

34. Staff Dining Room:

Oft—

35. Menu Cards:

36. Trays/Plates/Utensils: Potrack need cleaning: QA -

37. Menu Posting:

£j

38. Diet Listing:

/}

40. Windows-Glass Door Panels areclear/good repair:

41. Smoke/Heat Detectors-working/installed: .

t)l(— ^£_

42. Fire Alarm/Sprinkler System working: f\j fj

43. Fire Evacuation Plan posted:

44. Fire Extenquishers/Inspected andinplace:

45. Employee/Inmate apparel appropriate:

UML.

Culinary

>

46. Telephone's working:

47. Food Stored in Freezers/Refrigerator

48 . S t o r e Room:

SZxsp,rr\

Page 3

of

FRONT ENTRANCE

WEEKLY INSPECTION REPORT SIX DORMITORY - (Sgt. Newell)
8/12/97

BATHROOM Screen torn out needs replacing Need soap dishes
DAYROOM floor tile needs replacing
SLEEPING AREA
Screen torn out needs replacing windows are cracked

under roof screen needs replacing. Birds are making nest

/£" tf-

WEEKLY INSPECTION REPORT SEVEN DORMITORY - (Sgt. Mcpherson)
8/12/97
FRONT ENTRANCE glass crac.-:ed BATHROOM mirror needs replacing DAYROCM Ice machine being repaired T.V. ROOM Air condition need face place HAIR-ROOM Air condition needs face plate one light is out A-wing
B-Wing Window broken near back door LAUNDRYROOM
Wire is hanging outside back of seven dorm

Date Inspected :

Weekly Inspection Form

Medical Unit

y -~£°]~L7 /

Timmee: 7 - O

Responsible staJif
5 V
1. Floors:
2. Walls:

on
OfS

3. Exits Doors/Signs:

u/\

4. Lighting:

Or-'

5. Post Orders:

A In

ring inspection:

6. Fire Extinguishers: 7. Cabinet Security: _

£/A-—

8. Syringe Inventory :«•

9. Hazardous Wast Containers:

10 02 Containers Secured:

11 Staff Dress:

12, Record Files:

13, Stairways/Ramps: f^>OC 14. Heat/Air Conditioning: 15. Locks/Handles: 16. General Furniture: 17. Equipment:

f
Of-
OIL 0L

13. Telephone:

19. Fans:

20. Windows:

21. Triage rooms in housing units clean, running water, nonon

medical items stored therein:

/J//r*

^

Medical Unit

T

:

22. Isolated rooms are clean, free of dust and debris:

Page 2

23. Equipment requiring sterilization is handled, sanitized, ar.d

property stored:

ft

ftJ^

24. Pharmacy refrigerator temperature is : ^7 0 H~J

25. Thermometer stored properly:

26. Supplies clearly marked: ^_____ •27. Storage areas clean and orderly;

OIL-

28. Stinks and usage identified (re: wash hand signs)

29. Staff sterilization/hygiene supplies are adequate:

30. All vents clear and devoid of dust:

olc

31. Linens soiled with hazardous body fluids clearly labeled and stored separately from other soiled linen in plastic, dissolved wast bags:

32. Showers, bath areas clean and unobstructed: A/7/7

33. Adequate handicap facilities:

34. $moke/and heat detectors working:

35. Fire alarms system working: 36. Exit doors not blocked and clearly lighted:

eft-

37. Emergency fire evacuation plans for hospital patients promin-

ently posted: _

(j [

38. Evacuation drills documented:

dt.

39. Fire Extinguishers serviced on schedule:

40. Patients' bed linen, clothing and body (including hair and

teeth) are clean/sanitary:

A//7~

41. Patient's rooms are clean and no obstruction impede passage

ways :

fj ft

42. Adequate walkers, wheel chairs, bed pans:

1• i

Medical 43. Pharmacy medicine dated (not expired):

Page 3

Weekly Inspection Form Culinary Unit

Date Inspected : 0/9^/^f f

Time: 6"'3tO

y

i

responsible staff person on duty during inspection:

Inspected by: ^^tjSBjSUJ^

Title: /ff/f* U'jli

1. Lighting:

((00LL-

2. Exit Doors/Signs:

OK—

3. Floors:

4. Freezer Temperature/Space: 5. Dishwasher/Temperature:

/ft jp

6. Steam Line/Temperature: 7. Interior Door:

UIC-

8. Food Covered:

9. Food Label:

rifl

tt

10. Non Food Items Separated from Food Items:

11. Inventory Lists:

_/j

12. Refrigerator-Orderly/Temperature:

13. Plumbing:

xrt

if\

14. Staff Bathroom:

QIC-

15. Inmate Bathroom: f\Q £tk&>&(~ 4 ^

16. Counters-Operable/Clean:

17. Stoves-Operable/Clean:

18. Pots/Pans Clean/Stocked:

19. Loading Dock:

20. Electrical Outlets: (Extension Cords/Wires not near flames/water)

rrr i ; m

4
!
I
i •
I

CULINARY

Page 2

21. Seating Area Clean:

&K—

22. Water Fountain:

0/C~

23. Resident Chairs/Tables/Benches:

24. Fans:

25. Inmate Work Schedules/Assignments-Posted: _ _ _ _
26. Ceiling: /hCfC-l ££////[& -A-£-^ fAftfok-*

27. Meat S l i c e r :

28. Vermin Control- Last date Extermination:

29. Sleeze Bar:

(_^fLiC-jCtC/

30. Deep Fryer:

Oh~

31. Ice Machine:

32. Trash Cans (Clean, Lids): H&.&f 4S*^Lt(M

33. Interior/Exterior Hallways and Exterior Grounds: OK—

34. Staff Dining Room:

35. Menu Cards:

36. Trays/Plates/Utensils: Pot rack aeed cleaning: 37. Menu Posting:

38. Diet Listing:

40. Windows-Glass Door Panels are clear/good repair:
/

41. Smoke/Heat Detectors-working/installed:

4432..FFiirree EAvlaacruma/tSiporninPkllaenr pSoysstteedm: working: U

44. Fire Extenquishers/Inspected and in place: (i/tC—

45. Employee/Inmate apparel appropriate:

Uf^—

K-i l*\

Culinary 46. Telephone's working: 47. Food Stored in Freezers/Refrigerator:
48. Store Room: PC'ff-/Kt£(_
fuu
1

Page 3

CU

FRONT ENTRANCE

WEEKLY INSPECTION REPORT SIX DORMITORY - (Sgt. Newell)
8/27/97

BATHROOM Screen torn out needs replacing Need soap dishes
DAYROOM floor tile needs replacing
SLEEPING AREA
Screen torn out needs replacing windows are cracked three lights are out

under roof screen needs replacing. Birds are making nest

£3

WEEKLY INSPECTION REPORT SEVEN DORMITORY - (Sgt. Mcpherson)
8/27/97 FRONT ENTRANCE glass cracked BATHROOM mirror needs replacing DAYROOM Ice machine broken T.V. ROOM Air condition need face plate HAIR-ROOM Air condition needs face plate A-wing
B-Wing Window broken near back door LAUNDRYROOM
Wire is hanging outside back of seven dorm

 
 DEPARTMENT ORDER DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Department Order Subject:

:

Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates

Department Order Number: 3350.2B

OPI Code: Signature:

hapter: Personnel Management

Effective Date: October 15, 1997

telated ACA Standards:
3-4268

The purpose of this directive is to establish the DC Department of Corrections (DCDC) policy regarding sexual misconduct against inmates; to discourage and prevent sexual misconduct against inmates; and, to establish uniform procedures for reporting, investigating, and adjudicating incidents of sexual misconduct in the DCDC. Hereafter, reference to investigation and adjudication procedures for complaints of sexual misconduct shall also include complaints of retaliation and breach of confidentiality.

II. Policy:

It is the policy of the DCDC to prohibit employees from engaging in

romantic relationships with inmates. Acts of sexual misconduct against inmates or retaliation

against inmates who refuse to submit to sexual advances are prohibited. Further, retaliation

against individuals because of their involvement in the reporting or investigation of a sexual

misconduct complaint is prohibited. The DCDC will fully investigate and discipline persons who

violate this directive.

III. Applicability: This directive applies to employees, volunteers, and inmates under the purview of the DCDC.

IV. Authority: The Executive Deputy Director, Deputy Directors, Wardens, Facility Administrators, Office Chiefs, Managers, and Supervisors have the authority to enforce the requirements of this directive.
V. Directive Affected: This directive cancels Department Order 3350.2A, "Sexual misconduct Against Inmates," dated May 15,1995.

VI. Definitions: For the purpose of this directive, the following definitions shall apply:

A. Employee - A volunteer, contract worker, or any person who is paid by the Department to serve as its agent.

B.

Sexual Misconduct Coordinator (Hereinafter Coordinator) - A Department

•employee designated to coordinate the inmate sexual misconduct complaint process.

ic JUN 2 2 1998

NANCY MAYER WHlVTiiKiW

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

—II

"

Page 2 of 14 D.O. 3350.2B October 15,1997
C. Investigator - An individual authorized by the DCDC to investigate sexual misconduct against inmate complaints.
D. Respondent • The person accused of sexual misconduct.
E. Retaliation • Restraint, interference, coercion, acts of covert or overt vengeance, or threats of action to discourage, prevent or punish either an inmate for refusal to submit to sexual advances or any individual because of his/her involvement in the reporting or investigation of a sexual misconduct complaint
F. Sexual misconduct - Sexual behavior by a DCDC employee, volunteer, agent or individual working on behalf of the DCDC that is directed toward inmates under the care, custody, and supervision of the Department. Sexual misconduct toward inmates includes acts or attempts to commit acts of sexual abuse, sexual harassment or invasion of privacy.
1. Sexual Abuse is defined as:
a. forced or coerced sexual act or sexual contact as defined by DC Code, Sections 22-4101 through 22-4106; or
b. any sexual act or sexual contact between an employee and an inmate (See DC Code, Section 22-4113 through 22-4114). Sexual contact shall include, but not be limited to, the touching of any clothed or unclothed body part for sexual reasons. Sexual contact between an inmate and an employee is sexual abuse even if the inmate "consents."
2. Sexual Harassment is defined as:
a. verbal or physical sexual conduct that creates a hostile, offensive, or intimidating environment This includes obscene or sexually offensive advances, gestures, and comments; or
b. influencing or making promises involving, among other things, an inmate's safety, custody, privacy,* housing, privileges, work detail, or program status in exchange for sexual favors; influencing or threatening an inmate's safety, custody, privacy, housing, privileges, work detail, or program status because the inmate has refused to submit to a sexual advance.
3 . Invasion of Privacy
a. Observing, attempting to observe, or interfering in an inmate's activities, which are of a personal nature, without a sound penological reason, or

Page 3 of 14 D.O. 3350.2B October 15,1997

b.

Failure of an employee of the opposite sex to announce his/her

presence, without a sound penological reason, when entering an inmate's housing unit.

VII. Procedures;

A. Inmate Notifications
1. Each inmate shall be notified of the prohibition against sexual misconduct and of the requirements in this directive. Each inmate shall be provided with written information on sexual misconduct and how to report sexual misconduct

2. The DCDC shall take appropriate steps to communicate this directive to inmates with reading and language difficulties or physical limitations.

3. This directive shall be posted on inmate bulletin boards, placed in law libraries, and as appropriate, in inmate publications.

B.

Staff Notifications

1. This directive and any other written directives pertaining to procedures for handling allegations of sexual misconduct against inmates shall be given and thereafter made readily available to each DCDC employee.

2. Volunteers, agents and individuals who conduct business in DCDC facilities shall receive notification of the prohibition against sexual misconduct including procedures for prevention, reporting, investigation, and adjudication.

C. Responsibilities

1. DCDC Employees

a. Each employee shall strictly adhere to this directive by ensuring
that his/her conduct does not constitute or promote sexual misconduct

b. Each employee who receives any information, from any source, concerning sexual misconduct or who observes incidents of sexual misconduct, is required to immediately report the information or incident directly to the affected Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief or to the highest ranking official on duty at the time of the incident.

Page 4 of 14 D.0.3350.2B October 15,1997

c. Failure of an employee to report an allegation or any facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that sexual misconduct is occurring or has occurred, shall subject the employee to discipline, in accordance with the attached Table of Penalties and as under authority of the District of Columbia Personnel Manual (DPVf) Chapter 16, "Employee Discipline".

d. No employee, manager or supervisor, except the Investigator who is assigned to the complaint, shall conduct an inquiry or investigation into the circumstances related to the allegations.

e. Any interference with an investigation of sexual misconduct or refusal to answer proper questions during an official investigation, may be grounds for discipline in accordance with the attached "Table of Penalties."

2. Managers and Supervisors : In addition to responsibilities of all employees, managers and supervisors shall be responsible for the following.

a. All sexual acts and sexual contact shall immediately be reported, by the Warden (or Office Chief if the incident occurred at a non-institutional work site) or the highest ranking staff member who is on duty, to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.

b. When sexual acts or sexual contact is alleged, the on scene supervisor shall immediately secure the crime scene. The Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief, or the highest ranking staff member who is on duty, shall immediately notify appropriate law enforcement authorities.

c. The alleged victim shall immediately be given the necessary emergency medical treatment, without compromising the integrity of available physical evidence. If deemed necessary by institutional medical personnel the inmate shall be transported to an outside medical facility.

d. The official who receives the complaint must take immediate action in accordance with this directive to ensure the safety of the inmate.

e.

Failure to take other appropriate action, as defined in this

directive, when sexual misconduct is alleged or has been determined to have occurred, shall

subject the manager or supervisor to sanctions under The DC Personnel Manual (DPM) Chapter

16, "Employee Discipline".

3. Sexual Misconduct Coordinator: The Coordinator shall make an
appropriate evaluation of all sexual misconduct complaints received from all sources and shall be
the only authority responsible for initiating a sexual misconduct investigation.

Page 5 of 14 D.0.33S0.2B October 15,1997
D. Sexual Misconduct Complaint Reporting Procedures For Inmates
1. Any inmate may make a confidential report of sexual misconduct through the twenty-four (24) hour telephone hot line. This number shall be given to inmates at intake and at orientation and shall be posted in areas accessible to inmates and in the Command/Control Center.
2. An inmate may file a sexual misconduct complaint to the Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief by forwarding a letter or utilizing the DCDC's inmate grievance system, as described in Department Order 4030.ID, "Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP)," dated May 4,1992. The inmate may file the complaint directly with the Director as an "Emergency," as in accordance with Department Order 4030. ID.
3. An inmate may verbally advise any employee of acts or attempted acts of sexual misconduct.
E. Sexual Misconduct Complaint Reporting Procedures for Staff
1. Each employee who receives any information, from any source, concerning sexual misconduct or who observes incidents of sexual misconduct, is required to immediately report the information or incident directly to the Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief, or the highest ranking official who is on duty at the time of the incident.
2. The Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief (or the highest ranking official on duty) shall make immediate verbal notification to the affected Deputy Director and the Coordinator when sexual misconduct complaints are reported.
3. Each employee shall submit a written report, providing any information received or observed that concerns sexual misconduct to the Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief, or the highest ranking official on duty, before the end of his/her work day.
4. The Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief shall forward one copy of written sexual misconduct reports to the Deputy Director and the Coordinator by the end of the workday.
F. The Coordinator
1. If the Coordinator receives an allegation of sexual abuse via the telephone hot line or direct correspondence, the complaint must be verbally reported immediately to the affected Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief and the Deputy Director. The Coordinator will provide follow up written notification to the Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief and the affected Deputy Director by the close of the business day.

Page 6 of 14 D.O. 3350.2B October 15,1997
2. When the Coordinator notifies the affected Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief of complaints of sexual acts or sexual contact, the Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief must immediately notify appropriate law enforcement authorities.
3. In conjunction with the Security Administrator, the Coordinator shall communicate with the law enforcement agency concerning the status of any investigation. The Coordinator must document the status of the police investigation every thirty (30) days. The occurrence of a police investigation does not relieve the Department of the duty to investigate the complaint of sexual misconduct
4. The Coordinator shall conduct an intake screening interview with the complainant regarding the report of sexual misconduct to determine whether the conduct complained of constitutes sexual misconduct and whether the investigation shall proceed.
5. If the Coordinator requires guidance regarding sexual misconduct complaints, he/she shall consult with the Assistant Corporation Counsel assigned to the women prisoners' class action suit or the DCDC General Counsel.
6. The Coordinator shall notify the Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief and Deputy Director verbally and in writing, of a each complaint regarding sexual misconduct and whether the complaint is referred for investigation.
7. If the complaint is referred for investigation, the Coordinator shall provide written notification to the respondent, advising of the complaint, investigation procedures, confidentiality requirements and the prohibition of communication, intimidation or retaliation against the inmate.
8. The Coordinator shall then forward the complaint and the complaint screening/intake form to the Investigator.
9. If a determination is made by the Coordinator that the complaint filed on behalf of an inmate docs not involve sexual misconduct, the Coordinator shall deny the claim. However, if the complaint does state a violation of another Department Order, the Coordinator shall refer the complaint to the appropriate Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief for disposition. The Coordinator shall send notice of the rejection of a complaint, when it does not constitute sexual misconduct, to the affected Deputy Director and Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief, the complainant (If the complainant is a third party informant the notice will be sent to the victim) and to the Assistant Corporation Counsel and General Counsel.
G. Interim Procedures During Investigation
1. Under appropriate circumstances and with the Director's approval,

Page 7 of 14 D.0.3350.2B October 15,1997
the Deputy Director may transfer or place a respondent on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation.
2. An employee who has been transferred to another work site pending completion of an investigation shall not be permitted to work overtime, or work for any other reason, at the location where the complainant or the alleged victim is housed or works. An employee who has been transferred doring an investigation of sexual misconduct against a female inmate, shall not be permitted to work with female offenders under any other circumstances. Transportation Officers who are under investigation for sexual misconduct against a female inmate shall not be assigned to escort any female inmate. An employee who has been determined to have engaged in sexual misconduct against a female inmate, shall not be permitted to work with female offenders under any circumstances.
3. Whenever the decision is made not to transfer or place a respondent on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation, the respondent shall not be assigned to work in any area where he/she is likely to come into contact with the complainant. The respondent shall be advised by the Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief to make an immediate report if an assignment places him/her in contact with the complainant. The respondent shall also be advised that any contact with the inmate is cause for disciplinary action.
4. The affected Deputy Director shall decide if it is appropriate to return an employee to his/her original workplace after the investigation is completed.
5. When appropriate and necessary, the affected Deputy Director may transfer an inmate to another institution or make other appropriate housing accommodations. An inmate shall only be placed in administrative segregation or protective custody in accordance with applicable prison disciplinary codes. Effort shall be made to minimize any disturbance of the inmate's housing location or program activities during the investigation of pending complaints.
H. Sexual misconduct Investigations
1. The Investigator shall conduct a thorough and objective investigation of all allegations. The investigation shall include interviewing the complainant, the informant, the alleged victim if the information is received from another source, the respondent, witnesses, and reviewing all documents and physical evidence.
2. The Investigator shall contact the affected Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief directly for interview scheduling and coordination. All inmates and employees shall receive at least three (3) days advance notice of scheduled interviews and shall be advised of the right to legal and/or union representation. The Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief shall ensure that the inmate is allowed a legal call upon request to secure presence of counsel.

Page 8 of 14 D.O. 3350.2B October 15,1997
3. If the inmate or employee being interviewed has legal/union representation, the Investigator will explain that only the person being interviewed shall answer the questions but he/she can consult with the representative prior to answering the question.
4. The Investigator shall advise each individual interviewed in the course of an investigation that any intimidation, retaliation or breach of confidentiality by an employee is a separate offense which is subject to disciplinary action.
5. The Investigator shall draft a statement detailing testimony from each complainant, respondent, and witness.
6. The Investigator shall permit the employee or inmate to read and make any necessary corrections/changes to the statement prior to signing it. The name of the confidential informant will be deleted from the copies of the report distributed by the Coordinator.
7. The Investigator will submit a final written report to the Coordinator within thirty (30) days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) of knowledge of the incident. The report will include the investigator's factual findings and a conclusion as to whether there is evidence to support a conclusion that sexual misconduct has occurred.
I. Post-Investigation Procedures
1. Within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt of findings from the Investigator, the Coordinator shall notify the Executive Deputy Director, the affected Deputy Director and the Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief of the findings and forward all documentation for appropriate action. If the findings conclude that sexual misconduct has occurred, the Coordinator shall also forward a copy of the Investigation report to the Director.
2. The Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief shall provide a written notice to the inmate, within forty-eight (48) hours as to whether there was evidence that supported a conclusion that sexual misconduct occurred. The notice shall also inform the inmate of appeal procedures. The inmate shall sign acknowledgment of receipt of this notice and the Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief shall forward a copy to the Coordinator.
3. In cases where the complaint was made by an individual other than the alleged victim, the third party informant/witness shall not be notified of the findings and recommendations. The affected inmate shall however receive notification of the findings.
4. The Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief shall inform the employee of the Investigator's findings and recommendations and shall take appropriate
disciplinary action against employees who are found to have engaged in sexual misconduct.

Page 9 of 14 D.O. 3350.2B October 15,1997
5. The Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief or appropriate management official responsible for employee discipline shall ensure that disciplinary action is proposed in accordance with The DC Personnel Manual (DPM) Chapter 16, "Employee Discipline".
6. The Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief shall advise the Coordinator in writing of disciplinary action taken against an employee who was determined to have engaged in sexual misconduct, breach of confidentiality or retaliation against an inmate. He/she shall also advise the Coordinator in writing of actions taken pursuant to other recommendations resulting from the investigation, regardless of a finding of sexual misconduct.
7. The Deciding Official shall notify the Coordinator of any disciplinary action taken resulting from a finding of sexual misconduct The Coordinator shall forward notification of the disciplinary action to the Executive Deputy Director and the Director.
J. Confidentiality
1. The sexual misconduct complaint, including the identity of the informant, the respondent and the victim and ali information and documents pertinent to the complaint, shall be handled in a confidential manner and shall only be revealed on a need to know basis, to include the respondent, witnesses, the Coordinator, Director, Executive Deputy Director, appropriate Deputy Director, and the Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief. The Security Administrator shall be informed when criminal sexual behavior is reported.
2. Any inmate who observes and reports an act of sexual misconduct may request and be treated as a confidential informant.
3. To further maintain confidentiality, written notification of the investigation to employees shall be issued directly from the Coordinator. Inmate notification shall be handled as legal mail.
4. Each individual interviewed shall be advised that they are required to maintain confidentiality and not disclose to anyone information regarding the complaint, the investigation and the outcome. They shall be advised that failure to maintain confidentiality can result in discipline as a separate offense.
K. Inmate Appeals
1. After receipt of notice, an affected inmate who is dissatisfied with the investigation or resolution of a complaint of sexual misconduct, or the inmate's attorney may file an appeal to

Page 10 of 14 D.0.3350.2B October 15,1997
the Director within five (5) calendar days of receiving written notice of the outcome of the investigation.
2. An inmate or the inmate's attorney may submit a written request signed by the inmate to the Coordinator in order to review the investigation report. The Coordinator must review and edit the report to remove confidential information, including but not limited to the identity of confidential informants, medical information, personnel record information or information which will compromise security issues. An unedited and edited version shall be maintained in the Coordinator's files.
3. The Director shall notify the inmate and the Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief in writing of the results of the appeal within ten (10) calendar days. The Director shall forward a copy of all documents relevant to the appeal to the Coordinator.
4. The Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief shall ensure that the affected inmate and the respondent receive the Director's findings on the appeal. The Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief shall ensure that the Proposing Official shall receive a copy of the Director's findings of the appeal if disciplinary action is being proposed. If no disciplinary action was recommended by the Investigator and if new evidence is received in the appeal or the Director presents other compelling evidence that supports disciplinary action against the employee, the Director's appeal 'decision shall be immediately forwarded to the Deputy Director and the Warden, Facility Administrator or Office Chief for appropriate action.
5. An appeal shall not delay the implementation of any determined disciplinary action against the employee.
L. Training": Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Training" shall be conducted for DCDC employees, volunteers, and inmates as follows:
1. The DCDC shall conduct mandatory Pre-service and annual in-service training for all paid employees and contract employees. Certified trainers on "Prevention of Sexual misconduct Against Inmates" shall conduct training which shall include education concerning DC law and DCDC policies and procedures for recognizing, preventing, reporting, investigating and disciplining employees for acts of Sexual Misconduct
2. Specified employees shall receive forty (40) hours of specialized training in working with female offenders. Semi-annual enhancement training on special issues relating to working with female offenders will be conducted for select employees.

Page 11 of 14 D.0.3350.2B October 15,1997
3. Each Warden shall ensure that weekly training for inmates in the prevention of sexual misconduct against inmates is conducted. The training shall include education concerning DC law and DCDC policies for recognition, prevention, reporting, investigation and discipline. Inmates shall be advised of the prohibition of sexual misconduct. Additionally, inmates shall be issued an informational handout designed to help recognize and report sexual misconduct to include use of the confidential hot line telephone number. Documentation of inmate training shall be maintained in the inmate's institution record and the attendance roster shall be maintained by the facility Deputy Warden for Programs.
a. The Central Detention Facility (CDF) Warden shall ensure that weekly intake training in the prevention of sexual misconduct is conducted for all newly committed inmates.
b. All other Wardens shall ensure that weekly training in the prevention of sexual misconduct is conducted at Orientation when each inmate is transferred into the facility.
M. Disciplinary Causes
1. The DCDC shall impose disciplinary action against persons found in violation of this directive in accordance with Chapter 16 of the DPM. Cause for such violations shall be cited as provided in DPM Section 1603.1 (d) "Inexcusable Neglect of Duty" and/or 1603.1 (p) "Other conduct during and outside of duty hours that would affect adversely the employee's or the agency's ability to perform effectively." One or both of these causes shall be cited depending on the nature and severity of the offense.
2. Managers and supervisors who fail to report or take appropriate actions when instances or complaints of sexual misconduct against inmates are brought to their attention shall also be subject to disciplinary action. DPM Section 1603.1(d) "Inexcusable Neglect of Duty" shall be cited as cause for such failure to abide by this directive or take appropriate action. Managers and supervisors who fail to follow a direct order to initiate appropriate action may also be subjected to charge for cause under DPM Section 1603.1 (e) "Insubordination." Further, refusal by any employee to answer questions during an official investigation may also be grounds to charge the employee for cause under DPM Section 1603.1 (m), "Willful disobedience except as authorized by law." Penalties for causes not specifically listed under the Table of Penalties contained herein, shall be taken consistent with DPM Section 1618.
3. The DCDC shall impose discipline for cause as cited above, based on a determination that sexual misconduct against an inmate has occurred. However, this does not preclude the DCDC from taking separate and distinct disciplinary measures against an employee who has later, under separate proceedings, been found in violation of DPM Sections 1603.1 (j), "Conviction of a Felony"; or, 1603.1 (t), "A finding by the Office of Employee Appeals, the

Pagel2of 14 D.O. 3350.2B October 15,1997
1603 1 (v), "Conviction of a misdemeanor, when the conviction is based on conduct that would affect adversely the employee's or the agency's ability to perform effectively "
N. Table of Penalties
1 The "Table of Penalties" (Attachment 1) shall be used by supervisors and managers in assessing disciplinary penalties for each of the listed instances of misconduct. In selecting the appropriate penalty from the range of penalties specified, consideration shall be given, as appropriate, to the severity and nature of the offense as well as mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Time limits for citing prior infractions are governed by DPM Section 1608.2.
2. The "Table of Penalties" shall not be considered to be all-inclusive. A specific instance of sexual misconduct that is not listed in the "Table of Penalties" may be the basis for disciplinary action if it is shown to be an instance of one or more of the causes listed in DPM Section 1603.1. In any instance where an offense is not specifically listed, the determination of an appropriate penalty shall be made through a comparison with the offenses/penalties listed herein.
DC. Dissemination;
A. Upon the effective date of this directive, the Director, Executive Deputy Director, Deputy Directors, Wardens, and Office Chiefs shall issue a copy of this directive to each incumbent employee under their authority.
B. The Human Resources Management Unit Personnel Liaison Coordinator shall ensure that all new employees, except Correctional Officers, shall receive a copy of this directive within five (5) days of entry on duty.
D. The Training Academy Administrator shall ensure that all new Correctional Officers shall receive a copy of this directive within five (5) days of entry on duty.
E. Both incumbent and new employees shall sign for receipt of this directive on the "Acknowledgment" form (Attachment 2) which shall be forwarded to the Human Resources Management Unit Personnel Liaison Coordinator
X. Reporting:
A. The Coordinator shall maintain a central filing and reporting system for incidents of sexual misconduct against inmates.
1. A copy of all complaints and related documentation; reports including investigation findings, correspondence, appeals and appeal findings, correspondence from attorneys, and employee disciplinary actions that were sent to or received from either the Director, Deputy Directors, Wardens, s, or Office Chiefs shall be forwarded to the Coordinator

Page 13 of 14 D.O. 3350.2B October 15,1997

2. The Coordinator will enter pertinent data from these documents into a data base for tracking and management

B. The Program Analysis Officer shall assist the Coordinator in developing a comprehensive data base tracking system. The Program Analysis Officer shall maintain statistics and prepare a quarterly report which shall include the following basic information regarding sexual misconduct complaints:

1. The number of complaints received,

made;

2. The number of complaints in which a finding of sexual misconduct was

3. made; and

The number of complaints in which a finding of no sexual misconduct was

4. Discipline taken against employees and other administrative actions taken.

c. The Program Analysis Officer shall compile and forward the quarterly statistical report to the Director, Executive Deputy Director, Deputy Directors, Wardens, s, and Coordinator.

XI. Annual Review: The Office of Policies and Procedures shall ensure that this directive is reviewed at least annually and revised if necessary.

XEL References:

A. DC Law 10-257, Anti-Sexual Abuse Act of 1994.

B. Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections v DC. Civil Action No. 93-2052 (JLG) (D.C.D.C.)

C. District of Columbia Government Integrity Standards.

D. District of Columbia Personnel Manual (DPM) Chapter 16.

E. Manual of Regulations and Orders (July, 1960) "Basic Regulations for All Employees," Chapter I

F. Department Order 3350 1, "Employee and Inmate Relationships," dated June 29, 1992.

Page 14 of 14 D.O. 3350.2B October 15,1997
G Department Order 4030. ID, "Inmate Grievance Procedures (IGP)," dated May 4, 1992.
H. Department Order 5410.1, "Procedure for Handling Institutional Persons Suspected of Committing Crimes in Institutions," dated November 14, 1969.
I. Department Order 5410.3A, "Reporting Assaults Committed on or by Residents," dated June 23, 1978.
Attachments: 1. Table of Penalties 2. Acknowledgment Form

Attachment 1 DO3350.2B October 15,1997

TABLE OF PENALTIES

OFFENSE
1. Sexual Abuse by an employee directed to any inmate as defined in Department Order 33SO.2B, Sec VI, F.I. 2. Sexual harassment, as defined in Department Order 33SO.2B, Sec. VI, F.2. by any employee and directed at an inmate.
3. Invasion of an inmate's privacy by an employee without sound penologicai reasons or failure to follow appropriate penologicai procedures as defined in Department Order 335O.2B, Sec. VI, F.3.

1CTOFFENSE Termination
Reprimand to Termination
Reprimand to 13-Day Suspension

PENALTIES 2ND OFFENSE
N/A
30-Day Suspension to Termination
15-Day to 30-Day Suspension

| 3RD OFFENSE
N/A

Termination

1

i
30-Day Suspension to Termination

4. Retaliation by any employee against another employee

15-Day

Termination

N/A

or an inmate for reporting complaints of sexual misconduct, Suspension to

assisting in making such a report, or for cooperating in the

Termination

investigation of such a complaint regardless of the

merits/disposition of the complaint.

Attachment l(a) DO 3350.2B October IS, 1997

TABLE OF PENALTIES

OFFENSE
5(a). Any interference with investigations of sexual misconduct.
S(b). Unjustified refusal to testify or answer proper questions in an official-District or Federal Government investigation, inquiry or proceeding, as defined in Department Order 3350.2B., Sec. V1I(H)2. |Cause for charge 5(b) will be cited as a violation of DPM Section 1603.1(m)]
6. Any breach of confidentiality by any employee concerning any report of sexual misconduct.
7(a). Failure by any employee to report any suspected incident of sexual misconduct against an inmate or retaliation for cooperation in an investigation of sexual misconduct.
7(b). Failure by any employee to report any witnessed incident of sexual misconduct against an inmate.

I S T Offense Termination
Reprimand to 15-Day Suspension Reprimand to 15-Day Suspension
15-Day Suspension to Termination

PENALTIES 2ND Offense
N/A
15-Day to 30Day Suspension 15-Day to 30 Day Suspension
Termination

RD
3 Offense N/A
i
30-Day Suspension to Termination 30-Day Suspension to Termination
N/A

Attachment 2 D.O. 3350.2B October IS, 1997
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Office/Division/Institution:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This is to acknowledge that I, on the date indicated below, have received a personal copy of Department Order 33S0.2B, "Sexual misconduct Against Inmates," dated October 1,1997.

PRINTED NAME

SIGNATURE

DATE

Note: Incumbent employees, upon the effective date of this directive, and all new employees shall be issued a copy and sign for receipt of this directive on this form pursuant to Section MIX. Dissemination". This "Acknowledgment" form shall be forwarded to and maintained in the Office of the Human Resources Management Unit Personnel Liaison Coordinator.

Women Prisoners/DC v. DC
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • IIMHI IIHI I
3C-DC-011-040

 
 Women Prisoners/DC v. DC

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
LICENSING REGULATION ADMINISTRATION ,^ ,

HEALTH FACILrTY DIVISION

MAILING ADDRESS

PHONE: 202-727-7226 FAX: 202-727-7780

614 "H" Street. N.W. Room 1003 Washington. DC. 20001

Covington & Berlin
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001

MAR 2 3 (993

Dear Sir/Madam:
Enclosed you will find the Enviromental inspection report for the Correctional Treatment Facility, performed on October 14-17, 1997. Included is the schedule of inspections for the current year 1998. If there are any questions do not hesitate to call Tomas M. Marquez, Inspector, at (202)727-7190.
Sincerely,

Enclosure(s)

/ Geraldine K. Sykes
Administrator

\ FILED
* JUN 2 2 1998
NANCY MAYER M/MTTIN6T0N, UERK U&. DISTRICT COURT
TUT

GOVERN....;NT OF THE DISTRICT OF COL-.^BIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS SERVICE FACILITY REGULATION ADMINISTRATION
•* •

': n3 1997

MEMORANDUM

TO

Sherryl Watson

Consent Decree Coordinator

THORUGH

Geraldine Sykes Administrator

FROM

Judith R. Program Manager
Tomas M. Marquez Sanitarian/Dietitian

SUBJECT

Inspection Report of the Correctional Treatment Facility, Correctional Corporation of America

Enclosed are the Environmental Quality Assessment Work Sheets for the cell blocks, medical unit, the Food Establishment report for the Culinary area, the report of medical clearance for Culinary detail inmates, medical/dietary documentation and follow-up, and the review of food preparation methods and procedures.

The following areas were inspected:

Special Management Unit for Women, Medical unit, Infirmary, El A, E3A, E4A, E4B and Culinary area.

The inspection was conducted in accordance with the Standards for Health Services in Correctional Institution, American Public Health Association, 1986, Second edition. The facility was inspected on October 14 to 17, 1997.
Summary and other findings not included in the Environmental Quality Assessment Worksheet.
1. Air purification units in the three (3) isolation rooms at the Infirmary were dirty with grime, dust balls and dirt. The facility lacked documentation of previous filter changes and cleaning.
2. The Infirmary and Medical Treatment areas had floors dirty and accumulation of trash.
3. Opened medication vials were observed missing the date they were opened and initials of the nursing staff that open the vials.
4. The Infirmary was used to house handicap inmates. Cells walls lacked handrails to facilitate movement to and from the wheelchairs. The three cells housing four (4) handicap inmates contained a half bathroom, toilet and sink, whose door opening were too small to permit entrance of wheelchairs. This half bathroom lacked handrails.
5. Operating Procedure 106, page 3 of 3, Dispensing Procedure number 9, reads ".. .the medication nurse will prepare a three day supply of the inmate's medications..." this practice does not agree with DC Code Title 2 Chapter 20. Pharmacy which established that in the District of Columbia the only people who can dispense medications are a pharmacist, a physician and/or a nurse practitioner.
6. The Infection Control Nurse was working without the proper license. At the time of inspection the nurse had a permit to work only under the supervision of a Register Nurse (R.N.). The nurse was working by herself.
7. It was observed that food trays took approximately 27 to 30 minutes after being served to arrive at the cell blocks. Trays must be delivered immediately after being served to the cellblocks to keep food temperature in the safe range.

8. It was observed that diet trays lacked identification when they arrived at the cell block. Trays must include inmates' name and the type of diet.
9. During the days of inspection it was observed that the electrical panel located in the first floor of the E building was signaling "trouble."
10. The facility lacked documented evidence to show that the elevator had been inspected since 1996.
11. The facility added: two (2) cells for handicap inmates; a bathroom in building E; modified walls; added walls and made other electrical, plumbing and construction alteration without the proper permits.
12. Door closure in some cells were not working properly (see worksheet)
13. The kitchen had evidence of mice infestation. The facility needs to pay more attention to kitchen cleanliness and sanitation.
14. Sixteen medical records were reviewed for compliance clearance for kitchen detail inmates.
All inmates were cleared by a Physician Assistant. Medical Clearance must be performed by a physician or countersigned by a physician.
One TB screening form lacked the date when the Mantoux test was performed.
One record showed an outdated STS screening. The STS screening was outdated by over a year.
15. The Electrical Security Service Control Panel in the Special Management Unit for Women was damaged.

a ^ ^ B MTWCT O?COIUMW* BRA-28 ( « 7 » )

GOVERNM1 ? OF THE DISTRICT OF COLU1 A DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTION REPORT

Address. /9oi

Name of Licensee

Trading u CC/& t

FooO Service

Retail Store

3 ID

Other

Officer of Firm Inspect. Time Sanitation Rating

Date_

n

fif.

Customer #_ Number of Samples Collected

NOTICE TO ESTABLISHMENT This inspection was conducted to determine compliance with District regulations.

Effective action mutt be taken this date to correct all underlined deficiencies having a demerit value of 6. Other underlined deficiencies must be corrected as indicated under "Remarks". Failure to make the indicated correction within the specified time may result in court proceedings being initiated for the enforcement thereof.

A. STRUCTURE 1. Floors: dean - easily cleanable • in good repair - properly drained
2. VilalJj, filing u d overhead: Clean-easily deanable so scaling paint - in good repair
3. Lighting: adequate for operation

MEAT and MEAT PRODUCTS, INGREDIENTS. ICE. OTHER FOODS 1. (a) Source: approved
(bl Trichinae treatment for appropriate product containing pork muscle tissue
2. Condition: sound • dean - unadulterated only authorized food additives used

4. Ventilation: rooms reasonably free from odors, condensation. smoke etc.

3. Labeling: proper - no false or miriUarlinf statements products accurately described • accurate net weights

ToUeta/dressing rooms: dean - convenient - adequate• properly constructed and ventilated

4. Temperature of potentially hazardous food: 45 "F or less of 140'F or more - frozen foods at 0"F or below

Handwashing facilities: adequate • properly located' soap and towels
7 Plumbing: potable water supply - sufficient hotand cold running water DO back siphonage or cross connections • no overhead waste lines in critical areas
DEMERITS A
EQUIPMENT 1. Installation: equipment location permits easy access to
and cleaning of equipment and adjacent surfaces or properly sealed to adjacent surfaces

DEMERITS C
D. PERSONNEL
1. Outer garments: appropriate and washable - clean proper hair restraints
2. Good apparent health
3. Hygienic practices: (at good personal hygiene • hand washed and dean • proper and "lini""1 personal contact with food and food contact surfaces (bl Certified Food Supervisor

2. Refrigerated and hoc food holding equipment: adequate capable of majnt^mmg proper food temperature -in rood rjpjil - provision for separation of raw and fi>H products
3. Food Contact surfaces of equipment and multi-use eating and cooking utensils: constructed of suitable material - free of cracks, crevices, chips, rust or paint • equipment easily disassembled and readily ' * " " " * • dean and sanitized before each use - proper facilities and material available for rleaning and sanitizing
4. Non-food Contact surfaces: proper construction • deanin good repair - suitable *—ili^i— andmaterials available for cleaning
Cooking units, hoods and filters: dean • in good repair
DEMERITS B

DEMERITS D
GENERAL 1. Premises: no rodent harborage • effective vermin eon-
frol • only pennitted peabadcB used and property stored • premises free of Oman and litter - no hards or unauthorized •—*—*•>« - farilitim a*id materials available for rlraning
2. General storage: storage areas dean, adequate and properly utilised • food product ingredients, utensils and single service items protected from contamination • soiled linens and clean linens separated - contents of containers properly Kfr"»ifi—^ - poisonous materials properly labeled, handled and stored
Operating methods: food protected during display, packaging, processing and transportation • containers and wrappings sanitary • proper sequence of operations
4. Waste containers: property constructed and used • dean

TOTAL DEMERITS

DEMERITS E

REMARKS:

GOVEi . T OF THE DISTRICT OF CO DEPARTMEN1 CONSUMER AND REGULATORY .rTAlRS
BRA-2G
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTION REPORT

*$#.-•

Name of Licensee Trading as C C Fooe Service i——-"Retail Store |

| Other ;

. Officer of Fins Inspect. Time \ Sanitation Rating - O f ? sc

Customer r_ Num&er of Samples Collected « ^ ^ _ ^ _

NOTICE TO ESTABLISHMENT This inspection was cooaucted to determine compliance with Dismct regulaaons.
Effective action must be takes this date to eomct aOunderlined deficiencies having a dement value of 6. Other underused deficiencies roust be corrected as indicated unoer "Remarks". Failure to make the indicated comcaon withm tb* specified tune may result to court proceedings being initiated for the enforcement thereof.

A. STRUCTURE 1. Floors: dean * easily deanable - a good renaii • praperiy drained "^"""
DO scaling paint • m (ood repair
3. Lighung- aoequate for operation
4. VtsEuauaa: rooms rusonably frw irtan odon. eosdeesauoo. smoke etc
i Toilets, dnsang rooms-. «iMP- coovesunt - adequate properly constructed and ventilated

C MEAT aad MEAT PRODUCTS, INGREDIENTS. ICE.

OTHER FOODS

'

1. (ai Source: approved

:

fb> Trichinae traatae&t for appropriate product eon-

\C\)

taming pork muscle tissue

' 6

2. Condition: sound • clean - unadulterated • only

>

2

authorized food additives used

; 6

3. Labeling? propei - ao >•>*»or misleading statements • i

2

products accurately described • accurate net weights i 4

©

4. Temperature of potcnballv hazardous food 45 *F or ', - less of 1<O'F or man • tozen foods at O'F or below i (T)

6 Handwashuc facilities: adequate • properiy iocacad soap and toweis
7 PKimbinf: p^ahtt water suppiv - sufficient hot and cold running water no back sipoonage or cross connections no overhead waste lues is critical areas
DEMERITS A
EQUIPMENT I. Installation: equipment location permits easy access to
ana cleaning of equipment and adjacent surfaces or properly sealed to adiacent surfaces

•

DEMERITS C

D. PERSONNEL

1. Outer garments: appropriate and washable • dean -

proper hair restraints

6

2. Good apparent health

3. Hygienic practices:
(ai good personal hygiene - hand washed and dean proper and minimal personal contact with food and .food coDtacx surfaces
(biJCertified Food Supervisor

and hot food holding equipment adequate food itmpejratorg -
provision ior separi5on 6! raw ana finished proaucts
Food Contact surfaces of yynprr^nr and a u f a i w —»*"*£ and cooking utensils: constructed of suitable material - free of cracks, crevices, chips, rust or p a s t - equipment easily "'^affwmbtfi and readily cleanable • clean and saniuzed before each use • proper facilities and material
4 Son-food Contact surfaces: proper eonstTucbae ^ p m good reoajr • suitable facuiDes and materials available rordeaam^g
Cooiucg units, boods and filters: dean •in good repair
DEMERITS B

DEMERITS D

i E. GENERAL

DO rodent

~ <rfrft?TJve

only [•'">irrmA pesDodes useo aod properry stored *

premises free of oash w^ utter *no bads or unautbonz-

* >rwi gmxnals available for

General storage: storage areas d^an. adequate and properly utilized - food product ingredients, utensils and
singgle service items n nu upp^ i from
soiilledd llinens andd ddean unens separated - contents of containers prpoperH* ^ifi'iifMHi • pouooous matenals properly labeled, handled and stored
3. Operating methods: food protected during display, py'ifigwr processing and ffansportauoo - containers and wrappings sanitary - proper lequence of operaaans

Waste Qoocamers: prop

oed and uaed • dean

REMARKS

-BT

MHKT w CBUMU

j-

(REV i / u i

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS BUSINESS REQULATION ADMINISTRATION

PerSon/F:rm Reported by Subiecr: Continuacion of Food Establishment Inspection Report
Other
eference

I

?a

r-

<> ffaz-'

-/y
'C£^ &rc

JEPORT SHEET

WVUMMMI
8WTWCT WCOUWtU (REV. 1/151

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
BUSINESS REGULATION ADMINISTRATION

erson/Firm

e ported by

/

Address Dat*

jbjecr: Continuation of Food Establishment Inspection Report Other

, #99

dfrS
r

?EPORT SHEET

1

T

85-BPB9S - 0
vrmr

DEPARTMENT OF COr 'M \U0 REGULATORY AFFAIRS

,

HEALTH FACILITY DKrV. JN

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

FACILITY C-t- ' V T

S U R V E Y D A T E : CU~ if -<>7

SURVEYORS NAME ( — ^

CELL BLOCK - DORMITORY

CEILING: H20iea»ge

Pacing Paint

L O O M Piaster

gnffrti/dirry mold growtn

W A L L S : H20iaaK>ga

Graff*

dirty/mold grewtri

seating paint

Looae Master

F L O O R : Standing water

3roken/mtssing Tile /*?<•.. - » / ^ J A * / - »•! *L.
Cracked Dirty W I N D O W : frame ruatad/damag*

Covarad/Paintad Broktn/not ootratnnal
VENTILATION

Iroken/mtsaing grid

Vtnt/Exhaust obfaca

ntarfara

No ventilatjon/not operational

Dirty
Offensive, Odors

Kit temperature greater than 65 dagraia F
SHOWERS: Uncovered drains

Mow growth/mineral deposits

Curtains torn/dirty

Clogged

Leanng • hcad/knoo* r\ diarepar

Not working/tow pressure

' O I L E T : partition brokarvdirty damage

Not worttng/low pressure

Leaking • bate/knob/ptunger

Jirty - mineral owtd-up

Toilet Loose

Sink - Loose

No waterAow pressure

C togged

dirty

Ltaxing-faucet/knobavpiunffer/ln diarapar

Bsmroom area - duty/motd growth

Hot water temperature 10V-120 degrees F
LIGHTING - in disrepair

20 ft. candle* light - work area

30 ft. candletagrttbvmg area/study room

Lamp painted/covered

Duios. fixtures, window/dirty

Exit Itgnt-not operatnnal/in dtsreoar

Pest/vermits infestation

Cleaning supplies not available

No soap

No toilet paper

NofSDer towets

y

*G

H

— \*^

t^ -'

! i

DEPARTMENT OF CO' ifc AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

•

HEALTH FACILITY DlVls-ON

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

^ ,

FACILITY w T * -

,a :'• f*

SURVEY DAT= . - < - • $ - / •

SURVEYOR'S NAME ( -*O.

CELL BLOCK - DORMITORY

C E I L I N G : H20teaxaojt

Paefcng Pamt

Loose Plaster

jnffitVdirfy motd growth

W A L L S : H20 leakage

Graffiti

dirty/motd growth

scaling pamt

Loose piaster

F L O O R : Standing water

Broken/miss ing Tile

Cracked

>irty

W I N D O W : frame rusted/damage

Covered/Painted

Broken/not operational
VENTILATION

iroken/missing grid

Vent/Exhaust objects

interfere

No ventilation.

Dirty
Offensive Odors

ir temperature greater than 65 degrees F
SHOWERS: Uncovered drains

Mold growtrt/mmeral deposits

urtams tom/dirry

logged

tatang - head/knobs m disrepair

ot wortong/

O I L E T : partition broken/dirty damage

ot working/low pressure

eakmg -base/knob/plunger

irty • mineral build-up

oilet Loose

nk- Loose

o water/tow pressure

logged

rty

tatung-faucet/knobsvpiungerrtn dtsrepar

athroom area • duty/mold growth

ot water temperature 101-120 degrees F
IGHTING -in disrepair

20 ft candies light - work area

JO ft. candle hgrrt living area/study room

amp painted/covered

xjlbs. fixtures window/dirty

xrt Itght -not operational/*in disrepair

est/vermits infestation

leanmg supplies not available

osoap

o toilet paper

o tDer towels

*—
i^
•
24*4
u
if

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUWC* AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

"^

HEALTH FACILITY D)V >f\

.

ENVIRONMENT... QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

y-

CACILITY: . rt?

-.•*/—

SURVEY DATE.

SURVEYOR'S NAME. v>-

MEDICAL UNIT/DENTAL UNIT

x;.

C E I L I N G : H20 leakage

Peeling Punt

Loose Piaster/A..-i.graffiti/dirry mokj growth W A L L S : M20 leakage Graffito flirty/motd growtn scaling o«int

Loose piaster F L O O R : Standing water Broken/mis sing Tile
Cracked

Dirty W I N D O W : frame rusted/damage Covered/Painted Irokervnot ooerational
VENTILATION

)rokerVmiss4ng grill VenvExrtaust objects

.nterfere with

airflow No ventiietiorVnot operational Dtrty
Offensive Odors
Air temperature greater than 65 degrees P
SHOWERS:
Mold growth/mineral deposits

Curtains torn/dirty

Clogged Leaking - head/knob* Not wortang/low measure

" O I L E T : partition proken/dirty damage

Not wortang/low pressure

Leaking - base/knob/plunger

Dirty - mineral build-up oilet Loose

Sink • Loose No w*ter/k>w pressure

Clogged

dirty Leakjng-faueet/knobs/piungerAn disreeer

Bathroom area - dirty/moW grawffi

Hot water temperature 101*120 degrees F
LIGHTING - in disrepair

oulbs. fixtures, wmdow/dirty Exit Itgnt • operationalAn disrepejr

Pest /vermit infestation

Cleaning supplies not available

No soap No toilet paper

No oaper towels Screen* • broken/dirty

Screen missing

Fire alarm • Not operational

\ <s~
|
' S
i

IJI-I '

..-

...t

'jr.

.,.--

<

•

••-•/'

s• .

DEPARTMENT OF CO* 'M. ANDREGULATORY AFFAIRS

.

HEALTH FACILITY DM*.. JN

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

-—^

FACILITY S re- - _• .' H-

SURVEY DATE . - " '> - ' SURVEYOR'S NAME V>^-

CELL BLOCK - DORMITORY

CEILING: H20teaKage

Peeling Paint

L O O M Plaster jnffrti/airty mold growth
WALLS: H20 leaage
Sraffib

dirty/moid growth

scaling paint

LOOM piaster A " - a ^ r f - : . * — " F L O O R : Standing water

Broken/mis sing Tile

Cracked 3irty W I N D O W : frame rusted/damage

Coveted/Painted Broken/not operational
VENTILATION

ireken/missmg griH Vent/£xhaust obfacts

rrtarfare

No ventrtation/not operational

Dirty
Offensive Odors

IT temperature greater than 65 degraea F
SHOWERS: Uncovered drains

Mold growtrvmineraf dewsrtt urtains torn/duty

togged

eatong • head/knobs ve\ diarapair

ot wonanoykwv pressure

O I L E T : partition brolcen/dirty damage

ot vwrlang/low prasture

aaking • bas«Anob/piungar

trty - mineral buitd-up

otlet L O O M

nk- Loose

o water/low pressure

togged

rm/

eaKing-faucet/knoDsVplungw/tn disrepair

athroom area • dirty/motd growth

ot water temperatura 108*120 degrees F
IGHTING - in disrepair

K>ft.candles light • work area

)0 ft. candte bght hvmg area/study room

j m p painted/covered

ulbs. fixtures, window/dirty

xit light -not operattonaVin disrepair

est/vermits infestation

leaning uiooites not available

osoap

otortef oaper

o aoer towels

>
> <

.!*-•-
ft'r

^

iix

.. -

.

DEPARTMENT OF CON' \L *ND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

•

HEALTH FACILITY DIVIV .M

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

^~

- A C U I T Y L> ' - - - ' -• 0*

SURVEY DATE .-- *- \4~ $7 SURVEYOR'S NAME. <^

CELL BLOCK - DORMITORY

f*ef i

C E I L I N G : H20 leakage

Peeling Punt

LOOM Plaster jnlfiU/dirty mow growth
WALLS: H20iMiaa«

Graffiti

dirty/motd growth

selling punt

LOOM piaster F L O O R : standing water Broken;missing Tile Cracked
Dirty W I N D O W : frame rustad/damag*

Covtrad/Paintad

IroKan/not opanltonai
VENTILATION

BrokerVmissmg gnl

Vtnt/Exhaust obfacts

intarfar*

No vanMation/not opantionai

Dirty
Offensive Odors

Air ttmpenttur* graatar than 65 dagraa* F
SHOWERS: Uncovered drains

Mold groMrth/mmaral daoosrts Curumc tooVAfty

Ctogg«J

LMWng • naad/knooa m disrapair

Not wortung/tow prassura

O I L E T : partition braKan/dtfty damaga

Not worMng/low pratsura

Leaking • bas«/kno6/plung«r

Dirty • minafil bu»W-up

Toilet L O O M

Sink - L O O M

No water/tow prcasura Clogged

dirty

Lukjng-fiucat/knoM/plungar/in dtarapar

Bitnroom area • dirty/motd growth

Hot water temperature 101-120 degra«i F
LIGHTING - in disrepair

20 ft. candles bant • work area 30 ft candle bgnt living area/study room

IC ir

Limp painted/covered

oulb*. fixtures, window/dirty

Exit light -not ooerational/in dtsreosir

Peswermrts infestation

>

Cleaning supplies not available

!

No soap

No toilet paper

•

No aoer towels

FACILITY:

DEPARTMENT OF CON.' \ *ND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

•

HEALTH FACILITY DIVtStw.<J

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

^

CT/? - CC-&

SURVEY DATE. ,*-(<<./*•/

SURVEYOR'S NAME <-^£—

CELL BLOCK - DORMITORY

C E I L I N G : H20 leakage

Peeling Paint

Loose Plaster

graffiti/dirty mold growth W A L L S : H20 leakage

Graffiti

flirty/moid growth

scaling paint
Loose vmm/c.u-rAijL,

F L O O R ; Standing water Broken/missing Tile

Cracked Dtrty W I N D O W : frame rusted/damage

Covsred/Painted

BrokerVnot operational
VENTILATION

Irokervmtssing grid

Vent/Exhaust objects

interfere

No venttatnnmot operational

Dirty
Oftensivt Odors

Air temperature greater than 65 degrees F
SHOWERS: Uncovered drains

Mold growth/mineral deoosits

Curtams torn/duly

Clogged

Leaking • head/knobs n dorepar

Not working/low pressure

T O I L E T : partition broken/dirty damage

Not working/tow pressure

Leaking - bese/knob/piunger

Dirty - mineral build-up

Toilet Loose

Sink - Loose

No water/low pressure

Cogged

atrry

-caking-faucet/knobe/plunger/kn diarepar

3»throom area - dirtyfrnoW growth

Hot water temperature 108-120 degrees F
LIGHTING - in disrepair

20 ft. candles bght - work area

30 ft. candle light living area/study room

.amp painted/covered

suibs. fixture*, window/dirty

Exit light -not opentionel/in disrepair 3est/vermits infestation

Cleaning supplies not available

No soap

No totltf paper

NO aoer towets

TV 1
• ;

It
Is"
flUeF life \ !

04 y

DEPARTMENT OF CO' IK. . AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

HEALTH FACILITY DIV. JN

*

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

=ACIMTY. r r ^ - ;' , ^

SURVEY DATE; ^/^ ff*

SURVEYOR'S NAME.1 ^ ^ ~ -

CELL BLOCK - DORMITORY

CEILING: H20*awge

Peeltng Paint

L O O M Piaster
jraffrti/dirty mow growth W A L L S : H20 leakage

Graffiti

3irty/moW growth

scaling paint

Loose Waster

F L O O R : Standing water

Broken/missing Tile Cracked

Dirty W I N D O W : frame rusted/damage

Covered/Painted Broken/not operational
VENTILATION
roken/missing grill

Vent/Exhaust obfects

nterfere

No ventitatiorvnoi operational

Dirty
Offensive Odors

tr temperature greater than 65 degrees F
SHOWERS; Uncovered drains

Mold growtrvmineraf deposits

urtains torn/dirty

logged

eatung • nead/knoOs m dnrepair

ot wonang/iow pressure

O t L E T : partition brokan/diity damage

ot working/low pressure

eaking • bescyvnob/plunger

irty - mineral Durid-up

otiet Loose

m- Loose

o waier/low pressure

togged

fty

Mian9-fauceWnobs/piunger/in disrepaw athroem am - dirty/mold growtA

ot water temperature 10i*120 degrees F
IGHTING - in disrepair

?0 ft candies \\gn - work area

JO ft. candle light Irving area/study room

amp painted/covered

ulbs. futures, window/duty

Kititgnt-not operational/in disrepair

est/vermits tnfestation

leanmg suppiws not avaiiaWe

osoap

o toilet paper

o aDer towels

i ____<
>*-

'5...-"'
f —
**^

0*
*>-

DEPARTMENT OF CO' IMu.. AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

.

HEALTH FACILITY DtV.^.ON

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

_

=ACILITY j * ** - '-' •""

S U R V E Y DATE: se//<./£?

SURVEYOR'S NAME -*-"

CELL BLOCK - DORMITORY
£ **'A
C E I L I N G : H20leatage

Patting Pamt

Looa* Piacttr

pnrfiti/dirty moid growth

W A L L S : H20 leakage

Graffiti

dirty/mokJ growth

Kafangpamt

Loose piaster F L O O R : Standing watar

Broken/missing Til*

Cracked

Dirty V I N D O W : frame rusted/damage

Covarad/Pamtad

arokan/not operational
VENTILATION

irokan/misaing griH

VenVExnaust objacta

intarfara

So vanbtation/not operational

Dirty
Offensive Odors

ir temperature greater than 85 degrees F
SHOWERS: Uncovered drains

Mold growttVmmeral deposits

urtams tom/dirty

logged taking • haaoTknobe in dnraper

ot wortang/low pressure

O I L E T : pertttion broktn/dirty damage

ot working/tow pressure

taking - base/knob/pfungar

)Kty - mineral budd-up

oilet Loose

nk- Loose

o water/low pressure

togged

ffy taking-faucet/knoos/plungeryin OMvepar

tatnroom area - dirty/mold growth

ot water temperature 10S-120 degrees F
IGHTING - in disrepair

20 ft. candies tight • work area

JO ft. candle bght kvtng area/study room

j m p painted/covered xjfbs. fixtures, wmdow/dirty

xrt tight -not operational/in disrepair

est/vermits infestation

leaning supofies not available

osoap

o toilet paper

oiper towels

,
i ' J-~ r-
-^ .

/**•*(•

TTT

DEPARTMENT OF CONSU*"~ \ <D REGULATORY AFFAIRS

,

HEALTH FACILITY DMSIO.

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

^

ACILITY: CTfs- - CC +

S U R V E Y DATE: L.**-tC / f ?

S U R V E Y O R ' S N A M E . {*Jt*

CELL BLOCK - DORMITORY

7V

EtLING: H20tee*aoe

letmo Paint

X M Ptaster

sfftu/dirty mold growth

/ A L L S : H20 leakage

nfflb

ty/mow growth

-almg paint

O M plaster/^M^-C^^C

L O O R : Standing water 'oken/missing Tile

-•eked

rty

I N D O W : frame rusted/damage

•vered/Pamted

*ervnot operational
=NTILATION

Aervmaamg gm

it/Exhaust objects

ntarfere

venUaborvnot operational

tensive Odors
temperature greater than 65 degrees F
tOWERS: Uncovered drains
d growth/mineral depoaita tains tom/dirty ?oed wng - nead/knob* « diarepar working/low pressure M L E T : partition brokan/dirty damage wortong/Jow pressure king - besa/hnob/piunger (- mineral buitd-up st Loose
- Loose vater/tow pressure ig«d

41

8

*--

y

cmg-iaucevynobs/ptungerAn disrapajr room area - dtrty/mok) growth water temperature 101-120 degrees f
;HTING -in disrepair
candies hgrtt * work area candle tight living area/study room a patnted/eovered 3. fixtures, wmdow/dtrty igM-oot operational/ir disrepair 'vtnrots infestation mng tupphes not available aao «tet paper :>er towels

t/Vf i

IN r *

1998 D.C. CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION INSPECTION SCHEDULE

CTF 1. May 2. September

4 - 7 , 1998 28 - October 1, 1998

 
 AUDIT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT ORDER
IN WOMEN PRISONERS v. D. C . C.A. 93-2052
UPDATED REPORT OCTOBER 15,1997

FILED

A.

PURPOSE

JUN 2 2 1998
NAlBw.--;:•••••, ii-wiiurt U'S.'DISTRICT'COURT1

This report addresses thedefendants' compliance with theCourt's Order dated June 16, 1997 in Women Prisoners v. P. C . C.A..No.93-2052 (JLG).(Herein, "Order").

By agreement of theparties, theundersigned wasrequested to conduct this audit. Thereport specifically addresses a list of areas of concerns forwarded by plaintiffs' counsel. OnSeptember 12, 1997, a report and supportive documentation1 was submitted to plaintiffs' counsel that provided an overview of DCDOC and corresponding CCA/CTF agency level compliance with theOrder and recommendations with projected completion dates forresolution where compliance had not been achieved. This portion ofthe audit report serves to update theSeptember 12, 1997 report. Theauditor's observations, findings andrecommendations, along with supportive documentation, areincluded in this report submission.

B. METHODOLOGY

This report is based onthefollowing:

1. Findings from tours of the Central Detention Facility (CDF), the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) andMinimum Security Facility Annex housing

1 Exhibit #1 through Exhibit #12 was forwarded with the September 12,1997 report. This updated report will

begin with Exhibit #13.

i

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

2

units, program facilities, infirmary, culinary units, inmate dining areas and facility supply warehouses.

2. Interviews with inmates, DCDOC and CCA executive and line staff, managers and supervisors, correctional and program staff and supervisors, medical staff, sanitation and fire safety staff, facility maintenance/management managers and staff, supply officers, procurement staff, compliance officers and monitors and the Assistant Corporation Counsel assigned to this case.

3. Review of documents to include relevant Court Orders; policies, procedures, directives and work plans; compliance reports and other program evaluation reports' correspondence files, shift reports; inspection and abatement reports; inmate institutional and medical files; log books; reports on sexual misconduct and inmate grievance complaints and findings; staffing plans and duty roster reports; training files; medical, culinary, sanitation, fire safety, operational and monitoring files; program schedules; contracts and purchase orders and reports prepared by expert consultants and the Special Officer of the U.S. District Court.

C. REPORT FORMAT

1. In order to evaluate compliance with CA. 93-2052, the report consists of
this update to the September 12, 1997 general overview of issues that relate to executive level compliance with the order and three2 memoranda, divided by facilities
as follows:
2 During the course of the audit, it was determined that it was very burdensome to investigate and submit findings and documentation for the CTF for that portion of the audit review period when it was under DCDOC operation because staff were now scattered throughout the agency and virtually no pertinent documents were obtained because they had not been systematically filed and stored. Additionally, at the point of commencement of the audit, CCA was into its fourth month of operation and it was determined that it would be more beneficial for all concerned to audit current operations and ensure that compliance with the Order is being met or addressed. The undersigned is the Contract Monitor for the CCA/CTF contract and it's Operations and Management Agreement,

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v, D. C.
a. The Central Detention Facility (CDF),
b. The Minimum Security Facility and Annex, and
c. The Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) under the management and supervision of the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), effective March 16, 1997.
2. The report identifies each subject area by descriptive title and the corresponding paragraph number in the Order. The report will conclude whether there is compliance with the Order, describe action taken regarding achieving compliance, describe plans for achieving compliance, identify obstacles concerning continuing compliance and, where applicable, and propose recommendations by the undersigned.3
D. EXECUTIVE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
1. Department Order (Court Order 1J4)
a. Status of the Department Order
1) DO 3350.2B "Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates", dated October 15,1997 was approved by the Director, DCDOC on October 14,1997.
contract and it's Operations and Management Agreement, Section 5.1, requires that "Not later than six months after the commencement date, the operator shall cause the CTF to be operated and maintained in accordance with the standards required by the Court Orders. 3 Recommended compliance dates in the September 12,1997 audit overview have been extended to correspond with both the extension of time afforded this submission and subsequent assignment to managers who are responsible for implementation.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

4

DO 3350.2A was in effect when the audit was conducted and will be referred to a the governing policy. However, changes in DO 3350.2B procedures will be reported in this report.

2) The Department Order (DO) has been revised pursuant to the Court of Appeals' decision and was developed in conjunction with the Special Officer of the Court, plaintiffs' attorneys, contracted investigators, the Assistant Corporation Counsel assigned to this case, and appropriate D. C. Department of Corrections (DCDOC) personnel. Prior to finalization, the draft had to be circulated for review and comment by the DCDOC Offices of Policies and Procedures and the General Counsel. The new directive is modeled after the original DO and amended pursuant to the appellate court decision. A copy of DO 3350.2B is included.4

3) CCA/CTF policy 14-100 "Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates" will be amended to conform to DCDOC's DO 3350.2B.

4) As noted on September 12, 1997, based upon interviews with staff and a review of the investigation reports, it is determined that although the new Department Order had not been finalized, the majority of its procedures were followed in practice, with the exception of reporting certain types of sexual abuse to law enforcement.
b. Provisions of DO 3350.2B
1) DO 3350.2B governs the prohibition, definition, prevention, reporting, and investigation of sexual misconduct against inmates. It prohibits retaliation and intimidation of inmates who refuse to submit to sexual misconduct or against individuals who participate in the reporting or investigation of a complaint.
4 Exhibit #13, DO 33SO.2B, "Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates", dated October 1, 1997.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

5

2) DO 3350.2B requires that the Order be posted on staff bulletin boards, in areas where inmates frequent or are housed and in the inmate Law Library.

2. Sexual Misconduct - Prevention and Remedy (Court Order fl5)

a. Investigation of sexual misconduct
1) DO 3350.2B contains procedures for the investigation of sexual misconduct against inmates and for the discipline of employees who engage in sexual misconduct against inmates. As previously reported, the DCDOC resumed responsibility for investigating incidents of sexual misconduct against inmates from the Special Officer of the Court on or about November 1996. Investigations of complaints filed on the behalf of female inmates are conducted by contract staff under small purchase/ short term contracts.

2) The Department is preparing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a competitive contract solicitation for investigation of complaints on behalf inmates.

3) A solicitation for the training of selected DCDOC staff members to investigate complaints of sexual misconduct that do not involve sexual abuse is being processed.

4) CCA has a policy for the disciplining of staff. CCA has contracts with Delany, Siegel and Zorn and Associates (DSZ) and with Edward Morey to investigate complaints of sexual misconduct against inmates.

b. Investigation Compliance

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

6

Based on review of the investigative packets and interviews of staff, the investigative procedures as provided in DO 3350.2B and the Court Order have been followed by the contractors for the DCDOC and CCA.
c. Complaint Coordination

1) In the DCDOC, a DOC staff member has been appointed as the agency Coordinator for complaints of sexual misconduct against inmates. Her duties are summarized in DO 3350.2B, Section VII. Procedures, subsections D., E., F., and I.). She consults regularly with the Assistant Corporation Counsel, assigned to this case, in the discharge of her duties in this area.

2) CCA/CTF has a Sexual Misconduct Coordinator for processing allegations of sexual misconduct against inmates.

c. Employee Discipline

DO 3350.2B contains procedures for discipline of staff who violate this directive to include a table of penalties for specific violations.

3. Definition of prohibited conduct (Court Order 1J6)

a. Prohibited conduct is defined in accordance with DC Law 10-257 "Anti-Sexual Abuse Law", the Court Order and Department Order 3350.2B. Sexual misconduct includes sexual acts, sexual contact, sexual harassment and invasion of privacy against inmates as well as retaliation against inmates who refuse to submit to sexual misconduct or against individuals because of their involvement in the reporting or investigation of a sexual misconduct complaint. Policy and procedures, for maintenance of confidentiality and sanctions for breaching confidentiality as well as

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

7

prohibition and discipline for interference in the reporting or investigation of complaints, are contained in DO 3350.2B. Sexual contact has been more clearly defined in this directive. DO 3350.B provides that staff of the opposite sex audibly announce his/her presence when entering the housing unit unless refrain is for a sound penological reason.

b. CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 will be amended to conform with DO 3350.2B.

4. Penalities for prohibited conduct (Court Order

a. DO 3350.2B contains provisions for discipline of employees who violate this policy.

b. employees.

CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 contains provisions for discipline of

5. Inmate reporting of sexual misconduct (Court Order 1J8)

a. DO 3350.2B contains procedures for inmate reporting of complaints of sexual misconduct via use of the IGP system.

b. Policy 14-100.

CCA/CTF has procedures in accordance with DO 3350.2B in

6. Inmate complaint reporting methods (Court Order 1|9)

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioncrs v. D. C.

8

a. DO 3350.2B provides that female inmates may report complaints of sexual misconduct orally or in writing, to any employee, through the IGP system or to a IGAC prisoner representative.

b. Policy 14-100.

CCA/CTF has procedures in accordance with DO 3350.2B in

7. Hotline (CourtOrder 1J10)

a. The DCDOC does not have a confidential telephone hot line for the

reporting of sexual misconduct against inmates. The hot line has not been in operation

since the termination of the duties of the Special Officer of the Court. It is expected that

the hot line will be in full operation by October 31, 1997.

tS {-^' >

b. CCA/CTF has not had a confidential telephone hot line for the reporting of sexual misconduct against inmates since assuming operation and management of the facility on March 16,1997. CCA's hot line is expected to be operational by October 1, 1997.

8. Staff reporting responsibilities (Court Order 1f11)

a. DO 3350.2B provides for discipline of employees who fail to report acts or allegations of sexual misconduct

b. CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 meets the requirements in DO 3350.2B.

9. Police Investigations (Court Order 1f12)

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

9

a. Reporting Sexual Abuse to law enforcement

1) As reported on September 12, 1997, based upon a review of sexual misconduct complaint reports, the undersigned can not determine that there have been any incidents of sexual misconduct which have been referred to law enforcement since the DCDOC has resumed investigation of these complaints. The Order requires that allegations of an act of unwelcome sexual intercourse or any allegation of unwelcome sexual touching must be reported to local law enforcement.

In interviewing the Wardens at the women's facilities, this auditor found that they were clear on referral of cases involving sexual assaults as is required in DO 3350.2A, but not as clear regarding the reporting of unwelcome sexual touching or that under DC Law 10-257, sexual abuse includes any sexual contact and sexual touching and is a criminal offense.

Moreover, this procedure was not written in the DO 3350.2A. Procedures are in DO 3350.2B for the reporting of incidents or allegations of sexual abuse, which includes all sexual acts and sexual contact between staff and inmates, to local law enforcement. It also provides for the periodic follow up with law enforcement and documentation concerning the status of any criminal investigation.

DO 3350.2B.

2) CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 will be amended in accordance with

b. Tracking of criminal investigations

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

10

1) Under DO3350.2B, the Sexual Misconduct Coordinator, in conjunction with the Security Administrator, will communicate with law enforcement every 30 days concerning the status of the investigation.

DO 3350.2B.

2) CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 will be amended in accordance with

10. Confidentiality requirements (Court Order ^[13)

a. DO 3350.2B directs that retaliation, reprisal and breach of confidentiality regarding an incident of sexual misconduct is prohibited. The DO mandates that confidentialty of the complaint and the identity of the alleged victim and respondent shall be maintained and revealed only on a need to know basis. It provides that an inmate informant can be treated as a confidential witness.

b. When a complaint is filed, the alleged victim and the accused are advised in writing that the allegation and investigation are to be kept confidential.

c. CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 meets the requirements in DO 3350.2B.

11. Inmate Appeal procedures (Court Order fl14)

a. DO 3350.2B contains procedures for advising inmates of whether

or not the investigation concluded a finding of sexual misconduct and of appeal rights •,

when a complaint was filed on her behalf.

b a •$'••' "J

b. CCA/CTF has procedures in compliance with DO 3350.2B.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

11

12. Staff training in Prevention of sexual misconduct (Court Order fl15)

a. Plaintiffs' counsel was advised on September 12, 1997 that based upon agreement with plaintiffs in 1995, NIC appointed Andie Moss, the former Director of the women's prisons in Georgia to provide technical assistance to the DCDOC in the development of and execution of manuals, as well as Train-the Trainers for staff and inmate courses.5

b. DO 3350.2B requires Pre-service and In-service "Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates" Training, semi-annual special issues and a forty hour course on working with female offenders for selected staff.

1) Mass Training

a) The original course curricula and manuals for employees and inmates and the employee student manuals and inmate bulletin were submitted on September 12, 1997 as Exhibit #7. As noted trainers for employees and inmates were selected based upon experience in training others as well as expertise in counseling staff and/or inmates in the areas of (1) classification and counseling or (2) EEO and/or sexual harassment counseling.

b) . Sexual Misconduct Training of DCDOC staff was conducted August 22, 1995 to January 1996. The undersigned's inspection of the Training Academy attendance records found that one hundred and eighty-five of over four thousand DCDOC and contract employees did not receive initial mass training.

2) Pre-service Training

' Exhibit #14, NIC Technical Assistance Report 9SP106S and Technical Assistant Vitae.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioncrs v. D. C,

12

a) DCDOC
Effective September 1, 1995, Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Training became a module in the Pre-service training program. On or about March 1995, the undersigned developed and began to conduct Pre-service Training entitled "Working with Women Offenders". The training is ninety minutes long and the Trainer's Manual was previously submitted.
b) CCA/CTF Pre-service Training
One hundred and four (104) staff of the CCA/CTF received Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates Pre-service Training. The training was conducted by certified DCOOC Trainers and the training materials used were identical in scope to those used in DCDOC. On August 2, 1997, the undersigned conducted the "Train the Trainers - Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates" course for the CCA Training Administrator which enables CCA to train their own staff.
3) Annual Refresher Training
a) DCDOC
Trainers received refresher training in January 1997 prior to their conducting In-service training for staff. The Trainer and Student manuals used for annual refresher In-service training were submitted on September 12, 1997 as Exhibit #7.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

13

Mandatory 40 hour In-service training was conducted from February 1 to September 1997. The In-service training was suspended near the end of the fiscal year and the FY'98 budget has not yet been approved by Congress. Training of this magnitude results in a significant use of overtime to cover each Correctional Officer participant's duty post.

b) CCA In-service Training

The CCA/CTF Training Administrator advised that In-service Training, which includes Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates, for approx. 117 staff who were former DCDOC employees will begin November 3, 1997.

4) Volunteers Training

a) The Director of Religious and Volunteer Services reported that volunteers were trained by that office from March 20, 1995 until August 1996. Effective March 1, 1997, a four hour orientation for new volunteers and a two hour refresher training, as volunteers are recertified, is conducted by Training Academy staff. Volunteers receive the same training as do DCDOC and CCA staff.

regarding this issue.

b) CCA/CTF has not yet developed volunteer training

5) "Working with Female Offenders" Training

a) As reported on September 12, 1997, this forty hour training has not been accomplished. NIC will again be requested to provide this training through approval of a technical assistance grant.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

14

7) Special Issues Training

a) The Order requires that by December 1995, semiannual special issues training be conducted. As reported on September 12, 1997, two special issues classes have been conducted.

(1) In 1996, CTF culinary staff received an intensive four hours Prevention Of Sexual Misconduct Training after several complaints of sexual misconduct against inmates involving CTF culinary employees.

(2) In January and February 1997, selected CDF staff received training in "Addressing Sexual Violence for Correctional Staff: This training was conducted by the DC Rape Crisis Center.

13. Prisoner Training (Court Order 1|16):

a. Mass Training

As reported on September 12, 1997, based on logs reviewed and the undersigned's observations, training of female inmates at the CDF, the CTF and the Annex was conducted between August 1995 and September 30, 1995.

b. Orientation Training

A review of logs and interviews with staff and inmates confirmed

that newly committed female inmates continue to receive weekly Orientation training at

the CDF.

-,, /,, j
f

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

15

c. Tracking of participation
The Minimum Security Facility Annex requires that female inmates sign an affidavit as to whether they have received the Orientation training at the CDF. The Minimum Security Facility has staff who are certified inmate trainers for this course.
Pregnant inmates, female inmates requiring placement in the CTF Infirmary and YRA females are usually transferred prior to receiving the Orientation training, but receive the handout regarding sexual harassment upon admittance to the CTF.
14. Quality Assurance Program (Court Order 1J22):
The Order requires that DCDOC develop and implement a quality assurance program for monitoring program delivery to ensure the continued provision of equal and adequate education and vocational programs to women prisoners. The DCDOC has not developed the quality assurance program.
E. FINDINGS
1. Department Order (Court Order 1|4,)
a. The DCDOC is in compliance with the requirement to develop and follow a Department Order prohibiting sexual misconduct against inmates.
b. CCA Policy 14-100 meets requirements of DO 3350.2B.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C,

16

2. Internal Investigations (Court Order fl5)

a. DCDOC is in compliance with ensuring that complaints of sexual misconduct are investigated in accordance with its policy.

b. CCA is in compliance with ensuring that complaints of sexual misconduct are investigated in accordance with its policy.

3. Hot line (Court Order 1J10):

a. DCDOC is not in compliance with having a confidential hot line that may be used for the reporting of complaints of sexual misconduct.

b. CCA is not in compliance with having a confidential hot line that may be used for the reporting of complaints of sexual misconduct.

4. Police Investigations (Court Order1T12)

a. DCDOC does not appear to be in compliance with the reporting of unwelcome sexual touching. DO 3350.2B contains more specific definitions of sexual abuse and law enforcement reporting mandates required by law.

b. CCA was not in compliance with the reporting of unwelcome sexual touching until September 1997.

5. Employee Training (Court Order fl15)

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

17

a. DOC is in compliance with the Initial mass training of staff in the Prevention Of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates.

b. DOC is in compliance with the inclusion of Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates in its Pre-service and In-service training.

c. Although it is not a provision of the Court Order, DCDOC is in compliance with orientating volunteers in the Prevention Of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates.

d. DCDOC is still not in compliance with the requirement to conduct fortyhour "Working with Female Offenders" training by December 13, 1995. DCDOC does conduct 90 minute "Working with Women Offenders" Pre-service training.

e. DOC is not in compliance with conducting semi-annual special issues training for staff who work with female offenders. Two special issues training have been conducted.

f. CCA has trained the majority of its new staff in the Prevention Of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates.

g. CCA is not in compliance with providing annual In-service training for former DCDOC employees because most of them received training in 1995-1996.

6. Inmate training in Prevention of sexual misconduct (Court Order 1J16)

a) The CTF continues to conduct Orientation training in the Prevention Of
Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates for newly committed female inmates. A review of

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

18

attendance records indicate that some female inmates are not receiving training because they are often transferred to CTF prior to the weekly training.

DO 3350.2B requires that weekly orientation for newly committed inmates in the Prevention Of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates be conducted at the CTF and to ensure that each inmate receives training, weekly classes will be conducted in each facility's orientation program when inmates are transferred into the facility.

7. Quality Assurance Program Court Order 1J22.

a. DCDOC is not in compliance with the development and implemenation of a quality assurance program to ensure the continued provision of equal and adequate education and vocational programs to women prisoners.

F. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Department Order (Court Order 1|4)
DCDOC a. Order to be issued to all employees by November 15, 1997. b. DCDOC and CCA/CTF Executive staff, Wardens, managers and supervisors receive training on DO 3350.2B by November 28,1997. c. Staff trainers be trained on DO 3350.2B by November 28,1997.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

19

d. DO 3350.2B be incorporated in the In-service Training6 by January 5,1998.

e. The Trainer and Student Manuals be revised by January 5, 1998.

CCA/CTF

a. CCA develop similar time table.

2. Internal Investigations (Court Order fl5)

a. The solicitation for Investigator training will be released within twenty-one working days of the loading of funds into the Fiscal Managment System (FMS).7

b. The RFP is expected to be released by not later than January 1998. In the interim, investigation of complaints on behalf of female inmates and aggregious complaints on behalf of male inmates shall be procured by short term contracts.8

3. Hot line (Court Order 1J10):

a. DCDOC hot line be in operation by October 31,1997.

b. CCA hot line be in operation by October 31, 1997.

6 The 40 hour In-service training was suspended at the end of FY '97 because the budget has not yet been approved by Congress. Training of this magnitude results in a significant use of overtime to cover each Correctional Officer participant's duty post. 7 Exhibit #15, Bus 2 dated October 10,1997 for solicitation for Training of staff as Investigators of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates. 8 Exhibit #16, Bus 2 dated October 10, 1997 for solicitation of a short term contract for Investigator for complaints of sexual misconduct against inmates.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D, C.

20

4. Police Investigations (Court Order 1J12)

a. DCDOC and CCA/CTF Executive staff, Wardens, managers and supervisors receive training on DO 3350.2B by November 28, 1997.

5. Employee Training (Court Order 1J15)

DOC

a. Request technical assistance from NIC to conduct 40 hour "Working with Women Offenders" or Train-the-Trainers in this course.

b. Include 90 minute "Working with Women Offenders" training in the Inservice curriculum by January 12, 1998.

c. The Training Academy will develop a series of special issues training for staff who work with female offenders by January 31, 1998.

d. Although it is not a provision of the Court Order, DCDOC is in compliance with orientating volunteers in the Prevention Of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates .

CCA

a. Conduct similar training or Contract for NIC training.

b. Same as DCDOC

c. Same as DCDOC

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioncrs v. D. C.

21

d. Same as DCDOC
6. Inmate Training Court Order 1J16
DCDOC a. Update the Inmate Bulletin "Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates to comply with DO 3350.2B by November 14, 1997. b. Provide Train-the-Trainer in Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates for staff to train inmates by November 28, 1997.
c. Complete Mass training of female inmates by December 31, 1997.
d. Beginning January 5,1998, conduct Weekly Prevention Of Sexual Misconduct Training for newly committed inmates at the CTF and in each facility's Orientation program when the inmate is transferred into the facility.
e. By December 31, 1997 each Warden to develop procedures to ensure tracking and follow up for subsequent training when inmates do not attend their scheduled training class.
CCA/CTF
a. Same as DCDOC.
b. Same as DCDOC.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C,

22

c. Same as DCDOC.

d. Same as DCDOC.

e. Same as DCDOC.

7. Quality Assurance Program Court Order ^22
a. A staff member be appointed to develop and implement the educational programs quality assurance program in accordance with provisions of the Order.

8. Monitoring for compliance with these recommendations

a. The Office of Compliance and Accreditation and the Compliance Monitor assigned to this case shall monitor and ensure that recommendations are accomplished as indicated.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

23

AUDIT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT ORDER IN WOMEN PRISONERS V. D. C. CA 930-2052

y' '

AT THE CENTRAL DETENTION FACILITY (CDF)

A. METHODOLOGY
This report is based on the following:
1. Findings from tours of the Central Detention Facility (CDF) housing unit, program facilities, law library and areas where staff bulletin boards are located.
2. Interviews with inmates; facility correctional and program managers, supervisors and line staff; and staff assigned to the Deputy Director for Programs Office and the Assistant Corporation Counsel assigned to this case.
3. Review of documents to include relevant Court Orders; policies, procedures, directives and work plans; compliance reports and other program evaluation reports; correspondence files, shift reports; log books; reports on sexual misconduct and inmate grievance complaints and findings; staffing plans and duty roster reports; training files; program schedules and reports prepared by expert consultants and the Special Officer of the Court.
B. REPORT FORMAT The report identifies each subject area by descriptive title and the coresponding
number in the order. The report will conclude whether there is compliance with the

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

24

order, describe action taken regarding achieving compliance, describe plans for achieving compliance, identify obstacles concerning continuing compliance and, where applicable, propose recommendations by the undersigned.

C. AUDIT REPORT

I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

1J4. Sexual Misconduct Policy and Procedures

\

DO 3350.2A, Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates", dated March 15, 1995 governed the detection, prevention, reporting, investigation, adjudication and prohibition of sexual misconduct and retaliation and intimidation of inmates who refuse to submit to sexual misconduct or against individuals who participate in the reporting or investigation of a complaint. The Order required that the DO be posted and circulated in accordance with the policy. DO 3350.2A requires that the Order be posted on staff bulletin boards, in areas where inmates frequent and in the inmate Law Library.

/U^,^

On July 18,1997,1 inspected and reviewed the Post Order for Cell block SW1 and South 3 (Mental Health Unit) which is where female inmates are housed in the CDF. The Post Orders did not direct staff to ensure posting of the Department Order. On October 2,1997 a addendum was attached to the front of those housing unit Post Orders directing that sexual misconduct (to include sexual acts, sexual contact, sexual harassment and invasion of privacy), retaliation and breach of confidentiality is prohibited. The addendum also directed that each employee must verbally report incidents and complaints of sexual misconduct directly to the Warden and follow up with a written report by the end of their business day. The requirement of the opposite sex announcing themselves when entering the unit and cell tier was also included. The

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C,

25

Warden advises that in the future this addendum will be incorporated into each Post Order as it is updated.9 The Warden has also issued instruction to the Housing Unit Officer-in-Charge to inspect and enter into the Housing Unit log book, certification that the DO is posted when they assume responsibility for the unit at shift change. Zone Supervisors and Shift Commanders are also required to inspect and enter same in the supervisor's log books.10

On August 29, 1997, I inspected CDF to observe whether Department Order 3350.2A was posted and found the DO posted in the Roll Call/Training Room and on the SW 1 Case Manager's Office Bulletin Board. The Case manager agreed to post the DO on the Office glass enclosure, facing the tier, so that it is clearly visible to inmates. The DO was not posted in the Law Library nor was the Librarian able to produce evidence that a copy is available for inmate usage. On September 30, 1997 the Warden issued a directive to all Case managers to conspicuously post the DO in their offices in the housing unit and to maintain extra copies of the DO in their offices for the purpose of ready issuance to inmates upon request.11 The Warden also advised that the DO which is posted in the female inmate's housing units will be covered by plexiglass to ensure that it remains visibly posted.12

1J5. Sexual Misconduct - Prevention and Remedy

9 Exhibit #17, Memo dated 10/2/97 and "Addendum - D3350.A Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates" dated October 1, 1997 re: prohibition of sexual misconduct, retaliation and breach of confidentiality. 10 Exhibit #18, Memorandum dated October 1,1997 to Shift Commanders Re: DO 3350.2A for Southwest One and South Three topost DO and document compliance with posting. 11 Exhibit #19, Memorandum to "All Case Managers" dated September 30, 1997 topost and maintain copies of DO. 12 Exhibit #20, Memorandum dated October 2, 1997 toWarden re: compliance with DO 3350.2A.
•"•"!

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

26

DO 3350.2A contained procedures for the detection, prevention, reporting and investigation of sexual misconduct against inmates and for the discipline of employees who engage in sexual misconduct against inmates.

1J6. Definition of prohibited conduct

Prohibited conduct is defined in accordance with the Court Order and

Department Order 3350.2A for sexual misconduct which includes sexual acts, sexual

contact, sexual harassment and invasion of privacy against inmates as well as

retaliation against inmates who refuse to submit to sexual misconduct or against

individuals because of their involvement in the reporting or investigation of a sexual

misconduct complaint. Policy and procedures, for maintenance of confidentiality and

sanctions for breaching confidentiality as well as prohibition and discipline for

interference in the reporting or investigation of complaints, was contained in

DO 3350.2A as does DO 3350.2B.

f 0 \\< W

1J7. Penalties for prohibited conduct

DO 3350.2A contained provisions for discipline of employees who violate this policy as does DO 3350.2B.

1J8. Inmate reporting of sexual misconduct

DO 3350.2A contained procedures for inmate reporting of complaints of sexual misconduct via use of the IGP system to report complaints of sexual misconduct. This

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

27

provision is contained in the Inmate Bulletin "Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates" which is distributed to female inmates at the Receiving and Discharge Unit.13 DO 3350.2B contains identical policy.

I reviewed IGP logs for September 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997 for complaints of sexual misconduct and found that none were filed by female inmates and 10 were filed by males.

The undersigned's inspection revealed that there is an active Inmate Grievance Committee established at the CDF in compliance with the Court Order. On July 18, 1997, I reviewed DO 4030.1D, which governs the IGAC and Committee activities, such as minutes, findings, recommendations, etc. and interviewed staff, including the Warden. The IGAC was established 11/14/96. The Acting Deputy Warden for Programs advised the undersigned's that it is that manager's responsibility to monitor the activities of the IGAC.

The undersigned's review of documents found that the first official IGAC meeting was held on 1/7/97. The committee meets once a month in Room 244. It is comprised of a cross section of inmates: 1 female, 1 Hispanic, 1 Special Status, 2 General Population (1 from the North side, 1 from the South side). Staff IGAC members comprise 3 Case managers, a representative from the Warden's administrative staff and the Law Librarian. A review of meeting minutes also revealed that the Court Order Compliance Monitor attended at least one of the meetings between January 7 and June 30, 1997. A sample of topics noted in the minutes are as follows:

4/1/97

Agenda and Minutes (Issues" Selection of Chairperson, Credibility

of Concerns, Officer Recorder, Response Time frames, Committee Member alternates,

13 Exhibit #21, "Inmate Bulletin - Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates"

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

28

committee meetings, adequacy of supply of feminine hygiene item available on canteen.)

5/13/97

Agenda and Minutes (Issues: Lack of Shower shoes and

detergent, visiting hall phones broken, mail delivery mix-ups, mailboxes too small, mail

pickup not adequate for box size; Housing unit coverage).

The 6/1/97 IGAC Agenda and Minutes were attached to June Compliance Report dated 7/1/97 and given to plaintiffs.

1J9. Inmate complaint reporting methods

DO 3350.2A provided that female inmates may report complaints of sexual misconduct orally or in writing, to any employee, through the IGP system or to a IGAC prisoner representative.

Based upon the undersigned's review on 7/18/1997 of files contained in the Warden's office regarding incidents of sexual misconduct, there were five complaints reported on behalf of female inmates during the period of September 1,1996 to June 30,1997.u In addition, I reviewed the files of the Deputy Director for Programs and determined that all reported complaints for the time frame were reviewed .1S One of the cases resulted in a finding of probable cause, and four did not.

fl11. Staff reporting responsibilities

14 Exhibit #28, Summaiy of Investigations of Allegations of Sexual Misconduct on behalf of female offenders at the CDF. 15 The CDF is under the executive level management of the Deputy Director for Programs and in
accordance with DO 3350.2A, copies of the reports are maintained in that office.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

29

DO 3350.2A provided for discipline of employees who fail to report acts or allegations of sexual misconduct

1112. Reporting Sexual Abuse to law enforcement

DO 3350.2A contained policy and procedures for the reporting of sexual assault against inmates to MPD. In the undersigned's interview with the Warden on 8/29/97, it was determined that the Warden does not have a complete understanding of the circumstances of a sexual misconduct incident that warrants referral to the MPD. While staff is clear that a sexual assault must be reported, they were not aware that sexual acts (when the inmate "consented") and sexual contact sexual touching must be referred to MPD. The undersigned's review of the investigations of sexual misconduct involving female inmates for the period 9/1/96 to 6/30/97 revealed that no cases were reported to the Metropolitan Police Department.

The Warden stated practice at the CDF has been that MPD is notified by the Command Center as delegated by the Warden and that it has been the practice of the staff to report complaints of sexual misconduct to the Shift Commander, not the Warden. On September 30,1997, the Warden issued a change of procedures, requiring staff to verbally report complaints directly to the Warden-or in Warden's absence-the highest ranking official or manager on duty.16

If 13. Confidentiality requirements

DO 3350.2A mandated that confidentially of the complaint and the identity of the alleged victim and respondent shall be maintained.

16 Exhibit #22, Memorandum dated September 30, 1997 instructing staff to immediate make a verbal report or sexual misconduct directly tothe Warden.

• i

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

30

The DO directed that retaliation, reprisal and breach of confidentiality regarding an incident of sexual misconduct is prohibited. When a complaint is filed, the alleged victim and the accused receive a notice advising them that the allegation and investigation must be kept confidential. Instructions regarding confidentiality are contained in the Addendum to the Housing Unit Post Orders.
tf14. Inmate Appeal procedures
DO 3350.2A contained procedures for advising inmates of appeal rights and individual notification to each inmate when a complaint was filed on their behalf. The undersigned reviewed documentation that advised inmates of appeal rights and individual notification to each inmate when a complaint was filed on her behalf.
The Warden advised the undersigned that the practice at the CDF has been to automatically give the inmate the entire investigation package after completion of an investigation of sexual misconduct. This package was being forwarded from the Deputy Director for Programs' Office under seal and addressed to the inmate. This is not consistent with the current DO 3350.2A and revised DO 3350.2B which state that the inmate will receive notice of the findings and appeal information. The revised DO states that the inmate or attorney can request a copy when working on an appeal and that the package must be reviewed and redacted to exclude confidential information for security reasons & the identity of inmates who request anonymity. The Warden issued a memorandum dated September 30, 1997 to amend procedures so as to conform with the Department Order.17 The Deputy Director for Programs Office was advised on October 9,1997 that only a memorandum was to be sent to the inmate which advised
17 Exhibit #23, Memorandum dated September 30, 1997 directing that inmate receive written notice of whether the investigator concluded that sexual misconduct occurred and of appeal rights.

ii i

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C,

31

of whether or not the evidence supported a finding of sexual misconduct, her appeal rights and appeal procedures.

. Staff training in Prevention of Sexual Misconduct

Review of attendance rosters from staff who have received Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates training from September 2, 1995 to March 1, 1996 reveals that 520 of the approximate 528 CDF staff received the Initial mass training. The undersigned also reviewed a report from the Training Academy which notified Wardens in January 1996 of those staff who had not attended training and which scheduled two make-up classes were conducted. This report indicated that some of the staff who did not receive training were on workmen's compensation or extended leaves of absence.

In-service training for employees began in February 1997 and a ninety minute annual sexual misconduct refresher training module is included18. A review of the CDF Training Officer's files indicate that of an approximate 832 correctional and contract (food services and medical) 350 employees have received as of August 31, 1997. The undersigned has learned that no medical or food services employees have received the annual refresher training in the Prevention of Sexual Misconduct because they are not required to attend In-service.

1J16. Inmate training in Prevention of Sexual Misconduct

Between August 29 and September 21, 1995, 120 female inmates at the CDF received mass training in the identification, prevention and reporting of sexual misconduct against inmates.19

18 Exhibit #24, In-Service Training Schedule for CDF. 19 Exhibit #25A, Female Inmate's attendance rosters for 1995 Mass sexual misconduct training.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

32

An inspection of documents indicate procedures wherein female inmates committed each Friday through Monday receive prevention of sexual misconduct training each Friday at the CDF. The Certified Trainers are Cynthia Jamison-Hackett, Michael Hilliard and Barbara Copeland. The training materials given are the "Inmate Bulletin: Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates".
The undersigned's reviewed signed attendance rosters between 9/1/96 to 7/11/97 and found 354 female inmates were trained20. The Intake and Release report revealed that Intake for May, 1997 was 155 Females and that 47 received training. Intake for June 1997 was 143 Females and 43 received the training. It was therefore determined that only one-third of the female inmates received training. Further investigation revealed that a significant number of females stay at the CDF for less than a week thereby being released prior to the Training class. There is no formal procedure to ensure training completed if an inmate is transferred from the CDF prior to receiving orientation training there.21 Pregnant women are transferred from the CDF to CCA/CTF within twenty-four hours, possibly missing the training.
The Warden stated she will immediately effect a procedure to identify female inmates who remain at the CDF but who miss scheduled training. The procedure will ensure that these women receive training the following week.22
20Exhibit #25B, Female Inmate's attendance rosters for sexual misconduct training for time frame 9/1/96 to 6/30/97. 21 The CDF is required to transfer pregnant females within twenty-four (24) hours of knowledge of pregnancy. There are no procedures for ensuring training for female inmates who are transferred from CDF prior to receiving the orientation training that is conducted there once a week. CCA/CTF currently provides female inmates with a copy of Inmate Bulletin "Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates". The Minimum Security Facility Deputy Warden for Programs requires that female transferees attest in a signed document that she received die Orientation training prior to transfer to that facility. 22 Measures are underway atthe CTF toensure that female inmates receive Prevention o f Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates training atCTF Orientation ifthe woman istransferred prior to receiving training atthe CDF.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

33

. Physical plant alterations to ensure female inmate privacy
On July 18, 1997, I interviewed managers and supervisors and inspected the CDF regarding whether procedures are followed to ensure women prisoners' privacy in their living, sleeping and shower areas on July 18, 1997.
I was advised by the Acting Deputy Warden for Programs that housing unit and relief officers are female and a female Case manager are assigned to SW 1. This was confirmed by the undersigned's review of the Master Roster, effective July 1997. I also reviewed random copies of shift reports for each work shifts and noted that only female officers are assigned to the female units. The Deputy Warden for Operations advises that female housing unit and escort officers are assigned to the female inmate side of SO 3. The Master Roster, effective July 1997 bears out that there are females assigned to SO 3 on each shift.23
During the undersigned's inspection, I observed that on SW 1, male staff announced themselves upon entering the general population and tier areas of the Cell block. All shower stalls had opaque curtains which were in good repair and which provided full enclosure of the stall opening. The undersigned's review of the post orders revealed that they do not state that male officers must announce themselves when entering a female area, although it is performed in practice and is mandated in DO 3350.2A and in the Order. This instruction has been included in the Addendum to the Housing Unit Post Orders for the female housing units.
The Receiver for Medical and Mental Health Services for the US District Court at the CDF issued a memorandum on October 29,1996 that instructs the protection of the
23 Exhibits #26, Master Roster Assignments forSW 1and SO 3 where female inmates are housed.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D, C,

34

inmate's privacy via use of a changing screen for changing into a gown or cape and use of drape sheets during examinations.24

D. AUDIT FINDINGS

1|4. Sexual Misconduct Policy and Procedures

The CDF is in compliance with posting the Department Order on staff bulletin boards, in areas where inmates frequent and in the inmate Law Library in accordance with the policy.

1J8. Inmate reporting of sexual misconduct

The CDF is in compliance with maintaining an Inmate Grievance Process and an active Inmate Grievance Committee.

fl9. Inmate complaint reporting methods

The CDF is in compliance with inmates being allowed to report complaints of sexual misconduct orally or in writing, to any employee, through the IGP system or to a IGAC prisoner representative because of the five complaints reviewed, all were reported to staff who then reported them in accordance with procedures and the Order.

1J11. Staff reporting responsibilities

24 Exhibit #27, memorandum dated October 29, 1996 from the Medical Receiver of procedures to ensure the female inmate's privacy during medical exams.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

35

CDF is in compliance with DO 3350.2A provisions for discipline of employees who fail to report acts or allegations of sexual misconduct because no inmate complaints were lodged indicating that staff had failed to report the inmate's complaints and the investigations reviewed did not indicate that the inmate had previously reported the complaint without result.

1J12. Reporting Sexual Abuse to law enforcement

CDF was not in compliance with the reporting of sexual acts and sexual contact based upon the noted circumstances in the investigations reported on for the period 9/1/96 to 6/30/97 revealed that no cases were reported to the Metropolitan Police Department. On September 30,1997, the Warden issued orders that sexual acts and sexual contact be immediately reported to MPD.

1113. Confidentiality requirements

CDF is in compliance with this provision of the Order and DO 3350.2A because no employees were accused by an inmate of violating confidentiality of a complaint of sexual misconduct nor were any violations indicated by the complaint investigators.

1J14. Inmate Appeal procedures

CDF is in compliance with notifying inmates of appeal rights and procedures.

. Staff training in Prevention of sexual misconduct

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v, D. C.

36

CDF is in compliance with ensuring that staff attended the 1995 initial training and the 1997 In-service training in the Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates.

1J16. Inmate training in Prevention of sexual misconduct

The CDF is in compliance with providing female inmates with Orientation training for the identification, prevention and reporting of sexual misconduct but there is no formal procedure to ensure training is completed at the following session if an inmate is unavailable on the scheduled day.

. Physical plant alterations to ensure female inmate privacy

The CDF has ensured inmate privacy in their living, sleeping and shower areas.

E. RECOMMENDATIONS

1.

1}4. By October 31, 1997, attach the addendum dated October 1, 1997 to Post

Orders for Escort Officers, the Medical Unit Officer, and Work Squad supervisors.

2. 1J16. By October 31,1997, the Warden will develop follow-up procedures to ensure that all female inmates receive Sexual Misconduct Orientation.

3. 1J15. Ensure that medical and food services employees receive Prevention of Sexual Misconduct against Inmates training as a Pre-service and an annual In-service requirement.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D, C.

37

AUDIT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT ORDER

IN WOMEN PRISONERS V. D. C. CA 930-2052

\

AT THE MINIMUM SECURITY FACILITY AND ANNEX

A. METHODOLOGY
This report is based on the following:
1. Review of documents to include relevant Court Orders; policies, procedures, directives and work plans; compliance reports and other program evaluation reports; correspondence files, shift reports; log books; reports on sexual misconduct and inmate grievance complaints and findings; staffing plans and duty roster reports; training files; program schedules and reports prepared by expert consultants and the Special Officer of the Court.
2. This auditor interviewed inmates; facility correctional and program managers, supervisors and line staff; staff assigned to the Deputy Director for Programs Office and the Assistant Corporation Counsel assigned to this case and inspected the physical plant on July 22, July 31,August 14 and September 4, 1997. The Director and executive staff were interviewed regarding several issues including plans to renovate Dorm Seven of the Annex.
B. REPORT FORMAT
The report identifies each subject area by descriptive title and the corresponding number in the order. The report will conclude whether there is compliance with the

T¥

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

38

order, describe action taken regarding achieving compliance, describe plans for achieving compliance, identify obstacles concerning continuing compliance and, where applicable, propose recommendations by the undersigned's.

C. AUDIT REPORT

INTRODUCTION

The Minimum Security Facility Annex has the capacity for one hundred and thirty-five female inmates. The average monthly population in September was 36 inmates. It dipped to an average of 21 during the months of November and December 1996. Thereafter it gradually but significantly increased to an average monthly population of 75 in June, 1997. As of October 3, 1997 the population decreased to fifty-six (56) inmates.

Renovations in Dorm Six were completed in early 1997. During the renovation the population was housed in Dorm Seven. Based upon the relatively small population, staffing reconfigurations and impending renovations to Dorm 7, on October 3, 1997, all inmates were moved into Dorm 6. Bus 2's have been approved by the Director and submitted to purchase building materials for the renovation of Dorm 7.

I. SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
1J4. Sexual Misconduct Policy and Procedures
DO 3350.2A "Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates", dated March 15,1995 governed the identification, prevention, reporting, investigation, adjudication and

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D, C.

39

prohibition of retaliation and intimidation of inmates who refuse to submit to sexual misconduct or against individuals who participate in the reporting or investigation of a complaint. The Order required that the DO be posted and circulated in accordance with the policy. DO 3350.2A required that the Order be posted on staff and inmate bulletin boards and in the inmate Law Library.

On July 22, 1997, I inspected areas for compliance with posting of DO 3350.2A and observed that the Department Order was not posted in Dorm Six and Seven, the Roll Call Room or the Law Library. On October 3, 1997 during a random check of the facility, I observed DO 3350.2A posted in Dorm 7 and Dorm 6.

The Post Orders for Dorms Six and Seven do not include the requirement that the DO be posted and there are no procedures to insure that it is done. An officer assigned to Dorm Six stated that the DO is removed by inmates and recommended installation of an enclosed wall unit. Dorm Seven has a plexi-glass locked case in which the DO can be safely displayed.

1J5. Sexual Misconduct - Prevention and Remedy

DO 3350.2A contained procedures for the recognition, prevention, reporting and investigation of sexual misconduct against inmates and for the discipline of employees who engage in sexual misconduct against inmates.

1J6. Definition of prohibited conduct

Prohibited conduct is defined in accordance with the Court Order and Department Order 3350.2A for sexual misconduct which includes sexual acts, sexual contact, sexual harassment and invasion of privacy against inmates as well as

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

40

retaliation against inmates who refuse to submit to sexual misconduct or against individuals because of their involvement in the reporting or investigation of a sexual misconduct complaint. Policy and procedures for maintenance of confidentiality and sanctions for breaching confidentiality as well as prohibition and discipline for interference in the reporting or investigation of complaints is contained in DO 3350.2A.

1J7. Penalties for prohibited conduct

DO 3350.2A contained provisions for discipline of employees who violate this policy.

1|8. Inmate reporting of sexual misconduct

DO 3350.2A contained procedures for inmate reporting of complaints of sexual misconduct via use of IGP system to report complaints of sexual misconduct. This provision is contained in the Inmate Bulletin "Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates" which is distributed to female inmates at the Receiving and Discharge Unit.

During the time period from September 1,1996 to June 30,1997, no female inmates filed a complaint of sexual misconduct.

Inmate Grievance Committee - Minimum Security Facility has an IGAC. The IGP Coordinator recalls it was established in late 1992 or early 1993. The IGAC meets on an "as needed basis". The criteria for the calling of a meeting is not specifically defined. The records of the IGAC indicate that it is composed of a Coordinator, a Chief Case Manager, two Correctional supervisors and at least 2 male inmates and 1 female inmate.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

41

fl9. Inmate complaint reporting methods
DO 3350.2A provided that female inmates may report complaints of sexual misconduct orally or in writing, to any employee, through the IGP system or to a IGAC prisoner representative. During this time period, no female inmates initiated any complaints of sexual misconduct.
1111. Staff reporting responsibilities
DO 3350.2A provided that employees report ail observations or complaints of sexual misconduct made to them on behalf of female inmates and for discipline of employees who fail to report acts or allegations of sexual misconduct
From September 1996 to June 1997, there has been one complaint of sexual misconduct involving a female inmate. The complaint, filed by a staff member, alleged an officer was engaging in an ongoing sexual relationship. An investigator, McFarland and Associates have found probable cause and the Department is moving to discipline the employee.
. Reporting Sexual Abuse to law enforcement
DO 3350.2A contained policy and procedures for the reporting of sexual assault against inmates to MPD. In the undersigned's interview with the Warden on 8/29/97, it was determined that the Warden does not have a complete understanding of the circumstances of a sexual misconduct incident that warrants referral to the MPD. While staff is clear that a sexual assault must be reported, they were not aware that sexual acts (when the inmate "consented") and sexual contact must be referred to MPD.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

42

Minimum Security Facility does not have written procedures on the institutional level for the reporting of sexual misconduct to local law enforcement beyond DO 3350.2A. The Warden was not able to describe the procedure without referring to the written DO. No complaints of sexual misconduct were made during the review period.
1J13. Confidentiality requirements
DO 3350.2A mandated that confidentiality of the complaint and the identity of the alleged victim and respondent shall be maintained. The Department Order directs that retaliation, reprisal and breach of confidentiality regarding an incident of sexual misconduct is prohibited. When a complaint is filed, the alleged victim and the accused receive a notice advising them that the allegation and investigation are to be kept confidential. This requirement is also emphasized in the Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Initial and Refresher Training Manuals. Instructions regarding confidentiality are contained in the Addendum to the Housing Unit Post Orders.
Minimum Security Facility does not have documentation of procedures and instruction, other than the DO 3350.2 which advises that retaliation, reprisal and breach of confidentiality is prohibited. It is recommended that the procedures be included in all appropriate Post Orders. The confidentiality provisions are followed because in the recent incident of sexual misconduct, the investigators complied with the inmate/victim's request to place her name and signature in her statement under seal.
1114. Inmate Appeal procedures
DO 3350.2A contained procedures for advising inmates of appeal rights and individual notification to each inmate when a complaint was filed on her behalf.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D, C.

43

During the review period, no appeals have been filed by inmates regarding complaints of sexual misconduct.

Staff training in Prevention of sexual misconduct

Review of attendance rosters from staff who have received Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates training from 9/2/95 - 3/1/96 reveals that 171 of the approximate 183 staff assigned to the Minimum Security Facility received the Initial mass training between August 1995 and December 1996. The undersigned also reviewed a report from the Training Academy which notified Wardens in January 1996 of those staff who had not attend training and which scheduled two make-up classes were conducted. This report indicated that some of the staff who did not receive training were on workmen's compensation or extended leaves of absence.

In-service training for employees began in February 1997 and a ninety minute annual sexual misconduct refresher training module is included. A review of the Training Academy's files indicate 60 of approximately 160 employees have received In-Service Training as of September 30, 1997.

1J16. Inmate training in Prevention of sexual misconduct

Between August 29 and September 21, 1995, 120 female inmates at the Minimum Security Facility received mass training in the identification, prevention and reporting of sexual misconduct against inmates.25

The Deputy Warden for Programs indicated that no classes for inmates in the prevention of sexual misconduct have been conducted since the initial mass training in

25 Exhibit #29, Inmate Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Attendance Rosters for 1995 mass training.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

44

1995. The Minimum Security Facility has a procedure to ensure female inmates have
been trained whereby theinmates must attest that they have received thetraining,or
they will be trained at Minimum. The Deputy Warden has a supply of the "Inmate Bulletin-Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates".

. Physical plant alterations to ensure female inmate privacy

The requirements of the Court Order regarding protecting the privacy of female prisoners are contained in DOP 4001 dated 5/27/94 "Notification of an Opposite Sex Person in Housing Unit".26 and in the Post Orders for Dorms 6 and 7. During the audit inspections, the undersigned observed male officers, maintenance and environmental staff loudly announce themselves at the door of the Dorms and wait until the Officer told them it was clear. Interviews with staff and managers and a review of the staff rosters indicate that only female correctional officers are assigned to Dorms 6 and 7.

Alterations to the Dorms ensure women prisoners' privacy in their living, sleeping and shower areas. There are Venetian blinds on windows in Dorm 6 and 7 and shower curtains on the stalls.27

II. OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL CARE
1J18 Protocol regarding use of restraints on pregnant and postpartum women The Minimum Security Facility does not have a directive that pregnant females
are to be transported in the least restrictive way possible consistent with legitimate
26 Exhibit # 3 0 , D O P 4 0 0 1 , dated 5/27/94 and Post Orders for Dorms 6 and 7 dated 5/94. 27 Exhibit # 3 1 ,Engineering Service Request dated July 2 1 , 1 9 9 5 for shower curtains and window covers.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

45

security reasons. This protocol is primarily affected at the CTF where all pregnant
women are housed.

III. PROGRAMMING
TJ20 Scheduling to maximize participation
Academic school is offered six hours per day and the higher education program is offered in the evenings.
H21 Install two trailers at the Annex to allow for additional programming.
Two additional trailers (with working sanitary facilities) have been erected at the Annex so that there are five trailers available for programs.28 Academic school, ETAP, the National Women's Law Center program, Anger Management, Recreation, Parenting and substance abuse are offered.
H22 Quality assurance for monitoring program delivery
There is no Quality Assurance Program for education programs.
1J23 Procedures for Inmate Movement.
DOP 4001 "Escort" dated 5/24/97 and Post Order for "Patrol/Escort (Females)" at the Facility provides for escort to the gym, culinary, ball field, administration, parole

1 Exhibit #32 dated 8/11/95 purchase and installation of 2 program trailers at the Annex.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

46

board and law library, school, chapel, psychological services, medical care. Randomly queried inmates confirm that escort is usually conducted on time.

1J24 Academic participation

Women receive academic (ABE and GED) and higher education equivalent to those received by male inmates. The ABE and GED courses are three (3) hours each, therefore there were two (2) classes per course per day. Monthly reports from 9/1/96 to 6/30/97 indicated female inmate academic enrollment as follows:29

Report Month
09/96 10/96 11/96 12/96 01/97 02/97 03/97 04/97 05/97 06/97

Avg. Pop Count
36 32 22 29 42 46 62 94 84 75

#in #in #m #in ABE GED ETAP UDC
06 02 00 00 03 02 01 00 03 01 00 01 01 01 00 01 04 04 05 01 04 05 04 01 05 10 05 02 06 11 00 02 22 19 17 02 20 18 12 00

Total in Educ
08 06 05 03 14 14 22 19 60 50

1126 Full time education program at the Annex

Women can attend academic classes from three to six hours per day (for example, a combination of GED and ETAP).

1J28. Higher Education financial assistance

29 Exhibit #33, Monthly statistics ofstudents are Minimum Security Facility and the Annex.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

47

Tuition and books are free to female inmates who are enrolled in UDC.

U29. Substitute Teachers
According to the principal there is no substitute teacher system is in place but 50% staff coverage is required. As indicated in a memo dated June 10, 1997 coverage was provided during one instructor's absence from May to July, 1997.30 Specifically, during that time period, one ABE and one GED class was available per day. Based on the small number of students, doubling classes did not exceed teacher to student rations of 1:30 (GED) and 1:20 (ABE). Between mid-August and mid-October 1997 there has been one instructor and student numbers have remained low. On October 13,1997 there will be two instructors and the Principal has committed to ensuring that outreach counseling is conducted to improve participation.

1J36. Contract Programs

The only contractual programs during this time period were the Substance Abuse Program and UDC. Both were compatible and fulfilled the provisions of this order.

^{37. Vocational Development Specialists at the Annex

Ms. Gorham is the Vocational Development Specialist (VDS) and teaches ETAP. Instructors conduct testing and enrollment. For seven of the nine months of this audit focus, the women had a full time VDS.

30 Exhibit #34, Memo dated June 10, 1997 and included inJune, 1997 compliance report to plaintiffs, coverage was provided during one instructor's absence from May toJuly, 1997.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

48

ETAP taught by Ms. Jones: male and female population 9/96 -10/96 ETAP taught by Ms. Jones: female population only 11/96 - 3/9731 ETAP taught by Ms. Gorham: female population only 4/97 -6/97

IV.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

1138. Roofs Repair or Replacement on Dorms Six and Seven.

The roofs in Dorms 6 and 7 have been repaired.32

fl39. Repair dorms to prevent rodent entry and follow vermin eradication plan

Repair Work has been conducted on Dorms Six and Seven to control vermin including door replacements, new door jams and thresholds, new door closures and door stops, adjusted doors, repaired trailer doors, replaced moldings, repaired broken windows and window sashes, cinder blocking near doors, replaced window screens, etc.

Documentation was reviewed of the Yearly Environmental Inspection and Pesticide Treatment Calendar which indicates monthly pesticide treatments for the facility and bimonthly treatments for the culinary area. Culinary sanitation inspections are conducted once a month.
This writer reviewed documentation to include Kitchen pesticide treatment which indicated that Zep D Pesticide Full Strength 1 1/2 gal. was applied to the cracks and

31 Mr. Brown taught E T A P to male inmates 11/96 to 6/97. 32 Exhibit # 3 5 , Contract N o . 94-0075, Roof Replacements in D C D O C to include Annex Dorms 6 and 7.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v, D. C.

49

aerial to main kitchen, bathrooms, ODR, tray room, resident's dining room, storage rooms. The documents regarding the Facility indicates Diaiznone 4E .05% diluted w/ water. 3 1/2 gallons were applied in cracks/crevices and spot spraying was made to all bathrooms, dormitories, storage areas, cells, offices, academic school.

Culinary Pesticide and Rodent Control Treatments were conducted as follows:

10/07/96 01/04/96 11/20/96 12/04/96 01/07/97 02/10/97

03/10/97 04/07/97 04/21/97 05/05/97 05/21/97 06/18/97

Facility Pesticide and Rodent Control Treatments were conducted as follows:

09/18/96 10/30/96
11/12/96 01/13&7

03/12/97 04/07/97
05/14/97 06/09/97

TJ40. Provide each woman with at least vertical and one foot locker.
Inspection of Dorms 6 and 7 on July 31 and September 4,1997 revealed that each woman had one vertical and one foot locker.

1J41. Inspection and Replacement of Torn Mattresses
The Sanitation and Environmental Officer inspects mattresses and pillows on a weekly basis. During an inspection on September 4,1997, the auditor interviewed

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

50

female inmates in Dorm Six and Seven regarding the condition of their mattresses and none were reported torn or damaged. Facility staff indicated that they were purchasing flame retardant bedding from Industries. However when verifying this with Industries, it was determined that Industries does not manufacture flame retardant linens and blankets, stating it is not cost effective for the small female population. This product is available on the open market. Facilities Management states the Venetian blinds, installed March 1997 meet flame retardant standards for curtains.

1J42. Transporting of laundry

The auditor inspected the R&D trailer on September 4, 1997 and observed clean laundry stored on shelves lined with plastic bags on R&D shelves. Staff confirmed that soiled and clean laundry are transported in lined carts and that linings are changed prior to putting clean laundry into carts.

1143. Documentation of Current Candle Levels in double-bunked areas

Dorm 7

An inspection of Dorm Seven on July 31,1997 and September 4,

1997 revealed that no swivel lights had been installed in Dorm 7. The facilities

maintenance foreman stated on July 31, 1997 that the lamps are available and would

be installed once Dorm Seven renovations began because additional electrical wiring

must be installed. The candle light is poor on the lower bunks. Tests conducted on

July 31, 1997 by Facilities Maintenance staff indicated 10-20 ft per candle on lower

bunks and 40-50ft per candle on top bunks.

Dorm 6

Inspection of Dorm Six on July 31, 1997 indicated lighting at one

top bunk tested 35 ft per candle and the light reading for the lower bunk was 25 ft per

candle with the lamp on. Bathroom, ceiling night lights, and individual lower bunk

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

51

reading lights installation was completed in February 1997. It was also observed on July 31, 1997 that the bathroom in Dorm 6 contained new florescent lights installed in two toilet stall ceilings.

In addition, the facilities maintenance foreman stated that there is a 100% backup generator for emergency lights.

1J44. Cleaning supplies

The Supply Officer stated that cleaning supplies are delivered to the female R&D Unit each Monday as was confirmed by this writer's inspection of random samples of supply issuance forms for the audit time frame.

1J45. Plumbing Connections in Annex Trailers

An inspection on July 31,1997 revealed that the plumbing was working in program trailers.33

1J46. Provide accessible sanitary facilities for women in Industries

A bathroom was installed in the Garment Shop prior to the trial and it remains accessible for women employed in industries.

1147. Improve air quality in Annex dorms, Industrial garment and print shops

33 Exhibit #36, Engineering Service Request dated 7/19/95 confirmed that plumbing to fixtures were connected in the trailers.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C,

52

Dorm 6

The Chief, Environmental Safety and Sanitation confirmed that the

C02 level is in compliance in the renovated Dorm Six because the air conditioning unit,

installed in early 1997 sufficiently circulates the air. Air quality tests on September 4,

1997 scored 578.

Dorm 7

No central air conditioning has been installed to date. There are 4

window air conditioning units on A Side, 2 on B Side and 1 in the TV room. The Chief,

Environment Safety and Sanitation Chief stated on September 4,1997 that the air

quality will not be improved until renovations are completed. Air Quality tested at 472

on September 4, 1997 (may require re-test because this test was conducted at 10 AM

when the weather was cool and a couple windows were open in the dorm).

The boilers for both dorms have been converted to natural gas.

OHSA inspects the Industries Print Shop and Garment Shop. Reports indicate air quality findings as follows:34

1/17/97 2/25/97 5/19/97 5/19/97

Garment Shop Print Shop Garment Shop Print Shop

Noncompliance Noncompliance Compliance Not cited for noncompliance

1148. Install drainage system at the Annex
During the inspection on July 31,1997, facilities maintenance staff showed the undersigned where a gutter drain was installed on Dorm 7 for better run-off in front of Dorm 7, gutters have been installed on both dorms, a graded ditch was dug in back of Dorm 7 and on the west side of Dorm 6 to relieve standing water. Documentation
34 Exhibit #37, OSHA inspection reports dated 1/17/97, 2/25/97 and 5/19/97 for Industries.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

53

dated 3/95-7/95 confirmed that ditches & drains were dug, concrete poured, top soil and top soil added to remedy the drainage problems at the Annex.

1J49. Preventive Maintenance Plans

Copies of the written preventive maintenance work orders for the Annex dormitories, the Annex trailers, and the Annex grounds are provided for inspection.35

1|50. DCRA Inspections 3 times per year

The last report for the DCRA Inspection completed for Dorms Six and Seven, the Culinary and female R&D for the review period has not yet been received.

The undersigned reviewed the Environmental Safety and Sanitation Officer's selfmonitoring inspection report and inspection reports from the DCDOC Food Services Monitors for the Aramark contract for the Culinary. The Environmental Safety Officer's report is forwarded to the Executive Compliance Officer who forwards same to the Warden. The Warden ensures that an abatement plan is developed and implemented. Compliance monitors audit the work and report results to the Executive Compliance Officer for follow up if needed. The results of the inspections indicating the percentage of items which passed inspection are as follows:
09/13/96 91% 01/27/97 94% 02/27/97 92% 03M/97 91% 04/29/97 93% 06X0/97 96%

35 Exhibit #38. Cooies of the wntten oreventive maintenan

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C,

54

IV. FIRE SAFETY
1160. Fire Alarm System
This writer reviewed documentation indicating that a manual fire alarm system and fire detection system were installed in Dorm Six.36 A work order for installation of a bathroom strobe light and horn system to be tied into the fire alarm system in Dorms 6 and 7 was submitted on September 3, 1997 and per the Deputy Warden for Programs the work was completed on October 10,1997 in Dorm 6.37
There is no automatic retransmission of the above systems to a constantly attended location outside of the dormitory. There is no control panel to provide emergency power or to send a warning if the system is not operational. The Facilities Management Chief has included the needed materials in Purchase Order 59-EL-0020-98).38
1J61. Fire Alarm System in Administration, the cafeteria and gymnasium
Documentation confirms that a manual fire alarm has been replaced in the Administration Building, the kitchen and dining hall, the gym and the school.
1162. Install sprinkler system and 20 minute fire rated enclosure of storage rooms in Annex dorms
36 Exhibit #39,documentation indicating that a manual fire alarm system and fire detection system are installed in Dorm Six. Documentation confirms that a manual fire alarm has been replaced in the Administration Building, thekitchen anddining hall, thegymandthe school. 37 Exhibit # 40, In status report memo dated 10/10/97, the Deputy Warden for Programs attests that this work isnow complete. 38 Exhibit #41, Memo dated October 9,1997 from Facilities Management Chief regarding the status of purchases forrepairs to Dorms 6 & 7 atthe Annex and copies ofthe materials procurement requests.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioncrs v. D. C.

55

No sprinkler system has been installed in Dorms 6 or 7. The Fire Marshal confirms that there are 120 minute fire rated enclosure of storage rooms in Dorm 6. A procurement contract request (55-ML-00460-98) is pending.
1J63. Fire retardant linen, blankets and draperies
The facility is not in compliance with the use of fire retardant bedding because staff errorneously thought bedding purchased from Industries met this standard. This product is available on the open market and will be purchased. Venetian blinds were installed in Dorms 6 and 7 to meet fire retardant standards. Blinds, in lieu of curtains or draperies, allow more light into the dorm while protecting privacy.
Fire Drills
Documentation of all Fire Drills
A review of monthly compliance reports indicate that defendants have provided plaintiffs with monthly fire drill reports as part of the compliance report. Regarding the findings from each drill, the institution Fire Safety Officer was interviewed and reported the following explanations of standards in fire drill assessments:
a. OFFICERS KNOWLEDGEABLE OF EVACUATION PLAN that all doors are opened, officers ensure building is emptied, inmates are ushered to correct holding place and all inmates accounted for. (The Fire evacuation plan is contained in the Post Order and is posted on the wall.)

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

56

b. COMMUNICATION W/ CONTROL - Primarily a radio check to evaluate response time and transmission adequacy.

c. AIR PACK MONITOR - Due for servicing prior to December 31, 1997 (preventive maintenance schedule is every 3 years). No service contract in place to do so. To be pursued at FY '98.

Fire drill reports were reviewed as follows:

Dorm 7

10/08/96 11/14/96 12/31/96 01/30/97 02/20/97

04/03/97 04/29/97 05/27/97 06/30/97

Dorm 6
04/03/97 04/29/97 05/27/97 06/30/97

1J65. Semi-Annual Fire Safety Training for AH Correctional Officers
The undersigned has reviewed Training attendance rosters for 7/29/96 - 9/10/96 semi-annual training which indicated that ninety-five Correctional Officers completed training. The facility Fire Safety Officer is responsible for ensuring that this training occurs. Annual fire safety training at the Academy is included in the 40 hour In-service training.39 The attendance rosters for the In-service fire safety training module initiated 2/1/97 to 6/30/97, do not require the participants to indicate the institution to which they are assigned thus the undersigned is not able to readily determine who has completed same.
1J66. Fire Safety Inspections
39 Exhibit #42, Fire Safety Training Manual.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C,

57

a. The undersigned reviewed weekly inspections of all buildings and grounds for the Annex as conducted by the facility Fire Safety Officer and quarterly inspections of fire equipment. These reports have been forwarded to the plaintiffs as part of the monthly compliance report.
b. Quarterly inspection reports conducted by the DOC Fire Marshal are forwarded to plaintiffs with the monthly court order compliance report.
1J67. Annual DCFD Inspection
The annual DCFD Inspection of the Minimum Security was conducted on July , 1997. The report was received by the DOC Fire Marshal in September 1997 and was forwarded to the Minimum Security Facility Warden on October 10, 199740. The Deputy Warden for Programs stated on October 10, 1997 that three of the deficiences cited (as the Facility Fire Safety Officer was taking notes during the inspection) and a complete abatement report will be prepared on October 14,1997 with the thirty day repair period being November 10, 1997.

D. FINDINGS
1. 1J4. Sexual Misconduct Policy and Procedures
The Minimum Security Facility and Annex were not in Compliance with DO 3350.2A. On July 22,1997, the DO was not posted in Dorm Six and Seven, the

40 Exhibit #43, DCFD Inspection Report for July 30, 1997.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C,

58

Roll Call Room or the Law Library. On October 3, 1997 during a random check of the facility, I observed DO 3350.2A posted in Dorms 6 and 7.

2. 1J5. Sexual Misconduct - Prevention and Remedy

In Compliance with procedures.

3. 1J6. Definition of prohibited conduct

In Compliance.

4. 1J7. Penalties for prohibited conduct

DO 3350.2A contains provisions for discipline of employees who violate this policy.

5. fl8. Inmate reporting of sexual misconduct

In compliance. There is an IGP process and a Inmate Grievance Committee and the posted DO 3350.2A and Inmate Bulletin notifies inmates of how to report complaints. During the time period from September 1, 1996 to June 30, 1997, no female inmates filed a complaint of sexual misconduct.

6. 1|9. Inmate complaint reporting methods

In compliance as noted in the posted DO 3350.2A and inmate bulletin. During this time period, no female inmates initiated any complaints of sexual misconduct.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

59

7. 1J11. Staff reporting responsibilities
In compliance. There has been one complaint of sexual misconduct filed by a staff member on behalf of a female inmate.
8. 1J12. Reporting Sexual Abuse to law enforcement
In compliance 9/96 - 6/97. However, no referral made to FBI in recent case. Minimum Security Facility does not have written procedures on the institutional level for the reporting of sexual misconduct to law enforcement.
9. 1J13. Confidentiality requirements
In compliance as no known complaints of breach of confidentiality filed. Confidentiality provisions were followed in the recent incident of sexual misconduct when the investigators complied with the inmate/victim's request to place her name and signature in her statement under seal.
10. 1J14. Inmate Appeal procedures
In Complaince. 11. T|15. Staff training in Prevention of sexual misconduct
In compliance. 171 staff received Initial Training from 9/2/95 - 3/1/96 and to date 60 employees have received In-Service Training which began in 2/97.
12. fl16. Inmate training in Prevention of sexual misconduct

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

60

In compliance. Between August 29 and September 21, 1995, 120 female inmates at the CDF received mass training in the identification, prevention and reporting of sexual misconduct against inmates. The Minimum Security Facility requires that newly transferred female inmates must attest that they have received the training, or they will be trained at Minimum.
13. 1J17. Physical plant alterations to ensure female inmate privacy
In compliance. Alterations were made to ensure women prisoners' privacy in their living, sleeping and shower areas via installation of Venetian blinds on windows in Dorm 6 and 7 and shower curtains on the stalls.
14. 1J20 Scheduling to maximize participation
In Compliance. Academic school is offered six hours per day and the higher education program is offered in the evenings.
15. fl21 Install two trailers at the Annex to allow for additional programming.
In Compliance. Two additional trailers (with working sanitary facilities) have been erected at the Annex.
16. 1J23 Procedures for Inmate Movement.
In compliance. There is an Escort DOP 4001 DATED 5/24/97 and Post Order for "Patrol/Escort (Females)" at the Facility.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

61

17. 1J24 Academic participation

In compliance. Women receive academic (ABE and GED) and higher education equivalent to those received by male inmates. 18. 1J26 Full time education program at the Annex

Women can attend academic classes from three to six hours per day (for example, combination of GED and ETAP).

19. 1J28. Higher Education financial assistance

In compliance. Tuition and books are free to female inmates.

20. 1J29. Substitute Teachers

In compliance. Coverage was adequately provided during an instructor's extended absence and procedures are in place for vacation and holiday coverage. Low number of female students allows doubling classes and still meeting teacher: student ratios.

21. TC36. Contract Programs

In compliance. Contract with ALNA and UDC were compatible and fulfilled the provisions of this order.

22. 1J37. Vocational Development Specialists at the Annex

In compliance. The women have a full time VDS.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C,

62

23. 1J38. Roofs Repair or Replacement on Dorms Six and Seven.

In Compliance. The roofs in Dorms 6 and 7 have been repaired.

24. 1J39. Repair dorms to prevent rodent entry and follow pest control plan
In compliance. Repair Work completed on Dorms Six and Seven to control vermin and pesticide treatments are conducted on schedule.

25. 1J40. Provide each woman with at least vertical and one foot locker.

In compliance. Each woman had one vertical and one foot locker.

26. 1J41. Inspection and Replacement of Torn Mattresses

In compliance. The Sanitation and Environmental Officer inspects mattresses and pillows on a weekly basis and replaces torn items.

27. 1J42. Transporting of laundry

In compliance for transporting clean laundry in clean lined carts.

28. H43. Documentation of Current Candle Levels in double-bunked areas

In compliance in Dorm 6 where Bathroom, ceiling night lights, and individual lower bunk reading lights installation was completed in February 1997. In addition, the facilities maintenance foreman stated that there is a 100% backup generator for emergency lights.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

63

Not in compliance in Dorm 7 where accomodating electrical renovations have not been achieved. Materials are on order. 29. 1J44. Cleaning supplies documentation
in compliance. Cleaning supplies are delivered on schedule.
30. 1J45. Plumbing Connections in Annex Trailers In compliance. The plumbing was working in program trailers.
31. 1J46. Provide accessible sanitary facilities for women in Industries
In compliance. A bathroom was installed in the Garment Shop prior to the trial and it remains accessible for women employed in Industries. 32. 1J47. Improve air quality in dorms, Industrial garment and print shops
In compliance in Dorm 6. Central air conditioning was installed. Not in compliance in Dorm 7 which currently does not house any inmates. Materials for renovation are on order. OHSA inspects the Industries Print Shop and Garment Shop. Not always in compliance.
33. H48. Install drainage system at the Annex

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

64

In compliance. Gutters, drains, graded ditches, concrete water run-offs installed at Dorms 6 and 7.
34. 1149. Preventive Maintenance Plans
In compliance with use of a preventive maintenance program.
35. 1J50 DCRA Inspections 3 times per year
In compliance with DCRA Inspections.
36. 1J60. Fire Alarm System
In compliance in Dorm 6 for installing fire detection and alarm system and a bathroom shower area strobe light and horn alert.
Not in compliance in Dorm 6 for automatic retransmission of the above systems to a location outside of the dorms no control panel to provide emergency power or to send a warning if the system is not operational.
Not in compliance in Dorm 7. Materials on order. No inmates currently housed there. The Facilities Management Chief has included the needed materials in Purchase Order 59-EL-0020-98).
37. 1J61. Fire Alarm System in Administration, the cafeteria and gymnasium

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

65

In compliance. A manual fire alarm has been replaced in the Administration Building, the kitchen and dining hall, the gym and the school.

38. 1J62. Install sprinkler system and 20 minute fire rated enclosure of storage rooms in Annex dorms.

Not in compliance. No sprinkler system has been installed. The Fire Marshal confirms that there is 120 minute fire rated enclosure of the storage room in Dorm 6. A procurement contract request (55-ML-00460-98) is pending for alarm system. Fire rated enclosure in Dorm 7 to be installed during renovation.

39. 1J63. Fire retardant linen, blankets and draperies

Not in compliance with use of fire retardant linen and blankets. Venetian blinds installed in Dorms to meet fire retardant standards.

40. 1|64. Fire Drills

In compliance with conducting, monitoring and documenting monthly fire drills.

41. 1J65. Semi-Annual Fire Safety Training for All Correctional Officers

In compliance. Fire safety training conducted 7/29/96 - 9/10/96 and 2/1/97-6/30/97.

42. 1J66. Fire Safety Inspections

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

66

In compliance with Fire Safety Officer conducting weekly fire safety inspections and DCDOC Fire Marshal conducting quarterly inspections.

43. 1J67. Annual DCFD Inspection

In compliance. The annual DCFD Inspection of the Minimum Security was conducted on July 30 , 1997. Abatement is underway.

RECOMMENDA TIONS
1. 1J4. Revise Post Orders consistent with DO 3350.2B. In the interim write and attach an addendum to the housing unit Post Orders directing that sexual misconduct (to include sexual acts, sexual contact, sexual harassment and invasion of privacy), retaliation and breach of confidentiality is prohibited; that each employee must verbally report incidents and complaints of sexual misconduct directly to the Warden and follow up with a written report by the end of their business day; that staff of the opposite sex must announce themselves when entering the unit and cell tier; that the Housing Unit Officer-in-Charge inspect and enter into the Housing Unit log book, certification that the DO is posted when they assume responsibility for the unit at shift change.
2. 1|6. Include Opposite sex announcement in Escort Officers Post Orders, etc.
3. 1J8. Warden to ensure that IGAC meetings are held monthly and minutes are recorded and included in monthly compliance report.
4. 1118. Develop procedures for the least restrictive transport of women.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

67

5. TJ29. Develop a substitute teacher plan of action for coverage during absences of more than five (5) days when the combining of classes would exceed the teacher to student ratio standards for adult education.

6. 1J35. Conduct affirmative outreach to increase participation.

7. 1J47. In conjunction with Facilities Management, develop plan of action for housing women during renovations to Dorms 6 and 7.

8. 1J62. In conjuction with Facilities Management, develop plan of action for housing of women in Dorm 6 for installation of the sprinkler system.

9. j|62. Purchase flame retardant linen and blankets by January 1,1998.

11. 1165. Minimum Security to develop plans by September 30,1997 to ensure officers receive re-training in Fire Safety at a six month interval.

12. 1J66. The institutional fire safety officer will revise the inspection report by September 30,1997 for more comprehensive documentation (to include the status of uncompleted or long-term repairs, etc.)

13. 1J67. Develop and abate DCFD inspection deficiencies by November 10, 1997.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

68

AUDIT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT ORDER IN WOMEN PRISONERS V. D.C. CA 93-2052
CCA/CTF - CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FACILITY (CCA/CTF)

A. METHODOLOGY
This report is based on the following:
1. Findings from regular inspections as the DCDOC Monitor for the CCA/CTF Contract and inspections specifically relating to this audit.
2. Interviews with inmates; facility correctional and program managers, supervisors and line staff; executive level managers assigned to CCA/CTF Corporate Office and the Assistant Corporation Counsel in this case.
3. Review of DC documents to include the CCA/CTF Technical Proposal, the Operations and Management Agreement, the lease agreement, CCA/CTF policies, procedures, directives and work plans; relevant Court Orders; compliance reports and other program evaluation reports; correspondence files, shift records; log books; reports on sexual misconduct and inmate grievance complaints and findings; staffing plans and duty roster reports; training files; program schedules and reports prepared by
expert consultants and the Special Officer of the Court.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

69

a REPORT FORMAT

The report identifies each subject area by descriptive title and the corresponding number in the Order. The report will conclude whether there is compliance with the Order, describe plans for achieving compliance, identify obstacles concerning continuing compliance and, where applicable, propose recommendations by the undersigned.

C. AUDIT REPORT

Introduction

The DC Department of Corrections (DCDOC) and the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA/CTF) entered into an Operations and Management (O&M) Agreement effective March 16,1997.

The CTF continues to house the 256 bed Female Offenders Unit in E Building and a 32 bed Substance Abuse Unit in D Building. The Reception and Diagnostic, Infirmary/ Physically challenged units and the Substance Abuse programs for males remain.

The purpose of this report is to provide findings which address whether the CCA/CTF is in compliance with the provisions of the court order in CA 93-2052 Women Prisoners v. P. C. Findings are based upon DC Documents inspections, physical plant inspections and interviews with management, line staff and inmates. Pertinent exhibits are included for inspection.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v, D. C.

70

Contract Monitoring

In accordance with the contractual agreement between and CCA/CTF the services provided the Operator shall, at a minimum, provide the level of prison services and protection to the inmates and the public that are currently being offered as of the date of the Agreement. In addition, beginning not later than six months after the commencement date, the operator shall cause the CTF to be operated and maintained in accordance with the standards required by the Court Orders.

The O&M required the Operator to make physical plant improvements to the CTF to include improvements to the HVAC/Mechanical systems (i.e., Air balancing the entire system, upgrading the energy management system, replacing chiller and steam coils as needed; improving the electrical and plumbing systems; and repairing roof leaks, the elevator system and the sprinkler/Tire alarm system).

The O&M requires that the District Representative (i.e., the Executive Deputy Director) be responsible for the day-to-day activities of the District with respect to the Agreement. The DCDOC and the Operator's representatives are required to meet at least weekly to review the operation of the CTF and in particular to identify and address any issues with respect to the Operator's performance under the Agreement. The Operator has prepared a basic manual which provides instructions to its personnel regarding the operation of the CTF.

Regina C. Gilmore is the Acting Contract Monitor under the Agreement. She is assigned full time to the CTF and is the primary point of contact. On July 2, 1997, the consultant firm of Pulitzer, Board and Associates was contracted, for a one year period, to work in conjunction with the Contract Monitor to .establish standards and capacity building to include:

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

71

N A'

•

J('J v • v

?}?

P k4'

K"

Development of a monitoring system41 and a quality assurance plan to ensure the operator's compliance with contract terms as well as compliance with all aspects of service delivery (ex: security, programs, health care, food services, maintenance ar|d court orders).

• Monitoring implementation of $3.85 million in capital improvements.

• Developing capacity within the DCDOC to assume responsibility for contract

~?

monitoring by mid-1998.

• Assisting in negotiating andresolving claims concerning alleged failures ofthe operator to comply with contractual agreements, should such occur.

The consultants have part time experts in theareas of contract compliance, construction, security, health services, food services andsanitation. These experts perform regular inspections, inquiries and findings of performance standards.

DCDOC Compliance Monitoring

The DCDOC Office of Compliance continues to assign a Compliance Monitor to oversee CCA/CTF's compliance with applicable Court Orders which include CA 932052. CCA/CTF submits a monthly compliance report which is identical to the format and provisions previously reported on by DCDOC. TheCompliance Monitor regularly meets with CCA/CTF regarding issues andconcerns and will be included in meetings with theContract Monitor and CCA/CTF regarding compliance with court orders.

41 The monthly Performance Measures report, developed by the DCDOC contract monitoring consultants, is used by CCA/CTF as a self-monitoring tool and by the DCDOC monitoring staff.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

72

CCA/CTF Compliance Monitoring
CCA/CTF has a facility Compliance Monitor who is responsible to monitoring and selfinspection for the court orders and general operational issues to include, but not limited to security, programs, health care, food services, and maintenance. As noted the Performance Measures report is used by CCA/CTF for self-monitoring and for compliance monitoring by the DCDOC contract monitors.
In addition, the Operator shall audit at least annually, using personnel other than employees assigned to the CTF, its compliance with the terms of this Agreement and the Operating Standards. The findings shall be shared with DCDOC monitors.
CCA/CTF Health Services Coordinator
CCA/CTF has a health services coordinator who is responsible for monitoring and administration in that area.
CCA/CTF Sexual Misconduct Coordinator/Inmate Grievance Coordinator
CCA/CTF has a Coordinator that administers and monitors the inmate complaint processes.

D. Court Ordered Provisions In C.A. 93-2052 I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

73

1J4. CCA/CTF Sexual Misconduct Policy and Procedures
The CCA/CTF has a written Policy CCA/CTF Policy 14-1000", Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates", dated January 15, 1997 which are the procedures for reporting, investigating and disposition of incidents of sexual misconduct.42 This policy was modeled after Department Order 3350.2A for the D.C. Department of Corrections. CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 will be revised in accordance with Department Order 3350.2B "Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates", dated October 15,1997.
CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 has written procedures regarding posting of the Sexual Misconduct policy and procedures.43 CCA/CTF Policy 9-7 "Security Inspections" effective January 1, 1997 for the CTF, mandates general security inspections and Documentation. This auditor has inspected CCA/CTF Form 9-7A "Daily Reports" from May, 1997 to August, 1997, wherein each Shift Unit Lead Officer, upon assumption of duty, certified that sensors, radios, unit keys, fire extinguishers and Sexual Misconduct policy is posted.44 The completed forms are too numerous to include in this report as exhibits but will be maintained for inspection if plaintiffs so request.
During an inspection on September 8, 1997, the undersigned found that neither DO 3350.2A nor CCA/CTF Policy 14-1000 was posted in any of the female housing units which are in E Building. The undersigned notes that there are locked bulletin boards in the hallway of each wing where the policy can be posted and secured. During regular inspections as the Contract Monitor, this Auditor has inspected and found that
42 Exhibit #44, CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 "Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates". 43 Exhibit #45, CCA/CTF Policy 1-3 "Dissemination and Availability of Policies, Procedures, Operational Manuals, Technical Manuals or Post Orders", for CTF effective January IS, 1997. 44 Exhibit #46, Form 9-7A "Daily Reports" isan attachment to CCA/CTF Policy 9-7. The exhibited Sample Copy of form utilized by relieving correctional officer's inspection that Policy CCA/CTF 14-100 isposted upon assuming custody of the housing unit.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v, D. C.

74

the Sexual Misconduct policy was posted on staff bulletin boards (to include at staff entrance, in the Substance Abuse administrative area, in the Women's program administrative area and in the inmate library).

The CCA/CTF has developed written instructions in the form of a memorandum which highlights a definition of sexual misconduct, reporting requirement for complaints of sexual misconduct and mandates for confidentiality45. In addition, CCA/CTF has printed poster size notices of "Zero Tolerance of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates." This poster will be posted behind plexi-glass shields throughout the building to include on housing units, in the gymnasium, in the Culinary unit, in the Receiving and Discharge Unit, in the school, on the Medical units to include in the OB-GYN exam room, at staff entrance and at other inmate program areas.

1|5 Sexual Misconduct - Prevention and Remedy

CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 contains procedures for the detection, prevention, reporting and investigation of sexual misconduct against inmates and for the discipline of employees who engage in sexual misconduct against inmates.

To improve surveillance and increase security for both staff and inmates, 98 additional CCTV cameras have been installed throughout the facility (to include on elevators and in other blind spots). Additional crash gates have been installed for controlled escorting and improved supervision of inmates.

The CCA/CTF has contracted with Delany, Siegel and Zorn to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct.46 There have been four (4) incidents reported between March 16,
45 Exhibit #47, Memorandum dated July 22, 1997 to all staff re: mandates of policy for prevention of sexual misconduct against inmates. 46 Exhibit #48, CCA/CTF Contracts for investigation of complaints of sexual misconduct against inmates.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

75

1997 and September 30, 1997. Three investigations have been completed with findings of "no evidence to support a finding of sexual misconduct". The fourth incident occurred on September 28, 1997 and has been referred to MPD and for administrative investigation. A brief summary of each incident is provided.47

1f6 Definition of prohibited conduct

Prohibited conduct under CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 is defined in accordance with the Court Order and Department Order 3350.2A for sexual misconduct which includes sexual acts, sexual contact, sexual harassment and invasion of privacy against inmates as well as retaliation against inmates who refuse to submit to sexual misconduct or against individuals because of their involvement in the reporting or investigation of a sexual misconduct complaint. Policy and procedures for maintenance of confidentiality and sanctions for breaching confidentiality are contained in CCA/CTF Policy 14-100. Policy and procedures prohibiting and discipline for interference in the reporting or investigation of complaints is contained in CCA/CTF Policy 14-100.

1J7 Penalities for prohibited conduct

CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 contains provisions for discipline of employees who violate this policy.

1f8 Inmate reporting of sexual misconduct

CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 contains procedures for inmate reporting of complaints of sexual misconduct via use of IGP system to report complaints of sexual misconduct. This provision is contained in the Inmate Bulletin "Prevention of Sexual Misconduct

47 Exhibit 51, Summary of sexual misconduct complaints against female inmates for period 9/1/96 to 6/30/97.

I

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D, C.

76

Against Inmates" which is distributed to female inmates at the Receiving and Discharge Unit.

The CCA/CTF Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee (IGAC) was initiated in April, 1997. The first meeting was held on April 15, 1997. The committee is chaired by the IGP Coordinator. Other staff members of the IGAC are the Warden, the AssistantWardens for Operations, Programs and Administration, the Program Managers (Substance Abuse, Reception and Diagnostic and Female Offender Unit), the Health Services Manager, the Business Manager, the Safety/Sanitation Manager, the Academic Principal, the Maintenance Supervisor, an ARAMARK Representative, (food services contract) and the Records Office Chief. The Court Order Compliance Monitor periodically sits in on IGAC meetings. Inmate representatives are from the Female Offender Unit, the Substance Abuse Unit, the Medical Unit and the Reception and Diagnostic Unit. A review of the CCA/CTF IGAC's meeting minutes found that the first two meetings primarily dealt with inmate concerns for understanding how the CCA contract and privatization would impact on them, whether Court Orders imposed on DCDOC applied to CCA and general operations. No specific complaints as relating to the Order were observed.

^9 Inmate complaint reporting methods
CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 provides that female inmates may report complaints of sexual misconduct orally or in writing, to any employee, through the IGP system or to a IGAC prisoner representative.
Of the four (4) reported complaints of sexual misconduct on behalf of female inmates, one report was filed by an employee, two were verbally reported by the inmate

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D, C.

77

complainant to a staff member and one was reported by the complaining inmate on an IGP form.

, 1
k

The IGP Coordinator is also the Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates Coordinator (hereafter the Coordinator). The Coordinator has the responsibility for monitoring the reporting telephone hot line, screening and processing complaints and appeals relating to sexual misconduct, monitoring the status of criminal investigations against staff accused of sexual abuse, and coordinating and monitoring the complaint process.

Confidential Telephone Hot line

A separate voice mail 1-800 line is being installed on the Bell-Atlantic contracted employee phone system in the Sexual Misconduct Coordinator's office that is restricted by a password. That phone is working however, CCA/CTF has contracted inmate telephone services with Invision in August 1997. By October 17,1997, the Assistant Warden for Operations will confirm that Invision has placed a block on the inmate phones to restrict monitoring of calls when they are made from any telephone in the system to this number. The Hot line is expected to be in full operation by October 24, 1997.

fl11 Staff reporting responsibilities

CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 provides for discipline of employees who fail to report acts or allegations of sexual misconduct. A reminder is contained in the July 22, 1997 bulletin posting referenced in 1J4.

Reporting Sexual Abuse to law enforcement

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

78

In accordance with DO 3350.2A, CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 contains policy and procedures for the reporting of sexual assualt against inmates to MPD. In interviews with the Warden, Assistant Wardens, Sexual Misconduct Coordinator and the Security Director, this auditor has determined that the CCA/CTF does not have an accurate understanding of the circumstances of a sexual misconduct incident that warrants referral to the MPD. While staff is clear that a sexual assault must be reported, they were not aware that sexual acts (when the inmate "consented") and sexual contact sexual touching must be referred to MPD. As a result, no referrals were made to law enforcement in two of the complaints. In one complaint, the inmate requested to press charges and MPD was contacted on September 11, 1997. MPD did not interview the inmate until on September 16, 1997. The Sexual Misconduct Coordinator advised the undersigned that when asked for the report number, the detectives stated they were not assigning one. In the fourth allegation which was submitted by staff on September 28, 1997, the matter was reported to MPD and no status of that complaint is yet made. The Sexual Misconduct Coordinator has the responsibility for monitoring the Hot line, referring complaints directly received via letter or the hotline to the Warden and for communicating with the MPD Sex Squad concerning the status of any investigation.

CCA/CTF Policy 8.3 "Crime Scene Procedures", CTF dated January 15,1997, regarding the reporting of cases of assault is additional policy that is applicable to reporting incidents/complaints of sexual acts and sexual contact between employees and inmates.48

1J13 Confidentiality requirements

CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 mandates that confidential of the complaint and the identity of the alleged victim and respondent shall be maintained. All parties notified

48 Exhibit #49, CCA/CTF Policy 8.3 "Crime Scene Procedures", CTF dated January 15, 1997

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

79

of the complaint or interviewed are advised by the Sexual Misconduct Coordinator and/or the Investigator that retaliation, reprisal or breach of confidentiality is prohibited.

1J14 Inmate Appeal procedures

CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 contains procedures for advising inmates of appeal rights and individual notification to each inmate when a complaint was filed on her behalf.49 One inmate filed an appeal to the Director which was denied.

Staff training in Prevention of sexual misconduct
Certified DCDOC Sexual Misconduct Against Inmate Trainers conducted training for new CCA/CTF employees regarding the prevention of sexual misconduct for the time period of March 16 through August 15,1997.50 CCA/CTF currently uses DCDOC Trainer and Student Manuals for Pre-service and In-Service Traning. Trainers sign a form, that is maintained in their individual training folders, attesting that they have received a copy of the policy.51
On August 2, 1997, the undersigned, as Contract Monitor and a Certified Trainer in the Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates, conducted Train the Trainer and

49 Exhibit #50, Individual inmate notices of Appeal rights upon notification ofthe investigative findings of whether evidence supports the conclusion ofsexual misconduct. 50 Exhibit, #52Attendance rosters of CCA/CTF staff who have received Prevention ofSexual Misconduct Against Inmates. 51 Exhibit #53, Memo, dated August 29,1997 from the Training Manager re: format for staff acknowledgment of receipt of Policy 14-100.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

80

certified the CCA/CTF Training Administrator to conduct employee training in the Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates.52

Former DCDOC staff who are now CCA/CTF employees have not yet received Annual Refresher Training. CCA/CTF is scheduled to being the forty (40) hour In-service training for approximately 117 former DCDOC employees. The ninety (90) minute refresher training module will be included in the In-service training.

1J16 Inmate training in Prevention of sexual misconduct

Available records indicate that the mass training in the prevention, recognition, reporting and investigation of complaints of sexual misconduct was conducted for one hundred and sixty-nine (169) women prisoners at the DCDOC/CTF for the time period of September 6,1995 and September 30,199553. Training commenced on August 30, 1995, therefore it is the undersigned's belief that an additional 30-40 female inmates were trained.

Weekly female prisoner training is currently conducted at the CDF but not the CTF. Pregnant females are all housed at the Correctional Treatment Facility in Unit E 3-A. The CDF is required to transfer pregnant females within twenty-four (24) hours of knowledge of pregancy. There are no procedures for ensuring training for female inmates who are transferred from CDF prior to receiving the orientation training that is conducted there once a week. CCA/CTF currently provides female inmates with a copy of Inmate Bulletin "Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates".

52 Exhibit #54, Memorandum dated 4 , 1 9 9 7 re: certification of the CCA/CTF Training Administrator to conduct employee Pre-service and In-service Training in the prevention of sexual misconduct against inmates. 53 Exhibit #55, Attendance Rosters for female inmates at CTF for time period 9/6/95 to 9/30/95.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

81

TJ17 Physical plant alterations to ensure female inmate privacy

The CCA/CTF has implemented procedures to ensure women prisoner's privacy in their living, sleeping and shower areas. CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 requires staff of the opposite sex to announce their presence when entering the housing unit. This auditor has observed this practice on many occasions while conducting routine inspections.

Opaque material has been placed on the outside of each inmate's window in E building to prevent outsiders to being able to see into the rooms.54 On September 8, 1997 at approximately 8:45PM, this auditor observed E Building cell windows from the cells in D Building and from the outside recreation yard. With the lights on in the cell in E Building, vision of the woman's nude silhouette is not significantly reduced. It is noted that the film does suffice as a screen during daytime hours. This information was reported to the Warden and the CCA/CTF Director for Maintenance and Construction on October 6,1997 to correct the problem.

II. OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL CARE
1J18 Protocol regarding use of restraints on pregnant and postpartum women
The CCA/CTF has a implemented a procedure that pregnant females are to be transported in the least restrictive way possible consistent with legitimate security reasons. s
54 Exhibit #56, Product Specification of "Clear Focus Film" window covering. 55 Exhibit #57, M e m o with notification form from the Medical Services Administrator, dated 5/30/97 that pregnant females are to be transported in the least restrictive waypossible consistent with legitimate security reasons.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v, D. C.

82

Pregnant females are all housed at the Correctional Treatment Facility in Unit E 3-A. The CDF is required to transfer pregnant females within twenty-four (24) hours of knowledge of pregnncy. Escort is usually conducted without any form of security restraints because the female is escorted from CDF to CCA/CTF via an enclosed walkway that connects the two buildings. In addition, the CDF medical staff usually notify the CCA/CTF Count Desk and Receiving & Discharge unit that they are transferring/transporting the female because she is pregnant and indicate same on the Medical Control Form. The undersigned has observed Record Office's copies of Control Form and inter-institutional transfer from which contain a notation of "Preg." or "Pregnant".

There are procedures for notification by medical staff to CCA/CTF and Transcor56 that the inmate is pregnant.

III. PROGRAM EVALUATION
1f19 Diagnostic evaluations
In order to meet Congressional mandates that designated facilities be closed, during the time span of June 1 through September 30, 1997 the Reception and Diagnostic Unit has had to complete over 270 studies for male inmates in order to replenish the population at Central Facility as 1,400 inmates were transferred from Lorton to the contract facility in Youngstown, Ohio and for 108 comprehensive Youth Rehabilitation Act studies as mandated by law57. While testing of over thrity-one (31)
56 Exhibit # 5 8 , M e m o dated 5/30/97 from Warden and CCA/CTF Post Order for Transportation Officers re: restraint o f pregnant inmates. CCA/CTF subcontracts with Transcor for escorting of inmates to destinations outside of the facility. 57 Exhibit #59, CCA/CTF Reception and Diagnostic Unit Monthly report statistics for June - September 1997.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D, C.

83

female inmates has been initiated, four (4) studies have been completed based upon priority mandates. The Chief of that unit advised this auditor that emphasis has been placed upon completing an average often (10) female inmate diagnostic studies per month beginning in October 1997.

1J20 Scheduling to maximize participation
School is held for females in the morning from 8 AM to 11AM58. The courses taught are ABE, GED and Life Skills (ETAP & Parenting).59 It was reported on September 5, 1997 that a total of 74 female inmates were enrolled in academic courses.and males in the afternoon. In addition, two classroom sessions (i.e., AM and PM) are given to female inmates in the DocuTech vocational course.

Females are primarily employed in the skill-producing on-the-job training squads such as facilities maintenance, supply management, commercial cleaning and the Officers Dining Room food service program. Males are employed in the Culinary and environment squads which are primarily manual labor.

1J23 Procedures for Inmate Movement.

Until August 1997 elevators 7 and 8 were manually operated to allow rapid deployment of female inmates to programs. CCA/CTF has repaired and reprogrammed the elevator system for more efficient operation and has installed a more comprehensive central control system that enhances the speed of elevator and door control and manual elevator operation ceased. The Principal began monitoring

58 Exhibit #60, Academic and Vocational Program schedule for CCA/CTF. 59 Exhibit # 6 1 , (Section #20C)Enrollment statistics on September S, 1997.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v, D. C.

84

student arrival times in August 1997 and reports that students are arriving to class on time.60

It is anticipated that movement will significantly improve moreover when in the near future the elevator system is removed from the central control system and operated by CCA/CTF escort staff via fingerprint control access. The camera and access equipment have been installed in the elevators to implement this process. Additional intercoms have been intergrated into the Control Center to improve movement.

1J26 Academic participation

The Academic programs are provided for female inmates from 8 AM to 11AM on Monday through Friday.61 The courses taught are ABE, GED and Life Skills (ETAP & Parenting).62 It was reported on September 5,1997 that a total of 74 female inmates were enrolled in academic courses.

1J27 Higher Education

Female inmates have not have college courses available to them since CCA assumed operation and management of the contract on March 16, 1997. CCA has attempted to obtain a contract with UDC since mid May 1997. The negotiation was delayed on UDC's part for almost three months because the UDC contract coordinator was RIF'ed and the contract lay dormant. UDC and CCA have resumed negotiation and are in the final stages of reaching an agreement however UDC operates on a semester term and classes may possibly be delayed until January 1998. The contract provides for up to two college courses per semester in the Fall and Spring. The
60 Exhibit #62, Academic school's monitoring o f inmate arrival times to school 8/18/97 -10/6/97. 61 Exhibit #60, Academic and Vocational Program schedule for CCA/CTF. 62 Exhibit #61, (Section #20A) Enrollment statistics on September 5,1997.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D, C,

85

courses lead to an AA Degree in Legal Assistant, Accounting Technology, Management Technology or Urban Studies with core courses leading to a BA Degree in Urban Studies.63 Female inmates have been interviewed for college placement.64 The pre-college program has not been initiated. The Deputy Warden for Programs noted exclusion of this program to have been an oversight and classes will begin by not later than November 3, 1997.

1128. Higher Education financial assistance

The Assistant Warden for Programs advised that tuition and books will be free to the female inmate.

1J29. Substitute Teachers

The CCA/CTF has implemented a procedure for substitute teachers for coverage of any leave of absences of educational staff for a period of more than five (5) days.65

1J31. Prevocational programs

CCA/CTF offers a six month Life skills course that is divided into three 8 week modules consisting of (1) Employment Techniques and Awareness (ETAP), (2) Communication and Conflict Resolution and (3) Parenting.66

1J32. Vocational programs

63 Exhibit #63, proposed CCA/CTF contract with UDC. 64 Exhibit #64, Lists dated 7/9/97 of thirty-nine (39) females who signed up for higher education application interviews. 65 Exhibit #65, dated April 11,1997 memo establishing procedures for implementation ofsubstitute teachers. 66 Exhibit #66, Prevocational course description and enrollment.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

86

CCA/CTF currently offers vocational courses in graphic arts, computer literacy, commercial cleaning and Interior Renovation. 67

1J33. Apprenticeship

CCA/CTF has applied to the DC Apprenticeship Counsel for approval of a Commerical Cleaning apprenticeship course.68 The Principal met with a Counsel member on October 7,1997 and the Apprentice Counsel Board was scheduled to meet on October 9, 1997, a which time the program would be reviewed for approval or for further revisions to meet the standards for apprenticeship programs.

j|35. Vocational participation outreach CCA/CTF has procedures for affirmative outreach to inmates.69

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
. Air balancing
CCA subcontracted with Dick Corporation on May 8, 1997 to improve the HVAC system. Repairs and replacements to chillers and air handlers, steam coils, and condensate pumps and roof top exhausts. A great portion of the energy management system has been upgraded.70 The undersigned, as Contract Monitor, has attended several bi-monthly monitoring walk throughs with the DCDOC Facilities Management
67 Exhibit #67, Vocational course descriptions and enrollment. Interior Renovation isa new class which isto begin by mid-October 1997. The instructor was hired on September 29,1997 and isin Pre-service Training. 68 Exhibit #68, CCA/CTF application to the DC Apprenticeship Council. 69 Exhibit #69, Affirmative outreach procedures to encourage inmate participation in vocational courses. 70 Exhibit #70, Dick Corporation Contract report dated September 3 0 , 1 9 9 7 .

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

87

Foreman and Dick Corporation.71 The DOC Compliance Monitor now has a consultant who is an expert in prison facility architect and construction and full inspection of this work is underway.

. Alternate housing in cold weather

CCA/CTF has developed procedures that during cold months, the correctional supervisor on duty shall use a thermometer to measure end cell and other random cell temperature. If the room temperature falls below 65°, women in the end ceils on each tier shall be moved to an empty cell, they shall be allowed to keep their cell door open to increase the intake of warm air from the tier or they shall be allowed to sleep in the dayroom and they shall be given 2 each: blankets, thermal underwear, wool socks.72 Purchases of thermal clothing and blankets have been completed.73

Dick Corporation states there are plans to apply a masonry sealant to the outside wails in an effort to keep cold air from entering cracks and masonry pores.

1J53. Pest Control

The CCA/CTF has contracted with Orkin Pest control to exterminate for vermin control.74 Bi-monthly treatments have been increased to weekly treatments, applied to a portion of the facility, resulting in the entire building being treated once a month.

1J54. Cleaning supplies

71 Exhibit #71, DCDOC Facilities Manager inspection report dated August 5, 1997. 72 Exhibit #72, Memo dated 5/28/97 for measuring temperature/alternate housing. 73 Exhibit #73, "Purchase Order #0184 for 60 dozen sets of thermals, 200 wool blankets and 96 lightweight sheet blankets. 74 Exhibit #74,Orkin Pest Control Service Agreement dated 3/31/97 and Treatment Schedule

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

88

The CCA/CTF has maintained an adequate supply of cleaning supplies and has procedures for chemical use and supply distribution. The undersigned, as Contract Monitor, has received video and class room training along with other staff in the use of the cleaning supply products.75

. Laundry
The CCA/CTF has a written policy76 for laundry services and a contract with a professional laundry which follows appropriate procedures for the sanitary handling of laundry.77 Plans are underway to build an internal laundry facility.

1J56. Food
The CCA/CTF has written procedures78 for food safety, meal serving and inspection schedules. Correctional Supervisors are required to inspect the Culinary on each shift. The Assistant Shift Commander is required to conduct random monitoring of food temperature and food delivery .79 These processes are expected to improve as the Sanitarian develops improved monitoring and reporting procedures. In addition, Elevators 3, 6, and 9 are manually operated during meal delivery periods to expedite transport and maintain adequate food serving temperatures.

75 Exhibits #75, Purchase Order 354 dated 5/16/97 for Portion Pac product. Purchase Order 392 dated 6/05/97 for Portion Pac products. Purchase Order 457 dated 7/15/97 for Portion Pac products. Portion Pac Representative inspection report dated 8/14/97. Portion Pac Cleaning supplies usage descriptions. Portion Pac cleaning supply distribution schedule. Portion Pac cleaning distribution 8/97 &9/97 for EBuilding, Culinary, BMU-A, and Medical. 76 Exhibit #76, Policy 12-102 "Linen and Laundry Handling Services", dated June 3 0 , 1 9 9 7 . 77 Exhibit #77, Sterling laundry Contract, dated April 4, 1997. 78 Exhibit #78, CCA/CTF Policy 11-100 "Menus, Special Diets, Service Records and Safety Standards, 11-101 "Meal Serving Schedule" and 11-102 " Health Protection of Persons Working in Food Service". 79 Exhibit #79, M e m o dated 8/5/97 "Monitoring Culinary Operations" for Correctional Supervisors.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

89

Other pending measures are (1) to train correctional supervisors and unit managers to monitor food temperatures, (2) as CCA is re-negotiating its contract with Aramark, CCA will include contract deficiency clauses and will not pay for meals that do not meet contract standards, and (3) new tray food seal straps are being purchased to better retain temperatures.

fl57. Preventative Maintenance Plan

CCA/CTF has a policy for preventive maintenance that includes maintenance of structures, systems, and equipment .80 CCA/CTF has not yet completed its Preventive Maintenance Service Operation Procedures nor have they completed data entry into the Chief Maintenance System to actively use the PM program. They are also in the process of renumbering doors and equipment based upon construction renovations in order to input the correct locations into Chief. CCA reports that a major delay in implementation has been caused by staff being deployed to repair and renovate major systems as required by September 15,1997 in the contract. Facilities maintenance staff and the numerous contractors have continued to complete regular repair orders . The affected Assistant Warden states that a plan of action to get Chief on-line by January 1,1998 will be developed by October 31,1997.

1J58. Plumbing inspections CCA/CTF requires that correctional officers inspect plumbing in the female units
at each shift change and enter this information into the log book.81 Work orders are then written and facilities maintenance is contacted. When facilities maintenance receives the work orders each day, they record them in their own manual log and into Chief and prioritize the work. Completed work is logged by the housing unit officer, the

80 Exhibit #80, Policy 7-2 "Physical Plant Maintenance", dated 1/15/97 and memo dated 9/8/97 re: Chief PMP. 81 Exhibit #81, Memo dated May 28,1997 (See Page 2) regarding daily inspection of plumbing in E Building.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

90

work order is signed by the repair person as completed and the information is logged into the facilities maintenance manual and automated system. The undersigned, has inspected the plumbing work orders for the time period May 1997 to June 30, 1997 which indicate that 90% of the work is completed within twenty-four hours.

1J59. DCRA Inspections
This auditor is aware that the DCRA has inspected the Culinary unit and sample housing units, however no reports have been received to date with the exception of the DCRA Culinary Inspection on May 19,1997.82

V. FIRE SAFETY

1J65. Fire Safety Training:

The CCA/CTF provides semi-annual fire safety training. Course descriptions, dates of training and attendance lists are attached83. The Fire Safety Officer has plans to conduct refresher training as additional procedures are being put into place84

E. FINDINGS

1. 1J4. CCA/CTF Sexual Misconduct Policy and Procedures

82 Exhibit #82, dated May 19,1997 DCRA Inspection Report of the Culinary Unit and Policy 9-7 "Security Checks", dated 1/15/97 which governs security, fire safety and sanitation checks by Correctional Supervisors. 83 Exhibit #83, Staff Attendance Rosters March to July 1997 for Fire Safety Training and Pre-Service and InService Fire Safety Training Lesson Plans. 84 Exhibit #84, Fire Safety Plan submitted October 7,1997. The evacuation route portion isbeing revised due to construction changes in building.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

91

CCA is in compliance with having written policy and procedures for reporting, investigating and disposition of incidents of sexual misconduct in accordance with Department Order 3350.2A and the Court Order. CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 has written procedures regarding posting of the policy.

CCA is not in compliance with posting the policy as required when the inspection conducted on September 8,1997.

2. 1J5 Sexual Misconduct - Prevention and Remedy

In Compliance. CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 contains procedures for the detection, prevention, reporting and investigation of sexual misconduct against inmates and for the discipline of employees who engage in sexual misconduct against inmates. The CCA/CTF has contracted with Delany, Siegel and Zorn to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct.

3. 1J6 Definition of prohibited conduct

In compliance. Prohibited conduct under CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 is defined in accordance with the Court Order and Department Order 3350.2A for sexual misconduct.

4. fl7 Penalities for prohibited conduct

In compliance. CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 contains provisions for discipline of employees who violate this policy. Employee discipline has been documented to have been appropriately enacted.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

92

5. 1J8 Inmate reporting of sexual misconduct

In compliance. CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 contains procedures for inmate reporting of complaints of sexual misconduct via use of IGP system to report complaints. The CCA/CTF Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee (IGAC) was initiated in April, 1997.

6. 1J9 Inmate complaint reporting methods

In compliance. CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 provides that female inmates may report complaints of sexual misconduct orally or in writing, to any employee, through the IGP system or to a IGAC prisoner representative. The reporting processes are utilized. 7. 1J10 Confidential Telephone Hot line

Not in compliance. A separate voice mail 1-800 line has been installed in the Sexual Misconduct Coordinator's office that is restricted by a password. However, it must be ensured that a block is placed on the inmate phones to restrict monitoring of calls when they are made from any telephone in the system to this number. The Hot line is expected to be in full operation by October 24, 1997.

8. H11 Staff reporting responsibilities

In compliance. CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 provides for discipline of employees who fail to report acts or allegations of sexual misconduct.

9. fl12 Reporting Sexual Abuse tolaw enforcement

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

93

Not in Compliance in three of the four incidents filed 3/16/97 to 9/30/97. No report was made to MPD in the first two incidents. In the third complaint, the inmate requested to press charges and MPD was contacted on September 11, 1997. In the incident on September 28, 1997, the matter was appropriately referred to MPD. The Sexual Misconduct Coordinator has responsibility to ensure matters are reported to law enforcement and for monitoring/documentating the status of the criminal investigation.

10. 1J13 Confidentiality requirements

In compliance. All parties notified of the complaint or interviewed are advised by the Sexual Misconduct Coordinator and/or the Investigator that retaliation, reprisal or breach of confidentiality is prohibited.

11. 1J14 Inmate Appeal procedures

In compliance. Individual notification is given to each inmate when the . investigation was completed. One inmate filed an appeal to the Director, DCDOC.

12. 1J15 Staff training in Prevention of sexual misconduct

In compliance with Pre-service training. In-service training for approx. 117 former DCDOC staff who are now CCA/CTF employees to begin 11/1/97.

13. 1J16 Inmate training in Prevention of sexual misconduct

In Compliance with current DCDOC procedures which are not adequate because there are no procedures for ensuring training for female inmates who are transferred from CDF prior to receiving the orientation training that is conducted there

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D, C.

94

once a week. CCA/CTF currently provides female inmates with a copy of Inmate Bulletin "Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates".

14. 1|17 Physical plant alterations to ensure female inmate privacy

In compliance. Developing added window shading.

15. 1J18 Protocol regarding use of restraints on pregnant and postpartum women

In compliance. The CCA/CTF has implemented procedures that pregnant females are to be transported in the least restrictive way possible consistent with legitimate security reasons.

16. 1J19 Diagnostic evaluations

Although testing of over thrity-one (31) female inmates has been initiated, four (4) studies have been completed based upon DCDOC priority mandates.

17. 1J20 Scheduling to maximize participation

In compliance. (See recommendations).

18. 1J23 Procedures for Inmate Movement.

In compliance.

19. 1J26 Academic participation

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

95

The Academic programs are provided for female inmates for three hours per day, five days per week.

20. 1J27 Higher Education

Not in compliance. No college program has been offered since CCA assumed operation and management of the CTF on March 16, 1997. CCA/CTF has an impending contract with UDC that meets the requirements of the Order.

21. ^28. Higher Education financial assistance

In compliance. The contract requires free college tuition and books .

22. 1J29. Substitute Teachers

In compliance. The CCA/CTF has implemented a procedure for substitute teachers for coverage of any leave of absences of educational staff for a period of more than five (5) days.

23. 1J31 • Prevocational programs

In compliance. CCA/CTF offers a six month Life skills course.

24. 1J32. Vocational programs

In compliance. CCA/CTF currently offers four vocational courses.

25. 1J33. Apprenticeship

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

96

Not in compliance. CCA/CTF has applied to the DC Apprenticeship Counsel for approval of a Commerical Cleaning apprenticeship course. 26. 1J35. Vocational participation outreach
In compliance. CCA/CTF has procedures for affirmative outreach. 27. 1J51. Air balancing
In compliance. Air balancing work has been done.

28. 1J52. Alternate housing in cold weather
In compliance. CCA/CTF has developed procedures to monitor room temperatures and provide alternate housing and extra clothing as ordered. The construction contractor states there are plans to apply a masonry sealant to the outside walls in an effort to keep cold air from entering cracks and masonry pores.
29. P 3 . Pest Control
In Compliance. The CCA/CTF has contracted with Orkin Pest control to exterminate on a weekly schedule wherein the entire building is treated once a month.
30. 1J54. Cleaning supplies

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

97

In compliance. The CCA/CTF has maintained an adequate supply of cleaning supplies and has procedures for chemical use and supply distribution.

31. 1J55. Laundry

In compliance. The CCA/CTF has a contract with a professional laundry which follows appropriate procedures for the sanitary handling of laundry.

33. 1J56. Food

In compliance with written procedures for food safety and meal serving schedules as well as inspection schedules and the Sanitarian is developing improved monitoring and reporting procedures. Elevators are manually operated during meal delivery to expedite transport and maintain adequate food serving temperatures.

34. 1J57. Preventative Maintenance Plan

Not in compliance. CCA/CTF has not implemented a Preventive Maintenance Operation, based upon construction renovations in order to input the correct locations into Chief. Facilities maintenance staff and the numerous contractors have continued to complete regular repair orders .

35. 1J58. Plumbing inspections

In compliance. CCA/CTF requires that correctional officers inspect plumbing in the female units at each shift change and log results. Completed work is logged by the housing unit officer.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C,

98

36. H59. DCRA Inspections

In compliance. DCRA Culinary Inspection conducted on May 19, 1997.

37. H65. Fire Safety Training:
In compliance. The CCA/CTF provides semi-annual fire safety training. Course descriptions, dates of training and attendance lists are attached.

39. Comments It is the undersigned's observation that significant improvements have been made for the improvement of environmental conditions as CCA has made renovations to the building, purchased adequate amounts of cleaning supplies and contracted for certain services. Private contractor procurement is conducted significantly more quickly than government procurement regulations will allow and contracted services has resulted in individualized service v. DCDOC having to rely on short-staffed programs to service all DCDOC facilities.

During the course of this audit, the undersigned was not always able to obtain and provide documentation for this audit report because the former Sanitarian's records have not been located. On September 29,1997 a new Sanitarian, with 20 years experience in Safety, was transferred to CTF from another CCA facility. It is the undersigned's observation, based upon documented results of improvements made since September 29,1997 that required procedures, staff training, inspection reporting and abatement will significantly improve.

F. RECOMMENDATIONS

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D. C.

99

1. fl4. CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 be revised in accordance with Department Order 3350.2B "Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates", dated October 15,1997, by November 15, 1997.

2. fl4. CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 be posted in the secured bulletin boards on each housing unit wing in E Building and on Substance Abuse Unit in D Building where females are housed. CCA/CTF develop a manager/supervisor inspection form and an inspection schedule to ensure that staff is submitting accurate Documentation and compliance is maintained.

3. 1J4. The Sexual Misconduct/IGP Coordinator is responsible for weekly inspection of inmate and staff bulletin boards to ensure that CCA/CTF Policy 14-100 and this notice are posted in designated locations.

4. H12. Housing Unit and Command Center Post Orders include specific language that it is mandatory that sexual acts and sexual contact be reported to MPD.

5. 1J16. Develop procedures wherein not less than weekly Prevention of Sexual Misconduct Against Inmates Orientation is held for newly transferred female prisoners. Ensure that the Inmate bulletin on the identification, prevention and reporting of sexual misconduct is distributed at the Receiving and Discharge intake proceeding.

6. 1f17. Make further attempts to inhibit sight into the cell windows.

7. 1f18. Develop and follow protocol for appropriate transport of postpartum women.

Audit for Compliance with CA 93-2052 Women Prioners v. D, C,

100

8. 1J20. CCA/CTF consider scheduling classification, parole and disciplinary hearings, and recreation as much as possible for females in the afternoon so as to maximize program participation.

9. 1J27. Develop and implement the pre-college program by October 20, 1997.

10. 1J27. Provide a college program in accordance with the Order by January 1998.

11. 1J33. Provide an apprenticeship program in accordance with the Order by January 1998.

12. 1J33. Apply additional measures to correct cold weather temperature problems as needed.

13. 1J56. Develop adequate monitoring and reporting procedures and train staff to monitor same to ensure that meals are delivered timely and food temperatures meet standards.

14. 1J57. Develop plan of action by October 31,1997 for implementing the Preventative Maintenance Plan by January 1, 1998 or submit plan to plaintiffs' counsel for consideration.

Women Prisoners/DC v. DC PC-DC-011-042

 
 Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 1 of 29
CLOSED, TYPE−E
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:93−cv−02052−JLG

WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al Assigned to: June L. Green Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Special Master GRACE M. LOPES Plaintiff WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Plaintiff JANE DOE

Date Filed: 10/01/1993 Date Terminated: 10/20/1997 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Brenda Verndenia Smith AMERICAN UNIVERSITY Community &Economic Development Law Cli 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 442 Washington , DC 20016 (202) 274−4261 Fax: 202−274−0659 Email: bvsmith@wcl.american.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Nickles DC GOVERNMENT 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W Suite 300 Washington , DC 20004 (202) 727−1597 Fax: 202−778−5394 Email: peter.nickles@dc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Abbate NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM 701 Fourth Street, NW Washington , DC 20001 (202) 682−2735
Leecia Roberta Eve COVINGTON &BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington , DC 20004−2401
represented by Peter J. Nickles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Abbate (See above for address)
Leecia Roberta Eve (See above for address)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 2 of 29

V. Defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Defendant SHARON PRATT KELLY Mayor
Defendant DC DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

represented by Maria−Claudia T. Amato CORPORATION COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 441 Fourth Street, NW Sixth Floor Washington , DC 20011 (202) 724−6642 Fax: (202) 727−3625 Email: maria.amato@dc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Anne Ferrante OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL, D.C. 441 Fourth Street, NW Washington , DC 20001−4600 (202) 727−6295 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Maria−Claudia T. Amato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Lamar Ray MANATT, PHELPS &PHILLIPS, L.L.P. 1501 M Street, NW Washington , DC 20005−1700 (202) 463−4341 Fax: 202−463−4394 Email: jray@manatt.com TERMINATED: 02/11/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karla−Dee Clark U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Judiciary Center Building 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington , DC 20530 (202) 305−1368 Email: karla−dee.clark@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maria−Claudia T. Amato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 3 of 29

Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
WALTER B. RIDLEY Director, D.C. Department of Corrections

represented by Maria−Claudia T. Amato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
WILLIAM M. PLAUT Associate Director for Institutions, D.C. Department of Corrections

represented by Maria−Claudia T. Amato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
GWEN H. WASHINGTON Associate Director for Programs, D.C. Department of Corrections and Acting Administrator, Correctional Treatment Facility

represented by Maria−Claudia T. Amato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JOHN S. HENDERSON Administrator, Central Detention Facility, D.C. Department of Corrections

represented by Maria−Claudia T. Amato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
DOUGLAS STEMPSON Administrator, Minimum Security Annex, D.C. Department of Corrections

represented by Maria−Claudia T. Amato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 4 of 29

WILLIAM HALL Assistant Director for Health Services, D.C. Department of Corrections

represented by Maria−Claudia T. Amato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
ELIZA TAYLOR Acting Chief Medical Officer, Correctional Treatment Facility, D.C. Department of Corrections

represented by Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GENERAL HOSPITAL COMMISSION a independent agency of the District of Columbia

represented by Maria−Claudia T. Amato (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
CORRECTION CORPORATION OF AMERICA

represented by Mark D. Hopson SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN &WOOD, LLP 1501 K Street, NW Washington , DC 20005 (202) 736−8188 Fax: (202) 736−8711 Email: mhopson@sidley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Virginia Anne Seitz SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP 1501 K Street, NW Washington , DC 20005−1401 (202) 736−8015 Fax: (202) 736−8711 Email: vseitz@sidley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
JACQUELINE NEWBY TERMINATED: 05/11/1999

represented by William Charles Cole Claiborne , III 717 D Street, NW Suite 210 Washington , DC 20004−2813 (202) 824−0700 Fax: (202) 824−0745 Email: claibornelaw@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant SHAWNEZ WILLIAMS

represented by

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 5 of 29
William Charles Cole Claiborne , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/01/1993 10/01/1993
10/01/1993 10/01/1993 10/01/1993
10/01/1993 10/05/1993
10/07/1993 10/08/1993 10/12/1993 10/19/1993 10/19/1993

#

Docket Text

1 MOTION filed by plaintiffs for leave of Court to file a complaint with pseudonyms , and for a protective order to seal the record in which plaintiffs' actual names appear (bm) (Entered: 10/12/1993)

2 ORDER by Chief Judge John G. Penn : granting motion for leave of Court to file a complaint with pseudonyms [1−1] by plaintiffs, and that plaintiffs shall proceed anonymously as "Jane Does I−XIII", absent further order of the Court; granting motion for a protective order to seal the record in which plaintiffs' actual names appear [1−2] by plaintiffs, plaintiffs shall file their true names under seal, when the complaint is filed; defendants shall not disclose plaintiffs' names or any other means of identification to any non−party; setting forth further instructions to defendants; that any documents produced in this case and answers to interrogatories or other discovery referring to plaintiffs, their names, or other means of identification shall be confidential and shall only be disclosed to those persons referred to in the first paragraph of this Order who have signed this Order, absent further order of the court. (N) (bm) (Entered: 10/12/1993)

3 NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs of true names of plaintiff Jane Does I−XIII. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (bm) (Entered: 10/12/1993)

4 COMPLAINT filed (bm) (Entered: 10/12/1993)

SUMMONS (12) issued for defendants DC, SHARON PRATT KELLY, COR−DC, WALTER B. RIDLEY, WILLIAM M. PLAUT, GWEN H. WASHINGTON, JOHN S. HENDERSON, DOUGLAS STEMPSON, WILLIAM HALL, ELIZA TAYLOR, DC GENERAL HOSP COMM (bm) (Entered: 10/12/1993)

5 MOTION filed by plaintiffs to certify class action (bm) (Entered: 10/12/1993)

7 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT executed upon defendant DC c/o Sharon Pratt Kelly, Mayor, defendant SHARON PRATT KELLY, defendant COR−DC, defendant GWEN H. WASHINGTON, defendant JOHN S. HENDERSON, defendant ELIZA TAYLOR, defendant DC GENERAL HOSP COMM on 10/5/93 (lpp) (Entered: 10/13/1993)

9 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT executed upon defendant WALTER B. RIDLEY on 10/7/93 (lpp) (Entered: 10/13/1993)

6 MOTION filed by plaintiffs to set pretrial and trial schedule (bm) (Entered: 10/12/1993)

8 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT executed upon defendant DC c/o Richard S. Love, defendant WILLIAM M. PLAUT, defendant DOUGLAS STEMPSON, defendant WILLIAM HALL on 10/4/93 (lpp) (Entered: 10/13/1993)

10 REQUEST by plaintiff(s) to defendants for production of documents and for permission to enter upon land. (bjl) (Entered: 10/20/1993)

11 INTERROGATORIES (first set) filed by plaintiff(s) to defendants. (bjl) (Entered: 10/20/1993)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 6 of 29

10/25/1993
10/26/1993 11/09/1993
11/09/1993 11/09/1993 11/10/1993
11/10/1993 11/17/1993 11/30/1993 12/01/1993 12/13/1993 12/15/1993 12/16/1993 12/17/1993 12/17/1993 01/03/1994

12 MOTION filed by defendants DC, SHARON PRATT KELLY, COR−DC, WALTER B. RIDLEY, WILLIAM M. PLAUT, GWEN H. WASHINGTON, JOHN S. HENDERSON, DOUGLAS STEMPSON, WILLIAM HALL, ELIZA TAYLOR, and DC GENERAL HOSP COMM to extend time to 11/1/93 within which to respond to plaintiff's complaint. (bm) (Entered: 10/26/1993)
13 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 11/1/93 within which to respond to plaintiff's complaint. [12−1] by defendants answer due 11/1/93, but not beyond (N) (lpp) (Entered: 10/27/1993)
14 ANSWER for defendant DC, defendant SHARON PRATT KELLY, defendant COR−DC, defendant WALTER B. RIDLEY, defendant WILLIAM M. PLAUT, defendant GWEN H. WASHINGTON, defendant JOHN S. HENDERSON, defendant DOUGLAS STEMPSON, defendant WILLIAM HALL, defendant DC GENERAL HOSP COMM, Pursuant to order dated 11/10/93, this answer is deemed filed as of 11/1/93, Nunc Pro Tunc (lpp) (Entered: 11/10/1993)
CALENDARED (lpp) (Entered: 11/10/1993)
15 MOTION filed by defendant to extend time within which to respond to plaintiffs' complaint filled nunc pro tunc to 11/1/93 (lpp) Modified on 11/10/1993 (Entered: 11/10/1993)
16 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time within which to respond to plaintiffs' complaint filled nunc pro tunc to 11/1/93 [15−1] by WILLIAM M. PLAUT, WALTER B. RIDLEY, COR−DC, SHARON PRATT KELLY, DC (N) (lpp) (Entered: 11/10/1993)
17 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) WOMEN PRISONERS/DC to show cause , to direct defendants to file an answer , and to set pretrial and trial schedule , Attachment: (1) (lpp) (Entered: 11/12/1993)
18 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s), defendant for entry of consent order (adc) (Entered: 11/18/1993)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : site visit/status hearing/ set for 10:00 12/3/93 ; Reporter: John Finnegan (dmb) Modified on 12/15/1993 (Entered: 11/30/1993)
19 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to certify class action [5−1] by plaintiff(s) (N) (bjl) (Entered: 12/03/1993)
20 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s), defendant for entry of consent order for discover, pretrial and trial on 6/13/94 (lpp) (Entered: 12/14/1993)
21 STIPULATED ORDER by Judge June L. Green : setting forth a pretrial and trial schedule; scheduling a pretrial on or about 5/16/94;trial set for 6/14/94; (N) (bjl) (Entered: 12/15/1993)
22 NOTICE OF FILING by defendants; copies of signed Court Orders prepared pursuant to the Court's Confidentiality Order 10/1/93. (bm) (Entered: 12/17/1993)
23 ANSWER by defendant COR−DC to Plaintiffs' First Set of interrogatories (lpp) (Entered: 12/20/1993)
24 RESPONSE by defendant to plaintiffs' first request for production of documents (lpp) (Entered: 12/20/1993)
25 INTERROGATORIES and REQUEST for production of documents filed by defendants to plaintiff(s) (bjl) Modified on 01/04/1994 (Entered: 01/04/1994)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 7 of 29

01/11/1994
01/13/1994 01/13/1994 01/13/1994 01/13/1994 01/13/1994 01/13/1994 01/13/1994 01/13/1994 01/13/1994 01/13/1994 01/13/1994 01/13/1994 01/13/1994 01/14/1994
02/01/1994 02/08/1994 02/09/1994 02/09/1994 02/09/1994 02/09/1994 02/10/1994

26 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC of Orders, as requested by the Court in its Order dated 10/1/93, Attachment (1) (lpp) (Entered: 01/13/1994)
27 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe I by defendant DC . (lpp) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
28 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe II by defendant DC . (lpp) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
29 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe III by defendant DC . (lpp) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
30 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe IV by defendant DC . (lpp) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
31 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe V by defendant DC . (lpp) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
32 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe VI by defendant DC . (lpp) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
33 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe VII by defendant DC . (lpp) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
34 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe VIII by defendant DC . (lpp) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
35 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe IX by defendant DC . (lpp) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
36 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe X by defendant DC . (lpp) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
37 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe XI by defendant DC . (lpp) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
38 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe XII by defendant DC . (lpp) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
39 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe XIII by defendant DC . (lpp) (Entered: 01/14/1994)
40 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Mance Langham, Pearl Jackson, Majeid Ali and Yvette Jackson by plaintiff(s). (bjl) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
41 RULE 26(b)(4) STATEMENT filed by plaintiffs (ab) (Entered: 02/02/1994)
42 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC of Confidential Orders filed under seal in room 1800 (lpp) (Entered: 02/09/1994)
43 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC of information to the Court, Filed Under Seal in room 1800 (lpp) (Entered: 02/10/1994)
44 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) to amend (lpp) (Entered: 02/10/1994)
45 ANSWER by plaintiff(s) to first set of interrogatories by Defendants (lpp) (Entered: 02/10/1994)
46 RESPONSE by plaintiff(s) to defendants first request for production of documents (lpp) (Entered: 02/10/1994)
47 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting plaintiffs' motion for amendment of Protective Order of 10/1/93; directing that plaintiffs who are not named class representatives shall proceed anonymously as "Jane Does A−Z", and plaintiffs shall file their true names under seal with the Court and with counsel for defendants. (N) [44−1] by plaintiff(s)ssssssssssssssss (N) (bjl) (Entered: 02/14/1994)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 8 of 29

02/14/1994 02/16/1994 02/25/1994 02/28/1994 02/28/1994 02/28/1994 02/28/1994 03/01/1994 03/01/1994 03/03/1994 03/04/1994 03/04/1994
03/10/1994 03/14/1994 03/15/1994 03/15/1994
03/15/1994
03/16/1994 03/16/1994

48 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) to withdraw three class representatives under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (d) (lpp) (Entered: 02/22/1994)
49 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to withdraw three class representatives under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (d) [48−1] by plaintiff(s) (N) (lpp) (Entered: 02/22/1994)
50 NOTICE OF FILING by defendants of signed and executed Confidentiality Orders as required by the Court's Order of 10/1/93; Attachment (1) (ab) (Entered: 02/28/1994)
51 RULE 26(b)(4) STATEMENT filed by defendant DC (lpp) (Entered: 03/02/1994)
52 RULE 26(b)(4) STATEMENT filed by defendant DC (lpp) (Entered: 03/02/1994)
53 SECOND RESPONSE by defendant DC to request for production of documents (lpp) (Entered: 03/02/1994)
54 RULE 26(b)(4) STATEMENT filed by defendant DC (lpp) (Entered: 03/02/1994)
55 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s), defendant for entry of consent order (lpp) (Entered: 03/03/1994)
56 SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER by plaintiffs to defendants' first set interrogatories (lpp) (Entered: 03/03/1994)
57 MOTION filed by defendant to extend time to 3/1/94, nunc pro tunc to name a fire safety expert witness (lpp) (Entered: 03/04/1994)
58 STIPULATED ORDER by Judge June L. Green: regarding expert witnesses (N) (lpp) (Entered: 03/07/1994)
59 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 3/1/94, nunc pro tunc to name a fire safety expert witness [57−1] by defendants expert witness due by 3/14/94 ; (N) (lpp) (Entered: 03/08/1994)
60 MOTION filed by defendant for a status conference to resove outstanding issues , Exhibits (5) (lpp) (Entered: 03/14/1994)
61 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) requesting a status conference to resolve outstanting issues Exhibits (F and G) (lpp) (Entered: 03/15/1994)
Text not available. (Entered: 03/15/1994)
62 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for a status conference to resove outstanding issues [60−1] by WILLIAM M. PLAUT, WALTER B. RIDLEY, COR−DC, SHARON PRATT KELLY, DC status hearing set for 10:00 3/17/94 ; (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/15/1994)
70 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Howard Ray; Christine Welch, Minor, CTF; James Derr; Yvette Jackson; Gwynne McCathorine; Eliza Taylor; Vernon Hawkins; James Riddick; Charles Hall; Vince Gibbbons; L.C. Jones; David Roach; William Hall; and person to be named by plaintiffs (lpp) (Entered: 03/18/1994)
64 NOTICE OF FILING by defendants of Confidentiality Order, filed underseal in room 1800 (lpp) (Entered: 03/17/1994)
65 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Reesa Motley McMurtry, Peter Genco, Justin Taylor, T.A. Ryan, John H. Clark by defendant,. (lpp) (Entered: 03/17/1994)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 9 of 29

03/16/1994 03/16/1994 03/16/1994 03/16/1994 03/17/1994 03/17/1994 03/17/1994
03/17/1994
03/22/1994 03/22/1994 03/23/1994 03/23/1994 03/25/1994 03/29/1994 03/31/1994 04/05/1994 04/11/1994 04/11/1994 04/11/1994 04/13/1994

66 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) fo requesting a status conference to resolve outstanding issues , Exhibit: (h,i,j) (lpp) (Entered: 03/17/1994)
67 MOTION filed by plaintiffs to compel witness testimony , Exhibits (3) (lpp) (Entered: 03/17/1994)
68 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion to compel witness testimony [67−1] by plaintiffs (N) (lpp) (Entered: 03/17/1994)
69 RESPONSE by defendant in opposition to motion fo requesting a status conference to resolve outstanding issues [66−1] by plaintiffs, Exhibits (6) (lpp) (Entered: 03/17/1994)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : Reporter: Carrie Gansle (bjl) (Entered: 03/17/1994)
63 ORDER by Judge June L. Green setting forth a schedule and instructions to the parties. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/17/1994)
71 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) for Julie Abbate to appear pro hac vice Address: Covington and Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., P.O. Box 7566, Washington, D.C. 20044−7566 (lpp) (Entered: 03/18/1994)
72 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) for Leecia Roberta Eve to appear pro hac vice Address: Covington &Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., P.O. Box 7566, Washington, D.C. 20044−7566 (lpp) (Entered: 03/18/1994)
Text not available. (Entered: 03/23/1994)
78 MOTION filed by defendant DC for reconsideration of this Court's order dated 3/17/94 , Exhibit: (5) (lpp) (Entered: 04/12/1994)
73 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for Leecia Roberta Eve to appear pro hac vice [72−1] by plaintiffs (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/24/1994)
74 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for Julie Abbate to appear pro hac vice [71−1] by plaintiffs. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/24/1994)
75 THIRD RESPONSE by defendant to request for production of documents (lpp) (Entered: 03/28/1994)
76 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of James Derr by plaintiff(s). (lpp) (Entered: 03/30/1994)
77 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants by Teresa Anne Ferrante (lpp) (Entered: 04/01/1994)
79 RESPONSE by plaintiff(s) in opposition to motion for reconsideration of this Court's order dated 3/17/94 [78−1] by DC . (lpp) (Entered: 04/12/1994)
80 SUPPLEMENTAL RULE 26(b)(4) STATEMENT filed by plaintiff(s) WOMEN PRISONERS/DC (pob) (Entered: 04/13/1994)
81 SUPPLEMENTAL RULE 26(b)(4) STATEMENT filed by plaintiff WOMEN PRISONERS/DC (pob) (Entered: 04/13/1994)
83 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) for entry of consent order (lpp) (Entered: 04/13/1994)
82 AMENDMENT TO STIPULATED ORDER by Judge June L. Green regarding expert witness. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 04/13/1994)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 10 of 29

04/13/1994 04/13/1994 04/15/1994 04/19/1994 04/19/1994 04/21/1994 04/22/1994 04/25/1994 04/25/1994 04/26/1994
04/28/1994
04/28/1994 04/28/1994
04/29/1994 05/02/1994 05/02/1994 05/03/1994
05/09/1994

84 SUPPLEMENTAL RULE 26(b)(4)(A)(i) STATEMENT filed by plaintiff(s) (lpp) (Entered: 04/14/1994)
85 SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT TO RULE 26(b)(4) STATEMENT filed by plaintiffs (lpp) (Entered: 04/14/1994)
86 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to [85−1] by plaintiff(s) (lpp) (Entered: 04/18/1994)
87 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) to amend order [63−1] , Exhibit (3) (lpp) (Entered: 04/20/1994)
88 RULE 26(b)(4) STATEMENT filed by defendant DC; attachment. (bjl) (Entered: 04/20/1994)
89 SUPPLEMENTAL RULE 26(b)(4)(A)(i) STATEMENT filed by defendant; attachment. (bjl) (Entered: 04/22/1994)
90 APPLICATION by plaintiffs for award of costs consistent with the Court's Order of 3/17/94 ; attachment A. (bm) (Entered: 04/25/1994)
91 RESPONSE by defendants in opposition to motion to amend pretrial schedule [63−1] [87−1] by plaintiffs. (bm) (Entered: 04/26/1994)
92 SUPPLEMENTAL RULE 26(b)(4) STATEMENT filed by defendants (bm) (Entered: 04/26/1994)
93 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : allowing plaintiffs to depose two more fact witnesses and also may have an extra day to do so;pretrial conference set for 4:00 5/18/94; directing that pretrial papers be delivered to chambers on 5/17/94. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 04/29/1994)
94 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : pretrial conference set for 4:00 5/18/94; directing that parties shall submit pretrial statements to Chambers by 3:00 P.M. on 5/17/94. ; (N) (bjl) (Entered: 04/29/1994)
95 NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiff(s): Declaration (1) filed under seal in room 1800 (lpp) (Entered: 04/29/1994)
96 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) for order of contempt against defendants, for or to remedy , for sanctions for dendants's unethical and improper communications with plaintiff class members and potential witness , and for restraining order requiring defendants to cease retaliation against Jane Doe A (lpp) (Entered: 04/29/1994)
97 NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Michelle Elzie, Administrator of Occoquan and Vera Brummel by plaintiffs. (bjl) (Entered: 05/02/1994)
98 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) for contempt and to compel production of documents , Exhibits (4) (lpp) (Entered: 05/03/1994)
99 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) for order of contempt against defendants , Exhibits (2) (lpp) (Entered: 05/03/1994)
100 AMENDED motion for order of contempt against defendants, [96−1] by plaintiff(s), motion for or to remedy [96−2] by plaintiff(s), motion for sanctions for dendants's unethical and improper communications with plaintiff class members and potential witness [96−3] by plaintiff(s), motion for restraining order requiring defendants to cease retaliation against Jane Doe A [96−4] by plaintiff(s), Exhibits (2) (lpp) (Entered: 05/04/1994)
101 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant: Supplement to her previously filed Rulw 26 (b)(4) Statement, attachment (1) (lpp) (Entered: 05/10/1994)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 11 of 29

05/09/1994
05/10/1994 05/13/1994 05/13/1994 05/13/1994 05/13/1994
05/16/1994 05/16/1994 05/16/1994 05/16/1994
05/16/1994 05/16/1994 05/16/1994
05/17/1994 05/17/1994 05/18/1994 05/18/1994

102 RESPONSE by defendant in opposition to motion for order of contempt against defendants, [96−1] by plaintiff(s), motion for or to remedy [96−2] by plaintiff(s), motion for sanctions for dendants's unethical and improper communications with plaintiff class members and potential witness [96−3] by plaintiff(s), motion for restraining order requiring defendants to cease retaliation against Jane Doe A [96−4] by plaintiff(s). Exhibits (16) (lpp) Modified on 05/10/1994 (Entered: 05/10/1994)
103 MOTION filed by plaintiffs for order to precllude the testimony of defendants' expert witnesses; Exhibits 1−9./ (bjl) (Entered: 05/11/1994)
104 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC of employees true names filed with the court under deal in room 1800 (lpp) (Entered: 05/16/1994)
105 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC, second supplemental notice of plaintiffs' true names filed with the Court under seal in room 1800 (lpp) (Entered: 05/16/1994)
106 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's first set of interrogatories. (bjl) (Entered: 05/16/1994)
107 NOTICE OF FILING by defendants; copy of preliminary report prepared by Dr. John Clark; Curriculum Vitae of John H. Clark, Jr., M.D., M.P.H., C.C.H.P., Chief Medical Officer. (bm) (Entered: 05/17/1994)
108 CROSS MOTION filed by defendants for sanctions (jeb) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
109 RESPONSE by plaintiff(s) in opposition to motion for order of contempt against defendants [99−1] by plaintiff(s)s. (jeb) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
110 RESPONSE by defendants in opposition to motion to preclude the testimony of defendants' expert witnesses; [103−1] by plaintiff(s). (jeb) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
111 RESPONSE by defendant in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for order of contempt against defendants and to compel production of documents [99−1] [98−1]; Exhibits A−C. (jeb) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
112 REPLY by plaintiff(s) to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motions for contempt[102−1] (jeb) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
113 RESPONSE by plaintiff(s) in opposition to cross motion for sanctions [108−1] by DC; Exhibits A &B. (jeb) Modified on 05/18/1994 (Entered: 05/18/1994)
114 RESPONSE by defendants in opposition to motion for order of contempt against defendants [99−1] by plaintiffs, and in support of their cross motion for sanctions [108−1] by DC . (bm) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
115 PRETRIAL STATEMENTS by plaintiffs; Exhibits A, B, C. (BULKY)(bjl) Modified on 05/18/1994 (Entered: 05/18/1994)
116 PRETRIAL STATEMENTS by defendants with attachments. (BULKY) (bjl) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
117 REPLY by plaintiffs to opposition to motion for order of contempt against defendants [99−1] by plaintiffs (bm) (Entered: 05/20/1994)
118 RESPONSE by plaintiffs in opposition to cross motion for sanctions [108−1] by DC . (bm) (Entered: 05/20/1994)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 12 of 29

05/19/1994 05/20/1994 05/20/1994 05/23/1994 05/27/1994 05/31/1994 06/01/1994 06/01/1994 06/01/1994 06/01/1994
06/01/1994
06/01/1994
06/02/1994 06/03/1994 06/03/1994
06/03/1994 06/03/1994 06/03/1994

119 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : trial set for 6/13/94; a further pretrial conference is set for 6/3/94 at 11:00 A.M.; setting forth instructions to counsel. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 05/20/1994)
120 REPLY by defendantto response to motion for order to precllude the testimony of defendants' expert witnesses; Exhibits 1−9./ [103−1] by plaintiff(s), Exhibits (2) (lpp) (Entered: 05/23/1994)
121 WITNESS LIST by defendant (lpp) (Entered: 05/23/1994)
122 SUPPLEMENT to defendants' motion for reconsideration of this Court's order dated 3/17/94 [78−1] by DC; attachment. (bjl) (Entered: 05/24/1994)
123 MOTION filed by defendants for leave to file an exhibit list ; EXHIBIT−EXHIBIT LIST. (bm) (Entered: 06/01/1994)
124 MOTION filed by plaintiffs to withdraw motion to compel production of documents [98−2] (bm) (Entered: 06/01/1994)
125 RESPONSE by defendants in opposition to plaintiffs' improper use of deposition transcripts. (bm) (Entered: 06/02/1994)
126 REQUEST (first) by plaintiffs for admissions for defendants (bm) (Entered: 06/02/1994)
127 MOTION filed by plaintiffs to shorten time in which defendants must respond to plaintiffs' request for admissions (bm) (Entered: 06/02/1994)
128 MOTION filed by plaintiffs for leave of Court to allow plaintiff witnesses to testify under pseudonyms , and for protective order to seal the record, and other measures to protect the identities of plaintiff witnesses (bm) (Entered: 06/02/1994)
129 MOTION filed by plaintiffs in limine to exclude evidence relating to changes made by defendants since 10/1/93, , or in the alternative to limit the weight of such evidence to the determination of appropriate relief only (bm) (Entered: 06/02/1994)
130 SUPPLEMENT TO RESPONSE by plaintiffs in opposition to motion for reconsideration of this Court's order dated 3/17/94 [78−1] by DC; affidavit of Leecia Roberta Eve. (bm) (Entered: 06/02/1994)
131 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for leave to file an exhibit list [123−1] by defendants. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/03/1994)
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE before Judge June L. Green : Reporter: Robert Weber (bjl) (Entered: 06/03/1994)
132 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: Consistent with the COurt's Order of 3/17/94, it is ordered that defendants reimburse plaintiffs for the costs of their medical expert's time and expenses incurred in connection with his site visit of CTF on 3/10−11/94 in the amount of $2,979.55 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 06/03/1994)
133 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion for reconsideration of this Court's order dated 3/17/94 [78−1] by DC (N) (lpp) (Entered: 06/03/1994)
134 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting plaintiffs' motion to withdraw motion to compel production of documents [98−2] [124−1] (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/06/1994)
135 MOTION filed by defendant for leave to file a response to plaintiffs' reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for order of comtempt against defendants, for order to remedy, prohibit and impose sanctions for defendants' unethical and improper

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 13 of 29

06/07/1994
06/07/1994 06/07/1994 06/07/1994
06/07/1994 06/07/1994 06/08/1994 06/09/1994 06/10/1994 06/13/1994 06/13/1994 06/13/1994 06/14/1994

communication with plaintiff class member and potential witness, and for restraining order requiring defendants cease retaliation against Jane Doe A and defendants' cross motion for sanctions and motion to file the pleadings under seal ; EXHIBIT−RESPONSE. (bm) (Entered: 06/06/1994)
136 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : status hearing set for 10:00 7/12/94; directing defendants to submit further documents relevant to this Court's in camera review of documents which defendants claim are protected by the "peer review" privilege; the Court will defer ruling on plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
137 MOTION filed by defendant DC to strike testimony of Jane Doe IX, Jane Doe III, Jane Doe E, Jane Doe K and Jane Doe B (bm) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
138 ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting defendants' motion to file exhibit list. (exhibit list submitted to chambers ) : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
139 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to changes made by defendants since 10/1/93, [129−1] by plaintiffs; granting motion to limit the weight of such evidence to the determination of appropriate relief only [129−2] by plaintiffs; granting motion for leave of Court to allow plaintiff witnesses to testify under pseudonyms [128−1] by plaintiff; granting motion for protective order to seal the record, and other measures to protect the identities of plaintiff witnesses [128−2] by plaintiffs; motion by plaintiffs for order of contempt and cross−motion by defendants for sanctions [108−1] held in abeyance until the end of the trial; directing that each party submit to the Court their Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law before the start of trial; setting forth further instructions to the parties. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
140 MOTION filed by plaintiffs to withdraw first requests for admissions , and to shorten time to respond (bm) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
141 TRANSCRIPT filed for date of 6/3/94. Reporter: Robert M. Weber (Pages 1−46) (bm) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
142 RESPONSE by defendant to order dated 10/1/93 [2−1]; attachments (2). (bm) (Entered: 06/09/1994)
143 MOTION filed by defendants to extend time to 6/10/94 within which to file their statement of facts and conclusions of law (bm) (Entered: 06/10/1994)
144 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT list of defendants; attachment. (bm) (Entered: 06/13/1994)
145 MOTION filed by defendant to extend time nunc pro tunc to Saturday, 6/11/94 to file defendants' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (bm) (Entered: 06/13/1994)
NON−JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green begun and continued to 10:00 6/14/94 reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) (Entered: 06/13/1994)
146 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for admission pro hac vice (N) (lpp) (Entered: 06/15/1994)
NON−JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/15/94 reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) (Entered: 06/14/1994)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 14 of 29

06/15/1994 06/16/1994 06/17/1994 06/20/1994 06/21/1994 06/22/1994 06/23/1994 06/24/1994 06/24/1994 06/27/1994 06/28/1994 06/29/1994 06/30/1994 07/01/1994 07/05/1994 07/08/1994 07/08/1994
07/08/1994

NON−JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/16/94 reporter: ;Santa Zizzo (jwd) (Entered: 06/15/1994)
NON−JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/17/94 reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) (Entered: 06/17/1994)
NON−JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/20/94 reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) Modified on 06/28/1994 (Entered: 06/20/1994)
NON−JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/21/94 reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) Modified on 06/28/1994 (Entered: 06/21/1994)
NON−JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/22/94; Reporter: Anneliese Thomson (bjl) Modified on 06/28/1994 (Entered: 06/22/1994)
NON−JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) Modified on 06/29/1994 (Entered: 06/23/1994)
NON−JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/24/94 reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) Modified on 06/29/1994 (Entered: 06/24/1994)
NON−JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/27/94 reporter: Santa Zizzo (am) Anneliese Thomson (pm) (bjl) (Entered: 06/24/1994)
147 TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of 06/21/94. Reporter: Anneliese J. Thomson (jeb) (Entered: 06/27/1994)
NON−JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/28/94 reporter: Anneliese Thomson (dcn) Modified on 06/30/1994 (Entered: 06/27/1994)
NON−JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/29/94 reporter: Anneliese Thomson (dcn) Modified on 06/30/1994 (Entered: 06/28/1994)
NON−JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/30/94 reporter: Anneliese Thomson (dcn) Modified on 06/30/1994 (Entered: 06/29/1994)
NON−JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 7/1/94 reporter: Anneliese Thomson (dcn) Modified on 06/30/1994 (Entered: 06/30/1994)
NON−JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and concluded; taken under advisement. reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) (Entered: 08/02/1994)
148 TRIAL BRIEF by defendants (jeb) (Entered: 07/06/1994)
149 MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) to reinstate motion for contempt for defendants' failure to produce documents (jeb) (Entered: 07/11/1994)
150 REQUEST by plaintiff(s) to renew their request that this Court issue an order to show cause why defendants and defense counsel should not be held in contempt of court for breach of the protective orders issued in this litigation. (jeb) (Entered: 07/11/1994)
152 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff(s) in support of motion to reinstate motion for contempt for defendants' failure to produce documents [149−1] by JANE DOE II, JANE DOE I, WOMEN PRISONERS/DC; attachments A−B (dcn) (Entered: 07/12/1994)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 15 of 29

07/11/1994 07/22/1994
07/27/1994
07/27/1994 07/29/1994
08/04/1994 08/04/1994 10/28/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 12/13/1994

151 TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial before Judge June L. Green filed for date of 6/21/94. Reporter: Anneliese J. Thomson (tth) (Entered: 07/12/1994)
153 MOTION filed by defendant COR−DC to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' motion to reinstate motion for contempt and statement regarding pending motions for contempt (lpp) (Entered: 07/27/1994)
154 RESPONSE by defendant in opposition to motion to reinstate motion for contempt for defendants' failure to produce documents [149−1] by JANE DOE II, JANE DOE I, WOMEN PRISONERS/DC . (lpp) (Entered: 08/01/1994)
155 RESPONSE (OPPOSITIONS) by defendant to motion for order of contempt against defendants [99−1] by plaintiff(s) (lpp) (Entered: 08/01/1994)
156 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' motion to reinstate motion for contempt and statement regarding pending motions for contempt [153−1] by COR−DC; response due 7/27/94 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 08/03/1994)
157 REPLY by plaintiff(s) to defendant's opposition to motion to reinstate motion for contempt for defendants' failure to produce documents [149−1]; exhibits (2) (cjp) (Entered: 08/10/1994)
158 TRANSCRIPT filed for trial, date(s) of 6/24,27−30/94. Reporter: Anneliese Thomson, Volumes 10A−14 (lpp) (Entered: 08/10/1994)
159 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC: Confidentially Order as required by the COurt in its Order dated 10/1/93, filed under seal room 1800 (lpp) (Entered: 10/31/1994)
160 TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of 6/13/94. Reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
161 TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of 6/14/94. Reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
162 TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of 11/17/94. Reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
163 TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of 6/16/94. Reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
164 TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of 6/17/94. Reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
165 TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of 6/20/94. Reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
166 TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of 6/22/94. Reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
167 TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of 6/23/94. Reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
168 TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of 6/24/94. Reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
Text not available. (Entered: 11/18/1994)
335 TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of July 01, 1994. Reporter: Santa Zizzo (jf) (Entered: 04/27/1999)
169 MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge June L. Green (N) (lpp) (Entered: 12/13/1994)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 16 of 29

12/13/1994
12/22/1994 12/22/1994 12/27/1994 12/28/1994 12/28/1994 01/03/1995 01/10/1995 01/10/1995 01/11/1995
01/11/1995 01/12/1995 01/17/1995

170 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : for DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF directing that defendants' actions and inactions are violated and continue to violate the plaintiff class members' rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution; directing defendants to take all action necessary to remedy and prevent the violations of the Plaintiffs' above mentioned rights; directing defendants to take the specific measures in the areas of sexual harassment, obstetrical and gynecological care, programs and opportunities, and environmental and fire safety as stated in the Order filed 12/13/94; all measures are to be completed and in effect with in six (6) months of the date of this Order, unless otherwise specified (see order for details) (N) (lpp) (Entered: 12/13/1994)
171 Text not available. (Entered: 12/22/1994)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green granted motion to reinstate motion for contempt for defendants' failure to produce documents [149−1] by JANE DOE II, JANE DOE I, WOMEN PRISONERS/DC Reporter: Christi Macri (bjl) (Entered: 12/27/1994)
172 APPLICATION by plaintiffs for attorney fee against defendants ; Attachments(10) (ted) (Entered: 12/28/1994)
173 MOTION filed by defendant to stay enforcement of judgment pending disposition of defendants' motion to alter or amend findings and judgment, or, in the alternative for a new trial and in the alternative to stay pending disposition of appeal, Exhibit (1) (lpp) (Entered: 12/29/1994)
203 MOTION filed by defendant to alter or amend findings and judgment [170−2] , or, in the alternative for new trial (ted) (Entered: 03/13/1995)
174 MOTION filed by plaintiff to clarification of time to file an opposition to defendants' Motions Exhibit: (1) (lpp) (Entered: 01/09/1995)
175 MOTION filed by defendant DC to stay proceedings on plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and costs pending decision on defendants' post−trial motions and/or appeal. (bjl) (Entered: 01/11/1995)
176 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : extending time to 1/11/95 for plaintiffs to file oppostion to defendants' motion to stay enforcement of judgment and to defendants' motion to alter or amend Findings and Judgment. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 01/11/1995)
177 RESPONSE by plaintiff in opposition to motion to stay enforcement of judgment pending disposition of defendants' motion to alter or amend findings and judgment, or, in the alternative for a new trial and in the alternative to stay pending disposition of appeal, Exhibit (1), [173−1] by defendants . (lpp) (Entered: 01/13/1995)
178 RESPONSE (OPPOSITIONS) by plaintiff to motion t alter or amend findings and judgment, or, in the alternative for a new trial (lpp) (Entered: 01/13/1995)
179 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff, defendant to extend time to 2/13/95, to comply with paragraph 8 of the Court's 12/13/94 ORder for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (lpp) (Entered: 01/13/1995)
180 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting joint motion to extend time to 2/13/95, to comply with paragraph 8 of the Court's 12/13/94 ORder for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [179−1] by defendants and plaintiffs. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 01/18/1995)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 17 of 29

01/17/1995 01/17/1995 01/18/1995
01/19/1995 01/19/1995 01/23/1995 01/26/1995 01/26/1995 01/30/1995 02/09/1995 02/09/1995
02/09/1995 02/09/1995 02/14/1995 02/14/1995

181 MOTION by The Special Officer filed to extend time to 30 days following the resolution of whether the Order will be stayed pending appeal to comply with the provisions of Section I of the Court's Order of December 13, 1994. (bjl) (Entered: 01/18/1995)
183 REPLY by defendant to response to motion to alter or amend findings and judgement, or in the alternative for a new trial. (lpp) (Entered: 01/19/1995)
182 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 30 days following the resolution of whether the Order will be stayed pending appeal to comply with the provisions of Section I of the Court's Order of December 13, 1994. [181−1] (N) (bjl) (Entered: 01/19/1995)
184 REPLY by defendant to opposition by plaintiffs to motion of defendants to stay enforcement of judgment. (bjl) (Entered: 01/20/1995)
185 MOTION filed by defendants to extend time (nunc pro tunc) to 2/21/95 to file an alternative plan to paragraph 65 of the Court Order for declaratory and injunctive relief. (bjl) (Entered: 01/20/1995)
186 RESPONSE by plaintiff in opposition to motion to stay proceedings on plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and costs pending decision on defendants' post−trial motions and/or appeal. [175−1] by DC . (ted) (Entered: 01/25/1995)
HEARING before Judge June L. Green : for temporary restraining order begun and respited to 1/30/95 at 1:30 P.M. Reporter: Bill McAllister (bjl) (Entered: 01/26/1995)
187 MOTION filed by plaintiff for injunctive relief , Exhibit: (3), bulky pleading (lpp) (Entered: 01/30/1995)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green for temporary restraining order resumed and respited to 2/14/95 at 10:00 a.m. Reporter: Marilyn Young (bjl) (Entered: 01/31/1995)
188 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time (nunc pro tunc) to 2/21/95 to file an alternative plan to paragraph 65 of the Court Order for declaratory and injunctive relief. [185−1] by DC (N) (bjl) (Entered: 02/09/1995)
189 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion to stay enforcement of Judgment Pending disposition of Appeal except as to paragraphs 61, 62, 63 and 86 of the Court's Order of December 13, 1994 which are stayed for 30 days. With respect to these paragraphs of the Order, the parties are directed to confer and submit to the Court any potential amendments to the Order within 30 days. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 02/09/1995)
190 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying defendant's motion to alter or amend findings and Judgment, or in the alternative for a new trial. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 02/09/1995)
191 MOTION filed by defendant to extend time of 30 days to finalize the Department Order on sexual Misconduct in Accordance with this Court's Order dated 12/13/94 (lpp) (Entered: 02/10/1995)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green; defendants withdrew plan to move inmates from modular facility to CTF; order to be presented. Reporter: Gwen Schlemmer (Miller) (ted) (Entered: 02/14/1995)
192 MOTION filed by plaintiff for implementation of monitoring procedures , exhibits (2) (lpp) (Entered: 02/15/1995)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 18 of 29

02/14/1995 02/17/1995 02/17/1995 02/17/1995 02/17/1995 02/21/1995 02/21/1995 02/21/1995 02/22/1995 03/01/1995 03/09/1995 03/10/1995
03/10/1995 03/13/1995

193 MOTION filed by plaintiff to extend time to 4/13/95, to comply with paragraph 17 of the Court Order for declaratory and injunctive relief (lpp) (Entered: 02/15/1995)
194 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting defendant's motion to extend time for an additional 30 days to finalize the Department Order on sexual Misconduct in Accordance with this Court's Order dated 12/13/94, up to and including 3/10/95. [191−1] (N) (bjl) (Entered: 02/17/1995)
195 RESPONSE by plaintiff in opposition to motion to extend time to 4/13/95, to comply with paragraph 17 of the Court Order for declaratory and injunctive relief [193−1] by plaintiffs (lpp) (Entered: 02/21/1995)
196 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff for entry of consent order regarding status of mass transfer of inmates to correctional treatment facility and compliance with the women prisoners order (lpp) (Entered: 02/21/1995)
197 NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs, Attachment (1) (lpp) (Entered: 02/21/1995)
198 SUBMISSION of defendants of an alternative plan to paragraph sixty−five of the Court's Order dated 12/13/94 (lpp) Modified on 03/16/1995 (Entered: 02/22/1995)
199 REPLY by defendants to plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion for extension of time to comply with paragraph 17 of this Court's Order dated 12/13/94. (lpp) Modified on 03/15/1995 (Entered: 02/22/1995)
200 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff from order for DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [170−1], order [170−2], entered on: 12/13/95, no fees paid, D.C. Government; Copies to: Lutz Alexander Prager and Peter J. Nickles, Brenda V. Smith. (lpp) (Entered: 02/22/1995)
TRANSMITTED PRELIMINARY RECORD on appeal [200−1] by plaintiffs to U.S. Court of Appeals (lpp) (Entered: 02/22/1995)
USCA # 95−7041 assigned for appeal [200−1] by plaintiffs (lpp) (Entered: 03/02/1995)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : Reporter: Susant Tyner (bjl) (Entered: 03/10/1995)
201 CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting joint motion for entry of consent order regarding status of mass transfer of inmates to correctional treatment facility and compliance with the women prisoners order [196−1]; durecting that 10 days in advance of any mass transfer of inmates and staff from Modular, defendants will provide plaintiffs with a plan demonstrating that such mass movement and staff transfers will not impede defendants' ability to comply with the Court's Orders entered in Inmates of Modular Facility v. D.C.; further directing that defendants submit to plaintiffs counsel monthly status reports, beginning 4/1/95, detailing the status of compliance with the Women Prisoners Court Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief dated 12/13/94. (N) (bjl) Modified on 03/10/1995 (Entered: 03/10/1995)
202 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs, defendants for modifications of the order for declaratory and injunctive relief (ted) (Entered: 03/13/1995)
204 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST by plaintiffs to defendants for production of documents (ted) (Entered: 03/14/1995)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 19 of 29

03/15/1995
03/15/1995
03/15/1995
03/16/1995 03/24/1995 03/27/1995
04/05/1995 04/07/1995
04/07/1995
04/10/1995 04/18/1995 04/18/1995

205 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : setting forth instructions to Ms. Lopes regarding inspections at CTF to determine if the facility is in compliance with the Court's 12/13/94 Order; directing that Ms. Lopes submit a report to the Court and the parties by 4/10/95; cancelling the scheduled hearing in this case previously set for 3/23/95. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/16/1995)
206 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 4/13/95, to comply with paragraph 17 of the Court Order for declaratory and injunctive relief [193−1] by plaintiffs; directing that by 4/13/95, a trainer from the National Institute of Corrections, mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall conduct mandatory training on sexual harassment for all D.C. Dept. of Corrections employees who work with women prisoners. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/16/1995)
207 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting joint motion of the parties for modifications of the Order for Declaratory and Injunctive relief; amending paragraphs 61, 62, &63 of the Order as set forth in this present Order; further directing that the time for defendants to comply with paragraph 86 of the Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief is extended for 30 days during which time the parties are directed to confer and submit to the Court any potential amendments to the Order. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/16/1995)
208 NOTICE OF FILING by defendant: Defendants' submission of the D.C. Department of Corrections' Department Order regarding sexual harrassment against inmates (lpp) (Entered: 03/17/1995)
USCA # 95−7041 assigned for appeal [200−1] by plaintiffs (lpp) (Entered: 03/28/1995)
209 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : adopting defendants' alternative plan; substituting the term "trailers" with "pre−engineered units" in paragraph 65 of the Court's order of December 13; setting the deadline for completion of the additional programming space as delineated in paragraph 65 of the Order and the attached plan marked Exhibit A by extending time to 8/21/95. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 03/28/1995)
210 MOTION filed by defendant to extend time to file monthly reports nunc pro tunc to 4/1/95 (lpp) (Entered: 04/09/1995)
211 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to file monthly reports nunc pro tunc to 4/1/95 [210−1] by defendants; defendants shall file monthly reports thereafter in a manner and format negotiated by the parties and shall have an additional 30 days to negotiate and implement a monthly reporting format up to and including 5/1/95 (N) (lpp) (Entered: 04/12/1995)
219 COPY of Order filed in USCA dated 4/4/95, holding case in abeyance pending additional proceedings in USDC; directing USDC to hold a hearing (and, if appropriate, conference of the parties) on defendants' motion within 40 days of the date of this order, and expeditiously enter any appropriate order. appeal [200−1] , . USCA # 95−7041 (mbd) (Entered: 04/26/1995)
212 MOTION filed by special officer to extend time to 5/10/95 to comply with the Court's 3/15/95 order (ted) (Entered: 04/12/1995)
213 MOTION filed by defendant to stay case , and/or to modify judgment, Exhibit: (1) (lpp) (Entered: 04/19/1995)
214 MOTION filed by defendant to file excess pages limitation (lpp) (Entered: 04/19/1995)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 20 of 29

04/20/1995 04/20/1995 04/20/1995 04/21/1995
04/26/1995 04/27/1995
05/02/1995 05/03/1995 05/10/1995 05/10/1995 05/11/1995 05/11/1995
05/11/1995
05/11/1995 05/12/1995 05/16/1995

215 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to file excess pages limitation [214−1] by defendants. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 04/21/1995)
216 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 5/10/95 to comply with the Court's 3/15/95 order [212−1] (N) (jeb) (Entered: 04/21/1995)
217 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : hearing on the defendants' revised motion to stay and/or modify judgment set for 11:00 5/8/95 ; (N) (jeb) (Entered: 04/21/1995)
218 NOTICE OF FILING by defendants of corrected Declaration of Margaret A. Moore and Corrected Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of the renewed motion of defendants to stay and/or modify judgment; Attachments (2) (dbw) (Entered: 04/25/1995)
220 RESPONSE by plaintiff in opposition to motion to stay case [213−1] by defendants, Exhibits (4), bulky pleading (lpp) (Entered: 04/27/1995)
221 COPY of Order filed in USCA dated 4/26/95, referencing appeal [200−1] extending time for plaintiffs to respond to the revised motion for stay pending in USDC by 4/28/95, and any reply due by 5/3/95, . USCA # 95−7041 (mbd) (Entered: 05/01/1995)
222 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : hearing on the defendant's revised motion to stay and/or modify judgment set for 11:00 5/11/95 ; (N) (jeb) (Entered: 05/02/1995)
223 REPLY by defendantto response to motion to stay case [213−1] by defendants, motion to modify judgment, [213−2] by defendants (lpp) (Entered: 05/04/1995)
224 NOTICE OF FILING by Special Officer Grace M. Lopes: Report on Compliance with the December 13, 1994 order as amended, Exhibits (50) (Volume I−II) (lpp) (Entered: 05/11/1995)
225 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to motion to stay case [213−1] by defendants, motion to modify judgment, [213−2] by defendants, Exhibits (3) (lpp) (Entered: 05/11/1995)
226 MOTION filed by plaintiff to strike supplemental memorandum [225−1] (lpp) (Entered: 05/11/1995)
227 MOTION filed by plaintiff for leave to file sur−reply to defendants' reply to plaintiffs' opositon to renewed motion for stay and/or modify judgment , EXHIBIT: SUR−REPLY (lpp) (Entered: 05/11/1995)
MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green, held, denying motion to strike; granting motions to file sur−reply and stay Reporter: Phyllis Merena and Susan Tyner (lpp) (Entered: 05/11/1995)
228 SURREPLY by plaintiff to response to motion to stay case [213−1] by defendants, motion to modify judgment, [213−2] by defendants . (lpp) (Entered: 05/11/1995)
229 TRANSCRIPT filed for hearing heard on 5/11/95 Reporter: Susan Page Tyner (lpp) (Entered: 05/15/1995)
230 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for leave to file sur−reply to defendants' reply to plaintiffs' opositon to renewed motion for stay and/or modify judgment [227−1] by plaintiffs; denying motion to strike supplemental memorandum [225−1] [226−1] by plaintiffs; granting motion to stay case [213−1] by defendants; the Court will stay for 30 days those paragraphs of the

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 21 of 29

05/16/1995 05/17/1995 06/15/1995 06/15/1995 06/21/1995
06/23/1995 06/29/1995 06/29/1995 07/21/1995
08/14/1995 08/14/1995
08/22/1995 08/23/1995

Court Order of 12/13/94, as amended which the defendants identify in Exhibit C to the Defendants' Supplement to the Corrected Motion to stay and/or modify Judgment entitled "Women's Class Action Order Analysis Paragraphs in which defendants Seeka Stay"; parties shall attempt in good−faith to resolve differences and accept the offer of the Court's Special Officer Grace M. Lopes to work with parties; Parties are to notify Court of any agreements reached and inability to agree (N) (lpp) (Entered: 05/16/1995)
231 NOTICE OF FILING by defendants: Submission of the amended D.C. Department of Corrections' Department order regarding sexual misconduct against inmates, attachment (1) (lpp) (Entered: 05/17/1995)
232 TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of 05/11/95. Reporter: Phyllis Merana (jeb) (Entered: 05/18/1995)
233 MOTION filed by defendant to extend time and statement of the status of negotiations with plaintiffs regarding defendants' revised motion to stay and/or modify the judgement (lpp) (Entered: 06/16/1995)
234 STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs (lpp) (Entered: 06/16/1995)
235 ORDER by Judge June L. Green directing that by 6/29/95 parties shall submit to the Court specific provisions of the December 13, 1994 Court Order as modified by agreement of the parties; parties shall identify those provisions, if any, to which an agreement could not be reached. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 06/22/1995)
236 COPY of Order filed in USCA dated 6/21/95, referencing appeal [200−1] ,granting motion by District of Columbia, et al. to defer filing motion to govern further proceedings . USCA # 95−7041 (mbd) (Entered: 06/27/1995)
237 MOTION filed by plaintiff WOMEN PRISONERS/DC for adoption of amendments to paragraphs 79 and 96 of the order for declaratory and injunctive relief (ted) (Entered: 06/30/1995)
238 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs, defendants to modify the courts order of 12/13/94 (ted) (Entered: 06/30/1995)
239 SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION by plaintiff WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, plaintiff JANE DOE I, plaintiff CORR TREATMENT FAC., plaintiff MINIMUM SEC ANNEX, plaintiff CENTRAL DETENTION for attorney fee against defendants ; Exhibits(2) (ted) (Entered: 07/25/1995)
240 MEMORANDUM by Judge June Green. (ted) (Entered: 08/14/1995)
241 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : that the potion of the defendants' revised motion to stay and/or modify judgment in which defendants seek a stay is denied; that paragraphs 73 and 74 of the Court's 12/13/94 order are vacated; that paragraphs 39, 40, 41, 42 of the Court's 12/13/94 order are vacated; that paragraphs 12, 17, 18, 20, 35, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 58, 60, 67, 70, 71, 75, 87, 102, 115, 123, and 124 of the Court's 12/13/94 order are amended, setting forth further instructions to the parties. (N) (ted) (Entered: 08/14/1995)
242 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant from order [241−1] , entered on: 8/14/95. Appeal by DC government. Copies mailed to Peter J. Nickles and Brenda Smith. (ted) (Entered: 08/23/1995)
TRANSMITTED PRELIMINARY RECORD on appeal [242−1] by defendants to U.S. Court of Appeals (ted) (Entered: 08/23/1995)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 22 of 29

08/29/1995 10/13/1995
10/16/1995 10/19/1995 10/27/1995 10/31/1995 11/03/1995
11/30/1995 12/13/1995 12/15/1995 01/16/1996 01/17/1996
01/17/1996
02/15/1996

USCA # 95−7205 assigned for appeal [242−1] by defendants (ted) (Entered: 08/30/1995)
243 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting defendants' motion to stay proceeddings on plaintiffs' application for award of attorneys' fees and costs pending dedision on defendants' post−trial motions and/or appeal; directing defendants to file a response to plaintiffs' application no later than 10 days after Court of Appeals renders a decision on the merits of this case; denying, without prejudice, plaintiffs' motion requesting implementation of monitoring procedures. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 10/13/1995)
244 MOTION filed by GRACE M. LOPES (special officer) to extend time to December 1, 1995 to comply with Court's December 13, 1994 Order (JMF) (Entered: 10/18/1995)
245 ORDER by Judge June L. Green dismissing, as moot, plaintiffs' motion requesting implementation of monitoring procedures, in light of Consent Order of March 10, 195. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 10/20/1995)
246 RESPONSE by plaintiffs in opposition to motion to extend time to December 1, 1995 to comply with Court's December 1994 Order [244−1]. (dbw) (Entered: 10/30/1995)
247 REPLY by defendants' to plaintiffs' opposition to the special officer's motion to extend time to December 1, 1995 to comply with Court's December 13, 1994 Order [244−1] (JMF) (Entered: 11/01/1995)
248 ORDER by Judge Joyce H. Green for Judge June L. Green : granting motion of Special Officer to extend time to December 1, 1995 to comply with Court's December 13, 1994 Order; directing that the Special Officer shall begin monitoring inmate sexual harassment complaints no later than December 1, 1995. [244−1] (N) (bjl) (Entered: 11/06/1995)
249 MOTION filed by plaintiffs to compel compliance with the Court Order of December 13, 1994; Exhibits A(bjl) (Entered: 12/01/1995)
250 MOTION filed by plaintiff to withdraw motion to compel compliance with order (JMF) (Entered: 12/14/1995)
251 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to withdraw motion to compel compliance with order [250−1] by plaintiffs. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 12/15/1995)
252 MOTION filed by GRACE M. LOPES; SPECIAL MASTER for compensation ; exhibits (3) (JMF) (Entered: 01/22/1996)
253 ORDER (copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting Special Offcer's motion to increase compensation rate for Special Assistant; that Ms. Schneider's compensation rate shall be increased to $60.00 per hour (Original filed in CA 71−1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 01/23/1996)
254 ORDER (copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [252−1]; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $29,979.04 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, and Ms. Lytle. (Original filed in CA 71−1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 01/23/1996)
256 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation ; exhibits (7) (JMF) Modified on 03/15/1996 (Entered: 02/21/1996)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 23 of 29

02/21/1996
03/20/1996
04/22/1996 04/23/1996
05/20/1996 05/21/1996
06/03/1996 06/19/1996 06/20/1996

255 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $18,921.87 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes; this check shall be drawn from the $20,000 Fund established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $18,921.87 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the $20,000 Fund by 3/5/96; the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $25,330.50 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Ms. Lytle, Mr. Roche and Dr. Belitsky; this check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account established by previous orders of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $25,330.50 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 3/5/96. (N) (bm) (Entered: 02/21/1996)
257 ORDER (Copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting Special Master Lopes' motion for compensation; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $22,098.03 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Mr. Roche and Mr. Brown; and that the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $33,686.64 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Ms. Lytle, and Mr. Henderson (N) (Original filed in CA 79−1726) (See Order for details) (ks) (Entered: 03/22/1996)
258 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation (JMF) (Entered: 04/24/1996)
259 ORDER (Copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [258−1] by GRACE M. LOPES; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $32,827.30 which represents compensation for the services nd expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Fisher, Mr. Roche and Ms. Lytle (Delaney, Siegel and Zorn); and that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $23,266.01 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Henerson. (N) (Original filed in CA 71−1462) (ks) (Entered: 04/26/1996)
260 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 05/24/1996)
261 ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William Bryant : granting motion for compensation [260−1] by GRACE M. LOPES; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $42,171.74 for services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher and Ms. Lytle; directing that the check be drawn from the Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; directing the District of Columbia to [pay $42,171.74 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar saving account by the 3rd of June. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 05/29/1996)
262 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation ; exhibits (7) (JMF) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
263 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation ; exhibits (5) (JMF) (Entered: 06/25/1996)
264 ORDER (COPY) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [263−1] by GRACE M. LOPES; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $41,946.70 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Dr. Cohen and Mr. Henderson. (Original filed in CA 71−1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 06/28/1996)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 24 of 29

06/27/1996
06/27/1996 08/08/1996 08/08/1996
09/10/1996 09/11/1996
10/16/1996 10/16/1996 11/06/1996 11/07/1996
12/05/1996
12/06/1996

265 ORDER (COPY) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation by Special Officer Lopes; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $44,033.90 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Ms. Lytle and Dr. Belitsky. (Original filed in CA 71−1462) (N) (ks) (Entered: 06/28/1996)
266 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation ; exhibits (5) (JMF) (Entered: 06/28/1996)
267 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 08/08/1996)
268 ORDER by Judge June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [267−1] by GRACE M. LOPES; directing the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $36,938.29 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Mr. Roche and Ms. Lytle; directing that this check shall be drawn from the Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; directing that the District of Columbia pay $36,938.29 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 08/08/1996)
270 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation ; exhibits (5) (JMF) (Entered: 09/12/1996)
269 ORDER by Judge June L. Green directing the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $40,622.03 which represents compensation for services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Ms. Lytle and Mr. Roche; directing that this check be drawn from the Inmates of Modular account; directing the District of Columbia to pay $40,622.03 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 9/26/96. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 09/11/1996)
271 MOTION filed by Special Officer for compensation; Exhibits A−E. (bjl) (Entered: 10/17/1996)
272 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation; [271−1] (N) (bjl) (Entered: 10/17/1996)
274 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation ; exhibits (4) (JMF) (Entered: 11/14/1996)
273 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $51,676.11 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher and Dr. Belitsky; directing that this check be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account; directing the District of Columbia to pay $51,675.11 to the Clerk of the Court ot replenish the Crestar Account. (N) (bjl) (Entered: 11/07/1996)
275 ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting the motion by Special Officer for compensation; directing the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $42,663.39 for services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider and Ms. Fisher; directing that this check be drawn from the Crestar savings account; directing the District of Columbia pay $42,663.39 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the Crestar savings account. : (N) (bjl) (Entered: 12/06/1996)
276 CERTIFIED COPY of judgment filed in USCA dated 8/30/96, on appeal [242−1], appeal [200−1] , vacated in part and remanding for further proceedings. OPINION USCA # 95−7041 &95−7205 (cjp) (Entered: 12/09/1996)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 25 of 29

12/18/1996 12/18/1996 12/23/1996 12/23/1996 01/07/1997 01/08/1997
01/15/1997 01/15/1997 01/16/1997 01/17/1997 01/27/1997 01/27/1997 01/28/1997 01/28/1997
02/03/1997 02/05/1997

STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : Reporter: Vernell Marshall (bjl) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
277 STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs' (JMF) (Entered: 12/20/1996)
Case Reopened (bjl) (Entered: 12/23/1996)
278 MOTION filed by defendant DC to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' status report and stipulation of voluntary dismissal (JMF) (Entered: 12/24/1996)
279 MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation ; exhibits (1) (JMF) (Entered: 01/08/1997)
280 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : for compensation [279−1]; Clerk of Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $34,240.39 which represents compensation for services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher and Delaney, Siegal, Zorn and Associates, Inc.; check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular Account; District of Columbia shall pay $34,240.39 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 1/22/97 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
281 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' status report and of voluntary dismissal [278−1] by DC; response to motion due by 1/15/97 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 01/15/1997)
282 MOTION (SECOND CONSENT) filed by defendants' to extend time to 1/24/97 to plaintiffs' status report and stipulation of voluntary dismissal (JMF) (Entered: 01/16/1997)
283 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 1/24/97 to file a response to plaintiffs' status report and of voluntary dismissal [282−1] by defendants; response to motion and statement due by 1/24/97 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 01/16/1997)
284 MOTION filed by plaintiffs for court appointed expert witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. (tw) (Entered: 01/21/1997)
285 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' status report filed nunc pro tunce to 1/27/97 (JMF) Modified on 01/28/1997 (Entered: 01/28/1997)
286 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff, defendant for voluntary dissmal without prejudice of plaintiffs' eighth cause of action alleging violations of law under D.C. Code Ann ,and for order clarifying the declaratory and injunctive relief (JMF) (Entered: 01/28/1997)
287 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' status report filed nunc pro tunc to 1/27/97 [285−1] by defendants (N) (jeb) (Entered: 01/28/1997)
288 MOTION filed by plaintiff for partial voluntary dismissal without prejudice their first cause of action, in part, as it relates to obstetrical/gynecological care (except for the shackling of pregnant inmates) and fire safety at the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) (JMF) (Entered: 01/29/1997)
289 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant to extend time to 2/18/97 to respond to plaintiff's motion for a court appointed expert witness (JMF) (Entered: 02/04/1997)
290 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 2/18/97 to respond to plaintiff's motion for a appointed expert witness [289−1] by defendants; response to motion due by 2/18/97 (N) (dbw) (Entered: 02/05/1997)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 26 of 29

02/11/1997 02/11/1997 02/18/1997 02/19/1997
03/03/1997 03/04/1997
03/06/1997 03/06/1997
03/07/1997 03/10/1997
03/11/1997 05/14/1997 05/14/1997 05/30/1997 06/04/1997

291 MOTION filed by plaintiff to withdraw motion for court appointed expert witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. [284−1] (JMF) (Entered: 02/13/1997)
292 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the first case of action of the complaint filed nunc pro tunc to 02/10/97 (JMF) (Entered: 02/13/1997)
294 RESPONSE by defendant in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the first cause of action of the complaint. (JMF) (Entered: 02/24/1997)
293 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : withdrawing motion for court appointed expert witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. [284−1] granting motion to withdraw motion for court appointed expert witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706, without prejudice [284−1] [291−1] by plaintiffs (N) (jeb) (Entered: 02/19/1997)
295 APPLICATION (REVISED) by plaintiff awarding of attorneys' fees and costs ; exhibit (10) (JMF) (Entered: 03/04/1997)
296 REPLY by plaintiffs' to defendants' opposition to motion for partial voluntary dismissal without prejudice their first cause of action, in part, as it relates to obstetrical/gynecological care (except for the shackling of pregnant inmates) and safety at the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) [288−1] (JMF) (Entered: 03/05/1997)
297 ERRATA by plaintiff amended reply to the District's opposition to motion stating that the parties had reached agreement regarding the withdrawal of plaintiffs' motion filed on 03/03/97 (JMF) (Entered: 03/07/1997)
298 MOTION filed by plaintiff to withdraw motion for partial voluntary dismissal without prejudice their first cause of action, in part, as it relates to obstetrical/gynecological care (except for the shackling of pregnant inmates) and fire safety at the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) [288−1] (JMF) (Entered: 03/07/1997)
299 MOTION filed by plaintiff to withdraw motion awarding of attorneys' fees and costs [295−1] (JMF) (Entered: 03/10/1997)
300 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to withdraw the December 27, 1994 and the July 21, 1995 applications for attorneys' fees and costs [295−1] [299−1] by plaintiffs; staying consideration of plaintiffs' March 03, 1997 application for award of attorneys' fees and costs [295−1], pending the outcome of plaintiffs' peitition for certiorari currently before the Supreme Court of the United States [239−1] [172−1] (N) (JMF) Modified on 03/11/1997 (Entered: 03/10/1997)
301 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant to extend time to 5/2/97 to respond to plaintiffs' revised application for attorneys' fees and costs (JMF) (Entered: 03/12/1997)
303 STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs' (JMF) (Entered: 05/20/1997)
304 MOTION filed by plaintiff for order to resolve a pending motion (JMF) (Entered: 05/20/1997)
305 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant to extend time nunc pro tunc to May 27, 1997 up to and including June 06, 1997 to respond to plaintiffs' status report dated May 14, 1997 (JMF) Modified on 06/02/1997 (Entered: 06/02/1997)
306 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time nunc pro tunc to May 27, 1997 up to and including June 06, 1997 to respond to plaintiffs' status report dated May 14, 1997 [305−1]

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 27 of 29

06/11/1997 06/12/1997 06/12/1997 06/16/1997
06/19/1997 08/19/1997 09/23/1997 09/29/1997 10/20/1997
03/20/1998 03/24/1998 06/22/1998 06/22/1998 06/30/1998

by defendants. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
307 MOTION (SECOND) filed by defendant to extend time to 6/7/97 nunc pro tunc to June 06, 1997 to respond to plaintiffs' status report dated May 14, 1997 ; EXHIBIT (response) (JMF) (Entered: 06/12/1997)
308 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to nunc pro tunc to June 06, 1997 to and including 6/11/97 to respond to plaintiffs' status report dated May 14, 1997 [307−1] by defendants (N) (jeb) (Entered: 06/12/1997)
311 RESPONSE by defendant to plaintiffs' status report nunc pro tunc to May 14, 1997 (JMF) (Entered: 07/07/1997)
309 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting joint motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice of plaintiffs' eighth cause of action alleging violations of law under D.C. Code Ann [286−1] by defendant, plaintiffs, granting joint motion for order clarifying the declaratory and injunctive relief [286−2] by defendant, plaintiffs staying any order an award of attorneys fees and costs as set out in the plaintiffs' March 03, 1997 request and orders parties to engage in negotiations over any amount of attorney fees and costs to be awarded; directing the parties to submit to the Court a report due 08/15/97 regarding the resolution of the matter (N) (JMF) (Entered: 06/17/1997)
310 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : dismissing without prejudice by agreement of the parties the plaintiffs' Eighth Cause of Action alleging violations under local law (N) (jeb) (Entered: 06/20/1997)
312 STATUS of negotitations regarding attorney's fees by defendant DC (JMF) (Entered: 08/20/1997)
313 STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs' (JMF) (Entered: 09/24/1997)
314 STATUS REPORT by defendants (JMF) (Entered: 09/30/1997)
315 CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green: stating that the parties have reached an agreement that the amount of attorney fees, expenses and costs to be awarded to plaintiffs for litigation of this action up to 12/31/96, is $970,000.00; judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs and against the District of Columbia in the amount of $970,000.00; the judgment shall bear no interest; D.C. shall pay the judgment issuing two checks made payable to Covington and Burling in the sum of $655,296.00 and National Women's Law Center, Prison Project in the sum of $314,704.00. (N) (N) (mlp) (Entered: 10/21/1997)
316 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff for protective order (JMF) (Entered: 03/23/1998)
317 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge June L. Green ; setting forth procedures for handling confidential material; allowing designated material to be filed under seal. (N) (jeb) (Entered: 03/24/1998)
318 MOTION filed by plaintiff for contempt , and to enforce the Court's order for injunctive relief exhibits (17) (st) (Entered: 06/23/1998)
319 EXHIBITS of plaintiff in support of motion to enforce the Court's order for injunctive relief; (FILED UNDER SEAL) (st) (Entered: 06/23/1998)
320 JOINT MOTION (STIPULATION) by plaintiffs, defendants to extend time to 8/10/98 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for contempt and to enforce the Court's order for injunctive relief (JMF) (Entered: 07/01/1998)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 28 of 29

07/02/1998
08/07/1998 08/10/1998 08/28/1998 09/02/1998
09/11/1998 09/21/1998 10/01/1998 02/01/1999 02/03/1999
02/11/1999 03/04/1999 03/10/1999
03/16/1999 03/30/1999

321 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting joint motion to extend time to 8/10/98 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for contempt and to enforce the Court's order for injunctive relief [320−1] by special master, defendant, plaintiffs; response to motion due by 8/10/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 07/02/1998)
323 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendants to extend time to 9/18/98 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for an order to show cause for contempt (cjp) (Entered: 08/11/1998)
322 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting defendants' consent motion for extension of time within which to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for an order to show cause for contempt; response to motion due 9/18/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 08/11/1998)
324 MOTION (SECOND CONSENT) filed by defendant to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for an order to show cause for contempt (JMF) (Entered: 08/31/1998)
325 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for an order to show cause for contempt [324−1] by WALTER B. RIDLEY, COR−DC, SHARON PRATT KELLY, DC response to show cause due by 10/18/98. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 09/02/1998)
326 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant COR−DC by Karla Dee Clark, John Lamar Ray (JMF) (Entered: 09/15/1998)
327 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Brenda Verndenia Smith representing plaintiff. New address: National Women's Law Center, 11 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 800, Washington DC 20016 (202) 274−4261. (JMF) (Entered: 09/22/1998)
328 JOINT STATUS REPORT by plaintiff, defendant regarding plaintiffs' motion for an Order to show cause for contempt (lkn) (Entered: 10/02/1998)
STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : parties to submit proposed compliance order to the Court by 2/2/99 at noon. Reporter: Laura Beasley (mlp) (Entered: 02/01/1999)
329 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: defendants shall submit a proposal for a pre−apprenticeship program to plaintiffs by the close of business 2/12/99; the defts. will commit in the 2/12/99 submission that the proposed program will commence on or before 3/1/99. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 02/04/1999)
330 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL for defendant CORRECTIONS CORP , substituting Virginia A. Seitz for attorney John Lamar Ray for COR−DC (lkn) (Entered: 02/12/1999)
331 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs, defendants, to dismiss motion for contempt [318−1] without prejudice, and to enforce the Court's order for injunctive relief [318−2] without prejudice (jf) (Entered: 03/05/1999)
332 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: upon consideration of parties' joint stipulation for dismissal without prejudice of plaintiffs' motion for contempt and to enforce the Court's Order for injunctive relief; said motion is dismissed without prejudice. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 03/11/1999)
333 MOTION filed for JACQUELINE NEWBY to intervene as a plaintiff (jf) (Entered: 03/17/1999)
334 RESPONSE by defendant in opposition to motion for JACQUELINE NEWBY to intervene as a plaintiff [333−1]; Exhibits (6). (lkn) (Entered: 03/31/1999)

Case: 1:93-cv-2052 As of: 04/07/2009 07:49 PM EDT 29 of 29

05/11/1999
05/11/1999 08/20/1999 09/02/1999 09/07/1999 09/10/1999 09/13/1999 09/17/1999 09/22/1999 09/28/1999
11/16/1999 02/01/2004 07/19/2004
09/09/2004

336 CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green: pltfs. and defts. have reached an agreement that the amount of attorneys' fees and costs associated with the litigation of this action through 5/5/99 is $57,120.00; judgment is entered in favor of pltfs. against D.C. in the amount of $57,120.00; D.C. is to pay the judgment by issuing a check in the amount of $43,920.00 to be paid to Covington and Burling, and $13,200.00 to be paid to the National Women's Law Center. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 05/11/1999)
337 ORDER by Judge June L. Green: denying motion for JACQUELINE NEWBY to intervene as a plaintiff [333−1]. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 05/12/1999)
338 MOTION filed for SHAWNEZ WILLIAMS to intervene as plaintiff ; attachments (1) (jf) (Entered: 08/22/1999)
340 MOTION (UNOPPOSED)filed by plaintiff, defendant to extend time to respond to plaintiff/intervenor's motion to permissively intervene (lkn) (Entered: 09/09/1999)
339 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting defendants motion for extention of time to respond to motion to intervene response to motion due 9/13/99 ; (N) (jf) (Entered: 09/08/1999)
341 RESPONSE by plaintiffs, defendants in opposition to motion for SHAWNEZ WILLIAMS to intervene as plaintiff [338−1]; exhibits (1). (jf) (Entered: 09/15/1999)
342 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of in opposition to motion to intervene [341−1] (jf) (Entered: 09/15/1999)
343 STATEMENT filed by defendant, regarding: notice of violation of protective order. (jf) (Entered: 09/20/1999)
344 MOTION filed to withdraw National Women's Law Center as co−counsel (jf) (Entered: 09/23/1999)
345 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion National Women's Law Center [344−1] and its attorneys to withdraw its appearance on behalf of the plaintifs. (N) (jaw) (Entered: 09/29/1999)
346 ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion for SHAWNEZ WILLIAMS to intervene as plaintiff [338−1]. (N) (mlp) (Entered: 11/17/1999)
347 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED for jury trial dates 5/24/94. (bcs, ) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
348 Consent MOTION to Dismiss Case With Prejudice by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. A Class Notice 1# 2 Exhibit Exh.B DOC Ltr# 3 Exhibit Exh. C Class Notice 2)(Amato, Maria−Claudia) (Entered: 07/19/2004)
349 ORDER granting 348 Consent Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 9, 2004. (GK, ) (Entered: 09/09/2004)

 
 d;

U.S. District Court USDC District of Columbia (Washington)

TYPE E CLOSED

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE # : 93-CV-2052

WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et a1 v. DC, et a1

Assigned to: Judge June L. Green

Demand: $0,000 Lead Docket: None

-

Dkt# in other court: None

Filed: 10/01/93
Nature of Suit: 440 Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Case type: 1. civil 2. null

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
plaintiff

Julie Abbate (202) 682-2735 [COR phvl NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM 701 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
Peter J. Nickles (202) 662-5394 [COR LD NTC] Leecia Roberta Eve [COR phvl COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW P.O. Box 7566 Washington, DC 20044-7566
Brenda Verndenia Smith (202) 274'-4144 [COR LD NTC] AMERICAN UNIVERSITY Civil Practice Clinic 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016

JANE DOE plaintiff

Julie Abbate (See above) [COR phv]
Peter J. Nickles (See above) [COR LD NTC] Leecia Roberta Eve (See above) [COR phvl

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 1

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052
T

WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

JANE DOE plaintiff

Julie Abbate (See above) [COR phv]

Peter J. Nickles (See above) [COR LD NTC] Leecia Roberta Eve (See above) [COR phv]

JANE DOE plaintiff

Julie Abbate (See above) [COR phv]
Peter J. Nickles (See above) [COR LD NTC] Leecia Roberta Eve (See above) [COR phv]

JJANE DOE
I plaintiff

Julie Abbate (See above) [COR phv]
Peter J. Nickles (See above) [COR LD NTC] Leecia Roberta Eve (See above) [COR phv]

JANE DOE plaintiff

Julie Abbate (See above) [COR phv]
Peter J. Nickles (See above) [COR LD NTC] Leecia Roberta Eve (See above) [COR phv]

JANE DOE plaintiff
r

Julie Abbate (See above) [COR phv]
Peter J. Nickles

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 2

TYPE E CLOSED

Proceedings include all events. l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al
(See above) [COR LD NTC] Leecia Roberta Eve (See above) [COR phv]

JANE DOE plaintiff

Julie Abbate (See above) [COR phv]
Peter J. Nickles (See above) [COR LD NTC] Leecia Roberta Eve (See above) [COR phv]

JANE DOE plaintiff
T

Julie Abbate (See above) [COR phv]
Peter J. Nickles (See above) [COR LD NTC] Leecia Roberta Eve (See above) [COR phv]

JANE DOE plaintiff

Julie Abbate (See above) [COR phv]
Peter J. Nickles (See above) [COR LD NTC] Leecia Roberta Eve (See above) [COR phv]

JANE DOE plaintiff

Julie Abbate (See above) [COR phv]

Peter J. Nickles

(See above)

[COR LD NTC]

Leecia Roberta Eve

r

(See above) [COR phv]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 3

TYPE E CLOSED

Proceedings include all events.

Tl:93cv2 052

WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

JANE DOE plaintiff

Julie Abbate (See above) [COR phv]

Peter J. Nickles (See above) [COR LD NTC] Leecia Roberta Eve (See above) [COR phv]

JANE DOE plaintiff

Julie Abbate (See above) [COR phv]
Peter J. Nickles (See above) [COR LD NTC] Leecia Roberta Eve (See above) [COR phv]

JANE DOE ' T plaintiff

Julie Abbate (See above) [COR phv]
Peter J. Nickles (See above) [COR LD NTC] Leecia Roberta Eve (See above) [COR phv]

TYPE E CLOSED

v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA defendant

Maria Claudia Amato (202) 727-6295 Sixth Floor South [COR LD NTC] Teresa Anne Ferrante (202) 727-6295 [COR LD NTC] OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL, D.C. 441 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

[ ARON PRATT KELLY, Mayor

Maria Claudia Amato

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 4

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

T defendant

(See above)

[COR LD NTC]

Teresa Anne Ferrante

(See above)

[COR LD NTC]

DC DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS defendant
T
WALTER B. RIDLEY, Director, D.C. Department of Corrections
defendant

Karla Dee Clark (202) 463-4300 Suite 700 [COR LD NTC ret] John Lamar Ray (202) 463-4341 Suite 700 [COR LD NTC ret] MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, L.L.P. 1501 M Street Washington, DC 20005
Maria Claudia Amato (See above) [COR LD NTC] Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Maria Claudia Amato (See above) [COR LD NTC] Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above) [COR LD NTC]

WILLIAM M. PLAUT, Associate Director for Institutions, D.C. Department of Corrections
defendant

Maria Claudia Amato (See above) [COR LD NTC] Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above) [COR LD NTC]

GWEN H. WASHINGTON, Associate Director for Programs, D.C. Department of Corrections and Acting Administrator, Correctional Treatment Facility-
defendant

Maria Claudia Amato (See above) [COR LD NTC] Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above) [COR LD NTC]

| .IN S. HENDERSON,

Maria Claudia Amato

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 5

TYPE E CLOSED

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

1ministrator, Central

(See above)

Detention Facility, D.C.

[COR LD NTC]

Department of Corrections

Teresa Anne Ferrante

defendant

(See above)

[COR LD NTC]

DOUGLAS STEMPSON, Administrator, Minimum Security Annex, D.C. Department of Corrections
defendant

Maria Claudia Amato (See above) [COR LD NTC] Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above) [COR LD NTC]

WILLIAM HALL, Assistant Director for Health Services, D.C. Department of Corrections
defendant

Maria Claudia Amato (See above) [COR LD NTC] Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above) [COR LD NTC]

ELIZA TAYLOR, Acting Chief Medical Officer, Correctional Treatment Facility, D.C.
| oartment of Corrections '' defendant

Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above) [COR LD NTC]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GENERAL HOSPITAL COMMISSION, a independent agency of the District of Columbia
defendant

Maria Claudia Amato (See above) [COR LD NTC] Teresa Anne Ferrante (See above) [COR LD NTC]

GRACE M. LOPES special master

TYPE E CLOSED

T
Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 6

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052
1/l/93 1

WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E

CLOSED

MOTION filed by plaintiffs for leave of Court to file a

complaint with pseudonyms, and for a protective order to

seal the record in which plaintiffs' actual names appear (bm)

[Entry date 10/12/93]

10/1/93 2

ORDER by Chief Judge John G. Penn : granting motion for leave of Court to file a complaint with pseudonyms [1-1] by plaintiffs, and that plaintiffs shall proceed anonymously as "Jane Does I-XIII", absent further order of the Court; granting motion for a protective order to seal the record in which plaintiffs' actual names appear [1-2] by plaintiffs, plaintiffs shall file their true names under seal, when the complaint is filed; defendants shall not disclose plaintiffs' names or any other means of identification to any non-party; setting forth further instructions to defendants; that any documents produced in this case and answers to interrogatories or other discovery referring to plaintiffs, their names, or other means of identification shall be confidential and shall only be disclosed to those persons referred to in the first paragraph of this Order who have signed this Order, absent further order of the court. (N) (bm) [Entry date 10/12/93]

10/1/93 3

NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs of true names of plaintiff Jane Does I-XIII. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (bm) [Entry date 10/12/93]

/l/93 4
10/1/93 -•
10/1/93 5 10/5/93 7

COMPLAINT filed (bm) [Entry date 10/12/93]
SUMMONS (12) issued for defendants DC, SHARON PRATT KELLY, COR-DC, WALTER B. RIDLEY, WILLIAM M. PLAUT, GWEN H. WASHINGTON, JOHN S. HENDERSON, DOUGLAS STEMPSON, WILLIAM HALL, ELIZA TAYLOR, DC GENERAL HOSP COMM (bm) [Entry date 10/12/93]
MOTION filed by plaintiffs to certify class action (bm) [Entry date 10/12/93]
RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT executed upon defendant DC c/o Sharon Pratt Kelly, Mayor, defendant SHARON PRATT KELLY, defendant COR-DC, defendant GWEN H. WASHINGTON, defendant JOHN S. HENDERSON, defendant ELIZA TAYLOR, defendant DC GENERAL HOSP COMM on 10/5/93 (lpp) [Entry date 10/13/93]

10/7/93 9 10/8/93 6

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT executed upon defendant WALTER B. RIDLEY on 10/7/93 (lpp) [Entry date 10/13/93]
MOTION filed by plaintiffs to set pretrial and trial schedule (bm) [Entry date 10/12/93]

10/12/93 8
T

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT executed upon defendant DC c/o Richard S. Love, defendant WILLIAM M. PLAUT, defendant DOUGLAS STEMPSON, defendant WILLIAM HALL on 10/4/93 (lpp) [Entry date 10/13/93]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 7

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052
T

WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E CLOSED

10/19/93 10

REQUEST by plaintiff(s) to defendants for production of

documents and for permission to enter upon land, (bjl)

[Entry date 10/20/93]

<[ 10/19/93 11

INTERROGATORIES (first set) filed by plaintiff(s) to defendants": C5jT) [Entry date 10/20/93]

10/25/93 12

MOTION filed by defendants DC, SHARON PRATT KELLY, COR-DC, WALTER B. RIDLEY, WILLIAM M. PLAUT, GWEN H. WASHINGTON, JOHN S. HENDERSON, DOUGLAS STEMPSON, WILLIAM HALL, ELIZA TAYLOR, and DC GENERAL HOSP COMM to extend time to 11/1/93 within which to respond to plaintiff's complaint, (bm) [Entry date 10/26/93]

10/26/93 13

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 11/1/93 within which to respond to plaintiff's complaint. [12-1] by defendants answer due 11/1/93, but not beyond (N) (lpp) [Entry date 10/27/93]

ANSWER for defendant DC, defendant SHARON PRATT KELLY, defendant COR-DC, defendant WALTER B. RIDLEY, defendant WILLIAM M. PLAUT, defendant GWEN H. WASHINGTON, defendant JOHN S. HENDERSON, defendant DOUGLAS STEMPSON, defendant WILLIAM HALL, defendant DC GENERAL HOSP COMM, Pursuant to order dated 11/10/93, this answer is deemed filed as of 11/1/93, Nunc Pro Tune (lpp) [Entry date 11/10/93]

11/9/93

CALENDARED (lpp) [Entry date 11/10/93]

11/9/93 15

MOTION filed by defendant to extend time within which to respond to plaintiffs' complaint filled nunc pro tune to 11/1/93 (lpp) [Entry date 11/10/93] [Edit date 11/10/93]

11/10/93 16

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time within which to respond to plaintiffs' complaint filled nunc pro tune to 11/1/93 [15-1] by WILLIAM M. PLAUT, WALTER B. RIDLEY, COR-DC, SHARON PRATT KELLY, DC (N) (lpp)

11/10/93 17

MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) WOMEN PRISONERS/DC to show cause, to direct defendants to file an answer, and to set pretrial and trial schedule, Attachment: (1) (lpp) [Entry date 11/12/93]

11/17/93 18

MOTION filed by plaintiff(s), defendant for entry of consent order (adc) [Entry date 11/18/93]

11/30/93 --

STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green : site 'visit/status hearing/ set for 10:00 12/3/93 ; Reporter: John Finnegan (dmb) [Edit date 12/15/93]

12/1/93 19
T

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to certify class action [5-1] by plaintiff(s) (N) (bjl) [Entry date 12/03/93]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 8

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052
T

WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et alv. DC, et al

TYPE E CLOSED

12/13/93 20

MOTION filed byplaintiff(s), defendant for entry of consent order for discover, pretrial and trial on 6/13/94 (lpp) [Entry date 12/14/93]

12/15/93 21

STIPULATED ORDER by Judge June L. Green : setting forth a pretrial and trial schedule; scheduling a pretrial on or about 5/16/94;trial set for 6/14/94; (N) (bjl)

12/16/93 22

NOTICE OF FILING by defendants; copies of signed Court Orders prepared pursuant to the Court's Confidentiality Order 10/1/93. (bm) [Entry date 12/17/93]

/l2/l7/93 23

ANSWER bydefendant COR-DC toPlaintiffs' First Set of interrogatories (lpp) [Entry date 12/20/93]

12/17/93 24

RESPONSE by defendant toplaintiffs' first request for production of documents (lpp) [Entry date 12/20/93]

/ 1/3/94 25

INTERROGATORIES and REQUEST for production of documents filed by defendants toplaintiff(s) (bjl) [Entry date 01/04/94] [Edit date 01/04/94]

1/11/94 26
7
x|/13/94 27
1/13/94 28
1/13/94 29
1/13/94 30
1/13/94 31
1/13/94 32
1/13/94 33
1/13/94 34 1/13/94 35
1

NOTICE OF FILING bydefendant DCof Orders, as requested by the Court in its Order dated 10/1/93, Attachment (1) (lpp) [Entry date 01/13/94]

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe I by defendant DC .

(lpp) [Entry date 01/14/94]

«-"! l|l3

NOTICE TOTAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe IIbydefendant DC .

(lpp) [Entry date 01/14/94]

&^\

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe III by defendant DC .

(lpp) [Entry date 01/14/94]

*-v\

NOTICE TOTAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe IVby defendant DC .

(lpp) [Entry date 01/14/94]

en*

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe V by defendant DC .

(lpp) [Entry date 01/14/94]

/

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe VI by defendant DC .

(lpp) [Entry date 01/14/94]

^-vA (

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe VII by defendant DC . (lpp) [Entry date 01/14/94]

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe VIII by defendant DC

. (lpp) [Entry date 01/14/94]

(I l

NOTICE TOTAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe IXbydefendant DC . /"'

(lpp) [Entry date 01/14/94]

'

'

Docket asofNovember 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 9

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E

CLOSED

.[13/94 36

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe X by defendant DC .

(lpp) [Entry date 01/14/94]

o^ | 1*9 U M

1/13/94 37

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe XI by defendant DC (lpp) [Entry date 01/14/94]

1/13/94 38

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe XII by defendant DC

(lpp) [Entry date 01/14/94]

ervi

/ft

1/13/94 39 1/14/94 40 2/1/94 41

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Jane Doe XIII by defendant DC

. (lpp) [Entry date 01/14/94]^

&y^

rttfaJtiC

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of' Mancfe Lancrham,

Ali
d

and

Yvette

Jackvson

by

plaintiffTs) .
f

RULE 26(b)(4) STATEMENT filed by plaintiffs (ab) [Entry date 02/02/94]

2/8/94 42

NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC of Confidential Orders filed under seal in room 1800 (lpp) [Entry date 02/09/94]

2/9/94 43

NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC of information to the Court, Filed Under Seal in room 1800 (lpp) [Entry date 02/10/94]

T'9/94 44

MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) to amend (lpp) [Entry date 02/10/94]

2/9/94 45

ANSWER by plaintiff(s) to first set of interrogatories by Defendants (lpp) [Entry date 02/10/94]

2/9/94 46

RESPONSE by plaintiff(s) to defendants first request for production of documents (lpp) [Entry date 02/10/94]

A 2/10/94 47
\

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting plaintiffs' motion for amendment of Protective Order of 10/1/93; directing that plaintiffs who are not named class representatives shall proceed anonymously as "Jane Does A-Z", and plaintiffs shall file their true names under seal with the Court and with counsel for defendants. (N) [44-1] by plaintiff(s)ssssssssssssssss (N) (bjl) [Entry date 02/14/94]

2/14/94 48

MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) to withdraw three class representatives under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (d) (lpp) [Entry date 02/22/94]

2/16/94 49
T

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to withdraw three class representatives under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (d) [48-1] by plaintiff(s) (N) (lpp) [Entry date 02/22/94]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 10

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052
125/94 50

WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E

CLOSED

NOTICE OF FILING by defendants of signed and executed

Confidentiality Orders as required by the Court's Order of

10/1/93; Attachment (1) (ab) [Entry date 02/28/94]

2/28/94 51

RULE 26(b)(4) STATEMENT filed by defendant DC (lpp) [Entry date 03/02/94]

2/28/94 52

RULE 26(b)(4) STATEMENT filed by defendant DC (lpp)

[Entry date 03/02/94]

&

2/28/94 53

SECOND RESPONSE by defendant DC to request for productio of documents (lpp) [Entry date 03/02/94] V\l - ^Jr\

2/28/94 54

RULE 26(b)(4) STATEMENT filed by defendant DC (lpp) [Entry date 03/02/94]

3/1/94 55

MOTION filed by plaintiff(s), defendant for entry of consent order (lpp) [Entry date 03/03/94]

3/1/94 56

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER by plaintiffs to defendants' first set interrogatories CTpp) [Entry date 03/03/94]

3/3/94 57
"JV94 58

MOTION filed by defendant to extend time to 3/1/94, nunc pro tune to name a fire safety expert witness (lpp) [Entry date 03/04/94]
STIPULATED ORDER by Judge June L. Green: regarding expert witnesses (N) (lpp) [Entry date 03/07/94]

3/4/94 59

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 3/1/94, nunc pro tune to name a fire safety expert witness [57-1] by defendants expert witness due by 3/14/94 ;
(N) (lpp) [Entry date 03/08/94]

3/10/94 60

MOTION filed by defendant for a status conference to resove outstanding issues, Exhibits (5) (lpp) [Entry date 03/14/94]

3/14/94 61

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) requesting a status conference to resolve outstanting issues Exhibits (F and G) (lpp) [Entry date 03/15/94]

3/15/94 62

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for a status conference to resove outstanding issues [60-1] by WILLIAM M. PLAUT, WALTER B. RIDLEY, COR-DC, SHARON PRATT KELLY, DC status hearing set for 10:00 3/17/94 ; (N) (bjl)

3/15/94 70
T

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Joward Ray; Christine Welch, ^Mijior, CTF; James Derr; Yvette Jackson; -Giwynne McC'a'thorine; Eliza Taylor; Vernon HawRing^ James" Riddick; Charles HalIT "lf±nce~~uir)E)bohs; L.C. Jones; David"~Roach; William" Hall; ancT*' "person to be named~Eyr~plaintiffs (lpp) LEntry date 03/lF/9~4]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 11

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E

"?

CLOSED

.1.16/94 64

NOTICE OF FILING by defendants of Confidentiality Order,

3/16/94 65

filed underseal in room 1800 (lpp) [Entry date 03/17/94] NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Reesa Motley McMurtry, Peter Genco, Justin Taylor, T.A. Ryan, John H. Clark by defendant,. (lpp) [Entry date 03/17/94]

3/16/94 66

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) fo requesting a status conference to resolve outstanding issues, Exhibit: (h,i,j) (lpp) [Entry date 03/17/94]

3/16/94 67

MOTION filed by plaintiffs to compel witness testimony, Exhibits (3) (lpp) [Entry date 03/17/94]

3/16/94 68

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion to compel witness testimony [67-1] by plaintiffs (N) (lpp) [Entry date 03/17/94]

3/16/94 69

RESPONSE by defendant in opposition to motion fo requesting a status conference to resolve outstanding issues [66-1] by plaintiffs, Exhibits (6) (lpp) [Entry date 03/17/94]

(3/17/94 --

STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green Carrie Gansle (bjl)

Reporter:

"T\7/94 63

ORDER by Judge June L. Green setting forth a schedule and instructions to the parties. : (N) (bjl)

3/17/94 71

MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) for Julie Abbate to appear pro hac vice Address: Covington and Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., P.O. Box 7566, Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (lpp) [Entry date 03/18/94]

3/17/94 72

MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) for Leecia Roberta Eve to appear pro hac vice Address: Covington & Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., P.O. Box 7566, Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 (lpp) [Entry date 03/18/94]

3/22/94 78

MOTION filed by defendant DC for reconsideration of this Court's order dated 3/17/94, Exhibit: (5) (lpp) [Entry date 04/12/94]

3/23/94 73

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for Leecia Roberta Eve to appear pro hac vice [72-1] by plaintiffs (N) (bjl) [Entry date 03/24/94]

3/23/94 74

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for Julie Abbate to appear pro hac vice [71-1] by plaintiffs. (N) (bjl) [Entry date 03/24/94]

3/25/94 75
T

THIRD RESPONSE by defendant to request for production of documents (lpp) [Entry date 03/28/94]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 12

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052

WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E

CLOSED

[ 29/94 76

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of James Derr by plaintiff(s).

(lpp) [Entry date 03/30/94]

"

3/31/94 77

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants by Teresa Anne Ferrante (lpp) [Entry date 04/01/94]

A/5/94 79

RESPONSE by plaintiff(s) in opposition to motion for reconsideration of this Court's order dated 3/17/94 [78-1] by DC . (lpp) [Entry date 04/12/94]

SUPPLEMENTAL RULE 26(b)(4) _PTATT?MT?MT filed by plaintiff(s) -lA/UMETPPRISONERS/DC (pob) [Entry date 04/13/94]

f i l M by plaintiff 1EN PRISONERS/DC (pob) [Entry date 04/13/94]

MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) for entry of consent order (lpp) [Entry date 04/13/94]

AMENDMENT TO STIPULATED ORDER by Judge June L. Green regarding expert witness. : (N) (bjl)

SUPPLEMENTAL RULE 26(b)(4)(A)(i) STATEMENT filed by -plaintiff (s)—(lpp)—fEntry date U4/l4/yT|

4/13/94 85
IP
4/15/94 86
y
4/19/94 87
4/19/94 88
4/21/94 89
4/22/94 90

SUPPLEMENTAL__SjrATEMEMT TO RULE__^6_(bj(4)STATEMENT filed by ± T T (lpp) [Entry date oT/14/9T] ~

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM t o [85-1] by p l a i n t i f f ( s ) (lpp) [Entry date 04/18/94]

MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) to amend order [63-1], , fl . A
Exhibit (3) (lpp) [Entry date 04/20/94] v£/UtHJfaJUWZX &****)

RULE_26_lb_) (4) STJ (bjl) [Entry date 04/20/94]

ifendant DC; attachment.

SUPPLEMENTAL RULE_2:§_(bXl4^-(A44i^-STATEMENT filed by —de-f-endarrtr; attacTiment. (bjl) [Entry date 04/22/94]

APPLICATION by plaintiffs for award of costs consistent with the Court's Order of 3/17/94; attachment A. (bm) [Entry date 04/25/94]

4/25/94 91

RESPONSE by defendants in opposition to motion to amend pretrial schedule [63-1] [87-1] by plaintiffs, (bm) [Entry date 04/26/94]

4/25/94 92/

SUPPLEMENTAL RULE 26 (b) (4) STATEMENT filesLb._yL-defendants (bm) ^[Entry date 04/26/94]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 13

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E

[l 126/94 93

CLOSED ORDER by Judge June L. Green : allowing plaintiffs to

depose two more fact witnesses and also may have an extra day to do so;pretrial conference set for 4:00 5/18/94;

directing that pretrial papers be delivered to chambers on 5/17/94. (N) (bjl) [Entry date 04/29/94]

4/28/94 94

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : pretrial conference set for 4:00 5/18/94; directing that parties shall submit pretrial statements to Chambers by 3:00 P.M. on 5/17/94. ; (N) (bjl) [Entry date 04/29/94]

4/28/94 95

NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiff(s): Declaration (1) filed under seal in room 1800 (lpp) [Entry date 04/29/94]

4/28/94 96

MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) for order of contempt against defendants, for or to remedy, for sanctions for dendants's unethical and improper communications with plaintiff class members and potential witness , and for restraining order requiring defendants to cease retaliation against Jane Doe A (lpp) [Entry date 04/29/94]

4/29/94 97

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION of Michelle Elzie, Administrator of Occoquan and Vera Brummel by plaintiffs, (bjl) [Entry date 05/02/94]

MOTION filed by plaintiff(s) for contempt and to compel production of documents, Exhibits (4) (lpp)
date 0b/0J/y4j

/ 5/2/94 99

MOTION filed by plaintiff (s) for order of content}:pt: againsj:^/ |
defendants, Exhibits (2) (lpp) [Entry date 05/03// 94] h \ h

5/3/94 d.00
\1

AMENDED motion for order of contempt against defendants, [96-1] by plaintiff(s), motion for or to remedy [96-2] by plaintiff(s), motion for sanctions for dendants's unethical and improper communications with plaintiff class members and potential witness [96-3] by plaintiff(s), motion for restraining order requiring defendants to cease retaliation against Jane Doe A [96-4] by plaintiff(s), Exhibits (2) (lpp) [Entry date 05/04/94]
XhrTrA
NOTICE OF FILING by defendant: Supplement^ to her previously
filed Rulw 26 (b)(4) Statement, attachment (1) (lp
[Entry date 05/10/94] gfe^ gjx/Jfci,ff>&5VV/• J^ffel
RESPONSE by defendant in opposition to motion for order of contempt against defendants, [96-1] by plaintiff(s), motion for or to remedy [96-2] by plaintiff(s), motion for sanctions for dendants's unethical and improper communications with plaintiff class members and potential witness [96-3] by plaintiff(s), motion for restraining order requiring defendants to cease retaliation against Jane Doe A [96-4] by plaintiff(s). Exhibits (16) (lpp) [Entry date 05/10/94] [Edit date 05/10/94]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 14

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052
1

WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, etal

TYPE E CLOSED

5/10/94 103

MOTION filed by plaintiffs for order to precllude the testimony of defendants' expert witnesses; Exhibits1-9./

(bjl) [Entry date 05/11/94]

5/13/94 104

NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC of employees true names filed with the court under deal in room 1800 (lpp) [Entry date 05/16/94]

5/13/94 105

NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC, second supplemental notice of plaintiffs' true names filed with the Court under seal in room 1800 (lpp) [Entry date 05/16/94]

5/13/94 /106

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defendant's first set of interrogatories, (bjl) [Entry date 05/16/94]

/5/13/94 107

NOTICE OF FILING by d e f e n d a n t s ; copy of p r e l i m i n a r y r e p o r t p r e p a r e d by Dr. John Clark;. Curriculum V i t a e of John H. Clark, J r . , M.D., M.P.H., C.C.H.P., Chief Medical Officer. (bm) [Entry d a t e 05/17/94] syuMx OlS U&U^Ji^Ajt ' *>

5/16/94 108

CROSS MOTION filed by defendants for sanctions (jeb) [Entry date 05/18/94]

5/16/94 109

RESPONSE by plaintiff(s) in opposition to motion for order of contempt against defendants [99-1] by plaintiff(s)s. (jeb) [Entry date 05/18/94]

5/16/94 110

RESPONSE by defendants in opposition to motion to preclude the testimony of defendants' expert witnesses; [103-1] by plaintiff(s). (jeb) [Entry date 05/18/94]

5/16/94 111
r
5/16/94 112

RESPONSE by defendant in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for order of contempt against defendants and to compel production of documents [99-1] [98-1]; Exhibits A-C. (jeb) [Entry date 05/18/94]
REPLY by plaintiff(s) to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motions for contempt[102-1] (jeb) [Entry date 05/18/94]

5/16/94 113

RESPONSE by plaintiff(s) in opposition to cross motion for sanctions [108-1] by DC; Exhibits A & B. (jeb) [Entry date 05/18/94] [Edit date 05/18/94]

5/16/94 114

RESPONSE by defendants in opposition to motion for order of contempt against defendants [99-1] by plaintiffs, and in support of their cross motion for sanctions [108-1] by DC . (bm) [Entry date 05/18/94]

/ 5/17/94 115 --- ' PPF.TPTAT, STATEMENT^ by plaintiffs; Exhibits A, B, C. (BULKY) Tbjl)[Entry date 05/18/94] [Edit date 05/18/94]

I [17/94 116

PRETRIAL STATEMENTS-^by defendants with attachments. (BULKY)

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 15

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052
1

WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al (bjl) [Entry date 05/18/94]

TYPE E CLOSED

5/18/94 117

REPLY by plaintiffs to opposition to motion for order of contempt against defendants [99-1] by plaintiffs (bm) [Entry date 05/20/94]

5/18/94 118

RESPONSE by plaintiffs in opposition to cross motion for sanctions [108-1] by DC . (bm) [Entry date 05/20/94]

5/19/94

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : trial set for 6/13/94; a further pretrial conference is set for 6/3/94 at 11:00 A.M.;
setting forth instructions to counsel. (N) (bjl) [Entry date 05/20/94]

5/20/94 120

REPLY by defendantto response to motion for order to precllude the testimony of defendants' expert witnesses; Exhibits 1-9./ [103-1] by plaintiff(s), Exhibits (2) (lpp) [Entry date 05/23/94]

5/20/94 121

LISJT by defendant (lpp) [Entry date 05/23/94]

5/23/94 122

SUPPLEMENT to defendants' motion for reconsideration of this Court's order dated 3/17/94 [78-1] by DC; attachment, (bjl) [Entry date 05/24/94]

5/27/94 123

MOTION filed by defendants for leave to file an exhibit list; EXHIBIT-EXHIBIT LIST, (bm) [Entry date 06/01/94]

5/31/94 124

MOTION filed by plaintiffs to withdraw motion to compel production of documents [98-2] (bm) [Entry date 06/01/94]

6/1/94 125

RESPONSE by defendants in opposition to plaintiffs' improper use of deposition transcripts, (bm) [Entry date 06/02/94]

/ 6/1/94 126

REQUEST (first) by plaintiffs for admissions for defendants (bm) [Entry date 06/02/94]

6/1/94 127

MOTION filed by plaintiffs to shorten time in which defendants must respond to plaintiffs' request for admissions (bm) [Entry date 06/02/94]

6/1/94 128

MOTION filed by plaintiffs for leave of Court to allow plaintiff witnesses to testify under pseudonyms, and for protective order to seal the record, and other measures to protect the identities of plaintiff witnesses (bm) [Entry date 06/02/94]

6/1/94 129
T

MOTION filed by plaintiffs in limine to exclude evidence relating to changes made by defendants since 10/1/93,, or in the alternative to limit the weight of such evidence to the determination of appropriate relief only (bm) [Entry date 06/02/94]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 16

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E

1.1/94 130

CLOSED SUPPLEMENT TO RESPONSE by plaintiffs in opposition to

motion for reconsideration of this Court's order dated

3/17/94 [78-1] by DC; affidavit of Leecia Roberta Eve. (bm)

[Entry date 06/02/94]

6/2/94 131

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for leave to file an exhibit list [123-1] by defendants. (N) (bjl) [Entry date 06/03/94]

(6/3/94 6/3/94 132

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE before Judge June L.
Ei Weber

Reporter:

ORDER by Judge June L. Green: Consistent>wiCn the COurt's Order of 3/17/94, it is ordered that defendants reimburse plaintiffs for the costs of their medical expert's time and expenses incurred in connection with his site visit of CTF on 3/10-11/94 in the amount of $2,979.55 (N) (lpp)

6/3/94 133

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion for reconsideration of this Court's order dated 3/17/94 [78-1] by DC (N) (lpp)

6/3/94 134
T3/94 135

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting plaintiffs' motion to withdraw motion to compel production of documents [98-2] [124-1] (N) (bjl) [Entry date 06/06/94]
MOTION filed by defendant for leave to file a response to plaintiffs' reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for order of comtempt against defendants, for order to remedy, prohibit and impose sanctions for defendants' unethical and improper communication with plaintiff class member and potential witness, and for restraining order requiring defendants cease retaliation against Jane Doe A and defendants' cross motion for sanctions and motion to file the pleadings under seal; EXHIBIT-RESPONSE, (bm) [Entry date 06/06/94]

6/7/94 136

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : status hearing set for 10:00 7/12/94; directing defendants to submit further documents relevant to this Court's in camera review of documents which defendants claim are protected by the "peer review" privilege; the Court will defer ruling on plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction. (N) (bjl) [Entry date 06/08/94]

6/7/94 137

MOTION filed by defendant DC to strike testimony of Jane

Doe IX, Jane Doe III, Jane Doe E, Jane Doe K and Jane Doe B

(bm) [Entry date 06/08/94]

f 6/7/94 138
T

ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting defendants' motion to file exhibit list, (exhibit list submitted to chambers ) : (N) (bjl) [Entry date 06/08/94]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 17

•n

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E

CLOSED

7/94 13 9

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion in limine

to exclude evidence relating to changes made by defendants

since 10/1/93, [129-1] by plaintiffs; granting motion to

limit the weight of such evidence to the determination of

appropriate relief only [129-2] by plaintiffs; granting

motion for leave of Court to allow plaintiff witnesses to

testify under pseudonyms [128-1] by plaintiff; granting

motion for protective order to seal the record, and other

measures to protect the identities of plaintiff witnesses

[128-2] by plaintiffs; motion by plaintiffs for order of

contempt and cross-motion by defendants for sanctions

[108-1] held in abeyance until the end of the trial;

directing that each party submit to the Court their

Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law before the

start of trial; setting forth further instructions to the

parties. (N) (bjl) [Entry date 06/08/94]

6/7/94 140

MOTION filed by plaintiffs to withdraw first requests for admissions, and to shorten time to respond (bm)
06/08/94]

^6/7/94 141 . •
6/8/94 142
X 9/94 143

TRANSCRIPT ^iled for date of 6/3/94. Reporter: Robert M. (Pages 1-46) • (bm) [Entry date 06/08/94]
RESPONSE by defendant to order dated 10/1/93 [2-1]; attachments (2). (bm) [Entry date 06/09/94]
MOTION filed by defendants to extend time to 6/10/94 within which to file their statement of facts and conclusions of law (bm) [Entry date 06/10/94]

6/10/94 144

SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT list->of defendants; attachment, (bm) "TEntry date 06/13/941

6/13/94 145

MOTION filed by defendant to extend time nunc pro tune to Saturday, 6/11/94 to file defendants' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (bm)

f 6/13/94 --

NON-JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green begun and continued to 10:00 6/14/94 reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl)

j 6/13/94 146

ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting motion for admission pro hac vice (N) (lpp) [Entry date 06/15/94]

6/14/94 --

NON-JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/15/94 reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl)

6/15/94

NON-JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/16/94 reporter: ;Santa Zizzo (jwd)

6/16/94

NON-JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/17/94 reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) [Entry date 06/17/94]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 18

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E

CLOSED

.J. 17/94

NON-JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and

continued to 10:00 6/20/94 reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl)

[Entry date 06/20/94] [Edit date 06/28/94]

6/20/94 --

NON-JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/21/94 reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) [Entry date 06/21/94] [Edit date 06/28/94]

6/21/94 --

NON-JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/22/94; Reporter: Anneliese Thomson (bjl] [Entry date 06/22/94] [Edit date 06/28/94]

6/22/94 --

NON-JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green continued to reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) [Entry date 06/23/94] [Edit date 06/29/94]

resumed and

6/23/94 --

NON-JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/24/94 reporter: Santa Zizzo (bjl) [Entry date 06/24/94] [Edit date 06/29/94]

6/24/94 --

NON-JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/27/94 reporter: Santa Zizzo (am) Anneliese Thomson (pm) (bjl)

6/24/94 147

TRANSCRIPT \f iled for date(s) of 06/21/94. Reporter: "Anneliese Thomson (jeb) [Entry date 06/27/94]

J'/ 27/94 --

NON-JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/28/94 reporter: Anneliese Thomson (den) [Edit date 06/30/94]

6/28/94 --

NON-JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/29/94 reporter: Anneliese Thomson (den) [Edit date 06/30/94]

6/29/94 --

NON-JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 6/30/94 reporter: Anneliese Thomson (den) [Edit date 06/30/94]

6/30/94 --

NON-JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and continued to 10:00 7/1/94 reporter: Anneliese Thomson (den) [Edit date 06/30/94]

7/1/94

NON-JURY TRIAL before Judge June L. Green resumed and concluded; taken under advisement. reporter: Santa Zizzo
date 08/02/94]

defendants (jeb) [Entry date 07/06/94]

iled by plaintiff(s) to reinstate motion for contempt for defendants' failure to produce documents (jeb) [Entry date 07/11/94]
T

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 19

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E

CLOSED

1^8/94 150

REQUEST by plaintiff(s) to renew their request that this

Court issue an order to show cause why defendants and

defense counsel should not be held in contempt of court for

breach of the protective orders issued in this litigation,

(jeb) [Entry date 07/11/94]

7/8/94 152

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff(s) in support of motion to reinstate motion for contempt for defendants' failure to produce documents [149-1] by JANE DOE II, JANE DOE I, WOMEN PRISONERS/DC; attachments A-B (den) [Entry date 07/12/94]

7/11/94 151

TRANSCRIPT jof Bench Trial before Judge June L. Green filed r date of 6/21/94. Reporter: Anneliese J. Thomson (tth)
[Entry date 07/12/94]

7/22/94 153

MOTION filed by defendant COR-DC to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' motion to reinstate motion for contempt and statement regarding pending motions for contempt (lpp) [Entry date 07/27/94]

7/27/94 154

RESPONSE by defendant in opposition to motion to reinstate motion for contempt for defendants' failure to produce documents [14 9-1] by JANE DOE II, JANE DOE I, WOMEN PRISONERS/DC . (lpp) [Entry date 08/01/94]

7/27/94 155
T
7/29/94 156

RESPONSE (OPPOSITIONS) by defendant to motion for order of contempt against defendants [99-1] by plaintiff(s) (lpp) [Entry date 08/01/94]
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' motion to reinstate motion for contempt and statement regarding pending motions for contempt [153-1] by COR-DC; response due 7/27/94 (N) (lpp) [Entry date 08/03/94]

8/4/94 157

REPLY by plaintiff(s) to defendant's opposition to motion to reinstate motion for contempt for defendants' failure to produce documents [149-1]; exhibits (2) (cjp) [Entry date 08/10/94]

8/4/94 158 10/28/94 159

TRANSCRIPT jfi led for trial, date(s) of 6/24,27-30/94. rporter: Anneliese Thomson, Volumes 10A-14 (lpp) *
[Entry date 08/10/94]

NOTICE OF FILING by defendant DC: Confidentially Order as required by the COurt in its Order dated 10/1/93, filed under seal room 1800 (lpp) [Entry date 10/31/94]

TRANSCR ] VJ&rZzo (ibjT) [Entry

t e ( s ) of
11/18/94]

11/17/94 161
n

(TRAM

filed for date(s) of 6/14/94. Reporter: Santa

z!iTizzzzo (bjl) [Entry date 11/18/94]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 20

Proceedings include all events. l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al V. DC, et al

Ii/17/94 162

SCRIPT filed for date(s) of 11/17/94. Tizzo TBjl)' [Entry date 11/18/94]

TYPE E CLOSED Reporter: Santa

11/17/94 163

[TRANSCRIPJT tiled for date(s) of 6/16/94. Reporter: Santa [Entry date 11/18/94]

11/17/94 164

for date(s) of 6/17/94 Reporter: Santa [Entry date 11/18/94]

11/17/94 165

TSCRIPT^filed for date(s) of 6/20/94 Reporter: Santa [Entry date 11/18/94]

11/17/94 166

1TR^SCRIPT/filed for date(s) of 6/22/94. Reporter: Santa *-ZTzzo (BJT) [Entry date 11/18/94]

VTRANSCRIPT\filed for date(s) of 6/23/94 Reporter: Santa 11/17/94 167 ^ i z z o (bjl) [Entry date 11/18/94]

11/17/94 168 12/13/94 169 12/13/94 170
T

TRANSCRIPT Ifiied for date(s) of 6/24/94 Reporter: Santa ^giggo (bj±T [Entry date 11/18/94]
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge June L. Green (N) (lpp)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : for DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF directing that defendants' actions and inactions are violated and continue to violate the plaintiff class members' rights under theFifth andEighth Amendments to theUnited States Constitution; directing defendants to take allaction necessary to remedyand prevent the violations of the Plaintiffs' above mentioned rights; directing defendants to take thespecific measures in the areas of sejcual harassment, obstetrical and gynecological care, programs andopportunities,and environmental and fire safety as stated in theOrder filed 12/13/94; all measures areto be completed and in effect with in six (6) months of thedate of this Order, unless otherwise specified (see order for details) (N) (lpp)

12/22/94 171

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion of plaintiffs' to reinstate motion for contempt for defendants' failure to produce documents; denying motion and amended motion of plaintiffs for order of contempt against defendants for improper communications with plaintiff class member and potential witness; denying motion of plaintiffs fororder of contempt against defendants, dated 5/2/94; denying motion of plaintiffs for contempt for failure to produce documents, dated 5/2/94; denying cross-motions of defendants for sanctions dated 5/9/94 and 5/16/94 (N) (den)

12/22/94 --
r

MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green granted motion to reinstate motion forcontempt for defendants' failure to produce documents [149-1] by JANE DOE II, JANE DOE I, WOMEN PRISONERS/DC Reporter: Christi Macri(bjl)

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 21

il

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052
1

WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al [Entry date 12/27/94]

TYPE E CLOSED

12/27/94 172

APPLICATION by plaintiffs for attorney fee against defendants; Attachments(10) (ted) [Entry date 12/28/94]

12/28/94 173

MOTION filed by defendant to stay enforcement of judgment pending disposition of defendants' motion to alter or amend findings and judgment, or, in the alternative for a new trial and in the alternative to stay pending disposition of appeal, Exhibit (1) (lpp) [Entry date 12/29/94]

12/28/94 203

MOTION filed by defendant to alter or amend findings and judgment [170-2], or, in the alternative for new trial (ted) [Entry date 03/13/95]

1/3/95 174

MOTION filed by plaintiff to clarification of time to file an opposition to defendants' Motions Exhibit: (1) (lpp) [Entry date 01/09/95]

1/10/95 175

MOTION filed by defendant DC to stay proceedings on plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and costs pending decision on defendants' post-trial motions and/or appeal, (bjl) [Entry date 01/11/95]

1/10/95 176
T

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : extending time to 1/11/95 for plaintiffs to file oppostion to defendants' motion to stay enforcement of judgment and to defendants' motion to alter or amend Findings and Judgment. (N) (bjl) [Entry date 01/11/95]

1/11/95 177

RESPONSE by plaintiff in opposition to motion to stay enforcement of judgment pending disposition of defendants' motion to alter or amend findings and judgment, or, in the alternative for a new trial and in the alternative to stay pending disposition of appeal, Exhibit (1), [173-1] by defendants . (lpp) [Entry date 01/13/95]

1/11/95 178

RESPONSE (OPPOSITIONS) by plaintiff to motion t alter or amend findings and judgment, or, in the alternative for a new trial (lpp) [Entry date 01/13/95]

1/12/95 179

JOINT MOTION by plaintiff, defendant to extend time to 2/13/95, to comply with paragraph 8 of the Court's 12/13/94 ORder for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (lpp) [Entry date 01/13/95]

1/17/95 180
r

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting joint motion to extend time to 2/13/95, to comply with paragraph 8 of the Court's 12/13/94 ORder for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [179-1] by defendants and plaintiffs. (N) (bjl) \ [Entry date 01/18/95]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 2 2

Proceedings include all events. l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E

17/95 181

CLOSED
MOTION by The Special Officer filed to extend time to 30 days following the resolution of whether the Order will be stayed pending appeal to comply with the provisions of Section I of the Court's Order of December 13, 1994. (bjl) [Entry date 01/18/95]

1/17/95 183

REPLY by defendant to response to motion to alter or amend findings and judgement, or in the alternative for a new trial, (lpp) [Entry date 01/19/95]

1/18/95 182

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 3 0 days following the resolution of whether the Order will be stayed pending appeal to comply with the provisions of Section I of the Court's Order of December 13, 1994. [181-1] (N) (bjl) [Entry date 01/19/95]

1/19/95 184

REPLY by defendant to opposition by plaintiffs to motion of defendants to stay enforcement of judgment, (bjl) [Entry date 01/20/95]

1/19/95 185

MOTION filed by defendants to extend time (nunc pro tune) to 2/21/95 to file an alternative plan to paragraph 65 of the Court Order for declaratory and injunctive relief, (bjl) [Entry date 01/20/95]

1/23/95 186
T

RESPONSE by plaintiff in opposition to motion to stay proceedings on plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and costs pending decision on defendants' post-trial motions and/or appeal. [175-1] by DC . (ted) [Entry date 01/25/95]

1/26/95

HEARING before Judge June L. Green : for temporary restraining order begun and respited to 1/30/95 at 1:30 P.M. Reporter: Bill McAllister (bjl)

MOTION filed by plaintiff for injunctive relief, Exhibit: (3), bulky pleading (lpp) [Entry date 01/30/95]

MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green for temporary restraining order resumed and respited to 2/14/95 at 10:00. a.m. Reporter: Marilyn Young (bjl) [Entry date 01/31/95]

2/9/95 188

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time (nunc pro tune) to 2/21/95 to file an alternative plan to paragraph 65 of the Court Order for declaratory and injunctive relief. [185-1] by DC (N) (bjl)

2/9/95 189

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : denying motion to stay t, enfociigment of Judgment Pending disposition of Appeal except as to paragraphs 61, 62, 63 and 86 of the Court's
* o f December 13, 1994i"which are* stayed for 30 days. With respect to these paragraphs of the Order, the parties are directed to confer and submit to the Court any potential amendments to the Order within 30 days. (N) (bjl)

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 23

1 T

Proceedings include all events. l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

2/9/95 ( 190 ) /ORDER by J-

^

V J I motion to alter or amend ^findings—an!;

v—

/ alternative for a ne"w t~rial\ (N) (bjl)

TYPE E CLOSED
the

2/9/95 191

MOTION filed by defendant to extend time of 30 days to finalize the Department Order on sexual Misconduct in Accordance with this Court's Order dated 12/13/94 (lpp) [Entry date 02/10/95]

2/14/95

MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green; defendants withdrew plan to move inmates from modular facility to CTF; order to be presented. Reporter: Gwen Schlemmer (Miller) (ted)

/22//1144/95 ( 192,

MOTION filed by plaintiff for implementation of monitoring procedures, exhibits (2) (lpp) [Entry date 02/157^5]

2/14/95 193

MOTION filed by plaintiff to extend time to 4/13/95, to comply with paragraph 17 of the Court Order for declaratory and injunctive relief (lpp) [Entry date 02/15/95]

2/17/95 194
T
2/17/95 195 2/17/95 196

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting defendant's motion to extend time for an additional 3 0 days to finalize the Department Order on sexual Misconduct in Accordance with this Court's Order dated 12/13/94, up to and including 3/10/95. [191-1] (N) (bjl)

RESPONSE by plaintiff in opposition to motion to extend time to 4/13/95, to comply with paragraph 17 of the Court Order for declaratory and injunctive relief [193-1] by plaintiffs (lpp) [Entry date 02/21/95]

JOINT MOTION by plaintiff for entry of consent order regarding status of mass transfer of inmates to correctional treatment facility and compliance with the women prisoners order (lpp) [Entry date 02/21/95]

NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs, Attachment (1) (lpp)

[Entry date 02/2l/95]~

_

(JJM/UM s Mu^^C^S H

2/17/95 /197 ) 2/21/95 198

SUBMISSION of defendants of an alternative plan to paragraph sixty-five of the Court's Order dated 12/13/94 (lpp) [Entry date 02/22/95] [Edit date 03/16/95]

2/21/95 199

REPLY by defendants to plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion for extension of time to comply with paragraph 17 of.this Court's Order dated 12/13/94. (lpp) [Entry date 02/22/95] [Edit date 03/15/95]

2/21/95 200

NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff from order for DECLARATORY AND—TNJUNLTIVK RELIEF [170-1], order [170-2], entered on: 12/13/95, no fees paid, D.C. Government; Copies to: Lutz Alexander Prager and Peter J. Nickles, Brenda V. Smith, (lpp)

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 24

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052
T

WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al [Entry date 02/22/95]

TYPE E CLOSED

TRANSMITTED PRELIMINARY RECORD on appeal [200-1] byplaintiffs to U.S. Court of Appeals (lpp)

USCA^#^95-7041 assigned for appeal [200-1] by plaintiffs (lpp) [Entry date 03/02/95]

STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green Susant Tyner (bjl) [Entry date 03/10/95]

Reporter:

CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting joint motion for entry of consent order regarding status of mass transfer of inmates to correctional treatment facility and compliance with the women prisoners order [196-1]; durecting that 10 days in advance of any mass transfer of inmates and staff from Modular, defendants will provide plaintiffs with a plan demonstrating that such mass movement and staff transfers will not impede defendants' ability to comply with the Court's Orders entered in Inmates of Modular Facility v. D. C. ,- further directing that defendants submit to plaintiffs counsel monthly status reports") beginning 4/1/95, detailing the status or compliance witn uhe Women Prisoners Court Order for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief dated 12/13/94. (N) (bjl) [Edit date 03/10/95]

10/95 202

JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs, defendants for modifications of the order for declaratory and injunctive relief (ted) [Entry date 03/13/95]

SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST by plaintiffs to defendants for production of documents (ted) [Entry date 03/14/95]

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : setting forth instructions to Ms. Lopes regarding inspections at CTF to determine if tne tacillty is in compliance with the Court's 12/13/94 Order; directing that Ms. Lopes submit a report to the Court and the"~parties by 4/10/95; cancelling the scneduied neanng in this case previously set for 3/23/95. (N) (bjl) [Entry date 03/16/95]

RDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 4/13/95, to comply with paragraph 17 of the Court Order for declaratory and injunctive relief [193-1] by plaintiffs; directing that by|4/13/95, a trainer from the NaMonfl] Tnai~ifiu,*"^of Corrections,, mutually agreed upon by" the parties,shall conduct mandatory training on sexual harassment for all D.C. Dept. of Corrections employees w"Ho" •""work with women prisoners. (N) (bjl) [Entry date 03/16/ybl '

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 25

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE

I 15/95

CLOSED ORDER by Judge June L. Green :granting joint motion of

the parties for modifications of the Order for Declaratory

and Injunctive relief; amending paragraphs 61, 62, & 63 of

the Order as set forth in this present Order; further

directing that the time for defendants to comply with

paragraph 86 of the Order for Declaratory and Injunctive

Relief is extended for 3 0 days during which time the

parties are directed to confer and submit to the Court any

potential amendments to the Order. (N) (bjl)

[Entry date 03/16/95]

3/16/95 /208

NOTICE OF FILING by defendant: Defendants' submission of the D.C. Department of Corrections' Department Order regarding sexual harrassment against inmates (lpp) [Entry date 03/17/95]

3/24/95

USCA # 95-7041 assigned for appeal [200-1] by plaintiffs (lpp) [Entry date 03/28/95]

3/27/95 209

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : adopting defendants' alternative plan; substituting the term "trailers" with "pre-engineered units" in paragraph 65 of the Court's order of December 13; setting the deadline for completion of the additional programming space as delineated in paragraph 65 of the Order and the attached plan marked Exhibit A by extending time to 8/21/95. (N) (bjl) [Entry date 03/28/95]

MOTION filed by defendant to extend time to file monthly reports nunc pro tune to 4/1/95 (lpp) [Entry date 04/09/95]

ORDER by Judge June L. Green :granting motion to extend time to file monthly reports nunc pro tune to 4/1/95 [210-1] by defendants; defendants shall file monthly reports thereafter in a manner and format negotiated by the parties and shall have an additional 30 days to negotiate and implement a monthly reporting format up to and including 5/1/95 (N) (lpp) [Entry date 04/12/95]

4/7/95 219
C 4/10/95 212

COPY of Order filed in USCA dated 4/4/95, holding casein abeyance pending additional proceedings in USDC; directing USDC to hold a hearing (and, if appropriate, conferenceof the parties) on defendants' motion within 40 days of the date of this order, and expeditiously enter any appropriate order. appeal [200-1] , .USCA # 95-7041 (mbd) [Entry date 04/26/95]
MOTION filed by special officer to extend time to 5/10/95 to comply with the Court's 3/15/95 order (ted) [Entry date 04/12/95]

4/18/95 213

MOTION filed by defendant to stay case, and/or to modify judgment, Exhibit: (1) (lpp) [Entry date 04/19/95]

[j.8/95 214

MOTION filed by defendant to file excess pages limitation

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 26

Proceedings include all events. l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al
(lpp) [Entry date 04/19/95]

TYPE E CLOSED

4/20/95 215

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to file excess pages limitation [214-1] by defendants. (N) (jeb) [Entry date 04/21/95]

4/20/95 216

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 5/10/95 to comply with the Court's 3/15/95 order [212-1] (N) (jeb) [Entry date 04/21/95]

4/20/95 217

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : hearing on the defendants' revised motion to stay and/or modify judgment set for 11:00 5/8/95 ; (N) (jeb) [Entry date 04/21/95]

NOTICE OF FILING by defendants of corrected Declaration of Margaret A. Moore and Corrected Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of the renewed motion of defendants to stay and/or modify judgment; Attachments (2) (dbw) [Entry date 04/25/95]

4/26/95 220

RESPONSE by plaintiff in opposition to motion to stay case [213-1] by defendants, Exhibits (4), bulky pleading (lpp) [Entry date 04/27/95]

A/21/95 221
1

COPY of Order filed in USCA dated 4/26/95, referencing appeal [200-1] extending time for plaintiffs to respond to the revised motion for stay pending in USDC by 4/28/95, and any reply due by 5/3/95, . USCA # 95-7041 (mbd) [Entry date 05/01/95]

5/2/95 222

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : hearing on the defendant's revised motion to stay and/or modify judgment set for 11:00 5/11/95 ; (N) (jeb)

5/3/95 223
/^ 5/lO/95f 224
^_

REPLY by defendantto response to motion to stay case [213-1] by defendants, motion to modify judgment, [213-2] by defendants (lpp) [Entry date 05/04/95]
NOTICE OF FILING by Special Officer Grace M. Lopes: Report on Compliance with the December 13, 1994 order as amended, Exhibits (50) (Volume I-II) (lpp) [Entry date 05/11/95]

5/10/95 225

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to motion to stay case [213-1] by defendants, motion to modify judgment, [213-2] by defendants, Exhibits (3) (lpp) [Entry date 05/11/95]

5/11/95 226

MOTION filed by plaintiff to strike supplemental memorandum [225-1] (lpp)

5/11/95 227

MOTION filed by plaintiff for leave to file sur-reply to defendants' reply to plaintiffs' opositon to renewed motion for stay and/or modify judgment, EXHIBIT: SUR-REPLY (lpp)

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 27

Proceedings include all events.

1:93cv2052

WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E

•T-

CLOSED

X 11/95 --

MOTION HEARING before Judge June L. Green, held, denying

motion to strike; granting motions to file sur-reply and

stay Reporter: Phyllis Merena and Susan Tyner (lpp)

5/11/95 228

SURREPLY by plaintiff to response to motion to stay case [213-1] by defendants, motion to modify judgment, [213-2] by defendants . (lpp)

5/12/95/L229

TRANSCRIPT filed for hearing heard on 5/11/95 Reporter: Susan Page Tyner (lpp) [Entry date 05/15/95]

5/16/95 230

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for leave to file sur-reply to defendants' reply to plaintiffs' opositon to renewed motion for stay and/or modify judgment [227-1] by plaintiffs; denying motion to strike supplemental memorandum [225-1] [226-1] by plaintiffs; granting motion to stay case [213-11 by defendants; the CoHl L Will yl_ay £oi 30 duyu LllOtJe paragraphs of the Court Order of 12/13/94, as amended which the defendants identify in Exhibit C to the Defendants' Supplement to the Corrected Motion to stay and/or modify Judgment entitled "Women's Class Action Order Analysis Paragraphs in which defendants Seeka Stay"; parties shall attempt in good-faith to resolve differences and accept the offer of the Court's Special Officer Grace M. Lopes to work with parties; Parties are to notify Court of any agreements reached and inability to agree (N) (lpp)

NOTICE OF FILING by defendants: Submission of the amended D.C. Department of Corrections' Department order regarding sexual misconduct against inmates, attachment (1) (lpp) [Entry date 05/17/95]

5/17/95 232

TRANSCRIPT filed for date(s) of 05/11/95. Reporter: Phyllis Merana (jeb) [Entry date 05/18/95]

6/15/95 233

MOTION filed by defendant to extend time and statement of the status of negotiations with plaintiffs regarding defendants' revised motion to stay and/or modify the judgement (lpp) [Entry date 06/16/95]

STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs (lpp) [Entry date 06/16/95]

ORDER by Judge June L. Green directing that by 6/29/95 parties shall submit to the Court specific provisions of the December 13, 1994 Court Order as modified by agreement of the parties; parties shall identify those provisions, if any, to which an agreement could not be reached. : (N) (bjl) [Entry date 06/22/95]

6/23/95 236
T

COPY of Order filed in USCA dated 6/21/95, referencing appeal [200-1] ,granting motion by District of Columbia, et al. to defer filing motion to govern further proceedings USCA # 95-7041 (mbd) [Entry date 06/27/95]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 28

Proceedings include all events.

Tl:93cv2052

WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E CLOSED

6/29/95 237

MOTION filed byplaintiff WOMEN PRISONERS/DC for adoption of amendments toparagraphs 79 and 96 of the order for declaratory and injunctive relief (ted)

[Entry date 06/30/95]

6/29/95 238

JOINT MOTION byplaintiffs, defendants tomodify the courts order of 12/13/94 (ted) [Entry date 06/30/95]

7/21/95 239

SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION byplaintiff WOMEN PRISONERS/DC? plaintiff JANE DOE I, plaintiff CORR TREATMENT FAC., plaintiff MINIMUM SEC ANNEX, plaintiff CENTRAL DETENTION for attorney fee against defendants; Exhibits(2) (ted) [Entry date 07/25/95]

8/14/95

MEMORANDUM by Judge June Green, (ted)

8/14/95

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : that the potion of the defendants' revised motion to stay and/or modify judgment in which defendants seek a stay isdenied; that paragraphs 73 and 74 of the Court's 12/13/94 order are vacated; that paragraphs 39, 40, 41, 42 of the Court's 12/13/94 order are vacated; that paragraphs 12, 17, 18, 20, 35, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 58, 60, 67, 70, 71, 75, 87, 102, 115, 123, and 124 of the Court's 12/13/94 order are amended, setting forth further instructions to the parties. (N) (ted)

NOTICE OFAPPEAL bydefendant from order [241-1] , entered on: 8/14/95. Appeal by DC government. Copies mailed to Peter J. Nickles and Brenda Smith, (ted) [Entry date 08/23/95]

TRANSMITTED PRELIMINARY RECORD on appeal [242-1] by defendants toU.S. Court of Appeals (ted)
^ 95-7205^assigned for appeal [242-1] by defendants (ted}—TEntTydate 08/30/95]
ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting defendants' motion to stay proceeddings onplaintiffs' application for award of attorneys' fees and costs pending dedision on defendants' post-trial motions and/or appeal; directing defendants to file a response toplaintiffs' application no later than 10 days after Court of Appeals renders a decision on the merits of this case; denying, without prejudice, plaintiffs' motion requesting implementation of monitoring procedures. (N) (bjl)

10/16/95 244

MOTION filed by GRACE M. LOPES (special officer) to extend time to December 1, 1995 to comply with Court's December 13, 1994 Order (jmf) [Entry date 10/18/95]

1
Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 29

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E

CLOSED

/19/95 245

ORDER by Judge June L. Green dismissing, as moot,

plaintiffs' motion requesting implementation b± monitoring

procedures, in light of Consent Order of March 10, 195. :

(N) (bjl) [Entry date 10/20/95]

10/27/95 246

RESPONSE by plaintiffs in opposition to motion to extend time to December 1, 1995 to comply with Court's December 1994 Order [244-1]. (dbw) [Entry date 10/30/95]

10/31/95 247

REPLY by defendants' to plaintiffs' opposition to the special officer's motion to extend time to December 1, 1995 to comply with Court's December 13, 1994 Order [244-1] (jmf) [Entry date 11/01/95]

ORDER by Judge Joyce H. Green for Judge June L. Green : granting motion of Special Officer to extend time to December 1, 1995 to comply with Court's December 13, 1994 Order; directing that the Special Officer shall begin monitoring inmate sexual harassment complaints no later than December 1, 1995. [244-1] (N) (bjl) [Entry date 11/06/95]

11/30/95 249

MOTION filed by plaintiffs to compel compliance with the Court Order of December 13, 1994; Exhibits A&B. (bjl) [Entry date 12/01/95]

12/13/95 250

MOTION filed by plaintiff to withdraw motion to compel compliance with order (jmf) [Entry date 12/14/95]

12/15/95 251

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to withdraw motion to compel compliance with order [250-1] by plaintiffs. (N) (jeb)

1/16/96 25
y
1/17/96 253

MOTION filed by GRACE M. LOPES; SPECIAL MASTER for compensation; exhibits (3) (jmf) [Entry date 01/22/96]
ORDER (copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting Special Offcer's motion to increase compensation rate for Special Assistant; that Ms. Schneider's compensation rate shall be increased to $60.00 per hour (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) [Entry date 01/23/96]

1/17/96 254

ORDER (copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [252-1]; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $29,979.04 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, and Ms. Lytle. (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) [Entry date 01/23/96]

2/15/96 256

MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation; exhibits (7) (jmf) [Entry date 02/21/96] [Edit date 03/l57^et~^

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 3 0

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE

T 21/96 255

CLOSED ORDER by Judge June L. Green: the Clerk of the Court pay-

Grace M. Lopes the sum of $18,921.87 which represents

compensation for the services and expenses of Special

Officer Lopes; this check shall be drawn from the $20,000

Fund established by previous orders of the Court; the

District of Columbia shall pay $18,921.87 to the Clerk of

the Court in order to replenish the $20,000 Fund by 3/5/96;

the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of

$25,330.50 which represents compensation for the services

and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Ms. Lytle, Mr.

Roche and Dr. Belitsky; this check shall-be drawn from the

Inmates of Modular account established by previous orders

of the Court; the District of Columbia shall pay $25,330.50

to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Inmates

of Modular account by 3/5/96. (N) (bm)

3/20/96 257

ORDER (Copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting Special Master Lopes' motion for compensation; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $22,098.03 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Mr. Roche and Mr. Brown; and that the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $33,686.64 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Ms. Lytle, and Mr. Henderson (N) (Original filed in CA 79-1726)
(See Order for details) (ks) [Entry date 03/22/96]

-J>22/96 258

MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation (jmf) [Entry date 04/24/96]

4/23/96 259

ORDER (Copy) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [258-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $32,827.30 which represents compensation for the services nd expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Fisher, Mr. Roche and Ms. Lytle (Delaney, Siegel and Zorn); and that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $23,266.01 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Ms. Schneider and Mr. Henerson. (N) (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (ks) [Entry date 04/26/96]

5/20/96 260

MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation; exhibits (4) (jmf) [Entry date 05/24/96]

5/21/96 261
T

ORDER by Judges June L. Green and William Bryant : granting motion for compensation [260-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $42,171.74 for services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher and Ms. Lytle; directing that the check be drawn from the Crestar savings account established by previous orders of the Court; directing the District of Columbia to [pay $42,171.74 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar saving account by the 3rd of June. (N) (bjl)

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 31

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052
T

WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al [Entry date 05/29/96]

TYPE E CLOSED

6/3/96 262

MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation; exhibits (7) (jmf) [Entry date 06/06/96]

6/19/96 263

MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation; exhibits (5) (jmf) [Entry date 06/25/96]

6/20/96 264

ORDER (COPY) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation [263-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $41,946.70 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Dr. Cohen and Mr. Henderson.
(Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) [Entry date 06/28/96]

6/27/96 265

ORDER (COPY) by Judge June L. Green and Judge William B. Bryant : granting motion for compensation by Special Officer Lopes; that the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $44,033.90 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Ms. Lytle and Dr. Belitsky. (Original filed in CA 71-1462) (N) (ks) [Entry date 06/28/96]

T27/96 266

MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation; exhibits (5) (jmf) [Entry date 06/28/96]

8/8/96 267

MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation; exhibits (4) (jmf)

8/8/96 268

ORDER by Judge June L. Green and William B. Bryant: granting motion for compensation [267-1] by GRACE M. LOPES; directing the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $36,938.29 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Mr. Roche and Ms. Lytle; directing that this check shall be drawn from the Crestar savings account established byprevious orders of the Court; directing that the District of Columbia pay $36,938.29 to the Clerk of the Court in order to replenish the Crestar savings account. (N) (jeb)

9/10/96 270

MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation; exhibits (5) (jmf) [Entry date 09/12/96]

Docket asof November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 32

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E

IA. 11/96 269

CLOSED ORDER by Judge June L. Green directing the Clerk of the

Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $40,622.03 which

represents compensation for services and expenses of

Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher, Ms. Lytle

and Mr. Roche; directing that this check be drawn from the

Inmates of Modular account; directing the District of

Columbia to pay $40,622.03 to the Clerk of the Court to

replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 9/26/96. : (N)

(bjl)

10/16/96 271

MOTION filed by Special Officer for compensation; Exhibits A-E. (bjl) [Entry date 10/17/96]

10/16/96 272

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion for compensation; [271-1] (N) (bjl) [Entry date 10/17/96]

11/6/96 274

MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for compensation; exhibits (4) (jmf) [Entry date 11/14/96]

11/7/96 273
T
12/5/96 275

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : directing the Clerk of the Court to pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $51,676.11 which represents compensation for the services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher and Dr. Belitsky; directing that this check be drawn from the Crestar Savings Account; directing the District of Columbia
to pay $51,675.11 to the Clerk of the Court ot replenish the Crestar Account. (N) (bjl)
ORDER by Judge June L. Green granting the motion by Special Officer for compensation; directing the Clerk of the Court pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $42,663.39 for services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider and Ms. Fisher; directing that this check be drawn from the Crestar savings account; directing the District of Columbia pay $42,663.39 to the Clerk of the Court to replenish the Crestar savings account. : (N) (bjl) [Entry date 12/06/96]

12/6/96 276

CERTIFIED COPY of judgment filed in USCA dated 8/3 0/96, on appeal [242-1], appeal [200-1] , vacated in part and remanding for further proceedings. OPINION USCA # 95-7041 & 95-7205 (cjp) [Entry date 12/09/96]

STATUS HEARING before Judge June L. Green Vernell Marshall (bjl)

Reporter:

12/23/96 --

STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs' (jmf) [Entry date 12/20/96] Case Reopened (bjl)

12/23/96 278
1

MOTION filed by defendant DC to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' status report and stipulation of voluntary dismissal (jmf) [Entry date 12/24/96]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 3 3

Proceedings include all events.

Il:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E

CLOSED

7/97 279

MOTION filed by special master GRACE M. LOPES for

compensation; exhibits (1) (jmf) [Entry date 01/08/97]

1/8/97 280

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : for compensation [279-1]; Clerk of Court shall pay Grace M. Lopes the sum of $34,240.39 which represents compensation for services and expenses of Special Officer Lopes, Ms. Schneider, Ms. Fisher and Delaney, Siegal, Zorn and Associates, Inc.; check shall be drawn from the Inmates of Modular Account; District of Columbia shall pay $34,240.39 to the Clerk of Court in order to replenish the Inmates of Modular account by 1/22/97 (N) (dbw) [Entry date 01/09/97]

1/15/97 281

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' status report and of voluntary dismissal [278-1] by DC; response to motion due by 1/15/97 (N) (dbw)

1/15/97 282

MOTION (SECOND CONSENT) filed by defendants' to extend time to 1/24/97 to plaintiffs' status report and stipulation of voluntary dismissal (jmf) [Entry date 01/16/97]

1/16/97 283
T
1/17/97 284
( 1/27/97 285

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 1/24/97 to file a response to plaintiffs' status report and of voluntary dismissal [282-1] by defendants; response to motion and statement due by 1/24/97 (N) (dbw)
MOTION filed by plaintiffs for court appointed expert witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. (tw) [Entry date 01/21/97]
MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' status report filed nunc pro tunce to 1/27/97 (jmf) [Entry date 01/28/97] [Edit date 01/28/97]

1/27/97 286

JOINT MOTION by plaintiff, defendant for voluntary dissmal without prejudice of plaintiffs' eighth cause of action alleging violations of law under D.C. Code Ann,and for order clarifying the declaratory and injunctive relief (jmf) [Entry date 01/28/97]

1/28/97 287

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' status report filed nunc pro tune to 1/27/97 [285-1] by defendants (N) (jeb)

1/28/97 288
T

MOTION filed by plaintiff for partial voluntary dismissal without prejudice their first cause of action, in part, as it relates to obstetrical/gynecological care (except for the shackling of pregnant inmates) and fire safety at the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) (jmf) [Entry date 01/29/97]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 34

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E

f-

CLOSED

[ 3/97 289

MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant to extend time to

2/18/97 to respond to plaintiff's motion for a court

appointed expert witness (jmf) [Entry date 02/04/97]

2/5/97 290

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to 2/18/97 to respond to plaintiff's motion for a appointed expert witness [289-1] by defendants; response to motion due by 2/18/97 (N) (dbw)

2/11/97 291

( MOTION filed by plaintiff to withdraw motion for court appointed expert witness pursuant to Federal Rule of
\Evidence 706. [284-1] (jmf) [Entry date 02/13/97]

2/11/97 292

MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant to extend time to respond to plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the first case of action of the complaint filed nunc pro tune to 02/10/97 (jmf) [Entry date 02/13/97]

2/18/97 294

RESPONSE by defendant in opposition to plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the first cause of action of the complaint, (jmf) [Entry date 02/24/97]

2/19/97 293
T

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : withdrawing motion for court appointed expert witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. [284-1] granting motion to withdraw motion for court appointed expert witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706, without prejudice [284-1] [291-1] by plaintiffs (N) (jeb)

3/3/97 295

APPLICATION (REVISED) by plaintiff awarding of attorneys' fees and costs; exhibit (10) (jmf) [Entry date 03/04/97]

3/4/97 296

REPLY by plaintiffs' to defendants' opposition to motion for partial voluntary dismissal without prejudice their first cause of action, in part, as it relates to obstetrical/gynecological care (except for the shackling of pregnant inmates) and safety at the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) [288-1] (jmf) [Entry date 03/05/97]

3/6/97 297

ERRATA by plaintiff amended reply to the District's opposition to motion stating that the parties had reached agreement regarding the withdrawal of plaintiffs' motion filed on 03/03/97 (jmf) [Entry date 03/07/97]

3/6/97 298

MOTION filed by plaintiff to withdraw motion for partial voluntary dismissal without prejudice their first cause of action, in part, as it relates to obstetrical/gynecological care (except for the shackling of pregnant inmates) and fire safety at the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) [288-1] (jmf) [Entry date 03/07/97]

3/7/97 299
T

MOTION filed by plaintiff to withdraw motion awarding of attorneys' fees and costs [295-1] (jmf) [Entry date 03/10/97]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 35

Proceedings include all events.

l:93cv2052
T

WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E CLOSED

3/10/97 300

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to withdraw

the December 27, 1994 and the July 21, 1995 applications for attorneys' fees and costs [295-1] [299-1] by plaintiffs; staying consideration of plaintiffs' March 03, 1997

application for award of attorneys' fees and costs [295-1],

pending the outcome of plaintiffs' peitition for certiorari

currently before the Supreme Court of the United States [239-1] [172-1] (N) (jmf) [Edit date 03/11/97]

3/11/97 301

MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant to extend time to 5/2/97 to respond to plaintiffs' revised application for attorneys' fees and costs (jmf) [Entry date 03/12/97]

5/14/97 303

(jmf) [Entry date 05/20/97]

5/14/97 304

MOTION filed by plaintiff for order to resolve a pending motion (jmf) [Entry date 05/20/97]

5/30/97 305

MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant to extend time nunc pro tune to May 27, 1997 up to and including June 06, 1997 to respond to plaintiffs' status report dated May 14, 1997 (jmf! [Entry date 06/02/97] [Edit date 06/02/97]

6/4/97 306
1

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time nunc pro tune to May 27, 1997 up to and including June 06, 1997 to respond to plaintiffs' status report dated May 14, 1997 [305-1] by defendants. (N) (jeb)

6/11/97 307

MOTION (SECOND) filed by defendant to extend time to 6/7/97 nunc pro tune to June 06, 1997 to respond to plaintiffs' status report dated May 14, 1997; EXHIBIT (response) (jmf) [Entry date 06/12/97]

6/12/97 308

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to nunc pro tune to June 06, 1997 to and including 6/11/97 to respond to plaintiffs' status report dated May 14, 1997 [307-1] by defendants (N) (jeb)

6/12/97 311

RESPONSE by defendant to plaintiffs' status report nunc pro tune to May 14, 1997 (jmf) [Entry date 07/07/97]

6/16/97 309
1

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting joint motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice of plaintiffs' eighth cause of action alleging violations of law under D.C. Code Ann [286-1] by defendant, plaintiffs, granting joint motion for order clarifying the declaratory and injunctive relief [286-2] by defendant, plaintiffs staying any order an award of attorneys fees and costs as set out in the plaintiffs' March 03, 1997 request and orders parties to engage in negotiations over any amount of attorney fees and costs to be awarded; directing the parties to submit to the Court a report due 08/15/97 regarding the resolution of the matter (N) (jmf) [Entry date 06/17/97]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 36

Proceedings include all events. l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al

TYPE E CLOSED

6/19/97 310

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : dismissing without prejudice by agreement of the parties the plaintiffs' Eighth Cause of Action alleging violations under local law (N) (jeb) [Entry date 06/20/97]

8/19/97 312

STATUS of negotitations regarding attorney's fees by defendant DC (jmf) [Entry date 08/20/97]

9/23/97

STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs' (jmf) [Entry date 09/24/97]

9/29/97 10/20/97 315
20/98 316

STATUS REPORT by defendants (jmf) [Entry date 09/30/97]

C

-- —

CONSENT ORDER by Judge June L. Green: stating that the

parties have reached an agreement that the amount of

attorney fees, expenses and costs to be awarded to

plaintiffs for litigation of this action up to 12/31/96, is

$970,000.00; judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs and

against the District of Columbia in the amount of

$970,000.00; the judgment shall bear no interest; D.C.

shall pay the judgment issuing two checks made payable to

Covington and Burling in the sum of $655,296.00 and

National Women's Law Center, Prison Project in the sum of

$314,704.00. (N) (N) (mlp) [Entry date 10/21/97]

JOINT MOTION by plaintiff for protective order (jmf) [Entry date 03/23/98]

3/24/98 317

PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge June L. Green ; setting forth procedures for handling confidential material; allowing designated material to be filed under seal. (N) (jeb)

CAPTION filed by plaintiff for contempt, and to enforce the Court's order for injunctive~~relief exhibits (17) (st [Entry date 06/23/98]

g

of plaintiff in support of motion to enforce the

Court's order for injunctive relief; (FILED UNDER SEAL) (st)

[Entry date 06/23/98]

• ~~

""--\

6/30/98 320

JOINT MOTION (STIPULATION) by plaintiffs, defendants to extend time to 8/10/98 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for contempt and to enforce the Court's order for injunctive relief (jmf) [Entry date 07/01/98]

7/2/98 321

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting joint motion to extend time to 8/10/98 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for contempt and to enforce the Court's order for injunctive relief [320-1] by special master, defendant, plaintiffs; response to motion due by 8/10/98. (N) (mlp)

8/7/98 323
1

MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendants to extend time to 9/18/98 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for an order to show cause for contempt (cjp) [Entry date 08/11/98]

Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 3 7

Proceedings include all events. l:93cv2052 WOMEN PRISONERS/DC, et al v. DC, et al T

TYPE E CLOSED

8/10/98 322

ORDER by Judge June L. Green: granting defendants' consent motion for extension of time within which to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for an order to show cause for contempt; response to motion due 9/18/98. (N) (mlp) [Entry date 08/11/98]

8/28/98 324

MOTION (SECOND CONSENT) filed by defendant to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for an order to show cause for contempt (jmf) [Entry date 08/31/98]

9/2/98 325

ORDER by Judge June L. Green : granting motion to extend time to respond to plaintiff's motion for an order to show cause for contempt [324-1] by WALTER B. RIDLEY, COR-DC, SHARON PRATT KELLY, DC response to show cause due by 10/18/98. (N) (mlp)

9/11/98 9/21/98 ^

326 327
: ,

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant COR-DC by Karla Dee Clark, John Lamar Ray (jmf) [Entry date 09/15/98]
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Brenda Verndenia Smith representing plaintiff. New address: National Women's Law Center, 11 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 800, Washington DC 20016 (202) 274-4261. (jmf) [Entry date 09/22/98]
JjTTNT STATUS REPORT by plaintiff, defendant regarding 'plaintiffs' motion for an Order to show cause for contempt (lkn) [Entry date 10/02/98]

T
Docket as of November 10, 1998 9:19 am

Page 3 8

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
e^al-•
Plaintiffs,

v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, al. .

Defendants

ORDER

Civil Action No. 93-2052 JLG
FILED
MAY 1 4 1997
NANCY MAVER-WHITTINGTON CLERK U.S. OISTRICT COURT

Having received the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in this action, it is HEREBY ORDERED, that:
Plaintiffs' Eighth Cause of Action is dismissed without prejudice in its entirety;
and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the following Order is issued clarifying the declaratory and injunctive relief that remains in effect, subject to possible subsequent challenge by the District;

- 2ORDER FOR DRCLARATQRY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

3ased upon the Court's findings of fact and

conclusions of law, and prior Order of December 13, 1994, Order

of March 15, 1995, and Supplemental Order of August 14, 1995,

it is by the Court this

Day of

, 1997, ORDERED

that:

1. The Defendants' actions and inactions violated

and continue to violate the Plaintiff class members' rights

under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States

Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Title IX of the Education

Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (1988).

2. The Defendants are ordered to take all action

necessary to remedy and prevent the violations of the

Plaintiffs' above-mentioned rights. The Defendants have been

ordered, in the prior Orders identified above, to take specific

measures in the areas of sexual harassment, education and

vocation programs, and environmental and fire safety, as set

forth below beginning with paragraph 4.

3. All measures ordered by the Court set forth

below should have been completed and effective within six

months of entry of the Order, dated December 13, 1994, unless

otherwise specified, except that 1 19 should have been

completed and effective within six months of entry of the Order

dated March 15, 1995, and H1 11, 15, 16, 18, 23, 26, 27, 29,

33, 50, 58, and 59 should have been completed and effective

- 3within six months of entry of the Supplemental Order, dated August 14, 1995.
I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT 4. Within 60 days, the Defendants shall write and
follow a Department Order prohibiting sexual harassment involving District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DCDC) employees and women prisoners. The Defendants shall post and circulate the Department Order in accordance with departmental policy.
5. Under this policy the DCDC has the obligation to take appropriate steps to prevent and remedy sexual harassment committed by its own employees.
6. Prohibited conduct under the policy shall be defined as:
a. Sexual harassment which includes: (1) all unwelcome sexual activity directed by any
DCDC employee at a prisoner including acts of sexual intercourse, oral sex, or sexual touching and any attempt to commit these acts; and (2) all unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature directed by any DCDC employee at a prisoner; and b. Invasions of women prisoners' privacy by male
employees without a valid penological reason,

- 4including the failure of any male employee to announce his presence when entering a female housing unit. c. Retaliation for reporting complaints of, assisting any individual in making a report of, or cooperating in an investigation of sexual harassment, regardless of the merits or the disposition of the underlying complaint. Retaliatory conduct includes the following actions taken against a prisoner in response to that prisoner's complaint of sexual harassment or cooperation in the reporting or investigation of sexual harassment: disciplining, changing work or program assignments of, transferring to another facility of, or placing under involuntary protective custody any prisoner. d. Any breach of confidentiality by any employee concerning any report of sexual harassment. e. Any interference with investigations of sexual harassment. 7. Penalties for prohibited conduct under the policy shall be determined by the Director of the DCDC within 3 0 days. 8. Women prisoners shall be able to report instances of sexual harassment through the existing Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) as specified in Department Order 4030.ID. The Defendants shall strictly adhere to the Inmate

- 5Grievance Procedure and shall establish an Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee (IGAC) as required by Section VII(C) of Department Order 4030.ID.
9. Women prisoners shall also be able to submit IGP's or complaints concerning sexual harassment in any form, orally or in writing, to any DCDC employee, who must submit the information, in writing, to the Warden of the facility within 24 hours of receiving the information. Women prisoners may also submit IGP's or complaints to prisoner representative to the IGAC.
10. The Defendants shall establish a confidential hot line, under the supervision of the Director of the DCDC, through which women prisoners can report allegations of sexual harassment.
11. Failure of an employee to report any allegation of sexual misconduct or any facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable employee to believe that sexual misconduct is occurring or has occurred shall subject the employee to discipline.
12. Upon receipt of any allegation of an act of unwelcome sexual intercourse or any allegation of unwelcome sexual touching, the Defendants must notify the proper law enforcement agency. The Defendants shall communicate with the law enforcement agency concerning the status of any investigation. The Defendants must periodically document the status of police investigations. The occurrence of a police

- 6investigation does not relieve the Defendants of the duty to investigate.
13. The identity of the target of the alleged sexual harassment shall be revealed only to those who have an immediate need to know, including the alleged harasser(s) or retaliator(s) and any witnesses. All parties contacted in the course.of an investigation will be advised that any retaliation, reprisal, or breach of confidentiality is a separate actionable offense as provided in the schedule of penalties .
14. Any prisoner who is dissatisfied with any investigation or resolution of an allegation of sexual harassment may appeal to the Director of the DCDC within 15 days of receiving written notice of the outcome of the investigation. The Director must respond within 15 days.
15. The Department shall conduct mandatory training using certified trainers on sexual misconduct for all DCDC employees. A consultant from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall develop the training plan and material. A "certified trainer" is defined as any person who has completed the "Train-theTrainer" course developed by the NIC consultant.
a. The training shall include education concerning the Defendants' policies regarding reporting, investigating, and preventing sexual harassment, and

- 7the consequences for violating any policy concerning sexual harassment; and b. All staff who work with female prisoners shall be crained by certified trainers within six months commencing no later than August 30, 1995. After the initial training of staff, the training will be included in the pre-service training of all staff. Annual retraining shall be conducted to refresh staff on the Department Order regarding sexual misconduct. c. Within one year, selected employees working with female prisoners shall receive a forty-hour training program on working with female offenders. A semiannual, enhancement training on special issues related to working with female offenders will be offered to selected employees. 16. Commencing no later than August 30, 1995, the Department shall conduct mandatory training on sexual harassment using certified trainers for all women prisoners currently in the DCDC. A consultant from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall develop the training plan and materials which will instruct women prisoners on the Department Order on sexual misconduct and how to recognize and report sexual harassment. Training sessions for women prisoners on sexual harassment shall be provided within a reasonable time upon a woman's entry in the D.C. Department of Corrections.

- 817. The Defendants shall make necessary alterations at both the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) and the
Minimum Security Annex (Annex) within 60 days to ensure that
women have privacy in their living, sleeping and shower areas.
II. OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL CARE 18. The Defendants shall develop and implement a
protocol concerning restraints used on pregnant and postpartum women which provides that a pregnant prisoner shall be transported in the least restrictive way possible consistent with legitimate security reasons. Specifically, the protocol shall provide:
a. The Defendants shall use no restraints on any woman in labor, during delivery, or in recovery immediately after delivery; and
b. During the last trimester of pregnancy up until labor, the Defendants shall use no restraints when transporting a pregnant woman prisoner unless the woman has demonstrated a history of assaultive behavior or has escaped from a correctional facility, in which case, only handcuffs shall be used.
III. PROGRAM EVALUATION 19. The Defendants shall provide diagnostic
evaluations for women prisoners similar to those currently provided for men in the Reception and Diagnostic Unit at CTF to
1 T

- 9determine women prisoners' needs, interests, and requirements for increased programs and opportunities in education and vocation. The procedure for the needs assessment shall be done by an approved scientific method. These evaluations shall be completed in a manner and time frame equivalent to the males in the diagnostic unit, but shall not exceed 120 days from the date of the female prisoner's transfer to CTF or the Annex. The evaluations shall include educational and vocational testing. The Defendants shall provide women with the appropriate available programming called for by this evaluation within 3 0 days of completion of the diagnostic evaluation.
20. The Defendants shall coordinate the scheduling of academic educational classes, higher education classes, and vocational training for women in such a manner as to maximize women prisoners' participation in as many areas as possible.
21. The Defendants shall provide sufficient program space so that women prisoners can participate in equal and adequate education and vocation programs and services as compared to men prisoners. The Defendants shall provide at least two additional trailers at the Annex (with functional sanitary facilities) to allow for additional programming activities. Within 30 days, the Defendants may submit for the Court's consideration an alternative to the 2 ordered trailers.
22. The Defendants shall develop and implement quality assurance programs for monitoring program delivery to

- 10 ensure the continued provision of equal and adequate education and vocation programs to women prisoners.
23. The Defendants shall ensure that women prisoners are escorted to and arrive at educational and vocational programs in a timely manner as scheduled in a manner that does not prevent the programming staff from performing any of their duties.
24. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at the Annex with a range of academic education programs that is equivalent to the range of academic programs provided to male prisoners at the Minimum Security Facility (Minimum).
25. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a range of academic education programs that is equivalent to the range of academic programs provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.
26. Women prisoners at the Annex and CTF shall be provided with the opportunity for full-time (three hours per day, five days per week at CTF and five hours per day, five days per week at the Annex) basic education to include ABE, GED, and Special Education classes.
27. Women prisoners at CTF shall have access to onsite higher education programs which shall include a four-year B.A. and/or B.S. degree program, an A.A. degree program, and precollege program. At a minimum, bachelor programs shall be offered in one area of study, and associate programs in two different areas of study leading to a degree. Defendants shall

- 11 comply with Che precollege requirement of this provision within 9 0 days.
28. The Defendants shall offer prisoners financial arrangements for these education programs that are the same as those arrangements available to similarly situated male prisoners.
29. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall provide appropriate substitute teachers or instructors during absences of regular teachers or instructors of more than three working days. The provision of a substitute teacher or instructor shall not result in increasing the class size beyond acceptable community standards for a period of time exceeding 15 consecutive school days.
30. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a range of vocational education programs that is equivalent to the range of vocational education programs provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.
31. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with two prevocational programs each to be at least six weeks in duration. Prevocational programs include those courses which teach personal development skills, living skills, and/or employment skills such as Employment Techniques, Awareness and Preparation (ETAP) and Lifeskills.
32. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a minimum of four vocational education programs,

- 12 including the one program currently in place (DocuTech). These programs shall be available to female prisoners of all custody levels. A vocational education program is any program of 12 to 24 months of duration that teaches employable skills and contains both a classroom component and an on-the-job-training component. Two programs shall be operate within 120 days of the entry of this Order.
3 3. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with at least one apprenticeship program as defined by Department order.
34. All prevocational programs, vocational programs, and apprenticeships added for women prisoners at CTF shall have the potential for providing women with job skills marketable in the local labor market. An important consideration in the Defendants' selection of programs shall be the wage-earning capacity upon completion of the program.
35. The Defendants shall conduct affirmative outreach to women during the enrollment period for vocational training. This outreach shall entail DCDC staff meeting with women at least one month before the deadline for program enrollment to inform the women that the new programs are available and to offer a full description of the available programs and any applicable criteria for participation.
36. The Defendants shall ensure that all contractual programs used to provide services to women prisoners are compatible with and fulfill the provisions of this Order.

- 13 37. The Defendants shall staff a sufficient number of vocational development specialists at the Annex in order to conduct testing, classes and counseling.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 38. Within one year, the Defendants shall repair or
replace the roofs of Annex Dormitories 6 and 7 and retain them in a watertight condition.
39. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall repair the Annex dormitories so as to prevent the entry and refuge of vermin and shall conduct a vermin eradication program to eliminate the present infestation of vermin. The Defendants shall thereafter promulgate and follow an effective vermin eradication program.
40. Within 60 days, the Defendants shall provide each woman prisoner housed in the Annex dormitories at least one vertical locker and one footlocker.
41. Within 30 days, the Defendants shall replace all torn mattresses and pillows at the Annex with clean, untorn, fire-retardant mattresses and pillows. The Defendants shall conduct a regular inspection of all mattresses and pillows and shall, at that time, immediately replace any mattresses that are damaged to a degree that prevents adequate cleaning.
42. The Defendants shall immediately use cart liners or disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry at the Annex.

- 14 43. For as long as the Annex dormitories are doublebunked, the Defendants shall, within 60 days, provide a minimum of 20 foot candles of prisoner-controlled light to each bunk. 44. Effective immediately, the Defendants shall ensure that all housing units at the Annex are issued a timely, adequate and appropriate amount of cleaning supplies. 45. Within 60 days the Defendants shall connect the toilets and handsinks in every Annex trailer. 46. The Defendants shall continue to provide sufficient and readily accessible sanitary facilities for women in the industries at the Central Facility. 47. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall improve the ventilation at the Annex dormitories, the print shop and the garment shop so that the quality of air in these areas is brought up to an acceptable level. 48. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall install a drainage system at the Annex which will prevent hazardous accumulations of water. 49. The Defendants shall promulgate and follow a written preventive maintenance plan for the Amex dormitories, the Annex trailers, and the Annex grounds. 50. Three times every year, the Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) to inspect the Annex for compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation and maintenance and food service delivery (at the main Minimum

- 15 compound). If any area is shown to be in compliance after completion of an inspection, the mid-year inspection may be an abatement inspection rather than a full inspection. At a minimum, DCRA shall conduct full compliance inspections at the Annex two times every year. Within 30 days of each inspection, the Warden of Minimum shall obtain the DCRA findings. The Warden shall repair, clean, or otherwise remedy an unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA as soon as feasible but in no event later than 3 0 days following the receipt of the DCRA report.
51. Within 90 days, the Defendant shall hire a qualified air balancing contractor to service the CTF air handling system so that it provides an acceptable level of air quality to all areas of the facility inhabited by prisoners.
52. In the event that the air balancing and other recent repairs to the heating system at CTF fail to maintain a minimum cell temperature of 65°F in every cell, measured at the perimeter wall, the Defendants shall immediately
a. cease housing women in the end cells of each tier; b. provide each woman prisoner with two extra blankets,
two pairs of thermal underwear, and two pairs of wool socks; c. explore means of insulating or heating the perimeter walls of the cells; and d. report back to the Court.

- 16 53. The Defendants shall develop and implement an effective rodent prevention program. 54. Effective immediately, the Defendants shall ensure that all housing units at CTF are issued a timely, adequate and appropriate amount of cleaning supplies. 55. The Defendants shall use cart liners or disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry between CTF and the Jail. 56. Effective immediately, the Defendants at CTF shall monitor the food temperature and delivery times of all foods, including special diet meals, delivered to the satellite kitchen. 57. The Defendants shall promulgate and follow a written preventive maintenance plan for the CTF that includes maintenance of structures, systems, and equipment. 58. The Defendants shall ensure that the correctional officers inspect all plumbing fixtures daily, and shall ensure that any plumbing fixture that requires repair will be reported immediately upon discovery, and repaired in a timely manner. The Defendants shall maintain logs demonstrating compliance with this requirement. 59. Two times per year, the Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia DCRA to conduct inspections of the CTF for compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation, maintenance and food service delivery. Within 3 0 days of each inspection, the Warden of CTF shall obtain the

- 17 DCRA findings. The Warden shall repair, clean, or otherwise remedy any unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA as soon as feasible but in no event later than 3 0 days following the receipt of the DCRA report.
V. FIRE SAFETY 60. Within 120 days, the Defendants shall install
and maintain a manual fire alarm system and fire detection system, which covers all areas used by women prisoners at Minimum, including the Annex dormitories. The fire detection system must include smoke detectors in all sleeping and dayroom areas, and smoke or heat detectors in all other areas. There must be an automatic retransmission of the above systems to a constantly attended location outside of the dormitory buildings. There must also be a control panel to provide emergency power or to send a warning if the system is not operational.
61. The Defendants must repair or replace the fire alarm system in the Administration building, the cafeteria and gymnasium at the Minimum main compound.
62. The Defendants must install a sprinkler system in the Annex dormitories and provide a 20-minute fire-rated enclosure of storage rooms located in both dormitories.
63. The Defendants shall ensure that all bed linens, blankets, and curtains or draperies in the Annex dormitories are of fire-retardant material.

- 13 64. Effective immediately, in each Annex dormitory, the Defendants shall conduct fire drills 12 times per year, 4 times per shift, and shall keep written documentation of all such drills. 65. The Defendants shall conduct and document mandatory semi-annual training on fire safety procedures for all correctional officers. 66. Effective immediately at the Annex, and in accordance with Department Order No. 2920.1A, the Defendants shall: a. conduct weekly inspections of all buildings and grounds for fire hazards, and document such inspections; b. conduct quarterly inspections of all fire safety equipment, and document such inspections; and c. ensure that the Institutional Fire Marshal conducts quarterly inspections of the Facility. 67. Effective immediately, and in accordance with Department Order No. 2920.1A, the District of Columbia Fire Department shall conduct fire safety inspections of the Annex not less frequently than every 12 months. The Warden of Minimum shall obtain the Fire Department's report within 10 days and promptly give a copy to the Plaintiffs' counsel. Thereafter, the Warden shall cause any fire safety deficiencies identified in the Fire Department's report to be remedied within 3 0 days, or shall provide a report to the Fire
7 T

- 19 Department as to why the deficiency cannot be so remedied and provide a plan to remedy the deficiency within a further period of time not to exceed 90 days.

VI. GENERAL 68. This Order shall continue in full force and
effect, absent modification by the Court, until the Defendants have complied with all provisions for 5 years.
69. Plaintiffs are awarded the costs of this suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

Judge June L. Green United States District Court

Women Prisoners/DC v. DC PC-DC-011-014

 
 93 F.3d 910 (1996)
WOMEN PRISONERS OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Appellees, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Appellants.
Nos. 95-7041, 95-7205.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued January 22, 1996. Decided August 30, 1996.
9112 *911 *912 Edward E. Schwab, Assistant Corporation Counsel, with whom Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corporation Counsel, and Garland Pinkston, Jr., Principal Deputy Corporation Counsel, were on the briefs, argued the cause for appellants. Lutz A. Prager, Assistant Deputy Corporation Counsel, entered an appearance.
Peter J. Nickles, Washington, DC, with whom Caroline M. Brown, Tracy A. Thomas, and Brenda V. Smith, were on the brief, argued the cause for appellees.
Before SILBERMAN, BUCKLEY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
913 *913 Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge BUCKLEY.
Opinion filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
BUCKLEY, Circuit Judge:
In this case, appellants raise a number of challenges to a district court judgment ordering them to improve conditions at various District of Columbia ("District" or "D.C.") facilities in which women are imprisoned. The district court found that the existing conditions violated the following statutory and constitutional provisions: (1) D.C.Code § 24-442, which creates a tort remedy for negligence by prison officials; (2) Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"), 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., which requires recipients of federal aid to provide men and women with equal access to educational programs and activities; (3) the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as applied to the District through the Fifth Amendment; and (4) the Constitution's Eighth Amendment guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.
The court's order contains provisions relating to sexual harassment; obstetrical and gynecological care; academic, vocational, work, recreational, and religious programs; general living conditions; and fire safety. We hold that (1) the district court abused its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under D.C.Code § 24-442, (2) Title IX and equal protection principles are not applicable here because the male and female prisoners whom the district court compared were not similarly situated, and (3) certain provisions of the district court's order provide broader relief than is necessary to remedy the violations of the Eighth Amendment. In addition, we remand the case to the district court to determine whether other portions of its order are inconsistent with the recently enacted Prison Litigation Reform Act.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Facilities
Until recently, the District maintained no facility for women serving sentences of more than a year; all such offenders were sent to federal penitentiaries scattered throughout the country. The District has since assumed custody of such women, and it now houses them in three facilities: the Lorton Minimum Security Annex ("Annex"),

the Correctional Treatment Facility ("CTF"), and the Central Detention Facility ("Jail"). The first of these facilities is located in Lorton, Virginia; the latter two in the District.
The Annex, which is situated on the grounds of the men's Minimum Security Facility ("Minimum"), consists largely of a few converted military barracks that serve as dormitories. The women in the Annex are escorted to Minimum at specified times to attend academic courses and use the gymnasium. As of January 1994, there were 936 men at Minimum and 167 women at the Annex. In this class action, the female inmates at the Annex raise challenges involving sexual misconduct, their general living conditions, and discrimination in access to academic, vocational, work, recreational, and religious programs on the basis of their sex. The medical care provided to female inmates at the Annex is governed by a separate consent decree.
CTF was designed as an 800-bed diagnostic and treatment center for offenders with special needs. In early 1992, however, the District converted part of CTF into a facility that, as of January 1994, housed 271 general population, medium-custody female inmates. In this class action, the female inmates at CTF present challenges involving sexual misconduct, their general living conditions, the quality of their obstetrical and gynecological care, and discrimination in access to academic, vocational, work, and recreational programs on the basis of their sex.
The Jail is a medium to maximum security correctional facility. As of January 1994, it housed 168 female inmates who were either awaiting trial or sentencing or who were sentenced misdemeanants. In this action, the inmates at the Jail have limited their challenges to allegations of sexual misconduct. Medical care at the Jail is regulated by a separate consent order.
914 *914 B. Procedural History
The complaint in this class action was filed on October 1, 1993. The class ("appellees"), which is comprised of the female inmates at the Annex, CTF, and the Jail, was certified without objection. The defendants include the District, the District of Columbia Department of Corrections ("Department" or "DCDC"), the District of Columbia General Hospital Commission, and numerous District officials, all in their official capacities (collectively, "appellants").
Following a three-week trial, the district court issued an opinion on December 13, 1994, in which it found multiple violations of federal and local law. Women Prisoners of District of Columbia Dep't of Corrections v. District of Columbia, 877 F.Supp. 634 (D.D.C.1994) ("Women Prisoners I"). On the same day, the court issued an order consisting of 138 paragraphs of instructions ("Order") that were intended to correct the violations. Id. at 679-90. The defendants subsequently moved the district court to amend the Order or stay its enforcement. The court denied the motion to amend in its entirety, and denied the motion to stay except as to four paragraphs of the Order.
On March 2, 1995, the District filed a motion for a stay pending appeal to this court. We ordered that the case be held in abeyance pending additional proceedings in the district court on appellants' motion to stay. Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Dep't of Corrections v. District of Columbia, No. 95-7041 (D.C.Cir. Apr. 4, 1995).
On remand, the District filed a revised motion to stay and/or modify the judgment. After a review of the parties' briefs and oral argument, the district court temporarily stayed thirty paragraphs and ordered the parties to attempt to negotiate an agreement concerning those paragraphs. The parties eventually reached agreement as to 26 of the paragraphs and jointly moved the court to amend the Order.
On August 14, 1995, the district court issued a second opinion in which it supplemented the legal conclusions of the first opinion and denied appellants' motion for a stay of the Order. Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Dep't of Corrections v. District of Columbia, 899 F.Supp. 659 (D.D.C.1995) ("Women Prisoners II"). The court also issued a second order that modified 23 paragraphs of the Order and vacated six others. Id. at 677-79.
C. The District Court's Opinions

1. Factual findings
(a) Sexual Harassment at the Jail, CTF, and the Annex
About a half dozen female inmates testified at trial that they had been sexually assaulted by prison guards. See, e.g., testimony of Jane Doe W, Trial Transcript ("Tr.") at Volume I, page 36 ("I-36"), Jane Doe Q (Tr. at I-74), Jane Doe OOO (Tr. at I-100), Jane Doe Five (Tr. at IV-66), Jane Doe RR (Tr. at VI-124) and Jane Doe Z (Tr. at VII-64). The district court concluded from this testimony that there had been "many incidents of sexual misconduct between prison employees and female prisoners in all three of the womens' [sic] facilities in this case." Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 639. The court found that the level of misconduct ranged from inappropriate remarks to invasions of privacy to violent sexual assaults. Id. at 639-40.
According to the court, one of the "most disturbing" aspects of this misconduct was "the inadequacy of the Defendants' response to these attacks." Id. at 639. The court found that while the DCDC had adopted policies and procedures designed to address sexual misconduct, "[t]hese various policies and procedures are of little value because the [Department] address[es] the problem of sexual harassment of female prisoners with no specific staff training, inconsistent reporting practices, cursory investigations and timid sanctions." Id. at 640 (internal citation omitted).
(b) Obstetrical and Gynecological Care at CTF
The district court found that the District had provided inadequate women's medical care, specifically concluding 915 that the care provided them was deficient in the following *915 areas: gynecological examination, testing for
sexually transmitted diseases, follow-up care, health education, and prenatal care and education. Id. at 643-48. The court was also concerned about appellants' use of physical restraints on pregnant inmates when they were transported to the hospital. Id. at 646-47.
(c) Physical Conditions of Confinement
The district court also found problems with the physical condition of the buildings at CTF. The court observed that the facility had originally been constructed as a treatment center for inmates with special needs. Id. at 648-49. Its buildings were connected by covered walkways that created a closed-in setting designed only for controlled movement. Id. The court concluded that CTF had several structural flaws, including insufficient heating, a malfunctioning ventilation system, and defective toilets. Id. at 649-50.
The court found that the Annex inmates were housed in converted military barracks that were not initially designed for continued residency, that renovations and preventative maintenance have been either lax or nonexistent, and that the dormitories were inadequately ventilated. Id. at 651-52. The court also found that the dormitories were overcrowded, and that this overcrowding had created a shortage of sanitary facilities, increased the risk of spreading infectious diseases, produced high noise levels, and created filthy living conditions. Id.
The court further found that fire hazards existed at both CTF and the Annex. The court identified the following difficulties at CTF: the sprinkler system was inadequately maintained; water leakage occurred in areas of the building where electrical equipment is exposed; and fire drills were seldom, if ever, conducted. Id. at 653-54. At the Annex, the court found that the level of fire safety was "grossly inadequate": its fire alarm system was "antiquated," little was done in the way of fire drills and staff training, the dormitories contained excessive quantities of combustible materials and inadequate compartmentalization to contain fire, and there were not enough exits to accommodate the number of people living at the facility. Id. at 654-55.

(d) Programs
The district court found that female inmates at CTF and the Annex did not have access to educational, vocational, work, recreational, and religious programs equal to those made available by the District to similarly situated men. Id. at 656-62, 677-78. In reaching this conclusion, the court compared the programs offered to the women with those available to men in facilities that had "similar custody levels, sentence structures and purposes of incarceration." Id. at 675; Women Prisoners II, 899 F.Supp. at 670-71. Specifically, the court compared the programs available to women at the Annex with those available to the men at Minimum; and it compared the programs available to women at CTF with those available to inmates at three men's prisons: the Occoquan Facility ("Occoquan"), the Central Facility ("Central"), and the Medium Facility ("Medium"). Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 656, 659, 675.
Because appellants agree that Title IX applies to the educational and vocational training programs offered inmates at District prisons, we will only summarize the court's findings with respect to those programs that, in their view, lie outside the scope of Title IX.
Work Details. The district court described work details as "support duties needed for the running of the jail." Id. at 657. At the Annex, women could participate in a variety of such details, including work as receptionists, housekeepers, and librarians. Id. At CTF, women could choose among thirteen work details, including clerical, housekeeping, and culinary assignments. Id. at 661. The court found, however, that similarly situated male inmates had access to better and more numerous programs than the "stereotypical" ones available to the women. Id. at 677 (men at Minimum could participate in details involving carpentry, electrical, and mechanical work); id. at 661, 678 (men at Central could participate in such work as bricklaying, mechanics, and welding).
916 *916 Prison Industries. "A prison industry is a business run out of a prison where goods are produced with inmate labor and then sold to government agencies." Id. at 657. At the Annex, women could work in a garment shop and a print shop; at Minimum, men could engage in agriculture and landscape work. Id. The court found that these programs were comparable and held that the women at the Annex and men at Minimum had equal access to industrial programs. Id. at 677. At CTF, women could participate in only one program that was "remotely" akin to a prison industry. Id. at 661. Because the men enjoyed access to a greater number of industries, i.e., one at Occoquan, two at Medium, and ten at Central, id., the court found that the women at CTF had been denied an "equivalent opportunity in the area of industries" in violation of Title IX. Id. at 678.
Recreation. At the Annex, women had access to "a recreation trailer which contains a pool table, a ping pong table, exercise bikes and a weight machine." Id. at 658. Furthermore, the women were escorted twice a week to recreation areas at Minimum, where they could play volleyball, basketball, and handball. Id. The court found that the men at Minimum had greater recreational opportunities: they had access to a gymnasium and a ball field for approximately six hours a day, Monday through Friday, as well as for three hours on several nights each week; they could use a weight trailer seven days a week; and they could participate in a variety of organized intramural team sports, as well as in a "Renaissance Drama Class." Id. at 658, 677.
At CTF, women could participate in scheduled recreation for an hour a day, five days a week, and had access to a gymnasium for two hours, three days a week; they were able to play basketball and volleyball in a small outside area; and they could take part in "low-impact aerobics" two days a week for an hour each day. Id. at 661-62. The district court found that the men had far greater opportunities for recreation. For example, the men at Central could play cards or engage in sports or other outdoor activities between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.; those at Medium could "have recreation all day long"; and at Occoquan, they had between five and seven hours of recreation per day, depending on the season. Id.
Religion. While women at the Annex had "Catholic and Protestant services on a weekly basis and a Bible Study Program," id. at 659, the court concluded that they did not have access to the same religious activities as the men at Minimum. Id. at 677-78 (observing that religious services at the Annex were not as frequent as those at Minimum). The court made no findings with respect to religious programs at CTF.

2. Conclusions of Law
In Women Prisoners I, the district court found the following to be violations of federal or D.C. law: (1) sexual harassment at the Annex, CTF, and the Jail (Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983), id. at 665-67; (2) substandard medical care at CTF (D.C.Code § 24-442), id. at 667-68; (3) the shackling of pregnant women (Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983), id. at 668-69; (4) "unconstitutionally intolerable risk of injury by fire" at the Annex (Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983), id. at 669-70; (5) inadequate fire safety measures at CTF (D.C.Code § 24-442), id. at 671-72; (6) intolerable living conditions at the Annex and CTF (Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983), id. at 670-71, 672; (7) discrimination in access to programs (Title IX), id. at 672-78.
In Women Prisoners II, the district court rejected appellants' argument that it should have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims based on D.C.Code § 24-442. 899 F.Supp. at 665-68. The court also concluded that the discrepancy in the programs available to male and female inmates violated not only Title IX, but also equal protection principles as applied to the District through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 669-72.
D. The District Court's Order
The Order, which is reported at Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 679-90, as amended by Women Prisoners II, 917 899 F.Supp. at 677-79, contains 132 paragraphs of detailed instructions and is to remain "in *917 effect with all
provisions for five years." ¶ 137. (The Order originally contained 138 paragraphs, but six were vacated in Women Prisoners II. 899 F.Supp. at 677.) The Order and its amendments are reprinted as Appendices A and B to this opinion.
The Order consists of six parts, of which the first five are relevant to this appeal:
I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT. ¶¶ 3-19. The provisions relating to sexual harassment are multi-faceted. First, they require the DCDC to adopt a regulation that prohibits sexual harassment and invasions of female inmates' privacy. ¶¶ 3-4, 7. This regulation must provide that female inmates who allege sexual misconduct may not be subject to any disciplinary action "regardless of the merits or the disposition of the underlying complaint." ¶ 7(c). Second, the Order authorizes the district court's Special Officer to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct and to participate in the establishment of penalties for prohibited conduct. ¶¶ 5, 6, 13 (in their entirety) and ¶¶ 8, 14, 15 (in part). Third, it requires the Department to comply with its own Inmate Grievance Procedure, which establishes the mechanisms by which inmates may report misconduct by prison guards. ¶ 9. In addition, the Order directs appellants to employ "trainers" to instruct inmates and jailers about the Department's policies and regulations regarding sexual harassment and to heighten their awareness of the problem. ¶¶ 17-18, as amended.
II. OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL CARE. ¶¶ 20-62. Among many other things, these paragraphs require appellants to hire a half-time health educator with obstetrical and gynecological training to provide clinical and health services to the CTF population, ¶ 20, as amended; modify the intake screening of inmates and make special inquiry about their use of contraceptives and history of sexually transmitted diseases, ¶ 24; adopt written "protocols" with regard to gynecological problems and the use of restraints on pregnant and postpartum women, ¶¶ 28, 35, as amended; and develop a written protocol governing prenatal care, ¶ 36. Other provisions concern such matters as the recording of pregnancy-related statistics, ¶ 23; Pap smears, ¶¶ 30, 32; medical staff coverage, ¶¶ 44-45; emergency care, ¶ 46; and the scheduling of appointments and the transportation of inmates to the hospital, ¶¶ 49-50, as amended, ¶ 51.
III. PROGRAM EVALUATION. ¶¶ 63-101. Part III requires appellants to improve the quality of the academic, vocational, work, recreational, and religious programs available to female inmates. Its purpose is to ensure that the women have access to the same opportunities and programs that are available to similarly situated men at other prisons.

With regard to academic programs, appellants are ordered to provide the women with greater access to adult education and collegelevel programs. ¶¶ 68-69, 70-71, as amended, ¶ 72. They must also make a variety of vocational, pre-vocational, and work programs available to them. ¶¶ 76-93, as amended. The Order requires appellants to provide the women at CTF with 25 hours of recreation per week, ¶ 96, as amended, and those at the Annex with access to a recreation trailer "8 hours a day, 7 days a week." ¶ 98. Appellants must also "improve the Annex grounds by adding a basketball court, volleyball pit, and outdoor tables." ¶ 99. Finally, appellants must provide chaplaincy service to female inmates five days a week, including "evening hours during the week to accommodate those women working on details, industry, or in the community." ¶ 101.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. ¶¶ 102-124. Appellants are required to improve environmental health at CTF and the Annex in a variety of ways. At the outset, they are ordered to limit the number of women imprisoned at the Annex to 135. ¶ 102, as amended. They are also directed to repair the Annex's dormitory roofs, ¶ 103; provide each inmate with "at least one vertical locker and one footlocker," ¶ 105; "replace all torn mattresses and pillows," ¶ 106; "use cart liners or disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry," ¶ 107; and provide each double-bunk with "a minimum of 20 footcandles of prisoner-controlled light." ¶ 108. With respect to CTF, 918 appellants are required to improve its heating and ventilation, ¶¶ 116-17, and to "monitor the food *918 temperature and delivery times of all foods, including special diet meals." ¶ 121.
V. FIRE SAFETY. ¶¶ 125-136. At the Annex, appellants are required to install and maintain fire alarm, fire detection, and sprinkler systems, ¶¶ 125-127; to ensure that bed linen and other dormitory materials are fire retardant, ¶ 128; and to "conduct fire drills 12 times per year, 4 times per shift, and [to] keep written documentation of all such drills." ¶ 129. At CTF, appellants must, among other things, "maintain the storage in the culinary storage room in a manner that does not prevent the sprinkler heads from functioning adequately," ¶ 134, and test the sprinkler system and fire pump and conduct fire drills on a periodic basis. ¶¶ 135, 136.
E. Appellants' Challenges
Appellants characterize the relief ordered by the district court as far broader than necessary to correct the constitutional and statutory violations that were found to exist, and they ask that we vacate specific provisions in each of the first five parts of the Order, as follows:
I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT. ¶¶ 3-19. Although appellants concede that they have failed to protect women from sexual abuse, they challenge the paragraphs that (1) authorize the Special Officer's staff to monitor sexual harassment complaints (¶¶ 5, 6, 13 (in their entirety) and 8, 12, 14, 15 (in part)); (2) require the DCDC to comply with its Inmate Grievance Procedure (¶ 9); and (3) prohibit appellants from taking any retaliatory action against inmates who file complaints, even if it is determined that the inmate's complaint was filed in bad faith (¶ 7(c)).
II. OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL CARE. ¶¶ 20-62. Paragraphs 20-34 and 36-62, which require appellants to improve the quality of the obstetrical and gynecological care provided to inmates at CTF, are based on D.C.Code § 24-442. See Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 667-68. Appellants argue that these provisions must be set aside because the district court abused its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over these local law claims. They do not challenge paragraph 35 governing the use of physical restraints on pregnant women, which the court found to violate the Eighth Amendment.
III. PROGRAM EVALUATION. ¶¶ 63-101. These paragraphs are based on alternative grounds: (1) Title IX, which requires recipients of federal aid to provide men and women with equal access to educational programs and activities, see Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 676-78; and (2) constitutional equal protection principles, which require that men and women who are similarly situated be treated alike, see Women Prisoners II, 899 F.Supp. at 669-72. Appellants ask that we vacate paragraphs 64-67 and 83-99 "to the extent that they affect work details, prison industries, work training, and recreation," Brief for Appellants at 37, because, they contend, these activities are unrelated to academic and vocational education. They also object, as "having nothing to do with Title IX," id., provisions governing law library hours, ¶ 64; transportation of prisoners to job interviews, ¶ 93; "large group events," ¶ 97; and religious programs, ¶¶ 100-101. In addition, appellants argue that equal protection principles have no application to this case because the district court compared male and female inmates who were not

similarly situated. Finally, they raise a general objection to the remedies as being far too expansive and burdensome, citing, as examples, paragraphs 71 (requiring the provision of college educations), 98 and 99 (mandating hours for the recreational trailer and the construction of basketball and volleyball facilities and picnic tables at the Annex), and 64 (requiring the coordination of the timing of activities "to maximize women prisoners' participation in as many areas as possible").
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. ¶¶ 102-124. Appellants challenge paragraph 102, as amended, which imposes a population cap at the Annex. They argue that it is not warranted and encroaches on their ability to incarcerate convicts. They also make vague challenges to the other paragraphs in this section, contending that they are overbroad and unduly intrusive.
919 V. FIRE SAFETY. ¶¶ 125-136. These paragraphs address the court's findings of *919 violations of the Eighth Amendment at the Annex, and of D.C.Code § 24-442 at CTF. See Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 669-70, 671-72. Appellants challenge those relating to CTF (¶¶ 133-136), contending that the district court abused its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under that section.
F. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995
On April 25, 1996, following oral argument in this appeal, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA" or "Act") became effective. The reforms were enacted as Title VIII, sections 801 and 802 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-134, Stat. (Apr. 26, 1996). The Act amends 18 U.S.C. § 3626, which is now entitled "Appropriate remedies with respect to prison conditions." It governs all civil litigation, whether in a federal or state court, with respect to conditions in a federal, state, or local prison that are alleged to violate a federal right. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A), (d), and (g)(2) and (5). It applies to pending cases such as this one. Id. § 3626(b)(1)(A)(iii) & (b)(2).
In supplemental briefs submitted by the parties, appellants argue that the Act has invalidated the great majority of the paragraphs in the Order. Specifically, they maintain that the PLRA (1) denies federal courts the authority to order prospective relief to correct violations of local law; (2) precludes the assigning of non-judicial functions to a court-appointed special officer; (3) prohibits the award of relief that is not "narrowly drawn"; and (4) strips federal courts of the power to impose population caps on prisons except under circumstances that are not satisfied here.
In response, appellees question appellants' construction of the PLRA and raise a number of constitutional and other challenges to the Act. They also note that they had originally alleged that the inadequate medical care and fire safety provided the female inmates at CTF violated both D.C.Code § 24-442 and the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, if we should find that the Act divested the district court of its supplemental jurisdiction over the section 24-442 claims, they ask that we remand those issues so that the court may consider the constitutional questions previously reserved.
We will not address appellees' objections to the Act for two reasons: First, we are able to dispose of the majority of appellants' challenges on the basis of pre-PLRA law. Second, because the new statute may be dispositive of the remaining challenges and may provide the basis for new ones, we will remand the provisions we do not vacate so that the district court may review them in light of the PLRA. Appellees will be free, at that time, to bring their various challenges to the Act and to renew their Eighth Amendment claims with respect to medical care and fire safety at CTF.
II. DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, we think it appropriate to emphasize that federal courts must move with caution when called upon to deal with even serious violations of the law by local prison officials. As the Supreme Court observed in Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33, 51, 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1663, 109 L.Ed.2d 31 (1990), "one of the most important considerations governing the exercise of equitable power is a proper respect for the integrity and function of local government institutions." This respect for local authorities is at its zenith in the context of prison reform litigation:

"[T]he problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable, and, more to the point, they are not readily susceptible of resolution by decree. Most require expertise, comprehensive planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government. For all of those reasons, courts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform. Judicial recognition of that fact reflects no more than a healthy sense of realism."
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 351 n. 16, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2401 n. 16, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981) (quoting 920 Procunier v. Martinez, 416 *920 U.S. 396, 404-05, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1807, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974)). See also Bell v.
Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 548, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1879, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) ("the operation of our correctional facilities is peculiarly the province of the Legislative and Executive Branches of our Government, not the Judicial"); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491-92, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1837, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) ("It is difficult to imagine an activity in which a State has a stronger interest, or one that is more intricately bound up with state laws, regulations, and procedures, than the administration of its prisons.").
Only weeks ago the Supreme Court reversed a district court order that had mandated detailed, system-wide changes in Arizona's prison law libraries. Lewis v. Casey, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia observed that, in Preiser, the Court had held that "considerations of comity ... require giving the States the first opportunity to correct errors made in the internal administration of their prisons," and that the district court in Lewis had "totally failed to heed the admonition of Preiser." ___ U.S. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 2186 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
A. Supplemental Jurisdiction
The district court concluded that the DCDC had failed to provide adequate medical care and fire safety at CTF in violation of D.C. law, which provides that the Department
shall have charge of the management and regulation of [D.C. prisons], and be responsible for the safekeeping, care, protection, instruction, and discipline of all persons committed to such institutions.
D.C.Code § 24-442. Of the Order's 132 paragraphs, roughly one-third are intended to remedy violations of this section. See Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 667-68, 671-72; Order at ¶¶ 20-34; 36-62; 131-32 (to the extent that they relate to CTF); 133-36. Appellants argue that the district court's exercise of jurisdiction over these D.C.Code claims violated the supplemental jurisdiction provisions of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (1994).
When a federal court has an independent basis for exercising federal jurisdiction, it may, in certain circumstances, also exercise pendent, or supplemental, jurisdiction over related claims under state law. In United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), the Supreme Court crafted a two-part test to determine when the assertion of jurisdiction over a state law claim is appropriate. First, the district court must determine whether the state and the federal claims "derive from a common nucleus of operative fact"; if they do, the court has the power, under Article III of the Constitution, to hear the state claim. Id. at 725, 86 S.Ct. at 1138. Second, even if it concludes that it has that power, the district court must then decide whether to exercise its discretion to assert jurisdiction over the state issue. Id. at 726, 86 S.Ct. at 1139. The Supreme Court cautioned that
pendent jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's right. Its justification lies in considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants; if these are not present a federal court should hesitate to exercise jurisdiction over state claims .... Needless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law.
Id. A district court's decision to resolve state law claims is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Edmondson & Gallagher v. Alban Towers Tenants Ass'n, 48 F.3d 1260, 1265-66 (D.C.Cir.1995).

In 1990, Congress enacted the supplemental jurisdiction statute, which provides in relevant part:

(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) ..., in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution ....

* * * * * *

921

*921 (c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under

subsection (a) if 0907

(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,

(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,

(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or

(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

* * * * * *

(e) As used in this section, the term "State" includes the District of Columbia

....

28 U.S.C. § 1367. As we observed in Diven v. Amalgamated Transit Union International and Local 689, 38 F.3d 598, 601 (D.C.Cir. 1994), the extent to which section 1367(c) has modified the district's court's discretion to hear claims under local law is a matter of some dispute. In Diven, we rejected the argument that section 1367 had restricted the district court's discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, see id.; and we have since stated that section 1367(c) "essentially codifies [Gibbs]," Edmondson & Gallagher, 48 F.3d at 1266.

Here, the district court clearly had the power to consider appellees' local claims under section 24-442. Their claims under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments and Title IX were substantial enough to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court, see Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 725, 86 S.Ct. at 1138; and the local law claims, relating to the adequacy of the medical care and fire safety at CTF, arose from a "common nucleus of operative facts" as the federal claims; namely, the District's decision to re-assume custody of its female prisoners and its alleged failure to provide for their needs. The question before us, then, is whether the court abused its discretion in exercising jurisdiction over the local claims.

The supplemental jurisdiction statute provides that district courts may decline jurisdiction over claims that "raise[] a novel or complex issue of State law." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). Appellants argued below, and renew their argument on appeal, that the novelty of appellees' request for equitable relief based on section 24-442 precluded the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Specifically, they contend that the section merely extends the common law of torts to local prisons. See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Mitchell, 533 A.2d 629, 639 (D.C.1987). See also Toy v. District of Columbia, 549 A.2d 1, 6 (D.C.1988); Hughes v. District of Columbia, 425 A.2d 1299, 1302 (D.C.1981); Gaither v. District of Columbia, 333 A.2d 57, 60 (D.C.1975). Appellants point out that the statute has been relied upon by inmates suing for monetary damages and that D.C. courts have applied ordinary tort principles to those cases. See, e.g., Mitchell, 533 A.2d at 633; Matthews v. District of Columbia, 387 A.2d 731, 732 (D.C.1978). Furthermore, appellants observe that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has relied upon cases in other jurisdictions that have held that similar laws simply permit a common law tort action for inmate claims against prison officials. See Gaither, 333 A.2d at 60 (citing Justice v. Rose, 102 Ohio App. 482, 144 N.E.2d 303, 305 (1957) (Ohio statute is "simply declaratory of the common law")). Finally, appellants note that the statute has never been interpreted to allow inmates to seek injunctive relief such as that granted here.

The district court rejected appellants' arguments and concluded that the award of injunctive relief under section 24-442 did not raise a novel issue of local law. It stated that "[t]he exercise of injunctive relief ... is an

unexceptionable feature of the common law." Women Prisoners II, 899 F.Supp. at 668. We respectfully disagree with the district court's analysis. While it is true, of course, that the common law recognized the propriety of injunctive relief in certain instances, it was never regarded as relief of first resort; indeed, in tort actions, the standard formulation of the common law on this point is that equitable relief, such as an injunction, will be granted 922 only when plaintiff's *922 legal remedies are inadequate. See John Norton Pomeroy, A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence § 218, at 369 (5th ed.1941); William Q. de Funiak, Handbook of Modern Equity § 18, at 32 (2d ed.1956). Furthermore, courts have long stated that a variety of factors, including the public interest, may weigh against the award of an injunction. See Harrisonville v. W.S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co., 289 U.S. 334, 53 S.Ct. 602, 77 L.Ed. 1208 (1933); Blair v. Freeman, 370 F.2d 229, 239 (D.C.Cir.1966).
We think it significant that we can find no case in which a D.C. court has awarded injunctive relief under section 24-442; nor are we aware of any case in which injunctive relief was sought under this section of the D.C.Code, even though the inmates of D.C. prisons are no strangers to the judicial system and have frequently sought injunctive relief in both the D.C. and federal courts. In the last major prisoners' class action to come before us involving allegations of, inter alia, inadequate medical care and fire safety, the claims were pled solely as Eighth Amendment violations. See Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 844 F.2d 828, 829 (D.C.Cir.1988) ("Occoquan"). No one seized upon the "unexceptionable" idea of seeking alternative injunctive relief under section 24-442.
The Supreme Court has counseled that "the proper function of [a] federal court is to ascertain what the state law is, not what it ought to be," Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 497, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 1022, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941); and we have observed that "a federal court should be reluctant to retain pendent jurisdiction over a question for which state jurisprudence gives inadequate guidance." Financial General Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger, 680 F.2d 768, 776 (D.C.Cir.1982). Thus, while we will generally defer to a district court's decision to assert supplemental jurisdiction, that deference is not boundless. In Metzger and Doe v. Board on Professional Responsibility of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 717 F.2d 1424 (D.C.Cir.1983), we held that the district court had abused its discretion in deciding pendent claims when the local law was unsettled. We noted that "` [a]lthough the District Court devoted considerable time, effort and care to these questions, in a completely unsettled area of local law a federal District Court opinion is no substitute for an authoritative decision by the courts of the District of Columbia.'" Doe, 717 F.2d at 1428-29 (quoting Metzger, 680 F.2d at 778). See also Grano v. Barry, 733 F.2d 164, 169 (D.C.Cir.1984) (because, among other factors, the case involved an unsettled issue of local law, "[a]ppellees' remedy, if any, lies in the courts of the District of Columbia"); Anglemyer v. Hamilton County Hosp., 58 F.3d 533, 541 (10th Cir.1995) (under section 1367(c), state "courts are the appropriate forum to decide [a] novel and complex issue of state law"); Lyon v. Whisman, 45 F.3d 758, 760 n. 4 (3d Cir.1995) (section 1367(c) "counsels against the exercise of jurisdiction when `the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law'").
Our dissenting colleague contends that "[w]hatever other objections might be raised to the district court's enforcement of local law in this case, ... it cannot be said that the court's action was novel. See Campbell v. McGruder, 416 F.Supp. 100, 105 (D.D.C. 1975) (for constitutional violation, imposing mandatory injunction that in part required local agencies to remedy violations of local fire, building, housing, health, and food regulations at D.C. Jail) ..." Dissent at 948. In other words, the dissent contends that in Campbell the district court had awarded equitable relief to remedy a local law violation, and therefore the district court's action in this case has a precedent. With all respect, we think this distorts the holding in Campbell. There, the district court found that prison conditions violated the Eighth Amendment; to remedy these constitutional violations, the district court ordered the District to comply with local law provisions. See Campbell, 416 F.Supp. at 105. Here, the district court suggested that the medical care at CTF might rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation, see Women Prisoners II, 899 F.Supp. at 667; nevertheless, it expressly declined to decide the issue on constitutional grounds. See Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 667 n.42.
923 Furthermore, the dissent mischaracterizes our holding when it states that "[t]he judges *923 of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia would ... be ... surprised ... to hear it suggested that they lacked the authority to impose appropriate injunctive relief in the face of ongoing institutional failure to meet a legal duty of care." Dissent at 948 n.5. Plainly, local courts are free to interpret section 24-442 as authorizing injunctive relief. We simply repeat our earlier point: they never have. The dissent is quite confident that the local courts would so interpret this statute; we confess to being impressed by the fact that they have never done so.

The intrusiveness of the relief sought also weighs against the exercise of pendent jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when "in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction"). The section of the Order relating to medical care at CTF is a case study in the judicial micromanagement of a local prison system. The Order requires appellants, inter alia, to hire a nurse midwife to provide additional services to the female inmates (¶ 20, as amended), establish a prenatal clinic (¶ 22), maintain statistics on the number of pregnancies and "birth outcomes" (¶ 23), develop and implement detailed protocols concerning the care for a variety of diseases (¶ 28), develop protocols providing guidelines for high-risk pregnancies involving women with histories of alcohol and drug abuse and venereal diseases (¶ 36), arrange for obstetrical examinations of pregnant women in accordance with a detailed schedule (¶ 37), implement "an obstetrical and gynecological health education program that satisfies a recognized national medical standard" (¶ 43, as amended), and ensure that female inmates are transported to the hospital, even for routine procedures, "no more than 2 hours before the scheduled time of their appointment" (¶ 50, as amended).
These may all be highly desirable measures, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against such detailed marching orders. See, e.g., Lewis, ___ U.S. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 2186. In Grano, as in this case, the district court applied a D.C. statute in a novel way to assume control over local political processes. We dissolved the injunction, explaining:
In general, principles of comity and the desirability of a surer-footed reading of applicable law support the determination of state claims in state court. Determination by the state court is especially important where the case involves novel and unsettled issues of state law. Here, the law in question is new, its meaning ambiguous and sharply disputed. Moreover, the district court should not retain jurisdiction because this case directly implicates the processes by which a locality governs itself. Appellees' remedy, if any, lies in the courts of the District of Columbia.
733 F.2d at 169 (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
By its plain terms, section 24-442 simply requires the District's jailers to exercise reasonable care in discharging their duties. The district court and dissent would read this bland codification of tort principles to empower federal courts to usurp control over fire safety and medical care at local prisons. There can, of course, be no limiting principle here. Issues relating to security, sanitation, food preparation, ventilation, etc., will all come within the court's authority. We wonder whether the lawmakers who enacted section 24-442 intended to transfer control over the District's prisons to the courts (or, more likely, a small cadre of court-appointed special officers). If this be the import of section 24-442, let the District's courts proclaim it.
Because it is not settled that section 24-442 authorizes injunctive relief, and because federal courts are obliged to exercise restraint in the extraordinary circumstances posed by prison litigation of this nature, we hold that the district court abused its discretion in exercising jurisdiction over these local claims in violation of the supplemental jurisdiction statute and the well-established principles that it has codified. We therefore vacate ¶¶ 20-34, 36-62; 131-32 (to the extent that they relate to CTF); and 133-36.
B. The Programs
The district court found that female inmates at CTF and the Annex had not received the same access to 924 academic, vocational, *924 work, recreational, and religious programs that were available to similarly situated
men at other prisons. In its original opinion, the court held that this violated Title IX. Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 672-78. In Women Prisoners II, 899 F.Supp. at 669-72, the court concluded that the unequal access to programs also violated the equal protection principles of the Constitution. Part III of the Order requires appellants to improve the quantity and quality of these programs at CTF and the Annex, see ¶¶ 63-101; it also requires appellants to increase the women's access to a law library (¶ 64) and "group events" (¶ 97) and to transport them to job interviews (¶ 93).

Appellants do not challenge the provisions that relate to educational (academic and vocational) programs. They ask us, however, to vacate those paragraphs of the Order (¶¶ 83-101, in their entirety, and ¶¶ 64-67, in part) that require them to upgrade the work, recreational, and religious programs available to female inmates, and that relate to law library hours, group events, and transportation to job interviews. They argue, first, that those prison activities are not "educational" and, as a consequence, are not subject to Title IX; second, they assert that the district court's equal protection analysis is fundamentally flawed because the women at the Annex and CTF are not similarly situated to the men at the other facilities. We address the latter argument first because the district court's Title IX and equal protection analyses are both predicated on its conclusion that the respective prison populations were similarly situated. See Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 675-76; Women Prisoners II, 899 F.Supp. at 670-71.
The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires States to treat similarly situated persons alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 3254, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). The District of Columbia is subject to that requirement by virtue of the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process of law. See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499, 74 S.Ct. 693, 694, 98 L.Ed. 884 (1954); Family Division Trial Lawyers of the Superior Court-D.C., Inc. v. Moultrie, 725 F.2d 695, 697 n. 1 (D.C.Cir.1984). The Constitution, however, "`does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.'" Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 2394, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982) (quoting Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147, 60 S.Ct. 879, 882, 84 L.Ed. 1124 (1940)); accord Michael M. v. Superior Court, 450 U.S. 464, 469, 101 S.Ct. 1200, 1204, 67 L.Ed.2d 437 (1981). Thus, the "[d]issimilar treatment of dissimilarly situated persons does not violate equal protection." Klinger v. Department of Corrections, 31 F.3d 727, 731 (8th Cir.1994) ("Klinger I"). The threshold inquiry in evaluating an equal protection claim is, therefore, "to determine whether a person is similarly situated to those persons who allegedly received favorable treatment." United States v. Whiton, 48 F.3d 356, 358 (8th Cir.1995). We believe the same principle should apply in Title IX cases. See Klinger v. Nebraska Dep't of Correctional Services, 887 F.Supp. 1281, 1286-87 (D.Neb.1995) ("Klinger II").
In reviewing the district court's conclusions, we begin, as indicated above, by addressing its assumption that the prisoners at the several facilities were similarly situated "by virtue of their similar custody levels, sentence structures and purposes of incarceration." Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 675. Appellants argue that these are only three of a number of factors that must be considered when determining whether two groups of inmates are sufficiently similarly situated to render meaningful a comparison of the programs available to each.
Two recent cases are instructive in this regard. In Klinger I, the Eighth Circuit observed that prison officials
must balance many considerations, ranging from the characteristics of the inmates at that prison to the size of the institution, to determine the optimal mix of programs and services. See Turner [v. Safley], 482 U.S. [78] at 84-85 [107 S.Ct. 2254, 2259-60, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987)]. Program priorities thus differ from prison to prison, depending on innumerable variables that officials must take into account.
925 31 F.3d at 732. A later case, Pargo v. Elliott, 894 F.Supp. 1243, 1254-62 (S.D.Iowa *925 1995), aff'd, 69 F.3d 280 (8th Cir.1995), pet. for cert. filed (Apr. 8, 1996) (No. 95-8906), illustrates the variables that must be taken into consideration. In concluding that the female inmates were not similarly situated to the male inmates with whom they sought to be compared, the district court in Pargo placed particular stress on five factors: population size of the prison, security level, types of crimes, length of sentence, and special characteristics. 894 F.Supp. at 1259-61 . See also testimony of Regina Gilmore, Acting Female Program Coordinator at DCDC, at Tr. IX-5-6, and of Dr. T.A. Ryan, expert witness, at Tr. XI-38-39 (programming needs of inmates are gauged by their classification, which takes the following factors into account: custody level; medical, educational, and employment histories; substance abuse information; impending factors relating to pre-release; results of psychological testing; social services reports; and security risks).
Here, the district court acknowledged that 82 percent of women incarcerated in the facilities operated by the District were single-parent primary caretakers, and that only seven percent were serving sentences for violent crimes. Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 656. It failed, however, to make any findings regarding the types of crimes for which male inmates had been convicted, or other "special characteristics" of male inmates. Compare

with Pargo, 894 F.Supp. at 1254-57 (addressing the "types of crimes" and "special characteristics" of male inmates before drawing comparison to the female inmates). Nor did it take into account the striking disparities between the sizes of the prison populations that were being compared.
The district court found that the female inmates at the Annex were similarly situated to the men at Minimum. Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 656; Women Prisoners II, 899 F.Supp. at 670. Yet Minimum had a population of 936 prisoners in contrast to the 167 at the Annex. Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 656. It is hardly surprising, let alone evidence of discrimination, that the smaller correctional facility offered fewer programs than the larger one. We doubt, for example, that tuition-paying parents who entrust their daughters to the all-women Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts, would raise an eyebrow (let alone accuse the college of sex discrimination) on learning that Smith offers its 2,800 students approximately 1,000 courses while Harvard University provides its 6,600 undergraduates with three times as many.
Even if the women at the Annex had access to a third or half the number of work and religious programs as the men at Minimum, because of the six-to-one difference in their respective populations, on a per inmate basis, the women had access to two or three times the number of programs as did the men. Cf. Jeldness v. Pearce, 30 F.3d 1220, 1233 (9th Cir.1994) (Kleinfeld, J., dissenting) (while female inmates have access to fewer total number of programs, "[t]he women's prison has almost 2½ times as many [programs] per prisoner as the most generous male prison"). We do not suggest that these mechanical ratios are a test of comparability; merely that, standing alone, the difference in the number of programs provided by prisons having vastly different numbers of inmates cannot be taken as evidence that those in small institutions that offer fewer programs have been denied equal protection. More than that is required.
As regards the women at CTF, the district court found that they were similarly situated to male inmates at the Occoquan, Central, and Medium facilities. Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 659; Women Prisoners II, 899 F.Supp. at 671. While CTF is an 800-bed facility, and thus arguably comparable in size to Central (1,373 inmates), Medium (1,016 inmates), and Occoquan (1,767 inmates), the female inmates at CTF number only 271. The district court specifically rejected a comparison of CTF men with its women because the "men reside at CTF for either short-term diagnostic attention or a voluntary 18-month intensive substance abuse program." Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 675. We note, however, that somewhere between 35 percent and 50 percent of the women at CTF are serving sentences of less than two years, and the vast majority of the remaining women are 926 serving sentences of between two and four years. Id. at 675 n. 50. In other words, the women *926 at CTF, like the men, are not being incarcerated there for an extended period of time. The district court failed to make any findings regarding the programs available to male inmates at CTF, and there is thus no evidence that they enjoy access to more fulfilling opportunities than the women. The female inmates at CTF are, therefore, foreclosed from making an equal protection challenge.
The dissent contends that our analysis errs because we have ignored "how the prisoners came to be segregated," with women typically assigned to smaller prisons than the men. Dissent at 952. As an initial matter, we note that the segregation of inmates by sex is unquestionably constitutional. See Pitts v. Thornburgh, 866 F.2d 1450 (D.C.Cir. 1989). The District's decision to imprison women in smaller facilities than the typical male prison is the obvious result of an undisputed fact: there are far fewer female inmates. As of January 1994, the total number of female inmates incarcerated in all of the District's jails was 606; this is considerably less than the total population at the smallest male facility (Minimum, pop. 936) discussed in this case. It would be difficult for one facility to house all these female inmates because they range from minimum to maximum custody, from those awaiting immediate release to those serving long sentences.
Furthermore, our decision here is altogether consistent with the Supreme Court's most recent articulation of equal protection principles in United States v. Virginia, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 2264, 135 L.Ed.2d 735 (1996) ( "VMI"). In VMI, the Supreme Court compared the programs available at the all-female Mary Baldwin College, where the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership ("VMIL") is located, with the programs available at the allmale Virginia Military Institute ("VMI"). The enrollment at Mary Baldwin College is 1,327 students, of whom 650 actually live on the campus, United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 852 F.Supp. 471, 500, 501 (W.D.Va.1994); the enrollment at VMI is 1,124, United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 766 F.Supp. 1407,

1419 (W.D.Va.1991). Despite their comparable sizes, the two colleges offered vastly different educational and athletic programming. The Court noted:
Mary Baldwin does not offer a VMIL student the range of curricular choices available to a VMI cadet. VMI awards baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts, biology, chemistry, civil engineering, electrical and computer engineering, and mechanical engineering. VMIL students attend a school "that does not have a math and science focus"; they cannot take at Mary Baldwin any courses in engineering or the advanced math and physics courses VMI offers.
VMI, ___ U.S. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 2284 (citations omitted).
In addition, the Court noted the extreme discrepancy in the financial resources available to Mary Baldwin and VMI. Id. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 2285. Here, while appellees have alleged that the District provides inferior programs, they have not alleged that the District allocates fewer resources per female inmate, nor was any evidence apparently introduced at trial to that effect. Appellees' claim, therefore, would appear to be that appellants have mismanaged the resources allocated to female inmates by failing to provide them with the identical programs offered to the men. In effect, appellees are inviting this court to find that the District's decision to provide male (but not female) inmates with access to any given program violates equal protection principles.
We decline this invitation. While certain programs (such as a work detail in auto mechanics) may be available only to male inmates, other programs (such as a life skills class) may be available only to female inmates. Under the program-by-program method of comparison embraced by the dissent, any divergence from an identity of programs gives rise to equal protection liability. Thus, if male inmates have access to a work detail that is unavailable to women, that violates equal protection. If men can spend an extra hour a day in a gymnasium, that violates equal protection. Conversely, if women had access to a parenting class unavailable to men, that violates 927 equal protection. Such an approach completely eviscerates the deference that federal courts are obliged to give *927 prison administrators. See Turner, 482 U.S. at 84-85, 89, 107 S.Ct. at 2259-60, 2261. As the Eighth Circuit has observed,
as between any two prisons, there will always be stark differences in programming. Assuming that all prisons start with adequate yet limited funding 0907 as we must here, because plaintiffs do not claim that [the correctional facility] is subject to discriminatory funding 0907 officials will calibrate programming needs differently in each prison, emphasizing in one prison programs that they deemphasize in others. Thus, female inmates always can point out ways in which male prisons are "better" than theirs, just as male inmates can point out other ways in which female prisons are "better" than theirs.
Klinger, 31 F.3d at 732.
Finally, we note that an inmate has no constitutional right to work and educational opportunities. Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 844 F.2d 828, 836 (D.C.Cir.1988). While an inmate has a limited right to exercise, this right is violated only if "movement is denied and muscles allowed to atrophy, [or] the health of the individual is threatened." French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1255 (7th Cir.1985). In and of itself, idleness does not violate the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment; indeed, idleness does not even constitute "punishment." See Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 348, 101 S.Ct. at 2400. Thus, the District could, entirely consistent with the Constitution, deprive male and female inmates of virtually all of the programs they now enjoy. If federal courts could find equal protection liability whenever male and female inmates have access to different sets of programs, budget-strapped prison administrators may well respond by reducing, to a constitutional minimum, the number of programs offered to all inmates. As the Klinger court observed,
prison officials would be far less willing to experiment and innovate with programs at an individual institution knowing that a federal court could impose liability on the basis of a program [by program] comparison. Indeed, inmates would suffer because officials would likely provide each institution with the bare constitutional minimum of programs and services to avoid the threat of equal protection liability.
Klinger, 31 F.3d at 733.

Given these significant differences in the situations of the women at the Annex and CTF and those of the men at the facilities with which the court compared them, and given the fact that the court's Title IX and equal protection analyses both depend on findings that they were similarly situated, we need not examine the programs themselves in order to vacate the program-related provisions that appellants have challenged. But even though we do not address the scope of Title IX in the prison context, we admit to grave problems with the proposition that work details, prison industries, recreation, and religious services and counseling have anything in common with the equality of educational opportunities with which Title IX is concerned. We therefore vacate ¶¶ 83-101 in their entirety and ¶¶ 64-67 to the extent that they do not relate to educational programs.
C. Eighth Amendment
The district court concluded that the following conditions violated the Eighth Amendment guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment: (1) the pattern of sexual harassment at the Annex, CTF, and the Jail, Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 664-66; (2) the use of physical restraints on women in their third trimester of pregnancy, id. at 668;(3) the general living conditions at both CTF and the Annex, id. at 670-71, 672; and (4) the inadequacy of the provisions for fire safety at the Annex, id. at 669-70. The Order addresses each of these perceived violations. See ¶¶ 3-19 (sexual harassment), ¶ 35 (physical restraints on pregnant women), ¶¶ 102-124 (general living conditions at CTF and the Annex), and ¶¶ 125-132 (fire hazards at the Annex). (The court had originally concluded that the "lack of child visitation and inadequate child placement counseling at CTF" violated the Eighth Amendment, id. at 669, but it later reversed itself and vacated the relevant paragraphs (39-42) of the Order, Women Prisoners II, 899 F.Supp. at 674-75.)
928 *928 The Supreme Court has concluded that prison conditions are subject to Eighth Amendment scrutiny. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 2480, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). "[W]hen the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being." DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 199-200, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1005, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989). The Supreme Court has rejected a claim that the double-celling of inmates had violated the Eighth Amendment, noting that the practice "did not lead to deprivations of essential food, medical care, or sanitation[,] [n]or did it increase violence among inmates or create other conditions intolerable for prison confinement." Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 348, 101 S.Ct. at 2400. Relying on the Court's decision in Rhodes, we have stated that "the `deprivations' that trigger Eighth Amendment scrutiny are deprivations of essential human needs." Occoquan, 844 F.2d at 836 (citing Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 348, 101 S.Ct. at 2400) (emphasis in original).
We made a further point in Occoquan, namely, that "once a right [under the Eighth Amendment] is established, the remedy chosen must be tailored to fit the violation." 844 F.2d at 841. Appellants have not challenged the district court's findings that the sexual harassment, living conditions, and fire hazards rise to the level of violations of the Eighth Amendment; rather, they assert that certain of the district court's prescriptions go beyond what is required to satisfy "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities," id. at 839, and instead reflect an impermissible effort to transform prisons into "better places." They also complain that the court's mandates are generally far broader than necessary to correct the constitutional violations that the court found to exist.
Because appellants have chosen not to contest the court's conclusions that they had violated the Eighth Amendment in these several ways, our review is limited to an examination of the propriety of the remedies that appellants have challenged. We discuss these alleged violations in turn.
1. Living Conditions at the Annex
The district court observed that environmental health experts retained by both parties agreed that the Annex dormitories are overcrowded. Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 651 & n. 22. The court found that this overcrowding "creates a shortage of sanitary facilities," as measured by the standards established by the American Correctional Association ("ACA"), id. at 651-52 & n. 23; "increases the spread of infectious disease, produces a ... noise level [in excess of the ACA standard of acceptability]," id. at 652 & n. 24 (citations to record

omitted); and "creates filthy living conditions, such as dirty floors and moldy bathrooms," id. at 652. In discussing the general conditions at the Annex, which included many deficiencies beyond those it had identified as having resulted from overcrowding, the court found that the living conditions were "cruel and unusual because they combine to create an unconstitutionally high exposure to illness or injury." Id. at 670.
This case finds a close parallel in Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 650 F.Supp. 619 (D.D.C.1986). There, the district court imposed a population cap because it believed that the crowded conditions at the prison increased the risk of disease and produced unacceptable noise levels. Id. at 621, 634. In reversing the district court, we stated that "an approach commensurate with Supreme Court precedent would have sought to identify the conditions causing the constitutional violation and order those conditions remedied." Occoquan, 844 F.2d at 842. Characterizing a population cap as a "last resort" remedy, id. at 843, we explained that
a population limit, or put another way, a minimum square footage requirement, directly implicates decisions with which the political process is charged. Such fundamental decisions as how many prisons to build and how large to build them 0907 basic decisions regarding the allocation of public resources 0907 are simply outside the domain of federal courts.
Id. at 842-43.
929 The principal lesson to be drawn from Occoquan is the following: when prison *929 conditions are so "soulchilling," Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 354, 101 S.Ct. at 2403 (Brennan, J., concurring), that they implicate the Eighth Amendment, a district court is empowered to order relief that is specifically tailored to address the violations the court has identified. For example, if ventilation is found to be grossly wanting, an instruction to improve air quality is the appropriate remedy. Indeed, in this case many of the environmental problems that, taken together, the court found "to raise the risk of illness and injury to a constitutionally unacceptable level," Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 670, are addressed in other parts of the Order. See, e.g., ¶ 104 (ordering a vermin-eradication program); ¶ 112 (ordering improvement of ventilating system); ¶ 113 (ordering installation of drainage system to prevent hazardous accumulations of water); ¶ 123, as amended (ordering inspection and prompt repair of plumbing fixtures). The court, therefore, should have determined the constitutional propriety of a population cap at the margin0907that is to say, after its instructions concerning health and safety measures had been complied with.
The Supreme Court has counseled that
[t]he Constitution ... "does not mandate comfortable prisons," and only those deprivations denying the "minimal civilized measures of life's necessities" are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2324, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991) (construing and quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 349, 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2400, 2399) (internal citations omitted). This suggests that standards that the ACA finds "unacceptable" may nonetheless be constitutional. To the extent that conditions at the Annex "are restrictive and even harsh, they are part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society." Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399. Keeping in mind that the Order includes other provisions dealing with the hazards that it had identified as being a product of overcrowding, we see nothing in the population density itself that can clearly be described as depriving the inmates "of the minimal civilized measures of life's necessities." Occoquan, 844 F.2d at 839 (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore vacate paragraph 102.
2. Sexual Harassment
The Supreme Court has stated that "[b]eing violently assaulted in prison is simply not `part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.'" Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, ___, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1977, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399). In this case, the district court found that the pattern of sexual assaults on female inmates, especially when coupled with inappropriate remarks by DCDC employees and invasions of the inmates' privacy, rose to the level of objective cruelty that violated the Eighth Amendment. Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 664-66. The court specifically found a

pattern of "deliberate indifference" to sexual harassment at the three facilities. Id. at 665. Part I of the Order is intended to cure these violations by requiring appellants, in manifold ways, to eliminate incidents of sexual misconduct and to improve the Department's response to those incidents that nonetheless occur. See ¶¶ 319. Appellants challenge three aspects of the prescribed remedies.

Special Officer. Paragraph 5 of the Order directs that one or more members of the staff of the district court's Special Officer "monitor allegations of sexual harassment at each facility in which women prisoners are housed." Paragraph 8 requires that the DCDC and the Special Officer establish penalties for conduct prohibited by the Department's policy on sexual harassment. Finally, paragraph 13 provides:

The monitor(s) shall ensure that each reported violation of the policy is thoroughly investigated

and documented. The monitor(s) shall submit a final written report to the Warden of the institution;

the report shall include factual findings and a conclusion as to whether a preponderance of

evidence shows that a violation of the sexual harassment policy occurred. Within 48 hours after

the Warden receives the monitor(s)' report, the Defendants shall inform the complaining woman

930

prisoner, in writing, *930 of the outcome of the investigation. The Warden shall take appropriate

action as detailed in the schedule of penalties.

Appellants argue that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to direct its Special Officer to perform the non-judicial, local government function of investigating complaints of sexual harassment, citing Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33, 51, 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1663, 109 L.Ed.2d 31 (1990) ("one of the most important considerations governing the exercise of equitable power is a proper respect for the integrity and function of local government institutions").

Appellees respond by likening the powers of the Special Officer and her monitors to that of a special master, as contemplated by Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This analogy strikes us as inexact. In unusual circumstances, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(b) ("[a] reference to a [special] master shall be the exception and not the rule"), the appointment of a special master may be useful to oversee compliance with a court order. See National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen, 828 F.2d 536, 544-45 (9th Cir.1987) ("NORML") (approving use of monitors to oversee compliance with court order where compliance with past orders has been sporadic); Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1159-63 (5th Cir.1982) (same), vacated in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.1982). Nevertheless, the master's role in such cases has been limited. As the Ninth Circuit noted in approving the use of monitors in a prison reform case,

[t]he Special Master has no authority to interfere with the operation of the City's jails. The district court appointed the Special Master to investigate, report, and recommend actions that the City could take to ensure compliance with the consent decree. The City agreed to his appointment.

Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 859 n. 18 (9th Cir.1992). See also NORML, 828 F.2d at 545 ("Masters may not be placed in control of government defendants for the purpose of forcing them to comply with court orders.") (emphasis in original).

Here, the staff of the Special Officer are monitors in name only. They do not simply oversee the Department's compliance with the Order; rather, they perform the functions of local authorities, such as the investigation of complaints of misconduct. Contrary to appellees' assertion that "[D]efendants retain the ultimate authority to determine the proper disciplinary actions," Brief for Appellees at 49, the Order provides that, based on a monitor's report, "[t]he Warden shall take appropriate action as detailed in the schedule of penalties," ¶ 13 (emphasis added); penalties, we might add, that the Special Officer has been given a hand in setting. See ¶ 8. The Order therefore cabins appellants' discretion to a far greater degree than appellees represent: rather than merely providing for the monitoring of compliance with the court's decree, the Order effectively usurps the executive functions of the District. Accordingly, we vacate the paragraphs of the Order that relate to the Special Officer and her monitors.

Inmate Grievance Procedure. The district court noted that the DCDC had established a number of policies, procedures, and regulations regarding sexual misconduct, including an Inmate Grievance Procedure ("IGP"), which allows inmates to file complaints with the authorities. See Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 640. The

court found, however, that "[t]hese various policies and procedures are of little value because [appellants] address the problem of sexual harassment of women prisoners with no specific staff training, inconsistent reporting practices, cursory investigations and timid sanctions." Id. (citation omitted). To correct this deficiency, paragraph 9 of the Order commands the District to comply with the IGP.
Appellants contend that the IGP is "a provision of local law and the Court has no business directing compliance with it." Brief for Appellants at 43. A federal court, however, is clearly in the "business" of ensuring that violations of rights protected under the U.S. Constitution do not go without a remedy. Appellants have conceded that they 931 have failed to protect female inmates from *931 sexual abuse, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We fail to grasp, therefore, how paragraph 9 is broader than required to remedy these violations, or how it unduly intrudes on appellants' local government functions. Indeed, this paragraph does not impose any new burdens on appellants; it simply requires appellants to observe their own policies and procedures in the running of their prisons. In light of the foregoing, we reject appellants' challenge to paragraph 9.
Retaliation. Evidence introduced at trial indicated that women who had filed complaints under the IGP were occasionally the victims of retaliation by DCDC employees. The district court found that the Department did not preserve the confidentiality of those inmates who had filed complaints, and "[b]y leaking private information prison officials coerce women prisoners and staff into silence and insulate themselves from scrutiny." Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 666. To prevent such abuses, paragraph 7(c) of the Order prohibits
[r]etaliation for reporting complaints of, assisting any individual in making a report of, or cooperating in an investigation of sexual harassment, regardless of the merits or the disposition of the underlying complaint. Retaliatory conduct includes the following actions taken against a prisoner in response to that prisoner's complaint of sexual harassment ...: disciplining, changing work or program assignments of, transferring to another facility of, or placing under involuntary protective custody any prisoner.
Appellants contend that this paragraph "sweeps far too broadly" and deprives them of taking any remedial action in response to fabricated claims of sexual misconduct. Brief for Appellants at 42-43.
In Women Prisoners II, the court addressed this specific concern. The court explained that paragraph 7(c) "does not prevent the Defendants from legitimately taking punitive action.... It simply prevents them from using disciplinary measures to cover up sexual harassment." 899 F.Supp. at 676. In light of this explanation, the Department is free to discipline, without fear of being held in contempt of court, an inmate who has fabricated a charge of sexual harassment or otherwise acted in bad faith in connection with such a charge. Accordingly, we reject appellees' challenge to paragraph 7(c).
3. Overbroad Relief
The district court found that general living conditions at the Annex and CTF and fire safety at the Annex violated the Eighth Amendment, conclusions that appellants have chosen not to contest. Parts IV and V of the Order require appellants to improve living conditions and fire safety at the facilities in a variety of ways. While appellants have specifically challenged paragraph 102 (imposing a population cap at the Annex), they further contend that the remedies ordered by the district court to address the Eighth Amendment violations are broader than necessary to correct the violations that the court had found. Indeed, they take issue, if in passing, with paragraphs 103 (replacing roof), 104 (eradication of vermin), 108 (twenty footcandles of prisoner-controlled light per bunk) and 112 (improving ventilation), which, they say, "hardly implicate the Eighth Amendment." Brief for Appellants at 40. We are unable to address questions of overbroad relief that appellants have aired in so casual a manner. Nevertheless, because of the intervening passage of the PLRA and the questions raised by both parties, in their supplemental briefs, as to the applicability of its provisions to this case, especially its provision that a court
shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right,

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A), we remand this question so that the district court may have the opportunity to address this and other unresolved issues in light of the new statute as applied to the relevant facts.
III. CONCLUSION
Because courts have little experience in the "inordinately difficult" task of running a prison, they should give 932 deference to prison *932 officials where possible, Turner, 482 U.S. at 85, 107 S.Ct. at 2259; and because only a
state court can provide an authoritative decision in an unsettled area of state law, a federal court should be reluctant to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over novel questions of local law. With these principles in mind, we have reviewed appellants' challenges to the Order and have disposed of them as follows:
Sexual Harassment. ¶¶ 3-19. Appellants contest the paragraphs relating to the office of the Special Officer, the Inmate Grievance Procedure, and retaliation against inmates for filing IGP complaints. While we reject appellants' objections to the paragraphs concerning the IGP and retaliation against inmates, we accept those relating to the Special Officer and her monitors. We therefore vacate paragraphs 5, 6, and 13 in their entirety and paragraphs 8, 12, 14, and 15 in relevant part as unwarranted intrusions on the functions of local government.
Obstetrical and Gynecological Care. ¶¶ 20-62. With the exception of paragraph 35, which appellants do not challenge, this section of the Order is based on D.C.Code section 24-442. We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over these local claims. We therefore vacate this entire section of the Order, with the exception of paragraph 35.
Program Evaluation. ¶¶ 63-101. These paragraphs were intended to remedy inequalities in access to programs that the district court held to violate both Title IX and the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. Appellants do not challenge those paragraphs that are intended to deal with unequal access to educational and vocational programs, but challenge all the others. Because we disagree with the court's conclusion that the male and female inmates it was comparing were similarly situated, and because that conclusion was an essential element in both its Title IX and equal protection analyses, we vacate paragraphs 83-92 and 94-101 in their entirety and paragraphs 63-67 and 93 to the extent that they do not involve educational or vocational programs.
Environmental Health. ¶¶ 102-124. The only provision in this part of the Order specifically challenged by appellants is the provision imposing a population cap on the Annex. Because the district court failed to justify the necessity for this "last resort" remedy, we vacate paragraph 102.
Fire Safety. ¶¶ 125-136. Paragraphs 125-130 are intended to deal with fire hazards at the Annex, which the district court found to have violated the Eighth Amendment; paragraphs 133-136 are intended to address conditions at CTF that the court found had violated D.C.Code § 24-442; and paragraphs 131-132 relate to fire safety at both the Annex and CTF. We again conclude that the court abused its discretion by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over these local claims, and we therefore vacate paragraphs 131-132 (insofar as they relate to CTF) and 133-136 (in their entirety). Appellants have not objected to any of the paragraphs intended to address the fire hazards at the Annex; accordingly, we express no opinion as to their propriety.
Finally, we take note of the fact that appellants have charged in very general terms that the district court has ordered them to adopt measures relating to educational programs and other matters that the District can ill afford and which, they say, the court is without authority to impose. Because of the generality of appellants' charges, we are not able to address these particular complaints in this proceeding. We therefore remand these questions so that they may be resolved by the district court in the context of the PLRA. At that time, appellees will be free to argue the unconstitutionality of the Act. Also, in the interests of judicial economy, appellees may renew their arguments to the court that the substandard medical care and the fire hazards at CTF violated the Eighth Amendment.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX A

ORDER FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
933 Based upon the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is by the Court this *933 13th day of December 1994, ORDERED that:
1. The Defendants' actions and inactions violated and continue to violate the Plaintiff class members' rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (1988), and the District of Columbia Code §§ 24-442; and
2. The Defendants are ordered to take all action necessary to remedy and prevent the violations of the Plaintiffs' above-mentioned rights. The Defendants are ordered to take the following specific measures in the areas of sexual harassment, obstetrical and gynecological care, programs and opportunities, and environmental and fire safety. All measures shall be completed and in effect within six months of the date of this Order, unless otherwise specified.
I. SEXUAL HARASSMENT
3. Within 60 days, the Defendants shall write and follow a Department Order prohibiting sexual harassment involving District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DCDC) employees and women prisoners. The Defendants shall post and circulate the Department Order in accordance with departmental policy.
4. Under this policy the DCDC has the obligation to take appropriate steps to prevent and remedy sexual harassment committed by its own employees.
5. One or more members from the office of Grace M. Lopes, Special Officer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, will monitor allegations of sexual harassment at each facility in which women prisoners are housed. The monitor(s) shall log in each allegation of sexual harassment, investigate the allegations, submit the results of the investigation to the Warden of the relevant facility and the Director of the DCDC and keep records of the Defendants' resolution of the matter, including disciplinary actions, of such claims.
6. The monitor(s) shall investigate all outstanding allegations of sexual harassment and shall submit a report on each allegation to the Warden of the relevant facility, and to the Director of the DCDC.
7. Prohibited conduct under the policy shall be defined as:
a. Sexual harassment which includes:
(1) all unwelcome sexual activity directed by any DCDC employee at a prisoner including acts of sexual intercourse, oral sex, or sexual touching and any attempt to commit these acts; and
(2) all unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature directed by any DCDC employee at a prisoner; and
b. Invasions of women prisoners' privacy by male employees without a valid penological reason, including the failure of any male employee to announce his presence when entering a female housing unit.
c. Retaliation for reporting complaints of, assisting any individual in making a report of, or cooperating in an investigation of sexual harassment, regardless of the merits or the disposition of the underlying complaint. Retaliatory conduct includes the following actions taken against a prisoner in response to that prisoner's complaint of sexual harassment or cooperation in the reporting or investigation of sexual harassment: disciplining, changing work or program assignments of, transferring to another facility of, or placing under involuntary protective custody any prisoner.
d. Any breach of confidentiality by any employee concerning any report of sexual harassment.

e. Any interference with investigations of sexual harassment.
8. Penalties for prohibited conduct under the policy shall be worked out by the Director of the DCDC and the Court's Special Officer Ms. Grace Lopes within 30 days of this Order.
9. Women prisoners shall be able to report instances of sexual harassment through the existing Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) as specified in Department Order 4030.1D. The Defendants shall strictly adhere to 934 the Inmate Grievance Procedure and *934 shall establish an Inmate Grievance Advisory Committee (IGAC) as required by Section VII(C) of Department Order 4030.1D.
10. Women prisoners shall also be able to submit IGP's or complaints concerning sexual harassment in any form, orally or in writing, to any DCDC employee, who must submit the information, in writing, to the monitor(s) and Warden of the facility within 24 hours of receiving the information. Women prisoners may also submit IGP's or complaints to an [sic] prisoner representative to the IGAC.
11. The Defendants shall establish a confidential hot line, under the supervision of the monitor(s), through which women prisoners can report allegations of sexual harassment.
12. Each employee shall be required to report any information, from any source, concerning sexual harassment, in writing, to the Warden of the facility and to the monitor(s) within 24 hours of receiving the information. Failure of an employee to report any suspected incident of sexual harassment shall subject the employee to discipline. If a prisoner so requests, the prisoner shall be treated as an anonymous informant.
13. The monitor(s) shall ensure that each reported violation of the policy is thoroughly investigated and documented. The monitor(s) shall submit a final written report to the Warden of the institution; the report shall include factual findings and a conclusion as to whether a preponderance of evidence shows that a violation of the sexual harassment policy occurred. Within 48 hours after the Warden receives the monitor(s)' report, the Defendants shall inform the complaining woman prisoner, in writing, of the outcome of the investigation. The Warden shall take appropriate action as detailed in the schedule of penalties.
14. Upon receipt of any allegation of an act of unwelcome sexual intercourse or any allegation of unwelcome sexual touching, the monitor(s) and the institution must notify the proper law enforcement agency. The monitor(s) shall communicate with the law enforcement agency concerning the status of any investigation. The monitor(s) must periodically document the status of police investigations. The occurrence of a police investigation does not relieve the monitor(s) of the duty to investigate.
15. The identity of the target of the alleged sexual harassment shall be revealed only to those who have an immediate need to know, including the monitor(s), the alleged harasser(s) or retaliator(s) and any witnesses. All parties contacted in the course of an investigation will be advised that any retaliation, reprisal, or breach of confidentiality is a separate actionable offense as provided in the schedule of penalties.
16. Any prisoner who is dissatisfied with any investigation or resolution of an allegation of sexual harassment may appeal to the Director of the DCDC within 15 days of receiving written notice of the outcome of the investigation. The Director must respond within 15 days.
17. Within 90 days, a trainer from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall conduct mandatory training on sexual harassment for all DCDC employees who work with women prisoners. The trainer shall be selected within 60 days. The monitor(s) if they so choose, may attend this training.
a. The training shall include education concerning the Defendants' policies regarding reporting, investigating, and preventing sexual harassment, and the consequences for violating any policy concerning sexual harassment; and
b. In addition to roll call training, formal training sessions on sexual harassment shall be conducted on a quarterly basis for all years succeeding entry of this Court Order.

18. Within 90 days, an outside consultant, mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall develop a sexual harassment training program and materials and conduct training on sexual harassment for women prisoners so that women prisoners know how to recognize and report sexual harassment. The trainer shall be selected within 60 days.

935

a. The training materials must be included in the orientation that each woman *935 receives upon

intake or classification at each facility; and

b. Formal training sessions for women prisoners on sexual harassment shall be conducted on a monthly basis for the first year succeeding entry of the consent decree, and on a quarterly basis in all years thereafter that this decree shall remain in effect.

19. The Defendants shall make necessary alterations at both the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) and the Minimum Security Annex (Annex) within 60 days to ensure that women have privacy in their living, sleeping and shower areas.

II. OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL CARE

20. The Defendants shall hire within 60 days:
a. a nurse midwife in a half-time position who shall provide clinical and health educational services to the entire female prisoner population; and
b. an additional nurse practitioner or physician's assistant with special training in obstetrics and gynecology to provide clinical services to women prisoners at CTF.
21. The CTF OB/GYN Clinic shall maintain its current regularly scheduled hours.
22. The Defendants shall establish a prenatal clinic at CTF for women who receive their primary prenatal care at CTF. This clinic shall operate at least one half-day each week. Pregnant women shall not be required to make appointments for the prenatal clinic through the sick-call process, but rather, shall have scheduled appointments for the clinic.
23. The Defendants shall maintain statistics on the number of pregnant women and the birth outcomes of infants whose mothers delivered while incarcerated.
24. In addition to the general health interview and observation performed for male prisoners, the intake screening for all women prisoners shall include specific inquiry about her use of contraceptives or intrauterine devices, history of pregnancy, last known menstrual period, current likelihood and history of sexually transmitted diseases and pattern of drug use (if applicable).
25. In accordance with DCDC policy, the Defendants shall inform all women prisoners of the procedure to access health services while incarcerated.
26. In addition to the health appraisal conducted for male prisoners, the Defendants shall conduct a gynecological examination, including a pelvic examination and evaluation, a breast examination accompanied by patient education, a PAP smear, a chlamydia and gonorrhea culture, and a serology for syphilis. In accordance with the CTF Operations manual and National Commission on Correctional Healthcare (NCCHC) and American Correctional Association (ACA) standards, this health appraisal shall occur within 14 days of admission into the DCDC, unless there is documentation of a complete and comparable health appraisal within the previous 90 days.
27. The Defendants shall develop and implement within 90 days, an appropriate health appraisal form to correspond with the ordered health appraisal for women noted in paragraph 26.
28. The Defendants shall develop and implement within 90 days, detailed written protocols concerning routine and follow-up care for common gynecological problems including syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and pelvic

inflammatory disease; PAP tests; pelvic examinations; breast examinations; education in contraception and mammography for high-risk women, in accordance with the standards of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG).
29. The Defendants shall provide gynecological care within the time frames and in a manner consistent with gynecological protocols that satisfy ACOG standards unless a physician determines that in his or her medical judgment it is not medically appropriate for such care to be provided in accordance with the protocol, in which case the reasons for this determination shall be entered into the patient's medical record.
936 30. At a minimum, the protocol concerning the provision of gynecological care shall *936 provide that the Defendants shall offer and make available PAP tests to all high-risk women at CTF every six months.
31. The Defendants shall maintain a list of abnormal PAP results and, within seven days of receipt of an abnormal PAP result, shall notify the patient of the abnormal result and develop and initiate a course of treatment.
32. All women who receive an abnormal PAP test result shall be scheduled for a repeat PAP test at three-month intervals until the PAP test results are normal. Once the PAP test results are normal, a PAP test shall take place every six months. If a culdoscopy is required, it shall be performed in a manner and within time frames accepted as appropriate by ACOG standards.
33. The Defendants shall implement within 60 days a tracking system to insure that all women receive appropriate preventive gynecological care at regular intervals.
34. If a pregnancy test reveals that a woman is pregnant, routine prenatal care shall be initiated immediately.
35. The Defendants shall develop and implement a protocol concerning restraints used on pregnant and postpartum women which provides that a pregnant prisoner shall be transported in the least restrictive way possible consistent with legitimate security reasons. Specifically, the protocol shall provide:
a. The Defendants shall use no restraints on any woman in labor, during delivery, or in recovery immediately after delivery.
b. During the last trimester of pregnancy up until labor, the Defendants shall use only leg shackles when transporting a pregnant woman prisoner unless the woman has demonstrated a history of assaultive behavior or has escaped from a correctional facility.
36. The Defendants shall develop and implement within 90 days, a detailed written prenatal protocol for women who receive their primary prenatal care at CTF in accordance with ACOG standards. The protocol shall also provide guidelines to define "high-risk pregnancy." High-risk pregnancies shall be considered to include at a minimum those women with histories of alcohol and drug abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, diabetes or anemia, older women, women with poor obstetrical histories, and women expecting multiple births.
37. The Defendants shall arrange for each pregnant woman prisoner to see an obstetrician at monthly intervals during the first two trimesters of her pregnancy, bimonthly intervals during the seventh and eighth months, and weekly intervals during the ninth month. The Defendants shall arrange for women who are experiencing high-risk pregnancies to see an obstetrician at shorter than routine intervals until it is determined that the pregnancy is progressing normally.
38. The Defendants shall implement a tracking system to insure that all pregnant women are scheduled and seen regularly for prenatal care.
39. The Defendants shall permit a woman prisoner to feed her baby at D.C. General Hospital while the woman prisoner and baby remain at D.C. General Hospital.
40. The Defendants shall develop a routine visiting program for women whose children remain in D.C. General Hospital. These women shall be allowed to visit their children at D.C. General Hospital every day.
41. In accordance with the Defendants' Department Order, pregnant women prisoners shall receive counseling regarding child placement as soon as the pregnancy is known.

42. The Defendants shall designate a representative who shall develop and maintain contacts with licensed childplacing agencies, including the Department of Human Services. The Defendants shall provide training to its social workers on the range of options available for child placement, including third-party placement with family or friends, foster-care placement, and adoption. Each woman shall be given information about each of the options.
43. The nurse midwife shall implement within 90 days an obstetrical and gynecological health education program 937 that satisfies a recognized national medical standard. Education *937 material should also be made available in
the CTF library. The Defendants shall maintain adequate documentation on the program so that it can be evaluated by the Court within 60 days after implementation.
44. The Defendants shall have at least one medical staff member available at CTF 24 hours each day.
45. CTF medical personnel shall have telephone access to the OB/GYN physician at CTF during evening and weekend hours.
46. If a woman prisoner is in need of emergency obstetrical or gynecological care during evening or weekend hours, she shall be taken immediately to the emergency area in the OB/GYN clinic at D.C. General Hospital, unless employees providing obstetrical and/or gynecological care at D.C. General Hospital determine that the main emergency room at D.C. General Hospital would be more medically appropriate.
47. The Defendants shall provide each woman prisoner who is discharged from custody with the following:
a. a supply of essential medications that will last until she may be reasonably expected to obtain necessary follow-up care in her community; and
b. referrals to services in the community to insure continuity of care.
48. If a woman is released prior to the time that results of any gynecological or obstetrical tests are received by CTF medical personnel, the Defendants shall forward the test results to her last known mailing address.
49. The Defendants shall provide sufficient resources to insure that prisoners are transported to medical appointments in a timely fashion, including a sufficient number of security staff to transport prisoners, appropriate and sufficient transport vehicles, and appropriate waiting areas.
50. The Defendants shall modify their transportation procedures so that the transportation system alone does not cause women prisoners to wait for more than one hour at D.C. General Hospital before receiving medical care.
51. If a woman prisoner misses a medical appointment for any reason, the Defendants shall reschedule the appointment for the earliest available date. The Defendants shall use their best efforts to insure that the rescheduled appointment occurs within a medically appropriate period of time.
52. The Defendants shall comply fully with all provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding between the DCDC and D.C. General Hospital.
53. The Defendants shall assign a physician, or a member of the medical staff at CTF, who provides obstetrical or gynecological care, to serve as a liaison between CTF medical personnel and D.C. General Hospital.
54. The Defendants shall maintain the content of each medical record in an orderly and confidential manner.
55. For all pregnant women prisoners, the Defendants shall maintain a medical chart on the POPRAS form pregnancy chart, or an equivalent form, together with a regular medical chart. All medical visits to or by the responsible physician or primary health-care provider, orders for laboratory tests, laboratory test results and other notes and orders relating to the medical care of pregnant women prisoners shall be recorded on the POPRAS form or consultation form.
56. The Defendants shall develop and implement within 90 days, a new consultation form that provides adequate clinical information to D.C. General Hospital and insures that adequate information is provided by D.C. General Hospital to CTF medical personnel.

57. The Defendants shall institute, maintain and follow a system to coordinate the implementation and tracking of physician orders so that gynecological and obstetrical care will be provided within a timely fashion. The system shall coordinate all orders regardless of whether the physician orders are to be filled inside or outside the facility. This system shall be reflected in written procedural guidelines, a copy of which shall be provided to counsel for Plaintiffs within 60 days. Orders for medication are not to be tracked under this system.
938 *938 58. Documentation shall be required whenever CTF medical staff elect not to follow the instructions of a consulting physician at D.C. General Hospital or elsewhere. This documentation should include the justification for not providing the therapy ordered. Only medically-based justifications shall be permissible.
59. For all women prisoners who are discharged from D.C. General Hospital or other medical facilities to CTF, CTF medical personnel shall promptly obtain a discharge summary and maintain the summary in the prisoner's medical record.
60. Prisoners shall receive notice of results of laboratory or diagnostic tests which are of no clinical significance within seven calendar days of the date the facility receives the results of such test.
61. In the case of non-emergency abnormal laboratory or diagnostic test results of clinical significance, the prisoner will be seen by the ordering physician, or if that physician is unavailable, by the Medical Officer, within 24 hours of the time the facility receives the results of such test. At such time the physician will explain the result to the patient and order such follow-up care as is appropriate.
62. The Defendants shall require a woman prisoner who refuses medical care to do so in the presence of a licensed medical staff member who can answer the patient's questions and counsel the patient concerning the consequences of a refusal. In accordance with DCDC policy regarding quality assurance, the reasons for refusal shall be analyzed regularly as part of a comprehensive and up-to-date quality assurance program. This quality assurance activity shall be documented.
III. PROGRAM EVALUATION
63. The Defendants shall provide diagnostic evaluations for women prisoners similar to those currently provided for men in the Reception and Diagnostic Unit at CTF to determine women prisoners' needs, interests, and requirements for increased programs and opportunities in academic and higher education, vocation, work, religion and recreation. The procedure for the needs assessment shall be done by an approved scientific method. These evaluations shall be completed within 30-45 days of a female prisoner's transfer to CTF or the Annex. The evaluations shall include educational testing, vocational testing and psychological testing. The Defendants shall provide women with the appropriate programming called for by this evaluation within 60 days of their arrival at the facility.
64. The Defendants shall coordinate the scheduling of academic educational classes, higher education classes, vocational training, recreation time and activities, law library hours, and work in prison details for women in such a manner as to maximize women prisoners' participation in as many areas as possible.
65. The Defendants shall provide sufficient program space so that women prisoners can participate in equal and adequate programs and services as compared to men prisoners. The Defendants shall provide at least two additional trailers at the Annex (with functional sanitary facilities) to allow for additional programming activities. Within 30 days, the Defendants may submit for the Court's consideration an alternative to the 2 ordered trailers.
66. The Defendants shall develop and implement quality assurance programs for monitoring program delivery to ensure the continued provision of equal and adequate programs to women prisoners.
67. The Defendants shall increase the number of staff posted or detailed at the women's unit at CTF and at the Annex to ensure that women prisoners are escorted to educational programs, recreation, employment, and medical care as scheduled. Sufficient staff shall be provided in a manner that does not prevent the programming staff from performing any of their duties.

68. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at the Annex with a range of academic education programs that is equivalent to the range of academic programs provided to male prisoners at the Minimum Security Facility (Minimum).
939 *939 69. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a range of academic education programs that is equivalent to the range of academic programs provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.
70. Women prisoners at the Annex and CTF shall be provided with the opportunity for full-time (five hours per day, five days per week) basic education to include ABE, GED, and Special Education classes. The Defendants shall immediately provide two full-time basic education teachers for ABE, GED, and Special Education classes at the Annex.
71. Women prisoners at CTF shall have access to on-site higher education programs which shall include a fouryear B.A. and/or B.S. degree program, an A.A. degree program, a certification program, and a precollege program. The bachelor and associate programs shall be offered in a variety of fields, and at a minimum shall each offer three different areas of study leading to a degree. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall at least make the University of the District of Columbia B.A. and A.A. programs available to women prisoners at CTF.
72. The Defendants shall offer women prisoners financial arrangements for these education programs that are the same as those arrangements available to similarly situated male prisoners.
73. The Defendants shall immediately provide women prisoners at CTF with at least 30 hours of access per week to the Atlantic Union computers. Women shall be scheduled to access the computer during educational program time and during free time, including evenings and weekends. Women prisoners shall be provided with an amount of computers sufficient to meet their needs.
74. The Defendants shall immediately process the applications for Atlantic Union in a complete and timely manner. Women shall be provided with all books and course materials before the start of a course. The women shall receive substantive tutorial guidance in the course work from qualified educators.
75. The Defendants shall immediately provide appropriate substitute teachers or instructors during absences of regular teachers or instructors of more than three working days. The provision of a substitute teacher or instructor shall not result in consolidating two classes into one or increasing the class size.
76. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a range of vocational education programs that is equivalent to the range of vocational education programs provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.
77. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with two prevocational programs each to be at least six weeks in duration. Prevocational programs include those courses which teach personal development skills, living skills, and/or employment skills such as Employment Techniques, Awareness and Preparation (ETAP) and Lifeskills.
78. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a minimum of four vocational education programs, including the one program currently in place (DocuTech). These programs shall be available to female prisoners of all custody levels. A vocational education program is any program of 12 to 24 months of duration that teaches employable skills and contains both a classroom component and an on-the-job-training component. Two programs shall be operative within 120 days of the entry of this Order.
79. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with at least two apprenticeship programs as defined by Department order.
80. All prevocational programs, vocational programs, and apprenticeships added for women prisoners at CTF shall have the potential for providing women with job skills marketable in the local labor market. An important consideration in the Defendants' selection of programs shall be the wage-earning capacity upon completion of the program.

81. The Defendants shall conduct affirmative outreach to women during the enrollment period for vocational training. This outreach shall entail DCDC staff meeting with women at least one month before the deadline for 940 program enrollment to inform *940 the women that the new programs are available and to offer a full description of the available programs and any applicable criteria for participation.
82. The Defendants shall ensure that all contractual programs used to provide services to women prisoners are compatible with and fulfill the provisions of this Order.
83. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at the Annex with a range of work opportunities that is equivalent to the range of work opportunities provided to male prisoners at Minimum.
84. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with a range of work opportunities that is equivalent to the range of work opportunities provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.
85. The Defendants shall employ capable women prisoners on all work details available at the facility where women prisoners are housed. These details shall include maintenance and trades, such as plumbing, carpentry, and electrical.
86. The Defendants shall offer equivalent industrial opportunities by establishing at least two industries at CTF or by transporting women prisoners from CTF to the industries at the Central Facility to perform industrial work. Within 60 days, the Defendants shall submit to the Court plans for the implementation of an industrial program for CTF women prisoners.
87. The Defendants shall revise the guidelines and practices for work training eligibility within 30 days to take into account the different sentence structure of female offenders and to permit women's maximum participation in work training.
88. The Defendants will immediately provide a work training program to all women prisoners who are eligible under the revised guidelines, including those who are housed at CTF as stated in the CTF Operations Manual.
89. Within 30 days of entry of this Order, the Defendants shall complete and submit work training packets for each woman prisoner eligible for work training and expedite the approval process.
90. The Defendants shall submit required paperwork for work training approval 45 days prior to a woman prisoner's eligibility date in order to complete the process by the date of eligibility. In the event that a woman arrives at the institution with less than 45 days until she is eligible for work training, the Defendants shall expedite the paperwork.
91. The Defendants shall not deny a woman prisoner the opportunity to participate in work training based on her arrival at the Annex or classification to minimum custody status within the previous 90 days or because of her impending eligibility for halfway house placement or parole.
92. The Defendants shall provide adequate staff, including case managers and vocational development specialists, to enable the women prisoners to be informed of their work training eligibility and to complete the necessary paperwork in the required time frame.
93. The Defendants shall staff a sufficient number of vocational development specialists at the Annex in order to conduct testing, classes and counseling; completes necessary paperwork and develop jobs, including nontraditional employment, and transport women to interviews. The Defendants shall provide the vocational development specialist(s) with an appropriate vehicle for transporting women to job interviews and for performing job development activities.
94. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at the Annex with recreational opportunities that are equivalent to the recreational opportunities provided to male prisoners at Minimum.
95. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with recreational opportunities that are equivalent to the recreational opportunities provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities.

96. The Defendants shall immediately provide all women prisoners at CTF, including pregnant prisoners subject to medical approval, with recreation seven days per week for at least five hours per day. Women shall have the 941 option of going outside or to *941 indoor recreation facilities during this time period. This recreation schedule shall be effective at CTF within 30 days of this Order.
97. Women shall be given access to the same variety of recreation activities as are available to men, including large group events, intramurals, arts and crafts and drama activities.
98. The Defendants shall immediately open the recreation trailer at the Annex for at least 8 hours per day, 7 days a week. Correctional officers shall open and supervise the trailer when the recreation specialist is off duty. The recreation specialist shall not be assigned or pulled away from her duties as a recreation specialist for the women at the Annex, except in the case of an emergency.
99. The Defendants shall improve the Annex grounds by adding a basketball court, volleyball pit, and outdoor tables.
100. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at the Annex with a range of religious programs and services that are equivalent to the range of religious programs provided to male prisoners at Minimum.
101. Within 60 days, the Defendants shall provide chaplaincy services to women prisoners at the Annex for 5 days per week through a staff chaplain, volunteer chaplain, or a combination of chaplain staff members. The chaplain's hours shall include evening hours during the week to accommodate those women working on details, industry, or in the community.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
102. Within one year, the Defendants shall reduce the population of Annex Dormitories 6 and 7 so that no more than 90 women are housed in the two dormitories combined.
103. Within one year, the Defendants shall repair or replace the roofs of Annex Dormitories 6 and 7 and retain them in a watertight condition.
104. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall repair the Annex dormitories so as to prevent the entry and refuge of vermin and shall conduct a vermin eradication program to eliminate the present infestation of vermin. The Defendants shall thereafter promulgate and follow an effective vermin eradication program.
105. Within 60 days, the Defendants shall provide each woman prisoner housed in the Annex dormitories at least one vertical locker and one footlocker.
106. Within 30 days, the Defendants shall replace all torn mattresses and pillows at the Annex with clean, untorn, fire-retardant mattresses and pillows. The Defendants shall conduct a regular inspection of all mattresses and pillows and shall, at that time, immediately replace any mattresses that are damaged to a degree that prevents adequate cleaning.
107. The Defendants shall immediately use cart liners or disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry at the Annex.
108. For as long as the Annex dormitories are double-bunked, the Defendants shall, within 60 days, provide a minimum of 20 foot candles of prisoner-controlled light to each bunk.
109. Effective immediately, the Defendants shall ensure that all housing units at the Annex are issued a timely, adequate and appropriate amount of cleaning supplies.
110. Within 60 days, the Defendants shall connect the toilets and handsinks in every Annex trailer.
111. The Defendants shall continue to provide sufficient and readily accessible sanitary facilities for women in the industries at the Central Facility.

112. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall improve the ventilation at the Annex dormitories, the print shop and the garment shop so that the quality of air in these areas is brought up to an acceptable level.
113. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall install a drainage system at the Annex which will prevent hazardous accumulations of water.
114. The Defendants shall promulgate and follow a written preventive maintenance plan for the Annex dormitories, the Annex trailers, and the Annex grounds.
942 *942 115. Three times every year, the Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) to inspect the Annex for compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation and maintenance and food service delivery (at the main Minimum compound). The first such inspection shall be conducted within 45 days of the date of this Order. Within 30 days of each inspection, the Warden of Minimum shall obtain the DCRA findings. The Warden shall repair, clean, or otherwise remedy an unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA as soon as feasible but in no event later than 30 days following the receipt of the DCRA report.
116. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall hire a qualified air balancing contractor to service the CTF air handling system so that it provides an acceptable level of air quality to all areas of the facility inhabited by prisoners.
117. In the event that the air balancing and other recent repairs to the heating system at CTF fail to maintain a minimum cell temperature of 65°F in every cell, measured at the perimeter wall, the Defendants shall immediately
a. cease housing women in the end cells of each tier;
b. provide each woman prisoner with two extra blankets, two pairs of thermal underwear, and two pairs of wool socks;
c. explore means of insulating or heating the perimeter walls of the cells; and
d. report back to the Court.
118. The Defendants shall develop and implement an effective rodent prevention program.
119. Effective immediately, the Defendants shall ensure that all housing units at CTF are issued a timely, adequate and appropriate amount of cleaning supplies.
120. The Defendants shall use cart liners or disposable or washable laundry bags to transport laundry between CTF and the Jail.
121. Effective immediately, the Defendants at CTF shall monitor the food temperature and delivery times of all foods, including special diet meals, delivered to the satellite kitchen.
122. The Defendants shall promulgate and follow a written preventive maintenance plan for the CTF that includes maintenance of structures, systems, and equipment.
123. The Defendants shall ensure that the correctional officers inspect all plumbing fixtures on each shift, and shall ensure that any plumbing fixture that requires repair will be reported immediately upon discovery, and repaired immediately. The Defendants shall maintain logs demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
124. Three times per year, the Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia DCRA to conduct inspections of the CTF for compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation, maintenance and food service delivery. The first such inspection shall be conducted within 45 days of the date of this Order. Within 30 days of each inspection, the Warden of CTF shall obtain the DCRA findings. The Warden shall repair, clean, or otherwise remedy an unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA as soon as feasible but in no event later than 30 days following the receipt of the DCRA report.

V. FIRE SAFETY
125. Within 120 days, the Defendants shall install and maintain a manual fire alarm system and fire detection system which covers all areas used by women prisoners at Minimum, including the Annex dormitories. The fire detection system must include smoke detectors in all sleeping and dayroom areas, and smoke or heat detectors in all other areas. There must be an automatic retransmission of the above systems to a constantly attended location outside of the dormitory buildings. There must also be a control panel to provide emergency power or to send a warning if the system is not operational.
126. The Defendants must repair or replace the fire alarm system in the Administration building, the cafeteria and gymnasium at the Minimum main compound.
943 *943 127. The Defendants must install a sprinkler system in the Annex dormitories and provide a 20-minute firerated enclosure of storage rooms located in both dormitories.
128. The Defendants shall ensure that all bed linens, blankets, and curtains or draperies in the Annex dormitories are of fire-retardant material.
129. Effective immediately, in each Annex dormitory, the Defendants shall conduct fire drills 12 times per year, 4 times per shift, and shall keep written documentation of all such drills.
130. The Defendants shall conduct and document mandatory semi-annual training on fire safety procedures for all correctional officers.
131. Effective immediately, and in accordance with Department Order No. 2920.1A, the Defendants shall:
a. conduct weekly inspections of all building[s] and grounds for fire hazards, and document such inspections;
b. conduct quarterly inspections of all fire safety equipment, and document such inspections; and
c. ensure that the Institutional Fire Marshal conducts quarterly inspections of the Facility.
132. Effective immediately, and in accordance with Department Order No. 2920.1A, the District of Columbia Fire Department shall conduct fire safety inspections of the Annex not less frequently than every 12 months. The Warden of Minimum shall obtain the Fire Department's report within 10 days and promptly give a copy to the Plaintiffs' counsel. Thereafter, the Warden shall cause any fire safety deficiencies identified in the Fire Department's report to be remedied within 30 days, or shall provide a report to the Fire Department as to why the deficiency cannot be so remedied and provide a plan to remedy the deficiency within a further period of time not to exceed 90 days.
133. Within 30 days, the Defendants at CTF shall repair the water leakage from rain, particularly in the vicinity of the highvoltage electrical conduit in the culinary storage room located in the CTF basement.
134. At CTF, the Defendants shall maintain the storage in the culinary storage room in a manner that does not prevent the sprinkler heads from functioning adequately.
135. At CTF, the Defendants shall maintain the sprinkler system and test it quarterly and they shall test the fire pump annually.
136. At CTF, the Defendants shall conduct fire drills 12 times per year, 4 times per shift, and shall keep written documentation of all such drills.

VI. GENERAL
137. This Order shall continue in full force and effect, absent modification by the Court, until the Defendants have complied with all provisions for 5 years.
138. Plaintiffs are awarded the costs of this suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees.
APPENDIX B
ORDER
Upon consideration of the Defendants' Revised Motion to Stay and/or Modify Judgment, the Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Renewed Motion to Stay and/or Modify Judgment, the Defendants' Reply, the Defendants' Supplement, the Plaintiffs' Surreply, the Joint Status Motion and Motion Proposing Modifications to the Order for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, the Plaintiffs' Status Motion Regarding ¶¶ 79 and 96 of the Order, it is by the Court this 11th day of August, 1995
ORDERED that the portion of the Defendants' Revised Motion to Stay and/or Modify Judgment in which Defendants seek a stay is DENIED; it is further
ORDERED that ¶¶ 73 and 74 of the Court's Order of December 13, 1994 are VACATED due to the termination of the Atlantic Union College program at CTF; it is further
ORDERED that ¶¶ 39, 40, 41, 42 of the Court's Order of December 13, 1994 are VACATED; it is further
944 ORDERED that ¶¶ 12, 17, 18, 20, 35, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 58, 60, 67, 70, 71, 75, 87, *944 102, 115, 123 and 124 of the Court's Order of December 13, 1994 are amended as follows:
12. Failure of an employee to report any allegation of sexual misconduct or any facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable employee to believe that sexual misconduct is occurring or has occurred shall subject the employee to discipline.
17. The Department shall conduct mandatory training using certified trainers on sexual misconduct for all DCDC employees. A consultant from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall develop the training plan and materials. A "certified trainer" is defined as any person who has completed the "Train-the-Trainer" course developed by the NIC consultant. The monitor(s), if they so choose may attend this training.
a. The training shall include education concerning the Defendants' policies regarding reporting, investigating, and preventing sexual harassment, and the consequences for violating any policy concerning sexual harassment; and
b. All staff who work with female prisoners shall be trained by certified trainers within six months commencing no later than August 30, 1995. After the initial training of staff, the training will be included in the pre-service training of all staff. Annual retraining shall be conducted to refresh staff on the Department Order regarding sexual misconduct.
c. Within one year, selected employees working with female prisoners shall receive a forty-hour training program on working with female offenders. A semiannual, enhancement training on special issues related to working with female offenders will be offered to selected employees.
18. Commencing no later than August 30, 1995, the Department shall conduct mandatory training on sexual harassment using certified trainers for all women prisoners currently in the DCDC. A consultant from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall develop the training plan and materials which will instruct women prisoners on the Department Order on sexual misconduct and how to recognize and

report sexual harassment. Training sessions for women prisoners on sexual harassment shall be provided within a reasonable time upon a woman's entry into the D.C. Department of Corrections.
20. The Defendants shall hire within 90 days: (a) a health educator with appropriate training in obstetrics and gynecology in a half-time position who shall provide clinical and health educational services to the entire female prisoner population at CTF and (b) an additional nurse practitioner, physician's assistant with special training in obstetrics and gynecology, or nurse midwife to provide clinical services to women prisoners at CTF.
35. The Defendants shall develop and implement a protocol concerning restraints used on pregnant and postpartum women which provides that a pregnant prisoner shall be transported in the least restrictive way possible consistent with legitimate security reasons. Specifically, the protocol shall provide:
a. The Defendants shall use no restraints on any woman in labor, during delivery, or in recovery immediately after delivery; and
b. During the last trimester of pregnancy up until labor, the Defendants shall use no restraints when transporting a pregnant woman prisoner unless the woman has demonstrated a history of assaultive behavior or has escaped from a correctional facility, in which case, only handcuffs shall be used.
43. The health educator shall implement, within 60 days from the day that the health educator is hired, an obstetrical and gynecological health education program that satisfies a recognized national medical standard. Educational material should also be made available in the CTF library. The Defendants shall maintain adequate documentation on the program so that it can be evaluated by the Court within 60 days after implementation.
46. If a woman prisoner is in need of emergency obstetrical or gynecological care during evening or weekend hours, she shall be taken immediately to the emergency room at D.C. General Hospital if she is less than 20 945 weeks pregnant, and to the OB/GYN admitting *945 office if she is 20 or more weeks pregnant, unless employees providing obstetrical and/or gynecological care at D.C. General Hospital determine that the main emergency room at D.C. General Hospital would be more medically appropriate.
47. The Defendants shall provide each woman prisoner for whom the DCDC has advance notice of her discharge from custody with the following:
a. a supply of essential medications that will last until she may be reasonably expected to obtain necessary follow-up care in her community; and
b. referrals to services in the community to insure continuity of care.
48. If a woman is released prior to the time that abnormal results of any gynecological or obstetrical tests are received by CTF medical personnel, the Defendants shall forward the test result[s] to her last known mailing address. Defendants shall advise women prisoners of this policy.
49. The Defendants shall ensure that prisoners are transported to medical appointments on time.
50. The Defendants shall modify their transportation procedures so that women prisoners arrive at D.C. General Hospital no more than 2 hours before the scheduled time of their appointment.
55. For all pregnant women prisoners, the Defendants shall maintain a medical chart on an ACOG form together with a regular medical chart. All medical visits to or by the responsible physician or primary healthcare provider, orders for laboratory tests, laboratory test results and other notes and orders relating to the medical care of pregnant women prisoners shall be recorded on the ACOG form or consultation form.
58. Documentation shall be required whenever CTF medical staff elect not to follow the instructions of a consulting physician at D.C. General Hospital or elsewhere. This documentation should include the justification for not providing the therapy ordered.
60. Prisoners shall receive notice of normal results of laboratory or diagnostic tests at the discretion of the physician or upon request by the woman prisoner.

67. The Defendants shall ensure that women prisoners are escorted to and arrive at educational programs, recreation, employment, and medical care in a timely manner as scheduled in a manner that does not prevent the programming staff from performing any of their duties.
70. Women prisoners at the Annex and CTF shall be provided with the opportunity for full-time (three hours per day, five days per week at CTF and five hours per day, five days per week at the Annex) basic education to include ABE, GED, and Special Education classes.
71. Women prisoners at CTF shall have access to on-site higher education programs which shall include a fouryear B.A. and/or B.S. degree program, an A.A. degree program, and a precollege program. At a minimum, bachelor programs shall be offered in one area of study, and associate programs in two different areas of study leading to a degree. Defendants shall comply with the precollege requirement of this provision within 90 days.
75. Within 90 days, the Defendants shall provide appropriate substitute teachers or instructors during absences of regular teachers or instructors of more than three working days. The provision of a substitute teacher or instructor shall not result in increasing the class size beyond acceptable community standards for a period of time exceeding 15 consecutive school days.
79. The Defendants shall provide women prisoners at CTF with at least one apprenticeship program as defined by Department order.
87. The Defendants shall revise the Department of Corrections guidelines and practices for work training placement within 30 days to take into account the different sentence structure of female offenders and to permit women's maximum participation in work training.
96. The Defendants shall immediately provide all women prisoners at CTF, including pregnant prisoners subject 946 to medical approval, with recreation for twenty-five *946 hours per week. Women shall have the option of going
outside or to indoor recreation facilities during the time period. This recreation schedule shall be effective at CTF within 15 days of this Order.
102. Within one year, the Defendants shall reduce the population of the Annex Dormitories 6 and 7 so that no more than 135 women are housed in the two dormitories combined.
115. Three times every year, the Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) to inspect the Annex for compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation and maintenance and food service delivery (at the main Minimum compound). If any area is shown to be in compliance after completion of an inspection, the mid-year inspection may be an abatement inspection rather than a full inspection. At a minimum, DCRA shall conduct full compliance inspections at the Annex two times every year. Within 30 days of each inspection, the Warden of Minimum shall obtain the DCRA findings. The Warden shall repair, clean, or otherwise remedy an unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA as soon as feasible but in no event later than 30 days following the receipt of the DCRA report.
123. The Defendants shall ensure that the correctional officers inspect all plumbing fixtures daily, and shall ensure that any plumbing fixture that requires repair will be reported immediately upon discovery, and repaired in a timely manner. The Defendants shall maintain logs demonstrating compliance with this requirement.
124. Two times per year, the Defendants shall cause the District of Columbia DCRA to conduct inspections of the CTF for compliance with the requirements of environmental sanitation, maintenance and food service delivery. Within 30 days of each inspection, the Warden of CTF shall obtain the DCRA findings. The Warden shall repair, clean, or otherwise remedy any unsanitary, unsound, or unsafe practice or condition identified by DCRA as soon as feasible but in no event later than 30 days following the receipt of the DCRA report.
It is further
ORDERED that all deadlines shall run from the date of entry of this Supplemental Order.
ROGERS, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Because I find no novel question of law as would pose an obstacle to the district court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the prisoners' request for injunctive relief from violations of D.C.CODE § 24-442, I dissent from Part II A of the court's opinion. Further, because I conclude that the court's equal protection analysis is flawed, I would affirm the district court's ruling that the prisoners were denied their Fifth Amendment right to due process by the District of Columbia's giving them unequal access to a variety of programs on the basis of their sex, and therefore dissent from Part II B of the court's opinion.[1] In other respects I concur in the court's opinion.
I.
On the basis of its identification of a novel question of District of Columbia law, the court concludes that the district court abused its discretion in rejecting the District's invitation to decline jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over the prisoners' claims arising under D.C.Code § 24-224. While I join the court's account of the general structure of the law of supplemental jurisdiction, Op. at 920-21, and I agree that the district court "clearly had the power" to hear the prisoners' claims arising under D.C.CODE § 24-442, Op. at 921, I do not agree that an intolerable novel issue posed an obstacle to the court's exercise of jurisdiction. In the terms of the supplemental jurisdiction statute, the prisoners' local-law claims did not raise novel or complex issues of local 947 law; nor did this case present exceptional circumstances in which there were compelling reasons *947 to decline jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (1, 4) (1994).
Of course, there is some degree of novelty in applying even the hoariest of legal rules to the facts presented in each new case; there is obviously a greater degree of novelty in construing an ambiguous phrase in a newly enacted statute. The question a district court must ask about a local-law claim under § 1367(c)(1), therefore, is not, "Is it novel?" but, "How novel is it?" The reason for asking this question is obvious: the more novel a local-law issue is, the more likely the federal court is to get it wrong, in the sense of deciding the issue differently from how a local court would have decided it. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966) (endorsing discretionary dismissal of pendent state-law claims in order to "procur[e] for [the parties] a surer-footed reading of applicable law"). The question of "novelty" is really a question of uncertainty; the issue is how predictable the decision of the local courts would be in light of existing local-law authorities.[2] Thus, the appropriate framework for deciding the instant appeal is the standard described in Financial Gen. Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger, 680 F.2d 768, 776 (D.C.Cir.1982): "the degree of uncertainty in state law is one of several factors that should guide the District Court's discretion," albeit a factor that "should be given considerable weight."
In light of the appropriate standard, this case differs from those relied on by the court. The local-law issues raised by the prisoners' claims are simply not novel. The sole local-law issue cited by the court as "novel" 0907 whether local trial court has the power to impose injunctions when ongoing and systemic violations of a statutorily imposed duty of care have been proved and all of the usual conditions for granting injunctive relief have been met, Op. at 923 0907 is considerably further toward the "certain" end of the continuum than are issues presented by cases such as Financial General and Doe v. Board on Prof. Resp. of the D.C. Ct. of Appeals, 717 F.2d 1424 (D.C.Cir.1983) (per curiam). The issue in the instant case is whether the familiar general power of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to award equitable relief, D.C.CODE § 11-921(a), can be applied to a statute whose substantive content has been explicated by several authoritative decisions of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. See Op. at 921 (collecting local cases). By contrast to this question of institutional power, the courts in Financial General and Doe were faced with questions concerning regulations and causes of action that had never been addressed by the local courts at all.[3] In Financial General, the district court was faulted for deciding a number of difficult questions involving an attorney's duties in complex corporate transactions when "[n]o court of the District of Columbia has provided any guidance regarding the standards defining an attorney's fiduciary duties, the construction of the conflict of interest provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, or the remedies for breach." 680 F.2d at 769. Moreover, the district court abused its discretion by reaching out to decide these questions when all of the federal claims on which original jurisdiction was founded had been dismissed, a factor that is not present in the instant case. Id. at 769, 776. As for Doe, this court characterized the local-law issues as "[w]hether the Board on Professional Responsibility may subpoena records necessary to

948 performance of its regulatory mandate and what construction to give to Court of Appeals *948 regulations governing the Board's exercise of its asserted subpoena power...." 717 F.2d at 1428. Doe thus involved the construction of the grant of authority to a particular local entity, a question that could not be answered with any certainty without a local decision on the subject. Both Financial General and Doe stand in contrast to the purportedly "novel" issue raised by the prisoners, which is whether well-settled remedies rules of general applicability should be applied to their case.
Nor can there be any doubt that the law of remedies is well-settled in the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that the local trial court enjoys broad equitable jurisdiction pursuant to D.C.CODE § 11-921(a). Hessey v. Burden, 615 A.2d 562, 571 (D.C.1992) (collecting cases); McIntosh v. Washington, 395 A.2d 744, 748-49 (D.C.1978). The standards governing the exercise of equitable powers are also well-defined. Ifill v. District of Columbia, 665 A.2d 185, 187-88 (D.C.1995). Finally, the use of those powers to effect institutional change in a variety of local governmental departments and agencies is almost a commonplace in this jurisdiction,[4] as it is in state courts[5] throughout the Nation. See DAN B. DOBBS, LAW OF REMEDIES § 7.4(4) (2d ed.1993) (describing prevalence of structural injunctions in civil rights cases, including prison reform litigation). Whatever other objections might be raised to the district court's enforcement of local law in this case, therefore, it cannot be said that the court's action was novel. See Campbell v. McGruder, 416 F.Supp. 100, 105 (D.D.C.1975) (for constitutional violation, imposing mandatory injunction that in part required local agencies to remedy violations of local fire, building, housing, health, and food regulations at D.C. Jail); Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F.2d 521, 544 n. 47 (D.C.Cir.1978) (noting that no appeal had been taken from that portion of the injunction).[6]
The court raises three arguments in support of its conclusion that the district court abused its discretion by entertaining local-law claims that were within its jurisdiction. First, the court notes that injunctions were "never regarded as relief of first resort," cites the ancient rule that equitable relief will not lie if plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, and points out that "a variety of factors, including the public interest, may weigh against the award 949 of an injunction." Op. at 922. With respect, none of this has anything *949 to do with novelty. Quite the opposite, in fact: the rules cited by the court were formulated by the Chancellor long before the District of Columbia even existed. See DOBBS, supra, at § 2.5 (reviewing history of equitable requirement of no adequate remedy at law). If the district court was too hasty in awarding equitable relief, that would be an error on the merits of the prisoners' claims having nothing to do with the question whether the claims should have been entertained in the first place. The mistake would be a misapplication of well-settled law, rather than a failure to predict the future development of an unsettled issue in the local courts.
The court's second point is that "we can find no case in which a D.C. court has awarded injunctive relief under section 24-442."[7] Op. at 922. The theory is that the local courts might classify § 24-442 among causes of action that apply "ordinary tort principles," rather than among those that permit equitable relief. Id. at 921. There is no reason, however, to suppose that the local courts would embrace the dichotomy invented by this court, because the availability of equitable relief is an ordinary principle of tort law, assuming that the conditions for such relief have been met. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 936 (1979). This is no less true simply because the prisoners' cause of action arises from a statute.[8]
[A]lthough we examine the text and history of a statute to determine whether Congress intended to create a right of action ... we presume the availability of all appropriate remedies unless Congress has expressly indicated otherwise. This principle has deep roots in our jurisprudence.
Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Schools, 503 U.S. 60, 66, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 1032, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). Ordinarily, of course, the remedy for an isolated violation of a duty of care is money damages. Here, however, the plaintiffs alleged persistent violations that threatened ongoing harm to them and prayed for injunctive relief pursuant to local law, cf. Grano, 733 F.2d at 169. An injunction is the "appropriate" remedy when such claims are proven.[9]
950 *950 The court's holding thus resolves to this: it is intolerably novel for a district court to assume that remedies generally applicable to persistent institutional violations of duties of care will apply to such violations of a

particular duty of care until the local courts so apply it 0907 even when there is no local authority remotely suggesting that the general rule would not apply. That cannot be the law. As noted, the application of a wellsettled general rule to a current case always presents some degree of novelty. It is the exception, however, for the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, see 13B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3567.3 & n.17 (Supp. 1996), and therefore the application of a general rule in the context of a particular case must be fairly uncertain before a local-law claim may be dismissed. To say that the local-law claims in this case not only may but must be dismissed is to suggest that it is the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction that is the exception.
The court turns finally to another paragraph of § 1367, asserting that the "intrusiveness" of the remedy is "[an]other compelling reason[] for declining jurisdiction." Op. at 923 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4)). Again, the court confuses the question whether the district court was correct on the merits with the question whether the claims should have been heard at all. If the remedy is too intrusive, contains overly "detailed marching orders," Op. at 923, or is not sufficiently connected to proven violations of the District's duties, then this court should vacate erroneous portions of the order, rather than permitting the District to continue illegally inflicting injuries on the prisoners by dismissing the claims altogether.[10]
The court expands the scope of § 1367(c)(4) to cover ground that is already treated by other doctrines. Section 1367(c)(4) is a catch-all provision; it permits the district court to recognize situations unforeseen by the drafters in which it is appropriate to decline jurisdiction. By using such words as "exceptional" and "compelling," however, Congress indicated that invocations of § 1367(c)(4) should be rare. Executive Software N. Amer., Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct., 24 F.3d 1545, 1558 (9th Cir.1994). In particular, there is no "compelling" reason to decline jurisdiction where other doctrines exist to protect the interests purportedly supporting dismissal. The Supreme Court cases cited by the court that require caution in deciding when to impose a structural injunction and further caution in fashioning such an injunction, for example, create a doctrine of remedies that protects states and localities from overly intrusive and far-reaching federal oversight of local institutions. Op. at 919-20 (citing, inter alia, Lewis v. Casey, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996)). Abstention doctrines also recognize the important interests of states in retaining control of complex matters of local administration. E.g., Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 317-18, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 1098-1100, 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943); Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25, 29, 79 S.Ct. 1070, 1073, 3 L.Ed.2d 1058 (1959). There is no occasion to depart from the carefully delineated boundaries of these doctrines by invoking the very general language of § 1367(c) (4).
The federal courts have an obligation to resolve claims falling within their jurisdiction.[11]Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., ___ U.S. ___, ___, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 1720, 135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996). In a few cases, there are good reasons 951 for declining to do so. Id. at ___ - ___, 116 S.Ct. at 1720-21. This is *951 not one of them. The prisoners' claims present a garden-variety prayer for injunctive relief that raises only limited uncertainty in the application of local law. Further, the district court's power to grant broad relief for local-law violations is adequately circumscribed as 0907 it is with respect to federal violations by 0907 the doctrines governing equitable relief in institutional reform litigation. Accordingly, as the court has done with other portions of the order, I would remand ¶¶ 20-34, 36-62, 131-32, and 133-36 of the order so that the district court might consider the effect of any changed factual circumstances and the intervening passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-02 (1996).
II.
The court's equal protection analysis is also flawed. Two people commit the same crime. Each is similarly convicted by a District of Columbia court. In all respects0907 criminal history, family circumstances, education, drug use, favorite baseball team0907 they are identical. All save one, that is: they are of different sexes. Solely because of that difference, they are sent to different facilities at which the man enjoys superior programming options. Rather than examine whether the District can justify its separate and unequal treatment of the sexes, however, the court concludes that concludes that equal protection principles do not even apply: these two identical prisoners are not "similarly situated." Op. at 923-25.

Not surprisingly, there are flaws in an analysis that concludes that identical people are not similar. The court errs because it starts in the middle, rather than at the beginning. The District consigns similarly situated men and women to separate facilities having different characteristics, acting expressly on the basis of their sex. The court relies on the different characteristics of the facilities to conclude that the otherwise identical men and women incarcerated therein are not similarly situated, and on that basis holds that there can be no judicial comparison of the differences in the treatment accorded to them. The anomalous result is that the more unequal the men's and women's prisons are, the less likely it is that this court will consider differences in the prison experiences of men and women unconstitutional. Indeed, by maintaining drastically unequal prisons for the two sexes, the government could foreclose any comparison of the rehabilitative programs it provides for the benefit of men and women. This analysis stands the concept of equal protection on its head. The District may not treat men and women dissimilarly and then rely on the very dissimilarity it has created to justify discrimination in the provision of benefits. I therefore dissent from Part II B of the court's opinion.
A.
Proper analysis starts from a feature of the District's prisons that has not been challenged: the physical separation of male and female prisoners. Because the prisoners have not challenged sex segregation, the court must assume that such segregation is lawful: in other words, that this facial sex-based classification "serves important governmental objectives and ... the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives." United States v. Virginia, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 116 S.Ct. 2264, 2271, 135 L.Ed.2d 735 (1996) ("VMI") (quoting Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 724, 102 S.Ct. 3331, 3336, 73 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1982)).[12] What should not be assumed, however, is the propriety of the very practice challenged by the prisoners. Even if the District may properly segregate prisoners by sex, it does not follow that it may segregate them by sex into unequal facilities. Put in doctrinal terms, the "important governmental objectives" served by the physical separation of the sexes are not necessarily served by providing different benefits to the segregated populations. Thus, to justify depriving women of the programming choices available to men, the 952 District must explain how the deprivation *952 substantially relates to the achievement of an important governmental objective.[13]Pitts v. Thornburgh, 866 F.2d 1450, 1453-55 (D.C.Cir.1989); West v. Virginia Dep't of Corrections, 847 F.Supp. 402, 406 (W.D.Va.1994).
The court relieves the District of its constitutional obligation by ignoring how the prisoners came to be segregated. Referring instead to the size, location, and other "physical limitations" of the women's prison facilities, the court concludes that women who inhabit those facilities are not similarly situated to otherwise identical men who are incarcerated elsewhere. Because the District places men and women into physically different facilities on the basis of sex, however, the court's argument that differences in the facilities justify the inferior treatment accorded to women is "notably circular." VMI, ___ U.S. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 2281.
[T]he State avoids the fact that all State female felons are sent to Huron Valley while all male felons are not confined in a facility of comparable limitations. In this context, "institutional size" is, frankly, not a justification but an excuse for the kind of treatment afforded women prisoners.
Glover v. Johnson, 478 F.Supp. 1075, 1078 (E.D.Mich.1979). Under the court's rationale, it would almost seem that the District could send men to a country club and women to the Black Hole of Calcutta; a difference in treatment the women received there would be ascribed to their dissimilar situation and would require no further justification. Less fancifully perhaps, the District could provide only stereotypically feminine programming at the women's prisons, such as cooking and sewing classes, while providing men with training in stereotypically masculine pursuits such as construction and carpentry.[14] Or the District could simply cease providing any programming at all at the women's prisons. See West, 847 F.Supp. at 407. In any of these cases, the court apparently would not examine the differences in treatment accorded to men and women. The court's holding that male and female prisoners are dissimilarly situated would preclude constitutional comparison of programming no matter how vast the differences in programming were.

This is not to suggest that population size is completely irrelevant to equal protection analysis. Because women comprise a fairly small (but rising) percentage of felons, it is not reasonable to expect that the menu of programs at a women's prison will be exactly the same as that at a men's prison. This, however, is properly accounted for in determining whether the benefits afforded to women are substantially equivalent to those afforded to men. The court errs by using different population sizes to avoid making a comparison at all. Nor does a "per inmate" numerical comparison suffice. See Op. at 925. As the district court recognized, the programs available to men are often different in kind, not only in number, from those available to women.[15]
953 *953 The constitutional guarantee as well as Supreme Court doctrine require that when the government confines people and segregates them by sex, it has a duty to justify not only the fact of segregation but also any differences in the facilities into which men and women are segregated.[16] Therefore, even if the District may constitutionally segregate prisoners by sex, it does not thereby gain the right to treat men and women differently in other respects. Rather, differences in post-segregation treatment 0907 like any other sex-based provision of governmental benefits and burdens 0907 must meet the heightened scrutiny test outlined in VMI. If a difference in programming were inherent in the fact of sex-segregated prisons, for example, then the same governmental interest that supports sex segregation might support the programming difference.[17] If it were reasonably feasible to have identical programming in sex-segregated facilities, however, then any differences would not be substantially related to the objectives justifying segregation, and the District would have to justify the difference on some other ground.
The Supreme Court's sex discrimination cases make it clear that the government may not rely on generalizations 0907 even somewhat accurate ones 0907 about women to justify different treatment of the sexes. VMI, ___ U.S. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 2280; J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, ___ n. 11, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 1427 n. 11, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994). Yet that is what the court permits the District to do, in the guise of requiring the district court to consider "special characteristics" of the male and female prison populations as a whole. For an idea of what "special characteristics" might be, the district court should presumably have consulted the opinion in Pargo v. Elliott, 894 F.Supp. 1243 (S.D.Iowa 1995), cited with evident approval by this court. Op. at 924. Pargo noted the following programs devoted to the "special characteristics" of the female prison population in Iowa: "[p]rograms about domestic violence, prostitution, and incest survivors"; "a family preservation program" apparently devoted to the needs of prisoners who had been custodial parents; "counseling for postpartum depression"; "classes in anger management and self-esteem"; and unspecified programs for inmates with eating disorders. 894 F.Supp. at 1261. Assuming that the "special characteristics" identified by Pargo are more common among women than men, it is unclear why that fact should prohibit a particular woman from choosing to work on a carpentry detail over receiving counseling for post-partum depression.[18] "[E]stimates of what is appropriate for most women[] no longer justify denying opportunity to women whose talent and capacity place them outside the average description." VMI, ___ U.S. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 2284.
What the Constitution commands, rather, is that the District address directly the differences among individuals that pertain to the purposes of its prison programs, rather than using sex as a proxy for such differences. If, for example, the purposes of prison programs would be served by providing special programs for prisoners with substance abuse problems, the District could offer such programs to drug-addicted prisoners of both sexes. It would not be permissible, however, for the District to presume that women as a group were more likely to have 954 such problems and therefore offer drug-related programming only at women's facilities.[19]*954 The court's similarly-situated analysis encourages the District to take such impermissible actions. By immunizing the District from any comparison of programming at men's and women's prisons, the court's decision may result in having more "woman-appropriate" programming at the women's facilities. Subjecting programming choices to appropriate equal protection analysis ensures that the District meets its constitutional obligation to give equal opportunities to male and female individuals. The court errs by exempting from comparison the benefits the District provides to men and women prisoners, and thus exempting the District from having to justify its different treatment of the sexes.

B.
Aside from treating the government-imposed segregation of the sexes into different facilities as if were sui generis and of no constitutional importance, the court also misconceives what it means for persons to be "similarly situated" for purposes of equal protection analysis. Whether two people (or classes of people) treated differently by the government are similarly situated depends on the purpose for which the government is acting. Cf. Klinger v. Department of Corrections, 31 F.3d 727, 734-35 (8th Cir.1994) (McMillian, J., dissenting) (noting that men and women are imprisoned for the same purpose and are similarly situated "with respect to the goal of rehabilitation"); Glover, 478 F.Supp. at 1081-83 (considering goals of incarceration and programming). In Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 101 S.Ct. 2646, 69 L.Ed.2d 478 (1981), for example, the Supreme Court concluded that men and women were not similarly situated with respect to the purpose of Selective Service registration.
The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops.... [W]omen are excluded from combat.... Men and women, because of the combat restrictions on women, are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or a registration for a draft.... The exemption of women from registration is not only sufficiently but also closely related to Congress' purpose in authorizing registration.
Id. at 77-79, 101 S.Ct. at 2658-59 (emphasis added). In contrast, the court repeatedly states that men and women prisoners are not similarly situated without ever mentioning the purpose with respect to which they are dissimilarly situated.[20] It is thus unsurprising that the court fixates on such irrelevancies as the size of the various facilities, which have everything to do with the cost of administering programs and nothing to do with determining which inmates are similarly capable of benefiting from them.[21] Notably, this was not an error into which the district court fell. See, e.g., Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 675 (finding women at the Annex similarly situated to men at Minimum with respect to the purposes of programming because "[b]oth of these populations are preparing for release into the community and therefore[] have the same need to fully prepare themselves for this stage of their lives"). See also Klinger, 31 F.3d at 735 (McMillian, J., dissenting) (noting that men and women are equally capable of benefiting from programs).
955 Determining the purpose of government action before embarking on a similarly-situated *955 analysis is inherent in the individual nature of equal protection rights. For example, if the District determined that the purposes of a certain program would be better served if it were offered to prisoners who were relatively close to release,[22] then to determine whether two individuals were similarly situated with respect to the program's purpose would depend on how close each was to release. Asking whether members of that person's sex are generally close to release would not answer the question whether the individual is being treated arbitrarily.[23] It is only the rare situation in which every member of a quasi-suspect class is identically situated with respect to the governmental purpose, as in Rostker, in which a court can conclude that any individual class member's claim can be rejected at "the threshold." In other cases, even if general differences between most men and most women can be discerned, the government must still provide an "exceedingly persuasive" justification for categorically treating the sexes differently. VMI, ___ U.S. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 2275.
The court's failure to consider the purposes of the various prison programs at issue is perhaps understandable, inasmuch as the District has not supplied any. It is the government's burden to come forward with a justification for a sex-based classification, id., yet the District's brief is silent on this point.[24] Without an explanation of the purpose of programming, the court is in no position to decide that male and female prisoners are categorically dissimilarly situated with respect to all of the various programs.
C.
Even assuming the government may constitutionally provide separate programs for the sexes, the programs must be substantially equivalent. VMI, ___ U.S. at ___ - ___, 116 S.Ct. at 2285-86 (quoting Sweatt); Glover, 478 F.Supp. at 1079.[25] The district court correctly applied this standard.[26] This does not mean, however, that all

women must have access to the programming choices that are available to any man. Rational sex-neutral criteria, applied evenhandedly to men and women, may be used to determine eligibility for programs. See J.E.B., 511 U.S. at ___ & n.16, 114 S.Ct. at 1429 & n.16; Op. at 925 (quoting testimony of Ms. Regina Gilmore and Dr. T.A. Ryan). If custody level is such a criterion, for example, then medium-custody women would not be entitled to 956 programs made available only to minimum-custody men.[27] However, if the District chooses *956 to house minimum- and medium-custody women in the same facility, it cannot use that fact to deny the programs to minimum-custody women. That is, the District may not treat differently men and women who are identical but for sex, something it surely would do by sending minimum-custody women to a facility where they are provided inferior programming to the programming available to minimum-security men.
When the sexes are permissibly segregated, "substantial equivalence" may not require perfectly identical treatment. Some differences may be unavoidable because of the physical separation. Moreover, the peculiar circumstances of prison administration may require different programs for prisoners housed in different facilities. See Pitts, 866 F.2d at 1455. While programming decisions are to be made by the District and not by the court, cf. Jeldness v. Pearce, 30 F.3d 1220, 1229 (9th Cir.1994) (applying Title IX to prison programs), the District must show that the important penological interests implicated by the policies of its various facilities have a substantial relationship to the denial of access by a female prisoner to a program available to male prisoners.[28]Cf. North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 102 S.Ct. 1912, 72 L.Ed.2d 299 (1982). But as the court would have it, the mere existence of peculiar circumstances at each facility would insulate the government's treatment of the sexes from judicial comparison and the requirement to justify differences under heightened scrutiny standards.
The district court's analysis accounted for legitimate, sex-neutral criteria in comparing the programs available to men to those available to women. As the court notes, the district court considered "custody levels, sentence structures, and purposes of incarceration" of the prisoners. Op. at 924 (quoting Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 675). On appeal, the District has not shown that the district court ignored any relevant criterion. In its opening brief, the District lists four criteria: number of inmates at an institution, "length of stay," classification level, and "special characteristics." As previously explained, the first and last of these are analytically inappropriate,[29] and the district court expressly considered the other two criteria. In its reply brief, the District focuses almost entirely on the physical differences between the facilities to which it has chosen to assign otherwise identical men and women,[30] yet such physical differences caused by the District itself cannot alone excuse sex-based discrimination. The court, meanwhile, faults the district court for not considering population size, other physical aspects of the sex-segregated facilities, and "special characteristics," which are all improper bases for treating women differently from men. Op. at 924-26. Otherwise, the court cites a list of criteria culled from the testimony of two witnesses, but points to no record evidence that the populations compared by the district court differed with respect to any of them. Id. at 925. In any event, the district court did consider at least some of the cited criteria, 957 [31] and the District has not urged error based on any criterion that the district court *957 may have overlooked. Thus, even if one of the criteria mentioned by the witnesses were crucial to the analysis, the proper result would be to remand for the district court to receive further evidence and consider the relevant criterion. Pargo v. Elliott, 49 F.3d 1355 (8th Cir.1995).
For these reasons, I conclude that the District has demonstrated no error in the district court's analysis. The district court correctly found that women imprisoned at the Annex and CTF receive inferior programming because of their sex.[32] None of the arguments mustered by the court can change the inescapable fact that the District's policies would, solely on the basis of sex, send two otherwise identical people, convicted of the same crime, facing the same sentence, and imprisoned for the same purpose, to facilities offering substantially unequal programming. The court, by ignoring this fact, does not require the District to take even the most minimal steps to assure parity of access to opportunities between the sexes. Equal protection requires more. Unfortunately for the prisoners, and for the Constitution, the court has chosen to follow the example of another circuit that mistakenly believed that the government "could provide, with fidelity to the equal protection principle, separate and unequal educational programs for men and women." VMI, ___ U.S. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 2286 (reversing 44 F.3d 1229 (4th Cir.1995)).

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from Parts II A and II B of the court's decision, and would remand the portions of the order vacated in those parts of the opinion so that the district court could consider the impact, if any, of the Prison Reform Act of 1995.
[1] Like the court, I do not reach the question, which is one of first impression in this circuit, whether the challenged programs are subject to Title IX. Op. at 927-28.
[2] Thus, even when there is no shortage of authority on a question, the district court may dismiss a local-law claim where a conflict among the authorities leaves the issue uncertain. Edmondson & Gallagher v. Alban Towers Tenants Ass'n, 48 F.3d 1260, 1266 (D.C.Cir.1995).
[3] The same is true of Grano v. Barry, 733 F.2d 164, 169 (D.C.Cir.1984), also cited by the court, in which the local ballot initiative at issue was "new [and] its meaning ambiguous and sharply disputed." In that case, moreover, plaintiff had not even pled a claim based on local law. The district court had entered an injunction based solely on federal law, which this court vacated. This court held that it would be inappropriate to permit the plaintiff to attempt to reinstate the injunction by adding a local-law claim on remand, now that the federal claims had been dismissed: "[E]ntertaining such a claim now would be somewhat like initially taking jurisdiction over a local law issue when there is no federal claim to which it could be pendent." Id.
[4] E.g., Kelly v. Parents United for the D.C. Pub. Schools, 641 A.2d 159, 163, 165 (D.C.1994) (affirming permanent injunction and noting that trial court considered "ordering school closures and incarceration with work release for responsible District officials as possible sanctions" when District failed to comply); In re Savoy, Nos. 70-4808 & 70-4714, 98 Daily Wash. L. Rptr. 1937 (D.C.Super. Ct. Oct. 13, 1970) (imposing structural injunction on juvenile detention facility); In re Savoy, Nos. J-4808-70, etc., 101 Daily Wash. L. Rptr. 317 (D.C.Super. Ct. Feb. 20, 1973) (same); Pearson v. Kelly, No. 92-CA-14030, 122 Daily Wash. L. Rptr. 1837 & 1849 (D.C.Super. Ct. Aug. 18, 1994) (appointing receiver over Department of District government for repeated violations of federal law). See also DeNeen L. Brown & Lonnae O'Neal Parker, Schools Again Running Afoul of D.C. Fire Code, Judge Finds, WASH. POST, July 3, 1996, at B1. Cf. In the Matter of an Inquiry into Allegations of Misconduct Against Juveniles Detained at and Committed at Cedar Knoll Institution, 430 A.2d 1087, 1093, 1101 (1981) (Ferren, J., dissenting) (noting power of branch of Superior Court to award sweeping structural injunction in properly pled class action).
[5] Although the District of Columbia is not a state, its local court system has enjoyed powers commensurate with those of the states for a quarter of a century. Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389, 392 n. 2, 93 S.Ct. 1670, 1674 n. 2, 36 L.Ed.2d 342 (1973) ("Congress ... invested the local courts with jurisdiction equivalent to that exercised by state courts"); id. at 409, 93 S.Ct. at 1682 (noting that the functions of the District of Columbia courts are "essentially similar to those of the local courts found in the 50 States of the Union"). Cf. McIntosh, 395 A.2d at 749 n. 10 ("Congress ... intended to transfer to the new local courts all those local judicial powers previously exercised by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.") The judges of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia would therefore be as surprised as the judges of any state court of general equitable jurisdiction to hear it suggested that they lacked the authority to impose appropriate injunctive relief in the face of ongoing institutional failure to meet a legal duty of care.
[6] The District did not appeal the district court's finding in the instant cases that general living conditions at the Annex and CTF and fire safety at the Annex violated the Eighth Amendment. Op. at 928.
[7] History suggests an explanation for the absence of local cases in which the District of Columbia courts have imposed injunctive relief upon finding a violation of D.C.Code § 24-442. Until Congress enacted the D.C. Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970, Pub.L. 91-358 (July 29, 1970), 84 Stat. 473, the local courts were courts of limited jurisdiction. The transfer of jurisdiction from the federal to the local courts was not completed until 30 months after July 29, 1970. See id., 84 Stat. 479, citing D.C.Code § 16-2901. Litigation seeking injunctive relief in connection with District of Columbia correctional facilities predated the completed transfer and has a long history in the federal courts, premised on violations of the constitution and thus necessitating no recourse to D.C.Code § 24-442. Although the court asserts that D.C. prisoners seeking injunctive relief are no strangers to the local courts, Op. at 922, it cites no cases, and hence there is no reason to assume that D.C. prisoners have

sought injunctive relief for violations of D.C.Code § 24-442 and the local courts have ruled that the statute will not support injunctive relief. To suggest, moreover, that a local court would be engaged in "usurp[ation]" were it to find violations of D.C.Code § 24-442 and to invoke its injunctive powers under D.C.Code § 11-921, Op. at 923, goes to the merits and simply ignores the local court's own view of the breadth of its remedial authority and its invocation of them. See Hessey v. Burden, 615 A.2d at 571, and supra n. 4.
[8] In an argument not relied on by the court, the District contends that because the local courts have construed the substantive requirements of § 24-442 in light of the analogous federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4042 (1994), it would also limit the remedies available under the local law to those available under federal law. See Matthews v. District of Columbia, 387 A.2d 731 (D.C.1978) (citing Jones v. United States, 534 F.2d 53, 54 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 978, 97 S.Ct. 487, 50 L.Ed.2d 586 (1976)). Whereas the federal government has waived sovereign immunity in these circumstances to permit money damages only, however, the municipal immunity of the District is of much smaller scope, and local sovereign immunity law has developed independently from federal sovereign immunity law. Wade v. District of Colum., 310 A.2d 857, 860-61 (D.C.1973) (in banc). The frequency with which local courts have ordered structural injunctions against District departments and agencies bears witness to this independence.
[9] See, e.g., Bear v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 540 N.W.2d 439, 441 (Iowa 1995); Riha v. FirsTier Bank, 248 Neb. 785, 539 N.W.2d 632, 637 (1995); Stern v. Delphi Internet Svcs. Corp., 165 Misc.2d 21, 626 N.Y.S.2d 694, 696 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1995); Ducham v. Tuma, 265 Mont. 436, 877 P.2d 1002, 1006 (1994); May Dep't Stores Co. v. State ex rel. Woodard, 863 P.2d 967, 978 (Colo.1993); Jensen v. General Elec. Co., 82 N.Y.2d 77, 603 N.Y.S.2d 420, 426, 623 N.E.2d 547, 553 (1993); Kaplan v. Prolife Action League of Greensboro, 111 N.C.App. 1, 431 S.E.2d 828, 838 (1993).
[10] The District's challenge to the portion of the district court's remedial order addressing medical care is limited to the assertion that supplemental jurisdiction was improperly exercised. The District has not challenged the scope of the relief ordered. Because of its agreement with the District's position on supplemental jurisdiction, the court does not reach the question whether the district court's order was properly crafted. I also express no opinion as to the propriety of the relief ordered.
[11] Local-law claims falling within the district court's supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367(a) do not lose their jurisdictional character simply because they meet one of the criteria for discretionary dismissal pursuant to § 1367(c). LaShawn A. v. Barry, 87 F.3d 1389, 1396-97 (D.C.Cir.1996) (in banc).
[12] But cf. Rosemary Herbert, Note, Women's Prisons: An Equal Protection Evaluation, 94 YALE L.J. 1182, 1204 (1985) (considering possible justifications for sex segregated prisons and concluding that such prisons violate the Constitution).
[13] The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the sex-based classification itself must further the governmental objective. Thus, it is not enough that providing programs to men furthers a governmental purpose; depriving women of equal treatment must also be substantially related to that purpose. J.E.B., 511 U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 1425 ("the only question is whether discrimination on the basis of gender in jury selection substantially furthers the State's legitimate interest in achieving a fair and impartial trial").
[14] Constitutionally, it would be equally objectionable if the District provided the women with construction and carpentry classes and the men with sewing and cooking classes.
[15] See, e.g., Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 657 (noting that work details at the Annex are limited to such things as housekeeping and library work, while men at Minimum have access to work details in carpentry, plumbing, and other skilled tasks); id. at 659 (women at CTF have access to associate degree programs, while men at Central, Medium, and Occoquan can earn bachelor's degrees). "Visiting American prisons in the 1990s is like taking a time machine back to the high schools of the '50s, where the boys took Shop, and the girls learned cooking, baking, and sewing0907glorified under the name of Home Economics." Stephen J. Schulhofer, The Feminist Challenge in Criminal Law, 43 PENN. L.REV. 2151, 2198 (1995). Another commentator has observed that differences in population do not "account for the inferior quality of the programming. Only discrimination explains why male prisoners are assigned to apprenticeships that lead to well-paying and secure jobs outside of

prison while female prisoners are relegated to those which require little to no training." Stefanie Fleischer Seldin, A Strategy for Advocacy on Behalf of Women Offenders, 5 COLUM. J. GENDER & L. 1, 3 (1995).
[16] As the VMI Court emphasized, even if one assumes that sex segregation is permissible, as segregation by race once was, the government must at least meet the separate-but-equal standard: "In line with Sweatt [v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 70 S.Ct. 848, 94 L.Ed. 1114 (1950),] we rule here that Virginia has not shown substantial equality in the separate educational opportunities the State supports" at single-sex colleges. ___ U.S. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 2286.
[17] But cf. NICOLE HAHN RAFTER, PARTIAL JUSTICE: WOMEN, PRISONS, AND SOCIAL CONTROL 195-207 (1990) (discussing solutions to historical "inferior treatment" of women prisoners that do not require integration of the sexes).
[18] Nor, for that matter, why a man lacking in confidence should be denied the opportunity to take classes in selfesteem just because men in general may hold themselves in higher esteem than do women.
[19] The District asserted that women had more acute substance abuse problems than men, but the district court rejected the assertion as unfounded in the record. Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 676. As J.E.B. and VMI make clear, however, even if the assertion were true, it would not justify using sex as a proxy for drug addiction.
[20] The epitome of the court's approach is captured in the concluding paragraph of its analysis: "Given these significant differences in the situation of the women at the Annex and CTF and those of the men at the facilities with which the court compared them ... we need not examine the programs themselves ...." Op. at 927-28.
[21] "It is well-settled that financial hardship is not a defense to sex discrimination in prisons." Klinger, 31 F.3d at 736 (McMillian, J., dissenting) (citing Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 633, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1330, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969)). See also Glover, 478 F.Supp. at 1078 n. 2. Cf. Pitts, 866 F.2d at 1461-63 (finding District's attempts to ameliorate burden differentially imposed on women probative of lack of invidious discriminatory intent, even though attempts had been frustrated by budgetary constraints).
[22] This is not to suggest that prisoners can be excluded from programs only by reference to the programs' purpose. Other governmental interests, such as public safety in administering a work furlough program, could support an exclusion.
[23] See Schulhofer, supra n. 13, 143 PENN. L.REV. at 2201.
[24] The District did not address equal protection until its reply brief. The relevant portion of its opening brief was devoted solely to challenging the district court's findings of Title IX violations. Most of that discussion concerned whether certain programs were "educational" and thus subject to Title IX. Appellants' brief at 35-37, consisting largely of a lengthy quotation from Klinger, added that in any event there was no Title IX violation because female prisoners were not similarly situated to male prisoners. Only in the reply brief did the District extend its argument to cover equal protection.
[25] But see VMI, ___ U.S. at ___ n. 7, 116 S.Ct. at 2276 n. 7 (quoting Hogan, 458 U.S. at 720 n. 1, 102 S.Ct. at 3334 n. 1) ("we are not faced with the question of whether States can provide `separate but equal' undergraduate institutions for males and females").
[26] See, e.g., Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 677 (finding no violation with respect to vocational training and apprenticeships because "women at the Annex and men at Minimum have equivalent access to meager offerings"); id. (finding that the District "fail[ed] to provide equivalent opportunity in the area of work details"); id. (finding that although the industrial programs at the Annex and Minimum differed in content, plaintiffs "have failed to prove that women prisoners ... do not receive industrial opportunities equivalent to male prisoners ...."); id. at 686 (¶ 84 of the order) (ordering the District to "provide women at CTF with a range of work opportunities that is equivalent to the range of work opportunities provided to male prisoners at the Occoquan, Central and Medium facilities").

[27] In this example, medium-custody women would not be similarly situated to minimum-custody men with respect to the program, just as women who were categorically ineligible for combat were not similarly situated to combat-eligible men with respect to draft registration in Rostker.
[28] Thus, the court mischaracterizes the analysis of the dissent as tantamount to a conclusion that "if male inmates have access to a work detail that is unavailable to women," or "[i]f men can spend an extra hour a day in a gymnasium," then there is a violation of equal protection. Op. at 926. Rather, consistent with due deference to District officials that is consistent with constitutional protections, the District must explain the governmental purpose behind such differences for similarly situated prisoners. This imposes no liability as a result of programby-program comparisons, see Op. at 927, but only recognizes that District officials are subject to the Constitution in its treatment of prisoners.
[29] In addition, the district court considered and rejected as factually unfounded several of the "special characteristics" mentioned by the District. Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 675-76.
[30] For example, the District contends that medium-custody women at CTF cannot receive equal treatment to medium-custody men at Occoquan, Central, and Medium because the District has chosen to house the women in the same building as men who have physical impairments or who are undergoing substance abuse treatment.
[31] The criteria mentioned by the two witnesses and considered by the district court included "custody level," "substance abuse information," and "impending factors relating to pre-release." Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 675 ("[t]he Court will compare prisoners who are similarly situated by virtue of their similar custody levels"); id. ("[a] comparison [of women at CTF] to CTF men would be inappropriate because the men reside at CTF for either short-term diagnostic attention of a voluntary 18-month intensive substance abuse program"); id. (comparing women at Minimum to men at Annex because both "are preparing for release into the community").
[32] The court, Op. at 925, overlooks the district court's specific findings in regard to educational opportunities, inter alia, in support of its conclusion that "women at CFT do not have reasonable opportunities for similar studies [as men] and do not have an equal opportunity to participate in programs of comparable quality [as are available to men]." Women Prisoners I, 877 F.Supp. at 678.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Dept. of..., 520 U.S. 1196 (1997)

117 S.Ct. 1552 Supreme Court of the United States
WOMEN PRISONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al., petitioners, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.
No. 96-1280. | April 28, 1997.
Case below, 877 F.Supp. 634; 899 F.Supp. 659; 93 F.3d 910.

Opinion Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Parallel Citations 117 S.Ct. 1552 (Mem), 137 L.Ed.2d 701, 65 USLW 3725, 65 USLW 3727
	  

1