Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

SOUTHI:RN DISTAlC~-MIS'
FILED ... PI
JUN 2 3 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

PLAINTIFF,

)

)

v.

)

)

HINDS COUNTY; THE HINDS COUNTY

)

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; VICTOR MASON, )

HIND COUNTY SHERIFF, IN HIS OFFICIAL )

CAPACITY,

)

)

DEFEN DANTS.

)

rt5- 1 Civil No. 3 :[{pCv ?>q UJ

J C,{:;

COMPLAINT PLAINTIFF, THE UN ITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its undersigned attorneys, hereby alleges: I. The United States fi les this Complaint pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997, to enjoin the Defendants from depriving Hinds County prisoners of ri ghts, privileges, or immunities secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Thi s Court has jurisdiction over thi s action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345. 3. T he United States is authori zed to initiate this action pursuant to 42 U .S.C. § l 997a(a).

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 2 of 10
-2-
4. The Attorney General has certified that all pre-filing requirements specified in 42 U.S.C. § 1997b have been met. The Certificate of the Attorney General is appended to this Complaint as Attachment A and is incorporated herein.
5. Venue in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. PARTIES
6. Plaintiff is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 7. DEFENDANTS are HINDS COUNTY ("County"); the HINDS COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ("Board"); and the HINDS COUNTY SHERIFF ("Sheriff''), VICTOR MASON, who is sued in his official capacity. 8. Defendants are responsible for the safety, care, custody, and control of prisoners housed in the 594-bed HINDS COUNTY ADULT DETENTION CENTER in Raymond, the 200-bed WORK CENTER in Raymond, and the 192-bed JACKSON DETENTION CENTER in Jackson, Mississippi (collectively referred to herein as the "Jail"). 9. Defendants are responsible for setting policies, funding, and supervising County departments and staff, including Sheriffs' Department staff and any entity or individual contracted to provide services in the Jail. 10. At all relevant times, Defendants have acted or failed to act under color of state law.
FACTS 11. The Jail is an institution within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1997(1 ).
The Jail houses over 800 individuals, including pre-trial detainees, convicted prisoners, and youth accused of adult crimes ("prisoners").

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 3 of 10
-3-
12. On June 2, 2014, the United States notified the County and County officials of its intention to investigate conditions in the Jail, including specifically whether prisoners were being protected from prisoner-on-prisoner violence and the excessive use-of-force.
13. On January 20, 2015, the United States notified the County and County officials of its intention to expand its investigation to evaluate whether pri~oners were being detained without legal authority as a result of a failure to release prisoners in a timely manner.·
14. The United States' investigation included on-site inspections with an expert consultant, staff and prisoner interviews, and extensive review of documents such as policies, procedures, forms, incident reports, grievances, medical records, and training records.
15. The United States provided the results and recommendations of its investigation to the County and County officials. These disclosures include specifically those made in the United States' May 21, 2015 Findings Letter. The constitutional violations outlined in the Findings Letter include those described in paragraphs 16 through 28 below.
16. Jail prisoners suffer serious harm or risk of serious harm from prisoner-on-prisoner violence and staff members' use of force.
17. On multiple occasions, serious disturbances have resulted in harm to prisoners and staff. These instances include at least three riots, which resulted widespread damage to entire housing units, the takeover of Jail control rooms, and multiple casualties.
18. The Hinds County Grand Jury and a County Monitoring team have previously issued reports and advised Defendants of serious deficiencies with Jail policies, procedures, staffing, supervision practices, physical plant, security equipment, training, housing and classification systems, internal investigations and administrative oversight, prisoner supervision, and discipline.

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 4 of 10
-4-
19. Such deficiencies are longstanding and were in place throughout the course of the United States' investigation.
20. Defendants have not taken corrective action sufficient to correct the longstanding deficiencies.
21. Jail staffing is poor, with insufficient numbers of trained and experienced staff to supervise prisoners, respond to emergencies, and man all critical security posts. The staffing and supervision deficiencies have contributed to a variety of serious deficiencies including delays in providing prisoners with exercise, programs, and treatment.
22. Deficiencies with physical plant and design, as well as inadequate, damaged, or malfunctioning cameras, locks, and other security equipment, have allowed prisoners to obtain dangerous contraband and engage in unsafe or violent behavior, without timely staff intervention. Contraband has included large numbers of cell phones, weapons, and illegal drugs.
23. Defendants have not developed or implemented adequate policies and procedures to oversee and regulate staff use-of force. Staff members have used electronic control devices (e.g. Tasers), corporal punishment, and a canine to injure prisoners without adequate justification.
24. Defendants have not hired sufficient staff, or provided staff members with sufficient training or supervision.
25. Defendants have not developed and implemented internal administrative and investigation procedures required to ensure adequate staff and prisoner sup~rvision. For example, the Jail does not have sufficient qualified staff and adequate procedures to conduct thorough and timely internal investigations when serious incidents occur.

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 5 of 10
-5-
26. Defendants have maintained dangerously low staffing levels with high staff turnover rates, thus placing prisoners at serious risk of harm from other prisoners and staff.
27. Defendants' classification system does not identify or protect potential victims fro~ abuse, and Defendants' housing assignment system does not include sufficient consideration for safety and security concerns. As a result, Defendants disperse vulnerable prisoners amongst the various housing units, subjecting them to unnecessary risk of harm. Youth and female prisoners are not adequately separated by sight or sound from adult, male prisoners. More violent prisoners, prisoners with serious mental health conditions, suicidal prisoners, and other prisoners who require heightened supervision, do not receive such supervision.
28. Defendants have not remedied systemic deficiencies, or implemented, maintained or developed policies and procedures, required to integrate the Jail into the local criminal justice process and protect prisoners' rights that are associated with the criminal justice process. For instance, inadequate staffing and procedures have resulted in substantial restrictions on attorney visitation, and staff errors have caused some prisoners to remain in the Jail when they should have been releas~d.
29. The factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 16 through 28 have been obvious and known to Defendants for a substantial period of time, with notice provided by numerous individuals and agencies, including the United States Department of Justice's National Institute of Corrections, the Hinds County Grand Jury, the County Monitoring Team, Jail staff, and County supervisors; yet Defendants have failed to adequately address the conditions described.

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 6 of 10
-6VIOLATIONS ALLEGED
30. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 29 are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by reference.
31. Through the acts and omissions alleged in paragraphs 16 through 29, Defendants have subjected prisoners at the JAIL to a pattern or practice of conditions of confinement that deprive them of rights, privileges, and immunities secured and protected under the Constitution of the United States, causing such prisoners to suffer grievous harm. U.S. Const. Amend. VIII, XIV. These acts and omissions include violations of the rights of convicted prisoners to reasonable protection from harm, freedom from excessive force, and freedom from unlawful detention under the Eighth Amendment and violations of the same rights of pretrial detainees, youth, and civil detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment.
32. Through the acts and omissions alleged in paragraphs 16 through 29, Defendants have exhibited deliberate indifference to the life, health and safety of COUNTY prisoners, in violation of the rights, privileges, or immunities of those prisoners as secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States. U.S. Const. Amend. VIII, XIV.
33. Unless restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to engage in the acts and omissions, set forth in paragraphs 16 through 29, that deprive persons confined at the Jail of privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 34. The Atto~ey General is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 1997a to seek appropriate equitable
relief. 35. WHEREFORE, the United States prays that this Court enter an order:

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 7 of 10

- 7-

a.

declaring that the acts, om issions, and practices o f Defendants set forth in

paragraphs 16 through 29 above constitute a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives

pri soners confined in the Jai l of rights, pri vileges, or immunities secured or protected by the

Co nstitution of the United States and that those acts, om iss ions, and practices violate the

Constitution of the Uni ted States;

b. permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, employees,

subordinates, successors in office, and all those acting in concert or participation with them

from continuing the acts, om issions, and practices set forth in paragraphs 16 tlu·ough 29

above and requiring Defendants to take such actions as will ensure lawfu l conditions of

confinement are afforded to prisoners at the Jai l; and

c. granting such other and further eq uitabl e relief as it may deem just and proper.

druu.~- ~~ LORETTA E. LYNCH Attorney General United States

V ANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 8 of 10
-8-
~g;~
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM C hi e f U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section
~'1/ UEI.\UfJRA L. COON
Specia l Counsel U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Divis ion Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W . Washington, DC 20530 Laura.Coon@usdoj .gov DC Bar # 481379 .
T rial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave, N .W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-8892 (202) 5 I4-4883 (fax) CJu·istopher.Cheng@ usdoj .gov PA Bar #69066

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 9 of 10
-9-
Trial Attorney U.S . Department of Justice C ivil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-0460 (202) 514-4883 (fax) Beth.Kelley@usdoj .gov VA Bar #80255

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 10 of 10

CERTIFICATE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I, Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States, certify that with regard to the foregoing Complaint, United States v. Hinds County, I have complied with all subsections of 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(l). I certify as well that I have complied with all subsections of 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(2). I further certify, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(3), my beliefthat this action by the United States is of general public importance and will materially further the vindication of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution.

In addition, I certify that I have the "reasonable cause to believe," set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1997a, to initiate this action, and that all prerequisites to the initiation of this suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997a and 1997b have been met.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997a(c), I have personally signed the foregoing Complaint. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1997b(b), I am personally signing this Certificate.

q ~ , Signed this .JJ- day of __

2016, at Washington, D.C.

~' ~c 4D'= LORETTARtYNCH Attorney General ofthe United States

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2 Filed 06/23/16 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

PLAINTIFF,

)

)

v.

)

)

HINDS COUNTY; HINDS

)

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; AND )

VICTOR MASON, HINDS COUNTY SHERIFF, )

IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY,

)

)

DEFENDANTS.

)

Civil No. 3:16cv489 WHB-JCG

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Plaintiff, United States of America, and Defendants, Hinds County et al., (collectively, "the Parties") hereby jointly and respectfully request that this Court enter the attached Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") as an order of the Court. See Attachment 1. The Agreement is reasonable and equitable, and reflects the Parties' mutual desire to protect the constitutional rights of Hinds County prisoners while avoiding the burdens of contested litigation. The Agreement, if approved, will resolve all of the United States' claims against Defendants. In support of this motion, the parties submit the accompanying Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion for Entry of Settlement Agreement.
Dated this 23rd day of June, 2016.

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2 Filed 06/23/16 Page 2 of 5

Respectfully submitted,

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

GREGORY K. DAVIS U.S. Attorney Southern District of Mississippi

VANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

MITZI DEASE PAIGE Civil Chief U.S. Attorney' s Office Southern District of Mississippi 501 East Court Street Suite 4.430 Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 973-2840 Mitzi.Paige@usdoj. gov MS Bar#6014

STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-5393 Steven.Rosenbaum@usdoj .gov NY Bar #1901958
Is/ Laura L. Coon LAURA L. COON Special Counsel U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-1089 Laura. Coon@usdoj .gov DC Bar# 481379
Is/ Christopher N Cheng CHRISTOPHER N. CHENG Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-8892

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2 Filed 06/23/16 Page 3 of 5
(202) 514-4883 (fax) Christopher.Cheng@usdoj. gov PA Bar #69066
Is/ Elizabeth C. Kelley ELIZABETH C. KELLEY Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-0460 Beth.Kelley@usdoj. gov VA Bar #80255
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS HINDS COUNTY: HINDS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; THE HERIFF OF HINDS COUNTY IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY:
Is/ Pieter Teeuwissen Pieter Teeuwissen Board Attorney P.O. Box 686 Jackson, 11S 39205-0686 (601) 968-6797 (601) 968-6794 (Fax) pteeuwissen@co .hinds.ms. us
Is/Claire Barker Claire Barker Counsel to the Sheriff 407 East Pascagoula Street Jackson, 11S 39205 (601) 974-2969 (601) 948-2680 (Fax) cbarker@co.hinds.ms.us

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2 Filed 06/23/16 Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 23, 2016, I filed the foregoing Joint Motion for Entry of Settlement Agreement with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following:
LAURA L. COON Special Counsel U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-1089 Laura. Coon@usdoj. gov
CHRISTOPHER N. CHENG Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-8892 (202) 514-4883 (fax) Christopher.Cheng@usdoj .gov
ELIZABETH C. KELLEY Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-0460 Beth.Kelley@usdoj .gov
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-5393 Steven.Rosenbaum@usdoj. gov

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2 Filed 06/23/16 Page 5 of 5
I also certify that I have mailed copies of the foregoing using the United States Postal Service to the following:
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS HINDS COUNTY: HINDS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; THE SHERIFF OF HINDS COUNTY IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY:
Pieter Teeuwissen Board Attorney P.O. Box 686 Jackson, MS 39205-0686 (601) 968-6797 (601) 968-6794 (fax) pteeuwissen@co.hinds.ms.us
Claire Barker Counsel to the Sheriff 407 East Pascagoula Street Jackson,MS 39205 (601) 974-2969 (601) 948-2680 (Fax) cbarker@co.hinds.ms.us
DATE: June 23, 2016
Is/ Mitzi Dease Paige MITZI DEASE PAIGE Civil Chief U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of Mississippi 501 East Court Street Suite 4.430 Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 973-2840 Mitzi.Paige@usdoj .gov MS Bar#6014

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 1 of 65

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

PLAINTIFF,

)

)

v.

)

)

HINDS COUNTY; THE HINDS COUNTY

)

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; VICTOR MASON, )

HIND COUNTY SHERIFF, IN HIS OFFICIAL )

CAPACITY,

)

)

DEFENDANTS.

)

Civil No. - - -

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
REGARDING THE HINDS COUNTY JAIL

GOVERNMENT

1

EXHIBIT

.1.

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 2 of 65

I.

PARTIES ................................................................................................................. 4

II. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 4

Ill. DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................ 5

IV. SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS ........................................................................... ! 0

A. PROTECTION FROM HARM ...................................................................... lO B. USE OF FORCE STANDARDS ................................................................... 20 C. USE OF FORCE TRAINING ........................................................................ 23 D. USE OF FORCE REPORTING ..................................................................... 23 E. USE OF FORCE SUPERVISOR REVIEWS ................................................ 25 F. INCIDENT REPORTING AND REVIEW ...................................................27 G. SEXUAL MISCONDUCT ............................................................................. 29 H. INVESTIGATIONS ....................................................................................... 30 I. GRIEVANCE AND PRISONER INFORMATION SYSTEMS ................... 32 J. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SEGREGATION................................. 33 K. YOUTHFUL PRISONERS ............................................................................ 36 L. LAWFUL BASIS FOR DETENTION........................................................... 39 M. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE .......... 46 N. CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE ........................... 50

V. IMPLEMENTATION, TIMING, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS .................... 52 VI. POLICY AND PROCEDURE REVIEW .............................................................. 53 VII. MONITORING ............................................................................. ,....................... 54

A. SELECTION AND AUTONOMY OF THE MONITOR.............................. 54 B. MONITOR'S AND UNITED STATES' ACCESS ....................................... 55 C. MONITOR REPORTING ............................................... ,.............................. 56 D. LIMITATIONS ................................. ,............................................................ 58

VIII. COUNTY SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT AND COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR ..................................................................................................... ,.................... 59
IX. EMERGENT CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 60 X. JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ............................................................ 60

2

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 3 of 65 XI. CONSTRUCTION AND TERMINATION .......................................................... 61 XII. STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 3626 ................................................................................................................. 61
3

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 4 of 65

I.

PARTIES

1. This Consent Judgment ("Agreement") is between the United States of America ("United States" or "Plaintiff'), acting through the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), and Hinds County, Mississippi ("County" or "Defendants"), acting through the Hinds County Sheriff ("Sheriff') and Hinds County Board of Supervisors ("Board") (collectively, the "Parties"). The Sheriff has entered into this Agreement in his official capacity only.

II.

INTRODUCTION

2. The Parties enter this Agreement to provide County prisoners with reasonable safety, protection from harm, and conditions of confinement that conform to the requirements of the United States Constitution and federal law. The County recognizes that it must provide prisoners with adequate supervision and housing in order to prevent violence between prisoners and the use of excessive force by detention staff. The County also acknowledges that government detention is a serious infringement on the rights of citizens and other individuals, and is thus subject to constitutional limits. Detention is permitted only when justified by law, may last no longer than permitted by law, and should be administered in a manner that balances the community's interest in safety with individuals' right to liberty. The Parties agree that achieving the goals of this Agreement will require increased detention staffing and supervision; enhanced policies, procedures, training and staff accountability measures; modification of detention facilities; and the development and implementation of a release system that protects detainees' constitutional rights.

3. The County has agreed to enter into this Agreement in order to address constitutional violations alleged by the United States, including specifically violations described in the findings letter issued by the United States on May 21, 2015.

4. The Hinds County Adult Detention Center ("HCDC") and Work Center ("Farm") in Raymond, Mississippi, and the Jackson Detention Center ("JDC") in Jackson, Mississippi, are collectively referred to as the "Jail." The Jail is an integral part of the public safety and criminal justice system in Hinds County. Through the provisions ofthis Agreement, the
4

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 5 of 65

Parties seek to ensure that the conditions in the Jail comply with the United States Constitution.

5. The County is responsible for funding, operating, and maintaining the Jail. The County acknowledges that it must fund, operate, and maintain the Jail in a manner that complies with the United States Constitution. This obligation specifically includes a duty to provide sufficient staffing, training, and supervision to protect incarcerated persons from violence, to prevent the excessive use of force, and to ensure that individuals are detained only to the extent permitted under the Constitution. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to alter the legal duties, authorities, or responsibilities of the Defendants as defined by state or federal law.

6. The County also recognizes that compliance could be furthered through voluntary efforts that seek to reduce the population of the County detention centers and work farm, particularly special needs populations such as individuals with serious mental illness and juveniles. The Parties will work toward the goal of population reduction in a manner that preserves public safety, prioritizes diversion for unnecessary criminal justice involvement, and reduces recidivism.

7. Conditions in County detention facilities have been a subject of private litigation. Other cases alleging overcrowding or other systemic issues involving County prisoners include Wilson v. City of Jackson, et al, No. 3:80-cv-00008-DCB-AGN (S.D. Miss.); Bell v. City of Jackson, et al, No. 3:15-cv-732-TSL-RHW (S.D. Miss.); and J.H. v. Hinds County, Miss. et al, No. 3:11-cv-327-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss.).

III.

DEFINITIONS

8. "Days" are measured in calendar days; Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays are included.

9. "Direct supervision" is a term of art used by corrections professionals and refers to a model for safely operating and supervising a correctional facility. The direct supervision method for supervising a correctional facility requires placing detention officers inside housing units, where such officers have continuous direct contact with prisoners and are not routinely separated from prisoners by physical barriers. Officers are required to provide
5

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 6 of 65
active supervision of housing areas, which includes routinely interacting with, and checking on, prisoners in their charge. Video surveillance, separate control rooms, and other techniques or design features used to maintain security and safety, are permitted as complements to, but not replacements for, direct supervision by housing unit officers. A direct supervision facility requires integration of design, staffing, training, and procedures so that all operations are consistent with the model.
10. "Effective Date" means the date the Court approves this Agreement as an order ofthe Court.
11. "Early Intervention System" (or "EIS") is a system to collect and analyze data regarding uses of force and is used to identify the need for corrective action, including changes to training protocols and policy, as well as retraining or disciplining individual officers or groups of officers.
12. A "health assessment" refers to a medical evaluation by a Qualified Medical Professional or Qualified Mental Health Professional. A health assessment specifically identifies a patient's individual health needs, utilizing generally accepted forms, screening tools, assessment instruments, physical exams, and other scientifically reliable and valid techniques. A health assessment must be sufficient to collect and document information necessary to provide a basis for the patient's treatment. A suicide assessment is a health assessment that must also specifically evaluate and estimate the individual's risk for suicide and self-harming behavior.
13. "Implement" or "implementation" means putting a policy, procedure, or remedial measure into effect, including informing, instructing, or training impacted staff and ensuring that staff in fact follow the policy, procedure, or remedial measure.
14. "Include," "includes," or "including" means "include, but not be limited to," "includes, but is not limited to," or "including, but not limited to."
15. "Interdisciplinary team" refers to a team consisting of treatment staff from various disciplines, including, at minimum, a physician, nurse, Qualified Mental Health Professional, and one or more members from security.
6

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 7 of 65
16. "Jail" refers to HCDC, JDC, and the Work Center ("Farm"). For purposes of interpreting and enforcing this Agreement, the term also refers to any facilities used to expand, supplement, or replace HCDC and JCDC. The term also includes any new construction, contracted facilities, leased facilities, renovated facilities, or other replacement facilities used to house County prisoners.
17. "Monitor" means an individual and his or her team of professionals, if any, who are approved by the Court pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement to oversee and facilitate implementation of the Agreement.
18. "Planned force" or "planned use of force" means a use of force in response to a prisoner's actions, where the prisoner's behavior does not pose an imminent threat to the prisoner's own safety or another individual's safety. Examples include cell extractions to remove a recalcitrant prisoner, force used to restrain a prisoner in order to prevent continuing property damage, and medically-ordered restraints on a prisoner exhibiting escalating signs of mental illness.
19. "Prisoners" or "prisoner" is construed broadly to refer to one or more individuals detained at, housed in, held in, in the custody of, or confined at the Jail for any reason, including as a result of arrest, criminal charges, detainers, civil contempt charges, involuntary civil commitment, or convictions.
20. "Qualified Medical Professional" means an individual who possesses the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing required to provide the medical services for which he or she has responsibility for providing.
21. "Qualified Mental Health Professional" means an individual who possesses the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing required to provide the mental health services for which he or she has responsibility for providing. A Qualified Mental Health Professional must be either a doctorate-level psychologist, psychiatrist, psychiatric nurse, or a master's level licensed clinical (or psychiatric) social worker.
22. "Qualified Training Officer" means a state certified deputy with the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing required to serve as a Jail instructor. A
7

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 8 of 65
Qualified Training Officer must have at least three years of field experience and demonstrated familiarity with professional standards and Jail policies.
23. "Reportable incident" refers to any incident that involves a prisoner death or serious injury, suicide attempt, self-harming behavior, rape, sexual threat or abuse, use of force or restraint, use of segregation, medical emergency, escape or escape attempt, criminal activity, or fire. Reportable use of force or restraint incident reporting is governed by the Use of Force section of this Agreement.
24. "Segregation" means involuntary confinement in a locked room or cell with two or fewer prisoners, for at least the majority of waking hours per day. "Long-term segregation" means a period of segregation intended to last, or that does last, more than fourteen (14) consecutive days.
25. "Self-harm" includes head-banging, cutting, intentional medication overdoses, and other self-directed, injurious or potentially injurious behavior.
26. "Serious injury" means any injury that is extensive, serious, visible, or likely to become visible. "Serious injury" includes black eyes, lacerations, injuries to the mouth or head, multiple bruises, injuries to organs, and injuries causing unconsciousness or death.
27. A prisoner with a "serious mental illness" (or "SMI") is a person with a mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder of mood, thought, or anxiety that is diagnosable currently or within the last year; that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, and the ability to cope with the demands of life in the general population facilities of the Jail.
28. "Special management" means prisoners who are in administrative or disciplinary segregation, in protective custody, on suicide precautions, require treatment or monitoring for a medical or mental health condition (including physical, developmental, and cognitive disabilities), or who are age 17 or younger. Special management can also refer to units housing this category of prisoners.
8

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 9 of 65
29. "Staff members" includes all county employees, contractors, volunteers, or agents, including detention officers and medical personnel, who work in the Jail.
30. "Suicide attempt" means any non-fatal, self-directed, potentially injurious behavior, where there was an intent to die as a result of the behavior, or any non-fatal, self-directed, self-harming behavior that results or could have resulted in a serious injury. Even if stopped before actual injury, a suicide attempt is reportable under this Agreement if the attempted act could have resulted in serious injury.
31. "Suicide precautions" mean any measures to prevent suicide or self-harm, including observation of a prisoner.
32. "Train" means to instruct in skills to a level that the trainee has demonstrated proficiency by testing to implement those skills as and when called for. "Trained" means proficient in the skills.
33. "Use of force" means the application of physical, chemical, or mechanical measures on a prisoner. "Use of force" includes all force to compel compliance except un-resisted handcuffing and un-resisted shackling of prisoners for movement purposes.
a. "Level 1 uses of force" include:
1. all serious uses of force, meaning the use of force leads to injuries that are extensive, serious, visible, or become visible, including black eyes, lacerations, injuries to the mouth or head, multiple bruises, injuries to organs, and injuries causing unconsciousness or death;
11. force applied in violation of Jail policies and procedures (e.g., unauthorized, retaliatory use of force);
111. use of tasers; iv. use of chemical munitions, including pepper spray; and v. occasions when staff member accounts offer inconsistent, conflicting,
or otherwise suspicious reports about a use of force.
b. "Level 2 uses of force" will include all uses of force not covered by the
9

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 10 of 65

definition of Level 1 force (e.g., a control hold).

34. "Youth" and "youthful prisoner" means any person in County custody who is under the age of 18.

35. Throughout this Agreement, the following terms are used when discussing compliance: substantial compliance, partial compliance, and non-compliance. "Substantial Compliance" indicates that the County has achieved compliance with the material components and has met the goals of the relevant provision of the Agreement. "Partial Compliance" indicates that the County achieved compliance with some of the components of the relevant provision of the Agreement, but significant work remains. "Non-compliance" indicates that the County has not met most or all of the components of the relevant provision of the Agreement.

IV.

SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS

A. PROTECTION FROM HARM

Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to provide prisoners with safety, protect prisoners from violence committed by other prisoners, and ensure that prisoners are not subjected to abuse by Jail staff. To that end, the County must:

37. Develop and implement policies and procedures to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment for prisoners and staff. Such policies and procedures must include the following:

a. Booking;

b. Objective classification;

c. Housing assignments;

d. Prisoner supervision;

e. Prisoner welfare and security checks ("rounds");

f.

Posts and post orders;

g. Searches;

h. Use of force;

1.

Incident reporting;

J.

Internal investigations;

10

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 11 of 65

k. Prisoner rights;

I.

Medical and mental health care;

m. Exercise and treatment activities;

n. Laundry;

0. Food services;

p. Hygiene;

q. Emergency procedures;

r. Grievance procedures; and

s. Sexual abuse and misconduct.

38. Ensure that the Jail is overseen by a qualified Jail Administrator and a leadership team with substantial education, training and experience in the management of a large jail, including at least five years of related management experience for their positions, and a bachelor's degree. When the Jail Administrator is absent or if the position becomes vacant, a qualified deputy administrator with comparable education, training, and experience, must serve as acting Jail Administrator.

39. Ensure that all Jail supervisors have the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing needed to effectively supervise both prisoners and other staff members. At minimum, Jail supervisors must have at least 3 years of field experience, including experience working in the Jail. They must also be familiar with Jail policies and procedures, the terms of this Agreement, and prisoner rights.

40. Ensure that no one works in the Jail unless they have passed a background check, including a criminal history check.

41. Ensure that Jail policies and procedures provide for the "direct supervision" of all Jail housing units.

42. Ensure that the Jail has sufficient staffing to adequately supervise prisoners, fulfill the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the safe operation of the Jail. The parties recognize that the Board allocates to the Sheriff lump sum funding on a quarterly basis. The Sheriff

11

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 12 of 65
recognizes that sufficient staffing of the Jail should be a priority for utilizing those funds. To that end, the County must at minimum:
a. Hire and retain sufficient numbers of detention officers to ensure that:
1. There are at least two detention officers in each control room at all times;
11. There are at least three detention officers at all times for each housing unit, booking area, and the medical unit;
111. There are rovers to provide backup and assistance to other posts; tv. Prisoners have access to exercise, medical treatment, mental health
treatment, and attorney visitation as scheduled; v. There are sufficient detention officers to implement this Agreement.
b. Fund and obtain a formal staffing and needs assessment ("study") that determines with particularity the minimum number of staff and facility improvements required to implement this Agreement. As an alternative to a new study, the September 2014 study by the National Institute of Corrections may be updated if the updated study includes current information for the elements listed below. The study or study update must be completed within six months of the Effective Date and must include the following elements:
1. The staffing element of the study must identify all required posts and positions, as well as the minimum number and qualifications of staff to cover each post and position.
11. The study must ensure that the total number of recommended positions includes a "relief factor" so that necessary posts remain covered regardless of staff vacancies, turnover, vacations, illness, holidays, or other temporary factors impacting day-to-day staffing.
111. As part of any needs assessment, the study's authors must estimate the number of prisoners expected to be held in the Jail and identify whether additional facilities, including housing, may be required.
12

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 13 of 65
c. Once completed, the County must provide the United States and the Monitor with a copy of the study and a plan for implementation of the study's recommendations. Within one year after the Monitor's and United States' review of the study and plan, the County must fund and implement the staffing and facility improvements recommended by the study, as modified and approved by the United States.
d. The staffing study shall be updated at least annually and staffing adjusted accordingly to ensure continued compliance with this Agreement. The parties recognize that salaries are an important factor to recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, so the County will also annually evaluate salaries.
e. The County will also create, to the extent possible, a career ladder and system of retention bonuses for Jail staff.
f. Develop and implement an objective and validated classification and housing assignment procedure that is based on risk assessment rather than solely on a prisoner's charge. Prisoners must be classified immediately after booking, and then housed based on the classification assessment. At minimum, a prisoner's bunk, cell, unit, and facility assignments must be based on his or her objective classification assessment, and staff members may not transfer or move prisoners into a housing area if doing so would violate classification principles (e.g., placing juveniles with adults, victims with former assailants, and minimum security prisoners in a maximum security unit). Additionally, the classification and housing assignment process must include the following elements:
1. The classification process must be handled by qualified staff who have additional training and experience on classification.
11. The classification system must take into account objective risk factors including a prisoner's prior institutional history, history ofviolence, charges, special needs, physical size or vulnerabilities, gang affiliation, and reported enemies.
111. Prisoner housing assignments must not be changed by unit staff without proper supervisor and classification staff approval.
13

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 14 of 65
1v. The classification system must track the location of all prisoners in the Jail, and help ensure that prisoners can be readily located by staff. The County may continue to use wrist bands to help identify prisoners, but personal identification on individual prisoners may not substitute for a staff-controlled and centralized prisoner tracking and housing assignment system.
v. The classification system must be integrated with the Jail prisoner record system, so that staff have appropriate access to information necessary to provide proper supervision, including the current housing assignment of every prisoner in the Jail.
v1. The designation and use ofhousing units as "gang pods" must be phased out under the terms of this Agreement. Placing prisoners together because of gang affiliation alone is prohibited. The County must replace current gang-based housing assignments with a more appropriate objective classification and housing process within one year after the Effective Date.
g. Develop and implement positive approaches for promoting safety within the Jail including:
1. Providing all prisoners with at least 5 hours of outdoor recreation per week;
n. Developing rewards and incentives for good behavior such as additional commissary, activities, or privileges;
m. Creating work opportunities, including the possibility of paid employment;
1v. Providing individual or group treatment for prisoners with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other behavioral or medical conditions, who would benefit from therapeutic activities;
v. Providing education, including special education, for youth, as well as all programs, supports, and services required for youth by federal law;
vi. Screening prisoners for serious mental illness as part of the Jail's
14

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 15 of 65

booking and health assessment process, and then providing such prisoners with appropriate treatment and therapeutic housing; vn. Providing reasonable opportunities for visitation.

h. Ensure that policies, procedures, and practices provide for higher levels of

supervision for individual prisoners if necessary due to a prisoner's individual

circumstances. Examples of such higher level supervision include (a)

constant observation (i.e., continuous, uninterrupted one-on-one monitoring)

for actively suicidal prisoners (i.e., prisoners threatening or who recently

engaged in suicidal behavior); (b) higher frequency security checks for

prisoners locked down in maximum security units, medical observation units,

and administrative segregation units; and (c) more frequent staff interaction

with youth as part of their education, treatment and behavioral management

programs.

1.

Continue to update, maintain, and expand use of video surveillance and

recording cameras to improve coverage throughout the Jail, including the

booking area, housing units, medical and mental health units, special

management housing, facility perimeters, and in common areas.

43. Include outcome measures as part of the Jail's internal data collection, management, and administrative reporting process. The occurrence of any of the following specific outcome measures creates a rebuttable presumption in this case that the Jail fails to provide reasonably safe conditions for prisoners:

a. Staff vacancy rate of more than 10% of budgeted positions;; b. A voluntary staff turnover rate that results in the failure to staff critical posts
(such as the housing units, booking, and classification) or the failure to maintain experienced supervisors on all shifts; c. A major disturbance resulting in the takeover of any housing area by prisoners; d. Staffing where fewer than 90% of all detention officers have completed basic jailer training;

15

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 16 of 65
e. Three or more use of force or prisoner-on-prisoner incidents in a fiscal year in which a prisoner suffers a serious injury, but for which staff members fail to complete all documentation required by this Agreement, including supervision recommendations and findings;
f. One prisoner death within a fiscal year, where there is no documented administrative review by the Jail Administrator or no documented mortality review by a physician not directly involved in the clinical treatment of the deceased prisoner (e.g. corporate medical director or outside, contract physician, when facility medical director may have a personal conflict);
g. One death within a fiscal year, where the death was a result of prisoner-onprisoner violence and there was a violation of Jail supervision, housing assignment, or classification procedures.
44. To complement, but not replace, "direct supervision," develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that detention officers are conducting rounds as appropriate. To that end:
a. Rounds must be conducted at least once every 30 minutes in general population housing units and at least once every 15 minutes for special management prisoners (including prisoners housed in booking cells).
b. All security rounds must be conducted at irregular intervals to reduce their predictability, and must be documented on forms or logs.
c. Officers must only be permitted to enter data on these forms or logs at the time a round is completed. Forms and logs must not include pre-printed dates or times. Officers must not be permitted to fill out forms and logs before they actually conduct their rounds.
d. The parties anticipate that "rounds" will not necessarily be conducted as otherwise described in this provision when the Jail is operated as a "direct supervision" facility. This is because a detention officer will have constant, active supervision of all prisoners in the detention officer's charge. As detailed immediately below, however, even under a "direct supervision" model, the Jail must have a system in place to document and ensure that staff
16

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 17 of 65
are providing adequate supervision. e. Jail policies, procedures, and practices may utilize more than one means to
document and ensure that staff are supervising prisoners as required by "direct supervision," including the use and audit of supervisor inspection reports, visitation records, mealtime records, inmate worker sheets, medical treatment files, sick call logs, canteen delivery records, and recreation logs. Any system adopted to ensure that detention officers are providing "direct supervision" must be sufficiently detailed and in writing to allow verification by outside reviewers, including the United States and Monitor.
45. Ensure that all correctional officers receive adequate pre- and post-service training to provide for reasonably safe conditions in the Jail. To that end, the County must ensure that the Jail employs Qualified Training Officers, who must help to develop and implement a formal, written training program. The program must include the following:
a. Mandatory pre-service training. Detention officers must receive State jailer training and certification prior to start of work. Staff who have not received such training by the Effective Date of this Agreement must complete their State jailer training within twelve months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. During that twelve month period, the County must develop an inhouse detention training academy.
b. Post Order training. Detention officers must receive specific training on unitspecific post orders before starting work on a unit, and every year thereafter. To document such training, officers must be required to sign an acknowledgement that they have received such training, but only after an officer is first assigned to a unit, after a Post Order is updated, and after completion of annual retraining.
c. "Direct supervision" training. Detention officers must receive specific preand post service training on "direct supervision." Such training must include instruction on how to supervise prisoners in a "direct supervision" facility, including instruction in effective communication skills and verbal deescalation. Supervisors must receive training on how to monitor and ensure
17

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 18 of 65
that staff are providing effective "direct supervision." d. Jail administrator training. High-level Jail supervisors (i.e., supervisors with
facility-wide management responsibilities), including the Jail Administrator and his or her immediate deputies (wardens), must receive jail administrator training prior to the start of their employment. High-level supervisors already employed at the Jail when this Agreement is executed must complete such training within six months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Training comparable to the Jail Administration curriculum offered by the National Institute of Corrections will meet the requirements of this provision. e. Post-service training. Detention officers must receive at least 120 hours per year of post-service training in their first year of employment and 40 hours per year after their first year. Such training must include refresher training on Jail policies. The training may be provided during roll call, staff meetings, and post-assignment meetings. Post-service training should also include field and scenario-based training. f. Training for Critical Posts. Jail management must work with the training department to develop a training syllabus and minimum additional training requirements for any officer serving in a critical position. Such additional training must be provided for any officer working on a tactical team; in a special management, medical or mental health unit; in a maximum security unit; or in booking and release. g. Special management unit training. Officers assigned to special management units must receive at least eight hours of specialized training each year regarding supervision of such units and related prisoner safety, medical, mental health, and security policies. h. Training on all Jail policies and procedures including those regarding prisoner rights and the prevention of staff abuse and misconduct.
46. Develop and implement policies and procedures for adequate supervisory oversight for the Jail. To that end, the County must:
a. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail
18

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 19 of 65
Administrator has the authority to make personnel decisions necessary to ensure adequate staffing, staff discipline, and staff oversight. This personnel authority must include the power to hire, transfer, and discipline staff. Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) allocated for budget purposes represent a salaried slot and are not a restriction on personnel assignment authority. While the Sheriff may retain final authority for personnel decisions, the Jail's policies and procedures must document and clearly identify who is responsible for a personnel decision, what administrative procedures apply, and the basis for personnel decisions. b. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the ability to monitor, ensure compliance with Jail policies, and take corrective action, for any staff members operating in the Jail, including any who are not already reporting to the Jail Administrator and the Jail's chain of command. This provision covers road deputies assigned to supervise housing units and emergency response/tactical teams entering the Jail to conduct random shakedowns or to suppress prisoner disturbances. c. Ensure that supervisors conduct daily rounds on each shift in the prisoner housing units, and document the results of their rounds. d. Ensure that staff conduct daily inspections of all housing and common areas to identify damage to the physical plant, safety violations, and sanitation issues. This maintenance program must include the following elements:
1. Facility safety inspections that include identification of damaged doors, locks, cameras, and safety equipment.
11. An inspection process. 111. A schedule for the routine inspection, repair, and replacement of the
physical plant, including security and safety equipment. 1v. A requirement that any corrective action ordered be taken. v. Identification of high priority repairs to assist Jail and County officials
with allocating staff and resources. v1. To ensure prompt corrective action, a mechanism for identifying and
notifying responsible staff and supervisors when there are significant 19

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 20 of 65
delays with repairs or a pattern of problems with equipment. Staff response to physical plant, safety, and sanitation problems must be reasonable and prompt.
47. Ensure that staff members conduct random shakedowns of cells and common areas so that prisoners do not possess or have access to dangerous contraband. Such shakedowns must be conducted in each housing unit at least once per month, on an irregular schedule to make them less predictable to prisoners and staff.
48. Install cell phone jammers or other electronic equipment to detect, suppress, and deter unauthorized communications from prisoners in the Jail. Installation must be completed within two years after the Effective Date.
49. Develop and implement a gang program in consultation with qualified experts in the field that addresses any link between gang activity in the community and the Jail through appropriate provisions for education, family or community involvement, and violence prevention.
B. USE OF FORCE STANDARDS
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to prevent excessive force by staff and ensure force is used safely and only in a manner commensurate with the behavior justifying it. To that end, the County must:
50. Develop and implement policies and procedures to regulate the use of force. The policies and procedures must:
a. Prohibit the use of force as a response to verbal insults or prisoner threats where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff or visitors;
b. Prohibit the use of force as a response to prisoners' failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security ofthe institution, prisoners, staff, visitors, or property;
c. Prohibit the use of force against a prisoner after the prisoner has ceased to
20

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 21 of 65
resist and is under control; d. Prohibit the use of force as punishment or retaliation; e. Limit the level of force used so that it is commensurate with the justification
for use of force; and f. Limit use of force in favor of less violent methods when such methods are
more appropriate, effective, or less likely to result in the escalation of an incident.
51. Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure timely notification, documentation, and communication with supervisors and medical staff (including mental health staff) prior to use of force and after any use of force. These policies and procedures must specifically include the following requirements:
a. Staff members must obtain prior supervisory approval before the use of weapons (e.g., electronic control devices or chemical sprays) and mechanical restraints unless responding to an immediate threat to a person's safety.
b. If a prisoner has a serious medical condition or other circumstances exist that may increase the risk of death or serious injury from the use of force, the type of force that may be used on the prisoner must be restricted to comply with this provision. These restrictions include the following:
1. The use of chemical sprays, physical restraints, and electronic control devices must not be used when a prisoner may be at risk of positional asphyxia.
11. Electronic control devices must not be used on prisoners when they are in a location where they may suffer serious injury after losing voluntary muscle control (e.g., prisoner is standing atop a stairwell, wall, or other elevated location).
111. Physical strikes, holds, or other uses of force or restraints may not be used if the technique is not approved for use in the Jail or the staff member has not been trained on the proper use of the technique.
c. Staff members must conduct health and welfare checks every 15 minutes
21

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 22 of 65

while a prisoner is in restraints. At minimum, these checks must include (i) logged first-person observations of a prisoner's status while in restraints (e.g. check for blood flow, respiration, heart beat), and (ii) documented breaks to meet the sanitary and health needs of prisoners placed in emergency restraints (e.g., restroom breaks and breaks to prevent cramping or circulation problems). d. The County must ensure that clinical staff conduct medical and mental health assessments immediately after a prisoner is subjected to any Level 1 use of force. Prisoners identified as requiring medical or mental health care during the assessment must receive such treatment. e. A first-line supervisor must personally supervise all planned uses of force, such as cell extractions. f. Security staff members must consult with medical and mental health staff before all planned uses of force on juveniles or prisoners with serious mental illness, so that medical and mental health staff may offer alternatives to or limitations on the use of force, such as assisting with de-escalation or obtaining the prisoner's voluntary cooperation. g. The Jail must have inventory and weapon controls to establish staff member responsibility for their use of weapons or other security devices in the facility. Such controls must include:

t.

a sign-out process for staff members to carry any type of weapon

inside the Jail,

n. a prohibition on staff carrying any weapons except those in the Jail's

tracked inventory, and

111. random checks to determine if weapons have been discharged without

report of discharge (e.g., by checking the internal memory of

electronic control devices and weighing pepper spray canisters).

h. A staff member must electronically record (both video and sound) all planned

uses of force with equipment provided by the Jail.

1.

All staff members using force must immediately notify their supervisor.

22

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 23 of 65

J.

All staff members using a Level 1 use of force must also immediately notify

the shift commander after such use of force, or becoming aware of an

allegation of such use by another staff member.

C. USE OF FORCE TRAINING

52. The County must develop and implement a use of force training program. Every staff member who supervises prisoners must receive at least 8 hours of pre-service use of force training and annual use of force refresher training.

53. Topics covered by use of force training must include:

a. Instruction on what constitutes excessive force; b. De-escalation tactics; c. Methods of managing prisoners with mental illness to avoid the use of force; d. Defensive tactics; e. All Jail use of force policies and procedures, including those related to
documentation and review of use of force.

54. The County must randomly test at least 5 percent of Jail Staff members annually to determine whether they have a meaningful, working knowledge of all use of force policies and procedures. The County must also evaluate the results to determine if any changes to Jail policies and procedures may be necessary and take corrective action. The results and recommendations of such evaluations must be provided to the United States and Monitor.

55. The County must update any use of force training within 30 days after any revision to a use of force policy or procedure.

D. USE OF FORCE REPORTING

To prevent and remedy the unconstitutional use of force, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting use of force. To that end, the County must:

23

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 24 of 65

56. Develop and implement use of force reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information to analyze and respond appropriately to use of force.

57. Require each staff member who used or observed a use of force to complete a Use of Force Report as promptly as possible, and no later than by the end of that staff member's shift. Staff members must accurately complete all fields on a Use of Force Report. The failure to report any use of force must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination. Similarly, supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.

58. Ensure that Jail use of force reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, use of force reports must document the following information:

a. A unique tracking number for each use of force;

b. The names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or

witnesses;

c. Housing classification and location;

d. Date and time;

e. A description of the events leading to the use of force, including what

precipitated or appeared to precipitate those events.

f.

A description of the level of resistance, staff response, and the type and level

of force (including frequency and duration of use). For instance, use of force

reports must describe the number of discharges from electronic control

devices and chemical munitions canisters; the amount of discharge from

chemical munitions canisters; whether the Staff Member threatened to use the

device or actually discharged the device; the type of physical hold or strike

used; and the length of time a prisoner was restrained, and whether the

prisoner was released from restraints for any period during that time;

g. A description of the staff member's attempts to de-escalate the situation

without use of force;

24

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 25 of 65
h. A description of whether the staff member notified supervisors or other personnel, including medical or mental health staff, before or after the use of force;
1. A description of any observed injuries to staff or prisoners; J. Whether medical care was required or provided to staff or prisoners; k. Reference to any associated incident report or prisoner disciplinary report
completed by the reporting officer, which pertains to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force; 1. A signature of the staff member completing the report attesting to the report's accuracy and completeness.
E. USE OF FORCE SUPERVISOR REVIEWS
59. The County must ensure that Jail supervisors review, analyze, and respond appropriately to use of force. At minimum:
a. A supervisor must review all use of force reports submitted during the supervisor's watch by the end ofthe supervisor's watch.
b. A supervisor must ensure that staff members complete their use of force reports by the end of their watch.
c. Reviewing supervisors must document their findings as to the completeness of each staff member's use of force report, and must also document any procedural errors made by staff in completing their reports.
d. If a Use of Force report is incomplete, reviewing supervisors must require Staff Members to provide any required information on a revised use of force report, and the Jail must maintain both the original and any revised report in its records.
e. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing use of force reports must document their use of force review as described in Paragraph 62 sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted.
f. All Level 1 uses of force must be sent to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and lAD.
25

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 26 of 65
g. A Level 2 use of force must be referred to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and lAD if a reviewing supervisor concludes that there may have been a violation of law or policy. Level 2 uses of force may also be referred to lAD if the County requires such reporting as a matter of Jail policy and procedure, or at the discretion of any reviewing supervisor.
60. After any Level 1 use of force, responding supervisors will promptly go to the scene and take the following actions:
a. Ensure the safety of everyone involved in or proximate to the incident. b. Determine if anyone is injured and ensure that necessary medical care is or
has been provided. c. Ensure that photos are taken of all injuries sustained, or as evidence that no
injuries were sustained, by prisoners and staff involved in a use of force incident. Photos must be taken no later than two hours after a use of force. Prisoners may refuse to consent to photos, in which case they should be asked to sign a waiver indicating that they have refused consent. If they refuse to sign a waiver, the shift commander must document that consent was requested and refused. d. Ensure that staff members and witnesses are identified, separated, and advised that communications with other staff members or witnesses regarding the incident are prohibited. e. Ensure that victim, staff, and witness statements are taken confidentially by reviewing supervisors or investigators, outside of the presence of other prisoners or involved staff. f. Document whether the use of force was recorded. If the use of force was not recorded, the responding supervisors must review and explain why the event was not recorded. If the use of force was recorded, the responding supervisors must ensure that any record is preserved for review.
61. All uses of force must be reviewed by supervisors who were neither involved in nor approved the use of force by the end of the supervisor's shift. All level 1 uses of force must
26

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 27 of 65

also be reviewed by a supervisor of Captain rank or above who was neither involved in nor approved the use of force. The purposes of supervisor review are to determine whether the use of force violated Jail policies and procedures, whether the prisoner's rights may have been violated, and whether further investigation or disciplinary action is required.

62. Reviewing supervisors must document the following:

a. Names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses interviewed by the supervisor;
b. Witness statements; c. Review date and time; d. The findings, recommendations, and results ofthe supervisor's review; e. Corrective actions taken; f. The final disposition of the reviews (e.g., whether the Use of Force was found
to comply with Jail policies and procedures, or whether disciplinary action was taken against a staff member); g. Supporting documents such as incident reports, logs, and classification records. Supervisors must also obtain and review summary medical and mental health records describing -

1.

The nature and extent of injuries, or lack thereof;

11. The date and time when medical care was requested and actually

provided;

111. The names of medical or mental health staff conducting any medical or

mental health assessments or care.

h. Photos, video/digital recordings, or other evidence collected to support findings and recommendations.

F. INCIDENT REPORTING AND REVIEW

To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners' constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting and reviewing incidents in the Jail that may pose a threat to the life, health, and safety of prisoners. To that end, the County must:
27

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 28 of 65

63. Develop and implement incident reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information in order to respond appropriately to reportable incidents.

64. Ensure that Incident Reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, Incident Reports must contain the following information:

a. Tracking number for each incident;

b. The names of all staff members, prisoner, and other participants or witnesses;

c. Housing classification and location;

d. Date and time;

e. Type of incident;

f.

Injuries to staff or prisoner;

g. Medical care;

h. All staff involved or present during the incident and their respective roles;

1.

Reviewing supervisor and supervisor findings, recommendations, and case

dispositions;

J.

External reviews and results;

k. Corrective action taken; and

I.

Warden and Administrator review and final administrative actions.

65. Require each staff member directly involved in a reportable incident to accurately and thoroughly complete incident reports as promptly as possible, by the end of the staff member's shift. At minimum:

a. Staff members must complete all fields on an Incident Report for which they have responsibility for completion. Staff members must not omit entering a date, time, incident location, or signature when completing an Incident Report. If no injuries are present, staff members must write that; they may not leave that section blank.
b. Failure to report any reportable incident must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination.
c. Supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will
28

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 29 of 65
also be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
66. Ensure that Jail supervisors review and respond appropriately to incidents. At minimum:
a. Shift commanders must document all reportable incidents by the end of their shift, but no later than 12 hours after a reportable incident.
b. Shift commanders must report all suicides, suicide attempts, and deaths, no later than one hour after the incident, to a supervisor, lAD, and medical and mental health staff.
c. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing Incident Reports must document their incident review within 24 hours of receipt of an Incident Report sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted. Such documentation must include the same categories of information required for supervisor use of force reviews such as names of individuals interviewed by the supervisor, witness statements, associated records (e.g. medical records, photos, and digital recordings), review dates, findings, recommendations, and case dispositions.
d. Reportable incidents must be reviewed by a supervisor not directly involved in the incident.
G. SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
67. To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners' constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to address sexual abuse and misconduct. Such policies and procedures must include all of the following:
a. Zero tolerance policy towards any sexual abuse and sexual harassment as defined by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementing regulations;
b. Staff training on the zero tolerance policy, including how to fulfill their duties and responsibilities to prevent, detect, report and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment under the policy;
29

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 30 of 65

c. Screening prisoners to identify those who may be sexually abusive or at risk

of sexual victimization;

d. Multiple internal ways to allow both confidential and anonymous reporting of

sexual abuse and sexual harassment and any related retaliation, including a

mechanism for prisoners to directly report allegations to an outside entity;

e. Both emergency and ongoing medical and mental health care for victims of

sexual assault and sexual harassment, including rape kits as appropriate and

counseling;

f. A complete ban on cross-gender strip searches or cross-gender visual body

cavity searches except in exigent circumstances or when performed by a

medical examiner;

g. A complete ban on cross-gender pat searches of women prisoners, absent

exigent circumstances;

h. Regular supervisory review to ensure compliance with the sexual abuse and

sexual harassment policies; and

1.

Specialized investigative procedures and training for investigators handling

sexual abuse and sexual harassment allegations.

H. INVESTIGATIONS

68. The County shall ensure that it has sufficient staff to identify, investigate, and correct misconduct that has or may lead to a violation of the Constitution. At a minimum, the County shall:

a. Develop and implement comprehensive policies, procedures, and practices for the thorough and timely (within 60 days of referral) investigation of alleged staff misconduct, sexual assaults, and physical assaults of prisoners resulting in serious injury, in accordance with this Agreement, within 90 days of its Effective Date. At a minimum, an investigation will be conducted if:

i. Any prisoner exhibited a serious injury; ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; 111. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious
30

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 31 of 65
accounts of the incident; or 1v. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail
policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member).
b. Per policy, investigations shall:
1. Be conducted by qualified persons, who do not have conflicts of interest that bear on the partiality of the investigation;
11. Include timely, thorough, and documented interviews of all relevant staff and prisoners who were involved in or who witnessed the incident in question, to the extent practicable; and
111. Include all supporting evidence, including logs, witness and participant statements, references to policies and procedures relevant to the incident, physical evidence, and video or audio recordings.
c. Provide investigators with pre-service and annual in-service training so that investigators conduct quality investigations that meet the requirements of this Agreement;
d. Ensure that any investigative report indicating possible criminal behavior will be referred to the appropriate criminal law enforcement agency;
e. Within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, IAD must have written policies and procedures that include clear and specific criteria for determining when it will conduct an investigation. The criteria will require an investigation if:
i. Any prisoner exhibited serious, visible injuries (e.g., black eye, obvious bleeding, or lost tooth);
11. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; 111. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious
accounts of the incident; or 1v. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail
31

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 32 of 65

policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member).

f. Provide the Monitor and United States a periodic report of investigations conducted at the Jail every four months. The report will include the following information:

1.

a brief summary of all completed investigations, by type and date;

11. a listing of investigations referred for administrative investigation;

111. a listing of all investigations referred to an appropriate law

enforcement agency and the name of the agency; and

IV. a listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned

because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This

list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.

v. a description of any corrective actions or changes in policies,

procedures, or practices made as a result of investigations over the

reporting period.

g. Jail management shall review the periodic report to determine whether the investigation system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement and make recommendations regarding the investigation system or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor and United States.

I. GRIEVANCE AND PRISONER INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Because a reporting system provides early notice of potential constitutional violations and an opportunity to prevent more serious problems before they occur, the County must develop and implement a grievance system. To that end:

69. The grievance system must permit prisoners to confidentially report grievances without requiring the intervention of a detention officer.

32

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 33 of 65
70. Grievance policies and procedures must be applicable and standardized across the entire Jail.
71. All grievances must receive appropriate follow-up, including a timely written response by an impartial reviewer and staff tracking of whether resolutions have been implemented or still need implementation. Any response to a medical grievance or a grievance alleging threats or violence to the grievant or others that exceeds 24 hours shall be presumed untimely.
72. The grievance system must accommodate prisoners who have physical or cognitive disabilities, are illiterate, or have LEP, so that these prisoners have meaningful access to the grievance system.
73. The County must ensure that all current and newly admitted prisoners receive information about prison rules and procedures. The County must provide such information through an inmate handbook and, at the discretion of the Jail, an orientation video, regarding the following topics: understanding the Jail's disciplinary process and rules and regulations; reporting misconduct; reporting sexual abuse, battery, and assault; accessing medical and mental health care; emergency procedures; visitation; accessing the grievance process; and prisoner rights. The County must provide such information in appropriate languages for prisoners with LEP.
J. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SEGREGATION
In order to ensure compliance with constitutional standards and to prevent unnecessary harm to prisoners, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to limit the use of segregation. To that end, this Agreement imposes the following restrictions and requirements:
74. Within 8 hours of intake, prisoners in the booking cells must be classified and housed in more appropriate long-term housing where staff will provide access to exercise, meals, and other services.
75. The County must document the placement and removal of all prisoners to and from segregation.
33

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 34 of 65
76. Qualified Mental Health Professionals must conduct mental health rounds at least once a week (in a private setting if necessary to elicit accurate information), to assess the mental health status of all prisoners in segregation and the effect of segregation on each prisoner's mental health, in order to determine whether continued placement in segregation is appropriate. These mental health rounds must not be a substitute for treatment.
77. The County must develop and implement restrictions on the segregation of prisoners with serious mental illness. These safeguards must include the following:
a. All decisions to place a prisoner with serious mental illness in segregation must include the input of a Qualified Mental Health Professional who has conducted a face-to-face evaluation of the prisoner in a confidential setting, is familiar with the details of the available clinical history, and has considered the prisoner's mental health needs and history.
b. Segregation must be presumed contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness.
c. Within 24 hours of placement in segregation, all prisoners on the mental health caseload must be screened by a Qualified Mental Health Professional to determine whether the prisoner has serious mental illness, and whether there are any acute mental health contraindications to segregation.
d. If a Qualified Mental Health Professional finds that a prisoner has a serious mental illness or exhibits other acute mental health contraindications to segregation, that prisoner must not be placed or remain in segregation absent documented extraordinary and exceptional circumstances (i.e. for an immediate and serious danger which may arise during unusual emergency situations, such as a riot or during the booking of a severely psychotic, untreated, violent prisoner, and which should last only as long as the emergency conditions remain present).
e. Documentation of such extraordinary and exceptional circumstances must be in writing. Such documentation must include the reasons for the decision, a comprehensive interdisciplinary team review, and the names and dated signatures of all staff members approving the decision.
34

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 35 of 65

f.

Prisoners with serious mental illness who are placed in segregation must be

offered a heightened level of care that includes the following:

1.

If on medication, the prisoner must receive at least one daily visit from

a Qualified Medical Professional.

11. The prisoner must be offered a face-to-face, therapeutic, out-of-cell

session with a Qualified Mental Health Professional at least once per

week.

111. If the prisoner is placed in segregation for more than 24 hours, he or she must have his or her case reviewed by a Qualified Mental Health

Professional, in conjunction with a Jail physician and psychiatrist, on a

weekly basis.

g. Within 30 days ofthe Effective Date ofthis Agreement, A Qualified Mental

Health Professional will assess all prisoners with serious mental illness

housed in long-term segregation. This assessment must include a documented

evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and

therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Prisoners requiring follow-up for

additional clinical assessment or care must promptly receive such assessment

and care.

h. If a prisoner on segregation decompensates or otherwise develops signs or

symptoms of serious mental illness, where such signs or symptoms had not

previously been identified, the prisoner must immediately be referred for

appropriate assessment and treatment by a Qualified Mental Health

Professional. Any such referral must also result in a documented evaluation

and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic)

housing for the prisoner. Signs or symptoms requiring assessment or

treatment under this clause include a deterioration in cognitive, physical, or

verbal function; delusions; self-harm; or behavior indicating a heightened risk

of suicide (e.g., indications of depression after a sentencing hearing).

1.

The treatment and housing of prisoners with serious mental illness must be

coordinated and overseen by the Interdisciplinary Team (or Teams), and

35

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 36 of 65

guided by formal, written treatment plans. The Interdisciplinary Team must

include both medical and security staff, but access to patient healthcare

information must remain subject to legal restrictions based on patient privacy

rights. The intent of this provision is to have an Interdisciplinary Team serve

as a mechanism for balancing security and medical concerns, ensuring

cooperation between security and medical staff, while also protecting the

exercise of independent medical judgment and each prisoner's individual

rights.

j.

Nothing in this Agreement should be interpreted to authorize security staff,

including the Jail Administrator, to make medical or mental health treatment

decisions, or to overrule physician medical orders.

K. YOUTHFUL PRISONERS

As long as the County houses youthful prisoners, it must develop and implement policies and procedures for their supervision, management, education, and treatment consistent with federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482. Within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will determine where it will house youthful prisoners. During those six months, the County will consult with the United States, the monitor of the Henley Young Juvenile Detention Center consent decree, and any other individuals or entities whose input is relevant. The United States will support the County's efforts to secure appropriate housing for youthful prisoners, including supervised release. Within 18 months after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will have completed transitioning to any new or replacement youthful prisoner housing facility. For any youthful prisoners in its custody, the County must:

78. Develop and implement a screening, assessment and treatment program to ensure that youth with serious mental illness and disabilities, including developmental disabilities, receive appropriate programs, supports, education, and services.

79. Ensure that youth receive adequate free appropriate education, including special education.

36

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 37 of 65
80. Ensure that youth are properly separated by sight and sound from adult prisoners.
81. Ensure that the Jail's classification and housing assignment system does not merely place all youth in the same housing unit, without adequate separation based on classification standards. Instead, the system must take into account classification factors that differ even within the youth sub-class of prisoners. These factors include differences in age, dangerousness, likelihood of victimization, and sex/gender.
82. Train staff members assigned to supervise youth on the Jail's youth-specific policies and procedures, as well as on age-appropriate supervision and treatment strategies. The County must ensure that such specialized training includes training on the supervision and treatment · of youth, child and adolescent development, behavioral management, crisis intervention, conflict management, child abuse, juvenile rights, the juvenile justice system, youth suicide prevention and mental health, behavioral observation and reporting, gang intervention, and de-escalation.
83. Specifically prohibit the use of segregation as a disciplinary sanction for youth. Segregation may be used on a youth only when the individual's behavior threatens imminent harm to the youth or others. This provision is in addition to, and not a substitute, for the provisions of this Agreement that apply to the use of segregation in general. In addition:
a. Prior to using segregation, staff members must utilize less restrictive techniques such as verbal de-escalation and individual counseling, by qualified mental health or other staff trained on the management of youth.
b. Prior to placing a youth in segregation, or immediately thereafter, a staff member must explain to the youth the reasons for the segregation, and the fact that the youth will be released upon regaining self-control.
c. Youth may be placed in segregation only for the amount of time necessary for the individual to regain self-control and no longer pose an immediate threat. As soon as the youth's behavior no longer threatens imminent harm to the youth or others, the County must release the individual back to their regular detention location, school or other programming.
d. If a youth is placed in segregation, the County must immediately provide one-
37

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 38 of 65

on-one crisis intervention and observation.

e. The County must specifically document and record the use of segregation on

youth as part of its incident reporting and quality assurance systems.

f.

A Qualified Medical Professional, or staff member who has completed all

training required for supervising youth, must directly monitor any youth in

segregation at least every fifteen (15) minutes. Such observation must be

documented immediately after each check.

g. Youth may not be held in segregation for a continuous period longer than one

(1) hour during waking hours. If staff members conclude that a youth is not

sufficiently calm to allow a break in segregation after one hour, they must

contact a Qualified Mental Health Professional. The Qualified Mental Health

Professional must assess the youth and determine whether the youth requires

treatment or services not available in the Jail. If the youth requires mental

health services that are not provided by the Jail, the Qualified Mental Health

Provider must immediately notify the Jail Administrator and promptly arrange

for hospitalization or other treatment services.

h. If a youth is held in segregation for a continuous period longer than two (2)

hours, Staff Members must notify the Jail Administrator.

1.

Any notifications or assessments required by this paragraph must be

documented in the youth's individual record.

84. Develop and implement a behavioral treatment program appropriate for youth. This program must be developed with the assistance of a qualified consultant who has at least five years of experience developing behavioral programs for institutionalized youth. The Jail's behavioral program must include all of the following elements:
a. The behavioral program must include positive incentives for changing youth behavior, outline prohibited behaviors, and describe the consequences for prohibited behaviors.
b. An individualized program must be developed by a youth's interdisciplinary treatment team, and properly documented in each youth's personal file.
38

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 39 of 65
Documentation requirements must include the collection of data required for proper assessment and treatment of youth with behavioral issues. For instance, the County must track the frequency and duration of positive incentives, segregation, and targeted behaviors. c. The program must include safeguards and prohibitions on the inappropriate use of restraints, segregation, and corporal punishment.
L. LAWFUL BASIS FOR DETENTION
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners are processed through the criminal justice system in a manner that respects their liberty interests. To that end:
85. The County will not accept or continue to house prisoners in the Jail without appropriate, completed paperwork such as an affidavit, arrest warrant, detention hold, or judge's written detention order. Examples of inadequate paperwork include, but are not limited to undated or unsigned coUrt orders, warrants, and affidavits; documents memorializing oral instructions from court officers that are undated, unsigned, or otherwise fail to identify responsible individuals and the legal basis for continued detention or release; incomplete arresting police officer documents; and any other paperwork that does not establish a lawful basis for detention.
86. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees in contravention of the protections of the United States Constitution as set forth and discussed in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) and Cassibry v. State, 453 So.2d 1298 (Miss. 1984). The County must develop and implement policies consistent with the applicable federal law and the terms of this Agreement.
87. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees absent (a) documentation demonstrating that a meaningful analysis of that person's ability to pay was conducted by the sentencing court prior to the imposition of any sentence, and (b) written findings by the sentencing court setting forth the basis for a finding that the failure to pay the subject fines or fees was willful. At a minimum, the County must confirm receipt from the
39

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 40 of 65
sentencing court of a signed "Order" issued by the sentencing court setting forth in detail the basis for a finding that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful.
88. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a person for failure to pay fines or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and any other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and must obtain a copy to justify continued detention of the prisoner. After 48 hours, that prisoner must be released promptly if the Jail staff cannot obtain the necessary documentation to verify that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful, and that person is incarcerated only for the failure to pay fines or fees.
89. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a prisoner for failure to pay fines or fees, and if that person is incarcerated for other conviction(s) or charge(s), other than the failure to pay fines and/or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and to ascertain the prisoner's length of sentence. If Jail staff cannot obtain a copy of the necessary documentation within 48 hours of the prisoner's incarceration, Jail staff must promptly arrange for the prisoner's transport to the sentencing court so that the court may conduct a legally sufficient hearing and provide any required documentation, including the fines or fees owed by the prisoner, and an assessment of the prisoner's ability to pay and willfulness (or lack thereof) in failing to pay fines or fees.
90. Jail staff must maintain the records necessary to determine the amount of time a person must serve to pay off any properly ordered fines or fees. To the extent that a sentencing court does not specifically calculate the term of imprisonment to be served, the Jail must obtain the necessary information within 24 hours of a prisoner's incarceration. Within 48 hours of incarceration, each prisoner shall be provided with documentation setting forth clearly the term of imprisonment and the calculation used to determine the term of imprisonment.
91. No pre-trial detainee or sentenced prisoner incarcerated by the County solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be required to perform physical labor. Nor shall any such detainee or prisoner receive any penalty or other adverse consequence for failing to perform such labor, including differential credit toward sentences. Any physical labor by pre-trial detainees or by
40

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 41 of 65

prisoners incarcerated solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be performed on a voluntary basis only, and the County shall not in any way coerce such pre-trial detainees or prisoners to perform physical labor.

92. The County must ensure that the Jail timely releases from custody all individuals entitled to release. At minimum:

a. Prisoners are entitled to release if there is no legal basis for their continued detention. Such release must occur no later than 11 :59 PM on the day that a prisoner is entitled to be released.
b. Prisoners must be presumed entitled to release from detention if there is a court order that specifies an applicable release date, or Jail records document no reasonable legal basis for the continued detention of a prisoner.
c. Examples of prisoners presumptively entitled to release include:

1.

Individuals who have completed their sentences;

11. Individuals who have been acquitted of all charges after trial;

111. Individuals whose charges have been dismissed;

IV. Individuals who are ordered released by a court order; and

v. Individuals detained by a law enforcement agency that then fails to

promptly provide constitutionally adequate, documented justification

for an individual's continued detention.

93. The County must develop and implement a reliable, complete, and adequate prisoner records system to ensure that staff members can readily determine the basis for a prisoner's detention, when a prisoner may need to be released, and whether a prisoner should remain in detention. The records system must provide Jail staff with reasonable advance notice prior to an anticipated release date so that they can contact appropriate agencies to determine whether a prisoner should be released or remain in detention.

94. Jail record systems must accurately identify and track all prisoners with serious mental illness, including their housing assignment and security incident histories. Jail staff must develop and use records about prisoners with serious mental illness to more accurately and

41

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 42 of 65

efficiently process prisoners requiring forensic evaluations or transport to mental hospitals or other treatment facilities, and to improve individual treatment, supervision, and community transition planning for prisoners with serious mental illness. Records about prisoners with serious mental illness must be incorporated into the Jail's incident reporting, investigations, and medical quality assurance systems. The County must provide an accurate census of the Jail's mental health population as part of its compliance reporting obligations, and the County must address this data when assessing staffing, program, or resource needs.

95. All individuals who (i) were found not guilty, were acquitted, or had charges brought against them dismissed, and (ii) are not being held on any other matter, must be released directly from the court unless the court directs otherwise. Additionally:

a. Such individuals must not be handcuffed, shackled, chained with other prisoners, transported back to the Jail, forced to submit to bodily strip searches, or returned to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
b. Notwithstanding (a), above, individuals may request to be transported back to the Jail solely for the purpose of routine processing for release. If the County decides to allow such transport, the County must ensure that Jail policies and procedures govern the process. At minimum, policies and procedures must prohibit staff from:

1.

Requiring the individual to submit to bodily strip searches;

11. Requiring the individual to change into Jail clothing if the individual is

not already in such clothing; and

111. Returning the individual to general population or any other secure Jail

housing area containing prisoners.

96. The County must develop, implement, and maintain policies and procedures to govern the release of prisoners. These policies and procedures must:

a. Describe all documents and records that must be collected and maintained in Jail files for determining the basis of a prisoner's detention, the prisoner's

42

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 43 of 65
anticipated release date, and their status in the criminal justice system. b. Specifically detail procedures to ensure timely release of prisoners entitled to
be released, and procedures to prevent accidental release. c. Be developed in consultation with court administrators, the District
Attorney's Office, and representatives of the defense bar. d. Include mechanisms for notifying community mental health providers,
including the County's Program of Assertive Community Treatment ("PACT") team, when releasing a prisoner with serious mental illness so that the prisoner can transition safely back to the community. These mechanisms must include providing such prisoners with appointment information and a supply of their prescribed medications to bridge the time period from release until their appointment with the County PACT team, or other community provider.
97. The County must develop, implement, and maintain appropriate post orders relating to the timely release of individuals. Any post orders must:
a. Contain up-to-date contact information for court liaisons, the District Attorney's Office, and the Public Defender's Office;
b. Describe a process for obtaining higher level supervisor assistance in the event the officer responsible for processing releases encounters administrative difficulties in determining a prisoner's release eligibility or needs urgent assistance in reaching officials from other agencies who have information relevant to a prisoner's release status.
98. Nothing in this Agreement precludes appropriate verification of a prisoner's eligibility for release, including checks for detention holds by outside law enforcement agencies and procedures to confirm the authenticity of release orders. Before releasing a prisoner entitled to release, but no later than the day release is ordered, Jail staff should check the National Crime Information Center or other law enforcement databases to determine if there may be a basis for continued detention ofthe prisoner. The results of release verification checks must be fully documented in prisoner records.
43

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 44 of 65

99. The County must ensure that the release process is adequately staffed by qualified detention officers and supervisors. To that end, the County must:

a. Ensure that sufficient qualified staff members, with access to prisoner records and to the Jail's e-mail account for receiving court orders, are available to receive and effectuate court release orders twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
b. Ensure that staff members responsible for the prisoner release process and related records have the knowledge, skills, training, experience, and abilities to implement the Jail's release policies and procedures. At minimum, the County must provide relevant staff members with specific pre-service and annual in-service training related to prisoner records, the criminal justice process, legal terms, and release procedures. The training must include instruction on:

1.

How to process release orders for each court, and whom to contact if a

question arises;

11. What to do if the equipment for contacting other agencies, such as the

Jail's fax machine or email service, malfunctions, or communication is

otherwise disrupted;

111. Various types of court dispositions, and the language typically used

therein, to ensure staff members understand the meaning of court

orders; and

1v. How and when to check for detainers to ensure that an individual may

be released from court after she or he is found not guilty, is acquitted,

or has the charges brought against her or him dismissed.

c. Provide detention staff with sufficient clerical support to prevent backlogs in the filing of prisoner records.

100. The County must annually review its prisoner release and detention process to ensure that it complies with any changes in federal law, such as the constitutional standard for civil or pre-trial detention.
44

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 45 of 65
101. The County must ensure that the Jail's record-keeping and quality assurance policies and procedures allow both internal and external audit of the Jail's release process, prisoner lengths of stay, and identification of prisoners who have been held for unreasonably long periods without charges or other legal process. The County must, at minimum, require:
a. A Jail log that documents (i) the date each prisoner was entitled to release; (ii) the date, time, and manner by which the Jail received any relevant court order; (iii) the date and time that prisoner was in fact released; (iv) the time that elapsed between receipt of the court order and release; (v) the date and time when information was received requiring the detention or continued detention of a prisoner (e.g., immigration holds or other detainers), and (vi) the identity of the authority requesting the detention or continued detention of a prisoner.
b. Completion of an incident report, and appropriate follow-up investigation and administrative review, if an individual is held in custody past 11 :59 PM on the day that she or he is entitled to release. The incident report must document the reason(s) for the error. The incident report must be submitted to the Jail Administrator no later than one calendar day after the error was discovered.
102. The County must appoint a staff member to serve as a Quality Control Officer with responsibility for internal auditing and monitoring of the release process. This Quality Control Officer will be responsible for helping prevent errors with the release process, and the individual's duties will include tracking releases to ensure that staff members are completing all required paper work and checks. If the Quality Control Officer determines that an error has been made, the individual must have the authority to take corrective action, including the authority to immediately contact the Jail Administrator or other County official with authority to order a prisoner's release. The Quality Control Officer's duties also include providing data and reports so that release errors are incorporated into the Jail's continuous improvement and quality assurance process.
45

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 46 of 65
103. The County must require investigation of all incidents relating to timely or erroneous prisoner release within seven calendar days by appropriate investigators, supervisors, and the Jail Administrator. The Jail Administrator must document any deficiencies found and any corrective action taken. The Jail Administrator must then make any necessary changes to Jail policies and procedures. Such changes should be made, if appropriate, in consultation with court personnel, the District Attorney's Office, members of the defense bar, and any other law enforcement agencies involved in untimely or erroneous prisoner releases.
104. The County must conduct bi-annual audits of release policies, procedures, and practices. As part of each audit, the County must make any necessary changes to ensure that individuals are being released in a timely manner. The audits must review all data collected regarding timely release, including any incident reports or Quality Control audits referenced in Paragraph 102 above. The County must document the audits and recommendations, and must submit all documentation to the Monitor and the United States for review.
105. The County must ensure that policies, procedures, and practices allow for reasonable attorney visitation, which should be treated as a safeguard to prevent the unlawful detention of citizens and for helping to ensure the efficient functioning of the County's criminal justice system. The Jail's attorney visitation process must provide sufficient space for attorneys to meet with their clients in a confidential setting, and must include scheduling procedures to ensure that defense attorneys can meet with their clients for reasonable lengths of time and without undue delay. An incident report must be completed if Jail staff are unable to transport a prisoner to meet with their attorney, or if there is a delay of more than 30 minutes for transporting a prisoner for a scheduled attorney visit.
M. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
The County must develop an effective system for identifying and self-correcting systemic violations of prisoner's constitutional rights. To that end, the County must:
106. Develop and maintain a database and computerized tracking system to monitor all reportable incidents, uses of force, and grievances. This tracking system will serve as the repository of information used for continuing improvement and quality assurance reports.
46

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 47 of 65
107. Compile an Incident Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Incident Summary Reports must compile and summarize incident report data in order to identify trends such as rates of incidents in general, by housing unit, by day of the week and date, by shift, and by individual prisoners or staff members. The Incident Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Brief summary of all reportable incidents, by type, shift, housing unit, and date;
b. Description of all suicides and deaths, including the date, name of prisoner, housing unit, and location where the prisoner died (including name of hospital if prisoner died off-site);
c. The names and number of prisoners placed in emergency restraints, and segregation, and the frequency and duration of such placements;
d. List and total number of incident reports received during the reporting period; e. List and Total number of incidents referred to lAD or other law enforcement
agencies for investigation.
108. Compile a Use of Force Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Use of Force Summary Reports must compile and summarize use of force report data in order to identify trends such as rates of use in general, by housing unit, by shift, by day of the week and date, by individual prisoners, and by staff members. The Use of Force Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Summary of all uses of force, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. List and total number of use of force reports received during the reporting
period; c. List and total number of uses of force reports/incidents referred to lAD or
other law enforcement agencies for investigation.
109. Compile a Grievance Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Grievance Summary Reports must compile and summarize grievance information in order to identify trends such as most frequently reported complaints, units generating the most grievances, and staff members receiving the most grievances about their conduct. To identify trends and
47

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 48 of 65
potential concerns, at least quarterly, a member of the Jail's management staff must review the Grievance Summary Reports and a random sample of ten percent of all grievances filed during the review period. These grievance reviews, any recommendations, and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
110. Compile a monthly summary report of lAD investigations conducted at the Facility. The lAD Summary Report must include:
a. A brief summary of all completed investigations, by type, shift, housing unit, and date;
b. A listing of investigations referred for disciplinary action or other final disposition by type and date;
c. A listing of all investigations referred to a law enforcement agency and the name of the agency, by type and date; and
d. A listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.
111. Conduct a review, at least annually, to determine whether the incident, use of force, grievance reporting, and lAD systems comply with the requirements of this Agreement and are effective at ensuring staff compliance with their constitutional obligations. The County must make any changes to the reporting systems that it determines are necessary as a result of the system reviews. These reviews and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
112.Ensure that the Jail's continuous improvement and quality assurance systems include an Early Intervention component to alert Administrators of potential problems with staff members. The purpose of the Early Intervention System is to identify and addr~ss patterns of behavior or allegations which may indicate staff training deficiencies, persistent policy violations, misconduct, or criminal activity. As part of the Early Intervention process, incident reports, use of force reports, and prisoner grievances must be screened by designated staff members for such patterns. If misconduct, criminal activity, or behaviors indicate the need for corrective action, the screening staff must refer the incidents or allegations to Jail
48

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 49 of 65
supervisors, administrators, lAD, or other law enforcement agencies for investigation. Additionally:
a. The Early Intervention System may be integrated with other database and computerized tracking systems required by this Agreement, provided any unified system otherwise still meets the terms of this Agreement.
b. The Early Intervention System must screen for staff members who may be using excessive force, regardless of whether use of force reviews concluded that the uses complied with Jail policies and this Agreement. This provision allows identification of staff members who may still benefit from additional training and serves as a check on any deficiencies with use of force by field supervisors.
c. The Jail Administrator, or designee of at least Captain rank, must personally review Early Intervention System data and alerts at least quarterly. The Administrator, or designee, must document when reviews were conducted as well as any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken.
d. The County must maintain a list of any staff members identified by the Early Intervention System as possibly needing additional training or discipline. A copy ofthis list must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
e. The County must take appropriate, documented, and corrective action when staff members have been identified as engaging in misconduct, criminal activity, or a pattern of violating Jail policies.
f. The County must review the Early Intervention System, at least bi-annually, to ensure that it is effective and used to identify staff members who may need additional training or discipline. The County must document any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken as a result of these reviews. Copies of these reviews must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
113. Develop and implement policies and procedures for Jail databases, tracking systems, and computerized records (including the Early Intervention System), that ensure both functionality and data security. The policies and procedures must address all of the following issues: data
49

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 50 of 65
storage, data retrieval, data reporting, data analysis and pattern identification, supervisor responsibilities, standards used to determine possible violations and corrective action, documentation, legal issues, staff and prisoner privacy rights, system security, and audit mechanisms.
114. Ensure that the Jail's medical staff are included as part ofthe continuous improvement and quality assurance process. At minimum, medical and mental health staff must be included through all of the following mechanisms:
a. Medical staff must have the independent authority to promptly refer cases of suspected assault or abuse to the Jail Administrator, lAD, or other law enforcement agencies;
b. Medical staff representatives must be involved in mortality reviews and systemic reviews of serious incidents. At minimum, a physician must prepare a mortality review within 30 days of every prisoner death. An outside physician must review any mortalities associated with treatment by Jail physicians.
N. CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
115. Hinds County will establish a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee ("Coordinating Committee") with subject matter expertise and experience that will assist in streamlining criminal justice processes, and identify and develop solutions and interventions designed to lead to diversion from arrest, detention, and incarceration. The Coordinating Committee will focus particularly on diversion of individuals with serious mental illness and juveniles. Using the Sequential Intercept Model,~ or an alternative acceptable to the Parties, the Coordinating Committee will identify strategies for diversion at each intercept point where individuals may encounter the criminal justice system, and will
See Mark Munetz & Patricia Griffin, Use of the Sequential Intercept Model as an approach to decriminalization of people with serious mental illness, Psychiatry Services, 57(4):544-549, April 2006, http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdfll 0.1176/ps.2006.57.4.544.
50

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 51 of 65
assess the County's current diversion efforts and unmet service needs in order to identify opportunities for successful diversion of such individuals. The Committee will recommend appropriate changes to policies and procedures and additional services necessary to increase diversion.
116. The Coordinating Committee will include representation from the Hinds County Sheriffs Office and Hinds County Board of Supervisors. The County will also seek representation from Hinds County Behavioral Health Services; the Jackson Police Department; Mississippi Department of Mental Health; Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services; judges from the Hinds County Circuit, Chancery, and County (Youth and Justice) Courts; Hinds County District Attorney Office; Hinds County Public Defender Office; relevant Jackson city officials; and private advocates or other interested community members.
117. The Coordinating Committee will prioritize enhancing coordination with local behavioral health systems, with the goal of connecting individuals experiencing mental health crisis, including juveniles, with available services to avoid unnecessary arrest, detention, and incarceration.
118. Within 30 days ofthe Effective Date and in consultation with the United States, the County will select and engage an outside consultant to provide technical assistance to the County and Coordinating Committee regarding strategies for reducing the jail population and increasing diversion from criminal justice involvement, particularly for individuals with mental illness and juveniles. This technical assistance will include (a) a comprehensive review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing efforts to reduce recidivism and increase diversion; (b) identification of gaps in the current efforts, (c) recommendations of actions and strategies to achieve diversion and reduce recidivism; and (d) estimates of costs and cost savings associated with those strategies. The review will include interviews with representatives from the agencies and entities referenced in Paragraph 116 and other relevant stakeholders as necessary for a thorough evaluation and recommendation. Within 120 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the outside consultant will finalize and make public a report regarding the results of their assessment
51

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 52 of 65

and recommendations. The Coordinating Committee will implement the recommended strategies and will continue to use the outside consultant to assist with implementation of the strategies when appropriate.

V.

IMPLEMENTATION, TIMING, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

119. Consistent with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Constitution, and termination procedures of this Agreement, the County must substantially implement all provisions of this Agreement.

120. The County must begin implementing the requirements of this Agreement immediately upon the Effective Date. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, all provisions of the Agreement must be implemented within one year of the Effective Date.

121. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County must distribute copies of the Agreement to all prisoners and Jail staff, including all medical and security staff, with appropriate explanation as to the staff members' obligations under the Agreement. At mm1mum:

a. A copy of the Agreement must be posted in each unit (including

booking/intake and medical areas), and program rooms (e.g., classrooms and

any library).

b.

Individual copies of the Agreement must be provided to prisoners upon

request.

122. This Agreement is applicable to and binding upon all parties, their officers, agents, employees, assigns, and their successors in office.

123. This Agreement is enforceable only by the Parties. No person or entity is intended to be a third-party beneficiary of the provisions of this Agreement for purposes of any civil, criminal, or administrative action. Accordingly, no person or entity may assert any claim or right as a beneficiary or protected class under this Agreement.

124. All parties must bear their own costs, including attorney fees.

52

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 53 of 65

125. The parties agree to defend the provisions of this Agreement. The parties must notify each other of any court challenge to this Agreement. In the event any provision of this Agreement is challenged in any local or state court, the parties will seek to remove the action to a federal court.

126. The failure by either party to enforce this entire Agreement or any provision thereof, with respect to any deadline or any other provision herein, must not be .construed as a waiver of its right to enforce any deadlines or provisions of this Agreement.

127. If any unforeseen circumstance occurs that causes a failure to timely carry out any requirements of this Agreement, the County must notify the Monitor and the United States in writing as soon as possible, and in any case no later than 14 days after the County becomes aware of the unforeseen circumstance and its impact on the County's ability to perform under the Agreement. The notice must describe the cause of the failure to perform and the measures taken to prevent or minimize the failure. The County must implement all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize any such failure.

128. In the event any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, said finding does not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement.

129. All subheadings in this Agreement are written for convenience of locating individual provisions. If questions arise as to the meanings of individual provisions, they should be resolved by the text of each provision.

VI.

POLICY AND PROCEDURE REVIEW

130. The County must review all existing policies.and procedures to ensure their compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. Where the Jail does not have a policy or procedure in place that complies with the terms of this Agreement, the County must draft such a policy or procedure, or revise its existing policy or procedure.

131. The County shall complete its policy and procedure review and revision within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement.

53

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 54 of 65

132. Once the County reviews and revises its policies and procedures, the County must provide a copy of its policies and procedures to the United States and the Monitor for review and comment. The County must address all comments and make any changes requested by the United States or the Monitor within thirty (30) days after receiving the comments and resubmit the policies and procedures to the United States and Monitor for review.

133. No later than three months after the United States' approval of each policy and procedure, the County must adopt and begin implementing the policy and procedure, while also modifying all post orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the policies and procedures.

134. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, all new or revised policies and procedures must be implemented within six months of the United States' approval of the policy or procedure.

135. The County must annually review its policies and procedures, revising them as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures must be submitted to the United States and the Monitor for approval in accordance with paragraphs 129-131 above.

VII.

MONITORING

A. SELECTION AND AUTONOMY OF THE MONITOR

136. This Agreement must be monitored by an individual approved by the Court. Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, the United States and the County must jointly submit a proposed Monitor to the Court for approval. If the parties cannot agree on a joint Monitor, each party must submit the names and curricula vitae of three proposed candidates to the Court for approval, and the Court will select one of the candidates from the parties' lists.

137. If the Monitor position becomes vacant during the life of the Agreement, within 90 days of the vacancy, the United States and the County will jointly submit a new proposed Monitor to the Court for approval. If the parties cannot agree on a joint Monitor, each party must submit the names and curricula vitae of up to three proposed candidates to the Court for approval, and the Court will select one of the candidates from the parties' lists.

54

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 55 of 65
138. The cost of the Monitor's fees and expenses will be borne by the County. The County will contract with the Monitor to provide these monitoring services. As part of that contract, a reasonable budget will be agreed upon by and between the County and the Monitor to include a maximum dollar amount that can be spent in a given twelve (12) month period. The County will provide the Monitor with a budget sufficient to carry out the responsibilities described in this Agreement.
139. The Monitor only has the duties, responsibilities, and authority conferred by this Agreement. The Monitor must be subject to the supervision and orders of the Court and applicable law.
140. Neither the County nor the United States, nor any of their employees or agents, may have any supervisory authority over the Monitor's activities, reports, findings, or recommendations. The Monitor may be terminated only by (i) joint stipulation of the parties; or (ii) for good cause unrelated to the Monitor's findings, as approved by the Court.
141. The Monitor may contract or consult with other individuals or entities to assist in the evaluation of compliance. The Monitor will pay for the services out of his/her budget. These individuals and entities must be governed and bound by the terms of this Agreement as the Monitor is governed and bound by those terms. The Monitor may engage in ex parte communications with the County and the United States regarding this Agreement.
B. MONITOR'S AND UNITED STATES' ACCESS
142. The Monitor and United States will have full and complete access to the Jail, Jail documents and records, prisoner medical and mental health records, staff members, and pnsoners.
143. The Parties shall have the opportunity to participate in all monitoring site visits.
144. The County must maintain sufficient records to document that the requirements of this Agreement are being properly implemented and must make such records available to the United States or Monitor at all reasonable times for inspection and copying. The County must maintain, and submit upon request, records or other documents to verify that the County has
55

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 56 of 65

staukmemn asruicehs,apcotiloicnisesa,spdreosccerdiubreeds,inpraontyocsoellsf-,atsraseinsisnmgemntacteormiaplsliaanncdeinrecpidoertnst

(e.g., census reports).

145. The County will direct Monitor and United States.

all

employees,

contractors,

and

agents

to

cooperate

fully

with

the

146. Consistent with federal law, the Local Procedure, all information obtained by the
manner.

Rules of the Monitor will

Court, and the be maintained

Federal Rules of in a confidential

Civil

Cd1oo4cu7u.nmWtyeihnthatsisn, afsloerrevmaedsn,ydadasiyssestsroisbmfureteencdtesia,patc,notdphyereoMpfoosrntusictshouribtwemmiiltlstdetodisttbrhyiebtuUhteeniCttoeodtuhnSettyaUttenosi.ttehde

States all Monitor

unless

the

C. MONITOR REPORTING

rafwaeboan1dpaimfd4ldoslt8ierUrhl.detlieWinsaeansrsiJnetiiaewedtgivhadlniwiicttsnShahoiittttmtaphahhwtasreoewserisnleaeJhlsigraatmiesriontglatrocfhpaailrnnrehnuedtgdqdhJoiuesnaptfehigloatlanih'swfnpscit.syrAhshe,tAaeTglacitrthmgEoueiernnfesiefnfsmbeeroiaaemcserrsgttmnyeieeavtnnlare.ietdttnv.iiIwDeoantAlniagswuttishtaettihehtl,atielehotvrahiMnieolsesssboioAouMtlfnilwggathiorltaoioleonltoflweiriowtmtawohnClreeltsioholnwlbuweut.airnnlMesdtltqehyecoluerionpinMtnrioehetdloioisutscrhnictiAteieetotsgoaCvirrainboesntfaeuoidotsmn,rebtpmtelyehrincnaetttooceh.MtmeisrTcoioeCtehuensoitisviutnoinsertilyty Upcaiem1nrotvn4osmoleip9vetnrem.eaiytdTdcshetefthsiSnodtoehatutnsatifrMor.ttmeetmytosrAhu,ont(eshnii3dttfept0orbhaaa)rbensrfdamttytsisahe,Ruueysebbles.sriemtpenpfcToaeoirofrthrittvtnoeeeeimdrrdsiM,uistuttosac.osounttinitTdtanbhsinhtgeeioisesosrpMesnMuarmu-oeocasovuhnniantisicefdtidtieotenrcoirdanaaorfnsslntmtpooCasCeiultofdcoahsitmenttmeieroatprCphtnllhtleioRhieaanauanenncncnpdcoctooeyem1inrsR0tRdasm.enuubepedeIcupnoftsoattraiahsrtnCnnt.eeoy3oosUf0mspntnah-ddpisretaaltieiyytyCadessnwoiScaanuiteffssnatthpeeRtteyereressctepahtfatnioeooocdrrhndtctcrofhaaoomtefmutlmremiasesentnt,t

56

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 57 of 65
150. The Compliance Reports must describe the steps taken by the County to implement this Agreement and evaluate the extent to which the County has complied with each substantive provision of the Agreement. Findings in the Monitor's Reports will be considered persuasive, but rebuttable, in Court. Each Report:
a. Must evaluate the status of compliance for each provision of the Agreement using the following standards: (1) Substantial Compliance; (2) Partial Compliance; and (3) Non-compliance.
b. Must be based on the Monitor's review of a sufficient number of pertinent documents and interview a sufficient number of staff and prisoners to accurately assess current conditions.
c. May include information received by the Monitor through communication with former prisoners and staff, family members, local officials, criminal justice officials (including representatives ofboth the District Attorney's Office and Public Defender's Office), private defense attorneys, and relevant community members, so long as such communication is consistent with applicable law.
d. Must describe the steps taken by the Monitor to analyze conditions and assess compliance. This description must include identifying any documents reviewed and individuals interviewed, and the factual basis for each of the Monitor's findings. The report, however, must be prepare with due regard for the privacy interests of individuals.
e. Must contain the Monitor's independent verification of representations from the County regarding progress toward compliance.
f. Must provide recommendations to assist the County in attaining compliance with the Agreement, including a proposed outline of corrective actions that the County should implement within the next six months after issuance of the Monitor's report.
g. Must be filed with the Court.
57

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 58 of 65
151. Nothing in this Section prohibits the Monitor from issuing interim letters or reports to the United States, the County, or the Court in this case, should the Monitor deem such correspondence necessary.
D. LIMITATIONS
152. The Monitor may not make any public statements (at a press conference or otherwise) with regard to any act or omission of the County, or disclose information provided to the Monitor pursuant to this Agreement, except as authorized by this Agreement, the Court, or by joint stipulation of the parties.
153. The Monitor may not testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to any act or omission of the County, or the County's agents, representatives, or employees, as those acts or omissions relate to this Agreement. The preceding restriction does not apply to any legal action brought by the Monitor against the County to obtain compensation for past services or to enforce the Monitor's rights under this Agreement. Unless called to testify by the Court or one of the parties to this Agreement, the Monitor may not testify regarding any matter or subject that he or she may have learned as a result of his or her performance under this Agreement. Unless such conflict is waived in writing by the County and the United States, the Monitor must not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with the Monitor's responsibilities under this Agreement, including being retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future private litigant or claimant, or such litigant's or claimant's attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against the County or the United States, including their departments, officers, agents or employees, regarding the subject matter of this case. If the parties cannot agree on whether to waive a conflict, they may seek appropriate relief from the Court. The mere fact that the Monitor provides expert opinion or consulting services regarding civil rights or institutional reform does not itself constitute a conflict, where such opinion or services are provided in another jurisdiction.
154. The Monitor is not a State, County or local agency; nor is the Monitor an agent thereof. Accordingly, records maintained or in the custody of the Monitor must not be deemed public records subject to public inspection.
58

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 59 of 65

155. The Monitor will provide the County with technical assistance as reasonably requested. Technical assistance requests must not interfere with the Monitor's independence and ability to assess compliance.

156. The Monitor will convene regular monthly conference calls with the County and the United States to discuss implementation of the terms of the Agreement, updates, and any other items that the Monitor or the parties wish to discuss.

157. The County, including its agents, representatives, and employees, is prohibited from retaliating against any person for providing information or assistance to the Monitor or the United States relating to this Agreement. If the Court finds that such retaliation has occurred, it may issue appropriate relief, including issuance of an appropriate protective order, sanctions, and referral for criminal prosecution.

158. The Monitor must treat all personally identifiable information obtained pursuant to this Agreement as confidential. While the Monitor may comply with this provision by using pseudonyms, codes, or initials when describing individual prisoners in any Compliance Report, the Monitor must also maintain a key. The Monitor must provide the key to the County and the United States, when submitting any Compliance Report, unless there is reasonable concern that such provision would subject the individual to retaliation. A copy of the key must be filed under seal with the Court if the Court requires filing of the key with the Compliance Report.

VIII.

COUNTY SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT AND COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR

159. The County must file a self-assessment compliance report. The first compliance self-assessment report must be filed with the Court within four months of the Effective Date and at least one month before a Monitor site visit. Each self-assessment compliance report must describe in detail the actions the County has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and must make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. The report must include information supporting the County's representations regarding its compliance with the Agreement such as quality assurance

59

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 60 of 65

information, trends, statistical data, and remedial activities. Supporting information should be based on reports or data routinely collected as part of the audit and quality assurance activities required by this Agreement (e.g., incident, use of force, system, maintenance, and early intervention), rather than generated only to support representations made in the selfassessment.

160. The County must designate a full-time Compliance Coordinator to coordinate compliance activities required by this Agreement. This person will serve as a primary point of contact for the Monitor. Two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties may consult with each other and the Monitor to determine whether the Compliance Coordinator's hours may be reduced. The Parties may then stipulate to any agreed reduction in hours.

IX.

EMERGENT CONDITIONS

161. The County must notify the Monitor and United States of any prisoner death, riot, escape, injury requiring hospitalization, or over-detention of a prisoner (i.e., failure to release a prisoner before 11 :59 PM on the day she or he was entitled to be released), within 3 days of learning of the event.

X.

JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT

162. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi will retain jurisdiction over this matter for the purposes of enforcing this Agreement. The Court's jurisdiction extends to any facilities built, contracted, modified, or used by the County to house prisoners during the life of this Agreement.

163. During the period that this Agreement is in force, prior to initiating any enforcement proceedings in Court for an alleged failure to fulfill an obligation under this Agreement, the aggrieved party will notify the other party in writing of the facts supporting the aggrieved party's belief that the other party is not in compliance. The responding party will investigate the allegations and respond in writing within 30 days. If the parties are unable to resolve the issue(s) satisfactorily within 30 days of the written response, the aggrieved party may move the Court for any relief permitted by law or equity. In the event of an emergency (i.e., imminent threat to the life, health, or safety of prisoners), the United States may seek
60

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 61 of 65

immediate relief without providing the notice and conciliation otherwise required by this prOVlSlOn.

XI.

CONSTRUCTION AND TERMINATION

164. This Agreement will terminate if the parties jointly stipulate that the County has achieved and maintained substantial compliance with the Agreement for at least two years, and the Court then enters an appropriate order terminating the Agreement and dismissing jurisdiction.

165. If the parties do not jointly stipulate to dismissal, the County may file a unilateral motion to dismiss. The County may not file a unilateral motion to dismiss until this Agreement has been in effect for at least two years. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, the burden will be on the County to demonstrate that the County substantially implemented each provision of the Agreement, and that such compliance was maintained continuously for the two years prior to filing of the motion. Non-compliance with mere technicalities, or temporary failure to comply during a period of otherwise substantial compliance, will not constitute failure by the County to maintain compliance. At the same time, temporary compliance during a period of sustained non-compliance will not constitute substantial compliance.

XII.

STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT,

18 u.s.c. § 3626

166. The United States and the County stipulate and agree that this Agreement complies in all respects with the requirements for prospective relief under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a).

167. The United States and the County stipulate and agree that all ofthe prospective relief in this Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violations of federal rights as set forth by the United States in its Complaint and Findings Letter, is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violations, and will not have any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system.

61

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 62 of 65

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

GREGORY K. DAVIS U.S. Attorney Southern District of Mississippi
~~~,
Civil Ch f U.S. Attorney' s Office Southern District of Mississippi 501 East Court Street Suite 4.430 Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 973-2840 Mitzi.Paige@usdoj .gov MS Bar #6014

VANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
~JI~
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-5393 Steven.Rosenbaum@usdoj. gov NY Bar #1901958
P ~-r LAU L.CON
Special Counsel U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave. , NW Washington, DC 20530 Laura. Coon@usdoj .gov DC Bar# 481379

Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-8892
62

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 63 of 65 (202) 514-4883 (fax) Christopher.Cheng@usdoj .gov PA Bar #69066
~~ . ,bvt(A ~ ICeL~
UU EUifsETH C. KELLEY
Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-0460 Beth.Kelley@usdoj .gov VA Bar #80255
63

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 64 of 65
FOR THE COUNTY, SHERIFF, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR:
--:&~(~
PIETER TEEUWISSEN Board Attorney P.O. Box 686 Jackson,MS 39205-0686 (601) 968-6797 (601) 968-6794 (fax) MS Bar#8777
CLAIRE BARKER Counsel to the Sheriff 407 East Pascagoula Street Jackson, MS 39205 (601) 974-2967
(60I)qw3'~&1Q5-cfax)
MS Bar# IDL2>t2
f12~ll'ker i:ico.hinds.mS.J-1~.
64

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 2-1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 65 of 65 ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED this _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _, 2016.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8 Filed 07/19/16 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

NORTHERN DIVISION
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-cv-489-WHB-JCG

HINDS COUNTY, ET AL ORDER
By telephone conference on July 19, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., Jackson, Mississippi, the Court consulted with the following attorneys in this case: Christopher Cheng Elizabeth C. Kelley Regan Rush U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Washington, D.C. Mitzi Paige U.S. Attorney’s office Jackson, MS Peter Teeuwissen Anthony Simmons Attorney for the Hinds County
Bd of Supervisors Jackson, MS
Claire Barker Attorney for the Hinds County
Sheriff's Department Jackson, MS
The Court was advised that all parties were in agreement with the terms of the Settlement Agreement attached hereto and requested the Court to sign this Order approving and implementing the

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8 Filed 07/19/16 Page 2 of 2 Settlement Agreement.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement attached hereto is hereby approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Settlement Agreement be implemented by the parties in accordance with its terms.
SO ORDERED this the 19th day of July, 2016. s/William H. Barbour,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2


 
 Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 1 of 106
Court-Appointed Monitor’s Seventh Monitoring Report United States v. Hinds County, et al. Civ. No. 3:16cv489 -JCG

David M. Parrish Corrections Operations

Elizabeth E. Simpson Court-Appointed Monitor

Jim Moeser Juvenile Justice

Dr. Richard Dudley Corrections Mental Health

1

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 2 of 106
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Corrections Operations
During the four months, between the September 2018 and January 2019 site visits, the Detention Services Division (DSD) has made no appreciable progress in three critical areas: staffing, security and the development of policies and procedures. Numerous physical plant problems such as the lack of fire safety equipment have not been addressed despite being raised repeatedly in prior monitoring reports. At the time of this site visit, ground had actually been lost in dealing with the issues of staffing and malfunctioning security doors.
Of the 433 needed positions, the DSD has 275 authorized positions of which 271 are funded. Of those, only 238 are currently filled including six personnel who were completing the recruit academy at the time of the site visit. Over the past year and a half, the number of filled positions has fluctuated between 231 and 251. The current number of officers available represents a decrease of 13 since the previous site visit. Although a salary increase for Detention Officers was implemented last year, the starting salary is still significantly lower than what their law enforcement counterparts receive. Further, no action has been taken with regard to the plan that was previously submitted by the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) for a periodic step increase plan.
Because of the staff shortage, none of the general housing units at the Raymond Detention Center (RDC) have an officer assigned inside so as to permit direct supervision of the inmates. In fact, on separate day shift inspections during the January site visit, no officers were on duty (other than the control room officer) in two out of three pods. While there were officers on duty according to the roster, they were not in place to conduct well-being checks on the inmates in the housing units. In Housing Unit A1 (Juvenile) no officer was present. In Pod C, 1 ISO (Mental Health) and 4 ISO (Suicide Watch) were both covered by one officer. Technically, that is impossible, because inmates on suicide watch require constant supervision. On a subsequent inspection, the officer assigned to cover both of these posts was located sitting in a chair in the control room. As noted in previous reports, because of the shortage of staff, and the fact that no officers are assigned to work inside the housing units, assaults and escapes (to retrieve contraband from outside the facility) are often not discovered as they occur, rather after the fact. Since the time of the last site visit there were 30 inmate assaults reported at RDC including multiple stab wounds and lacerations. Then, in December, an inmate was murdered by other unidentified inmates in B3 by beating and stabbing reportedly over an extended period of time when no officer was present on the unit. An investigation of this incident is still in progress.
Policies and Procedures (and associated Post Orders) have still not been adopted. Since the time of the site visit, two policies, one on Pre-booking and one on Booking, have been formally adopted. Without the complete Policies and Procedures in place to guide staff on how to handle
2

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 3 of 106
day to day operational activities, the Detention Services Division (DSD) can never succeed in achieving compliance with most of the paragraphs of the Settlement Agreement. A Policy Committee has been working on the development of the policies and procedures and currently, there are approximately a half dozen policies in process with two policies being adopted since the time of the site visit. Although this effort is commendable, the adoption of policies and procedures is significantly overdue.
The lack of policies and procedures results in changing and deficient practices. At the Work Center (WC) and RDC well-being checks are recorded sporadically. They are most frequently noted during the midnight shift when there is little activity. During the day and evening shifts there are lengthy gaps, often from six to eight hours. In B4 at the RDC Confinement/Segregation logs should be maintained every half hour, but they are listed hourly, however, individual wellbeing sheets on each inmate are signed every half hour. When an inspection was conducted of B4 with the assigned officer, he said that he used a flashlight so that he could see inside the individual cells, but he did not have it with him. When the flashlight was subsequently located in the control room it did not function. He also indicated that unidentified supervisors had changed the practice of checking on all inmates in B4 on a 30-minute basis and that the requirement to do so no longer applied to protective custody inmates. In B4 ISO the officer was found to be using an hourly well-being check form. The previously approved form calls for 30minute well-being checks. In Booking, the officer assigned to observe inmates in the holding cells was using a 30-minute observation log form, not the 15-minute form that is supposed to be used.
Inoperative and malfunctioning security doors throughout the Jail System have always been a significant problem, as has been documented in detail in each of the previous Monitoring Reports. Unfortunately, instead of making progress toward rectifying this situation, Hinds County has allowed it to degenerate to a critical and dangerous level. Because [1] so many of the housing unit entry slider doors at the RDC no longer work, [2] there is only one set of keys available in each pod and [3] the retrofitted safety vestibule (cage) doors are left open when officers enter the units, there is the potential for a large-scale security breach. Prompt corrective action must be taken to prevent such an eventuality from occurring. The list of other maintenance problems in the Jail System has been covered in each previous Monitoring Report.
Apparently recognizing the physical plant deficiencies, particularly at the RDC, the approach at that facility has been to develop a Crisis Emergency Response Team (CERT) to deal with emergencies and uncooperative inmates. While the concept has merit, it was implemented without guidance on how such a team should function in a detention setting. Consequently, officers use less than lethal tools such as OC and Tasers and less than lethal shot guns in an offensive or coercive manner to make inmates comply with verbal commands instead of
3

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 4 of 106
defensively and only proportional to the risk of injury. This improper use of force practice must be corrected through proper training and by developing an acceptable use of force policy.
The ongoing effort to reinstitute a direct supervision operational philosophy in the DSD facilities was delayed by the recent federal government shutdown. It caused the “Train the Trainers” orientation scheduled for mid-February 2019, to be postponed. Once the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) can reschedule the training it will be possible for DSD staff to be properly oriented so that they can manage a direct supervision housing unit.
Classification had been moving towards use of an objective classification tool but as reported in the last monitoring report, with a change in personnel, there had been a shift back to a chargebased system. As was observed in the last visit, after the tool is scored and if the charge category is higher than the resulting score, the score is routinely overridden to match the charge level effectively returning to a charge-based system. Because it has been assumed that misdemeanor defendants will always go to the WC, Booking will sometimes send them to WC before they are classified. All persons charged with misdemeanors are sent to the WC regardless of the risk score. In fact, there were inmates at the WC, a low custody facility, in red jump suits, indicating a high-risk level; the placement being based on the misdemeanor charge instead of the risk score.
Fire safety should be one of the most critical areas of concern in operating a jail, yet at the RDC fire extinguishers and fire hoses were removed from the housing units years ago after the unit officers were pulled from their posts. Without direct supervision the inmates vandalized the facility, so the equipment has never been reinstalled, leaving both inmates and staff in jeopardy.
Medical and Mental Health
Since the September 2018 site visit, there have continued to be significant and quite meaningful advances with regard to the provision of core mental health services, and the provision of these services is clearly documented in well maintained medical records and by the ‘mental health tracking log’. During this monitoring period, there has also been a significant increase in the mental health case load (from 130 to 177), most of whom (168) are seriously mentally ill, and this increase appears to be at least in part due to the improved capacity of the mental health team to identify mentally ill prisoners and maintain them in treatment.
The most critical issue at this point is addressing the fact that the hours of service provided by the psychiatrist is woefully inadequate to respond to all of the mental health provisions of the Settlement Agreement in a way that meets even the most minimum standard of practice. QCHC (the medical and mental health services provider) has proposed a reasonable remedy that is awaiting approval by the County, which will hopefully be quickly approved and implemented.
4

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 5 of 106
Other mental health priorities include (1) implementation of plans to expand the therapeutic interventions available for seriously mentally ill prisoners, (2) implementation of a more comprehensive approach to discharge planning and referral for community-based mental health services, (3) the provision of mental health input into important security functions once security policies and procedures which will detail those areas of overlap with mental health have been developed, (4) the eventual development of a mental health unit, and (5) developing a more rigorous mental health quality assessment program.
Youthful Offenders
Because at the time of the site visit there was only one youthful prisoner remaining at the RDC, time on-site was exclusively devoted to the Henley Young facility. Again, that provided an opportunity to interview more youth, engage in constructive conversations with facility leadership and other key staff, and review selected records related to incidents and the use of confinement for disciplinary purposes. At the time of the visit there were fourteen Juveniles Charged as Adults (JCAs) at Henley Young, including two girls, as well as 8 “non” JCA” youth (6 boys and 2 girls).
The final youth at RDC “aged out” on February 13. At the time of the October site visit, a decision had been made to move youth back to RDC once they had been convicted even though they were still juveniles. This resulted in significantly worse conditions of confinement for the youth and would mean that RDC would have to provide all the services and comply with all the provisions of the Settlement Agreement related to holding juveniles at RDC. This prior decision was discussed and it was recommended that it would no longer be the practice. Assuming this policy of retaining youth at Henley Young is followed, this is a significant step forward in improving the conditions of confinement for youthful prisoners.
There has continued to be incremental progress toward compliance at Henley Young in some areas and little to no change in others from the last site visit. For example, there has been: (1) a reduction in the frequency and duration of the use of room confinement as a disciplinary tool; (2) a stabilization of the population of both the youth charged as adults as well as the traditional youth held at Henley Young; (3) the start of implementation, albeit on a limited basis, of a behavioral point/incentive system that moves practice closer to the outcome intended in the agreement and (4) some progress in the functioning of the GED program and inclusion of more youth in the more normative classroom programming. While much work remains in these areas, the progress does reflect key facility leadership’s intent to improve practices at Henley Young.
Significant concerns remain in a number of areas, including: (1) the limited time provided to achieve anywhere near optimal functioning of the mental health team, particularly as it relates to limits on the time allotted to the psychologist and psychiatrist position(s); (2) there have been no
5

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 6 of 106
changes in the physical plant/facility that is necessary to provide the level of programming required by the Settlement Agreement or address some of the security and safety concerns that have been expressed in prior reports and/or by staff leadership; and (3) there is no evidence of change in the general case processing for juvenile prisoners, including extensive delays in obtaining indictments for incarcerated youth and moving the case through the court system.
While there is some hope for progress on improving the case processing system, there is little evidence of a County commitment to changes in other areas despite repeated claims that some funds have been “set aside” to support additional improvements at Henley Young. Of most immediate concern is that the psychologist position (Dr. Payne) has remained at a .5 FTE allocation, limiting progress in a number of areas (assessment, individualized case planning, treatment team coordination, and others). Steps should be taken as soon as possible to increase allocation for that position to full-time and hopefully retain Dr. Payne.
An additional note needs to be taken that with the recent election of Mr. Johnnie McDaniels, former Executive Director of Henley Young, to judicial office the County again is in the process of recruiting and selecting an Executive Director. This position has seen considerable turnover over the last decade, so it will be important to not only find the right person to fill that role but hopefully someone that will stay in that position in the coming years.
Criminal Justice and System Issues
The records system continues to improve. However, it is still not possible to run accurate reports out of the data system and staff rely on their own manual spreadsheets instead of the JMS system. Some practices exacerbate the limitations of the JMS system. The Warrants Division within the Sheriff’s Office does not use the JMS system, and does not enter warrants into the JMS system so warrants known by one arm of the Sheriff’s Office are not known to another. Warrants arising after a person is booked are not known to the Records Office. There were a few examples of persons for whom there was no lawful basis for detention at the time of booking. There were a number of examples of persons who were lawfully booked but detained beyond when they should have been released. Staff are not adhering to the deadlines in the law with respect to first appearances and probation violation hearings citing communications problems with other agencies. Two individuals manually track first appearances and probation violations. However, there is still no proactive audit of records to ensure that the records are accurate especially with respect to the basis for detention.
The CJCC has not had consistent participation by a number of stakeholders. This has limited its effectiveness. Reducing the jail population is one method for addressing the severe staffing shortage. However, the CJCC or some collaborative body will be needed to implement most jail population reduction strategies. The monitoring team has recommended that the County hire a
6

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 7 of 106
CJCC coordinator to improve the effectiveness of the CJCC. This has not been done and the County has not renewed the contract of the CJCC consultant.
A chronic problem contributing to the jail population and the lack of sufficient staffing is the continued incarceration of unindicted individuals and the extraordinary length of time to disposition of cases. A recent review of length of stay at the Jail showed 16 individuals staying more than 1000 days at the Jail. And, there were another 131 individuals held in the Jail for more than a year. The average length of stay was approximately 50 days; about twice the national average. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cjpc9913.pdf Although the Fifth Circuit has held that detention beyond 90 days of unindicted individuals is unconstitutional, this holding has not been operationalized. Jauch v. Choctaw County, 874 F. 3rd 425 (5th Cir. 2017). The Jail is understandably reluctant to release individuals without a court order and the courts are reluctant to order the release of individuals charged with serious crimes without action by the District Attorney. This logjam overpopulating the Jail, imposing a burden on taxpayers, and creating serious hardship to individuals in the system needs to be addressed.
At the time of the last site visit, four individuals were incarcerated at the WC on court orders related to fines and fees that did not meet the requirements of the law or the Settlement Agreement. This has been for the most part rectified although there was at least one individual at the WC whose court order did not appear on its face to meet these requirements and at least one other court order that was ambiguous in this regard. As new judges are elected, these requirements will have to continue to be addressed by following the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
The kiosk grievance system continues to present problems. During this site visit, in order to check whether there were outstanding grievances that had fallen off the dashboard, a report was run for grievances assigned but not answered starting from July 1, 2018. The report showed 972 grievances unanswered after 21 days. There is no structured system to ensure that all grievances are actually answered; no oversight to review whether responses are adequate; and no oversight to determine that promised actions are actually completed. This is in part a problem with the kiosk system and in part, a lack of clearly defined roles through policies and procedures.
Monitoring Activities
The Monitoring Team conducted a Site Visit January 15th through January 18th. The site visit schedule was as follows:
7

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 8 of 106

January 15th through January 18th Site Visit Schedule

Date and Time Monday 4:00

Lisa Simpson

Dave Parrish

Meet with Daryl Graves

Jim Moeser

Dr. Richard Dudley

Monday evening Tuesday A.M.

Team Meeting Meet with Rushing and command staff
Meet with County Attorney and Sheriff Attorney re strategies

Team Meeting Meet with Rushing and command staff
Tour RDC booking

Team Meeting Met @ Henley Young with: Operations Manager (Eddie Burnside); Quality Assurance Manager (Eric Dorsey); School Principal (Mr. Devine)

Team Meeting Meet with mental health team
Observe Booking and Intake

Tuesday P.M.

Meet with County Attorney re jail population reduction

Tour RDC

4:30 Wednesday A.M.

Meet with Judge Reeves Meet with Captains (including Miller) and Major re critical incidents

Meet with Judge Reeves Meet with command staff re critical incidents
RDC

RDC tour units

Wednesday P.M.

Meet with Tanecka Moore review hard copy reports- PREA reports Review medical records related to incidents

Meet with Captain Miller
Meet with Lt. Funchess
RDC

Met @ HY with: Psychologist (Dr. Payne); Judge McDaniels; Two Youth Support Specialists; Two Qualified Mental Health Professionals;

Meet with QCHC

Meet with Judge Reeves Met w.Training Officer (Mr. Hines) and Review training materials;
@ HY observe classroom & interview 4 JCA youth; Review Incident Reports & Due Process Log

Meet with Judge Reeves Tour RDC
Observe med pass
Meet with discharge planner Review records
Meet with Education Department

8

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 9 of 106

Thursday A.M. Thursday P.M.
Friday A.M. 10:30

JDC

HY

Meet with Marlo

Brinnon and

Freddie Singleton

RDC

Meet with Kenny WC Lewis Kenisha Jones Sgt. Tillman Classification-Lt. George

Exit meeting

Exit meeting

@ HY: Interview one JCA youth (female); Exit discussion(s) with Mr. Burnside and Mr. Dorsey; Met with staff from Southern Poverty Law Center; Prepare exit interview summary

Meet with security and MH leadership
Observe weekly segregation rounds
Interview inmates in segregation Exit meeting

Meet with County and Sheriff leadership to discuss recruitment, retention and training

Meet with County and Sheriff leadership to discuss recruitment, retention and training

COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW

The Monitoring Team will track progress towards compliance with the following chart. This chart will be added to with each Monitoring Report showing the date of the site visit and the number of Settlement Agreement requirements in full, partial or non-compliance. Sustained compliance is achieved when compliance with a particular Settlement Agreement requirement has been sustained for 18 months or more. The count of 92 requirements is determined by the number of Settlement Agreement paragraphs which have substantive requirements. Introductory paragraphs and general provisions are not included. Some paragraphs may have multiple requirements which are evaluated independently in the text of the report but are included as one requirement for purposes of this chart. The provisions on Youthful Offenders were evaluated in the text below for compliance at Henley Young and Raymond Detention Center but only the results for Henley Young are included in the totals in this chart. This is a change from the last report which showed compliance at RDC in the totals. The reason for this is that by the time of this report there should be no more juveniles at RDC with the last one aging out as of February.

Site Visit Date 2/7-10/17 6/13-16/17

Sustained Compliance 0 0

Substantial Compliance 1 1

Partial Compliance 4 18

NA at this time
2 2

NonCompliant 85 71

Total
92 92

9

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 10 of 106

10/16-

0

20/17

1/26-

0

2/2/18

5/22-25/18 0

9/18-21/18 1

1/15/18/19 1

1

26

1

64

92

1

29

0

62

92

1

30

0

61

92

0

37

0

54

92

1

44

0

46

92

INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS

Text of paragraphs 1-34 regarding “Parties,” “Introduction,” and “Definitions” omitted.

SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS

PROTECTION FROM HARM

Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to provide prisoners with safety, protect prisoners from violence committed by other prisoners, and ensure that prisoners are not subjected to abuse by Jail staff. To that end, the County must:

37. Develop and implement policies and procedures to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment for prisoners and staff. Such policies and procedures must include the following:
a. Booking; b. Objective classification; c. Housing assignments; d. Prisoner supervision; e. Prisoner welfare and security checks (“rounds”); f. Posts and post orders; g. Searches; h. Use of force; i. Incident reporting; j. Internal investigations; k. Prisoner rights; l. Medical and mental health care; m. Exercise and treatment activities; n. Laundry; o. Food services; p. Hygiene; q. Emergency procedures; r. Grievance procedures; and s. Sexual abuse and misconduct.

10

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 11 of 106
Non-Compliant There has been no significant change with regard to this provision since the Sixth Monitoring Report. At the time of the site visit, only six draft policies had been submitted to the DOJ and Monitor for review and none had been adopted or implemented. Since the time of the site visit, two policies have been adopted and two new policies have been provided for review. Without a Policies and Procedures Manual (and accompanying Post Orders) Hinds County cannot comply with most of the Settlement Agreement and staff are left without direction other than verbal orders and sporadic memos. For example, several months ago DSD command staff and the monitoring team set in place a practice for documenting 30-minute well-being checks of inmates in confinement (segregation) housing. During the January site visit the procedure was found to have been changed to discontinue 30-minute logged well-being checks for inmates in protective custody. When questioned as to who directed the change in procedure, the response from officers was that unspecified supervisors verbally directed it. This needs to be addressed in policies and post orders so that proper practices are not modified randomly by individual officers or supervisors.
Over the past two years the HCSO has gone through negotiations with various vendors and agencies to help them draft policies and procedures, but has never finalized an agreement. Currently, the Monitor’s expert who was brought on board to assist in the consolidation of Classification and Records into a single, cohesive unit, has taken the lead on policy development.
As noted in the last monitoring report, the full range of required mental health policies and procedures that cover areas for which the mental health team is fully and virtually solely responsible have been developed and implemented. (See other sections of this report for a discussion of security policies and procedures that require mental health involvement and/or otherwise impact on the work of the mental health team.) As the policies and procedures are operationalized, there is an internal and external focus on assessing the adequacy of the policies and procedures, the adequacy of training on the policies and procedures, and the quality of the services provided, particularly with regard to whether or not full compliance with the policies and procedures ultimately addresses the provisions of the agreement.
A recent incident provides an example of the type of assessment described above and the importance of such an assessment. The incident involved a female detainee who had alleged that she had been sexually abused. Following an investigation, it was the opinion of the PREA Officer that the allegation was unfounded, and although the detainee was not on the mental health caseload, the PREA Officer had reason to believe that she was seriously mentally ill. Further review revealed that at intake, the detainee reported a history of mental illness, including possible Bipolar Disorder, and substance abuse; at intake, it was also suspected that she was delusional; and so, she was immediately referred for a mental health evaluation. However, she
11

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 12 of 106
then refused to fully participate in the mental health evaluation, saying that there was nothing wrong with her; and so, the psychiatrist dropped her from the mental health caseload due to her noncompliance; and therefore, she had not received any mental health treatment at the facility. It is also important to note here that this detainee was not the only detainee that the psychiatrist had dropped from the mental health caseload due to noncompliance.
Dropping mentally ill detainees from the mental health caseload because of noncompliance is inconsistent with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement and simply unacceptable. Instead, when a mentally ill detainee refuses to comply with mental health treatment that is clearly indicated and required, a protocol should be initiated that includes repeated efforts to obtain compliance, coupled with an ongoing assessment of whether or not the detainee is so ill (i.e., so as to be a danger to self or others as result of mental illness) that other interventions are required (such as treatment against the detainee’s will, placement in a secure setting, etc.). QCHC administration and the mental health team took on the task of developing a corrective action plan.
As mentioned in prior reports, there are multiple mental health related provisions that cannot be addressed by mental health staff alone. These include, for example, the participation of mental health in the disciplinary review process, the participation of mental health in the segregation review process, incidences where there is an anticipated/planned use of force and incidences where there has already been a use of force, and the roles and responsibilities of mental health with regard to PREA. Security policies and procedures that would address these issues have still not been developed.
38. Ensure that the Jail is overseen by a qualified Jail Administrator and a leadership team with substantial education, training and experience in the management of a large jail, including at least five years of related management experience for their positions, and a bachelor’s degree. When the Jail Administrator is absent or if the position becomes vacant, a qualified deputy administrator with comparable education, training, and experience, must serve as acting Jail Administrator.
Non-Compliant As was stated in the Sixth Monitoring Report, this paragraph was previously carried as being in Partial Compliance, but was reduced to Non-Compliant when a new Assistant Jail Administrator was appointed in spite of that fact that he does not meet the qualifications for the position. As has been noted, personnel hired prior to the effective date of the Settlement Agreement have understandably been retained even when not meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. However, hiring and promotions after the effective date of the Settlement Agreement and inconsistent with its requirements have to result in a finding of non-compliance.
12

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 13 of 106
39. Ensure that all Jail supervisors have the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing needed to effectively supervise both prisoners and other staff members. At minimum, Jail supervisors must have at least 3 years of field experience, including experience working in the Jail. They must also be familiar with Jail policies and procedures, the terms of this Agreement, and prisoner rights.
Partial Compliance Until there are approved policies and procedures in place, the supervisors will not be able to become familiar with them. There have been no promotions within the DSD since the September 2018 site visit. The personnel histories of a number of supervisors promoted at the time of the last site visit indicate that individuals who have what should be disqualifying backgrounds, are nevertheless hired and/or promoted. These were listed in the 6th Monitoring Report. When questioned regarding specific requirements of the Settlement Agreement, most supervisors are unable to articulate knowledgeable responses.
40. Ensure that no one works in the Jail unless they have passed a background check, including a criminal history check.
Partial Compliance While the HCSO Director of Human Resources conducted a review of most DSD personnel files that supported compliance with this paragraph, the personnel histories of a number of supervisors indicate that individuals who have what should be disqualifying backgrounds, are nevertheless hired and/or promoted. These were listed in the 6th Monitoring Report.
41. Ensure that Jail policies and procedures provide for the “direct supervision” of all Jail housing units.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph. The Policies and Procedures Manual has yet to be published. Even when that is done, the physical design of the Jackson Detention Center (JDC), which is a linear facility, make implementation of direct supervision there an impossibility. “Train the Trainers” support, through NIC was supposed to occur at the WC and RDC in mid-February, but the federal government shutdown forced that effort to be postponed. This is now scheduled for March.
42. Ensure that the Jail has sufficient staffing to adequately supervise prisoners, fulfill the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the safe operation of the Jail. The parties recognize that the Board allocates to the Sheriff lump sum funding on a quarterly basis. The Sheriff recognizes that sufficient staffing of the Jail should be a priority for utilizing those funds. To that end, the County must at minimum:
13

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 14 of 106
a. Hire and retain sufficient numbers of detention officers to ensure that: i. There are at least two detention officers in each control room at all times; ii. There are at least three detention officers at all times for each housing unit, booking area, and the medical unit;
iii. There are rovers to provide backup and assistance to other posts; iv. Prisoners have access to exercise, medical treatment, mental health
treatment, and attorney visitation as scheduled; v. There are sufficient detention officers to implement this Agreement. b. Fund and obtain a formal staffing and needs assessment (“study”) that determines with particularity the minimum number of staff and facility improvements required to implement this Agreement. As an alternative to a new study, the September 2014 study by the National Institute of Corrections may be updated if the updated study includes current information for the elements listed below. The study or study update must be completed within six months of the Effective Date and must include the following elements: i. The staffing element of the study must identify all required posts and
positions, as well as the minimum number and qualifications of staff to cover each post and position. ii. The study must ensure that the total number of recommended positions includes a “relief factor” so that necessary posts remain covered regardless of staff vacancies, turnover, vacations, illness, holidays, or other temporary factors impacting day-to-day staffing. iii. As part of any needs assessment, the study’s authors must estimate the number of prisoners expected to be held in the Jail and identify whether additional facilities, including housing, may be required. c. Once completed, the County must provide the United States and the Monitor with a copy of the study and a plan for implementation of the study’s recommendations. Within one year after the Monitor’s and United States’ review of the study and plan, the County must fund and implement the staffing and facility improvements recommended by the study, as modified and approved by the United States. d. The staffing study shall be updated at least annually and staffing adjusted accordingly to ensure continued compliance with this Agreement. The parties recognize that salaries are an important factor to recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, so the County will also annually evaluate salaries. e. The County will also create, to the extent possible, a career ladder and system of retention bonuses for Jail staff.
14

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 15 of 106
Non-Compliant As was previously reported, this paragraph was downgraded from Partial Compliance to NonCompliant in the Fifth Monitoring Report because of the lack of progress in filling existing positions. Since then there was a slight improvement, followed by another drop. At present, only 238 of the 275 authorized positions (271 funded) are filled. Six of those officers were still in the academy at the time of the site visit. During the past year and a half, the number of filled positions has fluctuated from a high of 251 to a low of 231. It should be noted that based on the staffing analysis, 433 positions are required to staff all three facilities. The goal of 275 positions was intended to be an interim benchmark.
At the JDC, 49 Detention Officers of the 83.6 positions are filled, but staff are able to get by primarily because the count at the time of the site visit was 121, which is 71 below the facility’s rated capacity of 192. The required number of positions, however, is not reduced by the lower population. At the WC 56 Detention Officers of the 64.1 positions are filled. All four housing units are finally open. Housing Unit 4 was opened during the January site visit. While the WC currently houses only 174 inmates, which is 82 below its rated capacity of 256, similar to JDC, the required number of positions is not reduced by the lower population. The WC is capable of handling additional population if security modifications are made to the housing unit fire exit doors. The WC currently posts individuals there because they are not operating the units entirely consistent with principles of direct supervision. Once the fire doors are modified and the NIC direct supervision training has been accomplished the individuals at the fire doors can be located elsewhere.
At the RDC where only 127 Detention Officers of the required 280.4 positions are filled (45%), lack of staff is still a critical issue. At the time of the site visit, there were 361 inmates, which is 462 below the facility’s rated capacity of 792. This has allowed the closure of two units resulting in some savings of needed staff positions. If two additional units could be closed such that a pod could be closed, there would be a savings of 35 needed staff positions. Because of the staff shortage, none of the general housing units have an officer assigned inside so as to permit direct supervision of the inmates. In fact, on separate day shift inspections during the January site visit, no officers were on duty (other than the control room officer) in two out of three pods. While there were officers on duty according to the roster, they were not in place to conduct well-being checks on the inmates in the housing units. In Housing Unit A1 (Juvenile) no officer was present. In Pod C, 1 ISO (Mental Health) and 4 ISO (Suicide Watch) were both covered by one officer. Technically, that is impossible, because inmates on suicide watch require constant supervision. On a subsequent inspection, the officer assigned to cover both of these posts was located sitting in a chair in the control room. As noted in previous reports, because of the shortage of staff, and the fact that no officers are assigned to work inside the housing units, assaults and escapes (to retrieve contraband from outside the facility) are often not discovered as they occur, rather after the fact. Since the time of the last site visit there were 30 inmate assaults
15

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 16 of 106
reported at RDC including multiple stab wounds and lacerations. Then, in December, an inmate was murdered by other unidentified inmates in B3 by beating and stabbing reportedly over an extended period of time when no officer was present on the unit. An investigation of this incident is still in progress.
While the County has prepared a staffing study that identifies all of the posts and positions that are required to operate the Jail System, hiring sufficient officers to fill those positions has not been accomplished, nor has an annual update of the plan been undertaken. Although the HCSO has submitted a recommended salary step system whereby employees would receive periodic increases, the County has yet to take any action on the proposal.
f. Develop and implement an objective and validated classification and housing assignment procedure that is based on risk assessment rather than solely on a prisoner’s charge. Prisoners must be classified immediately after booking, and then housed based on the classification assessment. At minimum, a prisoner’s bunk, cell, unit, and facility assignments must be based on his or her objective classification assessment, and staff members may not transfer or move prisoners into a housing area if doing so would violate classification principles (e.g., placing juveniles with adults, victims with former assailants, and minimum security prisoners in a maximum security unit). Additionally, the classification and housing assignment process must include the following elements: i. The classification process must be handled by qualified staff who have additional training and experience on classification. ii. The classification system must take into account objective risk factors including a prisoner’s prior institutional history, history of violence, charges, special needs, physical size or vulnerabilities, gang affiliation, and reported enemies. iii. Prisoner housing assignments must not be changed by unit staff without proper supervisor and classification staff approval. iv. The classification system must track the location of all prisoners in the Jail and help ensure that prisoners can be readily located by staff. The County may continue to use wrist bands to help identify prisoners, but personal identification on individual prisoners may not substitute for a staffcontrolled and centralized prisoner tracking and housing assignment system. v. The classification system must be integrated with the Jail prisoner record system, so that staff have appropriate access to information necessary to provide proper supervision, including the current housing assignment of every prisoner in the Jail.
16

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 17 of 106
vi. The designation and use of housing units as “gang pods” must be phased out under the terms of this Agreement. Placing prisoners together because of gang affiliation alone is prohibited. The County must replace current gang-based housing assignments with a more appropriate objective classification and housing process within one year after the Effective Date.
Non-Compliant The shift back to a charge-based system continues as described in the last report. As part of the work with Karen Albert of the monitoring team, an objective classification tool had been adopted and was being used. However, with the change in leadership in Classification, the system moved back to a charge-based system. As was observed in the last visit, after the tool is scored and if the charge category is higher than the resulting score, the score is routinely overridden to match the charge level effectively returning to a charge-based system. Four charts were reviewed and this was observed in 3 of the 4 charts. In the fourth chart, the charge level was consistent with the score. It was also noted that two of the factors were not being calculated accurately. Inmates are sometimes being classified at RDC before being sent to the WC but because it has been assumed that misdemeanor defendants will always go to the WC, Booking will sometimes send them to WC before they are classified. All persons charged with misdemeanors are sent to the WC regardless of the risk score. In fact, there were inmates at the WC, a low custody facility, in red jump suits, indicating a high-risk level.
The coverage for Classification has not changed and leaves a few gaps in the ability to timely classify incoming inmates. With the staffing changes, the Classification team is close to being able to classify at the time of booking at RDC. However, there is no coverage at RDC from 7:00 a.m. Saturday morning to 7:00 a.m. Monday morning. Also, because persons charged with misdemeanors are sent to the WC before classification and the Classification officer at the WC works 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday, there are individuals who are not getting classified in a timely manner. It has been suggested that these individuals should be classified at RDC before being transferred to the WC. Similarly, because of staffing limitations at JDC, females who are transferred to JDC before classification are not always classified at the time of booking.
Although all cell assignments and inmate transfers are supposed to be cleared through Classification, there is no policy in place that requires that action, consequently, supervisors sometimes make such transfers on their own. While the Jail Administrator made a policy decision to end the practice of assignment of inmates to housing according to gang affiliation two years ago, the lack of supervision within the housing units at the RDC makes it impossible to stop physical conflict from developing between competing groups of gang members housed in
17

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 18 of 106
the same unit. In addition, elimination of gang pods without having moved to an objective riskbased classification system has the potential of increasing the risk of violence and, in fact, several incidents of gang violence have occurred in the last six months.
g. Develop and implement positive approaches for promoting safety within the Jail including: i. Providing all prisoners with at least 5 hours of outdoor recreation per week; ii. Developing rewards and incentives for good behavior such as additional commissary, activities, or privileges; iii. Creating work opportunities, including the possibility of paid employment; iv. Providing individual or group treatment for prisoners with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other behavioral or medical conditions, who would benefit from therapeutic activities; v. Providing education, including special education, for youth, as well as all programs, supports, and services required for youth by federal law; vi. Screening prisoners for serious mental illness as part of the Jail’s booking and health assessment process, and then providing such prisoners with appropriate treatment and therapeutic housing; vii. Providing reasonable opportunities for visitation.
h. Ensure that policies, procedures, and practices provide for higher levels of supervision for individual prisoners if necessary due to a prisoner’s individual circumstances. Examples of such higher level supervision include (a) constant observation (i.e., continuous, uninterrupted one-on-one monitoring) for actively suicidal prisoners (i.e., prisoners threatening or who recently engaged in suicidal behavior); (b) higher frequency security checks for prisoners locked down in maximum security units, medical observation units, and administrative segregation units; and (c) more frequent staff interaction with youth as part of their education, treatment and behavioral management programs.
i. Continue to update, maintain, and expand use of video surveillance and recording cameras to improve coverage throughout the Jail, including the booking area, housing units, medical and mental health units, special management housing, facility perimeters, and in common areas.
Partial Compliance Regarding 42 (g)(i), five hours of outdoor recreation per week is not provided to all inmates in the Jail System although progress has been made towards that at each facility. At the JDC there has never been an outdoor recreation yard. Inmates are allowed to spend time in the fifth-floor multi-purpose room (indoor recreation time) and the indoor car wash area. A recreation log is
18

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 19 of 106
maintained, but it does not reflect the length of time for each recreation period. A review of this log for the first two weeks of January 2019 revealed that inmates were taken to the 5th floor multi-purpose room on five days and to the indoor car wash area once. Half of those days were dedicated to female inmates and half to male inmates which means that each group had an opportunity for out of cell time that qualifies as recreation (though not outdoor recreation) a total of only one- and one-half times per week. (Staff reported less frequent opportunities based on smaller groups being taken at any one time. This will be evaluated further.) Compliance with this paragraph cannot be achieved until an outdoor recreation yard is constructed on the roof of the jail. At the WC each recreation yard is shared by two housing units. A separate recreation log is now maintained; it includes the housing unit number and the length of time that the recreation yard was open, making it possible to determine how much outdoor time is provided. A review of this log from December 28, 2018 to January 10, 2019 revealed that each housing unit was afforded outdoor recreation an average of seven hours per week. At the RDC inmates went without outdoor recreation for over five years, but during the January site visit, some inmates were observed utilizing the recreation yards again. Since the RDC does not maintain a recreation log it is not possible to determine how much outdoor recreation time inmates are afforded. Accordingly, the WC is the only facility that is within compliance with regard to the outside recreation standard.
Regarding 42 (g) (iv) During the last twelve months, the mental health program has made enormous progress.
At the time of this site visit, there were 177 detainees on the mental health case load. Referrals for a mental health evaluation and treatment came from a variety of sources; the most common source of referral was the intake nurse; and the intake nurse made such a referral because the detainee reported a history of mental illness and/or at least appeared to be suffering from mental illness at the point of intake. Other sources of referral included the ‘Form #3’ (a mental health screening form completed by each new admission at the time of intake, which is then sent to the Medical Department for review and any indicated action), medical staff, self-referral, and occasionally security staff. In addition, mental health staff identified detainees in need of a mental health evaluation and treatment during the weekly rounds in segregation, etc. Whether or not this collection of referral sources captures all detainees who would benefit from mental health treatment in a timely manner has yet to be determined, and approaches to trying to answer that question still need to be developed.
There continues to be an issue of defining the target population for the mental health case load as described in previous monitoring reports. In other words, is the target population just those who would be described as ‘seriously mentally ill’ or should it also include detainees who suffer from other mental health difficulties that cause them considerable distress and that significantly impact on their ability to function? There continue to be efforts to clarify this issue, made all the more
19

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 20 of 106
difficult by the fact that the mental health case load is already full of detainees who are defined as seriously mentally ill.
In the medical records of virtually all of the detainees on the mental health case load there were mental health evaluations, treatment plans, progress/treatment notes, and psychiatric follow-up notes for those on medication (“virtually all” because four detainees on the mental health case load have so far refused to be formally evaluated or treated). Due to staffing issues, especially the very limited availability of the psychiatrist, there is still no treatment planning and treatment plan review at mental health team meetings that would allow for a more integrated, interdisciplinary approach to treatment planning and the periodic review of treatment plans. However, it is anticipated that once staffing issues are addressed, this issue will be addressed.
As was noted in the last monitoring report, a ‘mental health tracking log’ has been developed and it continues to be well maintained. The log lists all detainees on the mental health case load; each detainee’s location, booking date, and length of stay in the facility; how and when each detainee was referred to mental health; and information regarding the initial mental health assessment, the initial psychiatric assessment, diagnosis, the treatment plan, any medication, and next scheduled visit. This log facilitates both the internal and external monitoring of the provision of mental health services, particularly with regard to compliance with policy and the performance of procedures in a timely manner.
The next step is the development of mechanisms for the internal and external assessment of the quality of the mental health services provided. Initiation of the above noted treatment plan review process will certainly be an important part of that effort, in that there will be a regularly scheduled review of whether or not each detainee’s treatment is addressing the goals of the detainee’s treatment plan. It should be noted that there were findings during this most recent site visit that would at least suggest that the quality of the mental health services has continued to improve. These findings include, for example, a significant decrease in manipulative/acting-out behavior by detainees on the mental health case load; a significant decrease in the number of detainees placed on suicide watch, and a shorter length of stay on suicide watch; and fewer referrals for emergency mental health sessions in between scheduled mental health follow-up sessions. However, consideration should be given to what other mechanisms might be employed to more formally assess the quality of the mental health services provided.
Finally, it has already been established that there is a need to develop additional mental health interventions that are not currently available at the facility in order to comply with this provision requiring appropriate treatment and therapeutic housing; and it is anticipated that such an enhancement of mental health services would, in addition, significantly improve the quality of the treatment for such detainees, improve their ability to function within the facility, and increase the likelihood that detainees would continue treatment upon their release from the facility and
20

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 21 of 106
thereby decrease the likelihood of recidivism. Planned, additional mental health services include a group therapy program with groups focused on the development of social skills, conflict resolution, substance abuse, dual-diagnosis (i.e. those with substance abuse issues and some other major mental illness), and parenting. There is also a need for psychoeducational groups (focused on learning about one’s mental illness, the need for treatment, and the responsibilities for fully participating on one’s own treatment), medication management groups, and discharge planning groups. In addition, the mental health team has identified the need to better integrate other services provided at the facility into mental health treatment plans; such other services include, for example, competency training, ministerial work, and the ASU Collaborative’s diversion program for individuals with serious mental illness; and so therefore efforts are underway to work more cooperatively with the providers of these other services. Then ultimately, there is the need for a mental health unit, where seriously mentally ill inmates can receive this enhanced range of services in a coordinated and integrated way, within a more therapeutic setting.
As mentioned, staffing levels continue to impact the ability to provide the mental health services required by the Settlement Agreement. At present, the mental health team consists of two fulltime QMHPs (the mental health coordinator and another full-time social worker), a very parttime psychologist, and a very part-time psychiatrist. At the time of this site visit, the mental health case load included 177 detainees housed at three different sites, 168 if whom were on medication and considered to be seriously mentally ill. In addition to providing direct, follow-up clinical services to those on the mental health case load, the mental health team has other responsibilities such as mental health assessments of new admissions, the more intensive management and monitoring of suicidal detainees and other more acutely ill detainees, responding to other mental health emergencies, weekly rounds in segregation, and a range of administrative tasks (maintaining records, logs, etc. and attendance at staff meetings and conferences focused on treatment planning, discharge planning, etc.). Furthermore, the two fulltime QMHPs and the part-time psychologist rotate weekend call for mental health (which includes checking-in multiple times during the weekend with each facility, seeing detainees on suicide watch or other special watch, and also coming in to assess and manage any acute mental health emergencies), and they do this in addition to their full weekday schedule, and the psychiatrist is also on telephone call virtually all of the time. It should also be noted here that there is a planned expansion of the range of mental health services provided; such an expansion is required to adequately address the treatment needs of the seriously mentally ill and respond to many of the provisions of this agreement; but at present, there are not enough staff to initiate this planned expansion. Then, once security policies and procedures are developed and implemented, the mental health team will have additional tasks, such as participation in the segregation review process and the disciplinary review process.
21

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 22 of 106
As was noted in the last monitoring report, the most critical staffing issue is the fact that there is inadequate psychiatric time to meet the provisions of the agreement and any reasonable standard of care. More specifically, there is a list of responsibilities that must be assumed by psychiatrists or other mental health professionals who are licensed to assume some of the responsibilities. This list of responsibilities were detailed in the last monitoring report, as was the fact that the very limited amount of time the psychiatrist was at each of the facilities wasn’t even enough time to prescribe for and supervise the psychopharmacologic treatment of what was then only 100 detainees on medication. In response to this critical shortage of psychiatric time, QCHC has proposed adding one full-time equivalent psychiatric nurse clinician (two half-time positions) to the mental health team; consistent with the standards promulgated by the Mississippi Board of Nursing, the nurse clinicians would have on-site psychiatric supervision; and QCHC has asked the County to amend the contract with QCHC to include this additional full-time equivalent staff line. Based upon the QCHC proposal and applicable Mississippi standards, it at least appears that this QCHC proposal would address this critical shortage of psychiatric time.
Although the shortage of psychiatric time is the most critical mental health staffing issue, there is a shortage of other staff as well. More specifically, at present, each of the two existing QMHPs makes approximately 80 detainee/patient contacts each week. Given all of the other things that they are trying to do (described above), at multiple facilities, these 80 contacts are obviously far too short and, of necessity, limited in their scope. Furthermore, this leaves virtually no time at all for expanding the range of therapeutic interventions required to address all of the provisions of the agreement. (For a discussion of plans to expand/enhance mental health programming, see section 42 of this report.) During this site visit there was a discussion about the need for an additional QMHP and/or a mental health tech who would assume some of the administrative responsibilities; multiple issues came up during the course of that discussion; and therefore, further assessment and discussion of mental health staffing needs should continue once the psychiatric nurse clinicians are brought on board.
Regarding 42 (g) (vi) In order to evaluate the screening process during this site visit, the mental health monitor followed a new admission (who was apparently transferred from another facility) through each stage of the Jail’s booking and health assessment/intake process. Although this was only one admission, the process raised a number of concerns about the adequacy of the screening process.
During the booking process, the mental health and other heath questions were reasonable and included such basic questions as a history of mental health or other health difficulties, hospitalizations, and medications. There is not much in the way of privacy during the booking process; and so it is quite possible that a new admission might not openly respond to even these most basic questions, particularly with regard to mental health or certain physical health difficulties such as HIV status or other sexually transmitted diseases; and the booking officer
22

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 23 of 106
even seemed to acknowledge this to some extent, in that the officer informed the new admission that the next step in the process would be medical, and he could talk to the nurse about any health or mental health difficulties that he didn’t want to talk to the booking officer about. However, in this case, the new admission did report a history of being hospitalized for mental illness and reported that he had previously attempted suicide; but then he was not asked if he currently felt like hurting himself; and he was not constantly observed until he was seen by the intake nurse or immediately referred for an urgent mental health assessment.
The policy group facilitated by Karen Albert has recommended some minor renovations to the booking area that would address the lack of privacy as well as other issues and improve the efficiency of the booking process. Completion of these recommended renovations would resolve this issue.
When this new admission was seen by the intake nurse, he was asked a long list of questions in a way that overly influenced his responses and limited any real discussion. For example, ‘you don’t have x, y or z do you?’. In addition, although his affect was blunted, his legs were constantly shaking, and he repeatedly asked for water, none of this was recognized and explored by the nurse.
It did not appear that the nurse knew that at booking, the new admission had reported a history of being hospitalized for mental illness and had reported that he had previously attempted suicide. The reported history of suicide attempts did not come up during the interview with the intake nurse, and since the intake nurse at least didn’t appear to know what he had told the booking officer, she didn’t bring it up and explore it as part of the nursing assessment. However, he did tell the intake nurse that he had been stabbed in the arm during a fight the previous day (this had not come up during the booking process); the nurse examined the hole in his forearm; but the nurse did not ask any questions about the fight in an effort to determine whether there were any psychological sequelae.
It was reported that new admissions complete the ‘Form #3’, which is a mental health screen; that this form is sent to medical; and that if there are any positives on the form, the new admission is referred to mental health. However, in observing the new admission through the intake, booking and initial/intake health assessment process, it wasn’t at all clear when this form is completed.
The next day, the new admission was observed on a regular, open unit without the history of suicide being assessed or being observed closely until it could be further assessed.
23

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 24 of 106
Of course, this is the story of only one new admission to the facility, and his story may or may not be representative of all or even most new admissions. However, this story does raise some concerns about the booking/intake process that were discussed with the relevant supervisors.
Based on the observations of the assessment process, it is recommended that QCHC and Booking staff reassess the mental health components of the intake/booking process and the initial health assessment process, including what training and/or enhanced supervision staff responsible for each process might require in order to fully comply with approved policies and procedures, and in turn, the provisions of this agreement. In order to further evaluate the initial assessment process, staff should assess the cases of detainees who are first identified as in need of mental health services at some point after the booking/intake process, with an eye towards determining whether their mental health difficulties were missed during the booking/intake process or they developed mental health difficulties while detained at the facility. Given the deficiencies noted, staff should evaluate whether the policies and procedures that govern the booking process, the initial medical intake/screening process, and classification and assignment to housing units are clear with regard to the identification and management of new admissions who might be suffering from mental health difficulties.
Regarding 42 (g)(vii), visitation records reflect that inmates housed at the JDC continue to have a much greater incidence of visitation than do their counterparts at the RDC and WC. To date it has not been possible to determine why this disparity exists. Based on a review of visitation records at the JDC for a period of 12 days, 48 inmates were able to have a visit, which equates to 4.0 per day or 124 per month. With only 121 inmates in the facility, that means that every inmate is able to have one visit each month. At the RDC and WC (whose records are combined) there were 43 visits in 17 days, which equates to 2.5 per day or 77.5 per month. Based on the combined population of the RDC (361) and the WC (177), each inmate in those facilities is able to have a visit only once every seven months.
Regarding 42 (h), as was noted in the last monitoring report, the mental health assessment of inmates suspected of being suicidal is being performed on an emergency basis, and with the weekend on call schedule, this is even happening on weekends. However, due to the lack of documentation, it remains unclear as to whether or not inmates who are suspected of being suicidal are kept under constant observation by security staff until the mental health assessment is performed. In addition, although the QMHPs who perform the assessments consult with the psychiatrist over the telephone, in many instances, the psychiatrist does not have an actual faceto-face assessment of the inmate in a timely manner if at all, even if the inmate is placed on suicide watch.
Inmates placed on suicide watch do receive a higher level of supervision by mental health and security, but the level of supervision by security staff should be better documented. As was noted above, at one point during the site visit, the juvenile unit and the suicide unit which are both
24

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 25 of 106
supposed to have an officer in the unit at all times were being staffed by one officer. At a second time during the site visit, that officer wasn’t in either unit; but rather was sitting in the control room. Also, there still needs to be clarification of what is expected of the nursing staff with regard to a higher level of supervision. The fact that the decision to terminate a suicide watch may also be made upon telephone consultation with the psychiatrist as opposed to a face-to-face assessment by the psychiatrist also needs to be reviewed.
For inmates who have undergone a mental health assessment of suicide potential and found not to be acutely suicidal, there is a ‘safety plan’ that is developed by the evaluating QMHP and the inmate that is signed by both, and then the QMHP follows the inmate to assure adherence to the ‘safety plan’. When an inmate is released from a suicide watch, there is also an established protocol for follow-up that is well structured and closely followed.
Special mental health observation, for acutely mentally ill prisoners, is also described in the ‘suicide prevention’ policy, with a level of monitoring that is to be prescribed by mental health. In the implementation of this policy it remains important for mental health staff to make it clear that an inmate could be on ‘suicide watch’ and/or ‘special mental health observation’, and if an inmate is on both types of watch, each watch may have different requirements for monitoring and different end points.
Regarding 42 (i), video surveillance capabilities at the various facilities have not changed since the last site visit. Supervisory staff at the RDC have the ability to utilize that facility’s video records to review escapes and other significant incidents in order to determine what actually occurred. It should be noted that access to recorded video requires approval by the Jail Administrator or Assistant Jail Administrator, so video is only examined on occasion, not routinely as it should be. There is no video capability at the JDC except in the vehicle sally port. At the WC, while there are cameras that monitor the housing units, they have no recording capability. The County should take prompt action to rectify this deficiency.
43. Include outcome measures as part of the Jail’s internal data collection, management, and administrative reporting process. The occurrence of any of the following specific outcome measures creates a rebuttable presumption in this case that the Jail fails to provide reasonably safe conditions for prisoners:
a. Staff vacancy rate of more than 10% of budgeted positions; b. A voluntary staff turnover rate that results in the failure to staff critical posts (such
as the housing units, booking, and classification) or the failure to maintain experienced supervisors on all shifts; c. A major disturbance resulting in the takeover of any housing area by prisoners; d. Staffing where fewer than 90% of all detention officers have completed basic jailer training;
25

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 26 of 106
e. Three or more use of force or prisoner-on-prisoner incidents in a fiscal year in which a prisoner suffers a serious injury, but for which staff members fail to complete all documentation required by this Agreement, including supervision recommendations and findings;
f. One prisoner death within a fiscal year, where there is no documented administrative review by the Jail Administrator or no documented mortality review by a physician not directly involved in the clinical treatment of the deceased prisoner (e.g. corporate medical director or outside, contract physician, when facility medical director may have a personal conflict);
g. One death within a fiscal year, where the death was a result of prisoner-onprisoner violence and there was a violation of Jail supervision, housing assignment, or classification procedures.
Non-Compliant The DSD still does not create a report covering each of these areas. Data must be obtained by making specific requests for current information. At the time of the January site visit a total of 238 positions were filled out of 275 authorized (and 271 funded) positions. The average number of filled positions over the past year and a half was 242. That equates to an 11% vacancy rate for the funded positions and a 45% vacancy rate for the 433 positions that are required to staff all three facilities based on the staffing analysis. Excessive turnover of staff, particularly at the RDC, continues to be a problem and results in the failure to staff critical positions such as the housing units.
The number of incidents involving an inappropriate use of force by staff jumped to alarming levels since the September 2018 site visit. In every documented use of OC and the Taser, staff used those defensive tools to coerce inmates into following their verbal commands, not to defend themselves when inmates became violent.
In an incident that occurred at the RDC on December 6, 2019, an inmate was murdered by other, unidentified inmates in Housing Unit B3. The victim was arrested for a gang related murder, then was housed in a unit with other gang members instead of being placed in protective custody. While investigation into this incident is ongoing, it appears to be a direct violation of paragraph “g” above.
44. To complement, but not replace, “direct supervision,” develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that detention officers are conducting rounds as appropriate. To that end:
a. Rounds must be conducted at least once every 30 minutes in general population housing units and at least once every 15 minutes for special management prisoners (including prisoners housed in booking cells).
26

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 27 of 106
b. All security rounds must be conducted at irregular intervals to reduce their predictability and must be documented on forms or logs.
c. Officers must only be permitted to enter data on these forms or logs at the time a round is completed. Forms and logs must not include pre-printed dates or times. Officers must not be permitted to fill out forms and logs before they actually conduct their rounds.
d. The parties anticipate that “rounds” will not necessarily be conducted as otherwise described in this provision when the Jail is operated as a “direct supervision” facility. This is because a detention officer will have constant, active supervision of all prisoners in the detention officer’s charge. As detailed immediately below, however, even under a “direct supervision” model, the Jail must have a system in place to document and ensure that staff are providing adequate supervision.
e. Jail policies, procedures, and practices may utilize more than one means to document and ensure that staff are supervising prisoners as required by “direct supervision,” including the use and audit of supervisor inspection reports, visitation records, mealtime records, inmate worker sheets, medical treatment files, sick call logs, canteen delivery records, and recreation logs. Any system adopted to ensure that detention officers are providing “direct supervision” must be sufficiently detailed and in writing to allow verification by outside reviewers, including the United States and Monitor.
Partial Compliance There has been no progress made with regard to the provisions of this paragraph since the last Monitoring Report. None of the facilities meet the requirement that well-being checks must be conducted every 30 minutes in general population and every 15 minutes in segregation (confinement). This provision is carried as partial compliance because well-being checks are being made and documented where previously they hadn’t been. However, as described below, they are not consistent with the requirements of this paragraph and, as a result, present substantial risk of injury.
Because of time limitations, it was not possible for the corrections operations member of the monitoring team to inspect the JDC with regard to this paragraph during the January site visit. At the WC and RDC well-being checks are recorded sporadically. They are most frequently noted during the midnight shift when there is little activity. During the day and evening shifts there are lengthy gaps, often from six to eight hours. In B4 at the RDC Confinement/Segregation logs should be maintained every half hour, but they are listed hourly, however, individual wellbeing sheets on each inmate are signed every half hour. It should be noted that the individual log sheets are maintained in a central location outside of the housing unit, not by the individual cells as they should be. When an inspection was conducted of B4 with the assigned officer, he said
27

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 28 of 106
that he used a flashlight so that he could see inside the individual cells, but he did not have it with him. When the flashlight was subsequently located in the control room it did not function. He also indicated that unidentified supervisors had changed the practice of checking on all inmates in B4 on a 30-minute basis and that the requirement to do so no longer applied to protective custody inmates. There is no command level documentation to support this inappropriate change in practice. In B4 ISO the officer was found to be using an hourly wellbeing check form. The previously approved form calls for 30-minute well-being checks. In Booking, the officer assigned to observe inmates in the holding cells was using a 30-minute observation log form, not the 15-minute form that is supposed to be used. In the Sixth Monitoring Report it was noted that the officer assigned to this same post in Booking was using an hourly well-being check form, not the authorized 15-minute form. The problem was rectified at that time. The Sixth Report stated that “This level of regression from previously settled practice is indicative of a lack of supervision.” To find the same problem, albeit with a different improper form, is inexcusable. When questioned as to what the standard for well-being checks is, the Booking Sergeant was unable to provide the answer. Supervision in the Booking area is not just lacking, it is non-existent.
See paragraph 76 with regard to mental health rounds for prisoners in segregation. See paragraph 42 (h) with regard to prisoners who require special management due to acute mental health difficulties.
45. Ensure that all correctional officers receive adequate pre- and post-service training to provide for reasonably safe conditions in the Jail. To that end, the County must ensure that the Jail employs Qualified Training Officers, who must help to develop and implement a formal, written training program. The program must include the following:
a. Mandatory pre-service training. Detention officers must receive State jailer training and certification prior to start of work. Staff who have not received such training by the Effective Date of this Agreement must complete their State jailer training within twelve months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. During that twelve month period, the County must develop an in-house detention training academy.
b. Post Order training. Detention officers must receive specific training on unitspecific post orders before starting work on a unit, and every year thereafter. To document such training, officers must be required to sign an acknowledgement that they have received such training, but only after an officer is first assigned to a unit, after a Post Order is updated, and after completion of annual retraining.
c. “Direct supervision” training. Detention officers must receive specific pre- and post service training on “direct supervision.” Such training must include instruction on how to supervise prisoners in a “direct supervision” facility, including instruction in effective communication skills and verbal de-escalation.
28

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 29 of 106
Supervisors must receive training on how to monitor and ensure that staff are providing effective “direct supervision.” d. Jail administrator training. High-level Jail supervisors (i.e., supervisors with facility-wide management responsibilities), including the Jail Administrator and his or her immediate deputies (wardens), must receive jail administrator training prior to the start of their employment. High-level supervisors already employed at the Jail when this Agreement is executed must complete such training within six months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Training comparable to the Jail Administration curriculum offered by the National Institute of Corrections will meet the requirements of this provision. e. Post-service training. Detention officers must receive at least 120 hours per year of post-service training in their first year of employment and 40 hours per year after their first year. Such training must include refresher training on Jail policies. The training may be provided during roll call, staff meetings, and post-assignment meetings. Post-service training should also include field and scenario-based training. f. Training for Critical Posts. Jail management must work with the training department to develop a training syllabus and minimum additional training requirements for any officer serving in a critical position. Such additional training must be provided for any officer working on a tactical team; in a special management, medical or mental health unit; in a maximum security unit; or in booking and release. g. Special management unit training. Officers assigned to special management units must receive at least eight hours of specialized training each year regarding supervision of such units and related prisoner safety, medical, mental health, and security policies. h. Training on all Jail policies and procedures including those regarding prisoner rights and the prevention of staff abuse and misconduct.
Non-Compliant During the January site visit the HCSO provided information on an in-house candidate for the position of Detention Training Lieutenant who has a background in detention operations and training. It is essential that a qualified candidate is hired to fill this critical position as soon as possible.
While the Training Director has not provided the statistical information referenced in the last Monitoring Report, he did submit an unofficial synopsis of that data. It will be used for reference purposes in this document, but must be supported by a formal report from his office. Pre-service Training has been completed for 236 of 238 officers. Post Order Training has not been conducted because Post Orders have not yet been written or submitted for approval. Direct
29

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 30 of 106
Supervision Training is dependent upon NIC’s ability to reschedule it to sometime after February. The Assistant Jail Administrator has not yet been scheduled for specialized training. In Service Training was completed for 200 of 238 officers in 2018. Training for Critical Posts was provided to the CERT members as well as Booking and Classification personnel. Special Management Unit Training has not yet been provided, but 106 of 238 officers have received eight hours of training in Mental Health and First Aid for Public Safety. There has been no training with regard to policies and procedures because they have not yet been written, approved and published.
Regarding 45 (f), although all security staff undergo some mental health training, the mental health expert member of the monitoring team is unaware of any effort to assess the resultant mental health knowledge base or skills that security staff persons have developed as a result of these trainings. Furthermore, in the absence of security policies and procedures that would include mental health elements, it is reasonable to assume that security staff persons were not specifically trained on such related mental health issues.
Although at present, there is no actual mental health unit (i.e., a unit where there is a program consisting of therapeutic interventions for detainees who are suffering from mental illness or intellectual disabilities, provided in a therapeutic environment), one of the facility’s units has been designated as a unit where prisoners suffering from serious mental illness are placed, and several other detainees with serious mental illness are placed in ‘protective custody’/segregation. Of course, the other post where security staff persons come into regular contact with prisoners who are suffering from mental illness or intellectual disabilities is the mental health section of the Medical Department. There is no extra or special training offered to security staff who may be placed on any of these posts where there is an increased likelihood of having to work with mentally ill and/or intellectually disabled inmates.
There are far fewer referrals to mental health by security staff than is seen in comparable facilities. Although it has never been clear why this is the case, the possibility that security staff do not have the knowledge base and skills required to suspect that an inmate might be suffering from mental illness has been one of the possible alternative explanations, and an event that occurred during this last monitoring period raised this possibility again. More specifically, during this most recent monitoring period there was a murder on one of the units. Immediately following that murder, there were numerous inmates who were housed on that unit who selfreferred for mental health treatment, complaining of the full range of trauma-related psychiatric difficulties as a direct result of the incident. However, there was no evidence that security staff even considered the possibility that the incident might cause some of the inmates on that unit to experience mental health difficulties; there was no evidence that security staff identified any individual inmate as suffering from new mental health difficulties as a result of that incident and referred the inmate to mental health; and there wasn’t any type of intervention initiated by security, focused on minimizing the development of mental health difficulties in response to the
30

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 31 of 106
incident, and there is no evidence that mental health was contacted for advice about anything that should be done by security in response to the incident. It should also be noted here that there appears to have been no effort made by security to address the mental health needs of the security staff persons who were on site at the time of the incident.
Jail staff should develop a plan for assessing the mental health knowledge base and skills of security staff persons who have completed the currently available training and as security policies and procedures that include mental health elements are developed, assure that security staff persons are trained on the mental health elements of these policies and procedures.
46. Develop and implement policies and procedures for adequate supervisory oversight for the Jail. To that end, the County must:
a. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the authority to make personnel decisions necessary to ensure adequate staffing, staff discipline, and staff oversight. This personnel authority must include the power to hire, transfer, and discipline staff. Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) allocated for budget purposes represent a salaried slot and are not a restriction on personnel assignment authority. While the Sheriff may retain final authority for personnel decisions, the Jail’s policies and procedures must document and clearly identify who is responsible for a personnel decision, what administrative procedures apply, and the basis for personnel decisions.
b. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the ability to monitor, ensure compliance with Jail policies, and take corrective action, for any staff members operating in the Jail, including any who are not already reporting to the Jail Administrator and the Jail’s chain of command. This provision covers road deputies assigned to supervise housing units and emergency response/tactical teams entering the Jail to conduct random shakedowns or to suppress prisoner disturbances.
c. Ensure that supervisors conduct daily rounds on each shift in the prisoner housing units, and document the results of their rounds.
d. Ensure that staff conduct daily inspections of all housing and common areas to identify damage to the physical plant, safety violations, and sanitation issues. This maintenance program must include the following elements: i. Facility safety inspections that include identification of damaged doors, locks, cameras, and safety equipment. ii. An inspection process. iii. A schedule for the routine inspection, repair, and replacement of the physical plant, including security and safety equipment. iv. A requirement that any corrective action ordered be taken.
31

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 32 of 106
v. Identification of high priority repairs to assist Jail and County officials with allocating staff and resources.
vi. To ensure prompt corrective action, a mechanism for identifying and notifying responsible staff and supervisors when there are significant delays with repairs or a pattern of problems with equipment. Staff response to physical plant, safety, and sanitation problems must be reasonable and prompt.
Non-Compliant Without an approved Policies and Procedures Manual the HCSO is unable to comply with this provision of the Settlement Agreement. Priority must be given to compliance with this requirement.
According to the Settlement Agreement (Paragraph 46 a), the Jail Administrator must have the authority to make personnel decisions necessary to ensure adequate staffing, staff discipline, and staff oversight. “This authority must include the power to hire, transfer, and discipline staff.” It is apparent that the Sheriff has not granted that authority to the Jail Administrator, as evidenced by numerous promotions and demotions that occurred without her knowledge or approval. The fact that she is not even consulted is indicative of the Sheriff’s non-compliance with this paragraph.
In two previous Monitoring Reports it has been suggested that the Sheriff issue an order prohibiting outside agencies (Mississippi Department of Corrections) and HCSO law enforcement officers from conducting shakedowns of housing units in the DSD. To date that has not been done. It is now brought to his attention for the third time. At the time of the site visit, there had not been a shakedown with outside agencies since the prior site visit. However, since then personnel from outside agencies were used for a shakedown. This time, the Jail Administrator and Assistant Administrator were present during the shakedown.
The duties and responsibilities of supervisors should be clearly laid out in the Policies and Procedures Manual. Lacking such direction, supervisors do not follow any standard practice to document their inspection rounds. Unit logs show that supervisors were on scene, but beyond that there is no information except for their signatures.
Fire safety is a significant issue at the RDC. When officers were pulled out of the housing units, direct supervision of the inmates ceased to exist and they were free to vandalize the facility. Consequently, the fire hoses and extinguishers were removed from the housing units and, after the riot that destroyed Pod C, even from the staff corridor that surrounds each control room. To date those fire safety items have not been replaced. Worse yet, the officers assigned to work in the control rooms and as rovers in each pod, are unable to answer the most basic questions
32

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 33 of 106
regarding what is to be done in the event of a fire. Some have no idea whether or not fire hoses are in place in the staff corridor or if backup hoses are located inside the control rooms. Finally, during the January site visit, it was not possible to meet with the Fire Safety Officer. The Assistant Jail Administrator said that he had recently been transferred out of the DSD, but when questioned about this, the Jail Administrator was not even aware of the move. A qualified replacement for the Fire Safety Officer must be found immediately and such personnel changes into, out of and within the DSD, done without the Jail Administrator’s approval or even knowledge, must cease.
In the Sixth Monitoring Report reference was made to the Maintenance Report, published by Mr. Bell, the Maintenance Director for the County. It was anticipated that copies of this spreadsheet would be provided to each captain so that they could track the status of requested maintenance projects. Unfortunately, that did not occur, so there has been no progress in this area. During the January site visit it was brought to the attention of all involved so that, hopefully, the County and the HCSO/DSD can work cooperatively to address the myriad maintenance problems that plague the Jail System.
Major breaches of security that have been brought up repeatedly in previous Monitoring Reports are not only still evident, they are worse than ever before. In the past the fact that primary security doors at the RDC, leading from the main corridor (Great Hall) to the three pods, did not function or lock was a major concern. Now, not only are those primary security doors inoperative, but more than half of the housing unit (sliding) security doors do not work. This leaves only the retrofitted, key operated, (cage) doors between the inmates in their units (note: many cell doors do not lock or can be opened by the inmates) and access all the way to the main corridor. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the retrofitted (cage) doors are equipped with a keyway only on the exterior side of the door. This means that when an officer enters a unit, he/she leaves the door ajar, because pulling it closed makes opening it from inside the unit nearly impossible since there is no keyway on the inside. This retrofitted design flaw is catastrophic with regard to security. This incredible situation has already resulted in an inmate breaking out of his unit, out of the pod and into the main corridor, with officers in pursuit. It should be noted that this poses a special problem during med rounds in the segregation unit. As the nurses take the medications to the individual cells, the cart with the remaining medications is left by the unsecured door. The issue of inoperative doors is so pervasive that officers often do not even bother to secure doors that still do work.
The maintenance and security issues are made worse by an inexplicable shortage of key sets for the officers who work in A, B and C pods at the RDC. For some reason only one set is available in each pod, which means that when an officer is handling an issue in one of the four units or two ISO units, other officers have no means of entering the other units. Typically, each officer assigned to housing should have a complete set of keys that operate the security doors in his/her
33

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 34 of 106
area of responsibility. This basic security measure must be addressed immediately. The Jail Administrator should have an analysis done of every area in the Jail System and issue necessary key sets to all on duty personnel so that they have the means to perform their duties and respond to incidents expeditiously.
At the RDC the ongoing maintenance problems are primarily due to the fact that the housing units are not staffed. Without an officer present to supervise them, the inmates are free to vandalize the facility as they have done continuously for years. The consequences are dangerous for inmates and officers alike. The County and the HCSO must work cooperatively to resolve this problem promptly. It is unacceptable to find the same problems on site visit after visit. It is not enough to say that a bid has been put out, or research is being done to look into a problem. These issues must be corrected. The Jail System is in danger of facing another major riot at the RDC if something is not done immediately.
At the WC it has not been possible to properly secure the entry doors to Housing Units 1 and 3 for over four months. Since the housing units at that facility are not equipped with safety vestibules, this means that half of the inmates there could easily push open the entry doors to their units and gain access to the main corridor. Immediate corrective action is essential. That should be followed by a plan to retrofit a safety vestibule in each housing unit to correct this design flaw.
47. Ensure that staff members conduct random shakedowns of cells and common areas so that prisoners do not possess or have access to dangerous contraband. Such shakedowns must be conducted in each housing unit at least once per month, on an irregular schedule to make them less predictable to prisoners and staff.
Non-Compliant There has been no meaningful action to deal with this issue since the last site visit. The creation of the CERT team has not prevented the introduction of contraband to the Jail System, particularly the RDC. Subsequent to the murder of an inmate in B3, a shakedown of that unit was conducted by Captain Williams and his team. In a unit designed to house 64 inmates they found six shanks/knives, 10 cell phones and multiple chargers, SIM cards and related cell phone equipment, as well as lighters, tobacco products and unidentified pills. The level of contraband found inside the DSD (particularly the RDC) is completely out of proportion when compared to other jails throughout the country.
There continues to be a lack of documentation of random shakedowns to determine compliance with this requirement.
34

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 35 of 106
48. Install cell phone jammers or other electronic equipment to detect, suppress, and deter unauthorized communications from prisoners in the Jail. Installation must be completed within two years after the Effective Date.
Non-Compliant There has been no action to deal with this issue since the last site visit, indeed, since the beginning of the monitoring process. During the January site visit the corrections operations member of the monitoring team inspected the Armory at the RDC. Inside that room were literally hundreds of confiscated cell phones that have been found within that facility over the past few months.
49. Develop and implement a gang program in consultation with qualified experts in the field that addresses any link between gang activity in the community and the Jail through appropriate provisions for education, family or community involvement, and violence prevention.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the last site visit. An officer was assigned to work on this issue over a year ago but there is no documentation of a program that meets the requirements of this paragraph. Incident reports of assaults reflect a continuing problem of gang related issues. The most significant one deals with the murder of an inmate at the RDC, Housing Unit B3, who was arrested as a result of a gang related murder. He was killed by inmates in his housing unit just a few days after his arrest.
USE OF FORCE STANDARDS
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to prevent excessive force by staff and ensure force is used safely and only in a manner commensurate with the behavior justifying it. To that end, the County must:
50. Develop and implement policies and procedures to regulate the use of force. The policies and procedures must:
a. Prohibit the use of force as a response to verbal insults or prisoner threats where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff or visitors;
b. Prohibit the use of force as a response to prisoners’ failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff, visitors, or property;
c. Prohibit the use of force against a prisoner after the prisoner has ceased to resist and is under control;
d. Prohibit the use of force as punishment or retaliation;
35

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 36 of 106
e. Limit the level of force used so that it is commensurate with the justification for use of force; and
f. Limit use of force in favor of less violent methods when such methods are more appropriate, effective, or less likely to result in the escalation of an incident.
Non-Compliant Since a Policies and Procedures Manual has not been approved and issued, compliance with this paragraph cannot be achieved. Use of Force reports continue to reflect examples of excessive UOF on the part of staff. Since the September 2018 site visit, virtually every report dealing with the use of OC or the Taser revealed that staff used those defensive tools inappropriately in order to coerce inmates into complying with verbal commands. This represents a major training issue, but it is directly attributable to the fact that there is no Use of Force policy in place to provide direction.
The pervasiveness of improper and excessive force practices, particularly at the RDC, is reflected in Incident Report # 181593 which documents an event that occurred at the RDC on November 28, 2018. Sergeant “A” became frustrated with an inmate who would not be quiet while waiting to be let into HU C-2. A verbal exchange escalated to profanity and threats back and forth until the sergeant left the scene and returned shortly thereafter with a less than lethal shotgun in hand. He entered the inmate’s cell and moved the inmate outside where he used the butt of the shotgun to strike the inmate on the arm and head multiple times. All of this was recorded on video and was observed by two other sergeants, “B” and “C”, who were present. The matter was turned over to the Internal Affairs Division (IAD). The subsequent investigation revealed that all three sergeants lied to the IAD investigator regarding a number of issues. To date Sergeant “A”, who was responsible for striking the inmate with the shotgun butt, has been fired. Sergeant “B” has been demoted, though for an unrelated, but unidentified matter. She was not disciplined for lying to the IAD investigator. Similarly, no action was taken against Sergeant “C” for the same offense. It should be noted that the less than lethal shotguns are a new addition to the DSD arsenal as a result of the CERT program recently initiated by the Assistant Jail Administrator. While the creation of a specialized team to deal with major incidents has merit, in this case implementation of the program was flawed by inadequate and inappropriate training.
51. Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure timely notification, documentation, and communication with supervisors and medical staff (including mental health staff) prior to use of force and after any use of force. These policies and procedures must specifically include the following requirements:
a. Staff members must obtain prior supervisory approval before the use of weapons (e.g., electronic control devices or chemical sprays) and mechanical restraints unless responding to an immediate threat to a person’s safety.
36

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 37 of 106
b. If a prisoner has a serious medical condition or other circumstances exist that may increase the risk of death or serious injury from the use of force, the type of force that may be used on the prisoner must be restricted to comply with this provision. These restrictions include the following: i. The use of chemical sprays, physical restraints, and electronic control devices must not be used when a prisoner may be at risk of positional asphyxia. ii. Electronic control devices must not be used on prisoners when they are in a location where they may suffer serious injury after losing voluntary muscle control (e.g., prisoner is standing atop a stairwell, wall, or other elevated location). iii. Physical strikes, holds, or other uses of force or restraints may not be used if the technique is not approved for use in the Jail or the staff member has not been trained on the proper use of the technique.
c. Staff members must conduct health and welfare checks every 15 minutes while a prisoner is in restraints. At minimum, these checks must include (i) logged firstperson observations of a prisoner’s status while in restraints (e.g. check for blood flow, respiration, heart beat), and (ii) documented breaks to meet the sanitary and health needs of prisoners placed in emergency restraints (e.g., restroom breaks and breaks to prevent cramping or circulation problems).
d. The County must ensure that clinical staff conduct medical and mental health assessments immediately after a prisoner is subjected to any Level 1 use of force. Prisoners identified as requiring medical or mental health care during the assessment must receive such treatment.
e. A first-line supervisor must personally supervise all planned uses of force, such as cell extractions.
f. Security staff members must consult with medical and mental health staff before all planned uses of force on juveniles or prisoners with serious mental illness, so that medical and mental health staff may offer alternatives to or limitations on the use of force, such as assisting with de-escalation or obtaining the prisoner’s voluntary cooperation.
g. The Jail must have inventory and weapon controls to establish staff member responsibility for their use of weapons or other security devices in the facility. Such controls must include: i. a sign-out process for staff members to carry any type of weapon inside the Jail, ii. a prohibition on staff carrying any weapons except those in the Jail’s tracked inventory, and
37

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 38 of 106
iii. random checks to determine if weapons have been discharged without report of discharge (e.g., by checking the internal memory of electronic control devices and weighing pepper spray canisters).
h. A staff member must electronically record (both video and sound) all planned uses of force with equipment provided by the Jail.
i. All staff members using force must immediately notify their supervisor. j. All staff members using a Level 1 use of force must also immediately notify the
shift commander after such use of force, or becoming aware of an allegation of such use by another staff member.
Non-Compliant To date there are no approved policies and procedures regarding use of force in place, although a draft Use of Force policy is under review. There have been no recorded instances of staff obtaining supervisory approval prior to using weapons or chemical restraints. The only exception to this is when the CERT team conducted a shakedown. The use of OC, physical restraints and electronic control devices (Taser) have not been used when a prisoner was at risk of appositional asphyxia.
This section is carried as Non-Compliant because there are no policies and procedures in place. There are no records of inmates being held in restraints while in the Jail System. The DSD does not use the restraint chair as a means of controlling violent inmates and there are no incident reports covering instances of an inmate being restrained to his/her bunk. As a matter of practice, inmates who have been involved in use of force incidents are taken to Medical for examination and treatment. However, there is no documentation of any mental health assessment of prisoners who have been subjected to a Level 1 Use of Force.
There were no reported planned use of force incidents during the previous four months other than when the CERT team conducted a shakedown. Consequently, no incidents were electronically recorded and there was no need for coordination with medical staff beforehand. However, mental health staff have not been consulted prior to past planned uses of force in the past and there is no documentation directing a change of this practice. Based on a review of incident reports, it does appear that supervisors are notified when a staff member is involved in a use of force incident.
With regard to the sergeant who was fired, it should be noted that his initial report was purposefully inaccurate. He made no reference to his improper use of force and he did not notify his supervisor. In addition, the fact that he left the scene and retrieved a less than lethal shotgun which was not even mentioned in his report indicates that this was actually a planned use of force that should have been coordinated with medical staff and been recorded with a hand-held camera. Not only was this not done, but DSD does not have hand held video cameras available
38

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 39 of 106
in any of its facilities so that planned use of force incidents can be recorded as required by the Settlement Agreement.
USE OF FORCE TRAINING
52. The County must develop and implement a use of force training program. Every staff member who supervises prisoners must receive at least 8 hours of pre-service use of force training and annual use of force refresher training.
Partial Compliance While there are still no approved policies regarding the use of force, pre-service training of 236 of 238 officers has been completed. A total of 200 out of 238 officers completed in service training during 2018. Both training programs includes a section on use of force, which represents a significant step in the right direction; however, a review of the use of force curriculum and power point program used to instruct Detention staff revealed that the training is grounded on a law enforcement perspective rather than what should be presented to officers who work in a jail. Because individuals in a jail setting are confined within a secure facility, use of force is generally limited to situations involving an immediate threat to safety. However, the training does not prohibit the use of OC and Tasers to coerce inmates to comply with verbal commands. Those two items are defensive tools which should not be used in a coercive manner.
53. Topics covered by use of force training must include: a. Instruction on what constitutes excessive force; b. De-escalation tactics; c. Methods of managing prisoners with mental illness to avoid the use of force; d. Defensive tactics; e. All Jail use of force policies and procedures, including those related to documentation and review of use of force.
Partial Compliance The use of force training does include a continuum of appropriate force responses to escalating situations, de-escalation tactics and defensive tactics, but it does not specifically deal with managing prisoners with mental illness, nor are there any approved use of force policies and procedures in place yet. As noted above, the curriculum does not appropriately address the use of OC and Tasers.
54. The County must randomly test at least 5 percent of Jail Staff members annually to determine whether they have a meaningful, working knowledge of all use of force policies and procedures. The County must also evaluate the results to determine if any changes to Jail policies and
39

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 40 of 106
procedures may be necessary and take corrective action. The results and recommendations of such evaluations must be provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant This paragraph cannot be addressed until policies and procedures on the use of force have been approved and published and staff have been appropriately trained.
55. The County must update any use of force training within 30 days after any revision to a use of force policy or procedure.
Non-Compliant Use of force training cannot be updated until the policies and procedures on the use of force have been approved, published and implemented.
USE OF FORCE REPORTING
To prevent and remedy the unconstitutional use of force, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting use of force. To that end, the County must:
56. Develop and implement use of force reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information to analyze and respond appropriately to use of force.
Non-Compliant There has been no change with regard to the status of this paragraph. It cannot be addressed until appropriate use of force reporting policies and procedures have been approved, published and implemented. As has been reported previously, the incident reports generated through the JMS system do not provide the monitoring team with sufficient information to determine whether or not supervisors do more than sign and send the reports through the chain of command. The shortcomings of the JMS system, previous identified, have still not been corrected. As was recommended in the Sixth Monitoring Report, if the HCSO cannot correct the shortcomings of the JMS, it should be replaced by a jail version of what is provided to the law enforcement side of the Sheriff’s Office.
57. Require each staff member who used or observed a use of force to complete a Use of Force Report as promptly as possible, and no later than by the end of that staff member’s shift. Staff members must accurately complete all fields on a Use of Force Report. The failure to report any use of force must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination. Similarly, supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
40

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 41 of 106
Non-Compliant It is not possible for the monitoring team to know when a report was written because the reports include only the date/time of the incident, not when the report was generated. The same shortcoming applies to the date/time of supervisory review. The inadequacies of the JMS need to be addressed as was recommended in paragraph 56 (above).
In the use of excessive force incident referenced above (see paragraph 51), only Sergeant “A” wrote a report. None of the other RDC staff who were present and witnessed the incident (two sergeants and two detention officers) wrote a supplement report. A lieutenant who reviewed Sergeant “A”’s report found that “In my opinion this is a good report.” If it had not been for the fact that the IAD investigator was able to view a video recording of the event, it would not have been possible to determine what really happened. Notification of the incident did not come to the attention of the Jail Administrator until a grievance was filed by the inmate. His allegations were finally documented by an officer on December 4, 2018, fully six days after the fact.
58. Ensure that Jail use of force reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, use of force reports must document the following information:
a. A unique tracking number for each use of force; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. A description of the events leading to the use of force, including what precipitated
or appeared to precipitate those events. f. A description of the level of resistance, staff response, and the type and level of
force (including frequency and duration of use). For instance, use of force reports must describe the number of discharges from electronic control devices and chemical munitions canisters; the amount of discharge from chemical munitions canisters; whether the Staff Member threatened to use the device or actually discharged the device; the type of physical hold or strike used; and the length of time a prisoner was restrained, and whether the prisoner was released from restraints for any period during that time; g. A description of the staff member’s attempts to de-escalate the situation without use of force; h. A description of whether the staff member notified supervisors or other personnel, including medical or mental health staff, before or after the use of force; i. A description of any observed injuries to staff or prisoners; j. Whether medical care was required or provided to staff or prisoners;
41

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 42 of 106
k. Reference to any associated incident report or prisoner disciplinary report completed by the reporting officer, which pertains to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force;
l. A signature of the staff member completing the report attesting to the report’s accuracy and completeness.
Partial Compliance The JMS incident report/use of force format does not directly follow the sub-sections of this paragraph; therefore, incident reports do not reflect all of the information that is specified. While there is a unique tracking number, and the names of staff members and sometimes those of involved inmates are included, witnesses are seldom listed. A cell location is almost always noted (although the facility is not), but not its classification. Generally, the narrative includes the steps taken by an officer to manage the situation prior to the use of force, what methods were used to apply force and whether or not medical attention was required and provided. However, there are several investigations that indicate that these are not always accurate. Reports do not make reference to any associated incident reports or disciplinary reports. A change in procedure has resulted in an officer’s signature being placed on a copy of the report, but it does not attest to anything.
Incident Report # 181843, dated 11-22-18, is an all too typical example of the inadequacies of use of force reporting in the DSD. Officer XYZ reported that on November 22, 2018 at 0340 hours, he was conducting a security and wellness check in “C-2” (this is Housing Unit 2 in Pod C, unspecified classification). The facility is not identified, but the housing unit is. He dealt with an inmate who was uncooperative and refused to follow direct orders. The inmate pushed by him through the inner safety vestibule door (simply referred to as the “unit cage”) which was unsecured, then exited the unit. There is no mention of the secondary sliding security door to the unit, which should have been closed and prevented this breach of security. The officer said that he “…then used one burst of Oleoresin Capsicum spray to control the situation. Offender --- was in an unauthorized area without official permission by exiting C Unit into the Great Hall”. The officer failed to explain how the inmate managed to leave the hallway outside of HU C2 (which goes around the Pod C control room) and go through three security doors between that location and the main corridor of the jail (Great Hall). After the inmate “…started to run up the Great Hall…” Officer XYZ apprehended him with the help of a fellow officer. This total breach of security was not addressed or explained. Instead, Officer XYZ cluttered the report with extraneous and unnecessary information that make it difficult to follow. To his credit, he did take the inmate to Medical for treatment and his supervisor was notified.
Not only does this incident report reflect the sub-standard quality of most reports in the DSD, it highlights a critical security problem at the RDC. The majority of security doors controlling access to the inmate living areas are no longer functional. As was reported during the exit
42

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 43 of 106
briefing, at the conclusion of the January site visit, concern that the inmates cannot be kept in their individual cells has now been replaced with concern that they cannot even be kept in their 64 bed housing units. As this inmate proved, a mass escape into the main corridor is a real possibility.
USE OF FORCE SUPERVISOR REVIEWS
59. The County must ensure that Jail supervisors review, analyze, and respond appropriately to use of force. At minimum:
a. A supervisor must review all use of force reports submitted during the supervisor’s watch by the end of the supervisor’s watch.
b. A supervisor must ensure that staff members complete their use of force reports by the end of their watch.
c. Reviewing supervisors must document their findings as to the completeness of each staff member’s use of force report, and must also document any procedural errors made by staff in completing their reports.
d. If a Use of Force report is incomplete, reviewing supervisors must require Staff Members to provide any required information on a revised use of force report, and the Jail must maintain both the original and any revised report in its records.
e. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing use of force reports must document their use of force review as described in Paragraph 62 sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted.
f. All Level 1 uses of force must be sent to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD.
g. A Level 2 use of force must be referred to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD if a reviewing supervisor concludes that there may have been a violation of law or policy. Level 2 uses of force may also be referred to IAD if the County requires such reporting as a matter of Jail policy and procedure, or at the discretion of any reviewing supervisor.
Non-Compliant Compliance is not possible until the Policies and Procedures Manual is approved and published. Based on the current JMS system there is no way to determine whether or not supervisors review use of force reports by the end of their watch. Nor is it possible to determine whether or not they comply with the other sub-sections of this paragraph. Supervisors do not indicate whether or not they approve or disapprove of the actions taken by officers, nor do they make recommendations for corrective action. Use of force reports are forwarded to the CID investigator for follow up. Duplicate copies are provided to the IAD investigator. Incident Report # 181843, referenced in paragraph 58 (above), is indicative of the lack of supervisory follow up in that there is no indication of supervisory review.
43

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 44 of 106
60. After any Level 1 use of force, responding supervisors will promptly go to the scene and take the following actions:
a. Ensure the safety of everyone involved in or proximate to the incident. Determine if anyone is injured and ensure that necessary medical care is or has been provided.
b. Ensure that photos are taken of all injuries sustained, or as evidence that no injuries were sustained, by prisoners and staff involved in a use of force incident. Photos must be taken no later than two hours after a use of force. Prisoners may refuse to consent to photos, in which case they should be asked to sign a waiver indicating that they have refused consent. If they refuse to sign a waiver, the shift commander must document that consent was requested and refused.
c. Ensure that staff members and witnesses are identified, separated, and advised that communications with other staff members or witnesses regarding the incident are prohibited.
d. Ensure that victim, staff, and witness statements are taken confidentially by reviewing supervisors or investigators, outside of the presence of other prisoners or involved staff.
e. Document whether the use of force was recorded. If the use of force was not recorded, the responding supervisors must review and explain why the event was not recorded. If the use of force was recorded, the responding supervisors must ensure that any record is preserved for review.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the last three site visits. The specified actions are not routinely followed by supervisors. A review of use of force reports revealed that photographs are seldom taken (though they are taken more frequently than in the past) and that waivers related to the refusal to be photographed are never included. Witness statements are infrequent at best, and although use of force incidents may be recorded at the RDC because it has a digital recording system, that is not possible at the JDC and WC.
61. All uses of force must be reviewed by supervisors who were neither involved in nor approved the use of force by the end of the supervisor’s shift. All level 1 uses of force must also be reviewed by a supervisor of Captain rank or above who was neither involved in nor approved the use of force. The purposes of supervisor review are to determine whether the use of force violated Jail policies and procedures, whether the prisoner’s rights may have been violated, and whether further investigation or disciplinary action is required.
44

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 45 of 106
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the last monitoring report. It is not possible to determine whether or not supervisors are performing their required duties because the monitoring team does not have access to the supplemental information that may be included in the JMS reports and it appears that the ability to reflect such actions is not possible in the JMS. The limited documentation available through Google Docs (this recently replaced Drop Box) does not reflect supervisory action regarding approval, disapproval and recommended action on individual reports.
62. Reviewing supervisors must document the following: a. Names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses interviewed by the supervisor; b. Witness statements; c. Review date and time; d. The findings, recommendations, and results of the supervisor’s review; e. Corrective actions taken; f. The final disposition of the reviews (e.g., whether the Use of Force was found to comply with Jail policies and procedures, or whether disciplinary action was taken against a staff member); g. Supporting documents such as incident reports, logs, and classification records. Supervisors must also obtain and review summary medical and mental health records describing – i. The nature and extent of injuries, or lack thereof; ii. The date and time when medical care was requested and actually provided; iii. The names of medical or mental health staff conducting any medical or mental health assessments or care. h. Photos, video/digital recordings, or other evidence collected to support findings and recommendations.
Non-Compliant Until it is possible to access the supervisory review portion of use of force reports, there is no way to determine whether or not supervisors are taking required actions and appropriately documenting them. Reportedly, the supervisory portion in JMS is limited to a check box with no ability to indicate recommended action.
45

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 46 of 106
INCIDENT REPORTING AND REVIEW
To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting and reviewing incidents in the Jail that may pose a threat to the life, health, and safety of prisoners. To that end, the County must:
63. Develop and implement incident reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information in order to respond appropriately to reportable incidents.
Non-Compliant The Policies and Procedures Manual must be approved and issued to all personnel before the level of compliance can be determined. (See paragraph 56 to 62 above.) The current incident reports should provide sufficient information for supervisors to make an appropriate review, but the reports are routinely deficient. The monitoring team’s inability to see everything that is entered into the automated reporting system further hampers its ability to analyze the shortcomings.
64. Ensure that Incident Reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, Incident Reports must contain the following information:
a. Tracking number for each incident; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner, and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. Type of incident; f. Injuries to staff or prisoner; g. Medical care; h. All staff involved or present during the incident and their respective roles; i. Reviewing supervisor and supervisor findings, recommendations, and case
dispositions; j. External reviews and results; k. Corrective action taken; and l. Warden and Administrator review and final administrative actions.
Partial Compliance There has been no change with regard to the status of this paragraph since the last three site visits. Compliance is dependent upon the approval and publication of the Policies and Procedures Manual. Incident report documentation currently provides for some of the information specified in this paragraph. Reports routinely have a tracking number and list all staff involved. Inmate witness are often omitted. Inmate witness statements are infrequently noted. The nature of inmate injuries is often omitted. More photographs accompany incident
46

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 47 of 106
reports than in the past; however, reports still do not specify in which facility the incident occurred.
IR # 182042 is a report that reflects some of the shortcomings mentioned above. It covers an assault with injury that was observed in Housing Unit C3 by the Pod C control room officer. At 0800 hours on 12-29-18, he heard noise in that unit; he checked activity on camera and saw one inmate being assaulted by several others. When he called for assistance, two officers responded and removed the injured inmate from the unit and took him to Medical. After being examined by a nurse he was transported to Merit Health Hospital for treatment of a laceration between his eyes and another on his chin. The control room officer notified Captain Shields, the facility commander who wrote two supplemental reports and signed the original report. The facility in which the incident occurred is not included in the report or the supplements. There were no pictures taken. There does not appear to have been an investigation conducted although the matter may have been turned over to the CID investigator. Consequently, there are no witness statements or even any idea as to who the perpetrators were. Supervisory review, if any, between the rank of sergeant and captain is not documented.
65. Require each staff member directly involved in a reportable incident to accurately and thoroughly complete incident reports as promptly as possible, by the end of the staff member’s shift. At minimum:
a. Staff members must complete all fields on an Incident Report for which they have responsibility for completion. Staff members must not omit entering a date, time, incident location, or signature when completing an Incident Report. If no injuries are present, staff members must write that; they may not leave that section blank.
b. Failure to report any reportable incident must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination.
c. Supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will also be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
Non-Compliant There has been no significant change in the status of this paragraph for the past three site visits; however, IR # 181217, dated 12-17-18, submitted by a sergeant, summarized the loss of $506 belonging to an inmate who was transported from court to the RDC by way of the JDC. This represents the first record (that the monitoring team is aware of) regarding such a loss since the Settlement Agreement was finalized over two years ago. It should be noted that the IAD investigator has documentation regarding another such incident, but it never came to the attention of the Monitor. The lack of incident reports regarding lost money and property has been highlighted in previous Monitoring Reports. A similar lack of documentation exists regarding incidents involving releasing errors. While a review of inmate files shows that they
47

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 48 of 106
are sometimes held beyond their expected release dates, incident reports documenting such occurrences are not written.
In the case of the missing $506, the sergeant’s report did not identify how the money disappeared or that the money was on the front seat of the transportation van where a juvenile inmate had access to it. That information was provided by the JDC captain who wrote a supplemental report accompanied by photographs taken in the transfer area of that facility. This report definitely warrants an administrative review so that corrective measures can be taken.
Based on the current status of the JMS system, it is not possible to determine whether or not incident reports are written in a timely fashion (by end of shift or within 12 hours of the incident) and whether or not supervisors do likewise as required (within 24 hours of receipt of an incident report). The only thing that can be determined is the reported time of the incident as it appears in the written document.
66. Ensure that Jail supervisors review and respond appropriately to incidents. At minimum: a. Shift commanders must document all reportable incidents by the end of their shift, but no later than 12 hours after a reportable incident. b. Shift commanders must report all suicides, suicide attempts, and deaths, no later than one hour after the incident, to a supervisor, IAD, and medical and mental health staff. c. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing Incident Reports must document their incident review within 24 hours of receipt of an Incident Report sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted. Such documentation must include the same categories of information required for supervisor use of force reviews such as names of individuals interviewed by the supervisor, witness statements, associated records (e.g. medical records, photos, and digital recordings), review dates, findings, recommendations, and case dispositions. d. Reportable incidents must be reviewed by a supervisor not directly involved in the incident.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph. There are no approved policies in place that specify what supervisors and shift commanders are to do. The monitoring team cannot determine whether or not supervisors even review incident reports (other than to sign on a printed copy) because of the previously mentioned shortcomings of the JMS system. There is no documentation that reflects approval, disapproval or recommended action.
48

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 49 of 106
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
67. To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to address sexual abuse and misconduct. Such policies and procedures must include all of the following:
a. Zero tolerance policy towards any sexual abuse and sexual harassment as defined by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementing regulations;
b. Staff training on the zero tolerance policy, including how to fulfill their duties and responsibilities to prevent, detect, report and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment under the policy;
c. Screening prisoners to identify those who may be sexually abusive or at risk of sexual victimization;
d. Multiple internal ways to allow both confidential and anonymous reporting of sexual abuse and sexual harassment and any related retaliation, including a mechanism for prisoners to directly report allegations to an outside entity;
e. Both emergency and ongoing medical and mental health care for victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment, including rape kits as appropriate and counseling;
f. A complete ban on cross-gender strip searches or cross-gender visual body cavity searches except in exigent circumstances or when performed by a medical examiner;
g. A complete ban on cross-gender pat searches of women prisoners, absent exigent circumstances;
h. Regular supervisory review to ensure compliance with the sexual abuse and sexual harassment policies; and
i. Specialized investigative procedures and training for investigators handling sexual abuse and sexual harassment allegations.
Partial Compliance As was reported in the last monitoring report, the PREA officer continues to work on the PREA policies and procedures. A draft had been completed but it restated the requirements of the federal regulations rather than specify the procedures specific to operations at Hinds County. She is now working on a draft that is specific to the procedures of the DSD and it is reported that this draft is near completion.
PREA incidents reported to the PREA officer are investigated and remedial action, usually involving relocation of the involved inmates, is taken. There has not been a practice of disciplinary action taken against perpetrators which is not consistent with zero tolerance. A proposal is currently circulating to remedy this.
49

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 50 of 106
The PREA officer provides a 4-hour training as part of the new officer training. She reports that the officers at JDC and WC who pre-dated this initial training have received in-service training. Not all of the officers at RDC have received the training. The incident reports indicate that not all officers recognize a PREA related complaint and some officers do not understand their obligation to report incidents to the PREA officer but rather refer inmates to the kiosk system. The PREA officer concurred that this is the case and is planning an in-service training in May.
Although the classification process includes a screening for PREA issues, the housing decisions do not appear to reflect attention to those issues. Because classification still classifies based on charge, persons charged with misdemeanors are automatically sent to the WC. This includes persons that are transgender or identify as homosexual. Because of the dormitory style housing units this may not be appropriate for all such individuals. Some individuals sent to the WC are then housed in the segregation cells to prevent victimization. Under PREA, jail staff must identify the least restrictive setting in which an individual can be safely housed. This assessment has not been taking place. In addition, at least one individual informed Jail staff that he could not go to a particular unit. He was placed on that unit and subjected to sexual harassment.
There are multiple internal ways to report sexual abuse and harassment including filing a grievance and reporting through the kiosk system. However, the PREA officer still does not have a cell phone to forward the calls to and the calls go through dispatch to the Captain and then to her. Reportedly, the plan is for the calls to go directly to the PREA officer but there has been a delay in implementing this. There is not a system for reporting to an outside entity other than through paid phone calls and there is no guidance on appropriate entities to call. In order to be effective, inmates must be fully informed of what constitutes sexual abuse and harassment and how to report it. As previously reported, all of the units visited had PREA posters posted. The posters have reporting instructions. The Inmate Handbook does not have current information on the PREA process but a separate form is now provided at booking that explains the process. The PREA officer has done some orientation to incoming prisoners in the Classification Unit, however, some inmates are moved before she provides the orientation so not all inmates receive orientation on PREA. Regulations require a more complete education session after booking. This was being done at JDC but is not currently. This was not started at RDC or the WC. Lack of audio-visual equipment is at issue at RDC.
Discussions continue to be underway with Catholic Charities to determine whether that agency can provide counseling to any victims of sexual assault or harassment. QCHC now has a social worker on staff who provides counseling and can provide services to victims of sexual assault or harassment.
It is reported that the practice is that there be no cross-gender searches by males of females. With respect to female searches of males, strip searches are not permitted but pat down searches are.
50

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 51 of 106
There has not yet been training on conducting these searches but a training during roll call is reportedly being planned. A PREA violation can occur even in same sex searches. One such allegation was made by C.F. The PREA officer found no violation based on the investigator’s report. However, the investigators have not been trained in PREA and the reported circumstances do not support the conducting of a strip search.
There has been improvement in the reporting and investigation of PREA incidents by the PREA officer. She now keeps a file on each referral, has a report form, and keeps numbered reports. She has completed an on-line training on investigating PREA incidents. A training opportunity has been identified for the PREA officer and should be utilized. Incidents involving alleged staff misconduct or criminal activity are referred to other investigators who have not received PREA training. There is no regular supervisory oversight of the PREA officer’s work or reports. It was reported that supervisory staff do not get the investigation reports once completed. This prevents any opportunity to use that information to determine whether discipline is appropriate or remedial measures should be implemented.
Although this is very good progress in this area, there are still a number of areas of noncompliance and some of the stated practices do not appear to be fully operationalized. Areas of concern include lack of training for all officers on PREA, lack of ongoing notice to inmates at booking or comprehensive education following, lack of required information in the Inmate Handbook, unresolved mechanisms for reporting, no volunteer or contractor training, and investigation officers do not have PREA training.
As was noted in the last monitoring report, during the previous site visit it became clear that there was a need for better information exchange and coordination between the PREA coordinator and mental health. For the most part, this has been addressed. However, with regard to the PREA-incident referred to in paragraph 42, where the PREA officer suspected that the complainant was suffering from mental health difficulties, a formal referral (or in this case a rereferral) for a mental health assessment was indicated and would have been appropriate.
INVESTIGATIONS
68. The County shall ensure that it has sufficient staff to identify, investigate, and correct misconduct that has or may lead to a violation of the Constitution. At a minimum, the County shall:
a. Develop and implement comprehensive policies, procedures, and practices for the thorough and timely (within 60 days of referral) investigation of alleged staff misconduct, sexual assaults, and physical assaults of prisoners resulting in serious injury, in accordance with this Agreement, within 90 days of its Effective Date. At a minimum, an investigation will be conducted if: i. Any prisoner exhibited a serious injury;
51

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 52 of 106
ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious
accounts of the incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy,
or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member). b. Per policy, investigations shall: i. Be conducted by qualified persons, who do not have conflicts of interest that bear on the partiality of the investigation; ii. Include timely, thorough, and documented interviews of all relevant staff and prisoners who were involved in or who witnessed the incident in question, to the extent practicable; and iii. Include all supporting evidence, including logs, witness and participant statements, references to policies and procedures relevant to the incident, physical evidence, and video or audio recordings. c. Provide investigators with pre-service and annual in-service training so that investigators conduct quality investigations that meet the requirements of this Agreement; d. Ensure that any investigative report indicating possible criminal behavior will be referred to the appropriate criminal law enforcement agency; e. Within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, IAD must have written policies and procedures that include clear and specific criteria for determining when it will conduct an investigation. The criteria will require an investigation if: i. Any prisoner exhibited serious, visible injuries (e.g., black eye, obvious bleeding, or lost tooth); ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious accounts of the incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member). f. Provide the Monitor and United States a periodic report of investigations conducted at the Jail every four months. The report will include the following information: i. a brief summary of all completed investigations, by type and date; ii. a listing of investigations referred for administrative investigation; iii. a listing of all investigations referred to an appropriate law enforcement agency and the name of the agency; and
52

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 53 of 106
iv. a listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.
v. a description of any corrective actions or changes in policies, procedures, or practices made as a result of investigations over the reporting period.
g. Jail management shall review the periodic report to determine whether the investigation system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement and make recommendations regarding the investigation system or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor and United States.
Partial Compliance During the September 2018 site visit the corrections operations member of the monitoring team was able to conduct an at length interview with the IAD investigator. That meeting proved to be productive and resulted in access to a spread sheet that he maintains regarding all active and completed IAD investigations. During the January site visit a similar meeting was held with both the IAD investigator and the CID investigator. By comparing procedures a process was set in place that will allow the monitoring team to follow all criminal investigations and internal (on staff) investigations. Subsequently a copy of the Sixth Monitoring Report was sent to each investigator so that they could familiarize themselves with the status of the various paragraphs of the Settlement Agreement. However, since the site visit, the CID investigator was demoted by the Sheriff and has reportedly been replaced. It is not known whether the procedures agreed upon at the time of the site visit have been communicated.
Based on information provided by the Jail Administrator, it was determined that the CID investigator would be moved from downtown Jackson to the RDC shortly. The IAD investigator is already housed there. This move would put her closer to the vast majority of her work which is generated primarily from the RDC. While concurrence with this move was expressed during the exit briefing at the end of the January site visit, it was disconcerting to learn shortly thereafter that the CID investigator was being demoted and moved to another area of the HCSO.
Movement, without explanation, of personnel who are critical to compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement continues to be a significant management problem within the HCSO. Now, whoever replaces the CID investigator will not be familiar with either the Agreement itself or what had been set in place to provide the monitoring team with necessary information.
It goes without saying that the lack of approved policies and procedures regarding this area of concern make compliance with this section impossible. As has been stated throughout this report, it is imperative that the HCSO/DSD put forth the effort necessary to prepare, have
53

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 54 of 106
approved, publish and train all personnel on the Policies and Procedures Manual covering all aspects of DSD operations.
GRIEVANCE AND PRISONER INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Because a reporting system provides early notice of potential constitutional violations and an opportunity to prevent more serious problems before they occur, the County must develop and implement a grievance system. To that end:
69. The grievance system must permit prisoners to confidentially report grievances without requiring the intervention of a detention officer.
Partial Compliance There is no change in the condition of the grievance system. The use of the new kiosk system in theory allows the prisoners to report grievances without the intervention of detention officers. However, the system is still not working as it should. Currently, it was reported that there are two units at RDC, B2 and C2, in which the kiosk system is not working and paper grievances are being used. It was also reported that the kiosk system was down for two and a half weeks.
Although the kiosk system does not require the intervention of a detention officer, the physical set up does not allow for privacy. This could potentially result in an officer or other inmates observing the grievance being filed. It was reported that inmates have observed another’s PIN number and then use it to purchase commissary on the other inmate’s account.
70. Grievance policies and procedures must be applicable and standardized across the entire Jail.
Non-Compliant Policies and procedures have yet to be finalized. A draft policy on grievances does not describe the current process of using the kiosk. The kiosk system works the same across facilities but there is no unified process in how the staff responds to grievances and monitors the system. There is an identified system wide grievance officer, however, her duties for system wide oversight have not been identified. She does not assign grievances for the other facilities and does not provide any oversight of the grievance process or response in the other facilities. She reported a one-time effort to follow up on grievances that had not received a response by the assigned individual by circulating a list of outstanding grievances to the assigned individuals. She described that this effort was unsuccessful and met with resistance.
71. All grievances must receive appropriate follow-up, including a timely written response by an impartial reviewer and staff tracking of whether resolutions have been implemented or still
54

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 55 of 106
need implementation. Any response to a medical grievance or a grievance alleging threats or violence to the grievant or others that exceeds 24 hours shall be presumed untimely.
Partial Compliance As previously reported, the system itself presents several challenges in this regard. Notably, if a grievance is not responded to in seven days, it drops off the dashboard. The only way to find the grievance is to run a report for a longer time frame and search for grievances in different status categories. During this site visit, in order to check whether there were outstanding grievances that had fallen off the dashboard, a report was run for grievances assigned but not answered starting from July 1, 2018. The report showed 972 grievances unanswered after 21 days. There is no structured system to ensure that all grievances are actually answered; no oversight to review whether responses are adequate; and no oversight to determine that promised actions are actually completed. The system wide grievance officer is identified but the facility wide duties that would include this oversight have not been identified. Similarly, there is no guidance as to the oversight that the grievance officers at the WC and JDC are expected to provide or what coordination or reporting is expected with the facility wide grievance officer. There is also no guidance on what constitutes a review by an impartial reviewer. There are no intermediate levels of appeal allowing supervisors to respond before an appeal reaches the Jail Administrator. There is no known way in the system to mark a grievance as urgent. It should be noted that most of the grievances submitted are actually inmate requests such as an initial request to look up a court date or for envelopes and stamps as oppose to an allegation of improper treatment or a refusal to fulfill a request. The kiosk system does not have a way to recategorize these from a grievance to a request so that it can produce a count of actual grievances.
Essentially, the mental health team does not receive grievances, but it remains unclear as to whether there are grievances related to mental health being submitted that are not being directed to the mental health team or whether no such grievances are being submitted. As has been noted in prior monitoring reports, the only way to answer this question is to review all grievances, with an eye towards whether or not any of them should have been referred to mental health, in whole or in part.
72. The grievance system must accommodate prisoners who have physical or cognitive disabilities, are illiterate, or have LEP, so that these prisoners have meaningful access to the grievance system.
Non-Compliant Prisoners are assisting one another but that carries the risk of them accessing and using another prisoner’s PIN number in addition to the potential of having to disclose private information. This may inhibit the use of the grievance system and also allows access to the prisoner’s funds. There does not appear to be any language choices in the system or voice recognition features.
55

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 56 of 106
It has yet to be determined whether or not there are inmates who are unable to report grievances via the kiosk system due to their mental illness, and/or intellectual disability, especially those who are also housed in segregation. The mental health expert on the team has found that inmates report their grievances to him when accompanying mental health on weekly segregation rounds. This suggests that they are not using the grievance system or are not finding it effective.
73. The County must ensure that all current and newly admitted prisoners receive information about prison rules and procedures. The County must provide such information through an inmate handbook and, at the discretion of the Jail, an orientation video, regarding the following topics: understanding the Jail’s disciplinary process and rules and regulations; reporting misconduct; reporting sexual abuse, battery, and assault; accessing medical and mental health care; emergency procedures; visitation; accessing the grievance process; and prisoner rights. The County must provide such information in appropriate languages for prisoners with LEP.
Non-Compliant The Inmate Handbook has outdated information about most of these issues and will need to be updated. It is not available in Spanish or any other language.
RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SEGREGATION
In order to ensure compliance with constitutional standards and to prevent unnecessary harm to prisoners, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to limit the use of segregation. To that end, this Agreement imposes the following restrictions and requirements:
74. Within 8 hours of intake, prisoners in the booking cells must be classified and housed in more appropriate long-term housing where staff will provide access to exercise, meals, and other services.
Partial Compliance There has been no improvement in this area since the last site visit. Although no inmates were found to be kept in Booking holding cells beyond the eight-hour limitation, once again, the officer responsible for supervising inmates in the Booking area was using the wrong form for conducting well-being checks. During the September 2018 site visit he was using a 60 minute/hourly well-being check form. It is supposed to be a 15-minute check form. The monitoring team member was assured that the problem would be rectified. During the January site visit the officer working in Booking was using a 30-minute well-being check form instead of the appropriate 15-minute check form. In each case the officer could not explain why he was using the wrong form. When the sergeant in charge of Booking was questioned regarding this problem, she was not even able to articulate what the standard for well-being checks is for
56

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 57 of 106
inmates incarcerated in the Booking holding cells. Supervisory responsibility is critical to the operation of a jail. It is completely lacking in this area of the DSD.
There isn’t any “appropriate long-term housing” for prisoners who are suffering from mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities. In the absence of a special mental health unit, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for prisoners who suffer from serious mental illness to receive the enhanced program of mental health services they require. Then in addition, due to the absence of “appropriate long-term housing”, those prisoners who need to be protected from themselves or others as a result of a mental illness or intellectual disability end up being housed in segregation as a very unacceptable alternative. In the absence of a mental health unit, the facility should explore options for housing prisoners who need to be protected from themselves or others as a result of mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities other than segregation.
75. The County must document the placement and removal of all prisoners to and from segregation.
Partial Compliance The monthly summary reports submitted by each facility include a listing of inmates who have been placed in segregation. The format utilized by the JDC does more than simply list inmates; rather, it reflects when they went into segregation and when they were removed as required by the paragraph. It includes additional information that would be valuable to command staff in evaluating the use of segregation. The reports provided by the RDC and WC list everyone who has been in segregation during the month but not when they went in or were removed. As was recommended in the Sixth Monitoring Report, the JDC system of reporting should be adopted by the WC and RDC, but, to date, nothing has been done. The new disciplinary officer at RDC has started using a spreadsheet with more detail. This has not yet appeared in the monthly reports and does not have the same level of detail as the JDC reports. It was recommended that she review the JDC report and incorporate that level of detail in her reports. It should be noted that the new disciplinary officer has created a process and forms that greatly improves the disciplinary system at RDC. However, there are still no policies and procedures in this area.
76. Qualified Mental Health Professionals must conduct mental health rounds at least once a week (in a private setting if necessary, to elicit accurate information), to assess the mental health status of all prisoners in segregation and the effect of segregation on each prisoner’s mental health, in order to determine whether continued placement in segregation is appropriate. These mental health rounds must not be a substitute for treatment.
Partial Compliance The mental health coordinator continues to conduct weekly rounds in segregation, and maintains records indicating that the rounds were performed and the findings. In addition to reviewing these records, as usual, the mental health member of the monitoring team accompanied the
57

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 58 of 106
mental health coordinator on the segregation rounds, and thereby observed the excellent quality of the rounds. All of the inmates in segregation were clearly used to these rounds; all inmates in segregation appeared to be clear about the fact that the rounds were an opportunity to raise any mental health concerns with the mental health coordinator; and all inmates in segregation appeared to know that they could ask to meet with someone from mental health at any time.
At present, there still is no mechanism for the incorporation of the mental health information obtained during the mental health rounds in segregation into the decisions made by security about inmates who are placed in segregation. More specifically, there is still no security policy and procedure governing monthly, interdisciplinary segregation rounds, where security and mental health review and discuss each inmate being held in segregation for more than 30 days, with a focus on whether or not segregation is causing a deterioration in the inmate’s mental health, whether placement in segregation should be continued or an alternative placement is indicated, and whether there is a need for further enhanced mental health services and/or other supportive services. Therefore, there is still are no such monthly, interdisciplinary segregation rounds. In addition, there is still no security policy and procedure governing the mental health input that security could obtain on a weekly basis, following the weekly mental health rounds in segregation. When an inmate’s mental health is deteriorating while being held in segregation, the development of a mechanism for obtaining this weekly available information would allow for an even more timely response by security, without having to wait for the monthly segregation review meeting. As the security policies related to segregation are developed, these areas of intersection with the mental health area should be discussed with the mental health team and incorporated in the policies.
At the time of this most recent site visit, there were 26 inmates being held in segregation for various reasons, including protective custody, other administrative segregation, and as punishment. As noted in section 72, during the course of these rounds many inmates shared their grievances with the mental health member of the monitoring team and the mental health coordinator. Although the stated grievances covered a range of issues, some of which had to do with their respective cases and not problems at the facility, most of the grievances had to do with feeling unjustly placed in segregation and/or the conditions of their confinement in segregation. This raises several issues. (1) There can be no input from mental health with regard to the disciplinary process which sends inmates to segregation until the security policies and procedures governing the disciplinary review process are completed and implemented. (2) The conditions of confinement in most of the segregation cells are unacceptable, in that many of the cells do not have lights and there are rodents. (3) The conditions of confinement in most of the segregation cells makes maintaining one’s mental health while in segregation all the more difficult, it further impairs the mental health of already mentally ill individuals, and it makes the mental health rounds in segregation much more complicated, given that it is so difficult to see the inmate and examine the cell. (4) As noted above, the fact that so many inmates in
58

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 59 of 106
segregation used this opportunity to express grievances raises concern about their access to the facility’s mechanisms for filing grievances.
77. The County must develop and implement restrictions on the segregation of prisoners with serious mental illness. These safeguards must include the following:
a. All decisions to place a prisoner with serious mental illness in segregation must include the input of a Qualified Mental Health Professional who has conducted a face-to-face evaluation of the prisoner in a confidential setting, is familiar with the details of the available clinical history, and has considered the prisoner’s mental health needs and history.
b. Segregation must be presumed contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness.
c. Within 24 hours of placement in segregation, all prisoners on the mental health caseload must be screened by a Qualified Mental Health Professional to determine whether the prisoner has serious mental illness, and whether there are any acute mental health contraindications to segregation.
d. If a Qualified Mental Health Professional finds that a prisoner has a serious mental illness or exhibits other acute mental health contraindications to segregation, that prisoner must not be placed or remain in segregation absent documented extraordinary and exceptional circumstances (i.e. for an immediate and serious danger which may arise during unusual emergency situations, such as a riot or during the booking of a severely psychotic, untreated, violent prisoner, and which should last only as long as the emergency conditions remain present).
e. Documentation of such extraordinary and exceptional circumstances must be in writing. Such documentation must include the reasons for the decision, a comprehensive interdisciplinary team review, and the names and dated signatures of all staff members approving the decision.
f. Prisoners with serious mental illness who are placed in segregation must be offered a heightened level of care that includes the following: i. If on medication, the prisoner must receive at least one daily visit from a Qualified Medical Professional. ii. The prisoner must be offered a face-to-face, therapeutic, out-of-cell session with a Qualified Mental Health Professional at least once per week. iii. If the prisoner is placed in segregation for more than 24 hours, he or she must have his or her case reviewed by a Qualified Mental Health Professional, in conjunction with a Jail physician and psychiatrist, on a weekly basis.
59

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 60 of 106
g. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, A Qualified Mental Health Professional will assess all prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation. This assessment must include a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Prisoners requiring follow-up for additional clinical assessment or care must promptly receive such assessment and care.
h. If a prisoner on segregation decompensates or otherwise develops signs or symptoms of serious mental illness, where such signs or symptoms had not previously been identified, the prisoner must immediately be referred for appropriate assessment and treatment by a Qualified Mental Health Professional. Any such referral must also result in a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Signs or symptoms requiring assessment or treatment under this clause include a deterioration in cognitive, physical, or verbal function; delusions; self-harm; or behavior indicating a heightened risk of suicide (e.g., indications of depression after a sentencing hearing).
i. The treatment and housing of prisoners with serious mental illness must be coordinated and overseen by the Interdisciplinary Team (or Teams), and guided by formal, written treatment plans. The Interdisciplinary Team must include both medical and security staff, but access to patient healthcare information must remain subject to legal restrictions based on patient privacy rights. The intent of this provision is to have an Interdisciplinary Team serve as a mechanism for balancing security and medical concerns, ensuring cooperation between security and medical staff, while also protecting the exercise of independent medical judgment and each prisoner’s individual rights.
j. Nothing in this Agreement should be interpreted to authorize security staff, including the Jail Administrator, to make medical or mental health treatment decisions, or to overrule physician medical orders.
Non-Compliant The mental health expert on the monitoring team has met with senior security staff on multiple occasions to discuss this issue. Although security staff has stated that they consider an inmate’s mental health status during the disciplinary review process, this consideration does not involve the type of mental health input described in this provision, and in fact, this consideration does not involve any input from mental health team. Similarly, there is no indication that decisions made during the classification process and the assignment to a housing unit, including segregated housing, involves input from mental health team, even when the inmate has been identified as
60

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 61 of 106
seriously mentally ill. Addressing this issue awaits the development of new security policies and procedures governing disciplinary review, classification and housing assignments.
There still does not appear to be a presumption that segregation is contraindicated for persons with serious mental illness. At the time of this most recent site visit, 16 out of the 26 inmates being held in segregation were also on the mental health case load, and all 16 of those inmates on the mental health case load are known to be suffering from serious mental illness. During this site visit, these 16 cases were reviewed in detail.
Based on a review of these 16 cases, it is clear that there are several different issues here, most of which are discussed in more detail in other sections of this report. (1) Two of the 16 inmates on the mental health case load have continued to refuse treatment and therefore remain acutely psychotic. With regard to this issue, see section 37 of this report for a discussion of the need for a protocol for inmates who are clearly in need of mental health treatment but fail to comply with the treatment they require. (2) An additional 8 of the 16 inmates on the mental health case load are being held in segregation for administrative reasons or for protective custody. If there was a mental health unit, either as a stand-alone unit or as part of a larger safe unit, at least 7 of those 8 inmates could be safely housed there, and they would also have access to the more enhanced type of treatment program that they require. With regard to the need for a mental health unit, see paragraphs 42 (g) (iv), 45, and 74. (3) The other 6 inmates on the mental health case load are being held in segregation as discipline. There was no mental health involvement in the disciplinary review process that placed those 6 inmates in segregation, and there is no segregation review process that includes mental health input that might be used to determine whether or not disciplinary segregation continues to be appropriate for those inmates. For a discussion of these issues see paragraphs 37, 76 and 77 (a). (4) Then, in addition, it at least appears that the absence of the presumption that placement in segregation is contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness has resulted in a lack of focus on addressing the above noted issues that have resulted in the placement of prisoners with serious mental illness in segregation.
There is no evidence that individuals with severe mental illness are screened by a QMHP within 24 hours of placement in segregation. It does not appear that security staff even knows all of the prisoners on the mental health case load.
At present, there are no mental health evaluations during the disciplinary review process that would form the basis for an opinion by a QMHP that placement in segregation is or is not contraindicated. Although there are weekly mental health rounds for inmates being held in segregation, at present, there is no mechanism whereby mental health might have input into a decision about whether or not a mentally ill inmate should remain in segregation. Therefore, the security policies and procedures that are being developed which will govern the disciplinary review process, the segregation review process, and also the classification and housing
61

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 62 of 106
assignment process must address this issue. See sections 37, 42, 76 and 77 (a) for a more detailed discussion of these issues.
In addition, in order to fully address this provision, the above noted policies and procedures that are being developed must include a clear description of the ‘extraordinary and exceptional circumstances’ that trump the mental health concerns. In so doing, a distinction should be made between current circumstances (for example, the lack of alternative, appropriate housing for seriously mentally ill prisoners), and the circumstances that will continue to exist after other provisions of this agreement have been met. See section 77 (b).
Since there is no finding of extraordinary and exceptional circumstances and no interdisciplinary team, there is no documentation of such.
Prisoners with serious mental illness who are on medication and being held in segregation do have at least one daily visit with a nurse, who is a QMP, during medication pass. During this site visit, there was no difference observed between the nurses’ interactions with prisoners in segregation and prisoners who were not in segregation. Since prisoners in segregation do not see a QMHP on a daily basis, it should be made clear in policy and procedures to what extent the level of care provided by the nurses during medication pass should include some type of assessment of the prisoner’s mental status and/or other heightened level of care. The heightened level of care expected of the nurses while administering medication to mentally ill prisoners being held in segregation must be defined in a manner consistent with this provision. Once this level of care is defined, any revisions to policies and procedures and/or any additional training or supervision that might be required to deliver this level of care should be identified and undertaken.
There were two other observations made during this site visit. (1) During medication pass on the segregation unit, of necessity, the nurses had to leave the medication cart in order to take medication to each of the actual segregation cells. This left the medication cart and the drugs and needles on the cart unattended. Due to the configuration of locks on the doors to the unit, the unattended cart and its contents were freely accessible to anyone from outside the unit. (2) With one exception, the security staff person who supervised the medication pass on each unit only assumed the responsibility for making sure that the nurses were safe, which really didn’t require much more than standing there, given that the medication was administered through the gate to each unit (with the exception of the segregation unit). Only one officer assumed the more full set of responsibilities of a security officer supervising a medication pass, which includes making sure that each prisoner actually swallows the medication.
Prisoners in segregation who are on the mental health case load are receiving mental health services, including face-to-face therapeutic sessions with a QMHP and visits with the psychiatrist. Given the number of prisoners on the mental health caseload, the current shortage
62

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 63 of 106
of mental health staff, and the full range of duties assumed by existing mental health staff, these sessions are not consistently occurring on a weekly basis. Due to these same issues and the shortage of security staff, these sessions are often not out-of-cell sessions. Once mental health staffing issues have been addressed, there must be an increased effort to comply with this provision, keeping in the mind the fact that as noted in Section 76, weekly mental health rounds for prisoners in segregation must not be a substitute for these therapeutic sessions.
Although the mental health coordinator is performing weekly mental health rounds, the requirements for a weekly review by a QMHP is not being met. In order to address this provision, the mental health coordinator, in conjunction with a physician and the psychiatrist, must also perform a weekly review of the status of the prisoners in segregation who are also on, or should be added to the mental health case load. At present, there is clearly not enough psychiatric time or other physician time to address this provision.
Essentially all prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation have had an updated mental health evaluation and have an updated treatment plan (i.e., all prisoners with the exception of the 2 prisoners noted in Section 77-b who have refused to participate in a mental health evaluation). Given that at present, there is no ‘appropriate housing’ for prisoners with serious mental illness who remain acutely ill, or are vulnerable to being harmed by others, or are at risk of harming others, their treatment plans do not include recommendations for ‘appropriate housing’. See section 74 with regard to the need for the development of a special mental health unit. See section 77-b with regard to the finding that the mentally ill prisoners housed in longterm segregation could be more safely and better maintained in ‘appropriate housing’ (i.e., a mental health unit) if such housing existed. However, such prisoners are receiving follow-up care as prescribed in their treatment plans, and they are likely to be appropriate for some of the planned additional mental health services once those services are available. See section 42-g-iv with regard to the planned expansion of the mental health services provided.
In addition to the fact that the development of a mental health unit (i.e., appropriate, more integrated and therapeutic housing for mentally ill prisoners) will be required to meet this provision of the agreement, there must also be mechanisms whereby mental health findings can impact on decisions to transfer a prisoner from segregation to such a mental health unit. As noted elsewhere in this report, such mechanisms should be described in the security policies and procedures that are being developed which govern the disciplinary review process, the segregation review process, and classification and the assignment of housing.
Then with regard to sub paragraph h requiring referral to the mental health team if someone decompensates, there are additional questions/issues. (1) There is the question of to what extent non-mental health staff persons (i.e., security staff and medical staff) are assessing whether or not prisoners held in segregation are decompensating or otherwise developing signs or symptoms
63

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 64 of 106
of serious mental illness, where such signs and symptoms had not previously been identified. (2) Then there is also the question of whether or not non-mental health staff persons are immediately referring any such identified mentally ill prisoners to mental health. These are both important questions/issues that need to be further explored, especially given that security staff and medical staff (at least the nurses who administer medication) see the prisoners in segregation on a daily basis.
There is no interdisciplinary team that attempts to balance security concerns and medical/mental health concerns when decisions are being made about the housing of prisoners with serious mental illness. Although mental health treatment plans have been developed, those treatment plans do not include recommendations for housing, due to the fact that there is no special housing that is specifically designed to meet the needs of prisoners who are suffering from mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities. Therefore, in order to address this provision of the agreement, more appropriate housing options for prisoners with mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities has to be developed, and such an interdisciplinary team has to be established.
YOUTHFUL PRISONERS
As long as the County houses youthful prisoners, it must develop and implement policies and procedures for their supervision, management, education, and treatment consistent with federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482. Within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will determine where it will house youthful prisoners. During those six months, the County will consult with the United States, the monitor of the Henley Young Juvenile Detention Center Settlement Agreement, and any other individuals or entities whose input is relevant. The United States will support the County’s efforts to secure appropriate housing for youthful prisoners, including supervised release. Within 18 months after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will have completed transitioning to any new or replacement youthful prisoner housing facility.
Partial Compliance Consistent with past practice, Juveniles Charged as Adults (JCAs) continue to be placed at Henley Young after being booked at the Raymond facility. When they turn 18 they are transferred to the RDC pending further court action. As of this site visit there were fourteen youthful prisoners at Henley Young and one remaining juvenile at the RDC. By the time of this report being filed, the remaining juvenile at RDC will have turned 18 (DOB: 2/13/01) and will be transferred to an adult unit, and the prior practice of placing juveniles convicted as adults should have ended. Thus, for purposes of this report and monitoring compliance the acronym JCA will be used to refer to juveniles charged and/or convicted as an adult. Assuming the County places no more juveniles in the adult jail, whether charged or convicted as an adult, the County will be in full compliance with this requirement, albeit well behind the intended date.
64

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 65 of 106

As of this visit: • Of the fourteen juveniles at Henley Young, twelve were boys and two girls; • The age range for youth was 14 through 17, specifically 14 (4), 15 (2), 16 (6), and 17 (2); • The length of stay ranged from a low of 7 days to a high of 497 days for two of the youth that were in the original group placed at Henley Young in September 2017. Eight youth had been in placement for 200 days or more; • Of the fourteen juveniles, only five had been indicted for the incident that resulted in placement; • Since initiation of the policy to place juveniles at Henley Young a total of 48 youth have been so placed, many of whom were subsequently released to home; • The overall population of youth at Henley Young has remained relatively stable recent months both staying below the cap of 32 required in the Henley Young/SPLC agreement and more importantly reflecting a generally lower number of JCA youth than prior periods of time. This helps alleviate the prior concern that delays in case processing for JCA youth will result in a gradual increase in that population. However, it does not alleviate concerns that for those individual youth, the court system delays are inappropriate and need to be addressed. Refer to the chart below for the average daily population for the period September through December 2019;
Average Daily Population Henley Young
September - December 2019

30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0
5.0 0.0
September

October

JCA male JCA Female

November
Non-JCA male

December
Non-JCA female

• Both of the two 17-year-olds will turn 18 and “age out” of Henley Young prior to the next scheduled site visit. Of significant note is that one of these youth (C.M.) was in the original group placed, so by the time he turns 18 (on 2/15/19) he will have spent over 550 days in confinement. But, absent some other significant changes in case processing time
65

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 66 of 106
and given the relatively low age of a number of youth in placement, if there are not system reforms those younger youth have a long way to go to age out of the system and could be in placement for years, let alone months.
It is worth noting that there are discussions underway by some key decision-makers to change how the JCA youth are processed in the court system, with the hope that much more timely actions will occur relative to indictment (and/or a reduction in charges that could result in the youth returning to the juvenile court system), bail adjustments and/or other interim releases, and ultimately the plea/trial/sentencing decisions. This remains an issue for the court system overall but for the JCA youth these delays are particularly disruptive during the critical adolescent development years.
Related to the remaining juvenile at the RDC, another member of the monitoring team reported that concerns remain about the consistency of constant, direct supervision of the remaining juvenile unit. This is not a concern unique to the juvenile unit but does seem to reflect the inability or unwillingness of the County to follow through on the commitment that juveniles are under constant supervision. Now that the final juvenile has “aged out” this specific concern is moot, but it is likely that many youthful offenders (e.g. age 18, 19, 20) will be housed in units without consistent, direct supervision. Although an adult by age, there is no “magic birthday” such that concerns about their vulnerability and/or the impact of harmful conditions of confinement simply “go away”.
Although specific booking times at RDC and admission times at Henley Young were not compared side-by-side, in talking with staff at Henley Young they confirmed that after booking at RDC youth were being promptly transferred to Henley Young. Whether it is necessary for the JCA youth to be booked at RDC prior to transfer to Henley Young rather than just being brought directly to Henley Young by law enforcement is something that may be open to further discussion among various county authorities. It may be more efficient for law enforcement to bring the youth directly to Henley Young and work out other procedures (between Henley Young and the jail) for documenting that admission and checking prior records, but that is an internal discussion.
Repeating the language from the last report, “…a number of recommendations were made in prior reports related to changes at Henley Young that would support a successful transition (i.e. physical plant changes, security improvements, increased programming, speeding up case processing, improving the overall behavior management system, etc.). While some progress has been made related to programming and the behavior management system, concerns remain that the lack of progress on others (particularly physical plant changes and case processing) will make it more difficult to achieve compliance with the agreement, particularly in terms of educational programming, implementing individual case management plans, and limiting the use
66

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 67 of 106
of isolation as a disciplinary tool. At a minimum, the county should proceed to add at least some temporary classroom/program spaces that can be used for multiple activities (education, group counseling, skill development programs, etc.) and make changes on the housing units to create a calmer, more flexible, and more normative living environment. Youthful offenders respond to their surroundings and the current facilities features add to, rather than reduce, the emotional arousal of youth”.
It is disconcerting, at best, that none of the physical plant changes have been made. These changes would complement the current facility leadership’s efforts to improve programming and safety, and there have been statements that some fiscal resources have been included in the overall County capital budget that could be used to make some improvements. Yet as of this visit there remains no evidence of a firm commitment or plan in place to make any of even the most basic changes. Improvements by adding portable classrooms that can be used for education and other programming, and improving the quality of the housing units will have a beneficial impact on both youth and staff and allow them to fully implement the Settlement Agreement. Limited appropriate space for the variety of group discussions, therapeutic treatment, and special education services makes it difficult to meet those portions of the agreement that focus on being able to provide those services. For example, the GED program has been limited to 2 hours a day because there is no space for it until after the regular classes are done for the day. It also leaves the program more vulnerable to behavior incidents, particularly aggressive and disruptive behaviors that often lead to the need for using physical restraints that place both youth and staff at greater risk of injury. Youth’s behavior is highly reactive and more affected by the physical environment. Things such as the high noise level on the living units, insufficient personal space in classroom(s)/hallways, and otherwise uncomfortable living spaces elevate the emotional part of their brain that overrides the still-developing “executive/ decision-making” part of their brain, leading to more behavior that is driven by those emotions/reactions while the goal is to teach them how to take a “step back” and make more rational decisions.
An example of a simple improvement that could be made is to add telephone access to the housing unit. Currently youth are limited to two 5-minute phone calls per week to family members, which is clearly insufficient. One of the stated reasons for this limit is that youth must be taken to another area of the facility to make a phone call, taking staff time and limiting access for youth. There is no reason phone lines could not somehow be added to the unit such that they can still be controlled/appropriately monitored by staff but save staff time and allow for greater youth and family contact.
In talking with facility leadership and several staff members, there are some additional concerns related to low pay/lack of longevity incentives and the need for enhanced training and staffing related to responding to more violent incidents that although not specifically required to be
67

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 68 of 106
addressed in the agreement likely do bear, to a degree, on the long-term efficacy of Henley Young being an appropriate and safe facility.
Specific recommendations related to the above are: 1. Reaffirm recommendations related to physical plant improvements (i.e. program space,
living unit modifications, acoustic improvements, etc.) that will be important in the long run for success in placing JCA youth at Henley Young; 2. The County should notify/confirm to the Monitor when (a) there are no longer any JCA youth in the adult jail, and (b) the prior practice of placing juveniles convicted as adults in the adult jail (whether RDC or the Jackson facility) has been officially changed; and 3. Continue to discuss options for expediting the processing of JCA youth through the court system as may be allowable under current statutes and/or can be appropriately implemented through policy or practice changes.
Unlike prior reports that included observations for both Henley Young and RDC, the information provided in response to the additional requirements below will not refer to operations at RDC unless specifically noted.
For any youthful prisoners in custody, the County must:
78. Develop and implement a screening, assessment and treatment program to ensure that youth with serious mental illness and disabilities, including developmental disabilities, receive appropriate programs, supports, education, and services.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young As noted in the prior report, youthful offenders are booked at RDC and then taken to Henley Young. A routine part of the admission process at Henley Young is administration of the MAYSI-II, an appropriate mental health screening tool for use with adolescents. A Case Manager is assigned to each youth and is in daily contact with their assigned youth, providing information and support to maintain appropriate family contact(s), interact with court staff, help link youth with external resources, and intervene to prevent behavioral problems. The counseling staff provides more on-going therapy and support and can help coordinate services with Hinds County Behavioral Health or other resources.
The two mental health clinicians follow up the initial assessment by conducting a more complete mental health assessment that covers a wide range of potential issues and utilizing a strengthbased assessment to help youth identify skills they already have that they can build on to be more successful in the future. Along with interviews, these assessments help the clinicians identify some individual areas/skills that youth can work on while in placement and form a foundation for a basic case plan. Mental health records include regular documentation of contact between
68

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 69 of 106
the clinicians and youth and how they are doing relative to the goals they have developed as part of this case plan. The opportunity to compete more comprehensive psychological assessments that would include additional psychological testing and gathering prior treatment information is limited by the limited time available to the psychologist, so this remains an unfulfilled goal in reaching full compliance.
Protocols related to suicide concerns are in place and are reflected in documentation in Incident Reports, intake assessment(s), monitoring of youth exhibiting suicide/self-harm concerns, and documentation of review by mental health staff and “release” from suicide watch status. Henley Young has implemented a strong direct supervision protocol, including one-on-one observation for youth on suicide watch status, and there is documentation of required observation checks.
Just prior to the May visit, the County did secure the services of a licensed psychologist, Dr. Payne, to provide therapeutic services and overall mental health program supervision. So, this visit provided an additional opportunity beyond the fall visit to further assess how that addition has impacted compliance with the requirements of the agreement. Based on discussion with Dr. Payne and other staff (mental health staff, leadership, youth specialists) by all accounts she has been an exceptionally positive addition to the mental health team and the facility overall. As noted in the prior report, Dr. Payne has worked to update mental health policies and procedures, refined the mental health section of the intake assessment process, added more structure to the follow-up mental health assessment, worked with the two existing QMHPs to clarify their roles and responsibilities, fine-tuned the suicide prevention program, developed additional therapeutic interventions, and coordinated with facility leadership and staff in developing more appropriate responses to behavioral issues.
However, as noted in the prior report, concerns about her being hired on only a .5 FTE basis have been borne out in that it is not possible to do the kind of work needed to reach compliance on that basis. There is little doubt that Dr. Payne has gone above and beyond her contract to accomplish what she has and even with that there is simply not time to do what is needed. This is particularly true as it relates to having time to complete full assessments, coordinate behavioral health treatment teams and youth goals, directing development of more integrated counseling and skill development programming, and collaborating with other support resources for youth.
Also, as noted in the September visit report, Dr. Payne clearly has a strong personal commitment to the work at Henley Young, but discussions related to expanding her FTE status to full-time have resulted in no change, despite a recommendation from the HY staff and the monitoring team to do so. Given the challenge in initially finding Dr. Payne (a search and negotiation that took many months), it would be a significant setback to the youth and program at Henley Young if Dr. Payne could not remain in that position on a full-time FTE basis.
69

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 70 of 106
Concerns also remain about the limited psychiatric time allotted to youth at Henley Young. The weekly short visit by Dr. Kumar is sufficient for at most a cursory review of medication issues but little else in the way of treatment and/or coordination with Dr. Payne. It is not uncommon that it is difficult to find and secure the kind of expertise generally associated with child psychiatry, so whether Dr. Kumar is the best resource, especially given the limited amount of time allotted to youth, is an open question.
One of the three Youth Support Specialist (formerly Case Manager) positions is currently vacant. With the relatively low number of youth in custody, this is not critical although it does limit the amount of time they are available in the facility to lead group programs and respond to behavioral issues.
Related to appropriate programs, the mental health Clinicians and the Youth Support Specialists have continued to expand the content of programs provided for youth. There is a long list of topics that are covered, including:
• Understanding Emotions • Action or Reaction • Good Times and Not Good Times to Act • Reasons Not to Use Drugs • How is Your Emotional Wellness? • Risk Reduction Strategies & Techniques • Motivation • Coping Thoughts & Self-Expectations • Anger Stop Signs • Teamwork • Conflict Triggers • …and more
Youth are involved in these groups approximately 5 days/week in 45-minute blocks led by the clinicians or Youth Support Specialist, and notes are recorded relative to each youth’s participation. This program plan provides some of the building blocks for continued development of a more integrated and intentional behavioral health and skill development program. The staff that have been on board and waiting for leadership from the psychologist should be commended for moving forward in developing and delivering the content referenced above, this aspect of programming is still in its early developmental stages. Most of the activities appear to utilize a combination of discussion, presenting material, and worksheets, all of which are reasonable.
70

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 71 of 106
However, an example of a recommendation made to the staff by the juvenile expert is that the research about what is effective with youth suggests that as various skills are discussed/taught they need the chance to “practice” (often through forms of role playing or experiential activities) the skills that are being discussed. In fact, research suggests that for every 15 minutes spent discussing a skill (e.g. “stop and think”, peer refusal skills, identifying behavior options, etc.) 45 minutes should be spent in behavioral practice. Toward that end, staff are encouraged to identify some of the most critical skills youth need to learn and practice and allocate more time to those programs, including time for youth to practice new behaviors.
Additionally, there seems to be little, if any, linkage between what youth are learning in these group programs with what staff supervising youth are observing, teaching, and reinforcing. In many ways, the most important learning and reinforcement that leads to the development of prosocial skills will come from all staff being fully aware of and engaged in reinforcing youth’s behavior as it occurs rather than solely relying on group discussions/modules to teach new behavior. The mental health staff indicate that this is a challenge given that there are substantial variability in what staff are working on the units on a consistent basis, so it will take additional time and coordination through team meetings or other forms of communication to increase the chances that all staff can be fully engaged.
Specific recommendations related to the above are: 1. Increasing time allotted to the psychologist position at Henley Young to full-time; 2. Increasing the time the mental health team (psychologist, QMHP, Youth Support Specialists)
spend reviewing what programs (content and structure) are provided and identifying more targeted behavior skills youth need to learn (generally in the realm of cognitive behavioral programs), searching out related and evidence-based curriculum, and increasing the amount of time youth spend in practicing new skills; and 3. Getting all supervising staff involved in the teaching and reinforcing of the desired pro-social skills and more fully integrate what is to be learned into the youth’s behavior/treatment plan and the behavior management system.
79. Ensure that youth receive adequate free appropriate education, including special education.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young There have been some changes/improvement in the educational program for youth in recent months. For example: • Related to the GED program: (1) the teacher assigned to lead that program has been able to
work with several youth to move them forward toward developing basic skills, albeit those youth still have significant blocks of time during the day when they are not engaged in educational programming which is limited to 2 hours a day Monday through Friday primarily
71

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 72 of 106
because of the limited classroom space; (2) the teacher made arrangements for one youth to take the GED test, and he successfully passed three of the four tests and hopefully will pass the remaining test before he turns 18; (3) the teacher has begun planning to establish a GED testing site at Henley Young and obtain the necessary certifications so that youth can be tested on site more efficiently; and (4) additional software has been purchased and plans to increase youth’s access to learning adult basic education skills through those programs is being implemented. • More of the JCA youth are involved in the classroom-based education program. Whereas before many of the JCA youth were not included and had significant “down time” during school hours, it is understood that the plan going forward will be to include any youth who has not turned 17 as of September 1 each year in the classroom program. • There is a special education teacher working with some of the youth identified as in need of those services, but that time is limited and the “classroom” provided is clearly inadequate (essentially a converted closet). • Some additional work has been done to develop and implement a “credit recover” component to the educational program that may allow some youth a greater opportunity to “catch up” on high school level credits.
However, key components of programming still fall short of meeting requirements, including: • Although incremental progress in meeting youth’s educational needs has occurred, there
seems to be little sense of urgency or advocacy to working with JPS to completely meet the requirements of the agreement, particularly as it relates to youth with special education needs. Any discussion of developing an alternative/charter program (initially discussed in May 2018 with possible implementation in January 2019) ended when HY understood JPS to take the position that further resources from Jackson Public Schools would not be forthcoming. • Time allotted to teachers certified to deliver special education services is too limited. The educational consultant assessing the Henley Young/SPLC agreement recommended that two full-time special education teachers be assigned. At this point there is one with some assistance from the teacher that also covers the GED program.
It is recommended that: 1. Increased time be allotted to gather needed information to determine whether or not a youth
is entitled to special education services and if so, review and update IEPs as required, allot more teaching resources to special education youth, and provide appropriate space to provide special education services. 2. Recently acquired software should be more fully implemented to provide more basic education programming to youth involved in all aspects of the educational program but particularly those youth who are “tracked” into the GED program and are receiving relatively little instruction.
72

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 73 of 106
3. Staff continue to explore post-GED options for youth, including outreach to Hinds Community College or other post-secondary resources.
80. Ensure that youth are properly separated by sight and sound from adult prisoners.
Substantial Compliance at Henley Young Since there are no adult prisoners placed at Henley Young, this provision is met. As JCA youth in placement at Henley Young turn 18, they will be transferred to RDC or the Jackson facility.
Partial Compliance at the Raymond Detention Center As noted earlier, by mid-February the lone remaining youthful prisoner will “age out” and be transferred to an adult unit. In the interim he has been held in a smaller isolation unit in the A pod and has been separated from adults. Full compliance will be achieved once the final youth ages out and final policies/procedures are in place that prohibit the placement of youthful prisoners in any of the adult facilities and are kept separate during any booking and/or transport process.
It is recommended that the County notify the monitor when: 1. The remaining youth “ages out” and is moved to an adult unit; and 2. Policy is in place to ensure that no more youthful prisoners will be held in any of the adult
facilities, regardless of their charging/conviction status.
81. Ensure that the Jail’s classification and housing assignment system does not merely place all youth in the same housing unit, without adequate separation based on classification standards. Instead, the system must take into account classification factors that differ even within the youth sub-class of prisoners. These factors include differences in age, dangerousness, likelihood of victimization, and sex/gender.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young In discussing housing decisions with staff, it is apparent that they do take into consideration the factors indicated above, although formal documentation of that process needs to be confirmed and the Classification Policy updated to reflect that there are two JCA units. Substantial compliance can be achieved by updating the Classification Policy to reflect how it is determined which of the two JCA units youth are assigned to and further verification of the completeness of the Classification Checklist can be done at the time of the next site visit. They do have the benefit of having had prior experience with almost all of the youth referred for placement, and it is a positive that they consider a youth’s vulnerability to others as an important factor to ensure a youth is safely placed. The bottom line is that while age and offense are factors, the key factor in which housing unit youth are placed is their behavior and vulnerability. Given that two living units at Henley Young are available for youth, staff has also appropriately responded to
73

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 74 of 106
incidents/problems that have occurred between youth and made use of separating them into different units as needed.
Note that as of the January visit, there were two girls in custody who were being tried as adults. These girls are placed on the general girls’ unit, which makes sense especially given the relatively small number of girls in custody in the juvenile system at a given time (often none).
82. Train staff members assigned to supervise youth on the Jail’s youth-specific policies and procedures, as well as on age-appropriate supervision and treatment strategies. The County must ensure that such specialized training includes training on the supervision and treatment of youth, child and adolescent development, behavioral management, crisis intervention, conflict management, child abuse, juvenile rights, the juvenile justice system, youth suicide prevention and mental health, behavioral observation and reporting, gang intervention, and de-escalation.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young The training officer at Henley Young continues to do a good job of coordinating and tracking the basic training for staff. This includes making sure new staff receive 40 hours of new employee orientation training and are enrolled in state-required detention officer training. The training plan for 2019 includes an appropriate range of training including: Policy and Procedure Review, Behavior Management/Adolescent Development, Non-Violent Crisis Intervention (initial and recertification), PREA, CPR, Intake Procedures including a focus on use of the mental health screening tool (MAYSI-II), dealing with Hostage situations, and Effective Communication. In addition to providing some of the training directly, the training officer has also engaged Dr. Payne and other resources to provide some aspects of training, e.g. Behavior Management, Adolescent Development, and Effective Communications. Also on a positive note, in reviewing some of the materials utilized for these trainings, resources include those developed by the National Center for Youth in Custody and the National Partnership for Juvenile Services, both recognized as supporting best practice standards.
The training officer also makes the effort to set training times that do not detract from shift duties or require substantial overtime/work beyond a staff’s normal shift. While this is a challenge in any 24/7 facility, this is complicated in Hinds County as many of the staff need to work other jobs in order to “make ends meet”, so coming in before/after shift or on “off days” is difficult for them. Along with scheduling adequate training time, some challenges remain in developing additional, more advanced trainings due to the fact that staff turnover (hiring and training new staff) takes up a considerable amount of training time and energy. This makes it difficult for staff to “advance” their skills over time vs. essentially simply “refreshing” what they have already learned.
To reach full compliance, it is recommended that:
74

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 75 of 106
1. Efforts be made to identify more advanced training programs that build on the basic skills learned in the current training curriculum. This could include outreach to local/regional resources through the universities, Hinds Behavioral Health, or other programs that focus on working with youth; and
2. The County could consider linking more advanced training to additional performance and/or longevity incentives that would enhance staff retention, increase the staff skill level, and provide reinforcement for staff to advance those skills.
83. Specifically prohibit the use of segregation as a disciplinary sanction for youth. Segregation may be used on a youth only when the individual’s behavior threatens imminent harm to the youth or others. This provision is in addition to, and not a substitute, for the provisions of this Agreement that apply to the use of segregation in general. In addition:
a. Prior to using segregation, staff members must utilize less restrictive techniques such as verbal de-escalation and individual counseling, by qualified mental health or other staff trained on the management of youth.
b. Prior to placing a youth in segregation, or immediately thereafter, a staff member must explain to the youth the reasons for the segregation, and the fact that the youth will be released upon regaining self-control.
c. Youth may be placed in segregation only for the amount of time necessary for the individual to regain self-control and no longer pose an immediate threat. As soon as the youth’s behavior no longer threatens imminent harm to the youth or others, the County must release the individual back to their regular detention location, school or other programming.
d. If a youth is placed in segregation, the County must immediately provide one-on-one crisis intervention and observation.
e. The County must specifically document and record the use of segregation on youth as part of its incident reporting and quality assurance systems.
f. A Qualified Medical Professional, or staff member who has completed all training required for supervising youth, must directly monitor any youth in segregation at least every fifteen (15) minutes. Such observation must be documented immediately after each check.
g. Youth may not be held in segregation for a continuous period longer than one (1) hour during waking hours. If staff members conclude that a youth is not sufficiently calm to allow a break in segregation after one hour, they must contact a Qualified Mental Health Professional. The Qualified Mental Health Professional must assess the youth and determine whether the youth requires treatment or services not available in the Jail. If the youth requires mental health services that are not provided by the Jail, the Qualified Mental Health Provider must immediately notify the Jail Administrator and promptly arrange for hospitalization or other treatment services.
75

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 76 of 106
h. If a youth is held in segregation for a continuous period longer than two (2) hours, Staff Members must notify the Jail Administrator.
i. Any notifications or assessments required by this paragraph must be documented in the youth’s individual record.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young For the most part, there has been continued progress in this area in that both the frequency and duration of the use of involuntary room confinement has declined. In particular, in September there were 8 instances, in October there were four, in November there were 6, and in December there were only 2. It will be important to continue to monitor the trend of use of the Behavior Management Isolation as well as the Due Process Isolation steps that have been in place in the past. While this represents progress, it is still outside the requirements of this agreement. Staff indicate that even in situations in which a youth is to be confined to their room for 24 hours, they are allowed to get out for school and one hour of recreation, but they also indicate the youth often chooses to stay in their room rather than go to school.
Actions taken to develop a more appropriate, problem-solving approach to dealing with disciplinary incidents was initiated around the time of the September site visit, and that process seems to be paying off in terms of diverting the situation away from the more “correctional” response of simply using involuntary room confinement. This new process includes involvement of the Youth Support Specialist, the Psychologist, and/or the QMHP staff to work collaboratively with supervising staff and leadership staff to meet directly with the youth and walk through situations that occur and identify new behaviors and solutions in lieu of formal discipline.
Full compliance with the “time limit” on the use of segregation to no more than one hour unless the youth presents an imminent harm to others will require significant continued work related to developing alternatives, training staff on alternative supervision measures, increased programming to constructively occupy youth’s time, and increasing incentives for youth to comply with behavioral expectations. A related concern is that one of the “trade-offs” in reducing the use of segregation for disciplinary purposes has included reducing youth’s access to phone contact with family members and/or visitation privileges. Both of these are already limited and further reduction can often be counterproductive to maintaining important familial relationships that will benefit the youth in the long run. The ability to earn some additional privileges has been included in the new behavioral point system but more could be done to incentivize positive behaviors without reducing these already very limited privileges.
Related to documentation, improvements can still be made in tracking observation of youth during confinement and providing ready documentation of contact by clinicians and case managers with youth while confined. For example, it is not uncommon to see the “room checks” to be noted in exactly 15-minute increments (e.g. 1500, 1515, 1530, and so on) which always
76

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 77 of 106
suggests to an outside observer that the actual time is documented at the end of a shift rather than as it occurs. If not already done, the room observation form could easily be taped to the outside of a youth’s room and the actual time recorded as the check is made rather than sitting in a folder to be completed later. Also, the only place that clinician contact with youth while in confinement is documented is in their records, and both clinicians were out of the facility during the site visit. The prior recommendation to add the clinician “check” to the observation form was not adopted, making it very difficult to actually monitor whether and when mental health staff are involved in checking the status of youth in segregation.
It is also difficult to collect good data about the use of shorter term segregation, i.e. when a staff member on duty feels it is necessary for safety purposes to place a youth in their room, as that information is not collected in the same way the longer Due Process Isolation decisions are kept. And, although staff say that a youth that is placed on isolation status may be out of their room for school and recreation, the current Observation log does not adequately reflect whether the youth is actually out of their room leaving no way to verify whether or not that is true.
Related to documentation, there are two simple recommendations (both of which were included in the prior report but not adopted): 1. Improve the system for ensuring that required wellness checks are made and recorded at no
longer than 15-minute intervals and include the time of the “check” made by mental health staff directly on the Observation form; and 2. Establish a “master” list of all involuntary room confinements/segregation that exceed 15 minutes, whether initiated by youth care staff or through a disciplinary process; and then include tracking this information through a quality assurance/performance-based process in which trends over time can be tracked (including what staff are imposing restriction). This information can be reviewed monthly by key leadership to assess progress toward eliminating involuntary room confinement.
84. Develop and implement a behavioral treatment program appropriate for youth. This program must be developed with the assistance of a qualified consultant who has at least five years of experience developing behavioral programs for institutionalized youth. The Jail’s behavioral program must include all of the following elements:
a. The behavioral program must include positive incentives for changing youth behavior, outline prohibited behaviors, and describe the consequences for prohibited behaviors.
b. An individualized program must be developed by a youth’s interdisciplinary treatment team, and properly documented in each youth’s personal file. Documentation requirements must include the collection of data required for proper assessment and treatment of youth with behavioral issues. For
77

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 78 of 106
instance, the County must track the frequency and duration of positive incentives, segregation, and targeted behaviors. c. The program must include safeguards and prohibitions on the inappropriate use of restraints, segregation, and corporal punishment.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young At the time of the last site visit, Henley Young was in the first week of implementing an updated/revised behavior management point system and a more proactive graduated response to behavior problems. As noted in the previous reports, the system was a transition to a weekly vs. daily system, and additional positive incentives were added. These were positive steps forward, and during this site visit there was an opportunity to evaluate to some extent whether/how the changes have improved youth behavior and/or staff response to behaviors.
In talking with youth and reviewing some of their point sheets (which have continued to evolve in format), youth do seem to be well aware of the basics of the system and the types of “rewards” they can earn. There was variation in how youth were doing on the system, as one would expect, but in general most youth were consistently being scored to meet the mid-range or above of potential “points” and incentives.
That said, this tool could still be characterized to be in its rudimentary stages of development, and changes made do not include recommendations made in the last report, including: (1) adding an individual weekly goal identified by the youth and case manager – something that is unique to the case plan for that youth and focuses on a particular pro-social skill or behavior and includes a specific incentive/reward that can be implemented for that youth; (2) working with youth to identify additional incentives that they would like to see included as rewards for achievement; and (3) implementing an additional “coupon” or token reward program in which staff can reward “kids doing good”, focusing particularly on new and improved behaviors that contribute to the overall welfare and safety of the group. Each of these are no-cost/low-cost steps that can engage members of the mental health and staff teams in collaborating with youth to identify and reinforce skill development, allow for some individualization of the system, and create more opportunities for positive staff-youth interaction(s).
Implementation is also fundamentally flawed in two ways: (1) youth are not apprised/do not have access to the “points” they are earning through the week or on each shift; and (2) the system does not include behavioral expectations for weekends.
Without going into great detail, discussion with staff reiterated the recommendations made in the last report (that were not implemented) as well as making the strong recommendation that youth have easy access to how staff are scoring the expectations on a routine (at least daily, preferably each shift) basis. In addition to providing a good way to track some basic behavioral
78

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 79 of 106
expectations, the “point” of a system such as this is based on the importance of reinforcing youth’s behavior in a timely basis. In addition to simply “scoring” the points, the staffs need to be proactive in communicating with youth how well they are doing and/or ways they can do better. It is of little value, for example, for a youth to find out Friday how they were “scored” that prior Monday.
As noted in the prior report, there are many components beyond a “point system” that will ultimately impact behavior (e.g. interaction of programming, staff interactions, mental health support, etc.). In fact, as referenced earlier in the report, the staff with the greatest opportunity to shape behavior are the direct supervision staff that, if properly trained, can reinforce/shape youth’s behaviors as they occur rather than relying on some “corrective” action later. This speaks to the need for even more staff training related to shaping behavior, encouraging staff to view their role as behavior change “agents” rather than a more passive “correctional” role, and more complete integration of the mental health team and direct supervision staff in development and evaluating progress related to a youth’s individualized case plan. For example, although Youth Support Specialists/QMHP identify goals for each youth, the direct supervision staff have no idea what that goal is. Breaking down those goals into achievable and observable behaviors that can be reinforced in a timely way by staff is necessary to achieve the outcomes desired.
With these things in mind, at the time of the last report the recommendation to engage a consultant was deferred. Having now had some chance to evaluate the changes made, the concern is that the changes are positive but too incremental and do not reflect the kind of overall integration of treatment and behavior management best practice that is intended by the requirement in the agreement.
Recommendations specific to this requirement include: 1. Reaffirming recommendations noted above to improve the behavioral “point” system by
including weekend expectations, more proactively using the tool to shape behavior at the time it occurs, include individualized behavioral goals for each youth on the point system for each youth (so all staff know what to watch for), expand the number and nature of incentives youth can earn (ask youth for ideas and also these can be individualized as needed), and adding additional “coupon” or behavior “rewards” when youth exhibit identified new and improved behaviors; 2. Engage the services of a consultant to serve as a resource to leadership in continuing to evolve the behavior management aspect of the operation. Staff seem very open to learning more and someone who has implemented the kinds of changes recommended (and help them walk through the programmatic and staff changes required to be successful) could be very useful in moving this component forward on a much more complete and timely basis; 3. Include youth supervision staff in “team” meetings in which goals for youth are set, issues discussed, and approaches to success are developed. These meetings could also include the
79

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 80 of 106
youth as well so that on a regular (even weekly if time permits) basis everyone “gets on the same page” as to what the youth should be working on.
Significant progress in developing an effective behavior management system that fully engages and integrates all staff in working together to increase desired behaviors, teach youth new prosocial skills, and increase overall safety is a process that can take a year or more. At this point staff leadership is open to continued improvement, and given additional support progress toward that goal can be significantly enhanced.
LAWFUL BASIS FOR DETENTION
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners are processed through the criminal justice system in a manner that respects their liberty interests. To that end:
85. The County will not accept or continue to house prisoners in the Jail without appropriate, completed paperwork such as an affidavit, arrest warrant, detention hold, or judge’s written detention order. Examples of inadequate paperwork include but are not limited to undated or unsigned court orders, warrants, and affidavits; documents memorializing oral instructions from court officers that are undated, unsigned, or otherwise fail to identify responsible individuals and the legal basis for continued detention or release; incomplete arresting police officer documents; and any other paperwork that does not establish a lawful basis for detention.
Partial Compliance At the time of the site visit there were still no adopted policies and procedures in this area However, since the time of the site visit the policies on pre-booking and booking policy have been adopted. A Booking Manual is reportedly being developed. As previously reported, there appears to be significant improvement in documenting the basis for detention. There are four staff members who review various types of cases to track and investigate the basis for detention. This has resulted in significant improvement in the accuracy of the records. However, there continue to be some files that don’t support continued detention and, as a result, individuals who are detained longer than they should be. During this site visit, it appeared that the most common reason people were held longer than they should have been was because other agencies were not meeting required deadlines and jail staff were allowing them extra time. This was the case with some individuals held beyond 21 days waiting for a probation violation determination. With personnel changes at Probation and Parole, communication has been difficult and Jail staff have detained individuals beyond the 21 days to allow for delayed communication. Individuals are supposed to have their first appearance within 48 hours or be released. Four individuals were held beyond the 48 hours because the police agencies did not provide the paperwork. There were two individuals for whom there was no basis for detention at the time of booking. One individual
80

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 81 of 106
who was held on a probation violation reached the 21 days. His probation officer came to visit but didn’t want to take him so he had the individual released and rebooked although there were no new charges or violations. As a result, there was no supporting documentation for his booking or detention. This was caught 4 days later and he was released. One individual was booked in without any supporting documentation because the Jail was “assisting another agency.” There continues to be an issue with warrants and holds. The Warrants Division of HCSO uses an old data base and so does not enter warrants into the JMS system. The Records Office does not always get notice of warrants or holds if they come in after booking or if they are not entered in the charge field. Another recurring situation is that there is not a way to identify people in the Jail who are waiting for a preliminary hearing. Individuals who do not have an attorney have no one to request a preliminary hearing. These individuals currently get lost in the system and some stay long periods of time in the Jail. There continue to be individuals detained beyond 90 days without indictment. It appears that staff is maintaining an accurate list of unindicted individuals. This also cannot be run accurately out of the JMS system. Jail staff reported that they continue to see orders releasing an individual ROR but ordering the defendant to continue to be detained until transfer to the state hospital. The legality of these orders needs to be determined.
86. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees in contravention of the protections of the United States Constitution as set forth and discussed in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) and Cassibry v. State, 453 So.2d 1298 (Miss. 1984). The County must develop and implement policies consistent with the applicable federal law and the terms of this Agreement.
Partial Compliance At the time of the last site visit there were four individuals who were or had recently been held for failure to pay fines and fees without a legal court order. There do not appear to be any individuals held on unlawful orders at the present time although there were two court orders that were somewhat ambiguous and were brought to the attention of staff. The absence of policies and procedures on this issue contributes to the risk of this continuing to arise after it appeared to be resolved. The draft policy on Pre-booking does address this issue but has not yet been adopted.
87. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees absent (a) documentation demonstrating that a meaningful analysis of that person’s ability to pay was conducted by the sentencing court prior to the imposition of any sentence, and (b) written findings by the sentencing court setting forth the basis for a finding that the failure to pay the subject fines or fees was willful. At a minimum, the County must confirm receipt from the sentencing court of a signed “Order” issued by the sentencing court setting forth in detail the basis for a finding that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful.
81

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 82 of 106
Partial Compliance The County has been pro-active in ensuring that valid court orders are utilized. This is carried as partial compliance because policies and procedures have not yet been adopted. The draft policy on Records does address this requirement but has not yet been adopted.
88. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a person for failure to pay fines or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and any other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and must obtain a copy to justify continued detention of the prisoner. After 48 hours, that prisoner must be released promptly if the Jail staff cannot obtain the necessary documentation to verify that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful, and that person is incarcerated only for the failure to pay fines or fees.
Partial Compliance See response to number 87 above.
89. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a prisoner for failure to pay fines or fees, and if that person is incarcerated for other conviction(s) or charge(s), other than the failure to pay fines and/or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and to ascertain the prisoner’s length of sentence. If Jail staff cannot obtain a copy of the necessary documentation within 48 hours of the prisoner’s incarceration, Jail staff must promptly arrange for the prisoner’s transport to the sentencing court so that the court may conduct a legally sufficient hearing and provide any required documentation, including the fines or fees owed by the prisoner, and an assessment of the prisoner’s ability to pay and willfulness (or lack thereof) in failing to pay fines or fees.
Partial Compliance See response to number 87 above.
90. Jail staff must maintain the records necessary to determine the amount of time a person must serve to pay off any properly ordered fines or fees. To the extent that a sentencing court does not specifically calculate the term of imprisonment to be served, the Jail must obtain the necessary information within 24 hours of a prisoner’s incarceration. Within 48 hours of incarceration, each prisoner shall be provided with documentation setting forth clearly the term of imprisonment and the calculation used to determine the term of imprisonment.
Partial Compliance The WC continues to maintain a spreadsheet. There are some individuals who have a sentence of confinement. Some of these individuals show fines and fees but with the notation of a payment
82

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 83 of 106
plan in effect. This signifies that they will be released after the sentence of confinement. The Monitor will continue to track these entries to ensure that individuals are released after the confinement period. There was no documentation that prisoners were provided with documentation of their release date although they do typically have the orders from the court. The non-compliant orders at the time of the last site visit did not use the same daily amount for working off fines and fees. If the Jail at some point receives a valid court order on fines and fees in that the ability to pay has been adjudicated and the failure to pay is willful, the Jail should work with the courts to utilize a uniform daily rate for discharging the amount owed.
91. No pre-trial detainee or sentenced prisoner incarcerated by the County solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be required to perform physical labor. Nor shall any such detainee or prisoner receive any penalty or other adverse consequence for failing to perform such labor, including differential credit toward sentences. Any physical labor by pre-trial detainees or by prisoners incarcerated solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be performed on a voluntary basis only, and the County shall not in any way coerce such pre-trial detainees or prisoners to perform physical labor.
Non-Compliance This has become a limited issue now that virtually no individuals are working off fines and fees. As reported recently, the recent standard practice at the WC is to give half the amount of credit towards fines and fees for individuals who do not perform physical labor. This includes individuals who cannot perform physical labor because of a medical or mental health condition. The most recent stated practice was to determine the amount of credit on a case by case basis. There needs to be a written policy requiring that individuals who cannot work because of a medical or mental health condition or other disability receive full credit towards fines and fees.
92. The County must ensure that the Jail timely releases from custody all individuals entitled to release. At minimum:
a. Prisoners are entitled to release if there is no legal basis for their continued detention. Such release must occur no later than 11:59 PM on the day that a prisoner is entitled to be released.
b. Prisoners must be presumed entitled to release from detention if there is a court order that specifies an applicable release date, or Jail records document no reasonable legal basis for the continued detention of a prisoner.
c. Examples of prisoners presumptively entitled to release include: i. Individuals who have completed their sentences; ii. Individuals who have been acquitted of all charges after trial; iii. Individuals whose charges have been dismissed; iv. Individuals who are ordered released by a court order; and
83

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 84 of 106
v. Individuals detained by a law enforcement agency that then fails to promptly provide constitutionally adequate, documented justification for an individual’s continued detention.
Partial Compliance See response to number 85.
93. The County must develop and implement a reliable, complete, and adequate prisoner records system to ensure that staff members can readily determine the basis for a prisoner’s detention, when a prisoner may need to be released, and whether a prisoner should remain in detention. The records system must provide Jail staff with reasonable advance notice prior to an anticipated release date so that they can contact appropriate agencies to determine whether a prisoner should be released or remain in detention.
Partial Compliance There is still no known process to electronically check for adequate documentation for detention and identify those that should be released. There are no routine audits of paper or electronic files to ensure accuracy. The Jail still relies on inmate requests and grievances to identify people who are being over detained. In addition to Booking staff, there are four individuals tracking the lawful basis of detention. They are all four using separate spreadsheets and lists which as noted above do not match reports run from the JMS system. There continues to be a lack of specified procedures to check all law enforcement and court documents. Jail staff do not have access to the county court data base or the updated circuit court data base which would allow them to improve the accuracy of their records.
94. Jail record systems must accurately identify and track all prisoners with serious mental illness, including their housing assignment and security incident histories. Jail staff must develop and use records about prisoners with serious mental illness to more accurately and efficiently process prisoners requiring forensic evaluations or transport to mental hospitals or other treatment facilities, and to improve individual treatment, supervision, and community transition planning for prisoners with serious mental illness. Records about prisoners with serious mental illness must be incorporated into the Jail’s incident reporting, investigations, and medical quality assurance systems. The County must provide an accurate census of the Jail’s mental health population as part of its compliance reporting obligations, and the County must address this data when assessing staffing, program, or resource needs.
Non-Compliant This provision speaks to one set of responsibilities that fall clearly on the mental health team, and another set of responsibilities that must be shared by the mental health team, security staff and the facility’s administrative staff.
84

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 85 of 106
With regard to those responsibilities that fall clearly on the mental health team, there has been enormous progress towards addressing this provision. More specifically, as discussed in section 42, the mental health team has developed and maintained a ‘mental health tracking log’ that lists all prisoners with serious mental illness; each prisoner’s location, booking date, and length of stay in the facility; how and when each prisoner was referred to mental health; and information regarding the initial mental health assessment, the initial psychiatric assessment, diagnosis, the treatment plan, any medication, and next scheduled visit. The mental health team also maintains a complete medical record for each prisoner with serious mental illness that includes all assessments, treatment plans, and treatment progress notes; these records reflect the activities of each team member involved in the prisoner’s treatment, including the psychiatrist; and these records also document assessments and treatment related to any special mental health circumstance that might have occurred including, for example, suicide watch or other special mental health observation.
Given the above noted improvements, the mental health team can provide an accurate census of the jail’s mental health population. This census count, coupled with a clear awareness of the standards of clinical practice for addressing the needs of seriously mentally ill persons, has informed discussions in this report regarding staffing, program and resource needs. See sections 37, 42 and 77 with regard to staffing needs, program development and resource needs, including the need for a special mental health unit.
The information contained in the ‘mental health tracking log’ and the medical records is also used to assess compliance with many of the mental health policies and procedures. For example, these records indicate whether or not specific, required tasks were performed; whether or not tasks were performed in a timely manner; whether or not each task is sufficiently documented; and whether or not a decision made is supported by the information obtained that formed the basis for the decision. While this is the first step in the development of a quality assurance program for mental health, it is anticipated that once additional staff are hired, a more formal treatment plan review process will be undertaken. This process will provide yet another level of quality review, in that team members will be collectively examining to what extent each prescribed treatment plan is actually meeting its treatment goals and objectives, and what adjustments in the treatment plan may or may not be required.
To date, there have been no prisoners who have required a transfer to a mental hospital or other treatment facility for mental health treatment other than those needing long term placement at the state hospital. However, there is a considerable backlog with regard to the transfer of prisoners for forensic evaluations and/or restoration of competency, which is totally due to the limited capacity of the forensic mental health facility where such tasks are performed. In an attempt to respond to this problem, there is now a ‘competency restoration program’ that has been brought
85

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 86 of 106
into the facility, which is a free-standing program that is not part of the facility’s mental health treatment program and does not provide treatment.
See paragraph 96 for a discussion of the mental health team’s community transition planning for prisoners with serious mental illness.
In contrast to the above noted developments, there has been much less progress towards meeting this provision as it relates to the responsibilities that must be shared by the mental health team, security staff and the facility’s administrative staff. To what extent and through what mechanisms mental health will be involved in such things as security incidences and investigations await the development of security policies and procedures that address such issues.
95. All individuals who (i) were found not guilty, were acquitted, or had charges brought against them dismissed, and (ii) are not being held on any other matter, must be released directly from the court unless the court directs otherwise. Additionally:
a. Such individuals must not be handcuffed, shackled, chained with other prisoners, transported back to the Jail, forced to submit to bodily strip searches, or returned to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
b. Notwithstanding (a), above, individuals may request to be transported back to the Jail solely for the purpose of routine processing for release. If the County decides to allow such transport, the County must ensure that Jail policies and procedures govern the process. At minimum, policies and procedures must prohibit staff from: i. Requiring the individual to submit to bodily strip searches; ii. Requiring the individual to change into Jail clothing if the individual is not already in such clothing; and iii. Returning the individual to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
Non-Compliant Individuals are not being released from the Court at this time. In connection with the drafting of policies and procedures, Jail staff are working on a process of releasing individuals from the downtown facility, JDC.
96. The County must develop, implement, and maintain policies and procedures to govern the release of prisoners. These policies and procedures must:
a. Describe all documents and records that must be collected and maintained in Jail files for determining the basis of a prisoner’s detention, the prisoner’s anticipated release date, and their status in the criminal justice system.
86

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 87 of 106
b. Specifically, detail procedures to ensure timely release of prisoners entitled to be released, and procedures to prevent accidental release.
c. Be developed in consultation with court administrators, the District Attorney’s Office, and representatives of the defense bar.
d. Include mechanisms for notifying community mental health providers, including the County’s Program of Assertive Community Treatment (“PACT”) team, when releasing a prisoner with serious mental illness so that the prisoner can transition safely back to the community. These mechanisms must include providing such prisoners with appointment information and a supply of their prescribed medications to bridge the time period from release until their appointment with the County PACT team, or other community provider.
Non-Compliant In the initial Policies and Procedures that were adopted there are two policies that may relate to this requirement-the policy on records and the policy on booking which includes some requirements related to release. These policies do not have the specificity or the breadth required by this paragraph. Although the draft policies on Pre-booking and Booking address some of these issues, there is currently no draft policy on Releasing. The Booking Manual, also in the process of being drafted should provide even more needed specificity. The current practices, as described above, do not meet the requirements of this paragraph. Although improved, there still are inmate files which do not include documentation establishing the basis for detention or continued detention. Neither the DA’s office nor the defense bar has been involved in the drafting.
A primary focus of subparagraph d is the successful referral of prisoners with mental health difficulties to community-based mental health services upon their release from the facility. As has been noted in prior reports, the mental health team and the facility’s discharge planner have taken steps towards improving communication and cooperation with community-based providers, especially Hinds Behavioral Health (which is a major community-based provider of a full range of mental health treatment services and wrap-around services). To date, it at least appears that it will be possible to develop a sound working relationship between the facility and this community-based provider of mental health services that will lead to more meaningful and successful referrals of prisoners to a full range of community-based mental health services upon their release from the facility. It is anticipated that once additional mental health staff have been hired, more time can be devoted to this extremely important effort.
Another critical factor that impacts on the successful referral of prisoners with mental health difficulties to community-based mental health services is the preparation of prisoners to receive such a referral. More specifically, upon their release from the facility, prisoners are more likely to actually accept and follow-up on a referral for community-based mental health services if they
87

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 88 of 106
have come to understand that they have a mental illness, the impact that the illness has had on their lives, that there is treatment that can help them improve their ability to function, and that it is their responsibility to obtain, actively participate in, and comply with that treatment. Therefore, another part of responding to this provision is the expansion of the mental health services provided at the facility to include psychoeducational groups and discharge planning groups, both geared towards preparing prisoners to accept and follow-up on referrals for community-based mental health services.
Finally, the other critical issue in this provision is providing prisoners, upon their release from the facility, with appointment information and a supply of their prescribed medications to bridge the time period between release and their first outpatient appointment. In order to address this part of this provision, the mental health team should be informed when a prisoner is going to be released and be given an opportunity to meet with the prisoner prior to release. This appears to be a major problem. Although security/booking has asserted that all prisoners are cleared by medical as part of the release process, the records in the Medical Department covering December 2018 indicate that only 13 of the 30 prisoners released from the facility during that month who were known to medical staff were cleared by medical during the release process. Therefore, the other 17 released prisoners were not brought to medical as part of the releasing process and therefore did not have the opportunity to receive any appointment information or bridge medication that they may have required. Obviously, security must make more of an effort to assure that prisoners are cleared by the Medical Department as part of the release process. However, the mental health team is also taking other steps to address this issue. More specifically, the information transmitted in the above noted psychoeducational groups and discharge planning groups will also include important information on the community-based mental health services provider, such as its location and the fact that they accept unscheduled, walk-in intake appointments every morning. In this way, if a prisoner is released without being cleared by medical, the prisoner will know that to go to the community-based provider the next morning for assistance, support and medication.
97. The County must develop, implement, and maintain appropriate post orders relating to the timely release of individuals. Any post orders must:
a. Contain up-to-date contact information for court liaisons, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Public Defender’s Office;
b. Describe a process for obtaining higher level supervisor assistance in the event the officer responsible for processing releases encounters administrative difficulties in determining a prisoner’s release eligibility or needs urgent assistance in reaching officials from other agencies who have information relevant to a prisoner’s release status.
88

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 89 of 106
Non-Compliant The County has not yet developed post orders in this area.
98. Nothing in this Agreement precludes appropriate verification of a prisoner’s eligibility for release, including checks for detention holds by outside law enforcement agencies and procedures to confirm the authenticity of release orders. Before releasing a prisoner entitled to release, but no later than the day release is ordered, Jail staff should check the National Crime Information Center or other law enforcement databases to determine if there may be a basis for continued detention of the prisoner. The results of release verification checks must be fully documented in prisoner records.
Partial Compliance The Booking staff reportedly now runs an NCIC check at the time of booking and again at release. NCIC reports run at the time of booking are in the inmate files. Documentation of NCIC reports at the time of release will be reviewed at the next site visit.
99. The County must ensure that the release process is adequately staffed by qualified detention officers and supervisors. To that end, the County must:
a. Ensure that sufficient qualified staff members, with access to prisoner records and to the Jail’s e-mail account for receiving court orders, are available to receive and effectuate court release orders twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
b. Ensure that staff members responsible for the prisoner release process and related records have the knowledge, skills, training, experience, and abilities to implement the Jail’s release policies and procedures. At minimum, the County must provide relevant staff members with specific pre-service and annual inservice training related to prisoner records, the criminal justice process, legal terms, and release procedures. The training must include instruction on: i. How to process release orders for each court, and whom to contact if a question arises; ii. What to do if the equipment for contacting other agencies, such as the Jail’s fax machine or email service, malfunctions, or communication is otherwise disrupted; iii. Various types of court dispositions, and the language typically used therein, to ensure staff members understand the meaning of court orders; and iv. How and when to check for detainers to ensure that an individual may be released from court after she or he is found not guilty, is acquitted, or has the charges brought against her or him dismissed.
c. Provide detention staff with sufficient clerical support to prevent backlogs in the filing of prisoner records.
89

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 90 of 106
Non-Compliant While this section deals with the qualifications of those people processing records, coordinating with the courts and processing inmates for release (as well as booking), the imbalance of staffing in the Booking area needs to be emphasized again (see the Sixth Monitoring Report). While there is routinely only one officer in the holding cell area (where there should be two at all times, one male and one female) three, four or more Booking Clerks (who are Detention Officers) are often on duty in the office area. Considering the fact that only 14 people are booked on a typical day (slightly more than one every two hours), this misallocation of manpower should be addressed immediately by the facility captain.
100. The County must annually review its prisoner release and detention process to ensure that it complies with any changes in federal law, such as the constitutional standard for civil or pretrial detention.
Non-Compliant At the time of the site visit, there had not been an initial review of this process to determine consistency with federal law.
101. The County must ensure that the Jail’s record-keeping and quality assurance policies and procedures allow both internal and external audit of the Jail’s release process, prisoner lengths of stay, and identification of prisoners who have been held for unreasonably long periods without charges or other legal process. The County must, at minimum, require:
a. A Jail log that documents (i) the date each prisoner was entitled to release; (ii) the date, time, and manner by which the Jail received any relevant court order; (iii) the date and time that prisoner was in fact released; (iv) the time that elapsed between receipt of the court order and release; (v) the date and time when information was received requiring the detention or continued detention of a prisoner (e.g., immigration holds or other detainers), and (vi) the identity of the authority requesting the detention or continued detention of a prisoner.
b. Completion of an incident report, and appropriate follow-up investigation and administrative review, if an individual is held in custody past 11:59 PM on the day that she or he is entitled to release. The incident report must document the reason(s) for the error. The incident report must be submitted to the Jail Administrator no later than one calendar day after the error was discovered.
90

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 91 of 106
Non-Compliant The record keeping process does not at this time allow for an audit other than a review of individual files. The County has provided their list of releases but the list does not include the information required by subparagraph a. Incident reports are not prepared for errors in releasing.
102. The County must appoint a staff member to serve as a Quality Control Officer with responsibility for internal auditing and monitoring of the release process. This Quality Control Officer will be responsible for helping prevent errors with the release process, and the individual’s duties will include tracking releases to ensure that staff members are completing all required paper work and checks. If the Quality Control Officer determines that an error has been made, the individual must have the authority to take corrective action, including the authority to immediately contact the Jail Administrator or other County official with authority to order a prisoner’s release. The Quality Control Officer’s duties also include providing data and reports so that release errors are incorporated into the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance process.
Partial Compliance The Jail now has an individual whose title is Quality Control Officer. At the present time, his work is primarily reactive. When an individual is brought to his attention, he researches the situation and takes corrective action. He does not track releases or prevent errors in the releasing process. He maintains a spreadsheet that includes release errors that he has addressed, but he does not at the present time collect and report on releasing errors. His work is not incorporated into a continuous improvement and quality assurance process.
Another individual serves as a court liaison with the lower courts. She also attempts to identify individuals entitled to release. Like the Quality Control Officer, she operates independently of the booking and release process and maintains her own spreadsheets. There still is no systemic approach to ensuring proper detention and release processes are being developed. This is being addressed by the monitoring team consultant in this area.
103. The County must require investigation of all incidents relating to timely or erroneous prisoner release within seven calendar days by appropriate investigators, supervisors, and the Jail Administrator. The Jail Administrator must document any deficiencies found and any corrective action taken. The Jail Administrator must then make any necessary changes to Jail policies and procedures. Such changes should be made, if appropriate, in consultation with court personnel, the District Attorney’s Office, members of the defense bar, and any other law enforcement agencies involved in untimely or erroneous prisoner releases.
91

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 92 of 106
Non-Compliant Incident reports are not routinely created for untimely or erroneous prisoner release or any investigations of such incidents. There have been untimely releases as described above that have not been reported.
104. The County must conduct bi-annual audits of release policies, procedures, and practices. As part of each audit, the County must make any necessary changes to ensure that individuals are being released in a timely manner. The audits must review all data collected regarding timely release, including any incident reports or Quality Control audits referenced in Paragraph 102 above. The County must document the audits and recommendations and must submit all documentation to the Monitor and the United States for review.
Non-Compliant There has not been an initial audit of releasing practices. There are no incident reports regarding untimely releases even though such incidents have occurred.
105. The County must ensure that policies, procedures, and practices allow for reasonable attorney visitation, which should be treated as a safeguard to prevent the unlawful detention of citizens and for helping to ensure the efficient functioning of the County’s criminal justice system. The Jail’s attorney visitation process must provide sufficient space for attorneys to meet with their clients in a confidential setting and must include scheduling procedures to ensure that defense attorneys can meet with their clients for reasonable lengths of time and without undue delay. An incident report must be completed if Jail staff are unable to transport a prisoner to meet with their attorney, or if there is a delay of more than 30 minutes for transporting a prisoner for a scheduled attorney visit.
Partial Compliance At the JDC and the WC there is adequate space, and sufficient staff available, to support timely attorney/client visits. Although the facilities were not properly designed to accommodate this function, they are able to function. At the RDC the designated space for these visits was originally in each pod (A, B and C) but because of security considerations since the riot in Pod C, they have not been used for that purpose. Currently, the space used for attorney/client visits is in the front of the jail, which means that inmates must be escorted by staff nearly the full length of the facility. Considering the critical shortage of officers, it is difficult to deliver inmates in a timely fashion. As has been suggested in the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Monitoring Reports, the DSD should take advantage of unused video visitation space in front of the control room officer’s stations in the A, B and C pods and repurpose it for attorney/client visitation. With very little effort, and almost no expense, it can be easily transformed into secure rooms that meet the needs of the facility. Why has almost a year and a half passed since this simple recommendation was made without any action on the part of the County, HCSO and DSD?
92

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 93 of 106
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
The County must develop an effective system for identifying and self-correcting systemic violations of prisoner’s constitutional rights. To that end, the County must:
106. Develop and maintain a database and computerized tracking system to monitor all reportable incidents, uses of force, and grievances. This tracking system will serve as the repository of information used for continuing improvement and quality assurance reports.
Non-Compliant The County is making progress towards computerized incident and other reports as well as the development of manually created summary reports. However, at the present time there is no computerized tracking system. As a result, reports can’t be aggregated by location, type, persons involved, etc. The primary IT officer is reportedly receiving training on research software that will assist in creating electronic reports which may help to address this deficiency. There continues to be a concern because of the lack of reports or the small number of reports that some types of incidents are underreported including late releases, use of force, lost money and property, and medical grievances. An IA investigation disclosed a serious use of excessive force that had not been reported. Although an incident report had been prepared, it did not accurately describe the occurrence. The Jail Administrator referred the matter to IA. The IA investigator reviewed the video tape and reported the discrepancy. There also appear to be inmate assaults that are not reported. The medical transport list also indicates visits to the ER for assault injuries where incident reports were not provided to the monitoring team. The manually created summary report for inmate assaults at RDC has not been consistent with a review of the actual incident reports, investigation reports and medical transport logs.
The new computerized grievance system does not allow for the compilation of a useful summary grievance report. Currently, this is not possible for several reasons. The reporting functions of the system are either problematic or not adequately conveyed to staff. Staff reported that they could not generate reports with identified parameters. If the prisoner replies via the kiosk in any fashion to the grievance response, that is then automatically converted to an appeal which inaccurately reflects the number of appeals. The system needs to be able to generate accurate reports.
107. Compile an Incident Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Incident Summary Reports must compile and summarize incident report data in order to identify trends such as rates of incidents in general, by housing unit, by day of the week and date, by shift, and by individual prisoners or staff members. The Incident Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
93

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 94 of 106
a. Brief summary of all reportable incidents, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. Description of all suicides and deaths, including the date, name of prisoner, housing
unit, and location where the prisoner died (including name of hospital if prisoner died off-site); c. The names and number of prisoners placed in emergency restraints, and segregation, and the frequency and duration of such placements; d. List and total number of incident reports received during the reporting period; e. List and Total number of incidents referred to IAD or other law enforcement agencies for investigation.
Non-Compliant The County provided a monthly report of incidents in the three facilities. Although the information was helpful, it did not meet the requirements of this paragraph. Also, in reviewing the incident reports provided as compared to the summary reports, the summary reports for RDC did not account for all of the inmate assault incidents that appear in the incident and investigation reports. At the present time, the manual report for RDC does not appear to be accurate. As mentioned above the IT department is working on a computerized report that should allow for a summary report to be generated electronically. This should improve the accuracy of the summary report and better facilitate identifying problem areas. However, currently some incidents appear to be missed in the summary because the type of incident listed in the report does not necessarily identify it as a report that needs to be included. This may require a modification to the incident report that allows for multiple types to be identified. Because the summary reports are manually compiled, it is difficult to identify trends over time. Even then, it will be essential to determine that reports are being submitted when they should be such that an accurate summary report can be generated.
108. Compile a Use of Force Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Use of Force Summary Reports must compile and summarize use of force report data in order to identify trends such as rates of use in general, by housing unit, by shift, by day of the week and date, by individual prisoners, and by staff members. The Use of Force Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Summary of all uses of force, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. List and total number of use of force reports received during the reporting period; c. List and total number of uses of force reports/incidents referred to IAD or other
law enforcement agencies for investigation.
Non-Compliant The County provides a monthly report of use of force in the three facilities. Although the information is helpful, it does not meet the requirements of this paragraph in that the reports are manually prepared each month and do not allow for identifying trends over time. As mentioned
94

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 95 of 106
above, the IT department is working on a computerized report that should allow for a summary report to be generated. Even then, it will be essential to determine that reports are being submitted such that an accurate summary report can be generated. As mentioned above, at least one use of force incident was not apparent from the incident report.
109. Compile a Grievance Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Grievance Summary Reports must compile and summarize grievance information in order to identify trends such as most frequently reported complaints, units generating the most grievances, and staff members receiving the most grievances about their conduct. To identify trends and potential concerns, at least quarterly, a member of the Jail’s management staff must review the Grievance Summary Reports and a random sample of ten percent of all grievances filed during the review period. These grievance reviews, any recommendations, and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant As noted in the introduction to the Grievance section of the Settlement Agreement at paragraph 69, one function of a grievance system is to identify potential constitutional problems and to prevent more serious problems from developing. The defects in the system prevent its use for meaningful tracking of potential problems. Probably the most problematic is that of the grievances reviewed, most were actually inmate requests, not grievances. Staff cannot recategorize these as inmate requests so any compilation will not accurately identify actual grievances. Within inmate requests, there is no way to identify subject matter so as to compile a report by the area of inmate requests. Even if there were, however, most notably, the system cannot generate a report by subject. Any inmate response is treated by the system as an appeal when often the inmate has just responded by saying thank you. Again, this makes tracking what is actually happening difficult unless it is done manually. At the present time, there is no review process in the grievance system.
110. Compile a monthly summary report of IAD investigations conducted at the Facility. The IAD Summary Report must include:
a. A brief summary of all completed investigations, by type, shift, housing unit, and date;
b. A listing of investigations referred for disciplinary action or other final disposition by type and date;
c. A listing of all investigations referred to a law enforcement agency and the name of the agency, by type and date; and
d. A listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.
95

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 96 of 106
Partial Compliance See response to paragraph 68. Subsequent to the last site visit, the IAD investigator provided a summary sheet reflecting the status of IAD investigations since 2017; however, the level of detail included does not comply with all of the requirements of this paragraph.
111. Conduct a review, at least annually, to determine whether the incident, use of force, grievance reporting, and IAD systems comply with the requirements of this Agreement and are effective at ensuring staff compliance with their constitutional obligations. The County must make any changes to the reporting systems that it determines are necessary as a result of the system reviews. These reviews and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant There has been no annual review pursuant to this paragraph.
112. Ensure that the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance systems include an Early Intervention component to alert Administrators of potential problems with staff members. The purpose of the Early Intervention System is to identify and address patterns of behavior or allegations which may indicate staff training deficiencies, persistent policy violations, misconduct, or criminal activity. As part of the Early Intervention process, incident reports, use of force reports, and prisoner grievances must be screened by designated staff members for such patterns. If misconduct, criminal activity, or behaviors indicate the need for corrective action, the screening staff must refer the incidents or allegations to Jail supervisors, administrators, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies for investigation. Additionally:
a. The Early Intervention System may be integrated with other database and computerized tracking systems required by this Agreement, provided any unified system otherwise still meets the terms of this Agreement.
b. The Early Intervention System must screen for staff members who may be using excessive force, regardless of whether use of force reviews concluded that the uses complied with Jail policies and this Agreement. This provision allows identification of staff members who may still benefit from additional training and serves as a check on any deficiencies with use of force by field supervisors.
c. The Jail Administrator, or designee of at least Captain rank, must personally review Early Intervention System data and alerts at least quarterly. The Administrator, or designee, must document when reviews were conducted as well as any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken.
d. The County must maintain a list of any staff members identified by the Early Intervention System as possibly needing additional training or discipline. A copy of this list must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
96

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 97 of 106
e. The County must take appropriate, documented, and corrective action when staff members have been identified as engaging in misconduct, criminal activity, or a pattern of violating Jail policies.
f. The County must review the Early Intervention System, at least bi-annually, to ensure that it is effective and used to identify staff members who may need additional training or discipline. The County must document any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken as a result of these reviews. Copies of these reviews must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
Non-Compliant There is currently no Early Intervention program.
113. Develop and implement policies and procedures for Jail databases, tracking systems, and computerized records (including the Early Intervention System), that ensure both functionality and data security. The policies and procedures must address all of the following issues: data storage, data retrieval, data reporting, data analysis and pattern identification, supervisor responsibilities, standards used to determine possible violations and corrective action, documentation, legal issues, staff and prisoner privacy rights, system security, and audit mechanisms.
Non-Compliant The initial P&P Manual that was issued in April, 2017 did not include policies and procedures covering this matter.
114. Ensure that the Jail’s medical staff are included as part of the continuous improvement and quality assurance process. At minimum, medical and mental health staff must be included through all of the following mechanisms:
a. Medical staff must have the independent authority to promptly refer cases of suspected assault or abuse to the Jail Administrator, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies;
b. Medical staff representatives must be involved in mortality reviews and systemic reviews of serious incidents. At minimum, a physician must prepare a mortality review within 30 days of every prisoner death. An outside physician must review any mortalities associated with treatment by Jail physicians.
Partial Compliance As reported in the last monitoring report, Quarterly Continuous Quality Improvement and Medical Administration (MAC) meetings have been conducted. Topics have included discharge planning, TB skin tests, medication administration. At the JDC, CQI studies included discharge
97

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 98 of 106
planning, medication administration and compliance in conducting the suicide screen during the intake process.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
115. Hinds County will establish a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (“Coordinating Committee”) with subject matter expertise and experience that will assist in streamlining criminal justice processes and identify and develop solutions and interventions designed to lead to diversion from arrest, detention, and incarceration. The Coordinating Committee will focus particularly on diversion of individuals with serious mental illness and juveniles. Using the Sequential Intercept Model, or an alternative acceptable to the Parties, the Coordinating Committee will identify strategies for diversion at each intercept point where individuals may encounter the criminal justice system and will assess the County’s current diversion efforts and unmet service needs in order to identify opportunities for successful diversion of such individuals. The Committee will recommend appropriate changes to policies and procedures and additional services necessary to increase diversion.
Partial Compliance Hinds County had contracted with Justice Management Institute (JMI) to provide consulting and assist in implementing a CJCC but this contract has not been renewed. The CJCC has been meeting regularly. In order to have a CJCC with sufficient subject matter expertise and experience to carry out the mandate of this paragraph, the County will need to provide staff support. The requirement that the Committee identify opportunities for diversion and recommend measures to accomplish this has not been achieved. At this time, the County will need to drive the process of the CJCC identifying opportunities for diversion.
The Sequential Intercept Mapping required by this paragraph has already taken place under a grant to the Hinds County Behavioral Health from the GAINS Center. A two-day meeting was held on August 16-17, 2017 with broad participation including the County and Jail. The Sequential Intercept Model provides a conceptual framework for communities to use when considering the interface between the criminal justice and mental health systems as they address concerns about the criminalization of inmates with mental health illness. The GAINS center completed the report for Hinds County Behavioral Health. It includes recommendations for creating or improving intercepts in the jail and at release. This provides a useful road map for CJCC and for achieving compliance with the diversion and discharge planning requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
116. The Coordinating Committee will include representation from the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office and Hinds County Board of Supervisors. The County will also seek representation from Hinds County Behavioral Health Services; the Jackson Police Department; Mississippi
98

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 99 of 106
Department of Mental Health; Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services; judges from the Hinds County Circuit, Chancery, and County (Youth and Justice) Courts; Hinds County District Attorney Office; Hinds County Public Defender Office; relevant Jackson city officials; and private advocates or other interested community members.
Partial Compliance As noted above the CJCC is meeting regularly. Not all of the identified agencies have been represented at the meeting. The reported intention is to expand representation after further development. Although the County cannot control the participation of others, staff support would assist in engaging other stakeholders.
117. The Coordinating Committee will prioritize enhancing coordination with local behavioral health systems, with the goal of connecting individuals experiencing mental health crisis, including juveniles, with available services to avoid unnecessary arrest, detention, and incarceration.
Partial Compliance The CJCC has just adopted its strategic plan. Enhancing behavioral health services for justice involved individuals is included as a strategic priority. Further observation of the CJCC and the County’s participation in the CJCC will be necessary to determine if behavioral health services are a priority in CJCC actions and deliberation.
118. Within 30 days of the Effective Date and in consultation with the United States, the County will select and engage an outside consultant to provide technical assistance to the County and Coordinating Committee regarding strategies for reducing the jail population and increasing diversion from criminal justice involvement, particularly for individuals with mental illness and juveniles. This technical assistance will include (a) a comprehensive review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing efforts to reduce recidivism and increase diversion; (b) identification of gaps in the current efforts, (c) recommendations of actions and strategies to achieve diversion and reduce recidivism; and (d) estimates of costs and cost savings associated with those strategies. The review will include interviews with representatives from the agencies and entities referenced in Paragraph 116 and other relevant stakeholders as necessary for a thorough evaluation and recommendation. Within 120 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the outside consultant will finalize and make public a report regarding the results of their assessment and recommendations. The Coordinating Committee will implement the recommended strategies and will continue to use the outside consultant to assist with implementation of the strategies when appropriate.
99

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 100 of 106
Partial Compliance The County did contract with an outside consultant to provide technical assistance in developing the CJCC. However, that contract does not encompass the requirements listed above regarding an assessment of and recommendations for strategies to reduce recidivism and increase diversion. The County has not renewed the contract with the consultant without accomplishing the tasks specified in this paragraph.
IMPLEMENTATION, TIMING, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
Paragraphs 119 and 120 regarding duty to implement and effective date omitted.
121. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County must distribute copies of the Agreement to all prisoners and Jail staff, including all medical and security staff, with appropriate explanation as to the staff members’ obligations under the Agreement. At minimum:
a. A copy of the Agreement must be posted in each unit (including booking/intake and medical areas), and program rooms (e.g., classrooms and any library).
b. Individual copies of the Agreement must be provided to prisoners upon request.
Partial Compliance The DSD has printed a booklet-sized version of the Settlement Agreement, which has been distributed to most staff, but copies are not posted in each housing unit. Further, staff members are not familiar with their obligations under the Agreement. At the JDC copies of the Agreement and the Monitor’s most recent report are located in each control room, but this practice is not followed at the other facilities. Based on questioning of selected supervisors in various areas of the Jail System, it is apparent that they are not only unfamiliar with the contents of Monitoring Reports, but many of them have not read the original Settlement Agreement.
POLICY AND PROCEDURE REVIEW
130. The County must review all existing policies and procedures to ensure their compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. Where the Jail does not have a policy or procedure in place that complies with the terms of this Agreement, the County must draft such a policy or procedure, or revise its existing policy or procedure.
Partial Compliance This provision has been changed back to partial compliance. An initial attempt to draft policies and procedures was made in early 2017. The Monitoring Team and DOJ provided comments but the policies really needed to be rewritten. The plan to hire outside consultants fell through and there was no apparent progress. Since that time, jail staff has been working with Karen Albert of
100

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 101 of 106
the Monitoring Team to develop policies and procedures and after the September site visit, several draft policies have been provided and at this time, two policies have been adopted.
131. The County shall complete its policy and procedure review and revision within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
Non-Compliant Two policies and procedures have now been adopted and several others have been drafted and circulated. There are many outstanding policies to be written and no estimated completion date. They are seriously overdue at this time. However, there is a policy committee working with the monitoring team expert on this project.
132. Once the County reviews and revises its policies and procedures, the County must provide a copy of its policies and procedures to the United States and the Monitor for review and comment. The County must address all comments and make any changes requested by the United States or the Monitor within thirty (30) days after receiving the comments and resubmit the policies and procedures to the United States and Monitor for review.
Partial Compliance Several draft policies have been circulated but most have yet to be drafted.
133. No later than three months after the United States’ approval of each policy and procedure, the County must adopt and begin implementing the policy and procedure, while also modifying all post orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the policies and procedures.
Non-Compliant See response to 131.
134. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, all new or revised policies and procedures must be implemented within six months of the United States’ approval of the policy or procedure.
Non-Compliant There have not yet been policies and procedures approved by the United States. The United States has provided comments on the draft policies that have been provided.
135. The County must annually review its policies and procedures, revising them as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures must be submitted to the United States and the Monitor for approval in accordance with paragraphs 129-131 above.
101

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 102 of 106
Non-Compliant This paragraph is now carried as non-compliant instead of not applicable because under the timeline established by the consent decree an annual review would now be due.
COUNTY ASSESSMENT AND COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR
Paragraphs 136 through 158 on Monitor duties omitted.
159. The County must file a self-assessment compliance report. The first compliance selfassessment report must be filed with the Court within four months of the Effective Date and at least one month before a Monitor site visit. Each self-assessment compliance report must describe in detail the actions the County has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and must make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. The report must include information supporting the County’s representations regarding its compliance with the Agreement such as quality assurance information, trends, statistical data, and remedial activities. Supporting information should be based on reports or data routinely collected as part of the audit and quality assurance activities required by this Agreement (e.g., incident, use of force, system, maintenance, and early intervention), rather than generated only to support representations made in the self-assessment.
Partial Compliance At the time of the October 2017 site visit, the County provided its first self-assessment. The selfassessment was not provided prior to the May site visit. A self-assessment was provided the week prior to the September site visit. The assessment was a significant step forward but did not include the level of detail required by this paragraph. A self-assessment was not provided prior to the January site-visit.
160. The County must designate a full-time Compliance Coordinator to coordinate compliance activities required by this Agreement. This person will serve as a primary point of contact for the Monitor. Two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties may consult with each other and the Monitor to determine whether the Compliance Coordinator’s hours may be reduced. The Parties may then stipulate to any agreed reduction in hours.
Sustained Compliance The County has designated a full-time Compliance Coordinator who is coordinating compliance activities. The Monitor will continue to track this assignment to ensure sustained compliance in this area.
102

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 103 of 106 EMERGENT CONDITIONS 161. The County must notify the Monitor and United States of any prisoner death, riot, escape, injury requiring hospitalization, or over-detention of a prisoner (i.e. failure to release a prisoner before 11:59 PM on the day she or he was entitled to be released), within 3 days of learning of the event. Partial Compliance Immediate notifications have been provided. Comparing the notifications to the medical transport list, it appears that immediate notification of hospitalization is not always provided. The County has not been providing notification of over-detention and, in fact, is not currently identifying prisoners who have been detained beyond their release date and preparing incident reports Paragraphs 162-167 regarding jurisdiction, construction and the PLRA omitted.
103

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 104 of 106

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 5, 2019, I electronically filed the Court-Appointed Monitor’s Seventh Monitoring Report with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to the following:

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

ERIC S. DREIBAND Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

D. MICHAEL HURST, JR.. U.S. Attorney Southern District of Mississippi

STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section steven.rosenbaum@usdoj.gov

LAURA COWALL Special Counsel U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20530 laura.coon@usdoj.gov

CHRISTOPHER N. CHENG Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-8892 (202) 514-6273 (fax) christopher.cheng@usdoj.gov

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 105 of 106
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS – HINDS COUNTY; MEMBERS OF THE HINDS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; THE SHERIFF OF HINDS COUNTY IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY:
PIETER TEEUWISSEN Board Attorney P.O. Box 686 Jackson, MS 39205-0686 (601) 968-6797 (601) 968-6794 (fax) pteeuwissen@co.hinds.ms.us
CLAIRE BARKER Counsel to the Sheriff 407 East Pascagoula Street Jackson, MS 39205 (601) 974-2967 (Fax) cbarker@co.hinds.ms.us

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 27 Filed 03/05/19 Page 106 of 106
COUNSEL FOR INTERESTED PARTY, DISABILITY RIGHTS MISSISSIPPI:
ELISSA JOHNSON JODY E. OWENS PALOMA WU Southern Poverty Law Center 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 948-8882 (601) 948-8885 (Fax) elissa.johnson@splcenter.org
/s Aaron S. Fleisher AARON S. FLEISHER Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 307-6457 (202) 514-4883 (fax) aaron.fleisher@usdoj.gov

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60 Filed 01/16/20 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

PLAINTIFF

V.

CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-489-CWR-JCG

HINDS COUNTY, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Settlement. The motion arises from the

United States’ request to find the Hinds County Board of Supervisors and Hinds County Sheriff

Victor Mason in contempt of the July 19, 2016 Consent Decree. In lieu of a trial on the United

States’ request, the Stipulated Order outlines remedial relief to ensure Hinds County’s

compliance with the Consent Decree.

The Court has reviewed the parties’ pleadings, proposed findings of fact and has

considered counsel’s responses to the Court’s questions raised at a hearing. The motion is ready

for adjudication.

I. Facts and Procedural History

Hinds County operates three detention facilities: the Raymond Detention Center (RDC),

the Work Center (WC), and the Jackson Detention Center (JDC) (collectively referred to as the

“Jail”). On June 23, 2016, the United States filed this complaint seeking to enjoin Hinds County

from “depriving Hinds County prisoners of rights, privileges or immunities secured and

protected by the Constitution of the United States.”1 The United States described a jail system

where riots, assaults, and other forms of violence were commonplace. It noted “serious

deficiencies with Jail policies, procedures, staffing,” and a host of other issues.

1 Hinds County has incarcerated both pretrial detainees and persons convicted of misdemeanors and felonies in the Jail. The Court will often refer to those incarcerated in the Jail as “prisoner” in this Order despite this distinction.

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60 Filed 01/16/20 Page 2 of 12
On July 19, 2016, Judge Barbour approved a consent decree between the parties with the express goals of providing those imprisoned in Hinds County “with reasonable safety, protection from harm, and conditions of confinement that conform to the requirements of the United States Constitution and federal law.” The Consent Decree requires Hinds County, acting through its Sheriff and Board of Supervisors, to make significant changes to its system of incarceration.
On August 18, 2016, Judge Barbour granted the parties’ joint motion to appoint Elizabeth Lisa Simpson as the monitor of the Consent Decree.2 Simpson provides the Court with periodic reports describing the status of the County’s compliance based on visits to the Jail and other communications. Due to Judge Barbour’s retirement the matter was reassigned to the undersigned on December 17, 2018.
Regretfully, despite more than three years having passed, Hinds County has yet to reach compliance with the Consent Decree.
Assaults at the Jail remain commonplace. The Monitor identified 39 reported assaults in June and August 2018 alone. These assaults are violent, with prisoners being sent to the emergency room for stab wounds, dislocations, broken bones, and collapsed lungs.
In September 2018, Landon Veal was so brutally beaten while at RDC that he can no longer function independently. Officers who responded to the scene left him lying on the floor – without providing first aid – while they questioned others on the scene about what happened. The officers then left. It was only in October 2019, when media released video of the incident, that the Monitor and the Court learned the extent of the violence and circumstances of the assault.3
2 Ms. Simpson has assembled a team of experts to assist her with her duties. They have done an excellent job. 3 Veal has filed a lawsuit against these defendants. Landon James Veal, by and through his General Guardian Joanne Palmer v. Hinds County, Miss., Civil Action. No., 3:19-CV-485-CWR-FKB (S.D. Miss.). In the Complaint he alleges that his counsel obtained surveillance video from the RDC and the “video clearly shows a jail which is out of control. Hinds County and Sheriff Mason have essentially relinquished control of the jail to the inmates.” Docket No. 1.
2

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60 Filed 01/16/20 Page 3 of 12
In December 2018, a person incarcerated at RDC was beaten and stabbed to death by other prisoners. Five people were involved, several of whom have since been charged with murder. The initial and supplemental incident reports did not even include the fact that the person had been killed. The Consent Decree requires such basic reports.
Numerous incidents of excessive force by correctional officers occur at RDC. Officers or their supervisors fail repeatedly to report these incidents of use of force. On November 28, 2018, a sergeant picked up a shotgun, walked into a person’s cell, and repeatedly struck the person with the butt of the shotgun. See Monitor’s Seventh Monitoring Report, Docket No. 27 at 36 (Mar. 5, 2019). To make matters worse, the involved officers then lied to the Sheriff’s Internal Affairs Division investigator about a number of issues. Id. Officers have punched prisoners in the face, used tasers, and used chemical restraints on prisoners without supervisory approval, something which is in direct contravention of the Consent Decree.
RDC has a disturbing history of riots. A riot occurred on April 19, 2019. Three more followed in late June 2019. During the June riots, prisoners effectively took over one of the three pods that make up RDC. The prisoners threatened to stab officers with shanks and took their keys. At some point, officers barricaded themselves into a control room for their safety – ceding control of the pod until help arrived. The officers planned to retreat into the control room’s bathroom should the prisoners breach the control room door, which thankfully did not occur.
Many factors contribute to the continuing lack of safety. For sake of clarity, the Court has identified three primary areas of concern: physical infrastructure, policies and procedures, and staffing and management.
3

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60 Filed 01/16/20 Page 4 of 12
A. Physical Infrastructure Under the Consent Decree, Hinds County had to make certain physical improvements to its jail facilities. That did not happen. At RDC, doors and locks are broken. Prisoners can “break out of their cells, break out of their housing units and even enter a [jail] control room.” Monitor’s Eighth Monitoring Report, Docket No. 33 at 35 (June 27, 2019). RDC lacks a working sprinkler system and fire hoses, making fire safety a “critical area of concern.” See Monitor’s Ninth Monitoring Report, Docket No. 46 at 4 (Nov. 13, 2019). At WC, County maintenance was supposed to repair and upgrade the entry doors in housing units 1 and 3, but instead tack welded one side of the door, meaning the door “can still be forced open” by prisoners. Id. at 33. At JDC, the facility still “does not have an outdoor recreation yard.” Id. at 18. Conditions of confinement are deplorable. Prisoners live in units that are infested with rats, roaches, snakes, and spiders. During the Court’s August 2019 visit to all three facilities, prisoners at RDC were forced to eat while sitting on the floor because of a lack of tables and seating.4 The Court was told that the County would get tables and seating by November. Counsel for Hinds County did not inform the Court that the tables had been installed until December 2019. The lack of compliance continues despite Hinds County purportedly having spent over $7 million on its detention facilities since 2013 and approved an additional $500,000 for the final months of 2019.
4 They had to sit on the floor rather than in their darkened cells inches from their toilets, many of which were not functioning properly. The cells were darkened because there were no working lights in the cells. Such conditions are clearly dehumanizing and inexcusable.
4

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60 Filed 01/16/20 Page 5 of 12
B. Policies and Procedures According to the Consent Decree, Hinds County should have created a policies and procedures manual well over two years ago. The Monitor advises that such a manual would likely include more than 100 individual policies, ranging from medical care to use of force. To date, Hinds County has only three developed policies that meet the standards of the Consent Decree. Three! The County says that the policy review process is cumbersome and stymied by the overzealous edits and feedback of the United States. It is difficult to credit because after Hinds County received feedback on policies it had drafted in early 2017, it failed to follow through and institute a plan to address the feedback. There was no progress on the policies until 2018, when a consultant with the Monitoring Team took initiative and began to help the County. The lack of policies has resulted in a failure to institute many of changes mandated by the Consent Decree. Staff lack guidance on the proper standards and procedures to follow. Record keeping remains inconsistent and untrustworthy. C. Staffing and Management From the beginning, the lack of adequate staffing posed a critical barrier to the County’s compliance with the Consent Decree. The lack of staffing and supervision directly impacts safety and the flow of contraband. Incident reports show that most assaults occur when no officers are present. See Monitor’s Sixth Monitoring Report, Docket No. 24 at 17 (Nov. 15, 2018). Incidents are often only discovered after the fact or when prisoners call for assistance during an assault. Id. Without supervision, prisoners regularly leave their housing units and the facility. In one incident described in Monitor’s June 2019 report, two prisoners were found outside RDC, not to escape but to recover three bags of contraband to bring back into the facility.
5

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60 Filed 01/16/20 Page 6 of 12
The Consent Decree requires Hinds County to adequately supervise prisoners and safely operate its jail facilities. It defines “adequate” as following the “direct supervision” method in which detention officers are placed inside housing units and have “continuous direct contact with prisoners and are not routinely separated from prisoners by physical barriers.” Direct supervision requires routine interactions with and checks on prisoners by detention officers. According to Hinds County’s updated staffing needs analysis, a total of 433 positions are required to fill all posts in the Jail assuming the facilities were operating at capacity. This translates to staffing levels of 5 people in administration, 280 at RDC, 64 at WC, and 84 at JDC.
Hinds County’s facilities are not operating at capacity today, meaning the required staffing levels are lower. Given Hinds County’s decision to return State prisoners to the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) and other reasons, both WC and JDC are significantly underutilized. See Docket No. 46 at 14. Given the closure of one of its three pods and other factors resulting in a smaller prisoner population, RDC only requires 246 positions. However, as of November 2019, only 113 staff positions were filled at RDC. In other words, RDC has less than half of the staff it needs to run safely.
The County faces many challenges with hiring and retaining staff, especially officers and management. While it has hired additional detention officers in the past year and approved a pay increase, it lost a greater number of officers. Despite the Consent Decree requiring specific education and work experience for all supervisors and trainers, the County repeatedly hires people who do not meet these requirements. At RDC, this means that not only are there not enough staff, but that the current staff are being managed or trained by people who lack the qualifications to help them do their job effectively.
6

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60 Filed 01/16/20 Page 7 of 12
Perhaps most troubling, Sheriff Victor Mason – who left office in December 2019 – repeatedly failed to respect the authority of the qualified individuals who are in management roles. The Consent Decree requires that a qualified Jail Administrator and Assistant Jail Administrator manage the bulk of the day-to-day operations of the Jail. Yet, the Monitor cites numerous examples of Sheriff Mason intervening or directly contradicting their efforts.
For example, on June 7, 2018, Hinds County Sheriff Deputies and MDOC officers conducted a random “shakedown” at the Jail without authorization of the Jail Administrator and in contravention of the Consent Decree. During the shakedown, officers shot a 12-gauge shotgun filled with blanks to create a “noise diversion,” again outside of the standards set in the Consent Decree. The Monitor notified Sheriff Mason in her August 2018, November 2018, and March 2019 reports that he needed to issue “an order permanently curtailing the use of law enforcement and outside agency officers to conduct such shakedowns.” Sheriff Mason did nothing to address the issue until March 29, 2019, when he issued a special order giving the Jail Administrator the authority to “execute all duties and responsibilities relating to Detention Services.” Since the special order, there have been no shakedowns. According to the Monitor, the Sheriff still regularly intervened in other personnel decisions or activities that were solely in the purview of the jail administrators under the Consent Decree.
D. Summary As of the most recent Monitor’s report, the County has reached sustained compliance (meaning compliance for at least 18 months) in only one of the 92 requirements of the Consent Decree. Only one. The County has reached substantial compliance in six and partial compliance in 47 areas. The County has made improvement towards the classification of prisoners, hiring of some qualified personnel, provision of mental health services, use of well-being checks,
7

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60 Filed 01/16/20 Page 8 of 12
implementation of training requirements, and drafting of certain policies. However, a constant refrain in the Monitor reports is that there has “been no change” with the County’s compliance in numerous areas. In general, the County has failed to comply with the Consent Decree, which requires the County to have achieved and maintained substantial compliance with the Agreement for at least two years. II. Legal Standards
A. Consent Decree “A consent decree embodies an agreement of the parties and is also an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgment and decrees.” Frew ex rel. Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (2004) (quotation and citation omitted). “A consent decree is akin to a contract yet also functions as an enforceable judicial order.” United States v. Chromalloy American Corp., 158 F.3d 345, 349 (5th Cir. 1990). “Courts possess the inherent authority to enforce their own injunctive decrees.” Waffenschmidt v. MacKay, 763 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir. 1985) (quotations and citation omitted). B. Contempt To establish civil contempt, the movant “bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that a court order was in effect, (2) that the order required certain conduct by the respondent, and (3) that the respondent failed to comply with the court’s order.” Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 228 F.3d 574, 581 (5th Cir. 2000) (quotations and citation omitted). If a violation of the order is demonstrated, the burden shifts to the violating party to “show either mitigating circumstances that might cause a district court to withhold the exercise of its contempt power, or a substantial compliance with the consent order.” Whitfield v. Pennington, 832 F.2d 809, 914 (5th Cir. 1987).
8

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60 Filed 01/16/20 Page 9 of 12
C. Settlement Agreements The parties have come to the Court having worked out yet another agreement, which they believe should be adopted. “In determining whether to approve a proposed settlement, the cardinal rule is that the District Court must find that the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable and is not the product of collusion between the parties.” Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1330 (5th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted). The Court must analyze “the facts and law relevant to the proposed compromise.” Id. The Court’s role is not to adjudicate the dispute, however, since “[t]he very purpose of the compromise is to avoid the delay and expense of such a trial.” Parker v. Anderson, 667 F.2d 1204, 1209 (5th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). III. Discussion Here, the terms of the Consent Decree were negotiated by the parties. They advised the court that “all parties were in agreement with the terms of the Settlement Agreement . . . and requested the Court to sign th[e] Order approving and implementing the Settlement Agreement.” Docket No. 8.5 They told the Court that the “Agreement [was] reasonable and equitable, and reflects the Parties’ mutual desire to protect the constitutional rights of Hinds County prisoners while avoiding the burdens of contested litigation.” Docket No. 2. Based upon these representations, the Court adopted the order presented by the parties. Today, the parties agree that Hinds County has not reached compliance with all provisions of the Consent Decree. Docket No. 54 at 2. In fact, there has been no sustained compliance with 91 of the 92 requirements of the Consent Decree. Yet, to not waste “time in an
5 In the Settlement Agreement the parties “stipulate[d] and agree[d] that all of the prospective relief in this Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violations of federal rights as set forth by the United States in its Complaint and Findings Letter, is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violation, and will not have any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system.” Docket No. 8-1, at ¶ 167.
9

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60 Filed 01/16/20 Page 10 of 12
unnecessary and protracted trial,” the United States and Hinds County ask this Court to enter a stipulated order defining a remedial plan for Hinds County to get on a path to compliance.
While not explicitly stated, the parties are inviting the Court to sidestep the issue of whether Hinds County should be found in contempt. Instead, the parties ask the Court to merely give Hinds County one more chance to comply with the Consent Decree.
Allowing the County to move forward without facing accountability is concerning given the extent of the County’s failings. At least one prisoner has died, and numerous others have been stabbed, brutally beaten, and assaulted while the County failed to meet the terms to which it agreed. The County even fails to meet one of the most basic requirements of a jail: providing working doors. The County has subjected its prisoners, its corrections officers, and the broader community of Hinds County to danger from its repeated failure to take this Consent Decree seriously.
These kinds of conditions, here and elsewhere, create the environment for local communities to call into question our very system of criminal justice. Calls to shut down prisons are being made here in Mississippi and across the country.6 Given failures of those trusted to oversee and ensure the constitutionality of our jails and prisons, as seen in the instant case with Hinds County, the views held by prison abolitionists are resonating with a growing number. What positive value to our society are jails and prisons that fail to have working doors?
6 See Alissa Zhu, ‘Shut down MDOC’: Here’s why advocates are calling for feds to investigate Mississippi prisons, Clarion Ledger (Jan. 8, 2020, 4:05 PM), https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/01/08/why-advocatescalling-feds-investigate-mississippi-prisons/2845650001/; see also Matthew Haag, N.Y.C. Votes to Close Rikers. Now Comes the Hard Part, N.Y. Times (Oct. 17, 2019), https://www nytimes.com/2019/10/17/nyregion/rikersisland-closing-vote html; Jill Tucker and Joaquin Palomino, In historic move, SF supervisors vote to close juvenile hall by end of 2021, San Francisco Chronicle (June 4, 2019), https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Closureof-SF-s-juvenile-hall-less-than-one-13936500.php; Ross Terrell, Atlanta Activists Continue Push to Close City Jail, GPB Radio News (May 6, 2019), https://www.gpbnews.org/post/atlanta-activists-continue-push-close-city-jail; Fernando Tormos-Aponte and Clarissa Rile Hayward, Close the Workhouse campaign gains momentum, The St. Louis American (Apr. 9, 2019), http://www.stlamerican.com/news/columnists/guest_columnists/close-theworkhouse-campaign-gains-momentum/article_6f2b2694-5ad3-11e9-a2f6-6fc099d8c855 html.
10

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60 Filed 01/16/20 Page 11 of 12
Given the facts at hand, the Court should find Hinds County and Sheriff Mason in
contempt. The Consent Decree has been in effect. Hinds County and Sheriff Mason were
required to take certain steps under the Consent Decree, and the evidence is overwhelming that
the defendants failed to meet those requirements. See Am. Airlines Inc., 228 F.3d at 581. While
failings of the broader criminal justice system have impacted the County’s ability to comply – like the extended time it takes for cases to move to disposition in the local court system7, both
the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors took actions that were in direct contravention of the
Consent Decree. These actions range from the Sheriff’s staffing and oversight decisions in the
Jail to the Board’s approval of – and lenience with – contractors who failed to make required repairs month after month. 8 Hinds County’s entire system of incarceration has failed to meet the
standards of the Consent Decree and ensure the constitutional treatment of its prisoners.
While a finding of contempt is warranted, the parties’ stipulated order outlines what is
perhaps the most comprehensive remedial plan for Hinds County to become compliant that the
Court has seen from the parties. Ten months from today, the County should have made
significant progress on developing and implementing policies, making repairs to the physical
plant and ensuring incarcerated youth have necessary programming, among other necessary
investments. The terms of the Stipulated Order are “fair, adequate and reasonable and . . . not the
7 Seyma Bayram, What Can the Hinds DA Do to Cure the System, Jackson Free Press (Oct. 2, 2019), https://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2019/oct/02/what-can-hinds-da-do-cure-system/. The excessive delay in having cases process from indictment to disposition is well documented. See, e.g., Patterson v. Hinds Cnty, No. 3:13-CV-432-CWR-FKB, 2016 WL 7177762 (S.D. Miss. June 10, 2016); Patterson v. Kidd, 3:13-CV-432-CWRFKB, 2014 WL 4773977 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 24, 2014); Franklin v. State, 136 So.3d 1021, 1038 (Miss. 2014). At various status conferences the Court has convened with the parties, counsel for the County and the Sheriff have pointed their fingers at the District Attorney as the cause of this delay. Hinds County voters elected a new district attorney in the same election that they ousted Sheriff Mason. Hopefully, while this remedial plan is in place, these parties will not be able to suggest that the new district attorney is a cause of many of the problems. 8 The Court is particularly disturbed by Sheriff Mason’s conduct. Many of his actions served no purpose other than to frustrate the county’s compliance with the consent decree. For him, the silver lining to his recent electoral defeat is that the Court is refraining from holding him in contempt as he will have no role, managerial or otherwise, with this Jail and, hopefully, no other jail.
11

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60 Filed 01/16/20 Page 12 of 12
product of collusion between the parties.” Cotton, 559 F.2d at 1330. Accordingly, the parties’ Motion for Settlement is granted.
Given the changes in the Sheriff’s office and on the Board of Supervisors – as well as the District Attorney’s office, the Court trusts that the proposed remedial plan will be implemented in good faith and with all speed. An agenda from a recent Board meeting highlights its effort to make the necessary investments to implement the Stipulated Order, even before the Court reached a decision on the Joint Motion. Such initiative hopefully signals that sustained compliance is forthcoming.
However, the Court reminds the parties that “[o]nce invoked, ‘the scope of a district court’s equitable powers . . . is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies.’” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 538 (2011) (citation omitted). This Court will do whatever it takes within the confines of the law to ensure the parties follow the Consent Decree and we finally see an end to the violence and neglect that has plagued the Jail all these years. IV. Conclusion
The parties’ Joint Motion is GRANTED. The Stipulated Order is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Order.
SO ORDERED, this the 16th day of January, 2020. s/ Carlton W. Reeves UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60-1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DISTRICT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-00489-CWR-JCG

HINDS COUNTY, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

STIPULATED ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of

Stipulated Order (ECF No. 53), filed on December 16, 2019 to resolve the United States’ Motion

for an Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not be Held in Contempt (June 24, 2019),

ECF No. 30.

In the interest of expediting Defendants’ compliance with the parties’ Settlement

Agreement (“Settlement”) (ECF No. 8-1), which was entered as an Order of the Court on July

19, 2016, ECF No. 8, it is hereby

ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Order (ECF No. 53) is

GRANTED, and it is further

ORDERED that, in granting the parties’ Joint Motion, the Court finds, as agreed by the

parties and demonstrated by the record, that:

1. Defendants are not in compliance with all provisions of the parties’ Settlement

Agreement (ECF No. 8-1), which was entered as an Order of the Court on July 19, 2016, ECF

No. 8.

2. As a result, more specific remedial relief is necessary, as set forth below.

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60-1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 2 of 8
3. The specific relief set forth below complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). The relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct ongoing violations of federal rights agreed by the parties with the entry of the Settlement Agreement, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violations, and will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system.
4. The Settlement remains in effect. This Order does not waive any Settlement requirements.
As stipulated by the parties, it is further ORDERED that specific relief will consist of the following: The County shall complete all of the enumerated items below by the indicated dates, which are to be calculated from the entry date of this Order. For any provision requiring a plan, the Settlement’s policy review and approval process, Settlement § 6, as modified by this Order, shall apply. Specifically, the United States and the Monitor shall provide input and have the opportunity to review and approve the plans. Plans required by this Order must indicate tasks, deadlines, responsible individuals, and any necessary funding sources. All plans shall be implemented upon approval by the United States and the Monitor. The Settlement’s self-reporting and monitoring processes, Settlement § 7, also shall apply to this Order. The County shall report on its progress with this Order as it is required to report on progress with the Settlement. The Monitor shall monitor compliance with this Order as the Monitor does with the Settlement. One year from the entry of this Order, the parties shall reconvene with the Court to determine whether additional compliance plans are necessary. I. SAFETY & SECURITY/PHYSICAL PLANT A. The County shall use a qualified security contractor, with the assistance and oversight of an architect with corrections experience, to accomplish the following safety and security
2

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60-1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 3 of 8
measures at Raymond Detention Center. That architect shall conduct periodic inspections of the contractor’s work and report to the Monitor.
1. In any occupied pod, the County will convert all control room doors, housing unit entry doors, recreation yard doors (that open into the “horseshoe”), isolation doors and “cage doors” to electronically controlled swing doors to the control panel so they can be electronically operated with a CML type locking mechanism. The County will complete door conversion within 4 months.
2. Within 4 months, the County shall reinforce all C Pod cell doors with a strip of steel to reduce the risk of tampering as part of the ongoing renovation of this Pod.
3. In B Pod, the County shall modify the control room doors, housing unit doors, and recreation doors to swinging doors. The County also shall install a new electronic control panel so that all doors can be electronically controlled. The “cage” doors have a keyway on only one side. The County also shall upgrade the “cage” doors so that there is a keyway on each side (as is currently the case in C Pod). The County shall repair the primary security door that controls access between the main corridor (Great Hall) and B Pod as a part of the B Pod modifications so that it can be controlled electronically from master control. These repairs will be completed within 4 months.
4. The County will reinstall the fire hoses in secured cabinets as part of the renovation process of each pod. This will be completed within 4 months.
5. The County shall convert the cell doors in B Pod Units 3 and 4 to swinging doors with the CML type locking mechanism that is in place in the sample cell in C Pod. The County shall also reinforce the cell doors in Units 1 and 2 with a strip of steel as is being used in C Pod. These renovations will be completed within 6 months.
6. If A Pod is not utilized for housing, renovation of A Pod recreation yard and cage doors and the control panel may be postponed until such time as it is used for housing. If A pod is used even on an occasional basis, these doors will be converted to secure swinging doors and tied to a new control panel.
7. The County shall replace all holding cell doors in the booking area with modern full transparent panel (both top and bottom) security doors to facilitate deputies conducting a documented fifteen-minute well-being check on each multi-person cell and occupied single cell. The County will discontinue the use of the holding cells that are not directly visible from the booking station. This will be completed 6 months.
B. Within 10 months, the County shall complete a Master Plan to determine the long-term use of each of the three facilities and evaluate the option of building a new facility or further renovating existing facilities. To implement the Master Plan, the County shall:
3

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60-1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 4 of 8

1. Retain a consultant with experience in master planning to facilitate the process of long-term planning The County will retain the consultant within 4 months.

2. The plan will include deadlines for other necessary safety and security repairs and renovations at all three facilities, as long as they remain open, including deadlines for installing necessary fire suppression/prevention systems, all of which will be conducted by a qualified security contractor.

3. Work with the monitoring team to gather the information that is needed for the long-term planning process.

4. Form a committee to develop and implement the Master Plan, which will include the County Administrator, the Sheriff, the Jail Administrator, the facility captains, and the Board of Supervisors President. Other members may be included at the discretion of the County and the Sheriff. The Committee will be formed within 4 months.

II.

SAFETY AND SECURITY/STAFFING

A. Within 3 months, the County shall create a staffing plan to increase the supervision of inmates at RDC. The plan shall include the following:

1. A plan to provide direct supervision for Pod C when it reopens.

2. A staffing plan which optimizes the use of available staff to provide supervision at all three facilities including, among other strategies, rotation of staff from JDC and the WC to RDC to increase the staff coverage of RDC.

3. An increase in the time that officers are in the housing units at RDC by having the control officers fill out the housing unit logs based on radio communication from the housing unit officers and utilize welfare check sheets at the cell doors of those inmates held in segregation.

4. At the Work Center, installation of an alarm system on the housing unit fire exit doors. The County will add a camera that covers each of the four fire exit doors. This will allow only one officer to manage each housing unit and will result in an opportunity to assign 20.4 positions to other areas or facilities. This work will be completed within 3 months.

B. The County shall improve recruitment and retention initiatives to ensure adequate levels of competent staffing to provide reasonably safe living conditions in the Jail.

1. Within 30 days, the County shall retain an appropriately credentialed corrections recruitment and retention consultant, with input from the Monitor.

2. Within 4 months, the County shall hire or designate a full-time Recruitment Officer within the Detention Division specifically for recruitment of detention officers.
4

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60-1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 5 of 8
3. Within 4 months, with the assistance of the recruitment and corrections consultant, the County shall develop a Recruitment and Retention Plan to implement the substantive requirements of the Settlement.
4. Within 6 months, the County shall develop and implement a process that provides criteria for merit-based promotion and establishes a career ladder.
5. Within 10 months, the County shall implement a plan for retention pay based on merit, time in service, or a combination.
C. The County shall Hire a Jail Administrator that meets the requirements of Paragraph 38 of the Settlement Agreement.
1. Within 60 days, the County shall adjust the job description as needed to adhere to the minimum qualifications and post the position at a locally competitive salary.
2. If there is a qualified candidate(s), the County shall make an offer to hire an individual to fill the position within 4 months of posting the position. If there is not a qualified candidate, the County, Monitor and United States will confer to determine next steps and will report to the Court regarding the same.
3. Within 30 days of hiring the Settlement-compliant Jail Administrator, this individual shall evaluate the organizational structure of the three-facility jail system and develop a plan to reassign staff consistent with any change in the organizational structure.
III. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
A. The County shall accelerate the development and adoption of policies and procedures.
1. Within 60 days, the County shall provide a Table of Contents listing the policies and procedures to be developed, anticipated deadlines for completion of each draft policy, and deadlines for submission of each draft policy to the Monitor and DOJ. The Table of Contents deadlines shall prioritize policies that are necessary for safety and security. The Monitor and DOJ shall have the opportunity to review and approve the Table of Contents.
2. The County’s policy committee will provide draft policies to the monitoring team and DOJ consistent with the timeline identified in the Table of Contents, will notify the Monitor and DOJ of any anticipated delays to meeting projected submission dates and will implement an identified plan to correct the delays. The monitoring team and DOJ will make a good faith effort to return comments and suggestions about the draft policies within a two-week time frame. The policy committee will make a good faith effort to incorporate those suggestions and consider those comments.
5

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60-1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 6 of 8
3. Within 14 days of receiving the Table of Contents, DOJ will identify policies that may be disseminated to staff on an interim basis before the Settlement-required policy review and approval process is completed. Approval of these policies by the Monitor and DOJ will still be required to achieve compliance with the Settlement Agreement.
4. The above provisions are specific remedial relief to the Settlement-required policy review and approval process, which remains in effect.
B. The County shall develop a plan for implementation of the policies.
1. Within 3 months of the United States’ and Monitor’s approval of each policy or procedure, the County shall develop the curriculum and materials for training on the new policy or procedure.
2. Within 3 months of the United States’ and Monitor’s approval of each policy or procedure, the County shall develop the training plan for training new and current detention officers and staff on the new policy or procedure, with dates for completion of each set of training.
C. The County shall increase staff accountability for complying with use of force requirements.
1. Within 30 days, the Jail shall ensure that handheld video recorders are available and planned uses of force are video recorded.
2. Within 5 months, an individual experienced in corrections shall train deputies on a Settlement-compliant use of force policy, including Settlement requirements for reporting of use of force.
3. Within 5 months, supervisors shall be trained on use of force reviews so that they include collection and preservation of videos, witness statements, and medical records. This training shall emphasize supervisors’ responsibility for ensuring complete use of force reports and for referring staff for training and investigation, as required by the Settlement.
IV. POPULATION MANAGEMENT
A. The County shall develop a Pretrial Services program to provide for long-term population management which will maximize the options in facility use. The program shall include the following:
1. Within 4 months, the County shall retain a consultant experienced in the area of implementation of pretrial services programs.
6

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60-1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 7 of 8
2. Within 4 months, the County shall hire a full time individual qualified to oversee the development and implementation of a pretrial services program. This individual shall have or within 12 months shall obtain certification by the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA).
3. The County shall engage stakeholders in the implementation of a pretrial services program either through the CJCC or a specially formed committee.
4. The County shall provide the technical support for implementation of a risk assessment instrument for purposes of pretrial release decision-making. That risk assessment shall be implemented within one year after retaining the pretrial services consultant.
5. The County shall authorize the free attendance at NIC training for pretrial executives for individuals involved in the development of the pretrial program within 9 months.
V. HENLEY-YOUNG
A. Within 30 days, the County will post at a locally competitive salary for a full time clinical social worker or psychologist to serve as a treatment director or coordinator. If there is a qualified candidate(s), the County will make an offer within 3 months of posting the position. If there is not a qualified candidate, the County will consult with the Monitor and United States to determine appropriate adjustments to the recruiting process and will report regularly, and at each status conference, regarding its efforts. If a clinical social worker is hired for the position, the County will contract with a psychologist to provide any assessment, therapeutic or consultation services needed in addition to the services of the clinical social worker. The County will consult with the Monitor to set the appropriate number of contract hours.
B. Within 3 months, Henley-Young shall administer a daily program, including weekends and holidays, to provide structured educational, rehabilitative, and/or recreational programs for youth during all hours that youth shall be permitted out of their cells. Programming shall include:
1. Activities which are varied and appropriate to the ages of the youth;
2. Structured and supervised activities which are intended to alleviate idleness and develop concepts of cooperation and sportsmanship;
3. Supervised small group leisure activities, such as a wide variety of card and table games, arts and crafts, or book club discussions; and
4. Hinds County, by and through its County Administrator and/or Executive Director at Henley-Young, shall maintain exclusive control and maintenance of any facilities or technology that promotes compliance with this provision.
7

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 60-1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 8 of 8 C. The programming described in Paragraph B shall include group and individual psychosocial skill building programs designed to address criminogenic needs and promote positive youth development such as: 1. cognitive behavioral programming; 2. independent living skill training; 3. relationship and positive communication skills; 4. anger management; 5. peer refusal skills; 6. trauma informed programming; and 7. pre-vocational skill building. SO ORDERED, this the 16th day of January, 2020. s/ Carlton W. Reeves UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 1 of 104
Court-Appointed Monitor’s Eighth Monitoring Report United States v. Hinds County, et al. Civ. No. 3:16cv489 -JCG

David M. Parrish Corrections Operations

Elizabeth E. Simpson Court-Appointed Monitor

Jim Moeser Juvenile Justice

Dr. Richard Dudley Corrections Mental Health

1

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 2 of 104
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Corrections Operations
During the four months between the January and May 2019 site visits, the Detention Services Department (DSD) has undergone a number of significant changes, some positive and some negative. The most noteworthy involved the issuance of a Personnel Action, dated March 19, 2019, by Sheriff Mason, that authorized the Jail Administrator (Major Rushing) to exercise full power and authority to manage the DSD in accordance with paragraph 46 of the Settlement Agreement.
The order specifies that she has “…the authority to make all personnel decisions necessary to ensure adequate staffing, staff discipline and staff oversight. The personnel authority includes the power to hire, transfer and discipline staff. These duties further include, the ability to monitor, ensure compliance with Jail Policies, and take corrections, for any staff members operating in the Jail, including any who are not already reporting to the Jail Administrator and the Jail’s chain of command. This includes road deputies assigned to supervise housing units and emergency response, tactical teams entering the Jail to conduct random shakedowns or to suppress prisoner disturbances. These duties further include the authority to authorize any training or travel.”
In addition, the Sheriff issued an order that effective March 20, 2019, Richard Fielder was reinstated as the Assistant Jail Administrator. If these two orders are fully operationalized, this will put the DSD on track to begin to comply with the Settlement Agreement. Previous efforts were hampered by personnel changes made during the Jail Administrator’s medical leave that were counterproductive to compliance.
The lack of staff is still one of the most critical problems faced by the DSD. Of the 433 positions that the staffing analysis calls for, only 275 have been authorized and only 271 of them are actually funded. Over the past two years, the number of filled positions has fluctuated between 251 and 229 (the staffing level at the time of the May site visit). Even assuming the Raymond Detention Center (RDC) can completely close one pod, it would still be short 115 officers. In spite of a salary increase that was authorized for Detention Officers, recruitment efforts have been limited, but more importantly, retention has been dismal. A step increase based on longevity, proposed by the HCSO, has never been acted on by the County.
Because of the staff shortage, none of the housing units at the (RDC) are manned so as to permit the Direct Supervision of inmates. Consequently, the inmates, rather than the officers, are in charge of the facility. This results in assaults, injuries, escapes, destruction of the facility and even riots. Such an incident (riot) occurred on April 19, 2019, at the RDC, Pod A. The killing
2

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 3 of 104
of an inmate in December 2018, in the RDC HU B3, is reportedly still under investigation, although at least four inmates have been charged with the crime. These two high profile incidents are indicative of the lack of control of the facility.
Policies and procedures should have been implemented within the first few months of the monitoring process. Instead, two and a half years later, there are only three policies adopted with seven pending (going through the review and approval process). With a hundred or more policies required in order to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, it is obvious that very little progress has been made. The lack of policies and procedures also results in inconsistent application of verbally approved practices. Each site visit reveals unexplained changes in procedure, primarily because there is no approved frame of reference for supervisors and staff to follow.
Maintenance problems in the DSD continue at an unprecedented level. No jail system can function with cell doors that do not lock, housing unit doors that do not function and even control room doors that cannot be secured. The Hinds County maintenance staff are not equipped or qualified to deal with the major maintenance issues presented by the DSD. Recognizing that, the County brought in a professional corrections maintenance firm (CML) from San Antonio, TX to deal with the most critical issues. They refabricated eight sliding doors into a swinging door configuration that represents a significant improvement in the level of facility maintenance. The County should continue to utilize professional contractors to deal with maintenance issues.
In March the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) provided Direct Supervision Training for Executive Staff on site. It is scheduled to be followed by a Train the Trainers program in July for those Detention Officers who will serve as trainers for the rest of the DSD staff. Once that training is complete, it will be possible for the Work Center (WC) to function in a Direct Supervision mode and for the RDC to reopen each housing unit incrementally, with an officer assigned full time, as repairs are made to the facility.
Because of personnel changes, the classification process had become “objective” in name only. Although the forms were completed, assignment to housing units was based on charge rather than classification. Since the last site visit, the previous Sergeant in charge of Classification was returned to her position. She is reviewing the classification of all active inmates in order to return to objective/behavioral measures. Currently, however, a review of the files found errors, including charge-based classification, in 10 out of 12 files.
Fire safety is one of the most critical areas in jail operations, yet in the DSD fire safety is not a priority (primarily at the RDC). While at the Jackson Detention Center (JDC) and WC fire safety equipment is available (fire hoses, fire extinguishers and even a sprinkler system at the WC), at the RDC almost all of those fire prevention/suppression systems are missing. The
3

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 4 of 104
sprinkler system was removed after the riot that destroyed Pod C approximately seven years ago, and was never re-installed. The State Fire Marshall inspections make no mention of this significant fire safety discrepancy. It would be useful for the State Fire Marshall to be requested to participate in the next site inspection process to provide guidance in addressing fire safety measures.
Medical and Mental Health
There has continued to be significant and quite meaningful advances with regard to the provision of core mental health services, and the provision of these services is clearly documented in well maintained medical records and by the ‘mental health tracking log’. Given that mental health services are being provided to between 180 and 200 individuals, in the 3 different facilities, the small mental health team is already more than overextended. The previously reported crisis regarding the woefully inadequate amount of psychiatric time has been addressed by replacing the .2 FTE psychiatrist with a .5 FTE psychiatric nurse clinician supervised by a psychiatrist, within QCHC’s existing contract with the County. However, there is still not enough mental health staff to expand the therapeutic interventions available for seriously mentally ill prisoners, implement a more comprehensive approach to discharge planning and referral for communitybased mental health services, and develop a more rigorous mental health quality assessment program, all of which are required to address the mental health provisions of the Agreement. In addition, once security policies and procedures that require the involvement of the mental health team have been developed and implemented (such as policies and procedures regarding disciplinary review, segregation review and use of force), the mental health team will have even more responsibilities. Therefore, in January 2019, QCHC submitted a proposal to the County Board of Supervisors to expand the mental health staff, but the County has not yet responded to this request for two additional, critically needed, staff positions. It is important to note here that although these two additional mental health staff persons will make it possible to address the above noted provisions of the agreement, a new staffing analysis will have to be done in connection with the development of plans to open a mental health unit at the facility, which ultimately will also be required to adequately meet the treatment needs of the seriously mentally ill.
Youthful Offenders
Between the prior site visit in January and this May site visit, the remaining youthful prisoner placed at the Raymond Detention Center (RDC) “aged out” and was transferred to the Jackson Detention Center (JDC). Given assurances that no more youthful prisoners will be housed at any of the Hinds County adult facilities, this represents the completion of the transition that began in September 2017. Although behind the intended time frame of the Agreement, this represents a significant milestone in the overall agreement related to youthful prisoners.
4

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 5 of 104
Therefore, the focus of this visit was solely on assessing compliance with the conditions of the agreement for youth placed at the Henley Young juvenile facility. As of this May visit, there were fourteen youthful prisoners (twelve boys, two girls) at Henley Young, the same number that were there at the time of the January visit. Additional time during this visit centered around tracking the status of the educational program, reviewing training records and plans for 2019, reviewing youth files, reviewing a sample of Incident Reports, and reviewing the use of room confinement (segregation) as a disciplinary measure. Additional time was spent in meetings with the new Executive Director, Mr. Fernandeis Frazier, as well as reviewing progress with other core leadership team members, Mr. Burnside and Mr. Dorsey.
There continues to be progress toward compliance in a number of areas, including: (1) a significant decline in the use of segregation/room confinement for disciplinary purposes; (2) continued stability in the population of both the youthful prisoners as well as the traditional short-term youth placed in the detention facility; (3) improvements in the educational programming for youth; (4) selection of a new Executive Director; and (5) some modifications in how the point/level system is utilized with youth. Additionally, planning has taken place to implement a new court process to review youth’s cases, focusing on promoting more timely decisions related to indictment, returning the case to the youth court, and/or altering bail conditions. The intention is to implement this new process beginning in June, and that should have a positive impact on moving the youth’s cases through the appropriate court system more promptly.
Concerns remain related to: (1) the limited time provided to achieve optimal functioning of the mental health team, particularly as it relates to limits on the time allotted to the psychologist and psychiatrist position(s); and (2) there have been no changes in the physical plant/facility that provide either more appropriate space for living units and a variety of programming or address some of the security safety concerns that have been expressed in prior reports and/or by facility leadership.
Criminal Justice and System Issues
A number of steps were taken that while not achieving compliance in many areas are certainly a step towards compliance. The policy on Inmate Records Management was adopted and includes a number of procedures that should improve the accuracy of the records and ensure the lawful basis of detention and timely release. The Records staff has begun a review of every file at the pace of 30 a week to reorganize them according to the new policy and create a summary sheet that tracks the detention status. As this is just the beginning of this process, there continued to be a number of files with inaccurate or incomplete information at the time of this site visit. There was one case in which a juvenile who should have been released was detained over a month after his release date. But there were fewer cases of over detention than in the past. Records
5

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 6 of 104
continued to have a number of inaccuracies that give rise to the potential for over detention or mistaken release. There are also systemic issues that contribute to over detention. During this site visit, it was learned that many defendants are not getting their first appearance in 48 hours because the judge that normally handles them is out. The Jail is entering a bail amount from a bail schedule but individuals who cannot make that bail are held weeks before getting before a judge and getting released. Other systemic issues are described below.
The County IT Department is now creating reports that can pull data from the JMS system. This will assist in identifying release dates and ensuring timely release. However, this is still not reliable because the information has not been entered consistently so manual tracking is still required. Some practices exacerbate the limitations of the JMS system. As described previously, the Warrants Division within the Sheriff’s Office does not use the JMS system, and does not enter warrants into the JMS system so warrants known by one arm of the Sheriff’s Office are not known to another. Warrants arising after a person is booked are not known to the Records Office.
The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) has not had consistent participation by a number of stakeholders. This has limited its effectiveness. Reducing the jail population is one method for addressing the severe staffing shortage. However, the CJCC or some collaborative body will be needed to implement most jail population reduction strategies. The monitoring team has recommended that the County hire a CJCC coordinator to improve the effectiveness of the CJCC. This has not been done and the County has not renewed the contract of the CJCC consultant.
A chronic problem contributing to the jail population and the lack of sufficient staffing is the continued incarceration of unindicted individuals and the extraordinary length of time to disposition of cases. This was described in the last monitoring report and that status has not changed.
At the time of the October and January site visits, there were several persons incarcerated on court orders for fines and fees that did not appear to meet the requirements of the law or the Settlement Agreement. Since then, the Pre-Booking and Inmate Records Management Policies have been adopted which mandate compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. And at the time of the May site visit there were no individuals detained for failure to pay fines and fees. These provisions are now shown as compliant. However, this area will continue to be monitored to ensure that the policy is followed.
The kiosk grievance system continues to present problems. During this site visit, a report was once again run from the system to locate outstanding grievances that had fallen off the dashboard. Once again, hundreds of outstanding grievances were found but significantly less than at the last site visit. Many of these were medical grievances which were not previously
6

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 7 of 104

visible to the Grievance Officer. This has been changed and the Grievance Officer should be able to ensure that medical grievances are answered and that medical staff are trained to track grievances. A new system is only now getting started to ensure that all grievances are actually answered. There is still no system to review whether responses are adequate; and no oversight to determine that promised actions are actually completed.

Monitoring Activities

The Monitoring Team conducted a Site Visit May 7th through May10th. The site visit schedule was as follows:
Site Visit Schedule May 7-10, 2019

Date and Time Monday evening: 6:00 Lobby of Hotel Tuesday A.M.
Tuesday P.M.
Wednesday A.M.
Wednesday P.M.

Lisa Simpson Team Meeting

Dave Parrish Team Meeting

Jim Moeser Team Meeting

Dr. Richard Dudley Team Meeting

Meet with command staff Tour Pod C Meet with Mr. Bell and staff re repairs Meet with Marlo Brinnon Tour C pod for MH unit Meet with Discharge Planner
Meet with Sgt. Tillman Review records
Pretrial Services Meeting

Meet with command staff
Tour Pod C Meet with Mr. Bell and staff re repairs Meet with Marlo Brinnon
RDC
RDC
Meet with CID investigator Jeremy Nelson
Meet with Captain Miller and (new training Lt.) RDC

HY-meet with HY command staff
Review youth records
HY Review room confinement observation logs Meet with GED/Special Ed staff Meet w. School Principal Meet with Training Staff HY-review records and Incident Reports Further discussions with Mr. Burnside Met w.Youth Support Specialists Meet w. Dr. Payne
Participate in Pretrial services

Meet with mental health team
RDC Tour C pod for MH unit Meet with Discharge Planner Tour RDC
RDC

7

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 8 of 104

Thursday A.M.
Thursday P.M. Friday 9:00 A.M.

Meet with FSO

JDC

Rholon Tucker

JDC Meet with Taneka Moore

Meet with Kenny Lewis

Status Conference Status Conference

Meet with Sgt. Hubbard
Meet with Kenisha Jones

RDC
Follow up as needed

meeting, w. focus on changes related to processing JCA cases Meet w. Nursing Director Follow up w. Training staff Exit discussion with HY leadership Met with SPLC staff Status Conference

JDC
Status Conference

WC

COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW

The Monitoring Team will track progress towards compliance with the following chart. This chart will be added to with each Monitoring Report showing the date of the site visit and the number of Settlement Agreement requirements in full, partial or non-compliance. Sustained compliance is achieved when compliance with a particular Settlement Agreement requirement has been sustained for 18 months or more. The count of 92 requirements is determined by the number of Settlement Agreement paragraphs which have substantive requirements. Introductory paragraphs and general provisions are not included. Some paragraphs may have multiple requirements which are evaluated independently in the text of the report but are included as one requirement for purposes of this chart. The provisions on Youthful Offenders were evaluated in the text below for compliance at Henley Young and Raymond Detention Center but only the results for Henley Young are included in the totals in this chart. This is a change from the last report which showed compliance at RDC in the totals. The reason for this is that there are no more juveniles at RDC.

Site Visit Date 2/7-10/17 6/1316/17

Sustained Compliance 0 0

Substantial Compliance 1 1

Partial Compliance 4 18

NA at this time
2 2

NonCompliant 85 71

Total
92 92

8

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 9 of 104

10/16-

0

1

26

1

64

92

20/17

1/26-

0

1

29

0

62

92

2/2/18

5/22-

0

1

30

0

61

92

25/18

9/18-

1

0

37

0

54

92

21/18

1/15-

1

1

44

0

46

92

18/19

5/7-10/19 1

6

42

0

43

92

INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS

Text of paragraphs 1-34 regarding “Parties,” “Introduction,” and “Definitions” omitted.

SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS

PROTECTION FROM HARM

Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to provide prisoners with safety, protect prisoners from violence committed by other prisoners, and ensure that prisoners are not subjected to abuse by Jail staff. To that end, the County must:

37. Develop and implement policies and procedures to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment for prisoners and staff. Such policies and procedures must include the following:
a. Booking; b. Objective classification; c. Housing assignments; d. Prisoner supervision; e. Prisoner welfare and security checks (“rounds”); f. Posts and post orders; g. Searches; h. Use of force; i. Incident reporting; j. Internal investigations; k. Prisoner rights; l. Medical and mental health care; m. Exercise and treatment activities; n. Laundry; o. Food services; p. Hygiene;
9

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 10 of 104
q. Emergency procedures; r. Grievance procedures; and s. Sexual abuse and misconduct.
Non-Compliant There has been no significant change with regard to this provision since the Sixth Monitoring Report. Prior to the May 2019, site visit, only nine draft policies had been submitted to the DOJ and Monitor for review, but three have now been adopted (5-500 Pre-Booking, 6-100 Booking and 4-200 Inmate Record Management). At the time of the May site visit, one additional policy had been submitted for review (12-400 Inmate Grievances). Since the site visit, two additional policies have been submitted for review (Searches and Conditions of Confinement) for a total of twelve policies drafted, three of which have been approved and adopted. The County has reported that an additional ten policies are in development. While it is encouraging that progress is finally being made, the fact that the monitoring process has been in place for approximately two and a half years, and that there are only three policies approved to date, is disturbing. Until Hinds County develops a comprehensive Policies and Procedures Manual, along with Post Orders, the staff of the Hinds County Jail System cannot be expected to comply with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement. For an agency the size of the HCSO, a Policies and Procedures Manual encompassing far more than a hundred individual policies would be expected. It is apparent that a great deal of effort needs to be put forth before significant progress can be achieved.
As noted in the last monitoring report, the full range of required policies and procedures that cover areas for which the health and mental health teams are fully and virtually solely responsible have been developed and implemented. Therefore, the internal focus (i.e., by QCHC and other appropriate participants within the facility) and the external focus (i.e., by the monitoring team) has shifted to assessing compliance with these health and mental health policies and procedures. Of course in addition, as the policies and procedures are operationalized, there is also an internal and external focus on assessing the adequacy of the policies and procedures, the adequacy of training on the policies and procedures, and the quality of the services provided, particularly with regard to whether or not full compliance with the policies and procedures ultimately addresses the provisions of the Agreement.
As noted in prior reports there are multiple health and mental health related provisions that cannot be addressed by health and mental health staff alone. These have included, for example, the participation of mental health in the disciplinary review process, the use of suicide watch, the participation of health and mental health in the segregation review process, incidences where there is an anticipated/planned use of force and incidences where there has already been a use of force, and the roles and responsibilities of health and mental health with regard to PREA. Security policies and procedures that would address these issues have still not been developed,
10

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 11 of 104
approved, and implemented. The medical and mental health staff should be involved in the development of these policies and procedures when that occurs.
During this most recent site visit, a new concern was raised, and that is the safety of the nursing staff at the RDC. More specifically, although the nursing staff feels that the security staff in the medical/mental health offices manage/control the detainees quite well, this is not the case when the nurses are doing medication pass on the units; the nurses reported multiple incidences where they were harassed and even grabbed, and at least one incident where urine was thrown on a nurse, while security staff did nothing to protect them; and medical/mental health administration reported that memos to security administration about these incidences have not been responded to. Policies and procedures are needed to address the duties of the security staff on the housing units when medical staff are present.
Given this newly voiced concern/issue, during this most recent site visit the mental health expert met with security administration and was told that such incidences should be reported through the regular mechanism for reporting incidences (instead of sending a memo to security administration); and security administration assumed the responsibility for informing medical/mental health administration that they could and should use this mechanism for reporting such incidences and assumed the responsibility for making sure that medical/mental health administration was taught how to access and use this mechanism for reporting such incidences. Regardless of the reporting mechanism, security staff is now clearly informed of the problem and should address this through training of the housing unit staff promptly. This issue will require follow-up at the next site visit in order to determine whether security administration has, in fact, assumed the above noted responsibilities; whether or not nursing administration has begun to access and use this incident reporting system; and most importantly, whether or not security administration has begun to address the roles and responsibilities of security staff during medication pass, which is, in fact, the underlying problem here.
38. Ensure that the Jail is overseen by a qualified Jail Administrator and a leadership team with substantial education, training and experience in the management of a large jail, including at least five years of related management experience for their positions, and a bachelor’s degree. When the Jail Administrator is absent or if the position becomes vacant, a qualified deputy administrator with comparable education, training, and experience, must serve as acting Jail Administrator.
Partial Compliance Significant changes have been made since the Seventh Monitoring Report was published. The new Assistant Jail Administrator, who was appointed in spite of the fact that he did not meet the qualifications for the position, has since been replaced by his predecessor, who was well qualified. The County had kept him on the payroll and consequently, he was available to return to his previous position when the Sheriff issued a reassignment memorandum on March 20,
11

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 12 of 104
2019. At the same time (March 19, 2019) he issued a Personnel Action that designated “…Major Rushing as his designee to execute all duties and responsibilities relating to Detention Services, including the authority to make all personnel decisions necessary to ensure adequate staffing, staff discipline and staff oversight. The personnel authority includes the power to hire, transfer and discipline staff. These duties further include, the ability to monitor, ensure compliance with Jail Policies, and take corrective action for any staff members operating in the Jail, including any who are not already reporting to the Jail Administrator and the Jail’s chain of command. This includes road deputies assigned to supervise housing units and emergency response, tactical teams entering the Jail to conduct random shakedowns or to suppress prisoner disturbances. These duties further include the authority to authorize any training or travel.” This major shift in operational responsibility makes it possible for the Jail System to progress toward compliance with the conditions of the Settlement Agreement. The monitoring team will continue to track whether the Jail Administrator is permitted to exercise the authority seemingly granted by this Personnel Action.
39. Ensure that all Jail supervisors have the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing needed to effectively supervise both prisoners and other staff members. At minimum, Jail supervisors must have at least 3 years of field experience, including experience working in the Jail. They must also be familiar with Jail policies and procedures, the terms of this Agreement, and prisoner rights.
Partial Compliance Until there are approved policies and procedures in place, the supervisors will not be able to become familiar with them. Since the last site visit there have been five promotions, two returns to previous status and one transfer to a lateral position. The qualifications of the five promoted individuals and the one transfer are:
A.—When the previous Assistant Jail Administrator (Captain) was returned to his original position, the Captain, who had filled this post for several months, was transferred into a new position, titled Maintenance and Security Chief. Although it did not previously exist, considering the long-standing maintenance and security problems the DSD faces, placing responsibility for addressing maintenance/security on a dedicated manager makes operational sense. B.—This individual has a high school diploma, has been employed by the HCSO for 19 years, and served as a Sergeant for 15 months before being promoted to Lieutenant. C.—This Sergeant has a high school diploma, has been employed by the HCSO for 14 years and worked at both the RDC and WC before being promoted. D.—This Sergeant has a high school diploma plus three years of college with a major in Engineering. Although he has been employed by the HCSO for only 20 months, he has approximately 30 years of experience in personnel management.
12

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 13 of 104
E.—This Sergeant has a high school diploma, but only two years of experience with the HCSO. F.—This Sergeant has a high school diploma, five years of experience with the Mississippi Department of Corrections and has been employed by the HCSO for two years.
Not all of these appointments meet the specific criteria of this provision, however, the appointments appear to be merit based. Until there are approved policies and procedures in place, the supervisors will not be able to become familiar with them. When questioned regarding specific requirements of the Settlement Agreement, many supervisors below the command staff level are still unable to articulate knowledgeable responses. It should be noted that copies of the Settlement Agreement and most recent Monitoring Report are available in the control rooms at the JDC. The same is not true for the RDC and WC. It would be beneficial for those facilities to emulate the practice of the JDC.
40. Ensure that no one works in the Jail unless they have passed a background check, including a criminal history check.
Partial Compliance As was previously reported, the HCSO Director of Human Resources conducted a review of most DSD personnel files that supported compliance with this paragraph. However, the personnel histories of some supervisors listed in the 6th Monitoring Report indicate that individuals who have what should have been disqualifying backgrounds, were nevertheless hired and/or promoted. The more recent promotions do not appear to have the same problems with their background. If the HCSO continues to hire and promote only those persons who have successfully passed a background check, including a criminal history check, as specified by this paragraph, it should be possible to move from Partial Compliance to Substantial Compliance.
41. Ensure that Jail policies and procedures provide for the “direct supervision” of all Jail housing units.
Non-Compliant There has been only nominal change in the status of this paragraph since the Seventh Monitoring Report. The Policies and Procedures Manual has yet to be published. While three policies have been approved and seven have been submitted for review, they represent only a very small fraction of the many policies that are required. Even when that is done, the physical design of the JDC, which is a linear facility, make implementation of Direct Supervision there an impossibility.
On a more positive note, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) provided a week of on-site Direct Supervision Training for Command and Administrative Staff in April. That training was well attended by command staff and those in attendance appeared to have learned from the
13

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 14 of 104
experience. That training will be followed up by a Train the Trainers program in July for Training staff and the Detention Officers who will serve as trainers for the rest of the DSD staff. Once that is done, the WC can begin to operate under the principles of Direct Supervision, followed by the RDC, but only as staff are assigned to work inside the housing units as they are refurbished.
42. Ensure that the Jail has sufficient staffing to adequately supervise prisoners, fulfill the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the safe operation of the Jail. The parties recognize that the Board allocates to the Sheriff lump sum funding on a quarterly basis. The Sheriff recognizes that sufficient staffing of the Jail should be a priority for utilizing those funds. To that end, the County must at minimum:
a. Hire and retain sufficient numbers of detention officers to ensure that: i. There are at least two detention officers in each control room at all times; ii. There are at least three detention officers at all times for each housing unit, booking area, and the medical unit;
iii. There are rovers to provide backup and assistance to other posts; iv. Prisoners have access to exercise, medical treatment, mental health
treatment, and attorney visitation as scheduled; v. There are sufficient detention officers to implement this Agreement. b. Fund and obtain a formal staffing and needs assessment (“study”) that determines with particularity the minimum number of staff and facility improvements required to implement this Agreement. As an alternative to a new study, the September 2014 study by the National Institute of Corrections may be updated if the updated study includes current information for the elements listed below. The study or study update must be completed within six months of the Effective Date and must include the following elements: i. The staffing element of the study must identify all required posts and
positions, as well as the minimum number and qualifications of staff to cover each post and position. ii. The study must ensure that the total number of recommended positions includes a “relief factor” so that necessary posts remain covered regardless of staff vacancies, turnover, vacations, illness, holidays, or other temporary factors impacting day-to-day staffing. iii. As part of any needs assessment, the study’s authors must estimate the number of prisoners expected to be held in the Jail and identify whether additional facilities, including housing, may be required. c. Once completed, the County must provide the United States and the Monitor with a copy of the study and a plan for implementation of the study’s recommendations. Within one year after the Monitor’s and United States’ review of the study and plan, the County must fund and implement the staffing and
14

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 15 of 104
facility improvements recommended by the study, as modified and approved by the United States. d. The staffing study shall be updated at least annually and staffing adjusted accordingly to ensure continued compliance with this Agreement. The parties recognize that salaries are an important factor to recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, so the County will also annually evaluate salaries. e. The County will also create, to the extent possible, a career ladder and system of retention bonuses for Jail staff.
Non-Compliant As was previously reported, this paragraph was downgraded from Partial Compliance to NonCompliant in the Fifth Monitoring Report because of the lack of progress in filling existing positions. Unfortunately, that trend has continued. There were only 229 filled positions at the time of the May site visit. According to the staffing analysis that was conducted by the HCSO and the Monitor, 433 positions are required to staff all three facilities. Since that represents more positions than there are in the entire HCSO, the decision was made to set an initial goal of 275 positions (of which 271 are funded). Over the past two years, that goal has never been met. In fact, the number of filled position has fluctuated from a high of 251 to the current low of 229.
The WC and JDC continue to function fairly effectively even though both are understaffed. With an average daily census of 592 during the May site visit, the Jail System is operating at well below authorized capacity. The WC, at 199, has 256 beds, while the JDC, at 116, has 192 beds (although some are off line). While the RDC would seem to be in similar shape, with only 276 inmates, but 594 beds, in reality, this facility is in critical condition. Although the low population allows for some staff savings, the facility is still severely understaffed. If the entirety of Pod C is closed, the staffing requirement for the RDC facility would be 240 which is 40 less officers than the 280 required if the facility were full. However, the current staff at RDC is 125 which is 115 short of the staffing required. There are not enough officers to staff any of the housing units. Detention Officers work only in the control rooms and the circular corridor that separates the control rooms from the housing units. Because cell doors in the housing units can be easily overridden by the inmates, and most of the doors controlling access to the housing units cannot be secured, the inmate population is in a position to gain control of the three pods should they so desire. In fact, a major riot occurred in Pod A on April 19, 2019, during which the inmates from three of the four housing units broke out and attempted to take over the pod control room.
Because so much of the RDC has been seriously damaged due to the total lack of inmate supervision, the County and HCSO are now planning to shut down a full third of the facility (one pod comprised of four housing units) at a time so that it can be rehabilitated and made secure again. Once that is done, it is proposed that each housing unit will be reopened only when
15

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 16 of 104
sufficient staff are on board to operate in a Direct Supervision mode. That means that one officer will have to be assigned to a housing unit 24 hours per day. It can never be left unattended. The current shortage of staff makes such a plan unrealistic unless a major recruiting effort is successful in filling approximately 45 vacancies and the HCSO is able to retain officers better than in the past.
During previous site visits, various four cell Isolation Units (ISO), small units located aside the larger housing units in the Pods, were set up to accommodate unique population groups such as Suicide Watch and Special Management Inmates. Each was supposed to be staffed with an officer at all times, but the lack of written policies and post orders, the lack of staff and changes in supervisory responsibility resulted in a breakdown of those practices. During the May site visit, only the Suicide Watch ISO Unit was ever found to be staffed, and that but about half the time.
Because of the chronic staffing shortages at the RDC, as well as the operational and supervisory shortcomings noted above, the incidence of inmate assaults and breaches in security continue at an extraordinary level. By means of example, between May 8 and May 21, 2019, there were six breaches of security at the RDC. In each case, holes were pounded through cell walls, hinges were cut or welds broken and in one instance a lock was found to be missing from the housing unit fire exit door. The lack of adequate staffing has resulted in the prisoners having significant control of the facility as demonstrated in Incident #1901005. In this incident two inmates were found outside the facility attempting to recover three bags of contraband. Officers began to conduct a security check throughout the jail, but the inmates in HU A2 refused to let them enter the unit. This lack of control is exacerbated by the maintenance issues described in paragraph 46 below where inmates can open cell doors, housing unit doors and even control room doors. Inmates break out of the facility, almost at will, but not to escape; rather, to retrieve contraband and return to their housing units. Officers are prevented from performing their duties by inmates who refuse them entry to a housing unit, forcibly restrain them in a housing unit or gain unauthorized access to a pod control room.
As has been reported in prior monitoring reports, the County has taken some steps to recruit detention officers. The County increased the starting pay for detention officers reportedly matching the highest paying correctional agency in the state. The Sheriff has a recruitment officer who does recruiting for both the patrol and detention side of the Sheriff’s Office. He has reported attending job fairs and working with Hinds Community College to add detention specific courses to their criminal justice curriculum. The County reports having a staffing development group responsible to reviewing and enhancing recruitment. In fact, the County has hired a significant number of detention officers since the time of the Settlement Agreement. Two hundred (200) officers have been hired in this time frame. However, two hundred and twenty (220) have terminated in this time frame. Retention appears to be a major issue.
16

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 17 of 104
The Staffing Analysis that was completed by the County/HCSO and Monitor has not been updated annually as required, nor have the issues of a career ladder or a retention bonus system for Jail staff been addressed beyond a preliminary recommendation by the HCSO.
f. Develop and implement an objective and validated classification and housing assignment procedure that is based on risk assessment rather than solely on a prisoner’s charge. Prisoners must be classified immediately after booking, and then housed based on the classification assessment. At minimum, a prisoner’s bunk, cell, unit, and facility assignments must be based on his or her objective classification assessment, and staff members may not transfer or move prisoners into a housing area if doing so would violate classification principles (e.g., placing juveniles with adults, victims with former assailants, and minimum security prisoners in a maximum security unit). Additionally, the classification and housing assignment process must include the following elements: i. The classification process must be handled by qualified staff who have additional training and experience on classification. ii. The classification system must take into account objective risk factors including a prisoner’s prior institutional history, history of violence, charges, special needs, physical size or vulnerabilities, gang affiliation, and reported enemies. iii. Prisoner housing assignments must not be changed by unit staff without proper supervisor and classification staff approval. iv. The classification system must track the location of all prisoners in the Jail and help ensure that prisoners can be readily located by staff. The County may continue to use wrist bands to help identify prisoners, but personal identification on individual prisoners may not substitute for a staffcontrolled and centralized prisoner tracking and housing assignment system. v. The classification system must be integrated with the Jail prisoner record system, so that staff have appropriate access to information necessary to provide proper supervision, including the current housing assignment of every prisoner in the Jail. vi. The designation and use of housing units as “gang pods” must be phased out under the terms of this Agreement. Placing prisoners together because of gang affiliation alone is prohibited. The County must replace current gang-based housing assignments with a more appropriate objective classification and housing process within one year after the Effective Date.
Non-Compliant
17

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 18 of 104
The Classification Unit has had a change in leadership and is returning to a behavior based classification system. The office is in the process of reviewing all of the active files to ensure accurate classification. That process had just begun at the time of the site visit. However, a review of the files already indicated less occasions when the behavior based score was overridden based on the charge, something that was observed routinely in the last two site visits. At the time of this site visit, of the 12 files reviewed, only two had an override based on charge. However, the accuracy of the scoring is still a problem. Of the 12 files reviewed only two were accurately scored. The inaccuracies included incorrect criminal histories, improperly weighting the current charge, incorrect addition, scoring factors such as mental health that are not intended to be scored in the instrument, using the incorrect form, and missing paperwork. The classification does appear in the JMS system and the system can run a report of everyone needing reclassification on a particular day. One systemic problem appears to be that the current charge in the JMS system at the time of classification does not always appear to be accurate. Two files used the charge listed on the booking sheet at the time of classification. The charge was then corrected or updated to a different charge in the JMS system which would have impacted the score. For example, one individual showed the charge of Failure to Appear which scores low. However, the JMS system had been changed to show that he was charged with armed robbery and shooting which scores very high. There is no system for alerting Classification of the change.
The hours of coverage by the Classification Unit have not changed. Gaps in time result in some inmates being assigned to facilities or housing units without going through the classification process.
While cell assignments and inmate transfers are supposed to be cleared through Classification, there is no policy in place that requires that action, consequently, supervisors sometimes make such transfers on their own. Finally, while the decision to end housing according to gang affiliation was made early on by the Jail Administrator, the lack of supervision within the housing units at the RDC makes it impossible to stop physical conflict from developing between competing groups of gang members housed in the same unit. The move back to behavior based classification should reduce the risk of gang related violence. However, there were several assaults that appear to be gang related in the last six months.
g. Develop and implement positive approaches for promoting safety within the Jail including: i. Providing all prisoners with at least 5 hours of outdoor recreation per week; ii. Developing rewards and incentives for good behavior such as additional commissary, activities, or privileges;
18

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 19 of 104
iii. Creating work opportunities, including the possibility of paid employment;
iv. Providing individual or group treatment for prisoners with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other behavioral or medical conditions, who would benefit from therapeutic activities;
v. Providing education, including special education, for youth, as well as all programs, supports, and services required for youth by federal law;
vi. Screening prisoners for serious mental illness as part of the Jail’s booking and health assessment process, and then providing such prisoners with appropriate treatment and therapeutic housing;
vii. Providing reasonable opportunities for visitation. h. Ensure that policies, procedures, and practices provide for higher levels of
supervision for individual prisoners if necessary due to a prisoner’s individual circumstances. Examples of such higher level supervision include (a) constant observation (i.e., continuous, uninterrupted one-on-one monitoring) for actively suicidal prisoners (i.e., prisoners threatening or who recently engaged in suicidal behavior); (b) higher frequency security checks for prisoners locked down in maximum security units, medical observation units, and administrative segregation units; and (c) more frequent staff interaction with youth as part of their education, treatment and behavioral management programs. i. Continue to update, maintain, and expand use of video surveillance and recording cameras to improve coverage throughout the Jail, including the booking area, housing units, medical and mental health units, special management housing, facility perimeters, and in common areas.
Partial Compliance Regarding 42 (g) (i), five hours of outdoor recreation per week is still not provided to all inmates in the Jail System although significant progress has been made. The WC is the only facility that is in compliance to date. There, outdoor recreation was provided virtually every day, to each of the four housing units, during the month of April. Log records are complete and well maintained. At the RDC a recreation log is now maintained, but it reflects only sporadic and incomplete entries. It shows that outdoor recreation was provided on six days during April. One entry noted that recreation began at 1903 hours and ended at 1542 (three hours earlier). Records for the JDC indicate that indoor recreation was provided on only seven days during April. The Captain of that facility plans to install a roll up sally port security gate in the enclosed drive thru parking area separating the jail from the courthouse. That will allow inmates to have greater access to recreation facilities, although it still does not meet the standard of outdoor recreation. The only way that the JDC can comply with the Settlement Agreement is through the construction of an outdoor recreation yard on the roof of the facility.
19

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 20 of 104
Regarding 42 (g)(ii) and (iii), there is no incentive program. There are work opportunities at the WC but not paid employment and the only opportunities at JDC and RDC are working as trusties.
Regarding 42 (g) (iv) As has been previously reported, prisoners who are in need of mental health services are identified in a variety of ways, including during the initial nurse’s intake, via the ‘Form #3’ (a form filled out by the prisoner at the time of booking), during mental health weekly rounds in segregation, prisoner self-referral, and the referral of prisoners by security staff. Although whether or not these identification mechanisms/sources of referral capture all prisoners who would benefit from mental health services in a timely manner has yet to be determined and awaits the development of an assessment tool to look at this issue, the number of prisoners on the mental health caseload continues to hover around 175, with an average length of stay of 400+ days.
The nurse’s intake remains by far the most common point of identification of prisoners in need of mental health services. A comparison of information obtained by the intake nurse with information obtainable from the ‘Form #3’ indicates that the ‘Form #3’ rarely identifies prisoners in need of mental health services who were not already identified during the nurse’s intake; although this is rare, it has occurred; and so if/when this does occur, it might be reasonable to at least attempt to assess whether this is due to the fact that the newly admitted prisoner felt more comfortable reporting mental health difficulties and/or a history of mental health difficulties in writing versus during the intake interview, or whether this was due to a failure of the intake interview to elicit such information, which would then need to be addressed. Mental health staff report identifying prisoners who deteriorate while in segregation (see section 76), and there are prisoners who self-refer for mental health services (see also section 45). It has been difficult to obtain a clear sense of the extent to which prisoners are referred for a mental health evaluation and treatment by security staff, especially in the absence of a referral form that would document such a referral; therefore a more formalized mental health referral process for security staff is recommended; and once this is in place, it will be easier to assess the number, quality, appropriateness and timeliness of such referrals, as well as whether or not there is a need for additional training for security staff in mental health related issues.
Prior monitoring reports raised the question of how QCHC was defining the target population for the mental health case load. In other words, is the target population just those who would be traditionally described as ‘seriously mentally ill’ or should it also include detainees who suffer from other mental health difficulties that cause them considerable distress and that significantly impact on their ability to function? This issue has now been addressed, in that the target population for the mental health caseload now includes the full range of detainees who suffer from mental health difficulties that cause them considerable distress and/or that significantly impacts on their ability to function. During this most recent site visit, it was also noted that even
20

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 21 of 104
detainees who are receiving short-term supportive therapy, and who are not otherwise suffering from an underlying, major mental illness, were not being included on the mental health caseload list and it was recommended that they should be included on the mental health caseload during the time that they are receiving such short-term supportive therapy.
In the 65 medical records reviewed, there were mental health evaluations, treatment plans, progress/treatment notes, and psychiatric nurse clinician follow-up notes for those on medication. There are still no treatment planning and treatment plan review mental health team meetings that would allow for a more integrated, interdisciplinary approach to treatment planning and the periodic review of treatment plans; this issue is particularly important given that the new psychiatric nurse clinician isn’t seeing all of the prisoners on the mental health case load (i.e., as noted above, she is not seeing prisoners who are already stable on their medication); during this most recent site visit, this was discussed with the mental health staff, including the new psychiatric nurse clinician; and now that the new psychiatric nurse clinician is on board, it is anticipated that this issue will be addressed.
As was noted in the last monitoring report, a ‘mental health tracking log’ has been developed; the log continues to be well maintained; and the log serves to facilitate both the internal and external monitoring of the provision of mental health services, particularly with regard to compliance with policy and the performance of procedures in a timely manner. Therefore, the next step is the development of mechanisms for the internal and external assessment of the quality of the mental health services provided. Initiation of the above noted treatment plan review process will certainly be an important part of that effort, in that there will be a regularly scheduled review of whether or not each detainee’s treatment is addressing the goals of the detainee’s treatment plan. Although there are indications that at least suggest that the quality of the mental health services has continued to improve, consideration should be given to what additional mechanisms might be employed to more formally assess the quality of the mental health services provided.
Finally, it has already been established that there is a need to develop additional mental health interventions that are not currently available at the facility. This is particularly the case for detainees with serious mental illnesses; and it is anticipated that such an enhancement of mental health services in the facility would significantly improve the quality of the treatment for such detainees, improve their ability to function within the facility, and increase the likelihood that detainees would continue treatment upon their release from the facility. This would thereby decrease the likelihood of recidivism. Planned, additional mental health services include a group therapy program with groups focused on the development of social skills, conflict resolution, substance abuse, dual-diagnosis (i.e. those with substance abuse issues and some other major mental illness), and parenting. There is also a need for psychoeducational groups (focused on learning about one’s mental illness, the need for treatment, and the responsibilities for fully
21

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 22 of 104
participating in one’s own treatment), medication management groups, and discharge planning groups. In addition, the mental health team has identified the need to better integrate other services provided at the facility into mental health treatment plans; such other services include, for example, competency training, ministerial work, and the ASU Collaborative’s diversion program for individuals with serious mental illness; and so therefore efforts are underway to work more cooperatively with the providers of these other services. Then ultimately, there is the need for a mental health unit, where seriously mentally ill inmates can receive this enhanced range of services in a coordinated and integrated way, within a more therapeutic setting.
The ability to provide these needed services is dependent on the issue of mental health staffing levels. At the time of the previous site visit (January 2019), the mental health team consisted of two full-time QMHPs (the mental health coordinator and another full-time social worker), a .2 FTE psychologist, and a .2 FTE psychiatrist, for a mental health case load that included 177 detainees housed at three different sites (168 of whom were on medication and considered to be seriously mentally ill). In addition to providing direct, follow-up clinical services to those on the mental health case load, the mental health team has other responsibilities such as mental health assessments of new admissions, the more intensive management and monitoring of suicidal detainees and other more acutely ill detainees, responding to other mental health emergencies, weekly rounds in segregation, and a range of administrative tasks (maintaining records, logs, etc. and attendance at staff meetings and conferences focused on treatment planning, discharge planning, etc.). Furthermore, the two full-time QMHPs and the part-time psychologist rotate weekend call for mental health (which includes checking-in multiple times during the weekend with each facility, seeing detainees on suicide watch or other special watch, and also coming in to assess and manage any acute mental health emergencies), and they do this in addition to their full weekday schedule, and the psychiatrist is also on telephone call virtually all of the time. The planned expansion of the range of mental health services provided is required to adequately address the treatment needs of the seriously mentally ill and respond to many of the provisions of this agreement; but there are not enough staff to initiate this planned expansion. Then, once security policies and procedures are developed and implemented, the mental health team will have additional tasks, such as participation in the segregation review process and the disciplinary review process, as well as performing mental health evaluations and offering consultation with regard to the planned use of force and following any incident where there was a use of force.
As was noted in the monitoring report of the January 2019 site visit, the most critical staffing issue was the fact that there was inadequate psychiatric time to meet the provisions of the agreement and provide any reasonable standard of care. In response to this critical shortage of psychiatric time, at the beginning of April 2019, QCHC replaced the very part-time psychiatrist with a half-time psychiatric nurse clinician, and consistent with the standards promulgated by the Mississippi Board of Nursing, the nurse clinician has on-site psychiatric supervision with and unlimited telephone access to her psychiatrist ‘collaborator’. In order to allow time for the new
22

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 23 of 104
psychiatric nurse clinician to get on board, the medical nurse clinician, aided by consultation with her collaborator and the facility’s mental health coordinator, has assumed the responsibility for mental health medication management for stabilized detainees, while the new psychiatric nurse clinician has assumed the responsibility for all new admissions to the mental health case load and any detainees who appear to require a reassessment of their medication.
During this site visit, the mental health expert met with both nurse clinicians; discussed this staffing change with health/mental health administrators and line staff; and reviewed case records. Based on these sources of information, it appears that this staffing change has been an extremely positive change that is responsive to the previously identified critical staffing issue. However, given that at the time of this most recent site visit this staffing change had only been in effect for one month, this will be closely reviewed again at the next site visit.
Although the shortage of psychiatric time was the most critical mental health staffing issue, there is a shortage of other mental health staff as well. More specifically, each of the two existing QMHPs makes approximately 80 detainee/patient contacts each week. Given all of the other things that they are trying to do, at multiple facilities, these 80 contacts are obviously far too short and, of necessity, limited in their scope. Furthermore, this leaves virtually no time at all for expanding the range of therapeutic interventions required to address all of the provisions of the agreement. In response to this critical mental health staffing issue, in about January 2019, QCHC submitted a proposal to the County Board of Supervisors to expand the QCHC contract to add an additional QMHP and a mental health tech who would assume some of the administrative responsibilities. However, it is the understanding of this monitor that as of this most recent site visit, the Board of Supervisors has not responded to this proposal from QCHC; as noted above, addressing this staffing issue will be required in order to address the provisions of this agreement; and so it is hoped that the Board of Supervisors will soon affirmatively respond to this proposal.
Despite the shortage of mental health staff, mental health staff has started one group, which has provided an opportunity for staff to identify and explore the range of clinical and logistical issues related to designing and implementing a more expanded group therapy program. More specifically, they have identified and worked out a range of issues related to identifying and selecting group therapy members, which not only included clinical issues but also issues such as obtaining clearance from classification to allow for identified members to meet together in a group setting. They have also identified ways to work cooperatively with other services/service providers at the facility, and these other providers are helping to assure that the group meets and runs smoothly. The syllabus for the group and a meeting of the group was observed. The group plan was well organized, the group was well run, the content appeared to be clinically appropriate for the group members involved, and the prisoners involved in the group were quite responsive to the group process and at least appeared to find it quite beneficial.
23

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 24 of 104
During this most recent site visit, there was also some discussion of the development of a special mental health unit, and space was identified that might be used for such a unit and the needed modifications to the space for that purpose were discussed. It at least appeared that this discussion was quite preliminary; the discussion did not include issues such as staffing of the unit by security staff or mental health staff, and did not include a discussion of plans for programming on the unit; but the fact that there was at least some initial thinking about the development of such a unit was a positive finding.
Regarding 42 (g)(vi) during the previous/January 2019 site visit, a new admission (who was apparently transferred from another facility) was followed through each stage of the Jail’s booking and initial health assessment/intake process (see January 2019 site visit report). Although several concerns were identified about the screening of that new prisoner who had a significant history of mental health difficulties, both during the intake/booking process and the nurse’s initial health assessment/intake process, it was not apparent whether it was just that one case that wasn’t handled well, or whether that one poorly handled case was representative of more frequently occurring difficulties. Therefore, a review of both the intake/booking process and the nurse’s initial health assessment/intake process with regard to screening for serious mental illness was recommended; at the time of this most recent site visit/May 2019, such a review had not occurred; and so, the same recommendation is repeated.
Based on the observations of the assessment process as described in the January, 2019 report, it is recommended that QCHC and Booking staff reassess the mental health components of the intake/booking process and the initial health assessment process, including what training and/or enhanced supervision staff responsible for each process might require in order to fully comply with approved policies and procedures, and in turn, the provisions of this agreement. In order to further evaluate the initial assessment process, staff should assess the cases of detainees who are first identified as in need of mental health services at some point after the booking/intake process, with an eye towards determining whether their mental health difficulties were missed during the booking/intake process or they developed mental health difficulties while detained at the facility. Given the deficiencies noted, staff should evaluate whether the policies and procedures that govern the booking process, the initial medical intake/screening process, and classification and assignment to housing units are clear with regard to the identification and management of new admissions who might be suffering from mental health difficulties.
A lack of privacy in the screening process was also identified in the January 2019 report. As reported at that time, the policy group facilitated by Karen Albert has recommended some minor renovations to the booking area that would address the lack of privacy as well as other issues and improve the efficiency of the booking process. Completion of these recommended renovations would resolve this issue.
24

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 25 of 104
Regarding 42 (g) (vii), visitation records reflect that inmates housed at the JDC continue to have a much greater incidence of visitation than do their counterparts at the RDC and WC. There is still no readily apparent explanation for this disparity. Based on a review of inmate visitation records for the month of April 2019, 90 inmates at the RDC and WC (their records are combined) were scheduled to have a video visit with family and friends. Of that number, only 37 visits were completed, just over one per day. The majority of the reasons listed for why visits were not completed includes the following: “missed by caller”, “missed by inmate”, “cancelled”, “cancelled by admin” and “refused”. With an average daily census of 475 for those two facilities, that means that it would take 12.8 months for every inmate to have one visit. By means of comparison, every inmate at the JDC has a visit on average within 1.8 months. While there is no set standard for allowable visits, the opportunity for inmates housed in the RDC and WC is exceptionally low. An initial effort should be made to arrange for every inmate in the DSD to be able to visit with family and friends at least once per month; a long-term goal of once per week is both reasonable and attainable.
Regarding 42 (h) as has been previously reported, the mental health assessment of inmates suspected of being suicidal is being performed on an emergency basis, and with the weekend on call schedule, this is even happening on weekends. The QMHPs who perform these assessments consult with the psychiatric nurse clinician over the telephone, just as they had previously done with the psychiatrist. Although in the past, the psychiatrist did not have an actual face-to-face assessment of the inmate in a timely manner, if at all, even if the inmate was placed on suicide watch, it appears that the psychiatric nurse clinician is actually seeing prisoners who have been placed on suicide watch. However, the decision to terminate a suicide watch may also be made by a QMHP upon telephone consultation with the psychiatric nurse clinician, as opposed to a face-to-face assessment by the nurse clinician.
A review of the suicide watch data/log for the month of April 2019 (since the psychiatric nurse clinician has been on board) would suggest that the criteria for the placement and the removal of a prisoner from suicide watch and the mechanism by which these decisions are made should be reviewed. More specifically, during the month of April 2019, there were 21 times that a prisoner was placed on suicide watch. However, of these 21 incidences, 2 of them involved the same prisoner, and 4 of them involved another prisoner who on two occasions was removed from suicide watch and then placed on suicide watch again within a day or two. Although such a review might indicate that these two cases are very unusual, such a review is still indicated in order to assure that the criteria and the approach employed for the assessment of suicidality continue to meet clinical standards of practice.
Due to the lack of documentation, it remains unclear as to whether or not inmates who are suspected of being suicidal are kept under constant observation by security staff until the mental health assessment is performed. Documentation reflects that inmates who are actually placed on
25

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 26 of 104
suicide watch do receive a higher level of supervision by mental health and security on at least an intermittent basis; but lapses in observation have been observed. What is expected of the nursing staff with regard to a higher level of supervision still needs to be clarified.
As was previously noted, for inmates who have undergone a mental health assessment of suicide potential and found not to be acutely suicidal, there is a ‘safety plan’ that is developed by the evaluating QMHP and the inmate that is signed by both, and then the QMHP follows the inmate to assure adherence to the ‘safety plan’. When an inmate is released from a suicide watch, there is also an established protocol for follow-up that is well structured and closely followed.
Special mental health observation, for acutely mentally ill prisoners, is also described in the ‘suicide prevention’ policy, with a level of monitoring that is to be prescribed by mental health. In the implementation of this policy it remains important for mental health staff to make it clear that an inmate could be on ‘suicide watch’ and/or ‘special mental health observation’, and if an inmate is on both types of watch, each watch may have different requirements for monitoring and different end points.
Regarding 42 (i) video surveillance capabilities have not changed since the last site visit. At the RDC cameras in the corridors and housing units are recorded, so incidents can be reviewed after the fact. At the WC live action cameras allow visual coverage of the hallways and housing units, but they are not recorded, so there is no way that incidents can be reviewed after the fact. At the JDC, there are cameras that cover and record the hallways and the drive through sally port/transfer waiting area, but nothing inside the housing units. In almost every previous Monitoring Report it has been suggested that action be taken to provide full recording capability for all housing and operational areas of each facility. To date nothing has been done, nor has a plan even been submitted. Corrective action is long overdue. The County should immediately obtain the services of a qualified audio/visual provider.
In the 7th Monitoring Report it was recommended that both the IAD Investigator and the CID Investigator be granted access to the video recording system so that they can quickly obtain copies of incidents that they have to investigate. Currently, they must go through a bureaucratic and time-consuming process to obtain access. To date, nothing has been done to rectify the situation. This roadblock to conducting investigations can be easily rectified. Action should be taken promptly.
43. Include outcome measures as part of the Jail’s internal data collection, management, and administrative reporting process. The occurrence of any of the following specific outcome measures creates a rebuttable presumption in this case that the Jail fails to provide reasonably safe conditions for prisoners:
a. Staff vacancy rate of more than 10% of budgeted positions;
26

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 27 of 104
b. A voluntary staff turnover rate that results in the failure to staff critical posts (such as the housing units, booking, and classification) or the failure to maintain experienced supervisors on all shifts;
c. A major disturbance resulting in the takeover of any housing area by prisoners; d. Staffing where fewer than 90% of all detention officers have completed basic
jailer training; e. Three or more use of force or prisoner-on-prisoner incidents in a fiscal year in
which a prisoner suffers a serious injury, but for which staff members fail to complete all documentation required by this Agreement, including supervision recommendations and findings; f. One prisoner death within a fiscal year, where there is no documented administrative review by the Jail Administrator or no documented mortality review by a physician not directly involved in the clinical treatment of the deceased prisoner (e.g. corporate medical director or outside, contract physician, when facility medical director may have a personal conflict); g. One death within a fiscal year, where the death was a result of prisoner-onprisoner violence and there was a violation of Jail supervision, housing assignment, or classification procedures.
Non-Compliant As has been previously reported, the DSD still does not create a report covering each of these areas. Data must be obtained by making specific requests for current information. At the time of the May site visit, a total of 229 positions were filled out of 275 authorized. The average number of filled positions over the past year and a half was still at approximately 17% for funded positions and 47% for required (433) positions. Excessive turnover of staff continues to be a problem, particularly at the RDC where none of the housing units are staffed, leaving inmates unattended and unsupervised.
On April 19, 2019, a major riot occurred at the RDC. (Incident Report # 1900748) During a storm, all power to the facility was lost. At that time the emergency generator kicked on and, for a while, operations continued as usual until the generator shut down several hours later. Apparently, no one had tracked of the fuel level in the emergency generator tank and it ran out of gas. At that time, with absolutely no lighting in the facility except for hand held flashlights, the inmates in Pod A broke out of Housing Units 1, 2 and 3. The inmates in HU 4 refused to come out, possibly because an inmate in their unit had been stabbed eight times earlier in the day. Over 100 inmates did their best to break into the control room by pulling open the door and by going up into the ceiling. Fortunately, neither effort succeeded, but the officers in the control room had to physically hold the sliding door shut because the locking mechanism could be overridden manually. When command staff and backup arrived to assist, they were unable to open the main entrance to the facility with keys because the locks require electricity to function.
27

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 28 of 104
This critical design flaw must be rectified immediately. During the May site visit the Corrections Operations member of the monitoring team asked for a copy of the After Action Report regarding this serious incident. None had been prepared, however, command staff immediately set to work and a comprehensive After Action Report, involving appropriate personnel, was provided to the Monitor.
As was previously reported, an inmate at the RDC was murdered in HU B3 on December 6, 2018. The victim was arrested for a murder, then was placed in HU B3, where he was killed in retaliation for that murder. To date there has been no Administrative Review or Mortality Review conducted. In fact, it has been difficult to determine the status of the CID investigation of the incident since the investigator was subsequently reassigned to Patrol duties and her replacement was not given responsibility for handling the investigation. During the May site visit a telephone conversation with the previous investigator revealed that several inmates have been charged and bound over for trial, but the investigation is ongoing.
44. To complement, but not replace, “direct supervision,” develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that detention officers are conducting rounds as appropriate. To that end:
a. Rounds must be conducted at least once every 30 minutes in general population housing units and at least once every 15 minutes for special management prisoners (including prisoners housed in booking cells).
b. All security rounds must be conducted at irregular intervals to reduce their predictability and must be documented on forms or logs.
c. Officers must only be permitted to enter data on these forms or logs at the time a round is completed. Forms and logs must not include pre-printed dates or times. Officers must not be permitted to fill out forms and logs before they actually conduct their rounds.
d. The parties anticipate that “rounds” will not necessarily be conducted as otherwise described in this provision when the Jail is operated as a “direct supervision” facility. This is because a detention officer will have constant, active supervision of all prisoners in the detention officer’s charge. As detailed immediately below, however, even under a “direct supervision” model, the Jail must have a system in place to document and ensure that staff are providing adequate supervision.
e. Jail policies, procedures, and practices may utilize more than one means to document and ensure that staff are supervising prisoners as required by “direct supervision,” including the use and audit of supervisor inspection reports, visitation records, mealtime records, inmate worker sheets, medical treatment files, sick call logs, canteen delivery records, and recreation logs. Any system adopted to ensure that detention officers are providing “direct supervision” must
28

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 29 of 104
be sufficiently detailed and in writing to allow verification by outside reviewers, including the United States and Monitor.
Partial Compliance There has been no progress made with regard to the provisions of this paragraph since the last Monitoring Report. None of the facilities meet the requirement that well-being checks must be conducted every 30 minutes in general population and every 15 minutes in segregation (confinement). This provision is carried as Partial Compliance because well-being checks are being made and documented, where previously they had not been. However, as described below, they are not consistent with the requirements of this paragraph and, as a result, present substantial risk of injury.
At all three facilities well-being checks are conducted sporadically, although records at the JDC are the most consistent. Unfortunately, even there, significant discrepancies were noted during the May site visit. The suicide watch log on midnight shift showed gaps of one and one half to two hours instead of 15 minute notations. General population checks were routinely current at hourly intervals.
At the WC, hourly well-being checks were recorded appropriately in HU-1 and HU-2, but in HH-3 and HU-4 nothing was recorded on the day shift. In the Segregation/Special Housing units, individual 30 minute logs were current and were located on the wall next to each cell. This practice should be followed throughout the Jail System.
At the RDC, hourly well-being checks were generally entered in the unit logbooks, as required, on the evening and midnight shifts, but less frequently during the day shift when there is more activity. The maintenance of such logs in the specialty ISO units was totally unsatisfactory. In B4 ISO (Suicide Watch) an officer is supposed to be in attendance constantly. On one day of the May site inspection, the unit was unattended. On another the officer in the unit was unaware of his responsibilities and duties. The door to the unit was not secured. The officer did not know which cell the inmate was to use for toilet facilities. The officer’s 15 minute entry log had times entered for an hour and a half in advance! The officer also had the log books for B1, B3 and B4 on his lap and was filling them out even though he was not assigned to those units. When questioned, he said that he sometimes left the ISO unit. This unconscionable violation of procedure is due to a number of factors including the lack of a Policies and Procedures Manual/Post Orders, incompetent supervision and a critical shortage of staff. In HU B4 (Segregation/Confinement), where well-being checks are supposed to be conducted every 30 minutes, some entries were made on time, some were made hourly and some were not made at all over a period of several hours. The officers assigned to this unit took it upon themselves to split up responsibility for log entries (upper and lower levels) rather than have one person accountable. Consequently, nothing was done properly. Lack of supervision is, once again, a
29

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 30 of 104
contributing factor. While supervisors are present within the facility, it does not appear that they hold their staff accountable to reasonable standards.
In Booking, for the first time in the past three site visits, the correct 15 minute well-being log was being used to monitor inmates in the holding cells. Unfortunately, this improvement was offset by the fact that the Corrections Operations member of the monitoring team was able to walk directly into the Master Control Center (MCC) because the entry door was propped open. This is the second time that this has occurred during site visits. It points out several problems.
• Staff, including supervisors, do not have a grasp of, and proper concern for, basic security measures required to operate a jail.
• The facility was poorly designed. A control room should have a safety vestibule (two interlocking doors) rather than a single door to gain entry.
• The addition of electronic equipment in the MCC generates heat, which overloads the AC system in that room.
It is imperative that staff be properly trained, supervisors perform their duties and physical plant upgrades be implemented as soon as possible.
45. Ensure that all correctional officers receive adequate pre- and post-service training to provide for reasonably safe conditions in the Jail. To that end, the County must ensure that the Jail employs Qualified Training Officers, who must help to develop and implement a formal, written training program. The program must include the following:
a. Mandatory pre-service training. Detention officers must receive State jailer training and certification prior to start of work. Staff who have not received such training by the Effective Date of this Agreement must complete their State jailer training within twelve months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. During that twelve month period, the County must develop an in-house detention training academy.
b. Post Order training. Detention officers must receive specific training on unitspecific post orders before starting work on a unit, and every year thereafter. To document such training, officers must be required to sign an acknowledgement that they have received such training, but only after an officer is first assigned to a unit, after a Post Order is updated, and after completion of annual retraining.
c. “Direct supervision” training. Detention officers must receive specific pre- and post service training on “direct supervision.” Such training must include instruction on how to supervise prisoners in a “direct supervision” facility, including instruction in effective communication skills and verbal de-escalation. Supervisors must receive training on how to monitor and ensure that staff are providing effective “direct supervision.”
d. Jail administrator training. High-level Jail supervisors (i.e., supervisors with facility-wide management responsibilities), including the Jail Administrator and
30

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 31 of 104
his or her immediate deputies (wardens), must receive jail administrator training prior to the start of their employment. High-level supervisors already employed at the Jail when this Agreement is executed must complete such training within six months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Training comparable to the Jail Administration curriculum offered by the National Institute of Corrections will meet the requirements of this provision. e. Post-service training. Detention officers must receive at least 120 hours per year of post-service training in their first year of employment and 40 hours per year after their first year. Such training must include refresher training on Jail policies. The training may be provided during roll call, staff meetings, and post-assignment meetings. Post-service training should also include field and scenario-based training. f. Training for Critical Posts. Jail management must work with the training department to develop a training syllabus and minimum additional training requirements for any officer serving in a critical position. Such additional training must be provided for any officer working on a tactical team; in a special management, medical or mental health unit; in a maximum security unit; or in booking and release. g. Special management unit training. Officers assigned to special management units must receive at least eight hours of specialized training each year regarding supervision of such units and related prisoner safety, medical, mental health, and security policies. h. Training on all Jail policies and procedures including those regarding prisoner rights and the prevention of staff abuse and misconduct.
Non-Compliant Subsequent to the January site visit the HCSO promoted a well qualified candidate into the Training Division’s vacant Lieutenant position. His strong background in corrections at the local, state and national level make him ideally suited to take on the training responsibilities for DSD personnel. The Training Director (Captain) provided a synopsis of training completed as follows.
• Mandatory Pre-Service Training—228 out of 229 • Post Order Training—None. Post Orders have not yet been submitted and approved. • Direct Supervision Training—Executive Training was conducted in March 2019, by the
National Institute of Corrections. A follow up Train the Trainers session is scheduled for July. • Jail Administrator Training—Incomplete. • In-Service Training—200 of 229 officers attended In-Service Training in 2018.
31

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 32 of 104
• Training for Critical Posts—Less than Lethal and Use of Force training was provided for the Corrections Emergency Response Team members. In-service training was provided for Booking and Classification personnel.
• Special Management Unit Training—None to date with the exception of an eight hour segment on Mental Health and First Aid for Public Safety.
• Policies and Procedures (to include prisoner rights and the prevention of staff abuse and misconduct)—Training will be conducted once policies and procedures are approved and issued.
Regarding 45 (f) although all security staff undergo some mental health training on the identification and management of prisoners with mental health issues, there is no apparent effort to assess the resultant mental health knowledge base and/or skills that security staff persons have developed as a result of these trainings. Furthermore, in the absence of security policies and procedures that would include mental health elements, it is reasonable to assume that security staff persons have not received training related to when and how security issues and mental health issues intersect with each other.
Although at present, there is no actual mental health unit (i.e., a unit where there is a program consisting of therapeutic interventions for detainees who are suffering from mental illness or intellectual disabilities, provided in a therapeutic environment), one of the facility’s units has been designated as a unit where prisoners suffering from serious mental illness are placed, and several other detainees with serious mental illness are placed in ‘protective custody’/segregation. Of course, the other post where security staff persons come into regular contact with prisoners who are suffering from mental illness or intellectual disabilities is the mental health section of the medical department. There is no extra or special training offered to security staff who may be placed on any of these posts where there is an increased likelihood of having to work with mentally ill and/or intellectually disabled inmates. Offering special or extra training to these security officers would be enormously helpful to them now and be a step towards the development of a specially trained sub-set of security officers who would be prepared to staff an actual mental health unit should such a unit be developed.
There appear to be far fewer referrals to mental health by security staff than is seen in comparable facilities. Although it is not clear why this is the case, the possibility that security staff do not have the knowledge base and skills required to suspect that an inmate might be suffering from mental illness has been one of the possible alternative explanations. If this is the case, it means that prisoners who are in need of mental health services who were not identified during intake and/or who have deteriorated while detained are not being identified by security staff and referred for services. In addition, it means that security staff may not be adequately considering mental health issues when filing disciplinary charges, placing prisoners in segregation, making decisions about using force, etc.
32

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 33 of 104
During the previous monitoring period leading up to the January 2019 site visit, there was an event that occurred that, among other things, further raised the possibility that security staff were not sufficiently trained in mental health issues to suspect that a prisoner might be suffering from mental health difficulties and then refer the prisoner for a mental health assessment. Now, during this most recent monitoring period leading up the May 2019 site visit there was yet another incident that, among other things, raised the same possibility again. With regard to this most recent incident, there was a blackout in the facility, during which time there was a “riot”; numerous prisoners were distressed by this event; and although none of those distressed prisoners were referred to mental health by security staff, many of those prisoners self-referred to mental health. Furthermore, as with the prior incident, no one from security contacted mental health for a consultation on whether or not there should be any mental health-related intervention for the population of prisoners who were exposed to the incident and/or the security staff who were exposed to the incident.
46. Develop and implement policies and procedures for adequate supervisory oversight for the Jail. To that end, the County must:
a. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the authority to make personnel decisions necessary to ensure adequate staffing, staff discipline, and staff oversight. This personnel authority must include the power to hire, transfer, and discipline staff. Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) allocated for budget purposes represent a salaried slot and are not a restriction on personnel assignment authority. While the Sheriff may retain final authority for personnel decisions, the Jail’s policies and procedures must document and clearly identify who is responsible for a personnel decision, what administrative procedures apply, and the basis for personnel decisions.
b. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the ability to monitor, ensure compliance with Jail policies, and take corrective action, for any staff members operating in the Jail, including any who are not already reporting to the Jail Administrator and the Jail’s chain of command. This provision covers road deputies assigned to supervise housing units and emergency response/tactical teams entering the Jail to conduct random shakedowns or to suppress prisoner disturbances.
c. Ensure that supervisors conduct daily rounds on each shift in the prisoner housing units, and document the results of their rounds.
d. Ensure that staff conduct daily inspections of all housing and common areas to identify damage to the physical plant, safety violations, and sanitation issues. This maintenance program must include the following elements: i. Facility safety inspections that include identification of damaged doors, locks, cameras, and safety equipment. ii. An inspection process.
33

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 34 of 104
iii. A schedule for the routine inspection, repair, and replacement of the physical plant, including security and safety equipment.
iv. A requirement that any corrective action ordered be taken. v. Identification of high priority repairs to assist Jail and County officials
with allocating staff and resources. vi. To ensure prompt corrective action, a mechanism for identifying and
notifying responsible staff and supervisors when there are significant delays with repairs or a pattern of problems with equipment. Staff response to physical plant, safety, and sanitation problems must be reasonable and prompt.
Non-Compliant Without an approved Policies and Procedures Manual the HCSO is unable to comply with this provision of the Settlement Agreement. Priority must be given to the development of comprehensive policies and procedures as well as post orders.
As was noted in paragraph 38, above, the Sheriff issued Special Order 2019-054, effective March 29, 2019, that designated “…Major Mary Rushing as his designee to execute all duties and responsibilities relating to Detention Services…”. Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, this authority includes the power to hire, transfer and discipline staff. Consequently, it should not be necessary for the Sheriff to issue an order prohibiting outside agencies and HCSO law enforcement officers from conducting shakedowns of housing units in the DSCD as had been recommended in the previous three Monitoring Reports. The Jail Administrator now has authority to control and manage such situations. The monitoring team will continue to track whether the Jail Administrator does indeed have the authority indicated by the Sheriff’s Special Order and that there is a mutual understanding that outside agencies cannot conduct shakedowns without direction from the Jail Administrator.
The lack of policies and procedures as well as post orders severely hampers the ability of supervisors to perform their duties effectively. That end result is inconsistency in the application of rules, regulations and procedures. Supervisors are not held accountable for the actions of their subordinates. In essence, supervisors do not “supervise”, they merely “sign off” on documents, activities and actions. It is imperative that they be required to make decisions and recommendations with regard to incidents and activities that occur within their respective areas of responsibility.
While daily rounds and inspections may be conducted by supervisors, they are not documented. The only entry made in the unit logs is that a supervisor entered the pod or unit. Supervisors do not document maintenance issues, possibly because they are so prevalent, particularly at the RDC. Nevertheless, maintenance issues should be documented in the unit logs.
34

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 35 of 104
During the September 2018, site visit reference was made to the Maintenance Report prepared by Mr. Bell, the Maintenance Director for the County. It was anticipated that copies of this spreadsheet would be made available to each captain so that they could track the status of requested maintenance projects. During the January site visit it was determined that no action had been taken. The facility captains and Jail Administrator did not receive copies of the Maintenance Report. Incredibly, during the May site visit, DSD command staff were still not in receipt of this report. The lack of communication and cooperation between County Maintenance staff and DSD command staff is unacceptable. It should not take eight months for two entities to exchange information on a routine basis (to their mutual benefit), even after having such a system proposed and explained by the monitoring team. It is imperative that the HCSO and County begin to communicate appropriately to ensure that maintenance projects are accomplished on a timely basis.
The January site visit revealed that a basic operational security measure at the RDC was not being followed. Each pod had only one set of keys, which had to be shared by the assigned officers. It was recommended that a complete set of keys be issued to each officer, a basic standard in any jail. Four months later (the May site visit) that simple action had not been taken. This is another indication of the lack of coordination between the HCSO and County. There is no reason why such a simple measure (duplication of sets of keys) could not be accomplished in that time. This is a serious safety hazard as the officer outside the control room may observe an assault occurring in the housing unit but has to run get the keys before being able to enter the unit. By then, serious injury could occur.
Incident Reports #’s 1900713 and 1900758 reflect the serious maintenance problems at the RDC that make it possible for inmates to break out of their cells, break out of their housing units and even to enter a pod control room. In the first incident an inmate was able to manually open the sliding security doors to HU’s A2, A3 and A4 before backup arrived and he was restrained. In the second incident “multiple inmates” broke out of HU A3, held the door to HU A4 shut to keep officers in that unit from assisting, then entered the pod control room and removed a contraband backpack (that had been recovered from HU A4 earlier) and returned to HU A3.
One significant sign of improvement with regard to maintenance occurred subsequent to the riot of April 19, 2019. The County brought in CML Security from San Antonio, TX to repair security doors in Pod A. The work that they did to convert eight control room and unit entry doors from a sliding to swinging door configuration represents the first professional security work that has been performed on the RDC in recent years. The County would be well served to develop a long-term working relationship with a firm that is expert in the field of corrections.
35

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 36 of 104
At the WC the County needs to retrofit a safety vestibule for each of the four housing units. In the interim, stopgap repairs were made on the entry doors to HU 1 and 3, but they are still not secure. The County should have CML upgrade the doors consistent with the work that they did at the RDC. Finally, the alarm and camera enhancements for the fire exit doors in each WC housing unit have yet to be addressed. This work must be accomplished before the WC converts to a true Direct Supervision operation. This would also result in staff savings allowing staff to be reassigned to critically understaffed areas.
As has been pointed out in virtually every previous Monitoring Report, fire safety issues at the RDC are critical. When the officers were pulled out of the housing units years ago, the inmates were left free to vandalize the facility. Consequently, fire hoses and fire extinguishers were removed. During the riot 7 years ago that destroyed Pod C, inmates broke sprinkler system pipes and flooded the jail. As a result, the entire sprinkler system was removed. To date, none of these fire suppression systems have been replaced. Further, officers assigned to work in the control rooms in each pod are unable to answer the most basic questions regarding what is to be done in the event of a fire. Some have no idea whether or not fire hoses are in place in the staff corridor or if backup hoses are located inside the control rooms.
Of particular concern is the fact that the DSD’s Fire Safety Officer was transferred to another area of the HCSO without replacement. Although he has indicated that he still conducts fire inspections and fire drills and there was documentation of fire drills at RDC for December, January and February, the Jail System has been left in a precarious position. The Jail Administrator should designate a replacement immediately. Further, a review of the State Fire Marshall’s most recent report of the DSD facilities calls into question the value and validity of his inspections. No correctional facility should be permitted to operate under the conditions currently found at the RDC.
On a positive note, the Sheriff’s Office has created and staffed a position titled Chief Safety and Security Officer who is responsible for operating as a liaison between the County and the Sheriff’s Office on maintenance matters, prioritizing DSD’s maintenance needs, structuring a preventative maintenance plan, and working with command staff at each facility to develop oversight protocols for emergency procedures and custodial services. This officer is maintaining a spreadsheet of pending workorders that should assist in tracking and addressing outstanding maintenance issues.
47. Ensure that staff members conduct random shakedowns of cells and common areas so that prisoners do not possess or have access to dangerous contraband. Such shakedowns must be conducted in each housing unit at least once per month, on an irregular schedule to make them less predictable to prisoners and staff.
36

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 37 of 104
Non-Compliant There has been no appreciable change with regard to this paragraph since the last site visit. The change of Assistant Jail Administrators has resulted in less reliance on the CERT team to react to incidents; however, documentation regarding shakedowns has not improved. Inmates still break out of the RDC simply so that they can pick up contraband and return it to their housing units. Incident Report #1900908, dated May 12, 2019, is a typical example. Two inmates broke a hole in the wall of their cell, exited the RDC through the roof, then returned shortly thereafter. Incident Report #1900882 documented how the door hinges to a pipe chase in the RDC HU A2 were found cut. After a search was conducted, unspecified contraband was found and removed. The names of the officers involved in the search were carefully documented and attested to by the supervisor, but there was no indication as to what contraband items were found, simply that they were “…removed and taken to Property.”
48. Install cell phone jammers or other electronic equipment to detect, suppress, and deter unauthorized communications from prisoners in the Jail. Installation must be completed within two years after the Effective Date.
Non-Compliant There has been no action taken to deal with this issue since the beginning of the monitoring process. More than two years have passed since the effective date of the Settlement Agreement.
49. Develop and implement a gang program in consultation with qualified experts in the field that addresses any link between gang activity in the community and the Jail through appropriate provisions for education, family or community involvement, and violence prevention.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph for more than a year. An officer was assigned to work on this issue, but there is no documentation of a program that meets the requirement of this paragraph. Gang activities cannot be monitored or managed at the RDC because the housing units are not staffed.
USE OF FORCE STANDARDS
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to prevent excessive force by staff and ensure force is used safely and only in a manner commensurate with the behavior justifying it. To that end, the County must:
50. Develop and implement policies and procedures to regulate the use of force. The policies and procedures must:
37

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 38 of 104
a. Prohibit the use of force as a response to verbal insults or prisoner threats where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff or visitors;
b. Prohibit the use of force as a response to prisoners’ failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff, visitors, or property;
c. Prohibit the use of force against a prisoner after the prisoner has ceased to resist and is under control;
d. Prohibit the use of force as punishment or retaliation; e. Limit the level of force used so that it is commensurate with the justification for
use of force; and f. Limit use of force in favor of less violent methods when such methods are more
appropriate, effective, or less likely to result in the escalation of an incident.
Non-Compliant Although the Use of Force Policy has not yet been approved and adopted, it was been submitted to the DOJ and Monitor for review and comments were provided to the HCSO policy committee. Once it is adopted the HCSO should provide staff training even before the rest of the Policies and Procedures Manual is issued.
The pervasiveness of improper and excessive force practices, documented in the Seventh Monitoring Report, has been somewhat rectified since January 2019. Most Use of Force incidents since that time have been appropriate including the use of OC foam. Whereas, in the past it was used in a coercive manner to force inmates to follow directives, now documentation reflects the use of OC as a defensive measure to prevent an officer from being injured by an attacking inmate or to break up a fight among uncontrollable inmates. Incident Report #1900928 is an example of the latter. Staff at the RDC, HU B4 attempted to break up a fight between multiple inmates. When they refused to comply with orders to cease, OC was deployed. Subsequently, an eight-inch shank was confiscated from one of the inmates.
51. Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure timely notification, documentation, and communication with supervisors and medical staff (including mental health staff) prior to use of force and after any use of force. These policies and procedures must specifically include the following requirements:
a. Staff members must obtain prior supervisory approval before the use of weapons (e.g., electronic control devices or chemical sprays) and mechanical restraints unless responding to an immediate threat to a person’s safety.
b. If a prisoner has a serious medical condition or other circumstances exist that may increase the risk of death or serious injury from the use of force, the type of force
38

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 39 of 104
that may be used on the prisoner must be restricted to comply with this provision. These restrictions include the following:
i. The use of chemical sprays, physical restraints, and electronic control devices must not be used when a prisoner may be at risk of positional asphyxia.
ii. Electronic control devices must not be used on prisoners when they are in a location where they may suffer serious injury after losing voluntary muscle control (e.g., prisoner is standing atop a stairwell, wall, or other elevated location).
iii. Physical strikes, holds, or other uses of force or restraints may not be used if the technique is not approved for use in the Jail or the staff member has not been trained on the proper use of the technique.
c. Staff members must conduct health and welfare checks every 15 minutes while a prisoner is in restraints. At minimum, these checks must include (i) logged firstperson observations of a prisoner’s status while in restraints (e.g. check for blood flow, respiration, heart beat), and (ii) documented breaks to meet the sanitary and health needs of prisoners placed in emergency restraints (e.g., restroom breaks and breaks to prevent cramping or circulation problems).
d. The County must ensure that clinical staff conduct medical and mental health assessments immediately after a prisoner is subjected to any Level 1 use of force. Prisoners identified as requiring medical or mental health care during the assessment must receive such treatment.
e. A first-line supervisor must personally supervise all planned uses of force, such as cell extractions.
f. Security staff members must consult with medical and mental health staff before all planned uses of force on juveniles or prisoners with serious mental illness, so that medical and mental health staff may offer alternatives to or limitations on the use of force, such as assisting with de-escalation or obtaining the prisoner’s voluntary cooperation.
g. The Jail must have inventory and weapon controls to establish staff member responsibility for their use of weapons or other security devices in the facility. Such controls must include: i. a sign-out process for staff members to carry any type of weapon inside the Jail, ii. a prohibition on staff carrying any weapons except those in the Jail’s tracked inventory, and iii. random checks to determine if weapons have been discharged without report of discharge (e.g., by checking the internal memory of electronic control devices and weighing pepper spray canisters).
39

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 40 of 104
h. A staff member must electronically record (both video and sound) all planned uses of force with equipment provided by the Jail.
i. All staff members using force must immediately notify their supervisor. j. All staff members using a Level 1 use of force must also immediately notify the
shift commander after such use of force, or becoming aware of an allegation of such use by another staff member.
Non-Compliant This section is carried as Non-Compliant because there are no policies and procedures in place. To date there are no approved policies and procedures regarding use of force in place, although a draft Use of Force Policy is under review. There have been no recorded instances of staff obtaining supervisory approval prior to using weapons or chemical restraints with the exception of the riot on April 19, 2019. In that circumstance the Assistant Jail Administrator was on site as the leader of the response team. His use of the pepper ball gun would be questionable under other circumstances, but can be understood considering the seriousness of the situation. Incident Report #1900748 provides a detailed synopsis. OC, physical restraints and electronic control devices (Taser) have not been used when a prisoner was at risk of appositional asphyxia.
There are no records of inmates being held in restraints while in the Jail System. The DSD does not use the restraint chair as a means of controlling violent inmates and there are no incident reports covering instances of an inmate being restrained to his/her bunk. As a matter of practice, inmates who have been involved in use of force incidents are taken to Medical for examination and treatment.
There were no reported planned uses of force incidents during the previous four months. However, as noted below the reporting to the monitors has been very deficient during this time period. If in fact there were no planned uses of force, then it follows that no incidents were electronically recorded and there was no need for coordination with medical staff beforehand. Although mental health staff were not consulted prior to past planned uses of force prior to this reporting period, there is no documentation directing a change of this practice. Based on a review of incident reports, it does appear that supervisors are notified when a staff member is involved in a use of force incident.
As was previously reported, the DSD does not have hand held video cameras available in any of its facilities so that planned use of force incidents can be recorded as required by the Settlement Agreement. They should be purchased and made available to DSD supervisors.
There is no evidence that medical or mental health staff are routinely asked to assess prisoners who have been subjected to level 1 use of force. It appears that a request for a medical assessment only occurs in instances where the prisoner is obviously injured.
40

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 41 of 104
There is no evidence that either medical or mental health staff is being consulted prior to a planned use of force on prisoners with serious medical and/or mental health issues.
USE OF FORCE TRAINING
52. The County must develop and implement a use of force training program. Every staff member who supervises prisoners must receive at least 8 hours of pre-service use of force training and annual use of force refresher training.
Partial Compliance While there are still no approved policies regarding the use of force, pre-service training for 228 of 229 officers has been completed. Further, a total of 200 or 229 officers completed in service training. Both training programs include a section on use of force. As was noted in the Seventh Monitoring Report, the training provided was law enforcement based and did not specifically prohibit the use of OC and Tasers to coerce inmates to comply with verbal commands. Those two items are defensive tools, which should not be used in a coercive manner. The Training Director has since modified the UOF training curriculum to correct the previous deficiencies. The positive results of that change are already apparent, as validated by the most recent UOF incident reports.
The Sheriff’s Office has added a person from the DSD to the Training Division. This individual appears to have detention experience and should assist in ensuring that the training is focused on practices appropriate for detention services.
53. Topics covered by use of force training must include: a. Instruction on what constitutes excessive force; b. De-escalation tactics; c. Methods of managing prisoners with mental illness to avoid the use of force; d. Defensive tactics; e. All Jail use of force policies and procedures, including those related to documentation and review of use of force.
Partial Compliance The use of force training does include a continuum of appropriate force responses to escalating situations, de-escalation tactics and defensive tactics, but it does not specifically deal with managing prisoners with mental illness, nor are there any approved use of force policies and procedures in place yet.
54. The County must randomly test at least 5 percent of Jail Staff members annually to determine whether they have a meaningful, working knowledge of all use of force policies and procedures.
41

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 42 of 104
The County must also evaluate the results to determine if any changes to Jail policies and procedures may be necessary and take corrective action. The results and recommendations of such evaluations must be provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant This paragraph cannot be addressed until policies and procedures on the use of force have been approved and published and staff have been appropriately trained.
55. The County must update any use of force training within 30 days after any revision to a use of force policy or procedure.
Non-Compliant Use of force training cannot be updated until the policies and procedures on the use of force have been approved, published and implemented.
USE OF FORCE REPORTING
To prevent and remedy the unconstitutional use of force, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting use of force. To that end, the County must:
56. Develop and implement use of force reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information to analyze and respond appropriately to use of force.
Non-Compliant There has been no change with regard to the status of this paragraph. It cannot be addressed until appropriate use of force reporting policies and procedures have been approved, published and implemented. Although reports generated through the current JMS system do not provide the level of detail that the Settlement Agreement calls for, the HCSO Information Technology (IT) Unit is in the process of making significant changes that will allow supervisors, commanders and the monitoring team to track compliance. Hopefully, this will occur in short order.
57. Require each staff member who used or observed a use of force to complete a Use of Force Report as promptly as possible, and no later than by the end of that staff member’s shift. Staff members must accurately complete all fields on a Use of Force Report. The failure to report any use of force must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination. Similarly, supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
42

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 43 of 104
Non-Compliant It is not possible for the monitoring team to know when a report was written because the reports include only the date/time of the incident, not when the report was generated. The same shortcoming applies to the date/time of supervisory review. The inadequacies of the JMS system are being addressed as noted in paragraph 56 (above). Incident Report #1900673, dated April 8, 2019, is an example of a report that reflects the inadequacies of the current system. An officer observed several inmates in Pod A, HU 4 at the RDC get into a fight. He called for assistance. Fully a half hour later, after sufficient backup officers arrived, they entered the unit and restrained the inmates. There was no explanation regarding the use of force. The reporting officer noted that he left his post in the control room (leaving it unattended) in order to initially respond to the incident. The supervisor who signed off on the report made no comments or recommendations.
58. Ensure that Jail use of force reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, use of force reports must document the following information:
a. A unique tracking number for each use of force; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. A description of the events leading to the use of force, including what precipitated
or appeared to precipitate those events. f. A description of the level of resistance, staff response, and the type and level of
force (including frequency and duration of use). For instance, use of force reports must describe the number of discharges from electronic control devices and chemical munitions canisters; the amount of discharge from chemical munitions canisters; whether the Staff Member threatened to use the device or actually discharged the device; the type of physical hold or strike used; and the length of time a prisoner was restrained, and whether the prisoner was released from restraints for any period during that time; g. A description of the staff member’s attempts to de-escalate the situation without use of force; h. A description of whether the staff member notified supervisors or other personnel, including medical or mental health staff, before or after the use of force; i. A description of any observed injuries to staff or prisoners; j. Whether medical care was required or provided to staff or prisoners; k. Reference to any associated incident report or prisoner disciplinary report completed by the reporting officer, which pertains to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force;
43

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 44 of 104
l. A signature of the staff member completing the report attesting to the report’s accuracy and completeness.
Partial Compliance There has been no change with regard to use of force reports since the last site visit although changes to the reporting system are being programed by IT. The JMS incident report/use of force format does not directly follow the sub-sections of this paragraph; therefore, incident reports do not reflect all of the information that is specified. While there is a unique tracking number, and the names of staff members, and sometimes those of involved inmates, are included, witnesses are seldom listed. A cell location is almost always noted (although the facility is not), but not its classification. Generally, the narrative includes the steps taken by an officer to manage the situation prior to the use of force, what methods were used to apply force and whether or not medical attention was required and provided. However, many reports do not provide all of the specified information. A change in procedure has resulted in an officer’s signature being placed on a copy of the report, but there is no indication of approval, disapproval or recommended action.
Incident report 1900673, dated April 8, 2019, reflects many of the problems that are found in DSD use of force reports. Officer XYZ was working in the control room in Pod A. The facility was not identified. The officer indicated that he heard several inmates arguing in HU A4, so he left the control room and went to the “cage” (safety vestibule leading into the unit) and observed a fight break out between two inmates. By doing so he left the control room unattended. He called for backup, and when other officers arrived, they entered the unit. By that time the fight had escalated and involved multiple inmates, so the officers withdrew and waited for more backup. When additional officers arrived, they entered the unit again and “restrained” one inmate who was “escorted to Medical.” Supervisory staff up to the rank of Major were notified. The report was signed by the originating officer, as well as by a Sergeant. Although force was used when an inmate was “restrained” there was no mention of UOF, there was no indication as to what medical treatment was necessary or provided, none of the other officers involved wrote supplements and there were no interviews of inmate witnesses. The Sergeant who signed the report made no recommendation or finding, he merely signed the document.
USE OF FORCE SUPERVISOR REVIEWS
59. The County must ensure that Jail supervisors review, analyze, and respond appropriately to use of force. At minimum:
a. A supervisor must review all use of force reports submitted during the supervisor’s watch by the end of the supervisor’s watch.
b. A supervisor must ensure that staff members complete their use of force reports by the end of their watch.
44

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 45 of 104
c. Reviewing supervisors must document their findings as to the completeness of each staff member’s use of force report, and must also document any procedural errors made by staff in completing their reports.
d. If a Use of Force report is incomplete, reviewing supervisors must require Staff Members to provide any required information on a revised use of force report, and the Jail must maintain both the original and any revised report in its records.
e. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing use of force reports must document their use of force review as described in Paragraph 62 sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted.
f. All Level 1 uses of force must be sent to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD.
g. A Level 2 use of force must be referred to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD if a reviewing supervisor concludes that there may have been a violation of law or policy. Level 2 uses of force may also be referred to IAD if the County requires such reporting as a matter of Jail policy and procedure, or at the discretion of any reviewing supervisor.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the Seventh Monitoring Report. Compliance is not possible until the Policies and Procedures Manual is approved and published. Based on the current JMS system there is no way to determine whether or not supervisors review use of force reports by the end of their watch; nor is it possible to determine whether or not they comply with the other sub-sections of this paragraph. Supervisors do not indicate whether or not they approve or disapprove of the actions taken by officers; they also do not make recommendations for corrective action. Use of force reports are forwarded to the CID Investigator for follow up. Duplicate copies are provided to the IAD Investigator. Incident Report #1900673, referenced in paragraph 58 (above), is indicative of the lack of supervisory follow up in that there is no indication of supervisory corrective action or recommendation.
60. After any Level 1 use of force, responding supervisors will promptly go to the scene and take the following actions:
a. Ensure the safety of everyone involved in or proximate to the incident. Determine if anyone is injured and ensure that necessary medical care is or has been provided.
b. Ensure that photos are taken of all injuries sustained, or as evidence that no injuries were sustained, by prisoners and staff involved in a use of force incident. Photos must be taken no later than two hours after a use of force. Prisoners may refuse to consent to photos, in which case they should be asked to sign a waiver indicating that they have refused consent. If they refuse to sign a waiver, the shift commander must document that consent was requested and refused.
45

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 46 of 104
c. Ensure that staff members and witnesses are identified, separated, and advised that communications with other staff members or witnesses regarding the incident are prohibited.
d. Ensure that victim, staff, and witness statements are taken confidentially by reviewing supervisors or investigators, outside of the presence of other prisoners or involved staff.
e. Document whether the use of force was recorded. If the use of force was not recorded, the responding supervisors must review and explain why the event was not recorded. If the use of force was recorded, the responding supervisors must ensure that any record is preserved for review.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph for the past four site visits. The specified actions are not routinely followed by supervisors. A review of use of force reports revealed that photographs are seldom taken. Waivers related to the refusal to be photographed are not included. Witness statements are infrequent at best, and although use of force incidents may be recorded at the RDC because it has a digital recording system, that is not possible at the JDC and the WC since they are not similarly equipped.
61. All uses of force must be reviewed by supervisors who were neither involved in nor approved the use of force by the end of the supervisor’s shift. All level 1 uses of force must also be reviewed by a supervisor of Captain rank or above who was neither involved in nor approved the use of force. The purposes of supervisor review are to determine whether the use of force violated Jail policies and procedures, whether the prisoner’s rights may have been violated, and whether further investigation or disciplinary action is required.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the last Monitoring Report. It is not possible to determine whether or not supervisors are performing their required duties because the monitoring team does not have access to the supplemental information that may be in the JMS reports. Currently, the limited documentation available through Google Docs, the repository for documents being provided to the monitoring team does not reflect supervisory action regarding approval, disapproval and recommended action on individual reports. Fortunately, the HCSO IT Director is in the process of modifying the system so that appropriate information will (hopefully) be available in the near future.
62. Reviewing supervisors must document the following: a. Names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses interviewed by the supervisor; b. Witness statements;
46

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 47 of 104
c. Review date and time; d. The findings, recommendations, and results of the supervisor’s review; e. Corrective actions taken; f. The final disposition of the reviews (e.g., whether the Use of Force was found to
comply with Jail policies and procedures, or whether disciplinary action was taken against a staff member); g. Supporting documents such as incident reports, logs, and classification records. Supervisors must also obtain and review summary medical and mental health records describing – i. The nature and extent of injuries, or lack thereof; ii. The date and time when medical care was requested and actually
provided; iii. The names of medical or mental health staff conducting any medical or
mental health assessments or care. h. Photos, video/digital recordings, or other evidence collected to support findings
and recommendations.
Non-Compliant Until it is possible to access the supervisory review portion of use of force reports, there is no way to determine whether or not supervisors are taking required actions and appropriately documenting them. Currently, the supervisory portion of JMS generated reports is limited to a check box with no ability to indicate recommended action or discrepancies noted regarding the items for which this paragraph requires review.
INCIDENT REPORTING AND REVIEW
To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting and reviewing incidents in the Jail that may pose a threat to the life, health, and safety of prisoners. To that end, the County must:
63. Develop and implement incident reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information in order to respond appropriately to reportable incidents.
Non-Compliant The Policies and Procedures Manual must be approved and issued to all personnel before the level of compliance can be determined (see paragraphs 56 to 62 above). The current incident reports should provide sufficient information for supervisors to make an appropriate review, but the reports are routinely deficient. The pdf reports provided to the monitoring team do not include everything that is in the JMS system. The monitoring team’s inability to see everything that is entered into the automated reporting system further hampers its ability to analyze the
47

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 48 of 104
shortcomings. IT is working on a new generated report that should address some or all of the deficiencies in the form.
64. Ensure that Incident Reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, Incident Reports must contain the following information:
a. Tracking number for each incident; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner, and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. Type of incident; f. Injuries to staff or prisoner; g. Medical care; h. All staff involved or present during the incident and their respective roles; i. Reviewing supervisor and supervisor findings, recommendations, and case
dispositions; j. External reviews and results; k. Corrective action taken; and l. Warden and Administrator review and final administrative actions.
Partial Compliance There has been no change with regard to the status of this paragraph for the last four site visits. Compliance is dependent up the approval and publication of the Policies and Procedures Manual. Incident report documentation currently provides for some of the information specified in this paragraph. Reports routinely have a tracking number and list all staff involved. Inmate witnesses are almost never noted nor are witness statements. The nature of inmate injuries is noted sporadically. More photographs accompany the reports than in the past, but almost all reports do not specify the facility in which the incident occurred. That can only be determined by having knowledge of the housing unit configurations of each jail and thereby recognizing the facility by how the unit, pod or cell is identified.
IR #1900972 is a report that reflects some of the shortcomings mentioned above. It covers a breach of security that occurred at the RDC (facility not identified) in HU A4, cell 5525. While conducting a head count an officer entered a cell on the mezzanine level and found red jumpsuit uniforms stuffed into a hole in the wall. Supervisors demanded that inmates turn in the tool that was used to pound a hole in the cell wall. It turned out to be a metal bar (no picture). A work order, which accompanied the incident report, described how the breach was secured with metal plates. Not mentioned in the incident report, but noted in the work order was the fact that the lock was missing from the back exit door to the housing unit. The originating officer and a Sergeant signed the incident report. The latter made no notations regarding discrepancies or recommendations.
48

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 49 of 104
65. Require each staff member directly involved in a reportable incident to accurately and thoroughly complete incident reports as promptly as possible, by the end of the staff member’s shift. At minimum:
a. Staff members must complete all fields on an Incident Report for which they have responsibility for completion. Staff members must not omit entering a date, time, incident location, or signature when completing an Incident Report. If no injuries are present, staff members must write that; they may not leave that section blank.
b. Failure to report any reportable incident must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination.
c. Supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will also be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the last site visit. Since the start of the monitoring process over two and a half years ago, a total of two incident reports have been written regarding lost money or property. None have been written with regard to inmate overstays or improper releases although the Court Liaison has written at least two reports, but not on the standard incident report form, regarding releasing errors that he investigated. While there is no specific policy in place which requires that a report be written in such instances, both this Settlement Agreement and accepted correctional practice mandate documentation. Based on a review of inmate records, many instances of improper release have been noted by the Monitor. It would be appropriate for the Jail Administrator to issue a special order to address this matter until such time as an approved policy is published.
Based on the current status of the JMS system, it is not possible to determine whether or not incident reports are written in a timely fashion (by end of shift or within 12 hours of the incident) and whether or not supervisors do likewise as required (within 24 hours of receipt of an incident report). The only thing that can be determined is the reported time of the incident as it appears in the written document.
66. Ensure that Jail supervisors review and respond appropriately to incidents. At minimum: a. Shift commanders must document all reportable incidents by the end of their shift, but no later than 12 hours after a reportable incident. b. Shift commanders must report all suicides, suicide attempts, and deaths, no later than one hour after the incident, to a supervisor, IAD, and medical and mental health staff. c. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing Incident Reports must document their incident review within 24 hours of receipt of an Incident Report sufficiently to
49

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 50 of 104
allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted. Such documentation must include the same categories of information required for supervisor use of force reviews such as names of individuals interviewed by the supervisor, witness statements, associated records (e.g. medical records, photos, and digital recordings), review dates, findings, recommendations, and case dispositions. d. Reportable incidents must be reviewed by a supervisor not directly involved in the incident.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph. There are no approved policies in place that specify what supervisors and shift commanders are to do. The monitoring team cannot determine whether or not supervisors even review incident reports (other than to sign on a printed copy) because of the previously mentioned shortcomings of the JMS system. There is no documentation that reflects approval, disapproval or recommended actions.
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
67. To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to address sexual abuse and misconduct. Such policies and procedures must include all of the following:
a. Zero tolerance policy towards any sexual abuse and sexual harassment as defined by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementing regulations;
b. Staff training on the zero tolerance policy, including how to fulfill their duties and responsibilities to prevent, detect, report and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment under the policy;
c. Screening prisoners to identify those who may be sexually abusive or at risk of sexual victimization;
d. Multiple internal ways to allow both confidential and anonymous reporting of sexual abuse and sexual harassment and any related retaliation, including a mechanism for prisoners to directly report allegations to an outside entity;
e. Both emergency and ongoing medical and mental health care for victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment, including rape kits as appropriate and counseling;
f. A complete ban on cross-gender strip searches or cross-gender visual body cavity searches except in exigent circumstances or when performed by a medical examiner;
g. A complete ban on cross-gender pat searches of women prisoners, absent exigent circumstances;
50

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 51 of 104
h. Regular supervisory review to ensure compliance with the sexual abuse and sexual harassment policies; and
i. Specialized investigative procedures and training for investigators handling sexual abuse and sexual harassment allegations.
Partial Compliance There is a draft PREA policy that has been circulated for review and returned to the policy group. This policy has not yet been finalized or adopted.
PREA incidents reported to the PREA officer usually result in relocation of the involved inmates. There has not been a practice of disciplinary action taken against perpetrators. One case was reportedly referred to the Criminal Investigator. However, that was not documented in the file and there was no documentation of any criminal investigation or referral for prosecution.
The PREA officer provides a 4-hour training as part of the new officer training. There continue to be incident reports that appear to raise PREA issues that are not referred by the unit officer to the PREA officer. There was one such incident in February and another in March. The in-service that at the time of the last visit was planned for May has not taken place. The PREA Officer reported that she is working with the Training Officer to schedule the training.
Although the classification process includes a screening for PREA issues, the housing decisions have not in the past appeared to reflect attention to those issues. This has been reported in past monitoring reports. The monitoring team did not observe any incidents of this in this monitoring period but will continue to monitor this issue.
There are multiple internal ways to report sexual abuse and harassment including filing a grievance and reporting through the kiosk system. The PREA officer now has a cell phone to which kiosk calls are forwarded. However, the PREA number on the kiosk system had to be changed from 999 to 888. When this happened, inmates were charged a fee for reporting a PREA violation. The PREA Officer reported that this was being remedied. There is not a system for reporting to an outside entity other than through paid phone calls and there is no guidance on appropriate entities to call. In order to be effective, inmates must be fully informed of what constitutes sexual abuse and harassment and how to report it. As previously reported, all of the units visited had PREA posters posted. The posters have reporting instructions. The Inmate Handbook does not have current information on the PREA process but a separate form is now provided at booking that explains the process. The PREA officer no longer does orientation or education of inmates. She does not feel safe going into the housing units at RDC. They are considering putting the PREA video on the kiosk system but have not completed an evaluation of
51

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 52 of 104
that. The PREA Officer did not know if any orientation or education was taking place at JDC or the WC.
QCHC now has a social worker on staff who provides counseling and can provide services to victims of sexual assault or harassment. It was noted in prior monitoring reports that there needed to be better information exchange and coordination between the PREA coordinator and medical/mental health. For the most part, this has been addressed. During prior monitoring periods there were inmates who were victims of sexual assault and/or sexual harassment who received ongoing mental health care, and the mental health care they received was appropriate and was apparently quite helpful. There were no new such cases during this most recent monitoring period.
It is reported that all cross-gender searches have been banned. There is no policy and procedure on this and no documentation of this was provided. The draft policy on searches allowed for female pat searches of males in certain circumstances.
The PREA Officer keeps a file on each referral, has a report form, and keeps numbered reports. She has completed an on-line training on investigating PREA incidents. Incidents involving alleged staff misconduct or criminal activity are referred to other investigators who have not received PREA training. The reports of these other investigators are not in the PREA Officer’s file and her file does not reflect the results of the investigation. The PREA Officer does not get the medical records when there has been a referral to Medical. The PREA Officer reported that on one case Medical reported that something could have happened but she was not sure which case that was. There is no regular supervisory oversight of the PREA officer’s work or reports.
There are still a number of areas of non-compliance and some of the stated practices do not appear to be fully operationalized. Areas of concern include lack of training for all officers on PREA, lack of ongoing orientation to inmates at booking or comprehensive education following, lack of required information in the Inmate Handbook, unresolved mechanisms for reporting, no volunteer or contractor training, and investigation officers do not have PREA training. The PREA Officer and the IAD and CID investigators should all receive training on handling sexual abuse and sexual harassment allegations.
INVESTIGATIONS
68. The County shall ensure that it has sufficient staff to identify, investigate, and correct misconduct that has or may lead to a violation of the Constitution. At a minimum, the County shall:
a. Develop and implement comprehensive policies, procedures, and practices for the thorough and timely (within 60 days of referral) investigation of alleged staff misconduct, sexual assaults, and physical assaults of prisoners resulting in serious
52

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 53 of 104
injury, in accordance with this Agreement, within 90 days of its Effective Date. At a minimum, an investigation will be conducted if: i. Any prisoner exhibited a serious injury; ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious
accounts of the incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy,
or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member). b. Per policy, investigations shall: i. Be conducted by qualified persons, who do not have conflicts of interest that bear on the partiality of the investigation; ii. Include timely, thorough, and documented interviews of all relevant staff and prisoners who were involved in or who witnessed the incident in question, to the extent practicable; and iii. Include all supporting evidence, including logs, witness and participant statements, references to policies and procedures relevant to the incident, physical evidence, and video or audio recordings. c. Provide investigators with pre-service and annual in-service training so that investigators conduct quality investigations that meet the requirements of this Agreement; d. Ensure that any investigative report indicating possible criminal behavior will be referred to the appropriate criminal law enforcement agency; e. Within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, IAD must have written policies and procedures that include clear and specific criteria for determining when it will conduct an investigation. The criteria will require an investigation if: i. Any prisoner exhibited serious, visible injuries (e.g., black eye, obvious bleeding, or lost tooth); ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious accounts of the incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member). f. Provide the Monitor and United States a periodic report of investigations conducted at the Jail every four months. The report will include the following information: i. a brief summary of all completed investigations, by type and date;
53

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 54 of 104
ii. a listing of investigations referred for administrative investigation; iii. a listing of all investigations referred to an appropriate law enforcement
agency and the name of the agency; and iv. a listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because
of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation. v. a description of any corrective actions or changes in policies, procedures, or practices made as a result of investigations over the reporting period. g. Jail management shall review the periodic report to determine whether the investigation system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement and make recommendations regarding the investigation system or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor and United States.
Partial Compliance During the January 2019, site visit, the Corrections Operations member of the monitoring team arranged a joint meeting with the Internal Affairs Detective (IAD) and the Criminal Investigations Detective (CID) Investigators so that they could both adopt investigative and record keeping practices consistent with this paragraph. Unfortunately, subsequent to that meeting, the CID Investigator was transferred to Patrol duties, but was not relieved of her duties to complete pending Jail investigations, including the inmate death case in the RDC where a gang related murder occurred. Eventually, a new CID Investigator was appointed. He has a solid background in both law enforcement and corrections that make him well qualified to hold the position. He began his career in 2010, while working for the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Subsequently he worked for the Jackson, MS Police Department, the HCSO (where he was promoted to Sergeant) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Yazoo City, MS. He returned to the HCSO in 2019. It is anticipated that he will adopt the same spreadsheet format used by the IAD Investigator so that there can be consistency in reporting.
During the January 2019, site visit the monitoring team was informed that the CID Investigator would be relocated from downtown Jackson to the RDC, where the IAD Investigator is currently located; however, that did not occur. Now that a new CID Investigator has been designated, he should be co-located with the IAD Investigator since the vast majority of their work is generated by incidents that occur in the RDC.
It goes without saying that the lack of approved policies and procedures regarding investigations makes compliance with this section impossible. As has been stated throughout this report, it is imperative that the HCSO/DSD put forth the effort necessary to prepare, have approved, and publish the Policies and Procedures Manual covering all aspects of DSD operations.
54

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 55 of 104
GRIEVANCE AND PRISONER INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Because a reporting system provides early notice of potential constitutional violations and an opportunity to prevent more serious problems before they occur, the County must develop and implement a grievance system. To that end:
69. The grievance system must permit prisoners to confidentially report grievances without requiring the intervention of a detention officer.
Partial Compliance There is no change in the condition of the grievance system. The use of the new kiosk system in theory allows the prisoners to report grievances without the intervention of detention officers. However, the system is still not working as it should. There are still problems with the system being down in some units at some times. At those times, the use of the paper system requires intervention by a detention officer.
Although the kiosk system does not require the intervention of a detention officer, the physical set up does not allow for privacy. This could potentially result in an officer or other inmates observing the grievance being filed. It was reported that inmates have observed another’s PIN number and then use it to purchase commissary on the other inmate’s account.
70. Grievance policies and procedures must be applicable and standardized across the entire Jail.
Partial Compliance Policies and procedures have yet to be finalized. A draft policy has now been written and is being circulated for comment. The policy would standardize the grievance system. At present, the kiosk system works the same across facilities but a unified process is just now being developed with the development of the policy. Even with the policy in place, there will need to be training on how to properly respond to grievances in order to achieve consistency. There has been significant progress in developing an actual grievance process including identifying the duties of the system wide grievance officer, clarifying the roles of the system wide grievance officer and the facility grievance officers, developing a tracking system, creating a tiered appeal process, and addressing the process for requests vs. grievances.
71. All grievances must receive appropriate follow-up, including a timely written response by an impartial reviewer and staff tracking of whether resolutions have been implemented or still need implementation. Any response to a medical grievance or a grievance alleging threats or violence to the grievant or others that exceeds 24 hours shall be presumed untimely.
Partial Compliance
55

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 56 of 104
As previously reported, the system itself presents several challenges in this regard. Notably, if a grievance is not responded to in seven days, it drops off the dashboard. The only way to find the grievance is to run a report for a longer time frame and search for grievances in different status categories. The Grievance Officer reported at the time of this site visit that she had a report showing the grievances that had not had a response and she cleared all 1200 of them. However, during this site visit, in order to check whether there were outstanding grievances that had fallen off the dashboard, a report was run for grievances assigned but not answered from May 10, 2018 to May 1, 2019. The report showed 197 that had not been responded to after 7 days. It is not clear why these would not have been identified in the report the Grievance Officer was working from. Reports run specifically to the WC showed 150 assigned but not answered after 7 days and at JDC, 17 unanswered after 7 days. It appeared that the majority of unanswered grievances were medical grievances. It will be important to provide additional training to medical staff on the kiosk system. However, the tracking system recently developed should ensure that grievances receive a timely response going forward. And the number of unanswered grievances was significantly less than previously. Even with the new tracking system, running a report from the system should be incorporated in the process to ensure that all grievances get a response.
Although the new system should ensure responses, there needs to be some training on what constitutes an adequate response, oversight to determine that promised actions are taken and then some quality assurance to check the adequacy of responses. Many of the responses simply say “denied” with no explanation. Some responses promise some future action but there is no process to ensure that promised actions are actually taken. It is still not possible to run a useful report from the grievance system. A system needs to be developed to track the information to provide the report required by paragraph 109 below.
Although QCHC does receive medical grievances, the mental health team does not receive grievances. It remains unclear as to whether or not this is the case because all grievances that should be directed towards them, in whole or in part, actually get to them. As has been noted in prior monitoring reports, the only way to answer this question is to review all grievances, with an eye towards whether or not any of them should have been referred to mental health, in whole or in part.
72. The grievance system must accommodate prisoners who have physical or cognitive disabilities, are illiterate, or have LEP, so that these prisoners have meaningful access to the grievance system.
Non-Compliant Prisoners are assisting one another but that carries the risk of them accessing and using another prisoner’s PIN number in addition to the potential of having to disclose private information. This may inhibit the use of the grievance system and also allows access to the prisoner’s funds. There does not appear to be any language choices in the system or voice recognition features.
56

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 57 of 104
The mental health expert on the monitoring team continues to be concerned about whether or not there are inmates who are unable to report grievances via the computer tablet-like system due to their mental illness, and/or intellectual disability, especially those who are also housed in segregation. This concern is indicated when the expert is accompanying mental health on weekly segregation rounds, and inmates report their grievances in that setting. It has been previously recommended that a review of this issue be undertaken by a team of security staff and mental health staff; but such a review has not been done; and so this monitor makes the same recommendations again.
73. The County must ensure that all current and newly admitted prisoners receive information about prison rules and procedures. The County must provide such information through an inmate handbook and, at the discretion of the Jail, an orientation video, regarding the following topics: understanding the Jail’s disciplinary process and rules and regulations; reporting misconduct; reporting sexual abuse, battery, and assault; accessing medical and mental health care; emergency procedures; visitation; accessing the grievance process; and prisoner rights. The County must provide such information in appropriate languages for prisoners with LEP.
Non-Compliant The Inmate Handbook has outdated information about most of these issues and will need to be updated. It is not available in Spanish or any other language.
RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SEGREGATION
In order to ensure compliance with constitutional standards and to prevent unnecessary harm to prisoners, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to limit the use of segregation. To that end, this Agreement imposes the following restrictions and requirements:
74. Within 8 hours of intake, prisoners in the booking cells must be classified and housed in more appropriate long-term housing where staff will provide access to exercise, meals, and other services.
Partial Compliance During the September 2108, site visit, the officer supervising inmates in the Booking holding cells was found to be using an hourly well-being log form (the standard in Booking is 15 minutes). In January 2019, the officer assigned to the same post was observed using a form that called for 30 minute well-being checks. During the May 2019, site visit the correct form was finally in place. No inmates were found to be held in Booking holding cells beyond the eight hour limit. In fact, most are transferred through Booking in far less time than that. Considering
57

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 58 of 104
the fact that the DSD processes only one and a half (1.5) inmates through Booking each hour on average, compliance with the eight hour standard should be easily maintained.
At present, there isn’t any “appropriate long term housing” for prisoners who are suffering from serious physical health difficulties, mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities. In the absence of a special mental health unit, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for prisoners who suffer from serious mental illness to receive the enhanced program of mental health services they require. Then in addition, due to the absence of “appropriate long term housing”, those prisoners who need to be protected from themselves or others as a result of a mental illness or intellectual disability end up being housed in segregation as a very unacceptable alternative.
75. The County must document the placement and removal of all prisoners to and from segregation.
Partial Compliance The monthly summary reports submitted by each facility include a listing of inmates who have been placed in segregation. The format utilized by the JDC does more than simply list inmates; rather, it reflects when they went into segregation and when they were removed, as required by this paragraph. In the Sixth Monitoring Report it was suggested that the RDC and WC should adopt the same (in and out) format. While nothing has yet been done, the Monitor met with the facility commanders during the May 2019, site visit in an effort to streamline the monthly reporting process. The newly created electronic summary report achieves much of the monthly reporting that was being gathered manually. This should cut down on needless entries regarding each facility while making it easier for the monitoring team to access required information.
76. Qualified Mental Health Professionals must conduct mental health rounds at least once a week (in a private setting if necessary, to elicit accurate information), to assess the mental health status of all prisoners in segregation and the effect of segregation on each prisoner’s mental health, in order to determine whether continued placement in segregation is appropriate. These mental health rounds must not be a substitute for treatment.
Partial Compliance QMHPs continue to conduct weekly rounds in segregation, and maintain records indicating that the rounds were performed and the findings. Based upon a review of these records, followed by a meeting with the QMHPs who perform these weekly rounds, it is clear that the QMHPs have identified a sub-set of prisoners who have deteriorated during their placement in segregation. It is also clear that although they have attempted to report such to security staff, security staff have been unresponsive at best, and in some instances, the response from security staff has been things like ‘they are in prison’ or ‘they have to pay for what they did.
58

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 59 of 104
Obviously, although mental health staff persons are conducting weekly rounds in segregation, at present, there is still no mechanism for the incorporation of the mental health information obtained during the mental health rounds in segregation into the decisions made by security about inmates who are placed in segregation. More specifically, as required by Paragraph 77(i) there is still no security policy and procedure governing monthly, interdisciplinary segregation rounds, where security and mental health review and discuss each inmate being held in segregation for more than 30 days, with a focus on whether or not segregation is causing a deterioration in the inmate’s mental health, whether placement in segregation should be continued or an alternative placement is indicated, and whether there is a need for further enhanced mental health services and/or other supportive services. Therefore, there still are no such monthly, interdisciplinary segregation rounds. In addition, there is still no security policy and procedure governing the mental health input that security could obtain on a weekly basis, following the weekly mental health rounds in segregation. When an inmate’s mental health is deteriorating while being held in segregation, the development of a mechanism for obtaining this weekly available information would allow for an even more timely response by security, without having to wait for the monthly segregation review meeting. Of course, in addition, the development of these security policies and procedures would make it clear that a prisoner’s mental health status while being held in segregation is something that security must consider when making decisions to continue placement in segregation.
As has been previously reported, the finding that so many of the prisoners placed in segregation experience a deterioration in their mental health status while in segregation appears to be due to multiple factors. These include: (1) In the absence of the yet to be completed security policies and procedures governing the disciplinary review process, there is no input from mental health with regard to the disciplinary process which sends inmates to segregation, and therefore prisoners who are already mentally ill inmates are placed in segregation. (2) The conditions of confinement in most of the segregation cells are unacceptable, especially at Raymond, in that many of the cells do not even have lights and there are rodents. (3) The conditions of confinement in most of the segregation cells makes maintaining one’s mental health while in segregation all the more difficult, it further impairs the mental health of already mentally ill individuals, and it makes the mental health rounds in segregation much more complicated, given that it is so difficult to see the inmate and examine the cell. (4) As noted above, the fact that so many inmates in segregation use the weekly mental health rounds as their opportunity to express grievances raises concern about their access to the facility’s mechanisms for filing grievances and the extent to which they view themselves as suffering without recourse.
77. The County must develop and implement restrictions on the segregation of prisoners with serious mental illness. These safeguards must include the following:
a. All decisions to place a prisoner with serious mental illness in segregation must include the input of a Qualified Mental Health Professional who has
59

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 60 of 104
conducted a face-to-face evaluation of the prisoner in a confidential setting, is familiar with the details of the available clinical history, and has considered the prisoner’s mental health needs and history. b. Segregation must be presumed contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness. c. Within 24 hours of placement in segregation, all prisoners on the mental health caseload must be screened by a Qualified Mental Health Professional to determine whether the prisoner has serious mental illness, and whether there are any acute mental health contraindications to segregation. d. If a Qualified Mental Health Professional finds that a prisoner has a serious mental illness or exhibits other acute mental health contraindications to segregation, that prisoner must not be placed or remain in segregation absent documented extraordinary and exceptional circumstances (i.e. for an immediate and serious danger which may arise during unusual emergency situations, such as a riot or during the booking of a severely psychotic, untreated, violent prisoner, and which should last only as long as the emergency conditions remain present). e. Documentation of such extraordinary and exceptional circumstances must be in writing. Such documentation must include the reasons for the decision, a comprehensive interdisciplinary team review, and the names and dated signatures of all staff members approving the decision. f. Prisoners with serious mental illness who are placed in segregation must be offered a heightened level of care that includes the following: i. If on medication, the prisoner must receive at least one daily visit from a
Qualified Medical Professional. ii. The prisoner must be offered a face-to-face, therapeutic, out-of-cell
session with a Qualified Mental Health Professional at least once per week. iii. If the prisoner is placed in segregation for more than 24 hours, he or she must have his or her case reviewed by a Qualified Mental Health Professional, in conjunction with a Jail physician and psychiatrist, on a weekly basis. g. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, A Qualified Mental Health Professional will assess all prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation. This assessment must include a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Prisoners requiring follow-up for additional clinical assessment or care must promptly receive such assessment and care.
60

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 61 of 104
h. If a prisoner on segregation decompensates or otherwise develops signs or symptoms of serious mental illness, where such signs or symptoms had not previously been identified, the prisoner must immediately be referred for appropriate assessment and treatment by a Qualified Mental Health Professional. Any such referral must also result in a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Signs or symptoms requiring assessment or treatment under this clause include a deterioration in cognitive, physical, or verbal function; delusions; self-harm; or behavior indicating a heightened risk of suicide (e.g., indications of depression after a sentencing hearing).
i. The treatment and housing of prisoners with serious mental illness must be coordinated and overseen by the Interdisciplinary Team (or Teams), and guided by formal, written treatment plans. The Interdisciplinary Team must include both medical and security staff, but access to patient healthcare information must remain subject to legal restrictions based on patient privacy rights. The intent of this provision is to have an Interdisciplinary Team serve as a mechanism for balancing security and medical concerns, ensuring cooperation between security and medical staff, while also protecting the exercise of independent medical judgment and each prisoner’s individual rights.
j. Nothing in this Agreement should be interpreted to authorize security staff, including the Jail Administrator, to make medical or mental health treatment decisions, or to overrule physician medical orders.
Non-Compliant There is no indication that there is any formal input from mental health into decisions made to place a prisoner in segregation, whether that decision is being made by security staff as a result of a disciplinary action, or being made during the classification process, or being made during the assignment of prisoners to a housing unit. Addressing this issue awaits the development of new security policies and procedures governing disciplinary review, classification and housing assignments.
It still does not appear that there is a presumption that segregation is contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness. The percentage of prisoners in segregation who are also on the mental health caseload continues to be above 50%. As has previously been the case, the overwhelming majority of these mentally ill prisoners being housed in segregation fall into one of two categories. (1) Prisoners on the mental health case load who are being held in segregation for administrative reasons or for protective custody; most of them could almost certainly be more appropriately and safely housed on a mental health unit if there was a mental health unit; and if there was such a mental health unit, these prisoners would also have access to the more enhanced type of treatment program that they require, which would in turn, improve their ability to
61

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 62 of 104
function in the facility. (2) Prisoners on the mental health case load who are being held in segregation as discipline; there was no mental health involvement in the disciplinary review process that placed those prisoners in segregation; and there is no segregation review process that includes mental health input that might be used to determine whether or not disciplinary segregation continues to be appropriate for those inmates.
Regarding 77(c) there is no evidence that prisoners on the mental health caseload are being screened by a QMHP within 24 hours of being placed on segregation. Furthermore, it does not appear that security staff even knows all of the prisoners on the mental health case load and therefore which prisoners would be subject to this provision.
Regarding 77(d) at present, there are no mental health evaluations during the disciplinary review process that would form the basis for an opinion by a QMHP that placement in segregation is or is not contraindicated. Although there are weekly mental health rounds for inmates being held in segregation, at present, there is no mechanism whereby mental health might have input into a decision about whether or not a mentally ill inmate should remain in segregation. Therefore, the security policies and procedures that are being developed which will govern the disciplinary review process, the segregation review process, and also the classification and housing assignment process must address this issue. See sections 37, 76 and 77 for a more detailed discussion of these issues.
In addition, in order to fully address this provision, the above noted policies and procedures that are being developed must include a clear description of the ‘extraordinary and exceptional circumstances’ that trump the mental health concerns. In so doing, a distinction should be made between current circumstances (for example, the lack of alternative, appropriate housing for seriously mentally ill prisoners), and the circumstances that will continue to exist after other provisions of this agreement have been met.
There is no evidence that there is any finding of extraordinary and exceptional circumstances justifying continued segregation let alone any documentation in writing of such a finding as required by paragraph 77(e).
Regarding 77(f) prisoners with serious mental illness who are on medication and being held in segregation do have at least one daily visit with a nurse, who is a QMP, during medication pass. As has been previously noted, since prisoners in segregation do not see a QMHP on a daily basis, it should be made clear in policy and procedures to what extent the level of care provided by the nurses during medication pass should include some type of assessment of the prisoner’s mental status and/or other “heightened level of care”. However, to date, there has been no revised medical policy and procedure that would clarify this.
62

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 63 of 104
With regard to the nurses’ medication pass, there continues to be a lack of appropriate/adequate involvement of security staff as they accompany the nurses on medication pass. As noted in section 37 of this report, nursing staff is now also reporting that security staff persons are not consistently assuring their safety during medication pass. Therefore, a review of the roles and responsibilities of security staff persons as they accompany nurses on medication pass is recommended again; a review of the security policies and procedures that govern those roles and responsibilities; and an assessment of whether or not any additional training on those roles and responsibilities might be indicated.
Prisoners in segregation who are on the mental health case load are receiving mental health services, including face-to-face therapeutic sessions with a QMHP and visits with the psychiatric nurse clinician. However, given the number of prisoners on the mental health caseload, the current shortage of mental health staff, and the full range of duties assumed by existing mental health staff, these sessions are not consistently occurring on a weekly basis. Due to these same issues and the shortage of security staff, these sessions are often not out-of-cell sessions. Once mental health staffing issues have been addressed, there must be an increased effort to comply with this provision, keeping in the mind the fact that as noted in Section 76, weekly mental health rounds for prisoners in segregation must not be a substitute for these therapeutic sessions. It has yet to be determined whether or not there is sufficient security staff to implement this provision of the agreement once the shortage in mental health staff has been addressed.
Although the mental health coordinator is performing weekly mental health rounds, this provision is not being met. In order to address this provision, the mental health coordinator, in conjunction with a physician and the psychiatrist, must also perform a weekly review of the status of the prisoners in segregation who are also on, or should be added to the mental health case load. At present, there is clearly not enough psychiatric time or other physician time to address this provision; although there is the psychiatric nurse clinician and the medical nurse clinician who could perform this task, their respective physician collaborators are not on site enough to perform this task; and so this provision should be reviewed to determine whether or not the involvement of the respective nurse clinicians in this effort would meet this provision.
Essentially all prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation have had an updated mental health evaluation and have an updated treatment plan (i.e., all prisoners with the exception of those who have repeatedly refused to participate in a mental health evaluation). Given that at present, there is no ‘appropriate housing’ for prisoners with serious mental illness who remain acutely ill, or are vulnerable to being harmed by others, or are at risk of harming others, their treatment plans do not include recommendations for such ‘appropriate housing’. See section 74 with regard to the need for the development of a special mental health unit. See section 77-b with regard to the finding that the mentally ill prisoners housed in long-term segregation could be more safely and better maintained in ‘appropriate housing’ (i.e., a mental health unit) if such housing existed. However, such prisoners are receiving follow-up care as
63

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 64 of 104
prescribed in their treatment plans, and they are likely to be appropriate for some of the planned additional mental health services once those services are available. See section 42-g-iv with regard to the planned expansion of the mental health services provided.
In addition to the fact that the development of a mental health unit (i.e., appropriate, more integrated and therapeutic housing for mentally ill prisoners) will be required to meet this provision of the agreement, there must also be mechanisms whereby mental health findings can impact on decisions to transfer a prisoner from segregation to such a mental health unit. As noted in multiple other sections of this report, such mechanisms should be described in the security policies and procedures that are being developed which govern the disciplinary review process, the segregation review process, and classification and the assignment of housing.
Regarding subsection h, there are additional questions/issues. (1) There is the question of to what extent non-mental health staff persons (i.e., security staff and medical staff) are assessing whether or not prisoners held in segregation are decompensating or otherwise developing signs or symptoms of serious mental illness, where such signs and symptoms had not previously been identified. (2) Then there is also the question of whether or not non-mental health staff persons are immediately referring any such identified mentally ill prisoners to mental health. These are both important questions/issues that need to be further explored, especially given that security staff and medical staff (at least the nurses who administer medication) see the prisoners in segregation on a daily basis.
Regarding subsection i: As stated in Paragraph 76 above, there is no interdisciplinary team that attempts to balance security concerns and medical/mental health concerns when decisions are being made about the housing of prisoners with serious mental illness. Although mental health treatment plans have been developed by mental health, those treatment plans do not include recommendations for housing, due to the fact that there is no special housing that is specifically designed to meet the needs of prisoners who are suffering from mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities. Therefore, in order to address this provision of the agreement, more appropriate housing options for prisoners with mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities has to be developed, and such an interdisciplinary team has to be established.
YOUTHFUL PRISONERS
As long as the County houses youthful prisoners, it must develop and implement policies and procedures for their supervision, management, education, and treatment consistent with federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482. Within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will determine where it will house youthful prisoners. During those six months, the County will consult with the United States, the monitor of the Henley Young Juvenile Detention Center Settlement Agreement, and any other individuals or entities whose input is relevant. The United States will support
64

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 65 of 104
the County’s efforts to secure appropriate housing for youthful prisoners, including supervised release. Within 18 months after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will have completed transitioning to any new or replacement youthful prisoner housing facility.
Substantial Compliance Consistent with the practice begun in September 2017, Juveniles Charged as Adults (JCAs) continue to be placed at Henley Young after being booked at the Raymond facility. When they turn 18, they are now transferred to the Jackson Detention Center (JDC) pending further court action (vs. returning to the Raymond facility). As of this site visit there were fourteen youthful prisoners (JCAs) at Henley Young and no juvenile remained at the Raymond Detention Center (RDC), the last youthful prisoner turning 18 in mid-February. It is understood by the monitoring team that no more youth under age 18 would be housed at any of the adult facilities, including Juveniles Convicted as Adults (either waiting to be placed at the Mississippi Department of Corrections [MDOC] or previously convicted and arrested for a new offense or probation violation). However, this has not been confirmed in a written policy. Use of the acronym JCA is used to refer to both pre-conviction and post-conviction youth, although at the time of this visit only pre-conviction youth were in placement.
The only circumstances in which a juvenile may be at an adult facility should be: (1) following arrest by law enforcement, youth may go through the booking process at RDC/JDC and be promptly transferred to Henley Young; and (2) circumstances in which a juvenile may need to return briefly to RDC or JDC for purposes of release or pending transfer to the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Ideally, arrangements should be made so that youth can be released/transferred directly from Henley Young without having to go back through RDC, but absent that happening any time spent at RDC should be brief (e.g. one hour or less) and the juvenile should be kept separate from adults and under constant supervision/observation.
Compliance with this requirement will be monitored in the future to ensure sustained compliance.
As of this visit (date used is May 8): • Of the fourteen JCAs at Henley Young, twelve were boys and two girls; • The age range for youth was 14 through 17, specifically 14 (3), 15 (5), 16 (5), and 17 (1); • The length of stay (LOS) ranged from a low of 7 days to a high of 610 days for one of the youth that was in the original group placed at Henley Young in September 2017. That particular youth recently turned 15. Six youth have been in placement for 219 days or more; Four youth have been in placement less than 60 days; • Of the fourteen juveniles, only five had been indicted for the incident that resulted in placement;
65

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 66 of 104

• During the interim between the last site visit and this May visit, eight new JCA youth were admitted, three of whom were also released during this time frame; that brings the total number of JCA placed at Henley Young since initiation of the policy in September 2017 to 56 (over 21 months, an average of just less than 3/month);
• The overall population of youth at Henley Young has remained relatively stable during recent months, both staying below the cap of 32 required in the Henley Young/SPLC agreement and more importantly reflecting a generally lower number of JCA youth than prior periods of time. This helps alleviate the prior concern that delays in case processing for JCA youth will result in a gradual increase in that population. However, it does not alleviate concerns that for those individual youth, the court system delays are inappropriate and need to be addressed. Refer to the chart below for the average daily population for the period January through April 2019;

Average Daily Population Henley Young
January - April 2019

25.0 2.6

20.0

6.5

15.0

2.0

10.0 11.4
5.0

0.0 January

2.1 9.1 2.0 11.0
February

JCA male JCA Female

1.3 5.1 2.0 9.5
March
Non-JCA male

3.5 6.6 2.1 10.1
April
Non-JCA female

There are two particular comments related to length of stay (LOS) relevant at this point in the discussion: 1. The length of stay for JCAs at Henley Young has been an expressed concern in all prior
monitoring reports. While true for adult inmates in the other Hinds County facilities as well, it is particularly disconcerting that these delays are occurring for the JCA youth during their critical adolescent development years. Not only has one youth been in placement for over 600 days, but four youth have been in placement for essentially a year or more. Even under the best of circumstances, to have a youth that age confined in what is a “holding” facility serves neither the best interests of the youth or the community. Anecdotally, staff related a case of a JCA youth that had been in placement for over 300 days only to then have the charges dismissed;
66

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 67 of 104
2. Given this concern, the county and court are to be commended for taking steps to develop a new process, to be implemented beginning on June 1, in which newly-elected Judge McDaniels will hold a status hearing within 90 days of placement. At that time action can be taken to expedite the case via ensuring an indictment is filed, the case is referred back to the Youth Court, and/or alterations can be made in bail amounts/conditions. This change will hopefully have an impact on expediting these cases, at least during the early stages of proceedings. The impact of this change can be assessed at the time of the next site visit (September 2019) but more likely will be evident with more cases being reviewed by the end of 2019.
Assuming the length of stay for JCAs can be reduced and the number of youth being admitted remains at a relatively constant level, the number of JCAs in placement at Henley Young could decline. While this is important for the continued stability and functioning of Henley Young it is even more important for the youth to be held no longer than necessary.
There have been no changes to the physical plant. There remains no evidence of a commitment to add appropriate program/classroom space or improve the housing units as has been repeatedly recommended. Adding portable classrooms that can be used for education and other programming and improving the quality of the housing units will have a beneficial impact on both youth and staff. At this point it is perhaps best to simply say that “no decision” in reality reflects a decision to not make the recommended improvements. However, it is still recommended that: (1) additional classroom/program space is provided/developed to help meet requirements for education and mental health programming, and (2) improvements be made to the housing units to “normalize” the environment to help reduce the emotional arousal experienced by youth as a result of the environment.
The information provided in response to the additional requirements below will not refer to operations at RDC unless specifically noted.
For any youthful prisoners in custody, the County must:
78. Develop and implement a screening, assessment and treatment program to ensure that youth with serious mental illness and disabilities, including developmental disabilities, receive appropriate programs, supports, education, and services.
Partial Compliance As noted in the prior reports, youthful offenders are booked at RDC and then taken to Henley Young. A routine part of the admission process at Henley Young is administration of the MAYSI-II, an appropriate mental health screening tool for use with adolescents. A Youth Support Specialist (referred to as Case Manager in prior reports) is assigned to each youth and is
67

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 68 of 104
in daily contact with their assigned youth, providing information and support to maintain appropriate family contact(s), interact with court staff, help link youth with external resources, and intervene to prevent behavioral problems. One of the Youth Support Specialist positions that had been vacant at the time of the January visit has been filled, a positive step forward in ensuring adequate coverage for the programming on a seven-day/week basis.
The two mental health clinicians follow up the initial assessment by conducting a more complete mental health assessment that covers a wide range of potential issues and utilizing a strengthbased assessment to help youth identify skills they already have that they can build on to be more successful in the future. Along with interviews, these assessments help the clinicians identify some individual areas/skills that youth can work on while in placement and form a foundation for a basic case plan. Mental health records include regular documentation of contact between the clinicians and youth and how they are doing relative to the goals they have developed as part of this case plan.
The opportunity to complete more comprehensive psychological assessments for youth that would include additional psychological testing and gathering prior treatment information remains limited by the limited time available to the psychologist, rendering it unlikely substantial compliance with this requirement can be achieved.
Protocols related to suicide concerns are in place and are reflected in documentation in Incident Reports, intake assessment(s), monitoring of youth exhibiting suicide/self-harm concerns, and documentation of review by mental health staff and “release” from suicide watch status. Henley Young has implemented a strong direct supervision protocol, including one-on-one observation for youth on suicide watch status, and there is documentation of required observation checks, albeit some of the documentation raises questions about its accuracy (see section related to observations conducted during disciplinary isolation periods).
This visit affirmed that the psychologist, Dr. Payne, has had a profoundly positive impact on mental health and program services since her addition to the team in May 2018. However, despite by all accounts working more than her .5 FTE allotment, it is simply not possible to accomplish the variety of tasks envisioned for the psychologist role at Henley Young. Ideally, the psychologist role would include performing psychological assessments of each youth, supervising/coaching other members of the mental health team, coordinating treatment teams and plans, providing direction and support for much of the treatment programming, interacting with and supporting family engagement, and teaming with other staff in responding to crisis situations. This leadership role, both as a psychologist and serving essentially as the facility treatment director, cannot be accomplished on a .5 FTE basis. Therefore, while there has been some improvement in the overall delivery of program and treatment services, the continuity and coordination of these supports falls short of the goals of the agreement.
68

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 69 of 104
It is of concern that the county and Dr. Payne have been unable to come to an agreement to increase her time to 1.0 FTE, and it appears that Dr. Payne will be leaving her position in the near future, as early as June. Absent reaching that agreement and assuming Dr. Payne does leave, immediate efforts to recruit a qualified psychologist on a 1.0 FTE basis need to begin. Given the length of time needed to bring Dr. Payne on board a year ago, it is of significant concern that there again could be an extended delay in filling that position. That concern is compounded by the fact that even once hired it will take time for that new person to become fully integrated into the program and get the mental health/clinical team functioning in a coordinated and comprehensive way. Under the best of circumstances, given Dr. Payne’s combination of expertise and dedication to youth, it will be difficult to find someone to “fill her shoes”.
An example of something that has “fallen by the wayside” as a result of limited psychologist time is the scheduling of regular team meetings of all the members of the mental health team (the psychologist, the two qualified mental health clinicians, and the three Youth Support Specialists) to better coordinate case plans, coordinate programming to the degree desired, and develop behavior crisis plans. So, while the “pieces” of a solid mental health support team are ostensibly in place and while they have developed some informal communication networks, their efforts are still somewhat disjointed and inefficient.
Despite the psychologist time limitations, the Youth Support Specialists, in coordination with Dr. Payne, have implemented a process to hold multi-disciplinary team meetings for youth on a more routine basis. Those meetings include other staff from the facility as well as parent(s) and represent a positive step forward in getting everyone “on the same page”, improving communication across staff lines, and meaningfully engaging families in supporting youth in custody. Also on a positive note, there has been a change in psychiatric services, as Dr. Kumar has been replaced by Dr. Bell. Although a relatively recent change, anecdotally staff relates that Dr. Bell is more accessible and available to work with youth at Henley Young, albeit still on a relatively limited basis, and seems to relate well with youth. Further assessment of this change can take place during the September visit, but at this point it seems to be a step in a positive direction.
Related to appropriate programs, the mental health Clinicians and the Youth Support Specialists continue to provide various group sessions for youth. Examples of programs led in recent months include:
• Avoiding Trouble • Managing Anger • Character Traits • Juggling Different Thoughts
69

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 70 of 104
• What Calms You Down • Anger Arousers • Good Times and Not Good Times to Act • Social Support
Ostensibly these groups are scheduled 5 times/week in 45-minute blocks led by the clinicians or Youth Support Specialist, and notes are recorded relative to each youth’s participation. Ideally, these programs provide some of the building blocks for continued development of a more integrated and intentional behavioral health and skill development program. Individual Youth Support Specialists and clinicians have taken the initiative to develop these programs, but there are a number of concerns that remain to be addressed, including: (1) there is still a lack of cohesion in how the various groups and programs “fit together” to work toward an underlying and consistent approach; (2) it is not clear that the various groups are structured and delivered in a manner consistent with the research evidence about what is most effective with youth; (3) youth not infrequently appear to choose to “sleep” in their room rather than participate in the groups – more work needs to be done to assess the reason for that (e.g. incentive to participate are not working/available, youth that have been there a long time view the groups as redundant, the actual delivery does not provide sufficient opportunity for “active” involvement, etc.) – one of the roles for the treatment director/psychologist would normally be to assess this issue and work with the whole team to find solutions that would more effectively engage youth ; (4) the Youth Support Specialists cite that it is not uncommon that lack of a suitable space for their program and/or a shortage of staff available to get youth to and then supervise the program limits their ability to provide the programming that is scheduled.
Therefore, movement toward substantial compliance related to programming remains in what might best be described as a “holding pattern”.
Recommendations to help move toward substantial compliance in this area remain essentially the same as the prior report, including: 1. Increasing time allotted to the psychologist position at Henley Young to full-time. If that is
not Dr. Payne and she leaves the program, a qualified replacement needs to be found as soon as possible; 2. Providing portable “classrooms” or creating additional space that can also be used for various group programs as well as educational programming; and 3. Supporting the mental health team (psychologist, QMHP, Youth Support Specialists) to review what programs (content and structure) are provided and identifying more targeted behavior skills youth need to learn (generally in the realm of cognitive behavioral programs), searching out related and evidence-based curriculum, and increasing the amount of time youth spend in practicing new skills.
70

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 71 of 104
79. Ensure that youth receive adequate free appropriate education, including special education.
Partial Compliance There continue to be improvements in delivery of educational services for JCA youth, including: • Youth involved in the GED program also are now participating in the classroom instruction
as well. Whereas in the past, those youth were receiving only two hours of GED/basic education per day and the rest of their day was spent on the living unit, they now receive approximately 5 hours of programming plus additional GED preparation support; • This visit allowed for time to review the process of assessing the youth’s needs, particularly as it might relate to special education services that the youth was being provided prior to admission and be eligible for while at Henley Young. Designated educational staff is able to access Jackson Public School (JPS) records (which accounts for almost all youth admitted) and obtain educational records including an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) if it has already been done. Within 10 days, that information is reviewed in collaboration with the Youth Support Specialist, the parent(s), and the designated special education teacher. Progress for these youth is monitored/evaluated every 4-6 weeks, and the IEP is reviewed and modified/updated if needed. Youth with IEPs participate in the regular classroom programming where possible but may be “pulled out” for additional support as needed to meet their needs, but the only space available for this purpose is inadequate – essentially a converted closet; • Efforts to move some of the youth toward GED attainment continue, although getting one or more youth to the point where they can pass all the requisite tests remains to be accomplished. Suitable arrangements seem to be in place in coordination with JPS to administer tests at a JPS site when needed, and sheriff’s staff has been supportive in securely transporting youth to the site and supervising as needed. The goal remains to set aside space in the facility for testing, and the GED support teacher’s goal is to become certified to administer the tests; • Additional education software that will provide additional options to support youth’s continuing education, particularly for youth who obtain a GED, has been purchased, but additional staff training is needed to fully implement the planned upgrade(s). When completed, the changes should enhance the ability of the educational program to individualize program delivery, including some credit recovery applications that will enable youth to “catch up” on credits much more efficiently.
To move toward substantial compliance it will be necessary to: (1) Provide additional adequate space for special education services. Adding some portable
classroom space would accomplish that as well as providing space for additional educational, treatment, and behavioral programming;
71

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 72 of 104
(2) Conduct a more thorough review of youth’s educational records to ensure that: (a) the expressed process for obtaining and reviewing a youth’s prior records, particularly as it relates to special education records, is what actually happens; (b) reviews of IEPs are being conducted on a regular basis and required services are actually being provided; and (c) reverify the number of instruction hours all youth are receiving on a daily basis, including verifying regular attendance (vs. youth being allowed to “opt out” of school programming); and
(3) Confirm steps taken to fully implement additional services, including credit recovery programming and GED certification. Both of these programs have been outlined in at least one site visit prior to this May visit but have yet to be implemented, so it is necessary to move from the “goal” to actual implementation.
It is reasonable that substantial compliance related to this requirement can be accomplished by the end of the calendar year, if not sooner, and subsequent visits can focus on ensuring that compliance is sustained.
80. Ensure that youth are properly separated by sight and sound from adult prisoners.
Substantial Compliance Since all youth under 18 have “aged out” of RDC and there are no adult prisoners at Henley Young, this provision is met. As JCA youth in placement at Henley Young turn 18, they will be transferred to RDC or the Jackson facility. For purposes of monitoring sustained compliance it will be necessary to track whether any youth under 18 are held at either RDC or JDC.
81. Ensure that the Jail’s classification and housing assignment system does not merely place all youth in the same housing unit, without adequate separation based on classification standards. Instead, the system must take into account classification factors that differ even within the youth sub-class of prisoners. These factors include differences in age, dangerousness, likelihood of victimization, and sex/gender.
Substantial Compliance The most relevant classification issue for JCA youth at Henley Young is related to which unit to house the youth in. Two of the four housing units are designated for JCA males, one unit is for non-JCA males, and one unit houses both JCA and non-JCA girls. In discussing housing decisions with staff, it is apparent that they do take into consideration the factors indicated above, but documentation for the decision had been lacking. The primary focus for classification at Henley Young is to ensure youth’s safety. While the presenting offense provides some information that informs the placement decision, they also have the benefit of often having prior experience with the youth based on a prior juvenile placement at Henley Young. Thus, they are
72

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 73 of 104
able to gather information about prior behavioral concerns, age, gang affiliation if any, and other factors relevant to placement.
During discussions, staff committed to developing a form for documenting the classification decision, and subsequent to the visit that form was developed and provided for review. The classification policy will be modified to reflect use of a new documentation format, and reviewing the use of the form will be a focus of the next site visit to ensure that compliance is sustained.
82. Train staff members assigned to supervise youth on the Jail’s youth-specific policies and procedures, as well as on age-appropriate supervision and treatment strategies. The County must ensure that such specialized training includes training on the supervision and treatment of youth, child and adolescent development, behavioral management, crisis intervention, conflict management, child abuse, juvenile rights, the juvenile justice system, youth suicide prevention and mental health, behavioral observation and reporting, gang intervention, and de-escalation.
Partial Compliance This visit afforded the opportunity to meet with Off. Hines who has been serving as the interim training coordinator for much of the past 18 months and with Off. Cole who is the designated training coordinator (but has been deployed to the Middle East for the bulk of the last two years or so). As with prior months, the training conducted since the visit in January included New Employee Orientation, CPR, Suicide Prevention, and Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI) training. As noted previously Off. Hines does a good job tracking minimum training requirements and providing training on a flexible schedule that best meets the needs of staff. Delivery of training is complicated by the fact that due to the low wages staff receive, the vast majority of them have second jobs which makes scheduling training at a time they can attend more difficult. The programs provided during this recent period continue to be the core programs that staff are involved in along with periodic trainings related to updated policies and procedures. And, as with prior reports, these trainings may bring staff up to a basic skill level but do not provide any level of advanced training that would be helpful for staff and fully meet the requirements of this provision. Hinds County engaged a trainer to provide a series of five training modules to HY supervisors and administrative staff.
That said, the recommendations for this report remain the same as the January report: (1) Efforts need to be made to identify/develop more advanced training programs that build on
the basic skills learned in the current training curriculum. This could include outreach to local/regional resources through the universities, Hinds Behavioral Health, or other programs that focus on working with youth; and
73

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 74 of 104
(2) The County should consider linking more advanced training to additional performance and/or longevity incentives that would enhance staff retention, increase the staff skill level, and provide reinforcement for staff to advance those skills.
83. Specifically prohibit the use of segregation as a disciplinary sanction for youth. Segregation may be used on a youth only when the individual’s behavior threatens imminent harm to the youth or others. This provision is in addition to, and not a substitute, for the provisions of this Agreement that apply to the use of segregation in general. In addition:
a. Prior to using segregation, staff members must utilize less restrictive techniques such as verbal de-escalation and individual counseling, by qualified mental health or other staff trained on the management of youth.
b. Prior to placing a youth in segregation, or immediately thereafter, a staff member must explain to the youth the reasons for the segregation, and the fact that the youth will be released upon regaining self-control.
c. Youth may be placed in segregation only for the amount of time necessary for the individual to regain self-control and no longer pose an immediate threat. As soon as the youth’s behavior no longer threatens imminent harm to the youth or others, the County must release the individual back to their regular detention location, school or other programming.
d. If a youth is placed in segregation, the County must immediately provide one-on-one crisis intervention and observation.
e. The County must specifically document and record the use of segregation on youth as part of its incident reporting and quality assurance systems.
f. A Qualified Medical Professional, or staff member who has completed all training required for supervising youth, must directly monitor any youth in segregation at least every fifteen (15) minutes. Such observation must be documented immediately after each check.
g. Youth may not be held in segregation for a continuous period longer than one (1) hour during waking hours. If staff members conclude that a youth is not sufficiently calm to allow a break in segregation after one hour, they must contact a Qualified Mental Health Professional. The Qualified Mental Health Professional must assess the youth and determine whether the youth requires treatment or services not available in the Jail. If the youth requires mental health services that are not provided by the Jail, the Qualified Mental Health Provider must immediately notify the Jail Administrator and promptly arrange for hospitalization or other treatment services.
h. If a youth is held in segregation for a continuous period longer than two (2) hours, Staff Members must notify the Jail Administrator.
i. Any notifications or assessments required by this paragraph must be documented in the youth’s individual record.
74

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 75 of 104
Partial Compliance In reviewing youth records, a random sample of Incident Reports, and all Incident Reports that resulted in segregation as a discipline it became apparent that there has been a significant and impressive reduction in the use of extended room confinement in response to behavior problems. For purposes of review, there are two kinds of room confinement used at Henley Young: (1) Behavioral Management Isolation/Confinements (BMI) which can be initiated by supervision staff at the time of an incident/behavior that poses a substantive problem that can’t be readily resolved through verbal interaction with the youth and/or require some short-term separation of youth for safety reasons, and (2) Due Process Isolation (DPI) which is implemented following a major incident and an administrative review process conducted usually by Mr. Dorsey, the Quality Assurance Manager.
While previously a log was kept of DPIs only, in response to discussions with Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Burnside, the Operations Manager, on previous site visits, a similar tracking log was implemented for the BMIs as well. This afforded the opportunity to track essentially any period of involuntary room confinement to determine its length and match it with Observation logs to ensure that any youth so confined was being properly monitored by staff.
In January through April, the log revealed that there were twenty-four instances of BMIs, with the majority of those confinements being for 30 minutes or less. Five BMIs lasted approximately one hour, and there were only two BMIs that extended beyond one hour (lasted 90 minutes). These two were related to a fight between two residents and separation for longer than one hour was needed to support a safe return to the unit. In short, the pattern of use of BMIs suggests that there has been a significant change in how staff respond to incidents, namely a significant reduction on the reliance of room confinement as the “tool” to deal with misbehavior(s).
Records revealed only four instances of Due Process Isolation for up to 24 hours since the January site visit. All were instances of fighting/assaultive behavior which is considered a major violation requiring some form of more serious disciplinary and safety response. This reduced number of DPIs, four in essentially a four-month period, can be compared with prior numbers of anywhere from four to eight DPIs per month through the fall of 2018. Additionally, the 24-hour DPI is reduced from what had been the practice less than a year ago of allowing DPIs for up to 72 hours (Note: the 24 hour limit currently in effect is consistent with the requirements of the Henley Young/SPLC agreement).
Leadership staff attributes this improvement to a combination of factors, including youth adapting to the routines and programs at Henley Young, staff responding more proactively to behaviors that may portend more serious incidents, implementation of additional incentives to promote positive behavior, and most importantly enhanced communication and collaboration across supervising staff and the mental health team members. Youth Support Specialists are
75

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 76 of 104
much more involved in responding to situations that arise and taking a problem-solving approach to issues that arise, Due Process Hearings are focused more on finding alternative ways to hold youth accountable than simply imposing room confinement, and all staff are encouraged to utilize focus more on building positive relationships with youth than simply “monitoring” behavior “after the fact”.
While the progress is impressive, these DPIs remain inconsistent with the terms of the agreement that limit the use of involuntary room confinement to a maximum of one hour unless there is an evident safety risk. Overall the use of room confinement can be further reduced by continuing to improve the environment in the living units, retaining and expanding training of direct supervision staff, continuing to expand social skill training, adding additional program opportunities, and ensuring a full complement of mental health support staff (i.e. a full-time psychologist).
Observation logs to document observation of youth that are confined in their room are kept in the youth’s individual files, and review of those logs revealed two continuing concerns: (1) although there has been some improvement, too many of the logs reflect “time checks” that exactly meet the maximum 15 minute observation requirement (e.g. 1500, 1515, 1530 and so on). Based on experience, this pattern tends to occur when checks are either not made at all for periods of time and/or the times are noted at the beginning or end of a shift/time period, neither of which provides assurance that the checks occurred as required; and (2) in situations in which a mental health clinician is required to interview the youth there is no documentation that has occurred. While clinicians may document that check in their files, it is not required to be done, and there is no way to verify the mental health consultation has occurred as required. It is well accepted in the field that “If it is not documented, it didn’t occur…”, so this needs to be rectified.
In addition to making continued efforts to reduce the use of involuntary room confinement for disciplinary purposes, it is recommended that: (1) Leadership implement improvements to the supervision and quality assurance process related
to Room Observation logs to ensure that they are being completed accurately and represent actual times that the required monitoring occurs. Supervisors on duty can play a key role in making sure this happens, but to date that has not seemed to fully address the concern, so additional steps need to be implemented; and (2) Documentation of mental health wellness checks conducted by the qualified mental health professional is done directly on the Room Observation Log. Additional notes may be made by clinicians in their mental health records, but at a minimum these need to be readily available for review by supervisors, managers, and the monitoring team. This has been recommended in prior reports, but following this visit the Quality Assurance Manager has indicated this will be implemented.
76

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 77 of 104
84. Develop and implement a behavioral treatment program appropriate for youth. This program must be developed with the assistance of a qualified consultant who has at least five years of experience developing behavioral programs for institutionalized youth. The Jail’s behavioral program must include all of the following elements:
a. The behavioral program must include positive incentives for changing youth behavior, outline prohibited behaviors, and describe the consequences for prohibited behaviors.
b. An individualized program must be developed by a youth’s interdisciplinary treatment team, and properly documented in each youth’s personal file. Documentation requirements must include the collection of data required for proper assessment and treatment of youth with behavioral issues. For instance, the County must track the frequency and duration of positive incentives, segregation, and targeted behaviors.
c. The program must include safeguards and prohibitions on the inappropriate use of restraints, segregation, and corporal punishment.
Partial Compliance Overall, Henley Young has made continued progress toward achieving substantial compliance on most areas related to this requirement. It is my understanding that the arrangement with Mr. Leonard Dixon has moved from him serving as a monitor for the Henley Young/SPLC agreement to providing technical assistance for the program, including the implementation of an appropriate behavior treatment program envisioned by this agreement. That may satisfy the requirement to utilize the assistance of a qualified consultant, and that assistance is reflected in some of the changes that have occurred over the past 4-8 months, including: (a) continued evolution of the “point” system by promoting greater communication between youth and staff about both what they are earning and what they could do better; (b) increased communication between members of the mental health team (Youth Support Specialists, psychologist, clinicians) and staff providing direct supervision for youth; (c) implementation of a more collaborative process to address behavioral concerns; and (d) reduced use of segregation for disciplinary purposes.
One of the positive changes that has been made is the addition of a weekly conference with the youth to review their “points” for the week, and youth can ask to see their point sheet daily if they desire. While that is an improvement, it is important to remember that the point system is only a tool that can be used to promote timely interaction with youth to help identify and verbally reinforce desired behavior(s).
As noted in the prior report, the staff with the greatest opportunity to shape behavior is the direct supervision staff. If properly trained, they can reinforce/shape youth’s behaviors as they occur
77

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 78 of 104
rather than relying on some “corrective” action later. This speaks to the need for even more staff training related to behavior management, encouraging staff to view their role as behavior change “agents” rather than a more passive “correctional” role, and more complete integration of the mental health team and direct supervision staff in development of and evaluating progress related to a youth’s individualized case plan.
As noted previously, the point system does include some incentives, but work still needs to be done to expand the positive reinforcers and find ones that fit what youth may be most interested in. Documentation of what incentives youth choose is still lacking, and the system does not yet include individualized behavioral goals that are developed in collaboration with the Youth Support Specialist or mental health team. Nor does the current system include tracking of youth behaviors on weekends, which is an opportunity lost in terms of promoting increased pro-social skills.
Specific recommendations to move toward substantial compliance continue to be: • Add an individualized weekly goal for each youth, developed in collaboration with the youth,
the Youth Support Specialist and/or other members of the treatment team; • Consider developing a “coupon” or other incentive-based tool that staff can use to reinforce
new/improved behaviors; • Continue/expand training with staff to increase their use of verbal reinforcers that are
consistent with but not necessarily dependent on the point/level system; • Add a weekend component to the point/level system so that youth are evaluated seven
days/week; and • The current point sheet form should be used to document what incentives the youth selects
based on the level of points they receive. The form currently lists most of the options youth can choose from, so it would be a relatively simple matter to highlight/circle/note what youth choose as their weekly incentive. That could serve as the documentation required above.
Deference can be given to Henley Young leadership in consultation with Mr. Dixon as to how some continued improvements can be made, but it is conceivable that substantial compliance could be accomplished relatively soon, and monitoring could transition to sustaining compliance related to the behavioral treatment program.
LAWFUL BASIS FOR DETENTION
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners are processed through the criminal justice system in a manner that respects their liberty interests. To that end:
78

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 79 of 104
85. The County will not accept or continue to house prisoners in the Jail without appropriate, completed paperwork such as an affidavit, arrest warrant, detention hold, or judge’s written detention order. Examples of inadequate paperwork include but are not limited to undated or unsigned court orders, warrants, and affidavits; documents memorializing oral instructions from court officers that are undated, unsigned, or otherwise fail to identify responsible individuals and the legal basis for continued detention or release; incomplete arresting police officer documents; and any other paperwork that does not establish a lawful basis for detention.
Partial Compliance Since the time of the last site visit the policies on pre-booking, booking and records have been adopted. A Booking Manual is reportedly being developed. There continue to be improved systems in place to track individuals and release them timely. However, there continue to be some systemic problems that make this a challenge. The new Records Policy requires uniform organization of the files and requires a summary sheet that tracks the individual’s detention status. Updates are immediately reviewed by a peer and the Supervisor is to conduct an audit of 10 files a week and do a semi-annual review of all files. The policy was adopted on March 11, 2019 and was not fully operationalized at the time of the site visit. The Records Supervisor and another staff member are attempting to review 15 files a week, reorganize them and create the summary sheet. As they review the files, they document any missing paperwork. As this process progresses, there should be fewer examples of files without documentation of the basis for detention.
At the present time, there continue to be some files that don’t support continued detention and, as a result, individuals who are detained longer than they should be. Most notably one individual was held over a month too long. He was a JCA sent to RDC for releasing. The Jackson Police Department stated that had a burglary charge being filed and promised the paperwork the next day. The JCA was sent back to Henley Young but the paperwork was never provided. This wasn’t discovered until over a month later.
Although there is improved communication between the court administrator and the Records Supervisor there are occasional miscommunications. There were two recent cases in which the release orders were not sent to the jail. The inmates informed jail staff that they were to be released which was confirmed in the court data base. One inmate was released timely; the other was released two days late.
There is improved communication with the Probation and Parole Department resulting in more timely release. The Records Supervisor now runs a report out of the JMS showing everyone in jail on a probation or parole violation. However, this is not always complete. If Booking has entered the Probation Violation (PV) as a hold, it will not appear in the report. The Records Supervisor also tracks people booked on a PV but if the PV is entered after the booking she
79

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 80 of 104
won’t catch it. The Records Supervisor has to use multiple methods to track everyone in on a PV and she reports that people can still get lost in the system.
The current audit process is disclosing a number of files where supporting documents are missing or the information in the JMS is inaccurate. One person was almost improperly released because the JMS had not been updated with a second charge. Improper releases are also a potential problem as a result of the Warrants Division using a different data base than the rest of the Sheriff’s Office. The Warrants Division of HCSO uses an old data base and so does not enter warrants into the JMS system. If a warrant is entered after 5:00 or on the weekend, the Records Office won’t know about it until the next business day.
There are several system issues that result in over-detention. One recurring situation is that there is not a way to identify people in the Jail who are waiting for a preliminary hearing. Individuals who do not have an attorney have no one to request a preliminary hearing. These individuals currently get lost in the system and some stay long periods of time in the jail. One individual had been in since January without a preliminary hearing. Although it is the court’s responsibility to provide timely settings, the jail currently has no way of tracking these individuals to alert the court. Another recurring problem is that individuals ordered to be released on electronic monitoring are sometimes rejected by the electronic monitoring companies. There is no system to inform the jail or the court when they reject someone. One individual stayed 5 months before it was discovered, the court informed, and a Release on Own Recognizance (ROR) was entered. There continue to be individuals detained beyond 90 days without indictment. It appears that staff is maintaining an accurate list of unindicted individuals. This also cannot be run accurately out of the JMS system. A current, and hopefully, temporary problem is that the judge who normally does first appearances has been out. A circuit judge is filling in but cannot cover the entirety of the other judge’s work load. As a result, defendants are not appearing before a judge in the required 48 hours. For those individuals, the jail is entering a bail bond amount from a bail schedule. If they can’t post the bail amount, they stay in jail without having seen a judge. Two individuals had been in jail 20 and 21 days before seeing a judge and getting an ROR.
86. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees in contravention of the protections of the United States Constitution as set forth and discussed in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) and Cassibry v. State, 453 So.2d 1298 (Miss. 1984). The County must develop and implement policies consistent with the applicable federal law and the terms of this Agreement.
Substantial Compliance Since the time of the last site visit, policies on Pre-Booking, Booking, and Records have been completed and adopted. The Pre-booking policy provides that no person can be committed at the jail absent documentation that a meaningful analysis of the person’s ability to pay was conducted
80

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 81 of 104
and written findings that any failure to pay was willful. At the last site visit, there were several fines and fees orders that were ambiguous. At the time of this site visit there were no individuals in the facility on a fines and fees order so at the present time this has been changed to substantial compliance. However, this will continue to be monitored closely as the policies are new and sentencing orders are sometimes ambiguous.
87. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees absent (a) documentation demonstrating that a meaningful analysis of that person’s ability to pay was conducted by the sentencing court prior to the imposition of any sentence, and (b) written findings by the sentencing court setting forth the basis for a finding that the failure to pay the subject fines or fees was willful. At a minimum, the County must confirm receipt from the sentencing court of a signed “Order” issued by the sentencing court setting forth in detail the basis for a finding that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful.
Substantial Compliance The County has been pro-active in ensuring that valid court orders are utilized. The policy on pre-booking is consistent with this paragraph and at the time of the site visit there was no one in the facility for failure to pay fines and fees.
88. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a person for failure to pay fines or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and any other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and must obtain a copy to justify continued detention of the prisoner. After 48 hours, that prisoner must be released promptly if the Jail staff cannot obtain the necessary documentation to verify that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful, and that person is incarcerated only for the failure to pay fines or fees.
Substantial Compliance The policy on Records Management meets the requirement of this paragraph and at the time of the site visit there was no one in the facility for failure to pay fines and fees.
89. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a prisoner for failure to pay fines or fees, and if that person is incarcerated for other conviction(s) or charge(s), other than the failure to pay fines and/or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and to ascertain the prisoner’s length of sentence. If Jail staff cannot obtain a copy of the necessary documentation within 48 hours of the prisoner’s incarceration, Jail staff must promptly arrange for the prisoner’s transport to the sentencing court so that the court may conduct a legally sufficient hearing and provide any required
81

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 82 of 104
documentation, including the fines or fees owed by the prisoner, and an assessment of the prisoner’s ability to pay and willfulness (or lack thereof) in failing to pay fines or fees.
Substantial Compliance The policy on Records Management meets the requirement of this paragraph and at the time of the site visit there was no one in the facility for failure to pay fines and fees.
90. Jail staff must maintain the records necessary to determine the amount of time a person must serve to pay off any properly ordered fines or fees. To the extent that a sentencing court does not specifically calculate the term of imprisonment to be served, the Jail must obtain the necessary information within 24 hours of a prisoner’s incarceration. Within 48 hours of incarceration, each prisoner shall be provided with documentation setting forth clearly the term of imprisonment and the calculation used to determine the term of imprisonment.
Partial Compliance The WC continues to maintain a spreadsheet. There are no individuals currently incarcerated with an order to pay fines and fees. There was no documentation that prisoners were provided with documentation of their release date although they do typically have the orders from the court. At the time of the site visit, one prisoner was meeting with the case manager to clarify his release date.
91. No pre-trial detainee or sentenced prisoner incarcerated by the County solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be required to perform physical labor. Nor shall any such detainee or prisoner receive any penalty or other adverse consequence for failing to perform such labor, including differential credit toward sentences. Any physical labor by pre-trial detainees or by prisoners incarcerated solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be performed on a voluntary basis only, and the County shall not in any way coerce such pre-trial detainees or prisoners to perform physical labor.
Partial Compliance This has become a limited issue now that there are no individuals working off fines and fees. As reported recently, the recent standard practice at the WC is to give half the amount of credit towards fines and fees for individuals who do not perform physical labor. This includes individuals who cannot perform physical labor because of a medical or mental health condition. In prior site visits the stated practice was reported as determining the amount of credit on a case by case basis. At the time of the current site visit, the stated policy was that if Medical determined that the individual could not perform physical labor the individual got full credit. This is carried as partial compliance because there needs to be a written policy requiring that individuals who cannot work because of a medical or mental health condition or other disability receive full credit towards fines and fees.
82

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 83 of 104
92. The County must ensure that the Jail timely releases from custody all individuals entitled to release. At minimum:
a. Prisoners are entitled to release if there is no legal basis for their continued detention. Such release must occur no later than 11:59 PM on the day that a prisoner is entitled to be released.
b. Prisoners must be presumed entitled to release from detention if there is a court order that specifies an applicable release date, or Jail records document no reasonable legal basis for the continued detention of a prisoner.
c. Examples of prisoners presumptively entitled to release include: i. Individuals who have completed their sentences; ii. Individuals who have been acquitted of all charges after trial; iii. Individuals whose charges have been dismissed; iv. Individuals who are ordered released by a court order; and v. Individuals detained by a law enforcement agency that then fails to promptly provide constitutionally adequate, documented justification for an individual’s continued detention.
Partial Compliance See response to number 85.
93. The County must develop and implement a reliable, complete, and adequate prisoner records system to ensure that staff members can readily determine the basis for a prisoner’s detention, when a prisoner may need to be released, and whether a prisoner should remain in detention. The records system must provide Jail staff with reasonable advance notice prior to an anticipated release date so that they can contact appropriate agencies to determine whether a prisoner should be released or remain in detention.
Partial Compliance As described in paragraph 85, the new Records policy establishes a system that should greatly improve the reliability of the prisoner record system. However, it is not operationalized yet and a complete updating and review of the records has not been completed. Similarly, when the Booking Manual is completed, there should be improvement in the initial entries into the JMS system. County IT staff have recently been very active in developing reports out of the JMS system including the ability to run a PV report for example that allows tracking of dates of release for prisoners booked on a PV. Additional problems described in paragraph 85 continue to exist. At present, the Jail is still partially reliant on inmate requests and grievances to identify people who are being over detained. In addition to Booking staff, there are four individuals tracking the lawful basis of detention. They are all four using separate spreadsheets and lists which as noted above do not match reports run from the JMS system. There continues to be a
83

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 84 of 104
lack of specified procedures to check all law enforcement and court documents. Jail staff do not have access to the county court data base or the updated circuit court data base which would allow them to improve the accuracy of their records.
94. Jail record systems must accurately identify and track all prisoners with serious mental illness, including their housing assignment and security incident histories. Jail staff must develop and use records about prisoners with serious mental illness to more accurately and efficiently process prisoners requiring forensic evaluations or transport to mental hospitals or other treatment facilities, and to improve individual treatment, supervision, and community transition planning for prisoners with serious mental illness. Records about prisoners with serious mental illness must be incorporated into the Jail’s incident reporting, investigations, and medical quality assurance systems. The County must provide an accurate census of the Jail’s mental health population as part of its compliance reporting obligations, and the County must address this data when assessing staffing, program, or resource needs.
Partial Compliance This provision speaks to one set of responsibilities that fall clearly on the mental health team, and another set of responsibilities that must be shared by the mental health team, security staff and the facility’s administrative staff.
With regard to those responsibilities that fall clearly on the mental health team, there has been enormous progress towards addressing this provision. More specifically, the mental health team has developed and maintained a ‘mental health tracking log’ that lists all prisoners with serious mental illness; each prisoner’s location, booking date, and length of stay in the facility; how and when each prisoner was referred to mental health; and information regarding the initial mental health assessment, the initial assessment by the psychiatric nurse clinician, diagnosis, the treatment plan, any medication, and next scheduled visit. The mental health team also maintains a complete medical record for each prisoner with serious mental illness that includes all assessments, treatment plans, and treatment progress notes; these records reflect the activities of each team member involved in the prisoner’s treatment, including the psychiatric nurse clinician; and these records also document assessments and treatment related to any special mental health circumstance that might have occurred including, for example, suicide watch or other special mental health observation.
Given the above noted, the mental health team can provide an accurate census of the jail’s identified mental health population. This census count, coupled with a clear awareness of the standards of clinical practice for addressing the needs of seriously mentally ill persons, has
84

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 85 of 104
informed discussions in this report regarding staffing, program and resource needs. See sections 37, 42 and 77 with regard to staffing needs, program development and resource needs, including the need for a special mental health unit.
The information contained in the ‘mental health tracking log’ and the medical records is also used to assess compliance with many of the mental health policies and procedures. For example, these records indicate whether or not specific, required tasks were performed; whether or not tasks were performed in a timely manner; whether or not each task is sufficiently documented; and whether or not a decision made is supported by the information obtained that formed the basis for the decision. While this is the first step in the development of a quality assurance program for mental health, now that the psychiatric nurse clinician has been brought on board, it is anticipated that a more formal and expansive initial treatment plan development process and a periodic treatment plan review process will be undertaken. This treatment planning and review process will provide yet another level of quality review, in that team members will be collectively examining to what extent each prescribed treatment plan is actually meeting its treatment goals and objectives, and what adjustments in the treatment plan may or may not be indicated. It is further anticipated that once other mental health staff shortages have been addressed, time can be allotted for the development of additional mechanisms for the assessment of the quality of the mental health services delivered, including those services that have yet to be developed.
To date, there have been no prisoners who have required a transfer to a mental hospital or other treatment facility for mental health treatment. However, there is a considerable backlog with regard to the transfer of prisoners for forensic evaluations and/or restoration of competency, which is totally due to the limited capacity of the forensic mental health facility where such tasks are performed. In an attempt to respond to this problem, there is now a ‘competency restoration program’ that has been brought into the facility, which is a free-standing program that is not part of the facility’s mental health treatment program.
See section 96 for a discussion of the mental health team’s community transition planning for prisoners with serious mental illness.
In contrast to the above noted, there has been much less progress towards meeting this provision as it relates to the responsibilities that must be shared by the mental health team, security staff and the facility’s administrative staff. To what extent and through what mechanisms mental health will be involved in such things as security incidences and investigations await the development of security policies and procedures that address such issues.
95. All individuals who (i) were found not guilty, were acquitted, or had charges brought against them dismissed, and (ii) are not being held on any other matter, must be released directly from the court unless the court directs otherwise. Additionally:
85

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 86 of 104
a. Such individuals must not be handcuffed, shackled, chained with other prisoners, transported back to the Jail, forced to submit to bodily strip searches, or returned to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
b. Notwithstanding (a), above, individuals may request to be transported back to the Jail solely for the purpose of routine processing for release. If the County decides to allow such transport, the County must ensure that Jail policies and procedures govern the process. At minimum, policies and procedures must prohibit staff from: i. Requiring the individual to submit to bodily strip searches; ii. Requiring the individual to change into Jail clothing if the individual is not already in such clothing; and iii. Returning the individual to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
Non-Compliant Individuals are not being released from the Court at this time. In connection with the drafting of policies and procedures, Jail staff are working on a process of releasing individuals from the downtown facility, JDC.
96. The County must develop, implement, and maintain policies and procedures to govern the release of prisoners. These policies and procedures must:
a. Describe all documents and records that must be collected and maintained in Jail files for determining the basis of a prisoner’s detention, the prisoner’s anticipated release date, and their status in the criminal justice system.
b. Specifically, detail procedures to ensure timely release of prisoners entitled to be released, and procedures to prevent accidental release.
c. Be developed in consultation with court administrators, the District Attorney’s Office, and representatives of the defense bar.
d. Include mechanisms for notifying community mental health providers, including the County’s Program of Assertive Community Treatment (“PACT”) team, when releasing a prisoner with serious mental illness so that the prisoner can transition safely back to the community. These mechanisms must include providing such prisoners with appointment information and a supply of their prescribed medications to bridge the time period from release until their appointment with the County PACT team, or other community provider.
Non-Compliant A primary focus of this provision is the successful referral of prisoners with mental health difficulties to community-based mental health services upon their release from the facility. As has been noted in prior reports, the mental health team and the facility’s discharge planner have
86

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 87 of 104
taken steps towards improving communication and cooperation with community-based providers, especially Hinds Behavioral Health (HBH, which is a major community-based provider of a full range of mental health treatment services and wrap-around services). To date, it at least appears that it will be possible to develop a sound working relationship between the facility and this community-based provider of mental health services that will lead to more meaningful and successful referrals of prisoners to a range of community-based mental health services upon their release from the facility. A number of options for improved collaboration are being considered; at least one option might require a proposal to the County to fund part of a HBH outreach/intake worker’s time that would actually be spent at the jails, linking prisoners likely to be released to HBH; but all possible options need further consideration before the best option(s) can be selected. It is anticipated that once additional mental health staff have been hired, more time can be devoted to this extremely important effort.
Another critical factor that impacts on the successful referral of prisoners with mental health difficulties to community-based mental health services is the preparation of prisoners to receive such a referral. More specifically, upon their release from the facility, prisoners are more likely to actually accept and follow-up on a referral for community-based mental health services if they have come to understand that they have a mental illness, the impact that the illness has had on their lives, that there is treatment that can help them improve their ability to function, and that it is their responsibility to obtain, actively participate in, and comply with that treatment. Therefore, another part of responding to this provision is the implementation of the planned expansion of the mental health services provided at the facility to include psychoeducational groups and discharge planning groups, both geared towards preparing prisoners to accept and follow-up on referrals for community-based mental health services.
Finally, the other critical issue in this provision is providing prisoners, upon their release from the facility, with appointment information and a supply of their prescribed medications to bridge the time period between release and their first outpatient appointment. In order to address this part of this provision, the mental health team should be informed when a prisoner is going to be released and be given an opportunity to meet with the prisoner prior to release. During prior site visits, this has appeared to be a major problem, in that a comparison of the total number of persons released from all 3 facilities with the number of persons who were seen by medical and mental health prior to their final release indicated that only about 30% of released persons were cleared by medical and mental health. However, booking staff have repeatedly insisted that they attempt to assure that all persons are cleared by medical prior to their final release, and that therefore, the percentage cleared by medical just couldn’t be that low.
During this site visit, the question of why the percentage of medically cleared released persons appears to be so low, when booking insists that all discharging inmates, in fact, cleared by medical. One proffered explanation is that a large number of people are booked and released
87

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 88 of 104
before there is even a chance for them to undergo the nurses’ intake screen. There was no specific data regarding the volume of such cases, booking estimated that there were about 10 such cases each week. In addition, a considerable number of persons are brought to the facility by the Jackson Police Department, directly from Court; their release papers are already at the facility, and so these persons are also almost immediately released (and counted as a release) after booking and before there is even a chance for the nurses’ intake screen; and although there was no specific data regarding the volume of such cases, booking estimated that there were also about 10 of these cases each week. Furthermore, booking indicated that there are an additional set of persons who are brought to the facility in the evening and are released early in the morning (and counted as a release); therefore these individuals are only held at the facility overnight/for less than 12 hours, and therefore they are never fully evaluated by medical and are virtually never evaluated by mental health; but again, there was no specific data regarding the volume of such cases, and booking didn’t want to even attempt to estimate the number of such cases.
These estimates will need to be further evaluated. However, taking this additional information into consideration, and therefore for the purpose of this assessment, including only released persons who were detained at the facility long enough to have had an opportunity to be seen by medical and/or mental health, the percentage of such persons released who were cleared by medical and mental health at least appears to be somewhat better. However, given that for the month of April, of the 372 persons who were released, only 122 were cleared by medical/mental health, subtraction of the above noted estimated number of persons who were likely never seen by medical or mental health still leaves a large number of persons who were detained long enough to have been seen by medical or mental health but were still not cleared by medical or mental health upon their release from the facility. Further evidence of the fact that this new information still doesn’t resolve this issue is the data maintained by medical and mental health. The data maintained by medical and mental health, concerning persons clearly known to medical and mental health who were released, indicates that less than 50% of released person who had been treated by medical or mental health are cleared by medical or mental health and receive a supply of their medication prior to their release. Therefore, efforts to obtain more specific data and a further review and analysis of this issue continue to be indicated.
As the issue of obtaining medical/mental health clearance prior to release continues to be studied, already existing data indicates that security must make more of an effort to assure that prisoners are cleared by the medical and mental health departments as part of the release process. However, the mental health team is also taking other steps to address this issue. More specifically, once the above noted psychoeducational groups and discharge planning groups have been initiated, the plan is that the information that will be transmitted in these groups will include important information on the community-based mental health services provider, such as its location and the fact that they accept unscheduled, walk-in intake appointments every morning. In this way, if a person is released without being cleared by medical and mental health,
88

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 89 of 104
the person will know that he/she should go to the community-based provider the next morning for assistance, support and medication. The transmittal of such information has already been incorporated into the one group therapy effort that has already been initiated, which is allowing the mental health team an opportunity to examine the best way to transmit this information and assess the efficacy of this effort.
97. The County must develop, implement, and maintain appropriate post orders relating to the timely release of individuals. Any post orders must:
a. Contain up-to-date contact information for court liaisons, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Public Defender’s Office;
b. Describe a process for obtaining higher level supervisor assistance in the event the officer responsible for processing releases encounters administrative difficulties in determining a prisoner’s release eligibility or needs urgent assistance in reaching officials from other agencies who have information relevant to a prisoner’s release status.
Non-Compliant The County has not yet developed post orders in this area.
98. Nothing in this Agreement precludes appropriate verification of a prisoner’s eligibility for release, including checks for detention holds by outside law enforcement agencies and procedures to confirm the authenticity of release orders. Before releasing a prisoner entitled to release, but no later than the day release is ordered, Jail staff should check the National Crime Information Center or other law enforcement databases to determine if there may be a basis for continued detention of the prisoner. The results of release verification checks must be fully documented in prisoner records.
Partial Compliance The Booking staff reportedly now runs an NCIC check at the time of booking and again at release. NCIC reports run at the time of booking are in the inmate files. The files reviewed did include a copy of the NCIC report at the time of release. Once the policy on Release is revised and adopted, and the files continue to contain the required documentation, the county can be considered compliant.
99. The County must ensure that the release process is adequately staffed by qualified detention officers and supervisors. To that end, the County must:
a. Ensure that sufficient qualified staff members, with access to prisoner records and to the Jail’s e-mail account for receiving court orders, are available to receive and effectuate court release orders twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
89

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 90 of 104
b. Ensure that staff members responsible for the prisoner release process and related records have the knowledge, skills, training, experience, and abilities to implement the Jail’s release policies and procedures. At minimum, the County must provide relevant staff members with specific pre-service and annual inservice training related to prisoner records, the criminal justice process, legal terms, and release procedures. The training must include instruction on: i. How to process release orders for each court, and whom to contact if a question arises; ii. What to do if the equipment for contacting other agencies, such as the Jail’s fax machine or email service, malfunctions, or communication is otherwise disrupted; iii. Various types of court dispositions, and the language typically used therein, to ensure staff members understand the meaning of court orders; and iv. How and when to check for detainers to ensure that an individual may be released from court after she or he is found not guilty, is acquitted, or has the charges brought against her or him dismissed.
c. Provide detention staff with sufficient clerical support to prevent backlogs in the filing of prisoner records.
Partial Compliance There are now policies and procedures on Booking, Pre-Booking, and Records. A policy on Releasing has been circulated and returned with comments. These policies will assist in coming into compliance in this area. As stated in paragraph 85 above, there is a problem in checking for detainers because the warrants division does not enter warrants in the JMS system and the Records Supervisor does not have access to their system after hours.
While this section deals with the qualifications of those people processing records, coordinating with the courts and processing inmates for release (as well as booking), the imbalance of staffing in the Booking area needs to be emphasized again (see the Sixth Monitoring Report). While there is routinely only one officer in the holding cell area (where there should be two at all times, one male and one female) three, four or more Booking Clerks (who are Detention Officers) are often on duty in the office area. Considering the fact that only 14 people are booked on a typical day (slightly more than one every two hours), this misallocation of manpower should be addressed immediately by the facility captain.
100. The County must annually review its prisoner release and detention process to ensure that it complies with any changes in federal law, such as the constitutional standard for civil or pretrial detention.
90

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 91 of 104
Non-Compliant At the time of the site visit, there had not been an initial review of this process to determine consistency with federal law.
101. The County must ensure that the Jail’s record-keeping and quality assurance policies and procedures allow both internal and external audit of the Jail’s release process, prisoner lengths of stay, and identification of prisoners who have been held for unreasonably long periods without charges or other legal process. The County must, at minimum, require:
a. A Jail log that documents (i) the date each prisoner was entitled to release; (ii) the date, time, and manner by which the Jail received any relevant court order; (iii) the date and time that prisoner was in fact released; (iv) the time that elapsed between receipt of the court order and release; (v) the date and time when information was received requiring the detention or continued detention of a prisoner (e.g., immigration holds or other detainers), and (vi) the identity of the authority requesting the detention or continued detention of a prisoner.
b. Completion of an incident report, and appropriate follow-up investigation and administrative review, if an individual is held in custody past 11:59 PM on the day that she or he is entitled to release. The incident report must document the reason(s) for the error. The incident report must be submitted to the Jail Administrator no later than one calendar day after the error was discovered.
Non-Compliant The record keeping process does not at this time allow for an audit other than a review of individual files. The County has provided their list of releases but the list does not include the information required by subparagraph a. Incident reports are not routinely prepared for errors in releasing. When involved in the incident, the Court Liaison has prepared a report on significant incidents of over-detention such as the JCA held over a month too long. This is not done on an incident report form in the JMS system.
102. The County must appoint a staff member to serve as a Quality Control Officer with responsibility for internal auditing and monitoring of the release process. This Quality Control Officer will be responsible for helping prevent errors with the release process, and the individual’s duties will include tracking releases to ensure that staff members are completing all required paper work and checks. If the Quality Control Officer determines that an error has been made, the individual must have the authority to take corrective action, including the authority to immediately contact the Jail Administrator or other County official with authority to order a prisoner’s release. The Quality Control Officer’s duties also include providing data and reports so that release errors are incorporated into the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance process.
91

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 92 of 104
Partial Compliance The Jail now has an individual whose title is Quality Control Officer or sometimes is referred to as the Court Liaison. At the present time, his work is primarily reactive. When an individual is brought to his attention, he researches the situation and takes corrective action. He does not track releases or prevent errors in the releasing process. He maintains a spreadsheet that includes release errors that he has addressed, but he does not at the present time collect and report on releasing errors. His work is not incorporated into a continuous improvement and quality assurance process.
Another individual serves as a court liaison with the lower courts. She also attempts to identify individuals entitled to release. Like the Quality Control Officer, she operates independently of the booking and release process and maintains her own spreadsheets but she does not perform all the duties listed in this paragraph.
103. The County must require investigation of all incidents relating to timely or erroneous prisoner release within seven calendar days by appropriate investigators, supervisors, and the Jail Administrator. The Jail Administrator must document any deficiencies found and any corrective action taken. The Jail Administrator must then make any necessary changes to Jail policies and procedures. Such changes should be made, if appropriate, in consultation with court personnel, the District Attorney’s Office, members of the defense bar, and any other law enforcement agencies involved in untimely or erroneous prisoner releases.
Non-Compliant Incident reports are not routinely created for untimely or erroneous prisoner release or any investigations of such incidents. The Court Liaison does investigate and prepare a report on incidents that he has investigated. There have been untimely releases as described above that have not been reported.
104. The County must conduct bi-annual audits of release policies, procedures, and practices. As part of each audit, the County must make any necessary changes to ensure that individuals are being released in a timely manner. The audits must review all data collected regarding timely release, including any incident reports or Quality Control audits referenced in Paragraph 102 above. The County must document the audits and recommendations and must submit all documentation to the Monitor and the United States for review.
Non-Compliant There has not been an initial audit of releasing practices. There are no incident reports regarding untimely releases even though such incidents have occurred.
92

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 93 of 104
105. The County must ensure that policies, procedures, and practices allow for reasonable attorney visitation, which should be treated as a safeguard to prevent the unlawful detention of citizens and for helping to ensure the efficient functioning of the County’s criminal justice system. The Jail’s attorney visitation process must provide sufficient space for attorneys to meet with their clients in a confidential setting and must include scheduling procedures to ensure that defense attorneys can meet with their clients for reasonable lengths of time and without undue delay. An incident report must be completed if Jail staff are unable to transport a prisoner to meet with their attorney, or if there is a delay of more than 30 minutes for transporting a prisoner for a scheduled attorney visit.
Non-Compliant This paragraph has been carried as Non-Compliant because the DSD has taken no action since the Third Monitoring Report, when a simple solution to the problem at the RDC was recommended. If unused video visitation space in front of the control room officer’s station in the A, B and C Pods were repurposed as attorney/client visitation space, attorneys would have the opportunity to meet with their clients without having to wait for inmates to be brought to the front of the facility. This solution to the problem has been recommended in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Monitoring Reports. There is no expense involved other than to remove some floor and wall mounted equipment and to place tables and chairs in the space. It should not take two years to implement this recommendation.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
The County must develop an effective system for identifying and self-correcting systemic violations of prisoner’s constitutional rights. To that end, the County must:
106. Develop and maintain a database and computerized tracking system to monitor all reportable incidents, uses of force, and grievances. This tracking system will serve as the repository of information used for continuing improvement and quality assurance reports.
Partial Compliance Since the time of the last site visit, County IT has created a report that pulls data by field from the incident reports which includes reportable incidents and uses of force. County IT has also revised the incident report in the system to create new fields. This is the beginning of being able to comply with this provision. The incident reports provided to the monitoring team do not appear to be on the new form at this time. Since the time of the site visit, the monitoring team has received the electronic monthly report for May. The monitoring team will continue to look for this as a monthly report and explore during the next site visit whether the new system serves to inform continuing improvement or quality assurance report. There continues to be a concern
93

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 94 of 104

because of the lack of reports or the small number of reports that some types of incidents are underreported including late releases, use of force, and lost money and property.

The computerized grievance system does not allow for the compilation of a useful summary grievance report. With the drafting of a policy on Grievances, a system of manually recording data on grievances is being developed. The Grievance Officer is using Excel to record information related to grievances. The new policy also rejects grievances that are actually inmate requests and directs inmates to use the inmate request category. This allows an accurate depiction of grievances. With the new policy, it should be possible to have a useful data base on grievance data.

107. Compile an Incident Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Incident Summary Reports must compile and summarize incident report data in order to identify trends such as rates of incidents in general, by housing unit, by day of the week and date, by shift, and by individual prisoners or staff members. The Incident Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Brief summary of all reportable incidents, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. Description of all suicides and deaths, including the date, name of prisoner, housing
unit, and location where the prisoner died (including name of hospital if prisoner died off-site); c. The names and number of prisoners placed in emergency restraints, and segregation, and the frequency and duration of such placements; d. List and total number of incident reports received during the reporting period; e. List and Total number of incidents referred to IAD or other law enforcement agencies for investigation.

Non-Compliant The County provided a monthly report of incidents in the three facilities. Although the information was helpful, it did not meet the requirements of this paragraph. Also, in reviewing the incident reports provided as compared to the summary reports, the summary reports for RDC did not account for all of the inmate assault incidents that appear in the incident and investigation reports. For this monitoring period the summary reports were particularly deficient. When the command staff moved to creating weekly reports instead of monthly reports, the reporting provided to the monitoring team became very unpredictable. Days at the beginning or end of the month that did not align with the week were often missing, some weeks were posted twice but more importantly some weeks were missing completely and for some months there are no summary reports for some of the facilities. Specifically, the reporting was:

January:

RDC JDC

No summary report Complete

94

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 95 of 104

WC

Only 1/1 to 1/3 provided

February:

RDC JDC WC

No summary report Missing 2/10 through 2/16 Complete

March:

RDC JDC
WC

Missing 3/1 and 3/2 and 3/17 through 3/23 Missing 3/1 and 3/2 and 3/24 through 3/31 and the incident reports for 3/3 through 3/9 Missing 3/1, and 3/16 through 3/31

April

RDC

Missing 4/7 through 4/30

JDC

Missing 4/14 through 4/30 and the incident reports for 4/7

through 4/13

WC

Missing 4/27 through 4/30

No CID investigation reports provided

May

Electronic report was provided

No CID investigation reports provided

As mentioned above, since the time of the site visit, the monitoring team has received the electronic monthly report for May. This should improve the accuracy of the summary report and better facilitate identifying problem areas. Even then, it will be essential to determine that reports are being submitted when they should be such that an accurate summary report can be generated. The incident reports can also be provided through this reporting mechanism. Again, the monitoring team received the first version of this for the month of May.

108. Compile a Use of Force Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Use of Force Summary Reports must compile and summarize use of force report data in order to identify trends such as rates of use in general, by housing unit, by shift, by day of the week and date, by individual prisoners, and by staff members. The Use of Force Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Summary of all uses of force, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. List and total number of use of force reports received during the reporting period; c. List and total number of uses of force reports/incidents referred to IAD or other
law enforcement agencies for investigation.

Non-Compliant The Use of Force information has been provided in the Monthly Summary Report with the incidents and grievance information. As such the same problem described in paragraph 108 has

95

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 96 of 104
been occurring with missing days and weeks and for RDC two whole months. As mentioned above, the first electronic version of the monthly report was received for the month of May. Even then, it will be essential to determine that reports are being submitted such that an accurate summary report can be generated. For the missing reporting, see paragraph 107.
109. Compile a Grievance Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Grievance Summary Reports must compile and summarize grievance information in order to identify trends such as most frequently reported complaints, units generating the most grievances, and staff members receiving the most grievances about their conduct. To identify trends and potential concerns, at least quarterly, a member of the Jail’s management staff must review the Grievance Summary Reports and a random sample of ten percent of all grievances filed during the review period. These grievance reviews, any recommendations, and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant The defects in the electronic system prevent its use for meaningful tracking of grievances. The system is not able to generate a report that meets the requirements of this paragraph. Staff is now redirecting inmates filing a grievance who are actually making a request. That at least allows for a compilation of actual grievances. However, the system cannot generate a report by subject, location, shift, or persons involved. Any inmate response is treated by the system as an appeal when often the inmate has just responded by saying thank you. Again, this makes tracking what is actually happening difficult unless it is done manually. At the present time, there is no review process in the grievance system. As mentioned above, the Grievance Officer is now keeping an Excel spreadsheet and manually entering information related to grievances. If it includes the information required by this paragraph, this should enable staff to generate a report consistent with this provision.
110. Compile a monthly summary report of IAD investigations conducted at the Facility. The IAD Summary Report must include:
a. A brief summary of all completed investigations, by type, shift, housing unit, and date;
b. A listing of investigations referred for disciplinary action or other final disposition by type and date;
c. A listing of all investigations referred to a law enforcement agency and the name of the agency, by type and date; and
d. A listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.
Partial Compliance
96

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 97 of 104
See response to paragraph 68. The IAD investigator continues to provide a summary sheet reflecting the status of IAD investigations since 2017; however, the level of detail included does not comply with all of the requirements of this paragraph.
111. Conduct a review, at least annually, to determine whether the incident, use of force, grievance reporting, and IAD systems comply with the requirements of this Agreement and are effective at ensuring staff compliance with their constitutional obligations. The County must make any changes to the reporting systems that it determines are necessary as a result of the system reviews. These reviews and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant There has been no annual review pursuant to this paragraph.
112. Ensure that the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance systems include an Early Intervention component to alert Administrators of potential problems with staff members. The purpose of the Early Intervention System is to identify and address patterns of behavior or allegations which may indicate staff training deficiencies, persistent policy violations, misconduct, or criminal activity. As part of the Early Intervention process, incident reports, use of force reports, and prisoner grievances must be screened by designated staff members for such patterns. If misconduct, criminal activity, or behaviors indicate the need for corrective action, the screening staff must refer the incidents or allegations to Jail supervisors, administrators, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies for investigation. Additionally:
a. The Early Intervention System may be integrated with other database and computerized tracking systems required by this Agreement, provided any unified system otherwise still meets the terms of this Agreement.
b. The Early Intervention System must screen for staff members who may be using excessive force, regardless of whether use of force reviews concluded that the uses complied with Jail policies and this Agreement. This provision allows identification of staff members who may still benefit from additional training and serves as a check on any deficiencies with use of force by field supervisors.
c. The Jail Administrator, or designee of at least Captain rank, must personally review Early Intervention System data and alerts at least quarterly. The Administrator, or designee, must document when reviews were conducted as well as any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken.
d. The County must maintain a list of any staff members identified by the Early Intervention System as possibly needing additional training or discipline. A copy of this list must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
97

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 98 of 104
e. The County must take appropriate, documented, and corrective action when staff members have been identified as engaging in misconduct, criminal activity, or a pattern of violating Jail policies.
f. The County must review the Early Intervention System, at least bi-annually, to ensure that it is effective and used to identify staff members who may need additional training or discipline. The County must document any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken as a result of these reviews. Copies of these reviews must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
Non-Compliant There is currently no Early Intervention program.
113. Develop and implement policies and procedures for Jail databases, tracking systems, and computerized records (including the Early Intervention System), that ensure both functionality and data security. The policies and procedures must address all of the following issues: data storage, data retrieval, data reporting, data analysis and pattern identification, supervisor responsibilities, standards used to determine possible violations and corrective action, documentation, legal issues, staff and prisoner privacy rights, system security, and audit mechanisms.
Non-Compliant The initial P&P Manual that was issued in April, 2017 did not include policies and procedures covering this matter. There is no draft of such a policy at this time.
114. Ensure that the Jail’s medical staff are included as part of the continuous improvement and quality assurance process. At minimum, medical and mental health staff must be included through all of the following mechanisms:
a. Medical staff must have the independent authority to promptly refer cases of suspected assault or abuse to the Jail Administrator, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies;
b. Medical staff representatives must be involved in mortality reviews and systemic reviews of serious incidents. At minimum, a physician must prepare a mortality review within 30 days of every prisoner death. An outside physician must review any mortalities associated with treatment by Jail physicians.
Partial Compliance This provision will be updated at the next site visit.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
98

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 99 of 104
115. Hinds County will establish a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (“Coordinating Committee”) with subject matter expertise and experience that will assist in streamlining criminal justice processes and identify and develop solutions and interventions designed to lead to diversion from arrest, detention, and incarceration. The Coordinating Committee will focus particularly on diversion of individuals with serious mental illness and juveniles. Using the Sequential Intercept Model, or an alternative acceptable to the Parties, the Coordinating Committee will identify strategies for diversion at each intercept point where individuals may encounter the criminal justice system and will assess the County’s current diversion efforts and unmet service needs in order to identify opportunities for successful diversion of such individuals. The Committee will recommend appropriate changes to policies and procedures and additional services necessary to increase diversion.
Partial Compliance Hinds County had contracted with Justice Management Institute (JMI) to provide consulting and assist in implementing a CJCC but this contract has not been renewed. The CJCC has been meeting regularly. In order to have a CJCC with sufficient subject matter expertise and experience to carry out the mandate of this paragraph, the County will need to provide staff support. The requirement that the Committee identify opportunities for diversion and recommend measures to accomplish this has not been achieved. At this time, the County will need to drive the process of the CJCC identifying opportunities for diversion.
The Sequential Intercept Mapping required by this paragraph has already taken place under a grant to the Hinds County Behavioral Health from the GAINS Center. A two-day meeting was held on August 16-17, 2017 with broad participation including the County and Jail. The Sequential Intercept Model provides a conceptual framework for communities to use when considering the interface between the criminal justice and mental health systems as they address concerns about the criminalization of inmates with mental health illness. The GAINS center completed the report for Hinds County Behavioral Health. It includes recommendations for creating or improving intercepts in the jail and at release. This provides a useful road map for CJCC and for achieving compliance with the diversion and discharge planning requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
116. The Coordinating Committee will include representation from the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office and Hinds County Board of Supervisors. The County will also seek representation from Hinds County Behavioral Health Services; the Jackson Police Department; Mississippi Department of Mental Health; Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services; judges from the Hinds County Circuit, Chancery, and County (Youth and Justice) Courts; Hinds County District Attorney Office; Hinds County Public Defender Office; relevant Jackson city officials; and private advocates or other interested community members.
99

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 100 of 104
Partial Compliance As noted above the CJCC is meeting regularly. Not all of the identified agencies have been invited or represented at the meeting. The reported intention is to expand representation after further development. Although the County cannot control the participation of others, staff support would assist in engaging other stakeholders.
117. The Coordinating Committee will prioritize enhancing coordination with local behavioral health systems, with the goal of connecting individuals experiencing mental health crisis, including juveniles, with available services to avoid unnecessary arrest, detention, and incarceration.
Partial Compliance The CJCC has just adopted its strategic plan. Enhancing behavioral health services for justice involved individuals is included as a strategic priority. Further observation of the CJCC and the County’s leadership in the CJCC will be necessary to determine if behavioral health services are a priority in CJCC actions and deliberation.
118. Within 30 days of the Effective Date and in consultation with the United States, the County will select and engage an outside consultant to provide technical assistance to the County and Coordinating Committee regarding strategies for reducing the jail population and increasing diversion from criminal justice involvement, particularly for individuals with mental illness and juveniles. This technical assistance will include (a) a comprehensive review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing efforts to reduce recidivism and increase diversion; (b) identification of gaps in the current efforts, (c) recommendations of actions and strategies to achieve diversion and reduce recidivism; and (d) estimates of costs and cost savings associated with those strategies. The review will include interviews with representatives from the agencies and entities referenced in Paragraph 116 and other relevant stakeholders as necessary for a thorough evaluation and recommendation. Within 120 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the outside consultant will finalize and make public a report regarding the results of their assessment and recommendations. The Coordinating Committee will implement the recommended strategies and will continue to use the outside consultant to assist with implementation of the strategies when appropriate.
Partial Compliance The County did contract with an outside consultant to provide technical assistance in developing the CJCC. However, that contract does not encompass the requirements listed above regarding an assessment of and recommendations for strategies to reduce recidivism and increase diversion. The County has not renewed the contract with the consultant. The initial contract was narrower than required by this paragraph.
100

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 101 of 104
IMPLEMENTATION, TIMING, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
Paragraphs 119 and 120 regarding duty to implement and effective date omitted.
121. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County must distribute copies of the Agreement to all prisoners and Jail staff, including all medical and security staff, with appropriate explanation as to the staff members’ obligations under the Agreement. At minimum:
a. A copy of the Agreement must be posted in each unit (including booking/intake and medical areas), and program rooms (e.g., classrooms and any library).
b. Individual copies of the Agreement must be provided to prisoners upon request.
Partial Compliance The DSD has printed a booklet-sized version of the Settlement Agreement, which has been distributed to most staff, but copies are not posted in each housing unit. Other than command staff, most DSD personnel are not familiar with their obligations under the Agreement. At the JDC copies of the Agreement and the Monitor’s most recent report are located in each control room. This practice is not followed at the RDC and WC. Based on questioning of some supervisors and Detention Officers during each site visit, it is apparent that they are not only unfamiliar with the contents of the Monitoring Reports, but many of them have never read the original Settlement Agreement. Since this finding is consistent with that reported several times previously, the DSD should implement a system to standardize availability of the Settlement Agreement booklets (and the most current Monitoring Report) for staff. In addition, a systematic procedure should be developed to allow inmates access to the Settlement Agreement booklets in the housing units at each facility.
POLICY AND PROCEDURE REVIEW
130. The County must review all existing policies and procedures to ensure their compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. Where the Jail does not have a policy or procedure in place that complies with the terms of this Agreement, the County must draft such a policy or procedure, or revise its existing policy or procedure.
Partial Compliance This provision has been changed back to partial compliance. An initial attempt to draft policies and procedures was made in early 2017. The Monitoring Team and DOJ provided comments but the policies really needed to be rewritten. The plan to hire outside consultants fell through and there was no apparent progress. Since that time, jail staff has been working with Karen Albert of the Monitoring Team to develop policies and procedures and after the September site visit, several draft policies have been provided and at this time, three policies have been adopted.
101

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 102 of 104
131. The County shall complete its policy and procedure review and revision within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
Non-Compliant Three policies and procedures have now been adopted and several others have been drafted and circulated. There are many outstanding policies to be written and no estimated completion date. They are seriously overdue at this time. However, there is a policy committee working with the monitoring team expert on this project.
132. Once the County reviews and revises its policies and procedures, the County must provide a copy of its policies and procedures to the United States and the Monitor for review and comment. The County must address all comments and make any changes requested by the United States or the Monitor within thirty (30) days after receiving the comments and resubmit the policies and procedures to the United States and Monitor for review.
Partial Compliance Draft policies are being provided to DOJ and the Monitor for review. As noted above, many policies still have to be written.
133. No later than three months after the United States’ approval of each policy and procedure, the County must adopt and begin implementing the policy and procedure, while also modifying all post orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the policies and procedures.
Non-Compliant See response to 131.
134. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, all new or revised policies and procedures must be implemented within six months of the United States’ approval of the policy or procedure.
Partial Compliance There have three policies approved by DOJ and adopted by the Sheriff. The three policies are only partially implemented but six months has not run from the approval of the three policies. The policies have not been incorporated into the training curriculum and some of the procedures have not yet been implemented. Most importantly, there are many policies yet to be drafted.
135. The County must annually review its policies and procedures, revising them as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures must be submitted to the United States and the Monitor for approval in accordance with paragraphs 129-131 above.
102

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 103 of 104
Non-Compliant This paragraph is now carried as non-compliant instead of not applicable because under the timeline established by the consent decree an annual review would now be due.
COUNTY ASSESSMENT AND COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR
Paragraphs 136 through 158 on Monitor duties omitted.
159. The County must file a self-assessment compliance report. The first compliance selfassessment report must be filed with the Court within four months of the Effective Date and at least one month before a Monitor site visit. Each self-assessment compliance report must describe in detail the actions the County has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and must make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. The report must include information supporting the County’s representations regarding its compliance with the Agreement such as quality assurance information, trends, statistical data, and remedial activities. Supporting information should be based on reports or data routinely collected as part of the audit and quality assurance activities required by this Agreement (e.g., incident, use of force, system, maintenance, and early intervention), rather than generated only to support representations made in the self-assessment.
Non-Compliant At the time of the October 2017 site visit, the County provided its first self-assessment. The selfassessment was not provided prior to the May 2018 site visit. A self-assessment was provided the week prior to the September 2018 site visit. The assessment was a significant step forward but did not include the level of detail required by this paragraph. A self-assessment was not provided prior to the January or May 2019 site visit. This paragraph is now carried as noncompliant based on this history.
160. The County must designate a full-time Compliance Coordinator to coordinate compliance activities required by this Agreement. This person will serve as a primary point of contact for the Monitor. Two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties may consult with each other and the Monitor to determine whether the Compliance Coordinator’s hours may be reduced. The Parties may then stipulate to any agreed reduction in hours.
Sustained Compliance The County has designated a full-time Compliance Coordinator who is coordinating compliance activities. The Monitor will continue to track this assignment to ensure sustained compliance in this area.
103

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 33 Filed 06/27/19 Page 104 of 104
EMERGENT CONDITIONS 161. The County must notify the Monitor and United States of any prisoner death, riot, escape, injury requiring hospitalization, or over-detention of a prisoner (i.e. failure to release a prisoner before 11:59 PM on the day she or he was entitled to be released), within 3 days of learning of the event. Partial Compliance Immediate notifications have been provided although there has not been a routine method. Most recently, the notifications have returned to being provided by email which is helpful. They were not being provided to the United States; however, it appears that this has been remedied. Comparing the notifications to the medical transport list, it appears that immediate notification of hospitalization is not always provided. The County has not been providing notification of over-detention and, in fact, is not currently identifying prisoners who have been detained beyond their release date and preparing incident reports. Paragraphs 162-167 regarding jurisdiction, construction and the PLRA omitted.
104

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 1 of 117
Court-Appointed Monitor’s Eleventh Monitoring Report United States v. Hinds County, et al. Civ. No. 3:16cv489 -JCG

David M. Parrish Corrections Operations

Elizabeth E. Simpson Court-Appointed Monitor

Jim Moeser Juvenile Justice

Dr. Richard Dudley Corrections Mental Health

1

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 2 of 117
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, this site visit was handled remotely June 8-10, 2020, through conference calls and Zoom meetings with key personnel, members of the Monitoring Team and County and DOJ representatives. The Compliance Coordinator provided extensive documentation electronically which made it possible to review many records that are normally examined on site. In some cases, the absence of specific records and the remote nature of the visit obviated the Monitor’s ability to report on the status of compliance with regard to a few paragraphs.
Update on COVID-19
Pursuant to paragraph 37 of the Settlement Agreement, Hinds County is required to develop policies and procedures, including medical policies and procedures that provide a reasonably safe and secure environment for prisoners and staff. The COVID-19 pandemic certainly presents a major challenge in this regard. Most commonly, the investigation and/or monitoring of a correctional facility’s medical and mental healthcare involves an assessment of the facility’s overall performance against the ‘standard of medical practice’ and the identification of any harm that might occur as a result of any failure to meet that standard. The management of the COVID-19 pandemic presents special challenges with regard to evaluating performance against the ‘standard of practice’ for multiple reasons. More specifically, for example, it is a new COVID virus about which more is being learned on an almost daily basis, it is highly contagious and potentially quite lethal, currently there is no highly effective treatment and no vaccine, recommended infection control protocols are much more rigorous and expansive then those usually employed, and the havoc that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused around the world has been met with a range of psychological/emotional responses, ranging from overwhelming anxiety and fear to almost complete denial and dismissal.
COVID-19 presents even more special challenges as each correctional facility attempts to apply outside recommendations regarding the ‘standard of practice’ to the unique circumstances of the facility. For example, the conditions of confinement in any given facility could have an enormous impact on the implementation of recommendations regarding infection control, when and how the identification and isolation of infected individuals is undertaken could have an enormous impact on the approach to tracing contacts with those individuals, and the capacity for providing acute medical services within the facility could have an enormous impact on the approach/protocol for the medical monitoring of infected individuals.
Given the above noted, the harm caused by the failure of Hinds County Jail to establish a meaningful line of communication and cooperative planning between jail administration, senior security staff and the jail’s contract provider of medical and mental health services is even more evident. There is no ongoing, regularly scheduled problem identification and problem solving
2

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 3 of 117
meeting that involves these three groups; if there had been such, that would have been the natural and perfect place to design and coordinate the facility’s response to COVID-19; and no such meetings were initiated when the facility was faced with COVID-19. As a result, decisions made were not consistently informed by the knowledge base that each of these groups had to offer, and even at times, each group had misinformation about what the other was or wasn’t doing and/or was or wasn’t willing to do.
Essentially, decisions about the overall management of the COVID-19 pandemic were made by the facility’s administration, without the involvement of medical staff. The initial approach was to monitor staff and inmates for signs and symptoms of COVID-19-related illness, especially the development of a temperature. While this was important to do, the problem with this limited approach was that when an individual is infected with the virus, it can take anywhere from several days to two weeks before the individual develops symptoms; and some infected individuals never develop symptoms; but all infected individuals, regardless of whether or not they are symptomatic, can transmit the virus to other individuals. Furthermore, in contrast to situations where this approach might be adequate, the jail is a very different situation. More specifically, for example, the jail is not a series of individual households, but instead a large communal living situation; there are also new people of unknown status introduced into the population on a regular basis; and in reality, with regard to the control of the spread of this virus. With the first case of an infected staff member in April, the jail sent those with close contact home to quarantine. They did not test the individuals. As more staff members and inmates have tested positive, the jail has not quarantined or tested individuals who have had close contact with the infected individuals. The monitoring team has repeatedly urged the facility to do contact tracing, testing and quarantining of persons who have had close contact with an infected individual regardless of the presence or absence of symptoms. This has not been done.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t until the first week of June (months into the pandemic) that an arrangement was made with the Department of Health to come in and test all staff and inmates who had not already been tested. When the monitoring team was notified about this, the monitoring team noted that it was highly likely that there would be many inmates who would refuse to be tested; the team suggested that every effort should be made to attempt to get all staff and inmates tested; the facility responded by saying that the test would be voluntary and neither staff nor inmates could be forced to be tested. The mental health member of the monitoring team noted that if an education/information sharing effort was made prior to testing day (an effort that would be part of any similar public health intervention), that might at least increase the percentage of staff and inmates who agreed to be tested, but no such effort was undertaken.
Ultimately, only 230 inmates were tested (about 60%); but of those tested, 12 were found to be positive for COVID-19; and there were already 5 inmates who had previously tested positive for COVID-19. Therefore, given how this virus is transmitted, it is reasonable to assume that there
3

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 4 of 117
are at least some individuals within the population that refused to be tested that are also positive for COVID-19. In addition, only 80 of the 215 employees elected to be tested, 7 of whom tested positive. An additional unknown number may have been tested in the community.
After the results of the Department of Health testing were received, the 12 new inmates who tested positive were isolated from other inmates; 6 of them were placed in a cell in Booking and the other 6 were placed in a room in the medical area; neither of these two placements were adequate/appropriate or consistent with the guidelines of the Center for Disease Control for detention facilities. The 12 infected inmates were eventually moved to JDC and after the 14 days returned to general population.
Although the monitoring team was told that all inmates would continue to be checked for signs and symptoms of illness, there was no specific plan to assess, monitor more closely, or do anything special with regard to those inmates who were likely in contact with the inmates who tested positive for COVID-19. More specifically, for example, 8 of the 12 inmates who tested positive during the Department of Health testing were from the same pod, B3; but only 18 of the 41 inmates housed on B3 were tested; therefore, the fact that 8 of the 18 tested were positive for COVID-19 raises considerable concern about the status of the 23 inmates on that unit who were not tested.
Hinds County is reportedly doing contact tracing of those inmates and staff who have tested positive. However, they are not testing or requiring the quarantine of those who have had close contact with infected individuals. With respect to staff, they report that they are following the guidelines of the Mississippi Department of Health for essential workers which provide that essential workers can continue working if they are asymptomatic. However, the Center for Disease Control has specific guidelines for detention facilities because, as the guidelines state, detention facilities “present unique challenges for control of COVID-19 transmission.” The CDC recommends that in the correctional setting any staff with close contact with an infected person self-quarantine for 14 days and any inmate who has close contact with an infected person be quarantined for 14 days. The CDC does state, “the guidelines may have to be adapted based on the individual facilities’ physical space, staffing, population, operations, and other resources and conditions.” Hinds County faces challenges in a number of these areas: one pod is closed, JDC has had to close several times because of maintenance issues, understaffing has always been a problem and the staff is additionally depleted because of COVID. This no doubt makes quarantining more difficult and testing all the more important.
A review of Medical’s protocol for the monitoring of infected inmates indicates that the protocol exceeds the standard of practice. A review of the medical records for inmates who are known to be infected indicates that the protocol is closely followed (i.e., a full range of signs and symptoms are monitored every 4 hours); therefore, the onset of symptoms and/or any
4

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 5 of 117
complications are identified very early on; and individuals can be immediately transferred to the hospital for the inpatient assessment and management of such emerging symptoms or complications as indicated.
It is the opinion of the monitoring team that there is still inadequate information about the extent of COVID-19 infection at the facility, and that efforts to control the spread of the virus are inadequate. The Sheriff has indicated that he mandated that all staff and inmates wear masks as a protection against the spread of COVID-19; reportedly, there is an adequate supply of masks at the facility so that even a damaged mask can be replaced; and reportedly, every effort is being made to assure that the masks are worn, including threats of disciplinary actions for not wearing a mask. However, the medical and mental health staff report that there are still inmates who show up for medication pass without a mask and there are still inmates who are escorted to medical or mental health visits without a mask, and it is not at all clear (in the absence of any type of COVID-19 educational effort) that all inmates appreciate the need to wear a mask when social distancing is not possible, which for many inmates is virtually all of the time. Furthermore, it is now the understanding of the monitoring team that inmates not known to be infected are not being monitored for the onset of any COVD-19 related symptoms (such as routine temperature checks), despite the above described likelihood that there are infected inmates in the general population that have not been identified. All of this raises an even more ongoing concern about COVID-19 infection at the facility.
Corrections Operations
A number of key personnel changes have been made during the past five months. On June 1st the Interim Jail Administrator/Major Ric Fielder was promoted to Warden of Detention Services (otherwise known as the Detention Administrator). The Interim Assistant Jail Administrator Travis Crain was promoted to Assistant Jail Administrator and the Interim Captain of the Raymond Detention Center Marcus Taylor was promoted to Captain of that facility. Since then a well-qualified Detention Officer Miioka Laster was promoted to the position of full time Fire Safety Officer (FSO). In addition, a candidate, Steven Winter, was hired to fill the newly created position of Chief Safety and Security Officer (CSSO). That person will be responsible for coordinating all HCSO/Detention Services maintenance issues (work orders) with the County through Benchmark Construction, the firm that the County hired to handle the oversight of maintenance projects in the Jail System.
The critical lack of staff continues to make the operation of all three jails (Raymond Detention Center—RDC, Jackson Detention Center—JDC and the Work Center—WC) problematic. The number of filled positions has risen slightly, to 215, since the January site visit when that figure stood at only 204. There are 275 authorized positions, of which 271 are funded. Over the past two years, the number of filled positions has never exceeded 256.
5

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 6 of 117
In April the Detention Administrator issued an updated Staffing Analysis. Although required annually, this had not been done since the original Staffing Analysis was published in 2017. It now calls for 405.7 personnel to operate the Jail System (two were added to the original figure of 403.7 during the remote site visit); however, with RDC’s C-Pod still closed for repairs, that figure can be reduced to 359.5.
Maintenance issues in all three jails are finally being addressed systematically now that Benchmark Construction has been brought on board. At the WC, door and camera alarms required by the Stipulated Order are in place. This means that in July that facility will be able to implement direct supervision in the housing units. At the RDC, CML Security has repaired all of the locks and doors in C-Pod, which has been closed for approximately one year. Once roof and plumbing issues are resolved, the plan is to operate the general population housing units there utilizing the principles of direct supervision. At that time, CML will begin security repair work on B-Pod. There is no plan to renovate A-Pod; rather, it will be left vacant once work on B-Pod is complete.
All of this is made possible by the fact that the average daily population (ADP) has dropped significantly over the past four years. Currently the ADP for the three facilities ranges between 375 and 390. Both bookings and the ADP stand at about one half of their level in 2016.
The number of approved policies now stands at 21. While significant progress continues to be made in developing the full range of necessary policies, training must be provided to all staff in order to implement them in compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on the availability of staff to conduct, and participate in, that training.
Medical and Mental Health
The need for a regular problem identification/problem solving meeting between jail administration, senior security staff and medical and mental health is now more evident than ever. Many of the problems noted in this report could have been more easily addressed had there been a better line of communication between these groups, and moving forward with the work that is yet to be done could be enormously facilitated by a better line of communication between these groups. The jail administration must address this by taking deliberate steps to improve coordination and communication between security and medical/mental health staff. Establishing a regular joint meeting would be a good step in this direction.
It is imperative that the jail administration participate in the development of the mental health unit. QCHC must focus now on the development of the treatment program plan for the anticipated mental health unit, given that even after this plan is developed, there will still be a lot
6

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 7 of 117
of work that will have to be done before the unit can be opened. More specifically, the development of such a plan will be required before a mental health staffing analysis can be performed and negotiations for any additional staff that might be required can be initiated; the plan would also describe how security staff will be integrated into the therapeutic work of the unit and thereby inform what additional, special mental health training should be provided to security staff who will be assigned to the unit; and the plan will also more clearly describe which prisoners would be most appropriate for placement on the unit, an understanding of which is required before finalizing policy and procedural issues related to the unit, regarding the working relationships between mental health, classification and security staff.
Youthful Offenders
As of the time of the June virtual site visit, there were fourteen Juveniles Charged as Adults (JCAs), in the Henley Young facility. All of them were male. Population management efforts led by Judge McDaniels were successful in reducing the overall Henley Young population in recent months, in part due to COVID-19 concerns but also due to on-going concerns about the extended length of stay for JCA youth. Overall Henley Young continues to operate as a generally safe and secure environment for youthful offenders and filling the Executive Director position in April and Recreation/Program Coordinator position in May were good steps forward. When vacancies in the Treatment Coordinator and Training Coordinator are filled, there will be a strong leadership team that includes some new staff as well as continued support by Mr. Burnside, Operations Manager and Mr. Dorsey, Quality Assurance Manager.
Modular units to provide additional and more appropriate education, program, and treatment space were finally in the process of being constructed at the time of the remote site visit in June, and the intent is to have those spaces fully operational by the start of the next school year in early August. Additional physical plant changes (i.e. recreation space, living unit improvements) continue to be recommended to improve overall program operations.
A significant concern evidenced during the June calls was the large number of Youth Care Professional (YCP) staff vacancies (15 vacancies out of 45 authorized positions). These are the staff that provide direct and critical day-to-day supervision for youth, and significant turnover will continue to make it difficult to achieve program goals. The County is encouraged to review the compensation schedule for YCP staff and support the development of additional retention incentives. The Youth Support Specialists and Clinicians continue to provide a variety of discussion group activities, but they remain relatively uncoordinated and minimal in terms of time allotted.
Related to the January Stipulated Order, the County did not meet the targets set for recruitment and selection of a Treatment Coordinator, although the position was finally posted on May 22. A
7

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 8 of 117
more detailed daily schedule for all programming has been developed, and additional documentation will be required that should enable better monitoring as to whether/what extent all programming requirements are being met. Progress has been made by mental health team members in procuring and implementing additional evidence-based programming for youth, although concerns remain about the frequency of those programs as well as coordination of overall treatment programming. A key role for the Treatment Coordinator (that was, per the Stipulated Order due to be hired by mid-April) will be to further coordinate those programs and integrate those programs with other behavioral management components of the Henley Young program.
Criminal Justice and System Issues
It was difficult to do a review of the records remotely as the inmate files are too voluminous to scan. A copy of the inmate status sheet and the chronological sheet was requested for 23 randomly selected inmates. However, it was not possible to compare these face sheets with the actual inmate files. The monitoring team learned that Records staff had discontinued creating the inmate status sheet. This is inconsistent with the Records Policy and does not provide the assurance of a lawful basis of detention as required by the Settlement Agreement. It is strongly recommended that the practice of creating an inmate status sheet be reinstituted. It did appear that some of the chronology sheets were not up to date by comparing them to entries in the JMS system. The new Records Policy requires the audit of the files at a rate of 10 a week and a review of all files every six months. The weekly requirement has not been met although it was close for the month of May with 35 files audited. However, only 100 files had been audited from January through May which makes it unlikely that all files will be audited in this six-month period. The auditing process is relatively new and no doubt will improve.
One systemic problem disclosed by the auditing process is that a number of inmates remained in detention because of a hold from another jurisdiction. Once an inmate is otherwise entitled to release, the jurisdiction with a hold should be contacted to determine if they want to pick the inmate up. The inmate should either be released or picked up promptly. However, the Records Supervisor cannot easily determine which inmates are in solely on a hold from another jurisdiction in order to make this contact. There continues to be difficulties with getting information properly entered into the JMS system so that accurate reports can be run. This continues to be the case with identifying inmates who are booked on a probation violation so that the Records Supervisor can ensure that they don’t stay beyond 21 days without a hearing.
There had previously been a problem with individuals getting their first appearance in County Court because of the unavailability of the judge. This appeared to have been rectified at the time of the January site visit. However, it has once again become a chronic problem since then. For individuals charged with felonies, jail staff have been able to work with the Circuit Court to
8

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 9 of 117
obtain release conditions. For individuals charged with misdemeanors, jail staff have been releasing them on their own recognizance (ROR).
As previously reported, there is increased ability to pull reports from the JMS system. This is an improvement but the reports do not yet meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement in terms of containing the required information. The information required by the Settlement Agreement is for the purpose of providing command staff in summary form the data that would inform system improvement. In addition to improving the summary reports, there needs to be continued focus on improving the JMS system so that it can be relied upon to identify individuals appropriate for release. At least three individuals spend a significant amount of time creating manual spreadsheets to identify people for release. This is not only an IT problem but also an issue with the consistency of how information is entered into the system. A very notable improvement is the hiring of a Quality Assurance Officer who is working to create a spread sheet containing the summaries required by the Settlement Agreement. Her first day was during the week of the site visit so her work is in the early stage, but having a full time individual devoted to Quality Assurance is a big step towards compliance in this area.
The grievance system continues to improve, however, again, only with the labor-intensive creation of manual tracking systems as opposed to a functional electronic system. Because of the remote nature of the visit, it was not possible for the monitoring team to run a report to determine whether there were grievances that had not received a timely response. There has been significant improvement in this area in the prior two site visits. A number of grievances had inadequate responses; mostly in promising some future action with no way of knowing if the action had been taken. The Grievance Coordinator is planning to provide training on what constitutes an adequate response. Although more grievances are now receiving a timely response, there is still no system to review whether responses are adequate; and no oversight to determine that promised actions are actually completed.
In the last 12 months, the CJCC has met twice; in October and February. The coronavirus no doubt impacted the ability of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) to meet. However, the CJCC will need to meet more frequently to be an effective body. Even before the virus, the CJCC had not had consistent participation by a number of stakeholders. This has limited its effectiveness. An effective CJCC or some collaborative body is needed to implement most jail population reduction strategies and other system efficiencies. As reported in the last monitoring report, the County had stated that it had authorized contracting with Justice Management Institute (JMI) to assist with the creation of a pretrial program. Contrary to the requirements of the Stipulated Order, the County has not contracted with JMI or another consultant. In addition, the County had also stated that it had approved the hiring of a person to serve as a CJCC coordinator or support staff. And the Stipulated Order requires the County to hire a full-time qualified individual to implement the pretrial program. In fact, the County did not
9

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 10 of 117 post these positions but rather has assigned both the role of the CJCC coordinator and the pretrial director to a person who already had a full-time position, the Criminal Justice and Quality Control Officer (sometimes called the Court Liaison). This does not meet the requirements of the Stipulated Order. The person assigned these positions already had a full time job and has no knowledge or experience in these areas. Although it may be difficult to find someone locally who has knowledge in these areas, the positions should be posted
STIPULATED ORDER UPDATE On January 16, 2020, the Court entered a Stipulated Order resolving the pending Motion for Contempt. This triggered the deadlines in the Stipulated Order for remedial measures to move towards compliance with the Settlement Agreement. All of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement remain in effect. The following table tracks compliance with the Stipulated Order.
10

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 11 of 117

STIPULATED ORDER UPDATE

Compliance Due Dates 02-16-20
03-16-20

Stipulations
II. B. 1. Within 30 days, the County shall retain an appropriately credentialed corrections recruitment and retention consultant, with input from the Monitor. III. C. 1. Within 30 days, the Jail shall ensure that handheld video recorders are available and planned uses of force are video recorded. V. A. Within 30 days, the County will post at a locally competitive salary for a full time clinical social worker or psychologist to serve as a treatment director or coordinator. I. A. The County shall use a qualified security contractor, with the assistance and oversight of an architect with corrections experience to accomplish the safety and security measures at RDC. The architect shall conduct periodic inspections.
II. C. 1. Within 60 days, the County shall adjust the Jail Administrator job description as needed to adhere to the minimum qualifications and post the position at a locally competitive salary.

Full compliance by due date? (Yes/No/N/A) Yes No No
No Yes

When was full compliance
achieved? (Date) 10/19 3/20 5/22/20
4/15/20 2/6/20

Status Update
Consultant is retained through the monitoring team
Purchase Order submitted on 1/22/20; cameras were on back order; they have now arrived
Posted 1/8/20 but not posted as a treatment coordinator; Position posted correctly on 5/22/20
The County has entered into a contract with Benchmark Construction (Project Manager and Contractor) and Cooke, Douglas, Farr & Lemons Architects & Engineers (CDFL, PA). This was reportedly on 4/15/20. The monitoring team has not seen the contract or documentation of any inspections by CDFL. Job description revised and posted on 2/6/20

11

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 12 of 117

3-30-20 04-16-20

III. A.1. Within 60 days, the County shall provide a Table of Contents listing the policies and procedures to be developed, anticipated deadlines for completion of each draft policy, and deadlines for submission of each draft policy to the Monitor and DOJ. The Table of Contents deadlines shall prioritize policies that are necessary for safety and security.
III. A. 3. Within 14 days of receiving the Table of Contents, DOJ will identify policies that may be disseminated to staff on an interim basis before the Settlementrequired policy review and approval process is completed.
II. A. Within 3 months, the County shall create a staffing plan to increase the supervision of inmates at RDC. The plan shall include the following: II.A. 1. A plan to provide direct supervision for Pod C when it reopens.
II.A. 2. A staffing plan which optimizes the use of available staff to provide supervision at all three facilities including, among other strategies, rotation of staff from JDC and the WC to RDC to increase the staff coverage of RDC.
II.A. 3. An increase in the time that officers are in the housing units at RDC by having the control officers fill out the housing unit logs based on radio communication from the housing unit officers and utilize welfare

Yes Yes Yes No No
12

3/16/20

3/27/20

4/13/20

The staffing plan does not address this paragraph. The Detention Administrator developed a plan for rotation of staff but this was put on hold because of COVID-19.
Directive issued on 9/27/19 by Major Rushing and radios assigned. Review of incident reports discloses that the directive is not always being followed.

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 13 of 117

check sheets at the cell doors of those inmates held in segregation.
II. A. 4. At the Work Center, installation of an alarm system on the housing unit fire exit doors. The County will add a camera that covers each of the four fire exit doors. This will allow only one officer to manage each housing unit and will result in an opportunity to assign 20.4 positions to other areas or facilities. This work will be completed within 3 months.
III. B. 1. Within 3 months of the United States’ and Monitor’s approval of each policy or procedure, the County shall develop the curriculum and materials for training on the new policy or procedure.
III. B. 2. Within 3 months of the United States’ and Monitor’s approval of each policy or procedure, the County shall develop the training plan for training new and current detention officers and staff on the new policy or procedure, with dates for completion of each set of training.
V. B. Within 3 months, Henley-Young shall administer a daily program, including weekends and holidays, to provide structured educational, rehabilitative, and/or recreational programs for youth during all hours that youth shall be permitted out of their cells. Programming shall include: 1. Activities which are varied and appropriate to the ages of the youth;

No Yes No No
13

The alarms and cameras have been installed but the operations have not yet been modified to realize the staff savings.

4/2/20

Training has been delayed due to COVID-19.

Training on the Use of Force Policy, adopted 2/1/20, was scheduled for February, then postponed until April, and now postponed due to COVID. Training on the other policies adopted more than 3 months ago has not occurred.
Progress is being made. A more complete daily schedule has been developed. It does not yet meet the requirements of this paragraph.

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 14 of 117

05-16-20

2. Structured and supervised activities which are intended to alleviate idleness and develop concepts of cooperation and sportsmanship; 3. Supervised small group leisure activities, such as a wide variety of card and table games, arts and crafts, or book club discussions; and 4. Hinds County, by and through its County Administrator and/or Executive Director at Henley-Young, shall maintain exclusive control and maintenance of any facilities or technology that promotes compliance with this provision.
V. C. The programming described in Paragraph B shall include group and individual psychosocial skill building programs designed to address criminogenic needs and promote positive youth development such as: 1. cognitive behavioral programming; 2. independent living skill training; 3. relationship and positive communication skills; 4. anger management; 5. peer refusal skills; 6. trauma informed programming; and 7. pre-vocational skill building.
I. A. 1. In any occupied pod, the County will convert all control room doors, housing unit entry doors, recreation yard doors (that open into the “horseshoe”), isolation doors and “cage doors” to electronically

No
No
14

Progress is being made. Staff have incorporated more evidence based curricula in the programming but it does not provide the breadth of programming required by this paragraph.
This has been completed in C-Pod and A Pod but not in B-Pod. Although the security doors in APod have been changed from a sliding to a swinging configuration,

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 15 of 117

controlled swing doors to the control panel

so they can be electronically operated with

a CML type locking mechanism.

No

I. A. 2. Within 4 months, the County shall

reinforce all C Pod cell doors with a strip of

steel to reduce the risk of tampering as part

of the ongoing renovation of this Pod.

Yes

I. A. 3. In B Pod, the County shall modify

the control room doors, housing unit doors,

and recreation doors to swinging doors. The

County also shall install a new electronic

control panel so that all doors can be

electronically controlled. The “cage” doors

have a keyway on only one side. The

County also shall upgrade the “cage” doors

so that there is a keyway on each side (as is

currently the case in C Pod). The County

shall repair the primary security door that

controls access between the main corridor

(Great Hall) and B Pod as a part of the B

Pod modifications so that it can be

controlled electronically from master

control.

No

I. A. 4. The County will reinstall the fire

hoses in secured cabinets as part of the

renovation process of each pod.

No

I. B. 1. Retain a consultant with experience

in master planning to facilitate the process

of long-term planning The County will

retain the consultant within 4 months.

Yes

15

and they now lock, their operation is still by key, not electronic control.
4/30/20

4/15/20

Fire hoses have been installed in C Pod during the renovation. They have not been reinstalled in the other 2 pods the renovation of which is now overdue.
CDFL and HDR, Architects, have been retained.

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 16 of 117

I. B. 4. Form a committee to develop and implement the Master Plan, which will include the County Administrator, the Sheriff, the Jail Administrator, the facility captains, and the Board of Supervisors President. Other members may be included at the discretion of the County and the Sheriff.
II. B. 2. Within 4 months, the County shall hire or designate a full-time Recruitment Officer within the Detention Division specifically for recruitment of detention officers.
II. B. 3. Within 4 months, with the assistance of the recruitment and corrections consultant, the County shall develop a Recruitment and Retention Plan to implement the substantive requirements of the Settlement.
IV. A. The County shall develop a Pretrial Services program to provide for long-term population management which will maximize the options in facility use. The program shall include the following: 1. Within 4 months, the County shall retain a consultant experienced in the area of implementation of pretrial services programs.
IV. A. 2. Within 4 months, the County shall hire a full time individual qualified to oversee the development and implementation of a pretrial services program. This individual shall have or

Yes No No
No
16

County has contracted with facilitators. First meeting of committee and facilitators was 4/28/20
4/28/20
6/1/20
JMI reports that they have no current contract with the County and there has been no communication since their last contract ended over a year ago. The invoice referenced by the County at the last status conference was for JMI’s earlier work.
The County assigned this role to an employee who already had a full time job and gave her the additional role of CJCC Coordinator. At the time of the June site visit, she did

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 17 of 117

within 12 months shall obtain certification

by the National Association of Pretrial

Services Agencies (NAPSA).

No

IV. A. 3. The County shall engage

stakeholders in the implementation of a

pretrial services program either through the

CJCC or a specially formed committee.

No

IV. A. 4. The County shall provide the

technical support for implementation of a

risk assessment instrument for purposes of

pretrial release decision-making.

No

5-16-20 (1 V. A. If there is a qualified candidate(s) for

month to HY treatment director or coordinator, the

post and 3 County will make an offer within 3 months

months to of posting the position. If there is not a

make an qualified candidate, the County will consult

offer) with the Monitor and United States to

determine appropriate adjustments to the

recruiting process and will report regularly,

and at each status conference, regarding its

efforts. If a clinical social worker is hired

for the position, the County will contract

with a psychologist to provide any

assessment, therapeutic or consultation

services needed in addition to the services

of the clinical social worker. The County

will consult with the Monitor to set the

appropriate number of contract hours.

No

06-16-20 III. C. 2. Within 5 months, an individual

experienced in corrections shall train

deputies on a Settlement-compliant use of

17

not know what a pretrial program involved. Her job description does not include developing or directing a pretrial program.
The position was not posted until 5/22/20.
Training was scheduled but has been delayed due to COVID.

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 18 of 117

07-16-20

force policy, including Settlement requirements for reporting of use of force.
III. C. 3. Within 5 months, supervisors shall be trained on use of force reviews so that they include collection and preservation of videos, witness statements, and medical records. This training shall emphasize supervisors’ responsibility for ensuring complete use of force reports and for referring staff for training and investigation, as required by the Settlement.
I. A. 5. The County shall convert the cell doors in B Pod Units 3 and 4 to swinging doors with the CML type locking mechanism that is in place in the sample cell in C Pod. The County shall also reinforce the cell doors in Units 1 and 2 with a strip of steel as is being used in C Pod. These renovations will be completed within 6 months.
I. A. 6. If A Pod is not utilized for housing, renovation of A Pod recreation yard and cage doors and the control panel may be postponed until such time as it is used for housing. If A pod is used even on an occasional basis, these doors will be converted to secure swinging doors and tied to a new control panel.
I. A. 7. The County shall replace all holding cell doors in the booking area with modern full transparent panel (both top and bottom) security doors to facilitate deputies conducting a documented fifteen-minute

No No No
18

Training has been delayed due to COVID.
Since the renovation of B Pod has not even begun, A Pod will continue to be used for some time. However, the plan continues to be to eliminate its use once the renovation of B Pod is complete and C Pod is occupied.
Multiple person cell doors have been replaced but single cells were still being used for housing without the required doors. This is reportedly because C-Pod can’t be opened yet

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 19 of 117

well-being check on each multi-person cell

and occupied single cell. The County will

discontinue the use of the holding cells that

are not directly visible from the booking

station. This will be completed 6 months.

No

II. B. 4. Within 6 months, the County shall

develop and implement a process that

provides criteria for merit-based promotion

and establishes a career ladder.

No

7-16-20 (2 II. C. 2. If there is a qualified candidate(s)

months to for Jail Administrator, the County shall

post and 4 make an offer to hire an individual to fill

months the position within 4 months of posting the

after that to position. If there is not a qualified

offer) candidate, the County, Monitor and United

States will confer to determine next steps

and will report to the Court regarding the

same.

Yes

8-16-20 (2 II. C. 3. Within 30 days of hiring the

months to Settlement-compliant Jail Administrator,

post, 4 this individual shall evaluate the

months to organizational structure of the three-facility

offer, and 1 jail system and develop a plan to reassign

month staff consistent with any change in the

evaluate organizational structure.

structure

10-16-2020 IV. A. 5. The County shall authorize the

free attendance at NIC training for pretrial

executives for individuals involved in the

development of the pretrial program within

9 months.

as a result of the lack of sufficient staff and the doors in B-Pod have not yet been repaired to stay locked.
6/1/20

19

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 20 of 117

11-16-2020 II. B. 5. Within 10 months, the County shall implement a plan for retention pay based on merit, time in service, or a combination.

4/16/21 Ongoing

II. B. The County shall improve recruitment and retention initiatives to ensure adequate levels of competent staffing to provide reasonably safe living conditions in the Jail.
I. B. Within 10 months, the County shall complete a Master Plan to determine the long-term use of each of the three facilities and evaluate the option of building a new facility or further renovating existing facilities.
I. B. 2. The master plan will include deadlines for other necessary safety and security repairs and renovations at all three facilities, as long as they remain open, including deadlines for installing necessary fire suppression/prevention systems, all of which will be conducted by a qualified security contractor.
IV. A. 4. The risk assessment tool shall be implemented within one year after retaining the pretrial services consultant.
I. B. 3. [The County shall. . .] [w]ork with the monitoring team to gather the information that is needed for the long-term planning process.
III. A. 2. The County’s policy committee will provide draft policies to the monitoring team and DOJ consistent with the timeline identified in the Table of Contents, will

20

The policy development and review process has been proceeding at an accelerated pace with 21 policies now approved. Not all projected

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 21 of 117

notify the Monitor and DOJ of any

anticipated delays to meeting projected

submission dates and will implement an

identified plan to correct the delays. The

monitoring team and DOJ will make a good

faith effort to return comments and

suggestions about the draft policies within a

two-week time frame. The policy

committee will make a good faith effort to

incorporate those suggestions and consider

those comments.

No

deadlines have been met but significant progress is being made.

21

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 22 of 117

Monitoring Activities

The Monitoring Team conducted a Remote Site Visit June 8 through June 12, 2020. The site visit schedule was as follows:
Site Visit Schedule June 8-12, 2020

Date and Time Lisa Simpson

Dave Parrish

Jim Moeser

Dr. Richard Dudley

June 8 9:00 10:30
1:00
2:30
3:00 June 9
9:00 10:30 1:00 2:00
June 10 9:00
10:30

Ric Fielder and Captain Crain
Zoom Bob Brown, David
Marsh and Gary Chamblee and Work Order Coordinator Zoom Sgt Tillman
Kenisha Jones Felicia Johnson
Taneka Moore
Sheena Fields Captain Tyree, Lt.
Holmes, Sam Dukes and Marlo
Brinnon, Investigations Zoom Sgt Hubbard, Classification
Jennifer Collins, County

Ric Fielder and Captain Crain
Zoom Bob Brown, David
Marsh and Gary Chamblee and Work Order Coordinator Zoom Captains Simon, Dalton and Taylor Zoom
Miioka Laster, Fire Safety Officer
Doris Coleman Marquette Funchess (Recruitment and Screening) Kimblar McLaurin, Food Service Director
Captain Tyree, Lt. Holmes, Sam
Dukes and Marlo Brinnon
Zoom
Sgt Hubbard
Jennifer Collins, County

Mr. Greg Harrington, Executive Director Mr. Burnside, Operations Manager and Mr. Dorsey, Quality Assurance Manager
Ms. Barber and Ms. Galloway, Youth Support Specialists Zoom
Judge McDaniels, Youth Court Judge
Mr. Harrington, Executive Director

Nurse Sims
Qualified Mental Health Professionals Martin and Ross
Nurse Sims Dr. Bell
Representative from Nursing staff Nurse Minor Dr. Brown
Nurse Sims

22

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 23 of 117

Administrator; Robert Farr, CDFL Architects; Bill Prindle, HDR Architects; Tony Gaylor, County Attorney (and maybe others) to discuss Master Planning

Administrator; Robert Farr, CDFL Architects; Bill Prindle, HDR Architects; Tony Gaylor, County Attorney (and maybe others) to discuss Master Planning

1:00 3:00
Thursday, June 11, 2020

Zoom
Inmate interviews Zoom
Claire Barker, Synarus Green, Tony Gaylor, Jenifer Collins, Sheriff Vance, Walls and White Zoom

Friday, June 12, 2020

Zoom Lt. Knox, Training

Claire Barker, Synarus Green, Tony Gaylor, Jenifer Collins, Sheriff Vance, Walls and White Zoom

Claire Barker, Synarus Green, Tony Gaylor, Jenifer Collins, Sheriff Vance, Walls and White Zoom
1:30 Phone interview with Mr. Devine, School Principal

Claire Barker, Synarus Green, Tony Gaylor, Jenifer Collins, Sheriff Vance, Walls and White Zoom
Review Medical Records

COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW
The Monitoring Team will track progress towards compliance with the following chart. This chart will be added to with each Monitoring Report showing the date of the site visit and the number of Settlement Agreement requirements in full, partial or non-compliance. Sustained compliance is achieved when compliance with a particular Settlement Agreement requirement has been sustained for 24 months or more. (This was changed from 18 months in order to align with paragraph 164 which requires 2 years of substantial compliance for termination of the Agreement). The count of 92 requirements is determined by the number of Settlement Agreement paragraphs which have substantive requirements. Introductory paragraphs and general provisions are not included. Some paragraphs may have multiple requirements which are evaluated independently in the text of the report but are included as one requirement for purposes of this chart. The provisions on Youthful Offenders are now only evaluated for compliance at Henley Young. The reason for this is that there are no more juveniles at RDC.

23

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 24 of 117

Site Visit
Date
2/7-10/17
6/1316/17 10/1620/17 1/262/2/18 5/2225/18 9/1821/18 1/1518/19 5/7-10/19 9/2429/19 1/2124/20 6/8-12/20

Sustained Compliance 0 0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1 1

Substantial Compliance 1 1
1
1
1
0
1
6
6
6 6

Partial Compliance 4 18
26
29
30
37
44
42
47
49 51

NA at this time
2 2

NonCompliant 85 71

1

64

0

62

0

61

0

54

0

46

0

43

0

38

0

36

0

34

Total
92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92

INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS

Text of paragraphs 1-34 regarding “Parties,” “Introduction,” and “Definitions” omitted.

SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS

PROTECTION FROM HARM

Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to provide prisoners with safety, protect prisoners from violence committed by other prisoners, and ensure that prisoners are not subjected to abuse by Jail staff. To that end, the County must:

37. Develop and implement policies and procedures to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment for prisoners and staff. Such policies and procedures must include the following:
a. Booking; b. Objective classification; c. Housing assignments; d. Prisoner supervision; e. Prisoner welfare and security checks (“rounds”); f. Posts and post orders;
24

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 25 of 117
g. Searches; h. Use of force; i. Incident reporting; j. Internal investigations; k. Prisoner rights; l. Medical and mental health care; m. Exercise and treatment activities; n. Laundry; o. Food services; p. Hygiene; q. Emergency procedures; r. Grievance procedures; and s. Sexual abuse and misconduct.
Partial Compliance The County/HCSO has made significant progress toward developing required policies and procedures. To date 21 policies have been approved by the DOJ and many more are in the process of development and review; however, post orders have not yet been identified or developed. The review and approval process has been streamlined and appears to be far more effective than in the past. As policies are approved and distributed, the next challenge will be to ensure that training is provided to staff in a timely fashion. Priority should be given to Use of Force training. The two mental health policies are still in the review process. However, as previously reported, the current number of mental health staff will not actually be able to implement all of the requirements of these policies or the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
38. Ensure that the Jail is overseen by a qualified Jail Administrator and a leadership team with substantial education, training and experience in the management of a large jail, including at least five years of related management experience for their positions, and a bachelor’s degree. When the Jail Administrator is absent or if the position becomes vacant, a qualified deputy administrator with comparable education, training, and experience, must serve as acting Jail Administrator.
Partial Compliance As was noted in the last Monitoring Report, the Assistant Jail Administrator was appointed as the Interim Jail Administrator on February 6, 2020, subsequent to the retirement of his predecessor. On June 1, 2020, he was promoted from “Interim Jail Administrator/Major to Warden of Detention Services”. In order to be consistent with the terminology of the Settlement Agreement, he will continue to be titled as the Jail Administrator in the Monitoring Reports. As an alternative, the title “Detention Administrator”, which has been adopted in the approved policies, will be utilized. The title “Warden” is inappropriate for the Jail System in that it is a rank/position that is associated with prison systems. As was previously reported, the incumbent
25

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 26 of 117
Jail Administrator/Detention Administrator has a Bachelor of Arts degree and the requisite years of supervisory experience. He meets the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
On February 6, 2020, the Captain in charge of the RDC was designated as the Interim Assistant Jail Administrator. On June 1, 2020, he was promoted from Interim Assistant Jail Administrator to “Assistant Jail Administrator of Detention Services”. As was noted in the Tenth Monitoring Report, this individual has over twenty years of experience in corrections and law enforcement, but he does not have five years of supervisory experience required by the Settlement Agreement. In addition, he has only a high school diploma, not the four-year college degree specified for the position of Assistant Jail Administrator in the Settlement Agreement.
The Lieutenant who was promoted to Interim Facility Captain at the RDC in February, was promoted to Jail Captain by order of the Sheriff on June 1st. He has a high school diploma and has been employed by the HCSO since July 2014. He received a written reprimand in 2015. He was promoted to Sergeant in 2016, and to Lieutenant in 2018. He meets the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
The Captain of the JDC retired at the end of June. Her replacement is a Detention Officer who was hired in 2012, as an Administrative Assistant and was promoted to Detention Officer in 2015. She has worked at the JDC (2015) and the RDC in Booking since 2016. She has a Bachelor of Science degree. She refused to sign a disciplinary notice (written reprimand) in 2018. Since this candidate has no supervisory experience, she is not qualified to fill the position of Captain at the JDC according to the requirements of this paragraph. While it is understood that the Sheriff has final authority on such decisions, the decision to put a Detention Officer with no supervisory experience in charge of the JDC is inconsistent with the Sheriff’s efforts to comply with the Settlement Agreement.
39. Ensure that all Jail supervisors have the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing needed to effectively supervise both prisoners and other staff members. At minimum, Jail supervisors must have at least 3 years of field experience, including experience working in the Jail. They must also be familiar with Jail policies and procedures, the terms of this Agreement, and prisoner rights.
Partial Compliance Substantial Compliance cannot be achieved until policies and procedures are in place and supervisory staff have received the requisite training. In the interim, a significant number of promotions and personnel changes have been made, most of which appear to be in compliance with the standards required by the Settlement Agreement with regard to experience and education with the exception noted above. All of the individuals hired or promoted are qualified for their positions.
26

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 27 of 117
In March 2020, one Sergeant was promoted to Lieutenant and four Detention Officers were promoted to Sergeant.
 Sergeant “A” was employed from 2007 to 2015, then went to work for the Madison County Sheriff’s Office and returned to the HCSO in 2016. She was promoted to Sergeant that year and to Lieutenant on March 1st. She has a high school diploma.
 Detention Officer “B” has worked in the Jail System for more than five years. He has both a college degree and a Master of Science degree.
 Detention Officer “C” has worked in the Jail System for three years. She has a high school diploma.
 Detention Officer “D” has worked in the Jail System for five years. She has a high school diploma and completed two years of college.
 Detention Officer “E” had worked in the Jail System for only a month at the time of her promotion, but was previously employed by the HCSO from 2004 to 2012. She has a high school diploma.
In April 2020, Detention Officer “F” was promoted to the position of Fire Safety Officer. He has been employed by the HCSO since 2016, and has a high school diploma. In addition, he has been a certified fire fighter since 2006, and has worked in that capacity for the Jackson Fire Department for fifteen years.
In May 2020, three Detention Officers were promoted to Sergeant.  Detention Officer “G” was employed by the HCSO in 2017; she previously worked for the Vicksburg Police Department from 2012 to 2015. She has a high school diploma and five years of college attendance, but no indication of a degree.  Detention Officer “H” was employed by the HCSO in 2009. He has a high school diploma. He refused to sign a disciplinary notice (written reprimand) in 2014.  Detention Officer “I” has worked in the Jail System for two and a half years, but he previously worked for the MDOC from 2002 to 2017. He has a high school diploma.
In June 2020, four personnel were promoted to specialty positions.  Administrative Assistant “J” was promoted to PREA Coordinator. She has worked in the Jail System for five years. She has a high school diploma.  Administrative Assistant “K” was promoted to Quality Assurance Officer. She has ten years of work experience, four with the HCSO. She has a college degree and a Master of Arts degree.  Detention Officer “L” was promoted to Detention Recruiter. He just graduated from the most recent recruit academy, but he has over thirteen years of prior recruiting experience in private enterprise. In addition, he has an Associate of Arts degree.
27

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 28 of 117
 The Chief Safety and Security Officer (CSSO) is the new title for the employee who keeps track of all maintenance issues in the Jail System and coordinates with the County to insure corrective action. The point of contact with the County is now through Benchmark Construction, the firm that has been hired to manage maintenance projects. The duties of the CSSO were previously handled by the Assistant Jail Administrator, then by an officer who was employed specifically for that purpose; however, he recently resigned. The new CSSO has a high school diploma. He is also a certified EMT. He previously worked as the manager of a tool and equipment company for over four years.
40. Ensure that no one works in the Jail unless they have passed a background check, including a criminal history check.
Substantial Compliance The HCSO continues to comply with the requirement that all applicants have passed a background check, including a criminal history check. This was confirmed by the Background Screening Investigator and the Director of Human Resources, as well as by a review of the personnel files of recently employed Detention Officers.
41. Ensure that Jail policies and procedures provide for the “direct supervision” of all Jail housing units.
Non-Compliant Historically, jails have been categorized into three generations: first, second and third.
 First generation jails are characterized by long rows of cells; hence they are referred to as “linear intermittent surveillance” facilities. The officers have to walk up and down a corridor in order to periodically look into the cells.
 Second generation jails are referred to as “podular remote surveillance” facilities because the cells and day rooms are arranged in pods (or housing units) surrounding a control room. Once again, the officers cannot do anything more than periodically look into the living areas, either from the control room or from the corridor between the control room and the living areas.
 Third generation jails are described as “podular direct supervision” facilities because an officer is assigned permanently inside each housing unit. That results in his/her ability to supervise inmates constantly rather than merely surveil them intermittently.
While the RDC and WC were originally designed to operate as “direct supervision” facilities, the JDC was built in the 1970’s as a first generation, “linear intermittent surveillance” jail. As such, it cannot operate as a direct supervision facility because it would be too labor intensive to place an officer inside each housing unit/cell block. That, in itself, makes compliance with this paragraph impractical.
28

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 29 of 117
From 1995 until 2012, the RDC was operated as a direct supervision facility. Although poorly designed, it functioned effectively until the officers were withdrawn from the housing units as an ill- conceived cost saving measure. That left the inmates free to literally destroy the facility. The extent of the damage that they did, and continue to do, can be attested to by the fact that CPod was closed (for a period of two years) and completely refurbished after the riot of 2012, and it was closed again, approximately a year ago, in order to be renovated a second time. When it reopens in mid-year 2020, the plan is to re-institute direct supervision in that pod by assigning an officer permanently to Housing Units C-1, C-2 and C-3; C-4 will be utilized as a segregation/confinement unit. Once B-Pod undergoes a similar extensive refurbishing effort, it is anticipated that direct supervision will be reinstituted in that pod as well.
The WC was originally built as a 400 bed facility comprised of two, 200 bed dormitories, each with several officers assigned in a modified direct supervision mode. Since then it has been reconfigured into four, 64 bed dormitories. In April, Benchmark Construction oversaw the installation of a camera and alarm on the fire exit door in each housing unit. This security upgrade makes it possible for one officer, instead of two, to supervise each unit. The savings in manpower is significant, but accountability and control should actually improve with only one officer present. Direct supervision training was initially provided by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) for command staff and a cadre of trainers. Direct supervision training is now a component of each recruit academy; however, it is imperative that policies and procedures, as well as post orders, be developed and implemented governing the principles and dynamics of direct supervision.
42. Ensure that the Jail has sufficient staffing to adequately supervise prisoners, fulfill the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the safe operation of the Jail. The parties recognize that the Board allocates to the Sheriff lump sum funding on a quarterly basis. The Sheriff recognizes that sufficient staffing of the Jail should be a priority for utilizing those funds. To that end, the County must at minimum:
a. Hire and retain sufficient numbers of detention officers to ensure that: i. There are at least two detention officers in each control room at all times; ii. There are at least three detention officers at all times for each housing unit, booking area, and the medical unit;
iii. There are rovers to provide backup and assistance to other posts; iv. Prisoners have access to exercise, medical treatment, mental health
treatment, and attorney visitation as scheduled; v. There are sufficient detention officers to implement this Agreement. b. Fund and obtain a formal staffing and needs assessment (“study”) that determines with particularity the minimum number of staff and facility improvements required to implement this Agreement. As an alternative to a new study, the
29

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 30 of 117
September 2014 study by the National Institute of Corrections may be updated if the updated study includes current information for the elements listed below. The study or study update must be completed within six months of the Effective Date and must include the following elements:
i. The staffing element of the study must identify all required posts and positions, as well as the minimum number and qualifications of staff to cover each post and position.
ii. The study must ensure that the total number of recommended positions includes a “relief factor” so that necessary posts remain covered regardless of staff vacancies, turnover, vacations, illness, holidays, or other temporary factors impacting day-to-day staffing.
iii. As part of any needs assessment, the study’s authors must estimate the number of prisoners expected to be held in the Jail and identify whether additional facilities, including housing, may be required.
c. Once completed, the County must provide the United States and the Monitor with a copy of the study and a plan for implementation of the study’s recommendations. Within one year after the Monitor’s and United States’ review of the study and plan, the County must fund and implement the staffing and facility improvements recommended by the study, as modified and approved by the United States.
d. The staffing study shall be updated at least annually and staffing adjusted accordingly to ensure continued compliance with this Agreement. The parties recognize that salaries are an important factor to recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, so the County will also annually evaluate salaries.
e. The County will also create, to the extent possible, a career ladder and system of retention bonuses for Jail staff.
Non-Compliant The lack of staff has consistently been the greatest problem facing the Hinds County Jail System. The original staffing plan prepared in 2017, reflected a need for 433 personnel (subsequently changed to 423 due to a computing error). In spite of the recommendations from the monitoring Team, today there are still only 275 positions authorized for the Jail System, of which just 271 are actually funded. For the past four years the number of filled positions has continued to drop, from a high of 256, to only 204 as was noted in the Tenth Monitoring Report. During the remote site visit, conducted from June 8-10, 2020, the staffing level was reported to be 215, up marginally since January.
According to the Background Screening Officer, 25 new personnel have been hired and will commence training in the recruit academy shortly. He noted that approximately half of that group were not recommended for employment by the Oral Review Board (comprised of the
30

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 31 of 117
Detention Administrator, the three facility Captains, a Human Resources representative and the Background Screening Officer) reportedly because of their unsatisfactory performance before the Board; however, all of the candidates were approved for employment by the Sheriff. While it is important to employ as many Detention Officers as possible, it is questionable not to give the Oral Review Board recommendations due consideration.
The Background Screening Officer also reported that 40 new applicants are under review. The increase in the number of candidates is attributed to the change of administration. Once Sheriff Vance took office, applications for employment, particularly for Detention Officer, increased dramatically.
On a positive note, the Detention Administrator, in conjunction with the corrections operations member of the monitoring team, issued a revised Staffing Analysis in April 2020. This represents the first update since the original Staffing Analysis was prepared in 2017. The current document calls for a total of 403.7 positions, assuming that all housing units are operational and open. During the remote site visit, from June 8-10, 2020, it was determined that two additional food service positions need to be added to the total. It should be noted that C-Pod at the RDC has been closed for approximately one year. That closure has reduced the number of required staff by just over 44.
Based on recommended staffing levels, the WC has 57.8% of positions filled, the JDC has 51.4% filled and the RDC has just 48.1% of required positions filled. Recognizing that C-Pod is closed, that means that 57.1% of the current required positions are filled. The staffing figures continue to be inadequate to provide the level of staffing required by this paragraph.
The County has failed to develop a career ladder for Detention employees, nor has it provided any additional financial incentives. The $100 per month salary increase that was approved by the previous Board of Supervisors was rescinded when the new Board took office in January.
f. Develop and implement an objective and validated classification and housing assignment procedure that is based on risk assessment rather than solely on a prisoner’s charge. Prisoners must be classified immediately after booking, and then housed based on the classification assessment. At minimum, a prisoner’s bunk, cell, unit, and facility assignments must be based on his or her objective classification assessment, and staff members may not transfer or move prisoners into a housing area if doing so would violate classification principles (e.g., placing juveniles with adults, victims with former assailants, and minimum security prisoners in a maximum security unit). Additionally, the classification and housing assignment process must include the following elements:
31

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 32 of 117
i. The classification process must be handled by qualified staff who have additional training and experience on classification.
ii. The classification system must take into account objective risk factors including a prisoner’s prior institutional history, history of violence, charges, special needs, physical size or vulnerabilities, gang affiliation, and reported enemies.
iii. Prisoner housing assignments must not be changed by unit staff without proper supervisor and classification staff approval.
iv. The classification system must track the location of all prisoners in the Jail and help ensure that prisoners can be readily located by staff. The County may continue to use wrist bands to help identify prisoners, but personal identification on individual prisoners may not substitute for a staffcontrolled and centralized prisoner tracking and housing assignment system.
v. The classification system must be integrated with the Jail prisoner record system, so that staff have appropriate access to information necessary to provide proper supervision, including the current housing assignment of every prisoner in the Jail.
vi. The designation and use of housing units as “gang pods” must be phased out under the terms of this Agreement. Placing prisoners together because of gang affiliation alone is prohibited. The County must replace current gang-based housing assignments with a more appropriate objective classification and housing process within one year after the Effective Date.
Partial Compliance Currently Classification staff are able to cover virtually all of the week 24/7, with the exception of short periods on weekends. The classification process has gone through a number of changes over the past four years. As previously reported, the classification scoring reflects a return to “behavior based” as the foundation for classification decisions. The Sergeant now overseeing Classification has reviewed most of the files of active inmates and all files are reviewed at 90day intervals which will result in a review of all files. A review of 73 files found that none of them had the previously routine override based on current charge which had resulted in the system not being “behavior based.” However, there continue to be some errors and systemic concerns described below some of which keep the classification system from being behavior based in reality.
Accurately scoring the risk assessment is an important step, however, it is also essential that the scores then be used to house inmates appropriately. Despite requests, there has never been a clear articulation of how inmates are assigned to the three facilities. During the January site visit, it was reported that the Captains of the facilities can reject placement of an inmate in their facility
32

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 33 of 117
by Classification staff. Although this can be for legitimate reasons such as a “keep away” inmate, it was reported that it was sometimes based on unwritten criteria not consistent with the classification scoring. During the January site visit a joint meeting with the (then) Jail Administrator, Assistant Jail Administrator and other key personnel resulted in an agreement to designate Classification as the final authority on assignment decisions. The Jail Administrator indicated that she would issue a written directive to that end. During the remote site visit in June it was discovered that the directive was never issued before the prior Jail Administrator retired. The current Jail/Detention Administrator needs to issue a definitive order that facility commanders and other personnel cannot override Classification’s decisions.
The last report noted that there were a number of maximum-security inmates being housed at the WC. The WC being a dormitory style facility would be expected to serve mostly minimum level inmates. At the time of this site visit there were a number of inmates from JDC temporarily moved to WC because of plumbing problems and as a result there were still a number of maximum-security inmates at the WC. In reviewing the classification decisions for March and April, before the JDC inmates were moved, it appears that most of the inmates classified to the WC were minimum and medium. There were still however, 8 maximum security inmates classified to the WC in this time frame. This will be reviewed with the Classification Supervisor during the next site visit.
One problem noted in the last report was the practice of classifying new arrivals at RDC but not sending the paperwork with the inmate to JDC. This was occurring when a supervisor was not on site at RDC to sign off on the paperwork. When the inmate arrived, JDC staff did not have the classification paperwork to make an appropriate cell assignment. It was reported that this was corrected immediately following the January site visit.
It is also essential that the scoring be done accurately in order to have an objective, behavior based system. The systemic concern reported last time-that Classification did not have access to the NCIC report on prior arrests (the “rap sheet”)-was quickly remedied. It was reported that shortly after the January site visit Booking started providing the NCIC report to Classification. This was described as fairly consistent. Because of the remote nature of the site visit, the monitoring team could not see the actual files to confirm this. There were a few files where the scoring was not consistent with the prior history reported by the inmate. One was scored as no priors; the inmate said he had prior convictions for manslaughter and armed robbery. Another said no priors; the inmate said he had a prior conviction for sexual battery. Another said no priors; the inmate said he had a prior conviction for aggravated assault. The files weren’t readily accessible to check the NCIC report. One systemic problem appears to have arisen from a miscommunication. The Classification Officers were told that they should not score the severity of a prior offense unless it is “high” or “highest.” They have not been scoring the severity of the prior offense if it is “moderate.” This resulted in an inaccurate score in 16 of the 73 files. This
33

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 34 of 117
should be easily remedied. Other than this systemic error, there were very few errors observed in the files.
g. Develop and implement positive approaches for promoting safety within the Jail including: i. Providing all prisoners with at least 5 hours of outdoor recreation per week; ii. Developing rewards and incentives for good behavior such as additional commissary, activities, or privileges; iii. Creating work opportunities, including the possibility of paid employment; iv. Providing individual or group treatment for prisoners with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other behavioral or medical conditions, who would benefit from therapeutic activities; v. Providing education, including special education, for youth, as well as all programs, supports, and services required for youth by federal law; vi. Screening prisoners for serious mental illness as part of the Jail’s booking and health assessment process, and then providing such prisoners with appropriate treatment and therapeutic housing; vii. Providing reasonable opportunities for visitation.
h. Ensure that policies, procedures, and practices provide for higher levels of supervision for individual prisoners if necessary due to a prisoner’s individual circumstances. Examples of such higher level supervision include (a) constant observation (i.e., continuous, uninterrupted one-on-one monitoring) for actively suicidal prisoners (i.e., prisoners threatening or who recently engaged in suicidal behavior); (b) higher frequency security checks for prisoners locked down in maximum security units, medical observation units, and administrative segregation units; and (c) more frequent staff interaction with youth as part of their education, treatment and behavioral management programs.
i. Continue to update, maintain, and expand use of video surveillance and recording cameras to improve coverage throughout the Jail, including the booking area, housing units, medical and mental health units, special management housing, facility perimeters, and in common areas.
Partial Compliance Regarding 42 (g) (i), five hours of outdoor recreation is still not provided to all inmates in the Jail System. The WC continues to be the only facility that is in compliance. There, a weekly Recreation Log is maintained for each housing unit. It reflects that more than five hours of recreation are provided to inmates each week. At the RDC a similar log has been adopted, but compliance with this standard was not achieved. A number of entries reflected the following
34

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 35 of 117
comment: “Rec door messed up” which resulted in inmates not being able to recreate as required. At the JDC, compliance cannot be achieved until an outside recreation yard is made available. When this facility was built in the 1970’s it was not designed with an outside recreation yard and it has never been retrofitted/renovated to include one. While this problem has been noted for the past four years, the County and HCSO have never attempted to address it. This is certainly an issue/item that should be taken into consideration by the Master Planning Committee.
Regarding 42 (g) (ii) and (iii), there is no incentive program. There are work opportunities at the WC but not paid employment, and the only opportunities at the RDC and JDC are working as trusties.
Regarding 42 (g) (iv), as was previously reported, the medication pass procedure needed to be returned to the original procedure, whereby officers and medical staff entered each housing unit to conduct business. It now appears that the recommended procedure has been put into place, but to date there is no record of a written order documenting the change.
In general, security staff had been maintaining better control of inmates during medication pass, and so the nurses were feeling much more comfortable when passing medication. Therefore, it appeared that this issue had been addressed. However, then there were 2 incidents that occurred more recently that made the medical staff somewhat more anxious again. The first incident involved an inmate who had been escorted to medical for a visit who was found to be carrying a shank, which he ended up producing in medical, while threatening another inmate. The second incident involved a fight between two inmates during medication pass; the fight spilled out into the area where the nurse and her cart were located, and so she had to grab her cart and run; and although the officer who was escorting the nurse was attempting to address the situation, two other officers who were able to see what was going on didn’t respond at all.
Although both of these 2 recent incidences were reported to the Jail Administrator, there was no specific feedback given to medical with regard to what was done and how such incidences could be avoided in the future. Of course, these are also among the difficulties that could be addressed in a regularly scheduled meeting between administration, security staff and medical staff, if such a meeting occurred. Therefore again, the establishment of a regularly scheduled meeting between administration, security staff and medical/mental health focused on problem identification and problem solving is strongly recommended.
At the time of this site visit, the full-time QMHP position (which had previously been a Mental Health Coordinator’s position), which had been vacant since February, had been filled, and the new hire started on June 1, 2020. Therefore now, all of the currently approved positions within the mental health team are full, and include 2 QMHPs (clinical social workers), a part-time psychologist, and a part-time psychiatric nurse clinician (supported by a psychiatrist). The new QMHP is not expected to assume the role of a Mental Health Coordinator despite the
35

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 36 of 117
recommendation of the mental health expert of the monitoring team that the position should continue to be structured as such. A Mental Health Coordinator will be essential when the mental health unit is opened. This team is responsible for all of the mental health services at all three facilities.
At the time of the site visit, there were 129 inmates on the mental health caseload, all of whom are considered to be seriously mentally ill. All but 19 of those inmates are currently being treated with psychotropic medication. However, a review of the 19 inmates who are not currently being treated with psychotropic medication revealed that all of them have been diagnosed as suffering from a mental illness for which psychotropic medication is indicated, but to date, they have repeatedly refused to take medication. Mental health staff continue to encourage medication compliance. This will be easier once the mental health unit is open. Prior to the departure of the Mental Health Coordinator there were some individuals on the caseload who benefitted from mental health services. These individuals were dropped from the caseload because of the staff vacancy. Now that a new QMHP has been hired, it is recommended that nonSMI individuals who would benefit from the mental health services be added back to the caseload.
The part-time psychiatric nurse clinician is responsible for the evaluation of all new additions to the mental health case load and the prescribing of medication for them when indicated; monitoring the safety and efficacy of medication that has been newly prescribed; repeatedly and frequently (every several days) following up with those for whom medication is indicated but refuse to take medication, with the goal of encouraging them to take medication; responding to mental health emergencies; and the routine monitoring (every 3 months) of those who have been stabilized on medication. Given all of these responsibilities and the number of inmates involved, the part-time psychiatric nurse clinician is unable to fulfill all of these responsibilities; and so the medical/primary care nurse clinician has been assigned the responsibility for the routine monitoring of a small sub-set of those who have been stabilized on psychotropic medication; but the medical nurse clinician will refer an inmate back to the psychiatric nurse clinician if there is any reason that the inmate’s psychotropic medication needs to be fully reassessed.
At present, the 2 QMHPs and the part-time psychologist are responsible for all initial mental health assessments; the development of treatment plans for those added to the mental health caseload, as well as the development of discharge plans when indicated; providing individual treatment sessions for those on the mental health caseload; the assessment and management of mental health emergencies (including suicide watch and inmates placed on mental health observation); the weekly evaluation/review of inmates being held in segregation; providing any assessments and treatment required for PREA-involved inmates; and maintaining all medical records and logs. In addition, they take weekend call for mental health emergencies on a rotating basis, and they come to the facility in the event of an emergency and/or to see inmates who are
36

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 37 of 117
on suicide watch or other special mental health observation. Given all of these responsibilities and the number of inmates on the mental health caseload in the 3 facilities, it is obviously impossible for these 2.5 staff persons to provide individual sessions to all inmates on the mental health caseload on a weekly basis. Therefore, although those inmates who are the most unstable may be seen at least once a week if not more, others may only be seen every 2 or 3 weeks. Furthermore, given the size of the staff and their above described responsibilities, the staff has been unable to initiate much needed group therapy programs. However, to at least help begin to address this problem, one of the senior nurses has initiated a short-term ‘discharge planning group’ (focused on understanding one’s mental illness, medication compliance and the responsibility for following up with treatment once released from jail), which appears to be going very well.
Given the above noted, it is reasonable to say that although the mental health team is providing a considerable amount of mental health services to inmates on the mental health caseload, there are simply not enough staff to provide individual and/or group treatment to all inmates with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other behavioral difficulties, who would benefit from therapeutic activities. There are no services for those SMIs who refuse treatment; they are simply periodically asked if they would accept treatment; and so, they require a more rigorous program that might include behavioral interventions, designed to reward them for participation in treatment. There is a medication group (focused on learning about medication and how best to manage it), run by one of the nurses, but there are no other groups (for those on the mental health caseload regardless of whether or not they are on the mental health unit) -- needed groups include, psychoeducational groups (focused on learning about one's illness, associated dysfunction, and the benefits of treatment), discharge planning groups (focused on individuals discharge plans and how to implement them), habilitation/life skills groups (for those most chronically ill who lack some basic life skills), alcoholism and substance abuse groups, and groups for those with serious trauma histories.
It should also be noted that as all of the security policies and procedures required to comply with all provisions of the agreement are developed and implemented, mental health staff will have additional responsibilities related to the disciplinary review process, segregation review, and security uses of force; this will stretch staff even further; and therefore, staff will be even less able to provide required therapeutic activities. Furthermore, there is a sub-set of inmates on the mental health caseload who require more than the range of mental health services/interventions currently available at the facility. Those SMIs who are acutely ill, accepting treatment, but not yet stable need the mental health unit -- a therapeutic environment that will help keep them oriented and supported (by mental health staff and security staff) in order to facilitate stabilization. Those SMIs and those with intellectual disabilities or other cognitive deficits that cannot function in general population, despite engaging in treatment, also need a mental health unit that is a safe and therapeutic place for them -- they require groups geared towards their
37

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 38 of 117
special needs (for example, a group for the intellectually disabled and a group for SMIs who have residual symptoms) and a program of activities to enhance socialization and to keep them from just sitting around all day doing nothing but getting lost in their symptoms. The plan to address this is to open a mental health unit at RDC which will offer additional services; and that unit will also have to be staffed. Therefore, a reanalysis of mental health staff needs is indicated. This analysis should take into account the scope and frequency of therapeutic interventions that are necessary to meet the needs of the population and all the other responsibilities outlined in the Settlement Agreement. It is imperative that this reanalysis occur and the approval for additional staff is obtained prior to the opening of the mental health unit.
Mental health and health staff should work with security staff to develop procedures for the implementation of anticipated policies related to disciplinary review, segregation review, security’s use of force and incident reporting and review. Mental health should design and begin to develop the plan/program for the mental health unit. QCHC should perform an analysis of mental health staff needs based on all of the issues noted above. Once QCHC assesses mental health staff needs and forwards a proposal to the County, the County should seriously consider the need to increase the number of mental health staff at the facility.
Regarding 42(g)(vi), the process/procedures for screening prisoners for serious mental illness as part of the jail’s booking and initial health assessment process has been described in prior reports. As was found during prior site visits, about 2/3 of the inmates on the mental health caseload (86 of the 129 inmates on the mental health caseload) were identified as possibly in need of mental health services and referred to the mental health team during the booking and initial health assessment processes. A review of the 43 inmates on the mental health caseload who were added to the caseload at some later point revealed that 19 of them were self-referred; 11 were referred by the medical department; 9 were added because they had become suicidal; and 4 were identified by the mental health staff. The majority of these 43 inmates were found to be suffering from depression, especially amongst the group that was self-referred; this might suggest that this sub-set of inmates became depressed while detained at the facility (and did not show signs of or report a history of depression at intake); but the fact that a considerable percentage of them were ultimately found to be suffering from a chronic depressive disorder raises the question of whether or not their need for mental health services was missed during the booking and initial health screening processes. Furthermore, the fact that a significant percentage of these 43 inmates were found to be suffering from some type of psychotic disorder further raises the question of the adequacy of the booking and initial health screening processes with regard to identifying new admissions who might be seriously mentally ill.
With regard to initial mental health assessments (performed by the mental health team when a prisoner is referred to mental health), the timeliness of these assessments has continued to improve. It should be noted however that 38 of the 86 inmates on the mental health caseload who were referred to mental health from Booking and/or after the initial health screen initially
38

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 39 of 117
refused to undergo a mental health assessment; multiple, repeated attempts (every 2 to 3 days) were required to get them to undergo a mental health assessment; and about 2/3 of these 38 resistant inmates were eventually found to be suffering from a psychotic disorder. Of course, this is important because it means that the initiation of appropriate treatment for this seriously mentally ill population was delayed due to their refusal to be evaluated, but it also means that for a significant number of new admissions, the staff time required to perform an initial mental health assessment (involving multiple repeat attempts) is much more than would be expected and this needs to be considered when performing an analysis of the need for mental health staff.
Once the mental health unit is open, rapid assessment of newly admitted, mentally ill inmates will be even more important, because it will determine whether they are placed on the mental health unit or in general population. Since some of the more acutely mentally ill new admissions, who would be most in need of placement on the mental health unit will include that population who tends to initially refuse a mental health assessment, planning for the mental health unit should include a plan for where to hold/house apparently ill, new admissions who refuse an initial mental health assessment until an assessment can be done.
Steps have been taken towards opening a special needs/mental health unit on C-pod. The renovated unit will include a pod for seriously mentally ill prisoners, with an adjacent ISO-unit for even more seriously mentally ill prisoners (those who are at risk of harming themselves or others, either because they are not yet stabilized on medication or have refused medication); an area for special mental health observation; space for group therapy and other expanded mental health programming; and office space for mental health staff and individual therapy sessions. The unit will also be designed so that security staff can employ a direct supervision approach to security management. In addition, work has been done on the development of the policies and procedures for the unit.
When the mental health unit is opened, it is expected that medical, mental health and security staff would work together as an interdisciplinary team to provide a safe environment for mentally ill inmates and staff, while providing mentally ill inmates with the level of mental health services that they require. While this will be important for the management and treatment of all prisoners who will be housed on the unit, it will be particularly important for the management and treatment of the most acutely ill prisoners, most of whom are currently being held in segregation. Therefore, a mental health program plan for the unit needs to be developed, and steps must be taken to assure that there is an adequate compliment of mental health staff to implement that program. In addition, security staff who will be assigned to the unit need to be selected and trained (see section 45-f).
With regard to the mental health program for the unit, a menu of therapeutic interventions needs to be developed and implemented in order to address the needs of the various types of seriously
39

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 40 of 117
mentally ill prisoners who will be housed on the unit. Then, following a mental health assessment of each prisoner, a treatment plan would be developed that describes the prisoner’s mental health difficulties; the goals of treatment; the specific selections from the menu that will be employed to reach each goal of treatment; which staff person will be responsible for each therapeutic intervention that will be employed; and an estimate of how long it will take to reach each treatment goal. It is anticipated that treatment plans will be developed and signed off on by the unit’s treatment team, and that treatment plans will be reviewed by the treatment team on a regular basis and revised when indicated.
With regard to the populations who will be appropriate for placement on the mental health unit, there will be seriously mentally ill prisoners who are expected to be able to stabilize (get their symptoms under control) and then undergo psychoeducation (i.e., learn about their illness, their need for treatment, and how best to participate in their treatment), so that they can continue with treatment upon their release from jail and thereby hopefully avoid rearrests; there will be a similar set of prisoners who are likely to be convicted and imprisoned for some period time, but stabilization and psychoeducation will be focused on helping them function better in prison; and while still detained in the facility, some sub-set of both groups of prisoners will likely stabilize to the point where they can be housed on a general population unit. These prisoners will require aggressive medication management, individual therapy, and group therapy that includes various psychoeducation groups, life skill groups, discharge planning groups, and other activity groups.
There will be other seriously mentally ill prisoners who remain so impaired despite compliance with treatment that they will have to remain on the mental health unit while detained in the facility. These prisoners will require aggressive medication management, supportive individual therapy, and group therapy, including various support groups and groups focused on how they might transition to a community-based setting that has adequate supports once they are released.
Then there will be the even more seriously mentally ill prisoners (so acutely ill that they are a danger to themselves or others), who are being treated but are still quite ill or who have refused treatment; those in treatment may be in the ISO-section of the unit or under special mental health observation of some type until they have begun to stabilize enough that they are no longer a danger to themselves or others; and those who have refused treatment will be in the ISO section of the unit. Those prisoners who have accepted treatment need an even more aggressive approach to medication management, coupled with individual therapy focused on helping them stabilize – once stabilized, they will receive the type of treatment that other seriously mentally ill prisoners receive (described above). Those prisoners who have refused treatment will require repeated individual visits, focused on helping them come to understand their need for treatment, coupled with monitoring of their mental status to determine whether or not some emergency mental health intervention is indicated.
40

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 41 of 117
In addition, some individuals within the above noted groups of seriously mentally ill prisoners will also be suffering from substance abuse difficulties; upon admission, some might be experiencing a withdrawal syndrome that needs to be managed; but all such prisoners should also have access to individual and group therapy focused on addressing their substance abuse difficulties; and with regard to the treatment of these dually-diagnosed individuals, it will be important to remember that it has been well established that the integration of the treatment of their substance abuse difficulties and other mental health difficulties is required in order to successfully treat them. Furthermore, some individuals will also be suffering from intellectual and/or other cognitive difficulties, and so special programming for those individuals will also be required.
A program plan for the mental health unit needs to be developed that reflects all of the above noted. This will be done by the mental health staff, with the support of the facility’s director of medical and mental health services, and with consultation with security administration where/as indicated. Since the newly hired QMHP has helped develop and then worked on such a mental health unit, her knowledge base and experience should be extremely helpful with this effort. It is also recommended that the local QCHC staff seek assistance from the QCHC central office through knowledgeable individuals or the retention of an outside consultant. As previously stated, it is essential that this planning occur now in advance of the mental health unit opening.
Finally, there are several other issues, discussed in other sections of this report, that in various ways relate to and/or impact on the proposed mental health unit. These include issues regarding classification and housing (see section 74); issues regarding mental health involvement in disciplinary review (see section 77); and the range of issues related to avoiding the placement of those prisoners with serious mental illness in segregation and removing such prisoners from segregation.
Regarding 42 (g) (vii), visitation has always been very limited, particularly at the RDC and WC. However, since the COVID-19 pandemic has struck, visitation has been totally restricted. This restriction seems to be extreme in that all visitation in the Jail System has been limited to video for several years. Now, the only video visits allowed are by family members who do so from their own homes, at a significant cost to those individuals. Considering the impact of the pandemic on inmate visitation, some jurisdictions have waived the fee for visitation entirely, and/or have waived the fee for inmate telephone calls. This is certainly something that the HCSO should consider.
Regarding 42 (h) as has been previously reported, various staff are responsible for the higher levels of supervision required for prisoners who are on suicide watch and other special medical or mental health observation. These staff include medical and mental health staff as well as security staff. Suicide watch procedures are not consistent at each facility. At the RDC male inmates placed on suicide watch are assigned to a specific ISO Unit which is supposed to have
41

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 42 of 117
an officer assigned full time to the ISO Unit for the duration of the watch. While supervision is constant, log entries are made every 15 minutes. At the WC suicide risk inmates are sent to the RDC. At the JDC, male inmates who require a suicide watch are sent to the RDC. Female inmates placed on a suicide watch are put in a designated unit, but the required observation is every 15 minutes, not constant. The procedure should be standardized between facilities. In spite of this inconsistency, documentation of well-being checks of female inmates on suicide watch at the JDC indicates that they are conducted far more frequently than the fifteen minute expected standard.
At the RDC suicide watches are supposed to be constant, with an officer always assigned inside the ISO unit, but incident reports reflect that the procedure is not followed consistently. The lack of compliance with the approved policy is apparent in Incident Report 2000874 which documents that an officer responsible for B-1 ISO (suicide watch) was not on his post when one inmate assaulted another. While the shift supervisor did write a supplemental report, it did not even mention the fact that the assigned officer was not on post. A review of 12 suicide watch logs from the month of May revealed a broad range of discrepancies. While the majority of well-being checks were recorded at 15 to 20 minute intervals, many entries were a half hour to 45 minutes late. One log had only 12 entries during an eight hour shift where there should have been 32. Another officer listed “shake down” in the comments section of the log for almost every 15 minute entry. In all cases, the log forms were signed by a supervisor indicating review, but none of the obvious discrepancies were noted, nor were there any notes of corrective action. It is apparent that supervisory review is pro-forma. Supervisors merely sign their names; they do not actually “supervise”.
As has also been previously noted, given that 2 or 3 inmates are placed on suicide watch each week, the initial assessment of inmates who are suspected of being suicidal, the daily monitoring of those placed on suicide watch, and providing follow-up care and monitoring of inmates for a reasonable period of time upon their release from suicide watch requires a considerable amount of QCHC staff time. This will be important to consider when performing an analysis of mental health staff needs.
Prisoners on special medical observation are seen daily by medical staff. At present, there is no special mental health observation for acutely mentally ill prisoners; most acutely mentally ill prisoners are being held in segregation; but it is anticipated that when the mental health unit is opened, a part of the function of that unit will be to provide a higher level of supervision of these prisoners by mental health, medical and security staff, as well as more appropriate therapeutic interventions for such acutely mentally ill prisoners. As noted in prior reports, a review of the mental health records of the mentally ill inmates in segregation indicates that many of them would be successful in a more therapeutic, less restrictive setting.
42

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 43 of 117
Prisoners who are withdrawing from alcohol and/or other drugs also require enhanced supervision by medical, mental health and security staff. At present, such prisoners are placed on a regular unit with enhanced medical, mental health and security supervision, unless it is suspected that they are withdrawing from a substance that requires more constant medical supervision, in which case they are placed in the infirmary. Whether or not there will be adequate staff on the mental health unit to manage those prisoners who currently undergo withdrawal in the infirmary must be carefully considered.
Regarding 42 (i), video surveillance capabilities, at the RDC, cameras in the corridors and housing units are recorded, so incidents can be reviewed after the fact. This capability has been in place since the beginning of the monitoring process. At the WC, live action cameras have always allowed visual coverage of the hallways and housing units, but they were not recorded until Benchmark Construction added that capability in June when they installed cameras covering each housing unit fire escape door in June. This enhancement will finally allow the CID and IAD investigators to review video recordings of incidents. At the JDC, there are cameras that cover and record the hallways and the drive through sally port/transfer waiting area, but there is no coverage inside the housing units.
While the IAD and CID investigators now have access to the video recording system so that they can quickly view incidents, they still cannot obtain copies of them without having to go through a request process with IT. It is recommended, again, that these investigators be granted immediate access to both view and record copies of previously recorded incidents.
43. Include outcome measures as part of the Jail’s internal data collection, management, and administrative reporting process. The occurrence of any of the following specific outcome measures creates a rebuttable presumption in this case that the Jail fails to provide reasonably safe conditions for prisoners:
a. Staff vacancy rate of more than 10% of budgeted positions; b. A voluntary staff turnover rate that results in the failure to staff critical posts (such
as the housing units, booking, and classification) or the failure to maintain experienced supervisors on all shifts; c. A major disturbance resulting in the takeover of any housing area by prisoners; d. Staffing where fewer than 90% of all detention officers have completed basic jailer training; e. Three or more use of force or prisoner-on-prisoner incidents in a fiscal year in which a prisoner suffers a serious injury, but for which staff members fail to complete all documentation required by this Agreement, including supervision recommendations and findings; f. One prisoner death within a fiscal year, where there is no documented administrative review by the Jail Administrator or no documented mortality
43

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 44 of 117
review by a physician not directly involved in the clinical treatment of the deceased prisoner (e.g. corporate medical director or outside, contract physician, when facility medical director may have a personal conflict); g. One death within a fiscal year, where the death was a result of prisoner-onprisoner violence and there was a violation of Jail supervision, housing assignment, or classification procedures.
Non-Compliant The HCSO still does not generate a unique report to cover this paragraph. The turnover rate of staff was approximately 22% for the first five months of 2020. That is more than twice the threshold figure of 10% specified in 43 (a). Consequently, required posts cannot be filled as necessary. This is supported by the fact that staff routinely discover problems after the fact when inmates report that they have been assaulted or when they respond to fights and assaults already in progress. Incident Report #2000997 is a case in point. Officers picking up trays in HU B-3 at the RDC saw an inmate with an eye injury. He reported that he had been assaulted the previous night. The Detention Officer who made the initial report did not indicate where the incident occurred, but the Sergeant who was called to the scene included that information in his supplement.
With regard to 43 (c), the RDC continues to experience incidents in which the inmates break out of their cells and housing units, sometimes even taking over staff areas. A major riot occurred in 2012, shortly after the housing unit officers were removed from their assigned posts. Since then, the lack of inmate supervision, coupled with locks and doors that cannot be secured, has led to periodic reoccurrences. Incident Report #2000819 states that on May 18, 2020, the inmates in A-2 “breached” the Recreation door and were rushing into A-3. The officers who had been in A3 retreated to the Control Room where they found an inmate sitting in the back of Pod Control. Eventually, the incident was brought under control. Four inmates were treated on site with bruising, abrasions, lacerations and puncture wounds. Incident Report #2000877 reflects the most recent case on point. On May 26, 2020, when officers went into HU B-4 to conduct a security check, inmates overpowered them, took their keys away, exited the HU and “kicked the cage door to B-3 open” and entered that housing unit. Fortunately, backup officers were able to regain control of the situation in short order.
With regard to 43 (d), there has still been no mortality or administrative review conducted regarding the death of an inmate who was beaten to death by other inmates in his housing unit at the RDC in December 2018. Although the CID investigation of the case has been completed, it was never referred to IAD for investigation.
44. To complement, but not replace, “direct supervision,” develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that detention officers are conducting rounds as appropriate. To that end:
44

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 45 of 117
a. Rounds must be conducted at least once every 30 minutes in general population housing units and at least once every 15 minutes for special management prisoners (including prisoners housed in booking cells).
b. All security rounds must be conducted at irregular intervals to reduce their predictability and must be documented on forms or logs.
c. Officers must only be permitted to enter data on these forms or logs at the time a round is completed. Forms and logs must not include pre-printed dates or times. Officers must not be permitted to fill out forms and logs before they actually conduct their rounds.
d. The parties anticipate that “rounds” will not necessarily be conducted as otherwise described in this provision when the Jail is operated as a “direct supervision” facility. This is because a detention officer will have constant, active supervision of all prisoners in the detention officer’s charge. As detailed immediately below, however, even under a “direct supervision” model, the Jail must have a system in place to document and ensure that staff are providing adequate supervision.
e. Jail policies, procedures, and practices may utilize more than one means to document and ensure that staff are supervising prisoners as required by “direct supervision,” including the use and audit of supervisor inspection reports, visitation records, mealtime records, inmate worker sheets, medical treatment files, sick call logs, canteen delivery records, and recreation logs. Any system adopted to ensure that detention officers are providing “direct supervision” must be sufficiently detailed and in writing to allow verification by outside reviewers, including the United States and Monitor.
Partial Compliance As has been indicated in previous Monitoring Reports, none of the facilities meet the requirement that well-being checks be conducted every 30 minutes on general population inmates, 15 minutes on restrictive housing inmates and 15 minutes on detainees held in Booking holding cells. The corrections operations member of the monitoring team has spent a great deal of time attempting to set up procedures in each facility that at least meet the American Correctional Association standard of 60 minutes for general population inmates, 30 minutes for restrictive housing inmates and 15 minutes for holding cell (Booking) inmates. That standard is now incorporated into Policy 9-200, Supervision and Post Operations.
While well-being checks have been consistently accomplished at the hourly level for general population inmates at the JDC and WC in the past, the RDC has not achieved that level. Consequently, the Monitoring Team developed a procedure whereby officers at that facility were restricted from using the control rooms as break areas and which required officers to call in their reports to the respective control room officers. That procedure was put in place through a
45

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 46 of 117
directive by the previous Jail Administrator prior to her retirement. It should be followed until such time as direct supervision is reinstituted at the RDC. Initially this interim procedure appeared to result in more timely and complete well-being checks when it was followed, but several recent incident reports indicate that officers sometimes reverted to their old ways. In Incident Report # 2000226, it was noted that two floor officers were in B-Pod control “doing observation” when the incident occurred. Similarly, Incident Report #1000819 includes supplemental reports that state that after completing their well-being checks the A-Pod floor officers “all came back to Pod Control to do our paperwork.” This is exactly what is intended to be prohibited by the new directive.
While direct supervision operation is scheduled to be implemented at the WC in July, at the JDC remote, periodic surveillance is dictated by the design of the facility. Hopefully, direct supervision will be implemented in C-Pod sometime in July; however, A-Pod will continue to function as a remote surveillance housing area.
Because it was not possible to review the control room logbooks during the remote site visit, no determination can be made as to compliance with the hourly well-being check standard at the RDC. The same is true for the WC’s housing unit logs. Well-being check logs for the JDC were available for review because those records are maintained on a form, not in a logbook. They show that inmates in general population at the JDC are monitored at least hourly and that inmates in confinement are monitored at least every 30 minutes.
A series of well-being check forms for inmates held in confinement (segregation) during June were received covering the following locations. A-1 ISO A-4 ISO B-1 ISO (Suicide watch) B-4 (Confinement housing) B-4 ISO Booking (Holding cells) The frequency requirement for well-being documentation is every 15 minutes in B-ISO and Booking. All of the other above listed areas require 30 minute checks.
While most of the forms were completed properly, the frequency of discrepancies is unacceptable. Many forms were improperly labeled. General population housing units were listed as the “Location” instead of the actual ISO unit. Entries were made (uniformly) exactly on 15 minute or 30-minute intervals precisely on the quarter hour, half hour, three quarter hour and hour. This has the appearance of a form that has been filled out in advance or after the fact, certainly not when the check actually occurred. One officer recorded checks at precisely the same minute in A-1 ISO and A-4 ISO, a physical impossibility. Booking holding cells were
46

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 47 of 117
variously identified as “Booking, TI and H-1”. Suicide watch records in B-1 ISO were recorded on a standard 15-minute watch form, not the required 15-minute Suicide Watch Form.
It is apparent that remedial training is required. In addition, supervisory responsibility and accountability must be reinforced. While almost every well-being check form was signed by a supervisor, not a single one noted any of the readily apparent discrepancies noted above.
45. Ensure that all correctional officers receive adequate pre- and post-service training to provide for reasonably safe conditions in the Jail. To that end, the County must ensure that the Jail employs Qualified Training Officers, who must help to develop and implement a formal, written training program. The program must include the following:
a. Mandatory pre-service training. Detention officers must receive State jailer training and certification prior to start of work. Staff who have not received such training by the Effective Date of this Agreement must complete their State jailer training within twelve months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. During that twelve month period, the County must develop an in-house detention training academy.
b. Post Order training. Detention officers must receive specific training on unitspecific post orders before starting work on a unit, and every year thereafter. To document such training, officers must be required to sign an acknowledgement that they have received such training, but only after an officer is first assigned to a unit, after a Post Order is updated, and after completion of annual retraining.
c. “Direct supervision” training. Detention officers must receive specific pre- and post service training on “direct supervision.” Such training must include instruction on how to supervise prisoners in a “direct supervision” facility, including instruction in effective communication skills and verbal de-escalation. Supervisors must receive training on how to monitor and ensure that staff are providing effective “direct supervision.”
d. Jail administrator training. High-level Jail supervisors (i.e., supervisors with facility-wide management responsibilities), including the Jail Administrator and his or her immediate deputies (wardens), must receive jail administrator training prior to the start of their employment. High-level supervisors already employed at the Jail when this Agreement is executed must complete such training within six months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Training comparable to the Jail Administration curriculum offered by the National Institute of Corrections will meet the requirements of this provision.
e. Post-service training. Detention officers must receive at least 120 hours per year of post-service training in their first year of employment and 40 hours per year after their first year. Such training must include refresher training on Jail policies. The training may be provided during roll call, staff meetings, and post-assignment
47

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 48 of 117
meetings. Post-service training should also include field and scenario-based training. f. Training for Critical Posts. Jail management must work with the training department to develop a training syllabus and minimum additional training requirements for any officer serving in a critical position. Such additional training must be provided for any officer working on a tactical team; in a special management, medical or mental health unit; in a maximum security unit; or in booking and release. g. Special management unit training. Officers assigned to special management units must receive at least eight hours of specialized training each year regarding supervision of such units and related prisoner safety, medical, mental health, and security policies. h. Training on all Jail policies and procedures including those regarding prisoner rights and the prevention of staff abuse and misconduct.
Partial Compliance During the remote site visit in June the Training Captain did not participate in the scheduled conference call. In his place, the Training Lieutenant reviewed records covering the first five months of 2020. With regard to 45 (a), all Detention Officer recruits complete the basic academy before they are assigned to duty within the respective facilities. 45 (b), post order training cannot commence until post orders are developed and published. 45 (c), a direct supervision block of instruction is now incorporated into each basic recruit academy curriculum. Initially a cadre of existing staff were included in this training, but due to problems associated with the pandemic, it has not been possible to include them in the most recent class. 45 (d), Jail Administrator training has not yet been provided to the new Jail (Detention) Administrator. 45 (e), (f), (g), (h), in service training is continuing, but is hampered by pandemic restrictions on staff. Training for critical posts and special management unit training is not currently ongoing. Training on policies and procedures is not keeping pace with the approval of new policies. Recognizing this, priority should be given to Use of Force training as one of the most critical areas facing the HCSO.
Presently, although there are security staff assigned to the medical/mental health section of the facility, there are no medical or mental health units, and so prisoners with special medical needs and/or mental health difficulties are housed throughout the facility (with the exception of the several prisoners who might be in the infirmary at some point – see also the section of this report on COVID-19). Furthermore, even when the mental health unit is opened, it will not be big enough to house all of the prisoners on the mental health caseload, and so there will still be prisoners who are suffering from mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities housed in general population. Therefore, with regard to this provision of the agreement, it is important to consider the mental health training provided to all security staff, as well as the need for additional training
48

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 49 of 117
that might be provided to security staff who will be assigned to the special needs/mental health unit once it is opened.
The mental health expert on the monitoring team has raised some concerns (as recently as the last monitor’s report) about the mental health training provided to all security staff. No review of that training has been reported in response to the concerns that have been raised.
Before the special needs/mental health unit is opened, security staff who will be assigned to that unit will require additional training. This is because they will be dealing with the most seriously ill prisoners; their interaction with such prisoners will be more ongoing and more intense, especially given that security staff will be employing the direct supervision model; and it is anticipated that they will be working in a more coordinated/collaborative role with mental health staff. In essence, this additional training should include much more about the signs and symptoms of mental illness and intellectual disability; the impact of the various mental illnesses and intellectual disability on an individuals’ ability to function; and approaches to the management of prisoners with mental illness and/or intellectual disability that can dovetail with the therapeutic services being provided, thereby creating an overall and consistently run therapeutic environment.
It should be noted here that security staff persons who will be assigned to the mental health unit should be carefully selected based on their interest in working on such a unit, their experience and innate capacity to work with such prisoners, and their willingness to undergo additional specialized training. It might also be helpful to obtain recommendations from supervisors, as well as mental health and medical staff, since it is clear that they have gotten to know specific security staff persons who appear to work well with mentally ill prisoners.
46. Develop and implement policies and procedures for adequate supervisory oversight for the Jail. To that end, the County must:
a. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the authority to make personnel decisions necessary to ensure adequate staffing, staff discipline, and staff oversight. This personnel authority must include the power to hire, transfer, and discipline staff. Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) allocated for budget purposes represent a salaried slot and are not a restriction on personnel assignment authority. While the Sheriff may retain final authority for personnel decisions, the Jail’s policies and procedures must document and clearly identify who is responsible for a personnel decision, what administrative procedures apply, and the basis for personnel decisions.
b. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the ability to monitor, ensure compliance with Jail policies, and take corrective action, for any staff members operating in the Jail, including any
49

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 50 of 117
who are not already reporting to the Jail Administrator and the Jail’s chain of command. This provision covers road deputies assigned to supervise housing units and emergency response/tactical teams entering the Jail to conduct random shakedowns or to suppress prisoner disturbances. c. Ensure that supervisors conduct daily rounds on each shift in the prisoner housing units, and document the results of their rounds. d. Ensure that staff conduct daily inspections of all housing and common areas to identify damage to the physical plant, safety violations, and sanitation issues. This maintenance program must include the following elements:
i. Facility safety inspections that include identification of damaged doors, locks, cameras, and safety equipment.
ii. An inspection process. iii. A schedule for the routine inspection, repair, and replacement of the
physical plant, including security and safety equipment. iv. A requirement that any corrective action ordered be taken. v. Identification of high priority repairs to assist Jail and County officials
with allocating staff and resources. vi. To ensure prompt corrective action, a mechanism for identifying and
notifying responsible staff and supervisors when there are significant delays with repairs or a pattern of problems with equipment. Staff response to physical plant, safety, and sanitation problems must be reasonable and prompt.
Non-Compliant While there is still no specific policy that delegates authority to the Jail (Detention) Administrator to manage the Jail System as specified by this paragraph of the Settlement Agreement, the change of administration with the election of a new Sheriff offers the opportunity to implement revised practice. To that end, it would be appropriate for the Jail (Detention) Administrator to be able to designate who is promoted into key positions such as the Assistant Jail Administrator and Captain at the JDC. At this point it appears that such is not the case.
The lack of supervisory responsibility and accountability, particularly at the RDC, noted in the Tenth Monitoring Report, continues to be a particularly troublesome problem. As has been noted in previous paragraphs (above) supervisory review generally amounts to nothing more than a signature. Comments regarding discrepancies and recommendations for corrective action are not included in supplemental reports or following supervisors’ signatures.
Supervisors are responsible for daily inspections of the facilities to document and correct maintenance and security issues; however, since the riot of 2012, there has been little incentive to follow through with this duty since there was no system in place to ensure that work orders
50

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 51 of 117
submitted by Detention staff resulted in timely corrective action. Recognizing the long-standing nature of this problem, a number of specific measures were included in the Stipulated Order that is now in place. One of the most positive outcomes was that the County contracted with Benchmark Construction to coordinate and supervise all major maintenance issues in the Jail System. Since Benchmark came on board there has been a marked improvement. A qualified supervisor is on site full time. He serves as the point of contact between the HCSO/Detention Services and the County Administrator who has taken a hands-on approach by personally reviewing and authorizing individual projects. For its part, the HCSO has hired a full time Chief Safety and Security Officer who will coordinate all HCSO work orders with the County (through Benchmark Construction) to ensure accountability and consistency with regard to maintenance issues. Hopefully, this will finally resolve the long-standing lack of communication issue between the HCSO and County that has characterized their relationship when attempting to deal with maintenance problems in the Jail.
After it was given approval to proceed, CML Security, a qualified corrections contractor, completed C-Pod door and lock repairs and upgrades in a timely fashion. At this time, there are insufficient staff available to open C-Pod as a direct supervision housing area, but a training class for new officers should graduate soon which should make it possible to open C-Pod on August 1st. Once C-Pod opens, B-Pod will be closed to undergo a similar renovation.
The new Master Planning Committee, which is required by the Stipulated Order, is proceeding with the necessary research to develop a comprehensive plan to address Hinds County’s correctional needs. A local firm, CDFL Architects, and a nationally recognized architectural and planning firm, HDR, have been retained by the County to direct this effort.
Fire safety issues, which are most critical at the RDC, are being addressed by the newly appointed Fire Safety Officer (FSO). He will report to the above-mentioned Chief Safety and Security Officer (CSSO), who in turn reports to the Assistant Jail (Detention) Administrator and Detention Administrator. The FSO has already ensured that fire hoses were reinstalled in the CPod housing units. In addition, he had the fire hydrants at the RDC and WC tested in April, and he submitted records of fire drills at each facility for the month of May. It is anticipated that he will work with the CSSO and Benchmark’s on-site supervisor to address other fire safety problems. The FSO has also communicated directly with the State Fire Marshal’s Office to obtain copies of the most recent fire inspection reports and to schedule the next inspection of all three facilities.
47. Ensure that staff members conduct random shakedowns of cells and common areas so that prisoners do not possess or have access to dangerous contraband. Such shakedowns must be conducted in each housing unit at least once per month, on an irregular schedule to make them less predictable to prisoners and staff.
51

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 52 of 117
Partial Compliance Because shakedowns occur more frequently than in the past and documentation is much improved, this paragraph is upgraded to Partial Compliance. According to the monthly shakedown log that was provided for each facility for the months January through May, there were a total of 37 shakedowns conducted in the Jail System; four at the WC, seven at the JDC and 26 at the RDC. It is possible that the log is incomplete because there were no shakedowns recorded at the WC for March, April and May; there were none recorded for the JDC for April and May; yet the RDC recorded shakedowns in each month.
The shakedown log provides a consolidated record of activity in all three jails in a standardized format. As was previously noted, although it cross references incident report numbers, it does not reflect whether or not contraband was found. In some instances, significant quantities of contraband items are confiscated, although fewer telephones have been found than was the case just a year ago. Instead, a wide array of homemade shanks appear to be the contraband item of choice. In Incident Report #2000887, it was noted that 20 shanks were recovered in a shakedown at the RDC. This incident was also video recorded, which is something that has never occurred until this reporting period.
48. Install cell phone jammers or other electronic equipment to detect, suppress, and deter unauthorized communications from prisoners in the Jail. Installation must be completed within two years after the Effective Date.
Non-Compliant There has been no action taken to deal with this issue since the beginning of the monitoring process.
49. Develop and implement a gang program in consultation with qualified experts in the field that addresses any link between gang activity in the community and the Jail through appropriate provisions for education, family or community involvement, and violence prevention.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph for two years. An officer was assigned to work on this issue, but there is no documentation of a program that meets the requirements of this paragraph. Gang activities cannot be monitored or managed currently at the RDC because the housing units are not staffed. When C-Pod opens as a direct supervision housing area, that situation should change. Hopefully, B-Pod will undergo the same change after it is renovated. At the WC, gangs do not have a free hand to operate because staff are always present within the housing units. At the JDC gang issues are not as prevalent as at the RDC because of the small size of the individual cell blocks/housing units.
52

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 53 of 117
USE OF FORCE STANDARDS
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to prevent excessive force by staff and ensure force is used safely and only in a manner commensurate with the behavior justifying it. To that end, the County must:
50. Develop and implement policies and procedures to regulate the use of force. The policies and procedures must:
a. Prohibit the use of force as a response to verbal insults or prisoner threats where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff or visitors;
b. Prohibit the use of force as a response to prisoners’ failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff, visitors, or property;
c. Prohibit the use of force against a prisoner after the prisoner has ceased to resist and is under control;
d. Prohibit the use of force as punishment or retaliation; e. Limit the level of force used so that it is commensurate with the justification for
use of force; and f. Limit use of force in favor of less violent methods when such methods are more
appropriate, effective, or less likely to result in the escalation of an incident.
Partial Compliance Policy 5.500, Use of Force, was approved by the Sheriff on February 1, 2020. It lays out UOF standards that are consistent with the requirements of this paragraph. Sub-paragraphs (a) through (f) are all covered by and comply with the provisions of the policy.
Training on this policy needs to be completed for all personnel as expeditiously as possible. While one segment of training was scheduled for February, it had to be delayed until April. In the interim, the COVID-19 pandemic struck, which caused UOF training to be delayed again, and resulted in a negative impact on the training process.
Incident reports covering the most recent reporting period reflect the need for the referenced training. Incident Report #2000288 deals with an inmate who refused orders from an officer. Consequently, he was sprayed with OC foam in order make him comply. OC, and other similar weapons are designed for defensive, not coercive, purposes. There was no supervisory review regarding this situation. It will continue to take consistent training, supervisory review, and disciplinary action to implement the new policy on UOF.
53

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 54 of 117
51. Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure timely notification, documentation, and communication with supervisors and medical staff (including mental health staff) prior to use of force and after any use of force. These policies and procedures must specifically include the following requirements:
a. Staff members must obtain prior supervisory approval before the use of weapons (e.g., electronic control devices or chemical sprays) and mechanical restraints unless responding to an immediate threat to a person’s safety.
b. If a prisoner has a serious medical condition or other circumstances exist that may increase the risk of death or serious injury from the use of force, the type of force that may be used on the prisoner must be restricted to comply with this provision. These restrictions include the following: i. The use of chemical sprays, physical restraints, and electronic control devices must not be used when a prisoner may be at risk of positional asphyxia. ii. Electronic control devices must not be used on prisoners when they are in a location where they may suffer serious injury after losing voluntary muscle control (e.g., prisoner is standing atop a stairwell, wall, or other elevated location). iii. Physical strikes, holds, or other uses of force or restraints may not be used if the technique is not approved for use in the Jail or the staff member has not been trained on the proper use of the technique.
c. Staff members must conduct health and welfare checks every 15 minutes while a prisoner is in restraints. At minimum, these checks must include (i) logged firstperson observations of a prisoner’s status while in restraints (e.g. check for blood flow, respiration, heart beat), and (ii) documented breaks to meet the sanitary and health needs of prisoners placed in emergency restraints (e.g., restroom breaks and breaks to prevent cramping or circulation problems).
d. The County must ensure that clinical staff conduct medical and mental health assessments immediately after a prisoner is subjected to any Level 1 use of force. Prisoners identified as requiring medical or mental health care during the assessment must receive such treatment.
e. A first-line supervisor must personally supervise all planned uses of force, such as cell extractions.
f. Security staff members must consult with medical and mental health staff before all planned uses of force on juveniles or prisoners with serious mental illness, so that medical and mental health staff may offer alternatives to or limitations on the use of force, such as assisting with de-escalation or obtaining the prisoner’s voluntary cooperation.
54

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 55 of 117
g. The Jail must have inventory and weapon controls to establish staff member responsibility for their use of weapons or other security devices in the facility. Such controls must include: i. a sign-out process for staff members to carry any type of weapon inside the Jail, ii. a prohibition on staff carrying any weapons except those in the Jail’s tracked inventory, and iii. random checks to determine if weapons have been discharged without report of discharge (e.g., by checking the internal memory of electronic control devices and weighing pepper spray canisters).
h. A staff member must electronically record (both video and sound) all planned uses of force with equipment provided by the Jail.
i. All staff members using force must immediately notify their supervisor. j. All staff members using a Level 1 use of force must also immediately notify the
shift commander after such use of force, or becoming aware of an allegation of such use by another staff member.
Non-Compliant Although a Use of Force Policy has been approved, it has yet to be implemented through required training; therefore, previous comments regarding this paragraph still stand. Once training has been accomplished it will be possible to move the finding to Partial Compliance. The lack of documented supervisory review is still a significant problem; however, supervisors are routinely notified whenever there is a UOF noted.
Regarding 51 (d), a review of incident reports shows that inmates are routinely sent to Medical for clearance whenever UOF cases are recorded. What happens there is often not documented, recorded or included in supplements to the original reports
Although there were no planned UOF cases documented during the past reporting period, there were, once again, a number of cases that could have been so classified. Incident Report # 2000079 represents a confrontation between inmates and staff that actually developed into a planned UOF case. Unfortunately, it was not handled as such. When less than lethal equipment was obtained in order to handle the situation, that constituted a planned UOF, and should have been documented as such.
In compliance with the Stipulated Order, the County ordered, and has now taken custody of, hand held video recording equipment. This means that it is now possible for staff at each facility to record shakedowns, planned UOF cases and other significant incidents.
55

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 56 of 117
USE OF FORCE TRAINING
52. The County must develop and implement a use of force training program. Every staff member who supervises prisoners must receive at least 8 hours of pre-service use of force training and annual use of force refresher training.
Partial Compliance This paragraph is carried as Partial Compliance because the HCSO has had on-going UOF training, just not based on the recently approved UOF policy. The UOF training that was scheduled for February was rescheduled to April, but then was postponed again due to the COVID -19 pandemic.
53. Topics covered by use of force training must include: a. Instruction on what constitutes excessive force; b. De-escalation tactics; c. Methods of managing prisoners with mental illness to avoid the use of force; d. Defensive tactics; e. All Jail use of force policies and procedures, including those related to documentation and review of use of force.
Partial Compliance The UOF training includes a continuum of appropriate force responses to escalation situations, de-escalation tactics and defensive tactics, but it does not yet include specific measures for managing inmates with mental illness.
54. The County must randomly test at least 5 percent of Jail Staff members annually to determine whether they have a meaningful, working knowledge of all use of force policies and procedures. The County must also evaluate the results to determine if any changes to Jail policies and procedures may be necessary and take corrective action. The results and recommendations of such evaluations must be provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant This paragraph cannot be addressed until staff have been trained on the new Use of Force Policy.
55. The County must update any use of force training within 30 days after any revision to a use of force policy or procedure.
Non-Compliant
56

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 57 of 117
Since the new policy on Use of Force was just approved in February, there have been no revisions to it which would justify updated training. This paragraph is listed as non-compliant because there has been no training on the new Use of Force Policy.
USE OF FORCE REPORTING
To prevent and remedy the unconstitutional use of force, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting use of force. To that end, the County must:
56. Develop and implement use of force reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information to analyze and respond appropriately to use of force.
Partial Compliance Although a Use of Force policy has been approved, training on associated report writing and review requirements has not yet been conducted. The Rapid Notification System has improved the reporting process on high priority incidents, which includes UOF cases, but supervisory review is still lacking. The form of the Rapid Notification ensures that some basic information is routinely provided; however, the narratives contained in the Rapid Notifications are inconsistent in quality.
Incident Report #2000819 is indicative of the problem. The incident is titled “Riot” by the initiating officer, but “Minor Disturbance” on the Rapid Notification form. The chain of events is almost impossible to follow in the report, but supplemental reports by other officers and supervisors brought to light the following issues: (1) Inmates were able to break out of A-2, A-3 and A-4 at the RDC. Fights between inmates ensued. (2) At one point, the pod officers retreated to the control room. An inmate was found inside the control room, but there was no explanation as to how he got there or what happened afterwards. (3) Officers deployed OC multiple times. At least one officer was threatened by an inmate with a shank. (4) One officer reported that she and two other officers were inside the pod control room doing paperwork after conducting a wellness check when the incident began. (5) The facility Captain and road deputies were called in for backup. Supervisory review of this situation is totally lacking. There was no after action report or administrative review of the incident.
57. Require each staff member who used or observed a use of force to complete a Use of Force Report as promptly as possible, and no later than by the end of that staff member’s shift. Staff members must accurately complete all fields on a Use of Force Report. The failure to report any use of force must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination. Similarly, supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
57

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 58 of 117
Non-Compliant There is no way for the monitoring team to determine whether or not UOF reports are submitted by the end of a staff member’s shift. Reports reflect the time of the incident, but not when the report was submitted. A time check needs to be incorporated into the JMS system. The same discrepancy applies to supervisory review. Supervisors who are involved in incidents often write supplementary reports, but supervisors do not approve/disapprove and make comments/recommendations regarding the reports and logs that they review. In the past, a hand written signature constituted the extent of their review. Since January signatures have not appeared on copies of incident reports provided to the monitoring team.
58. Ensure that Jail use of force reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, use of force reports must document the following information:
a. A unique tracking number for each use of force; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. A description of the events leading to the use of force, including what precipitated
or appeared to precipitate those events. f. A description of the level of resistance, staff response, and the type and level of
force (including frequency and duration of use). For instance, use of force reports must describe the number of discharges from electronic control devices and chemical munitions canisters; the amount of discharge from chemical munitions canisters; whether the Staff Member threatened to use the device or actually discharged the device; the type of physical hold or strike used; and the length of time a prisoner was restrained, and whether the prisoner was released from restraints for any period during that time; g. A description of the staff member’s attempts to de-escalate the situation without use of force; h. A description of whether the staff member notified supervisors or other personnel, including medical or mental health staff, before or after the use of force; i. A description of any observed injuries to staff or prisoners; j. Whether medical care was required or provided to staff or prisoners; k. Reference to any associated incident report or prisoner disciplinary report completed by the reporting officer, which pertains to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force; l. A signature of the staff member completing the report attesting to the report’s accuracy and completeness.
Partial Compliance
58

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 59 of 117
Although there is now an approved Use of Force policy, there has been no change in the form and substance of UOF reports. They do not reflect all of the information that is specified in this paragraph. While there is a unique tracking number, and the names of staff members, and sometimes those of involved inmates, witnesses are seldom, if ever, listed. Even in cases where witnesses are identified, witness statements are almost never taken. The cell location is usually noted, but quite often the facility is not. The classification of the cell/location is not noted. When force is used, an explanation is generally included; and in most instances, medical follow up is documented although seldom is the nature of the injuries recorded. Unfortunately, that information is only available through the originating officer’s comments. Medical staff should have the ability to provide supplemental reports just as Detention Officers do.
The comments noted in paragraph 56, above, apply here as well. The incident report referenced there is all too representative of the poor quality of incident report writing in the Jail System.
USE OF FORCE SUPERVISOR REVIEWS
59. The County must ensure that Jail supervisors review, analyze, and respond appropriately to use of force. At minimum:
a. A supervisor must review all use of force reports submitted during the supervisor’s watch by the end of the supervisor’s watch.
b. A supervisor must ensure that staff members complete their use of force reports by the end of their watch.
c. Reviewing supervisors must document their findings as to the completeness of each staff member’s use of force report, and must also document any procedural errors made by staff in completing their reports.
d. If a Use of Force report is incomplete, reviewing supervisors must require Staff Members to provide any required information on a revised use of force report, and the Jail must maintain both the original and any revised report in its records.
e. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing use of force reports must document their use of force review as described in Paragraph 62 sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted.
f. All Level 1 uses of force must be sent to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD.
g. A Level 2 use of force must be referred to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD if a reviewing supervisor concludes that there may have been a violation of law or policy. Level 2 uses of force may also be referred to IAD if the County requires such reporting as a matter of Jail policy and procedure, or at the discretion of any reviewing supervisor.
Non-Compliant
59

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 60 of 117
There has been no significant change in the status of this paragraph. While supervisors do respond on scene to incidents in a timely fashion, they still do not review and approve/disapprove or make recommendations as they should; nor is it possible to see whether or not they review UOF reports by the end of their shift. In some instances, supervisors indicate that the CID investigator was notified, but there are no instances of supervisors making a recommendation that the report be referred to IAD for review.
Although there has been no appreciable change since the last Monitoring Report, the fact that there is now a Use of Force Policy in place should result in positive change once training has been completed.
60. After any Level 1 use of force, responding supervisors will promptly go to the scene and take the following actions:
a. Ensure the safety of everyone involved in or proximate to the incident. Determine if anyone is injured and ensure that necessary medical care is or has been provided.
b. Ensure that photos are taken of all injuries sustained, or as evidence that no injuries were sustained, by prisoners and staff involved in a use of force incident. Photos must be taken no later than two hours after a use of force. Prisoners may refuse to consent to photos, in which case they should be asked to sign a waiver indicating that they have refused consent. If they refuse to sign a waiver, the shift commander must document that consent was requested and refused.
c. Ensure that staff members and witnesses are identified, separated, and advised that communications with other staff members or witnesses regarding the incident are prohibited.
d. Ensure that victim, staff, and witness statements are taken confidentially by reviewing supervisors or investigators, outside of the presence of other prisoners or involved staff.
e. Document whether the use of force was recorded. If the use of force was not recorded, the responding supervisors must review and explain why the event was not recorded. If the use of force was recorded, the responding supervisors must ensure that any record is preserved for review.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph. The required actions are not routinely followed by supervisors. A review of UOF reports revealed that photographs are infrequently taken. There is no record of a waiver related to the refusal to be photographed in the past five months. The good news is that there is now a recording capability on the cameras at all three facilities. At the JDC that is limited to the hallways and common areas associated with intake/transfer waiting.
60

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 61 of 117
Although supervisors do not currently comply with the provisions of this paragraph, once training has been provided to all personnel on the new Use of Force policy, it should be possible to better measure compliance.
61. All uses of force must be reviewed by supervisors who were neither involved in nor approved the use of force by the end of the supervisor’s shift. All level 1 uses of force must also be reviewed by a supervisor of Captain rank or above who was neither involved in nor approved the use of force. The purposes of supervisor review are to determine whether the use of force violated Jail policies and procedures, whether the prisoner’s rights may have been violated, and whether further investigation or disciplinary action is required.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status since the last Monitoring Report. As has been consistently noted, there is apparently a check box in the JMS system for a supervisor to check after review. Even if the monitoring team was able to routinely see this check box, this is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. There is no documentation in the JMS system of approval or disapproval or any recommendations following review. Currently, the documentation provided to the monitoring team does not reflect supervisory action regarding approval, disapproval and recommended action on individual reports.
There is no record of supervisory review at the rank of Captain or above on all level 1 UOF cases. If there is a record of such action, it has never been provided to the monitoring team.
62. Reviewing supervisors must document the following: a. Names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses interviewed by the supervisor; b. Witness statements; c. Review date and time; d. The findings, recommendations, and results of the supervisor’s review; e. Corrective actions taken; f. The final disposition of the reviews (e.g., whether the Use of Force was found to comply with Jail policies and procedures, or whether disciplinary action was taken against a staff member); g. Supporting documents such as incident reports, logs, and classification records. Supervisors must also obtain and review summary medical and mental health records describing – i. The nature and extent of injuries, or lack thereof; ii. The date and time when medical care was requested and actually provided;
61

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 62 of 117
iii. The names of medical or mental health staff conducting any medical or mental health assessments or care.
h. Photos, video/digital recordings, or other evidence collected to support findings and recommendations.
Non-Compliant The supervisory portion of the JMS reporting system is limited to a check box. Supervisors do not have the ability to indicate recommended action or discrepancies noted regarding the items for which this paragraph requires review. Consequently, supervisors previously had been signing the reports to indicate a review. However, since January even this is not occurring and this alone would not begin to meet the requirements of this paragraph.
INCIDENT REPORTING AND REVIEW
To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting and reviewing incidents in the Jail that may pose a threat to the life, health, and safety of prisoners. To that end, the County must:
63. Develop and implement incident reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information in order to respond appropriately to reportable incidents.
Non-Compliant While the approved Use of Force policy is in effect, there is, as yet, no approved counterpart for incidents in general. Once one has been adopted, and requisite training is completed, it will be up to supervisors to ensure that incident reports comply with policy. Incident Report 2000819, referenced earlier, is an example of a report that is so confusing that it is difficult to determine what occurred even though it dealt with a very serious situation. Inmates broke out of their housing units, fights ensued, force (including OC) was used by staff on multiple inmates, officers were threatened with weapons, officers (by their own admission) were in violation of the standing order regarding well-being checks, no photographs were taken, contraband was collected, but there was no specific record of what or where in the report and there was no supervisory review.
64. Ensure that Incident Reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, Incident Reports must contain the following information:
a. Tracking number for each incident; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner, and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. Type of incident;
62

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 63 of 117

f. Injuries to staff or prisoner;

g. Medical care;

h. All staff involved or present during the incident and their respective roles;

i. Reviewing supervisor and supervisor findings, recommendations, and case

dispositions;

j.

External reviews and results;

k. Corrective action taken; and

l.

Warden and Administrator review and final administrative actions.

Partial Compliance There has been no change with regard to the status of this paragraph. While the Use of Force policy has been approved, a basic policy regarding incident reports has not yet been developed and approved. Reports provide some, but not all, of the information that is required by the Settlement Agreement.

Incident reports routinely have a tracking number and list those staff involved. Inmate witnesses are almost never noted, nor are witness statements. The nature of inmate injuries is noted in some, but not all, cases. Only a few incident reports reflect photographic evidence. Most reports do not specify the facility in which the incident occurred. That information can only be determined by having knowledge of the pod or housing unit configurations of each jail.

65. Require each staff member directly involved in a reportable incident to accurately and thoroughly complete incident reports as promptly as possible, by the end of the staff member’s shift. At minimum:
a. Staff members must complete all fields on an Incident Report for which they have responsibility for completion. Staff members must not omit entering a date, time, incident location, or signature when completing an Incident Report. If no injuries are present, staff members must write that; they may not leave that section blank.
b. Failure to report any reportable incident must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination.
c. Supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will also be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.

Non-Compliant Since there is no approved policy regarding incident report documentation, this paragraph is still carried as Non-Compliant. Incident reports continue to reflect a lack of basic information including the facility where the event occurred. There is still no standard in place that requires a written report whenever lost money or property, or a bad/late release is noted. Consequently, there is no way to know how many such incidents have occurred.

63

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 64 of 117
Not all staff members are preparing report supplements when they are involved in an incident. Incident Report 2000784, dated 5-13-20, occurred at the RDC. It was originally listed as an Assault, but the Rapid Notification called it Assault or Attempted Assault/Use of Force. Two officers were getting an inmate out of B-1 to go to court when the inmate swung on one officer and spit on the other. The second officer pulled out his OC and delivered two bursts. Three other officers then responded to the scene and assisted in placing the inmate in handcuffs. The officer who used OC wrote a report. The officer who was swung on wrote a supplement. The three responding officers who helped put the inmate in handcuffs did not write supplements. A sergeant wrote a UOF supplement that said only “REFUSED MEDICAL TREATMENT”. He never indicated whether or not the force used was appropriate, he took no pictures, did not identify witnesses or take witness statements and did not ensure that all officers involved in the incident wrote supplements.
Based on the current status of the JMS system, it is not possible to determine whether or not incident reports are written in a timely fashion or whether or not supervisors do likewise. The only thing that can be determined is the reported time of the incident as it appears in the report.
66. Ensure that Jail supervisors review and respond appropriately to incidents. At minimum: a. Shift commanders must document all reportable incidents by the end of their shift, but no later than 12 hours after a reportable incident. b. Shift commanders must report all suicides, suicide attempts, and deaths, no later than one hour after the incident, to a supervisor, IAD, and medical and mental health staff. c. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing Incident Reports must document their incident review within 24 hours of receipt of an Incident Report sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted. Such documentation must include the same categories of information required for supervisor use of force reviews such as names of individuals interviewed by the supervisor, witness statements, associated records (e.g. medical records, photos, and digital recordings), review dates, findings, recommendations, and case dispositions. d. Reportable incidents must be reviewed by a supervisor not directly involved in the incident.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph. The monitoring team cannot determine whether or not supervisors review incident reports (other than to sign on a printed copy which had been done but is no longer) because of the previously mentioned shortcoming of the JMS system. There is no documentation that reflects approval, disapproval or recommended actions.
64

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 65 of 117
While the newly approved Use of Force policy spells out the duties of supervisors with regard to a UOF incident, it does not deal with all incident reports. Policies dealing with all incident reports need to be developed and approved.
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
67. To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to address sexual abuse and misconduct. Such policies and procedures must include all of the following:
a. Zero tolerance policy towards any sexual abuse and sexual harassment as defined by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementing regulations;
b. Staff training on the zero tolerance policy, including how to fulfill their duties and responsibilities to prevent, detect, report and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment under the policy;
c. Screening prisoners to identify those who may be sexually abusive or at risk of sexual victimization;
d. Multiple internal ways to allow both confidential and anonymous reporting of sexual abuse and sexual harassment and any related retaliation, including a mechanism for prisoners to directly report allegations to an outside entity;
e. Both emergency and ongoing medical and mental health care for victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment, including rape kits as appropriate and counseling;
f. A complete ban on cross-gender strip searches or cross-gender visual body cavity searches except in exigent circumstances or when performed by a medical examiner;
g. A complete ban on cross-gender pat searches of women prisoners, absent exigent circumstances;
h. Regular supervisory review to ensure compliance with the sexual abuse and sexual harassment policies; and
i. Specialized investigative procedures and training for investigators handling sexual abuse and sexual harassment allegations.
Partial Compliance At the time of the site visit, the new PREA Coordinator had been newly appointed the day the site visit began. The position had been vacant for 5 or 6 months during which time there appears to have been no education of inmates, no training of staff on PREA, no PREA investigations. However, because the new PREA Coordinator had only been in the position for one day, she could not provide updates on the activity prior to her appointment. The new PREA Coordinator appears to be diligently working to educate herself in this area and create an effective program
65

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 66 of 117
including coordinating with the PREA officers at JDC and the WC. This paragraph continues to be listed as partial compliance as some requirements such as posters and inmate orientation continue to be in place.
Nursing staff continue to be involved in the screening of newly admitted prisoners to identify those who may be sexually abusive or at risk of sexual victimization as part of the intake screening process. New admissions so identified are referred to the PREA officer. Mental health staff perform a mental health assessment of all such new admissions forwarded to them by the PREA officer, and if mental health treatment is indicated, such is provided. In addition, if medical or mental health staff identify a PREA eligible prisoner who was not identified as such at the point of admission to the facility, that prisoner is also referred to the PREA officer.
If a prisoner is a victim of sexual assault and/or sexual harassment, and the incident is brought to the attention of medical and/or mental health, both the medical and mental health staff are prepared to provide any emergency and ongoing care that might be indicated.
It was reported that the MOU with the Mississippi Coalition Against Sexual Assault has been finalized although the monitoring team has not received a copy signed by the Sheriff. The MOU provides that counseling will be available through MSCASA although it is unclear how that will be implemented.
PREA complaints can be reported as a grievance or a PREA complaint through the kiosk system. However, the PREA complaints were routed to a cell phone maintained by the PREA Coordinator. The new PREA Coordinator did not have the cell phone linked to the kiosk system and had not been informed about getting one. It is not clear whether anyone was receiving PREA complaints during the months when there was no PREA Coordinator. It is recommended that the new PREA Coordinator determine the status of any pending investigations and determine whether there were any PREA complaints submitted via the kiosk during the time when there was no PREA Coordinator. The MOU with MSCASA also provides for reporting to that agency although it is not clear whether inmates have been informed of this or whether provision has been made to allow cost free calls to MSCASA.
In order to be effective, inmates must be fully informed of what constitutes sexual abuse and harassment and how to report it. As previously reported, all of the units visited had PREA posters posted at the time of the last site visit. The posters have reporting instructions. Not being on site the monitoring team could not confirm that this is still the case. The Inmate Handbook does not have current information on the PREA process but a separate form is now provided at booking that explains the process. However, the prior PREA Coordinator had no longer provided orientation or education of inmates and the lack of inmate education continued during the months when there was no PREA Coordinator. The new PREA Coordinator stated that she is going to start the education component again.
66

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 67 of 117
It is reported that all cross-gender searches have been banned. No documentation of this was provided as of yet as the draft procedure is currently being revised to reflect the new policy. The draft policy on PREA/Sexual Safety provides HCDS does not conduct cross-gender pat searches by males of females or cross-gender visual body searches unless under exigent circumstances, and then only with the approval of the Shift Supervisor. The Search policy now approved and adopted is now consistent with the PREA policy.
The PREA Officer was keeping a file on each referral, had a report form, and kept numbered reports. She had completed an on-line training on investigating PREA incidents. The new PREA Coordinator should receive more extensive training. Incidents involving alleged staff misconduct or criminal activity are referred to other investigators. The new investigator reviewing complaints involving inmate perpetrators had received PREA training at MDOC. The investigator reviewing complaints involving staff misconduct has not received PREA training. Previously, the reports of these other investigators had typically not been in the PREA Coordinator’s file and her file did not reflect the results of the investigation. The prior PREA Coordinator had at times relied upon security staff who had not received PREA training to interview the complainant. This practice should not be continued under the new PREA Coordinator. The prior PREA Coordinator did not get the medical records when there had been a referral to Medical. There is no regular supervisory oversight of the PREA officer’s work or reports.
It was previously reported that after an initial focus on developing materials and process for compliance with the PREA provisions there appeared to be waning commitment to PREA compliance. The education component at booking and later orientation was dropped, the PREA Coordinator referred almost all aspects of the investigation to the Investigation Unit with no follow-up, no PREA investigations had been provided by the Investigation Unit except for two (and since the time of the last site visit, there have been none), the investigation officers had no training on PREA investigations (although the new CID investigator does have PREA training), the PREA Coordinator had only had an on-line module on PREA investigations, and there was no indication of any higher level oversight of PREA compliance. Given the lack of staff and cell doors that don’t lock, the potential for sexual assault is high. The paucity of reports made would suggest that the system is not designed to support full reporting.
The new PREA Coordinator has indicated an intention to remedy these past deficiencies.
INVESTIGATIONS
68. The County shall ensure that it has sufficient staff to identify, investigate, and correct misconduct that has or may lead to a violation of the Constitution. At a minimum, the County shall:
67

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 68 of 117

a. Develop and implement comprehensive policies, procedures, and practices for the

thorough and timely (within 60 days of referral) investigation of alleged staff

misconduct, sexual assaults, and physical assaults of prisoners resulting in serious

injury, in accordance with this Agreement, within 90 days of its Effective Date.

At a minimum, an investigation will be conducted if:

i.

Any prisoner exhibited a serious injury;

ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital;

iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious

accounts of the incident; or

iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy,

or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate

personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the

smuggling of contraband by a staff member).

b. Per policy, investigations shall:

i. Be conducted by qualified persons, who do not have conflicts of interest

that bear on the partiality of the investigation;

ii. Include timely, thorough, and documented interviews of all relevant staff

and prisoners who were involved in or who witnessed the incident in

question, to the extent practicable; and

iii. Include all supporting evidence, including logs, witness and participant

statements, references to policies and procedures relevant to the incident,

physical evidence, and video or audio recordings.

c. Provide investigators with pre-service and annual in-service training so that

investigators conduct quality investigations that meet the requirements of this

Agreement;

d. Ensure that any investigative report indicating possible criminal behavior will be

referred to the appropriate criminal law enforcement agency;

e. Within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, IAD must have written

policies and procedures that include clear and specific criteria for determining

when it will conduct an investigation. The criteria will require an investigation if:

i. Any prisoner exhibited serious, visible injuries (e.g., black eye, obvious

bleeding, or lost tooth);

ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital;

iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious

accounts of the incident; or

iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy,

or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate

personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the

smuggling of contraband by a staff member).

68

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 69 of 117

f. Provide the Monitor and United States a periodic report of investigations

conducted at the Jail every four months. The report will include the following

information:

i.

a brief summary of all completed investigations, by type and date;

ii. a listing of investigations referred for administrative investigation;

iii. a listing of all investigations referred to an appropriate law enforcement

agency and the name of the agency; and

iv. a listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because

of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also

contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.

v. a description of any corrective actions or changes in policies, procedures,

or practices made as a result of investigations over the reporting period.

g. Jail management shall review the periodic report to determine whether the

investigation system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement and make

recommendations regarding the investigation system or other necessary changes

in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be

documented and provided to the Monitor and United States.

Partial Compliance The HCSO has made progress in that there is now an approved and adopted policy regarding investigations. It also appears that the new CID investigator is following up on incidents appropriately. His reports often reflect that he interviewed inmates/witnesses involved in incidents, but basically in a pro-forma manner; e.g., “they indicated that they did not wish to press charges” rather than actual statements from the respective parties. Partial Compliance is warranted because a good faith effort is being made to look into all reported incidents, but Substantial Compliance has not yet been achieved. One indicator of this is the fact that virtually no investigations result in the prosecution of perpetrators. Documentation is important, but follow up is equally necessary. To date command staff have not submitted documentation of their review of the investigators’ periodic reports in order to determine whether or not the investigative system is meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.

In addition, significant changes have occurred since the last Monitoring Report.  The CID and IAD functions have been separated. While the CID investigator remains under the supervision of the Investigations Captain, the IAD investigator now reports to a Lieutenant who supervises two investigators, one assigned to Detention cases and the other assigned to Law Enforcement cases. The Lieutenant reports directly to the Sheriff.
 The previous CID investigator has been replaced by a new investigator who is also certified as a PREA investigator. Similar training and certification needs to be provided for the IAD investigator. The CID investigator’s office has been moved from downtown Jackson to the RDC. This change of venue is important because most of his work is

69

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 70 of 117
initiated from within the RDC. This change of location has been advocated by the monitoring team for more than two years.  The IAD and CID investigators have access to all incident reports. It is imperative that they review them on a daily basis in order to monitor issues within the Jail System in a timely fashion. It is not sufficient for them to wait for specific incidents to be referred to them for review.  The CID and IAD investigators now compile individual spreadsheets which reflect the status of their work. The IAD version is the most compatible with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement. It would be beneficial for the two investigators to compare notes so as to standardize the information that is available in each.  It should be noted that the monitoring team’s prior inability to access the CID and IAD investigators’ spreadsheets was due to the fact that the downloaded information was apparently blank when opened. The Compliance Coordinator has since provided a means to access the data.
GRIEVANCE AND PRISONER INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Because a reporting system provides early notice of potential constitutional violations and an opportunity to prevent more serious problems before they occur, the County must develop and implement a grievance system. To that end:
69. The grievance system must permit prisoners to confidentially report grievances without requiring the intervention of a detention officer.
Partial Compliance There is no change in the condition of the grievance system. The use of the new kiosk system in theory allows the prisoners to report grievances without the intervention of detention officers. Although the kiosk system does not require the intervention of a detention officer, the physical set up does not allow for privacy. This could potentially result in an officer or other inmates observing the grievance being filed. The newly approved grievance policy provides that an inmate may submit a written grievance and will be provided a form and an envelope that can be sealed. This can be given to the housing officer or the area supervisor when he or she is doing their rounds. This would allow an additional avenue to submit a grievance confidentially although not without some involvement of a detention officer. The newly approved grievance policy also requires that if there are cognitive or communication barriers, the detention officer refers the issue to the Area Supervisor for communication assistance or problem resolution. This new policy is not operational yet. Non-English speaking persons and persons with disabilities still require the intervention of another inmate or officer.
70

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 71 of 117
70. Grievance policies and procedures must be applicable and standardized across the entire Jail.
Partial Compliance A Grievance Policy has now been approved although not formally adopted. Once fully implemented, it would be applicable and standardized across the entire Jail. At present, the kiosk system works the same across facilities but a consistent process will need to be developed in accordance with the new policy. The new policy envisions that all grievances will go through the Grievance Coordinator so that she can ensure consistency across all three facilities. Currently, when she is not on duty, the Grievance Officers at JDC and the WC function independently and this has resulted in some inconsistency. For example, there has been some effort to ensure that inmates use the appropriate form depending on whether they are submitting a request or a grievance. This is for the purpose of enabling the system to actually track genuine grievances. The Grievance Coordinator has been diligent in this. However, the Grievance Officers have not been consistent. Even with the policy in place, there will need to be training on how to properly respond to grievances in order to achieve consistency. There continues to be significant progress in developing an actual grievance process including identifying the duties of the system wide grievance coordinator, clarifying the roles of the system wide grievance coordinator and the facility grievance officers, developing a tracking system, creating a tiered appeal process, and addressing the process for requests vs. grievances.
71. All grievances must receive appropriate follow-up, including a timely written response by an impartial reviewer and staff tracking of whether resolutions have been implemented or still need implementation. Any response to a medical grievance or a grievance alleging threats or violence to the grievant or others that exceeds 24 hours shall be presumed untimely.
Partial Compliance As previously reported, the system itself presents several challenges in this regard. Notably, if a grievance is not responded to in seven days, it drops off the dashboard. The only way to find the grievance is to run a report for a longer time frame and search for grievances in different status categories. The Grievance Coordinator reports that she runs back reports and clears old grievances. At the time of the last site visit there continued to be improvement in ensuring that grievances receive a timely response. It was not possible for the monitoring team to run such a report because of the remote nature of the visit. The Grievance Coordinator appears to have a tracking system that identifies overdue grievances. She sends reminder emails to those individuals who have not responded to the grievances in a timely manner. This, no doubt, has contributed to the improvement in reducing the number of grievances that have not received a timely response. Progress in this area is notable.
Although the new system should ensure responses, there needs to be some training on what constitutes a grievance as opposed to a request, what is an adequate response, oversight to
71

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 72 of 117
determine that promised actions are taken and then some quality assurance to check the adequacy of responses. The Grievance Coordinator has prepared some routine responses, for example, informing the inmate that the grievance is a request and how to submit a request. This has improved the responses in a large number of cases. There are still some where the adequacy of the response needs improvement. For example, the Emergency Grievance filed by inmate C.O. on 5/2/20 stated that the inmate needed to get downtown because he was in danger. The response was that the inmate was already in protective custody and there were no beds downtown. Security needs to be informed of the potential danger. The Grievance Coordinator stated that she did alert security but there is no way of knowing that from the grievance or her spreadsheet. A grievance filed by inmate E. R. on 5/3/20 stated that the inmate needed a different size uniform because hers was falling off her and the person dispersing uniforms wouldn’t give her the correct size. The response was that a supervisor would talk with her. It is not uncommon for responses such as this one to promise some future action but there is no process to ensure that promised actions are actually taken. Similarly, inmate A.J. filed a grievance on 5/3/20 stating that his canteen money was missing and he was unable to get a response from the responsible person. The response was “this information will be passed on.” The Grievance Coordinator was aware that a number of responses were inadequate and was planning a training of the individuals who are assigned to respond to grievances.
A review of medical grievances and responses indicated that although there continue to be only a very small number of such grievances, those submitted were responded to virtually immediately. When there is an associated emergency or urgent medical or mental health matter, the response is immediate assessment and the initiation of any indicated treatment.
Since the January 2020 site visit, there were complaints made by family members of 2 different inmates regarding the mental health treatment the inmates received while being detained at the jail. The mental health expert on the monitoring team has reviewed the medical records and discussed the complaints with QCHC staff and found the care to be appropriate and the complaints unfounded. A full report on the results of the review can be made available.
72. The grievance system must accommodate prisoners who have physical or cognitive disabilities, are illiterate, or have LEP, so that these prisoners have meaningful access to the grievance system.
Non-Compliant The newly approved grievance policy requires that if there are cognitive or communication barriers, the detention officer refers the issue to the Area Supervisor for communication assistance or problem resolution. Under this system non-English speaking persons and persons with disabilities would still require the intervention of an officer which is not ideal but at least there is a specified means to address this issue. The Securus system should at some point be programmed to include the most common foreign languages. The new policy is not operational
72

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 73 of 117
yet. Prisoners are assisting one another but that carries the risk of them accessing and using another prisoner’s PIN number in addition to the potential of having to disclose private information. This may inhibit the use of the grievance system and also allows access to the prisoner’s funds.
73. The County must ensure that all current and newly admitted prisoners receive information about prison rules and procedures. The County must provide such information through an inmate handbook and, at the discretion of the Jail, an orientation video, regarding the following topics: understanding the Jail’s disciplinary process and rules and regulations; reporting misconduct; reporting sexual abuse, battery, and assault; accessing medical and mental health care; emergency procedures; visitation; accessing the grievance process; and prisoner rights. The County must provide such information in appropriate languages for prisoners with LEP.
Non-Compliant The Inmate Handbook has outdated information about most of these issues and will need to be updated. It is not available in Spanish or any other language.
RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SEGREGATION
In order to ensure compliance with constitutional standards and to prevent unnecessary harm to prisoners, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to limit the use of segregation. To that end, this Agreement imposes the following restrictions and requirements:
74. Within 8 hours of intake, prisoners in the booking cells must be classified and housed in more appropriate long-term housing where staff will provide access to exercise, meals, and other services.
Partial Compliance In past reports it was noted that inmates were held in Booking holding cells less than eight hours. Over the past four years there has been an ongoing problem with Booking holding cells being used for the long-term housing of inmates. Once the problem was rectified, it reoccurred, again and again. In each instance the explanation for this violation of policy was that the holding cells were the only cells in the RDC where the locks functioned and the cells could actually be secured. Most recently, the need to isolate COVID-19 positive inmates has resulted in inmates being housed (not merely held) in Booking cells again. With no beds, no day room space, no cell windows, no tables or chairs, no television and no access to phone or recreation facilities, these cells are ill equipped for long term housing purposes. It is imperative that the use of holding cells for the housing of inmates beyond eight hours must be permanently prohibited.
73

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 74 of 117
Consistent with the requirements of the Stipulated Order, the doors to the four multiple occupancy holding cells were replaced by CML Security. For the first time since the facility was built, officers working in the Booking area can visually observe inmates in those cells through glass panels without having to open the doors to do so. The single cells in Booking were not similarly retrofitted.
Staffing in the Booking area continues to be allocated inappropriately. Only one officer is assigned to monitor inmates in the holding cells, while two and often three officers work inside the office area. As has been recommended in the past, the number of officers working in the office area should be reduced and the surplus officer(s) assigned to the monitoring of inmates in the intake/holding cell area.
As described in paragraph 42 above, there currently is not appropriate housing for inmates with serious mental illness. With the anticipated opening of a special housing/mental health unit, the implementation of this provision with regard to appropriately classifying and placing prisoners on that unit will need to be addressed. As has been previously noted (as recently as in the report of the last site visit), in this regard, there are actually multiple issues that will need to be addressed. More specifically…
 Although it is anticipated that the mental health unit will be designed to house two different populations – prisoners who are so acutely and severely mentally ill that they are at risk of harming themselves or others, and prisoners who cannot be safely housed on a general population unit due to a mental illness or intellectual disability – the population to be housed on the unit must be clearly defined in policy and procedures
 In order to comply with this provision, mental health assessments would have to be performed within 8 hours of intake
 The nature of the cooperation between classification and mental health will have to be described in policy and procedures regarding how prisoners will be classified and housed on the unit, including who will be responsible for which decisions
 It will need to be determined where newly admitted prisoners should be housed if there is a delay in obtaining the initial mental health assessment and/or if a newly admitted prisoner is found to be appropriate for placement on the unit but the unit is full
75. The County must document the placement and removal of all prisoners to and from segregation.
Partial Compliance In the Tenth Monitoring Report it was noted that the JDC was using a segregation tracking form, but that it was not used by the other two facilities. During the current remote site visit
74

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 75 of 117
segregation logs were submitted by each jail, but every one was in an independent format. The JDC format is most complete and would serve as a good model. Regardless, the HCSO/Detention Services should develop one standard form that is utilized by all three facilities.
76. Qualified Mental Health Professionals must conduct mental health rounds at least once a week (in a private setting if necessary, to elicit accurate information), to assess the mental health status of all prisoners in segregation and the effect of segregation on each prisoner’s mental health, in order to determine whether continued placement in segregation is appropriate. These mental health rounds must not be a substitute for treatment.
Partial Compliance Mental health staff continue to perform weekly rounds for prisoners who are being held in segregation; when indicated, they offer mental health services to a prisoner that is not already on the mental health caseload; and when indicated, they make adjustments in the treatment that is being provided to a prisoner who is already on the mental health caseload. However to date, no mechanism has been established whereby any findings from those rounds (such as a deterioration in a prisoner’s mental health status) can be shared with security staff and possibly have an impact on any decisions made by security staff regarding the continuation or termination of a prisoner’s placement in segregation.
77. The County must develop and implement restrictions on the segregation of prisoners with serious mental illness. These safeguards must include the following:
a. All decisions to place a prisoner with serious mental illness in segregation must include the input of a Qualified Mental Health Professional who has conducted a face-to-face evaluation of the prisoner in a confidential setting, is familiar with the details of the available clinical history, and has considered the prisoner’s mental health needs and history.
b. Segregation must be presumed contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness.
c. Within 24 hours of placement in segregation, all prisoners on the mental health caseload must be screened by a Qualified Mental Health Professional to determine whether the prisoner has serious mental illness, and whether there are any acute mental health contraindications to segregation.
d. If a Qualified Mental Health Professional finds that a prisoner has a serious mental illness or exhibits other acute mental health contraindications to segregation, that prisoner must not be placed or remain in segregation absent documented extraordinary and exceptional circumstances (i.e. for an immediate and serious danger which may arise during unusual emergency situations, such as a riot or during the booking of a severely psychotic, untreated, violent prisoner, and which should last only as long as the emergency conditions remain present).
75

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 76 of 117
e. Documentation of such extraordinary and exceptional circumstances must be in writing. Such documentation must include the reasons for the decision, a comprehensive interdisciplinary team review, and the names and dated signatures of all staff members approving the decision.
f. Prisoners with serious mental illness who are placed in segregation must be offered a heightened level of care that includes the following: i. If on medication, the prisoner must receive at least one daily visit from a Qualified Medical Professional. ii. The prisoner must be offered a face-to-face, therapeutic, out-of-cell session with a Qualified Mental Health Professional at least once per week. iii. If the prisoner is placed in segregation for more than 24 hours, he or she must have his or her case reviewed by a Qualified Mental Health Professional, in conjunction with a Jail physician and psychiatrist, on a weekly basis.
g. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, A Qualified Mental Health Professional will assess all prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation. This assessment must include a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Prisoners requiring follow-up for additional clinical assessment or care must promptly receive such assessment and care.
h. If a prisoner on segregation decompensates or otherwise develops signs or symptoms of serious mental illness, where such signs or symptoms had not previously been identified, the prisoner must immediately be referred for appropriate assessment and treatment by a Qualified Mental Health Professional. Any such referral must also result in a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Signs or symptoms requiring assessment or treatment under this clause include a deterioration in cognitive, physical, or verbal function; delusions; self-harm; or behavior indicating a heightened risk of suicide (e.g., indications of depression after a sentencing hearing).
i. The treatment and housing of prisoners with serious mental illness must be coordinated and overseen by the Interdisciplinary Team (or Teams), and guided by formal, written treatment plans. The Interdisciplinary Team must include both medical and security staff, but access to patient healthcare information must remain subject to legal restrictions based on patient privacy rights. The intent of this provision is to have an Interdisciplinary Team serve as a mechanism for balancing security and medical concerns, ensuring cooperation between security and medical staff, while also protecting the
76

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 77 of 117
exercise of independent medical judgment and each prisoner’s individual rights. j. Nothing in this Agreement should be interpreted to authorize security staff, including the Jail Administrator, to make medical or mental health treatment decisions, or to overrule physician medical orders.
Non-Compliant Regarding 77(a): At present a QMHP does not have input as to whether to put someone in segregation.
As noted in prior monitoring reports, this provision applies to all prisoners who are already on the mental health caseload, and prisoners who are not already on the mental health caseload but the behavior they exhibited around the time of the infraction that might cause them to be placed in segregation could reasonably lead security staff to suspect that they might be suffering from a mental illness.
Regarding 77(b): Presently, there does not appear to be a presumption that segregation is contraindicated for persons with SMI. As has been noted in each prior report, there are prisoners with serious mental illness housed on the segregation unit and held in segregation in the isolation sections of other units. It is anticipated that the program design for the mental health unit will be such that these prisoners can be moved to the mental health unit once it is open providing a less restrictive and more therapeutic environment.
Regarding 77(c): Prisoners on the mental health caseload are not screened by a QMHP for SMI prior to placement in segregation. In fact, mental health staff are not even notified when a prisoner is placed in segregation.
Regarding 77(d) and (e), As noted in section 77-a, the mental health staff are not being offered the opportunity to assess any prisoners prior to their placement in segregation. The security policy and procedures that would address this provision have not been developed and implemented.
It should be noted that security staff are aware of the fact that there are some seriously mentally ill prisoners being held in segregation. However, the existence of any specific documentation regarding the ‘extraordinary and exceptional circumstances’ that have required their placement in segregation does not appear to exist. Furthermore, the placement of these prisoners in segregation has not been short term (several have been there since the mental health member of the team started almost two years ago), and there do not appear to be any individualized plans (developed by security staff and/or mental health staff) to get these prisoners out of segregation as quickly as possible. Although the opening of the mental health unit will provide a housing
77

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 78 of 117
option for seriously mentally ill prisoners currently held in segregation, individualized plans will still be required.
Regarding 77(f): The nurses during medication pass provide daily visits to prisoners on medication. If a prisoner refuses to take the medication but comes out and signs the medication refusal form, the nurse still has an opportunity to visit with/observe the prisoner. However, if a prisoner refuses to take the medication and even refuses to come out and sign the medication refusal form, the nurse is unable to visit with/observe the prisoner.
Prisoners on the mental health caseload who are being held in segregation do have therapeutic sessions with a QMHP. However, due to the shortage of mental health staff (see section 42-giv), this does not consistently occur on a weekly basis (please note: although prisoners held in segregation are seen by a QMHP during the weekly segregation rounds, this is not considered to be a therapeutic session). Furthermore, due to the shortage of security staff, the individual sessions that do occur are not consistently out-of-cell sessions.
As noted above and in prior reports, a QMHP makes weekly rounds for all prisoners placed in segregation, during which each prisoner’s mental health status and need for mental health services is assessed. If the QMHP finds that there has been a deterioration in a prisoner’s mental health status, the QMHP will refer the prisoner to the psychiatric nurse clinician for an assessment and consultation.
As noted in prior reports, there is no on-site jail medical physician or psychiatrist. The responsibilities that would be assumed by such a physician and such a psychiatrist are assumed by a medical/primary care nurse clinician/practitioner and a psychiatric nurse clinician/practitioner. Therefore, it is impossible to fully meet this provision as currently written, and so the parties need to come to some sort of agreement about how this will be addressed. Each of these practitioners has a physician available for consultation. There is also a physician in the QCHC central office that is available for consultation.
All prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation have been assessed by a QMHP, but to date, there has been no appropriate housing for such prisoners that could be recommended based on those assessments (see section 77-b). However, as noted in prior reports and in section 77-b of this report, it is anticipated that the new mental health unit will provide appropriate alternative housing for this population, at which point this provision can be addressed. It should be noted that the jail administration has not committed to a specific timetable for the opening of a mental health unit nor has there been a commitment from the County to fund the increase in mental health staff that would be necessary to operate such a unit.
Regarding 77(h): There is no evidence of any incidences where security staff referred a prisoner to mental health due to the prisoner’s decompensation while being held in segregation. When it
78

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 79 of 117
has been discovered that a prisoner’s mental health status has deteriorated while being held in segregation, this has been discovered by mental health staff during weekly segregation rounds or during an individual session with a prisoner, or discovered by nursing staff during their weekly segregation rounds or during medication pass.
As has been noted in prior reports and previously in this report, although mental health staff carefully consider what additional mental health services can be provided to prisoners being held in segregation, especially if there has been a deterioration in a prisoner’s mental status, currently there is no formal mechanism whereby mental health staff can share these findings with security staff and thereby possibly impact on security staff’s decision to continue or discontinue placement in segregation. Furthermore, the efforts of mental health staff to informally communicate their concerns about a prisoner’s mental health status to security staff have not been successful.
Regarding 77(i): As noted above, it is expected that medical, mental health and security staff will work together as an interdisciplinary team in order to provide a safe environment for mentally ill inmates and staff, while providing mentally ill inmates with the level of mental health services that they require. It should be noted that security staff who are assigned to the mental health unit will largely focus on each prisoner’s behavior and, in consultation with the mental health staff, the best way of managing/responding to each prisoner’s behavior in a way that is also consistent with the treatment goals, objectives and therapeutic interventions outlined in the prisoner’s treatment plan. In fact, there will be many cases where the treatment plan might include specific interventions that will be made by security staff. Therefore, since communication and cooperation between security staff and mental health staff will be critical to the success of a mental health unit, what information will be shared and how information will be shared need to be determined and clearly articulated so that both mental health staff and security staff can fulfill their responsibilities while protecting prisoners’ privacy rights. Currently, there is no functioning interdisciplinary team and, as has been noted above, the communication between security staff and medical/mental health staff is minimal. It is strongly recommended, as noted above, that the jail administration take deliberate steps to increase communication with medical and mental health staff including the develop of an interdisciplinary team with regular meetings and the inclusion of medical/mental health staff in decisions that relate to medical/mental health operations or the medical/mental health of individual inmates.
With respect to 77(j): It appears that this provision is understood by all staff.
YOUTHFUL PRISONERS
As long as the County houses youthful prisoners, it must develop and implement policies and procedures for their supervision, management, education, and treatment consistent with federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482. Within
79

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 80 of 117
six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will determine where it will house youthful prisoners. During those six months, the County will consult with the United States, the monitor of the Henley Young Juvenile Detention Center Settlement Agreement, and any other individuals or entities whose input is relevant. The United States will support the County’s efforts to secure appropriate housing for youthful prisoners, including supervised release. Within 18 months after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will have completed transitioning to any new or replacement youthful prisoner housing facility.
Substantial Compliance As of the drafting of this report in June 2020, it has been approximately sixteen months since the last youth under 18 was released from the Raymond Detention Center (RDC). That was the completion of the transition that began in September 2017 when the decision was made to place new juveniles charged/convicted as adults (JCAs) at the Henley Young (HY) facility and gradually transition the remaining youth out of RDC. It is understood by the monitoring team that no more youth under age 18 will be housed at any of the adult facilities, including Juveniles Convicted as Adults (either waiting to be placed at the Mississippi Department of Corrections [MDOC] or previously convicted and arrested for a new offense or probation violation). Presuming this continues thru February 2021, sustained compliance will be achieved.
As of June 1, 2020, there were 14 JCA youth at Henley Young. Of the JCAs:  All the JCA youth were male.  For the period from February 1 through the end of May, there had been only one JCA female, and that female was released at the end of February. So, there were no female JCA youth held in March, April, or May.  As of June 1, six of the JCA youth had been indicted, leaving eight who had not yet been indicted. Of the yet to be indicted youth, three had been admitted in May, four in January, and one in November of 2019. All JCA have allegedly committed serious felonies, most of them (10) involving some form of armed robbery/carjacking.  Three of the JCA youth have been in confinement for over one year, the longest being 442 days. Note that several of the longer-term youth that were in placement at the time of the January visit were released in the last four months, including one youth (C.S.) who was one of the original Henley Young placements in September 2017, meaning he had been at Henley Young for over two years.  The ages of JCA youth in custody were: 14 (2), 15 (2), 16 (4), and 17 (6).  During the period from February through the end of May there were 7 JCAs admitted to Henley Young, four of whom were released after a brief stay.
The practice that began in September 2017 of booking JCAs at the Raymond Detention Center (RDC) prior to placement at Henley Young has continued. If they remain in placement when they turn 18, they are transferred to the Jackson Detention Center (JDC) pending further court
80

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 81 of 117

action (vs. returning to the Raymond facility). Compliance with this requirement will be monitored to ensure sustained compliance.
HENLEY YOUNG ADP JAN‐MAY 2020

25.0

2.8

20.0

3.8

1.5

1.0

5.1

0.7

15.0

0.0

010...061

02..08

10.0

16.6

14.4

12.5

13.4

5.0

0.0
Non‐JCA female Non‐JCA male JCA Female JCA male
JCA male

FEB

MARCH

APRIL

2.8

1.5

0.1

3.8

5.1

1.6

1.0

0.0

0.0

16.6

14.4

12.5

JCA Female Non‐JCA male

MAY 0.7 2.8 0.0 13.4
Non‐JCA female

One of the issues referenced in the January report was that the total number of youth at Henley Young, counting both JCA and non-JCA youth, had approached the 32-youth limit imposed under the SPLC/Henley Young Consent Decree. Also noted was a recommendation that continued vigilance in managing both the JCA and non-JCA populations would reduce the likelihood of reaching that limit as well as providing greater flexibility and opportunity for sufficient staffing and programming for all youth. The chart above includes the Average Daily Population each month, but the chart below helps illustrate the impact of some practice changes made to address concerns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, note the significant decline in the overall population beginning in mid-March, resulting primarily from outreach efforts and directives instituted by Judge McDaniels to limit admissions to Henley Young to youth allegedly committing the most serious offenses. While this had a greater impact on reducing the non-JCA population, of the JCA youth held on June 1 none of them were admitted in February, March, or April.

81

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 82 of 117
Henley Young Total ADP Trends
January 1‐ May 28, 2020
35
30
25
20
15
10
In addition to best practice reasons to confine youth only when necessary to support public safety, there are two additional reasons for continued vigilance in managing the daily population of youth, including (1) as long as COVID-19 concerns remain, confinement facilities are one of the most challenging environments in which to manage any infection spread, and (2) challenges in retaining a sufficient number of staff, particularly Youth Care Professionals providing direct safety and supervision of youth, makes it difficult to maintain an effective youth/staff ratio.
There is evidence that some progress has been made on reducing the length of stay, likely resulting from efforts by Judge McDaniels to implement a Minors Diversion docket designed to ensure more timely review of progress in indictment and charges and identify alternatives to secure confinement and/or processing the case in the adult system. Per discussions with Judge McDaniels, he is continuing to work with court leadership and the District Attorney’s office to expedite cases in an appropriate manner that accounts for public safety as well as the interests of youth involved. As noted in the prior report, there is substantial difference between programming for youth over a 6-12-month period compared to trying to do so over much longer periods of time, let alone also providing appropriate services for the smaller number of shortterm youths in placement. Therefore, this attention to ensuring that only those youth needing placement are confined as well as attending to the length of stay will benefit overall program operations.
Significant Personnel Changes
82

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 83 of 117
In recent months, progress occurred related to two key positions, the Executive Director and the Recreation/Program Coordinator. Mr. Greg Harrington assumed the role of Executive Director in April. His background included substantive experience in education and youth correctional settings, so bringing that experience to the team is a cause for optimism about continued program development, particularly related to the educational program. The hiring of a new Recreation/Program Coordinator in May added another piece to the leadership team, a position that can focus on building a more varied and coordinated set of recreational, cultural, and skillbuilding activities for youth.
There are two additional vacancies posted, including: (1) a Training Coordinator to develop a more complete Learning and Development program for staff; and (2) a Treatment Coordinator to provide leadership and supervision for all aspects of the mental health program plus integrating those components with other behavior management efforts. With the continuing support of Mr. Burnside (Operations Manager) and Mr. Dorsey (Quality Assurance Manager), filling these positions should provide a strong leadership team and help move the County toward full compliance with the conditions of this agreement. Additionally, the leadership and support Judge McDaniels has provided to the program, both in his prior role as Executive Director and more recently as the Youth Court Judge, has been a positive for the transition of the Henley Young program for both this and the SPLC agreements.
During the June 26 Status Conference, the County raised an issue related to filling the Treatment Coordinator position, indicating that they felt the certification requirements for the position (Licensed Psychologist or Licensed Clinical Social Worker) are too restrictive and that finding an appropriate person to fill that position has continued to be difficult. The original requirement for a Licensed Psychologist was modified in the January Stipulated Order to help broaden the potential field of applicants. The language of the Stipulated Order is:
V. A. Within 30 days, the County will post at a locally competitive salary for a full time clinical social worker or psychologist to serve as a treatment director or coordinator. If there is a qualified candidate(s), the County will make an offer within 3 months of posting the position. If there is not a qualified candidate, the County will consult with the Monitor and United States to determine appropriate adjustments to the recruiting process and will report regularly, and at each status conference, regarding its efforts. If a clinical social worker is hired for the position, the County will contract with a psychologist to provide any assessment, therapeutic or consultation services needed in addition to the services of the clinical social worker….
Related to this (1) the posting for the position was not done until May 22, approximately 90 days past the due date, and (2) until the time of the Status Conference there had been no consultation
83

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 84 of 117
with the Monitor and United States to revise the requirement to allow for contracting for the position. Based on the request made at the Status Conference, the monitoring team is available to work with the County and US DOJ to move forward on considering other options that may lead to appropriately filling this important position.
Physical Plant Changes
During the week of the virtual visit, staff reported that construction of additional modular units was underway and should be completed by the time this report is filed. These modular units each contain two program spaces that can be used for education, counseling, guest speakers, and a variety of other programming. When furnished with appropriate furniture and other materials/supplies, this will represent completion of one of the longest-standing recommendations related to providing sufficient and appropriate space for the programming required under this agreement. Next steps will need to be taken to operationalize use of that space, including scheduling and staffing, and to what extent that space adds to overall operations can be assessed in subsequent visits. Subsequent communications with Mr. Harrington indicate that the plan is to have those spaces fully furnished and operational by early August for the start of the new school year.
Additional physical plant changes that have been recommended in the past have not been addressed, including (1) dealing with limited use of outdoor recreation space related to weather (e.g. cold, rain, darkness); discussions are underway to determine if one of the four new modular “rooms” created can be help address that; and (2) making changes in the living units to improve acoustics and furnishings to make those units more “livable” and appropriate for adolescents, particularly youth placed for long periods of time.
For any youthful prisoners in custody, the County must:
78. Develop and implement a screening, assessment and treatment program to ensure that youth with serious mental illness and disabilities, including developmental disabilities, receive appropriate programs, supports, education, and services.
Partial Compliance
Prior reports have outlined the basic screening and mental health services provided for youth at Henley Young, including the use of initial screening tools (MAYSI-II, a strength based assessment, and interviews conducted by qualified mental health clinicians), the provision and documentation of one-on-one counseling and therapeutic services performed by the two mental health clinicians, and the group work and counseling provided by the three Youth Support Specialists (YSS).
84

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 85 of 117
During the period since the January visit, most of the programming provided by the mental health team members continued, including purportedly reinstating regular treatment team meetings (after a hiatus related to COVID concerns) and the provision of group programming by YSS and the Qualified Mental Health Clinicians (QMHC). Full compliance can’t be achieved until a Treatment Coordinator is on board and further development of group programs and additional integration of mental health services with other behavioral components of the program is completed, but it is positive to note that much of the programming has continued to be delivered in the interim period.
Presumably protocols (observation, classification, intervention) related to suicide concerns remain in place, but limited access to youth records and reports made it impossible to fully confirm that to be the case. However, in past visits all indications were that those protocols were routinely followed.
Related to appropriate programs, it is positive to note that the QMHCs and the Youth Support Specialists continued to provide various group sessions for youth. In particular, materials provided to the monitoring team indicate that they had taken steps to obtain and utilize additional program materials that begin to meet the specific program-type requirements of the Stipulated Order, e.g. increased use of Journaling approaches, focusing on improving relationships, Responsible Behavior, understanding behaviors, and Substance Using Behaviors. Many of these curriculum materials do provide the kind of evidence-based programming envisioned in the Stipulated Order, and staff will become increasingly proficient in delivering those programs.
Three issues remain related to programming: (1) the amount of time that each youth is engaged in this type of programming remains very low, e.g. maybe four times a week for 30 minutes at a time, meaning that youth are engaged only about two hours a week; and (2) while record-keeping related to programming has improved it is still difficult to determine how many of the youth regularly participate, and (3) to what extent the individual YSS and QMHP staff coordinate their groups with each other to work toward common themes needs more attention.
To address these remaining concerns it is recommended that: (1) the leadership team work together to increase the frequency and/or duration of these programs delivered, (2) some sort of “master program” calendar should be created to more easily track actual program delivery and attendance (note: this calendar could serve as a calendar for all programs delivered, including recreation, visitation, and other personal growth activities), and (3) under the leadership of a Treatment Coordinator, the mental health team members should meet regularly as a team to share progress/challenges related to program delivery and plan for the coming week/month. Some of this planning may go on individually already but it is difficult to confirm absent an onsite visit. The addition of program space that is more appropriate for programming, the
85

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 86 of 117
acquisition of more appropriate curriculum/materials, and the evident interest of the existing mental health staff to keep moving forward during these difficult months are all positive signs moving toward full compliance.
79. Ensure that youth receive adequate free appropriate education, including special education.
Partial Compliance
It not possible to assess the education program that has been delivered in recent months under the conditions created by the COVID-19 concerns. It was reported that delivery of educational programming was done through a combination of “online”/Zoom calls and “work packets” developed by the teachers and provided to youth to complete under the supervision of Youth Care Professionals. During the January visit when youth were allegedly working on packets on the unit, we observed two units on which it appeared only one youth was actually working on the materials. Other youth were engaging in other activities, i.e. card games, dominos. Several youth indicated they had completed their work, but others seemed not to care about it at all. The work did not appear to be individualized in any way, and expectations for youth seemed low. If a similar approach was followed during the recent COVID-related months, it is reasonable to be concerned about the quality of education youth received recently. On a positive note, it is understood that Ms. Finley was regularly on site and did continue to provide some of the special educational services required for youth. In prior visits, she has demonstrated a consistent dedication to her work with youth, and youth seem to respond well to her efforts. Overall, the challenges faced at Henley Young due to COVID-1 were likely consistent with the difficulty of delivering an adequate educational program for all Jackson Public Schools (JPS), so some flexibility in assessing compliance during this period may be appropriate.
Looking forward, this may be an opportune time to restructure and/or enhance the relationship with JPS and develop a program that is more individualized and appropriate for the long-term JCA youth confined at Henley Young. Both Judge McDaniels and Executive Director Harrington indicated an interest in strengthening the education program. Whether that results in substantive education personnel changes and/or varying program delivery options (e.g. making more use of technology, altering the daily schedule, etc.) there is considerable room for improvement to achieve full compliance with the agreement. Subsequent site visits will be needed to continue assessing how this program is developing, but it is certainly recommended that Mr. Harrington and Judge McDaniels utilize the coming weeks/months to work with JPS to improve the program.
It should also be noted that young adults held in the Jackson or Raymond Detention Center(s) who are legally eligible for continued special education services are not receiving that support.
86

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 87 of 117
80. Ensure that youth are properly separated by sight and sound from adult prisoners.
Substantial Compliance As noted earlier, the last youth “aged out” of RDC in February 2019, so as of this report, this complete separation has been in effect for over one year. Transitioning Henley Young to serve these long-term youth has not been without challenges, but progress made at Henley Young under the SPLC agreement and their continued efforts under this agreement are to be complimented.
81. Ensure that the Jail’s classification and housing assignment system does not merely place all youth in the same housing unit, without adequate separation based on classification standards. Instead, the system must take into account classification factors that differ even within the youth sub-class of prisoners. These factors include differences in age, dangerousness, likelihood of victimization, and sex/gender.
Partial Compliance There has been no change related to compliance with this requirement although staff purport that Policies/Procedures have been updated and documentation of classification is occurring. However, staff have not yet provided the final version of the policy or a copy of the form for review nor were admission files inspected during this visit to confirm compliance with the policy. To reach Substantial Compliance Henley Young will need to provide the updated policy and related documentation to demonstrate that it is being followed. Additionally, admission files will need to be audited in a future visit, if not confirmed in some other way.
82. Train staff members assigned to supervise youth on the Jail’s youth-specific policies and procedures, as well as on age-appropriate supervision and treatment strategies. The County must ensure that such specialized training includes training on the supervision and treatment of youth, child and adolescent development, behavioral management, crisis intervention, conflict management, child abuse, juvenile rights, the juvenile justice system, youth suicide prevention and mental health, behavioral observation and reporting, gang intervention, and de-escalation.
Partial Compliance Henley Young continues to provide training on an on-going basis for some requirements of this provision, including new employee orientation for new staff, updates on policies and procedures as they are adopted, use of force refresher training, CPR training, fingerprint training (for intake purposes), and use of radio/communication equipment. As in past reports, this reflects that the bulk of training conducted for Youth Care professionals (YCP -the “line” staff position) is on basic operational skills and falls short of the intent of providing more advanced training on issues
87

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 88 of 117
such as the impact of trauma on youth behaviors, trauma-informed practice, adolescent development, and mental health.
Ms. Young has continued to serve as the interim training coordinator for Henley Young, but as noted earlier recruitment for a full-time Training Coordinator has begun. Based on that job description and conversations with Mr. Harrington, he very appropriately envisions someone who can develop a more comprehensive staff learning and development program, something that will be needed to fully comply with this agreement. Staff turnover continues to pose difficulties in implementing a solid professional development program and has made it necessary to focus almost exclusively on the basic training needed for Youth Care Professional staff.
Although not specifically itemized in this Agreement it seems clear that absent substantive changes in the salary structure for new and more experienced Youth Care Professional (YCP) staff, significant staff turnover will continue and it will be an “uphill struggle” to develop a fully effective program at Henley Young. One of Mr. Harrington’s first expressed priorities is to develop some sort of staff recruitment and retention program that can reduce turnover among YCP staff, and he should be commended for placing a priority on this issue. Fifteen YCP vacancies, the most ever encountered during monitoring visits, represents a substantial portion of YCP budgeted positions. At the most basic level, this number of vacancies creates problems in scheduling the minimal number of staff required to supervise youth let alone provide for accomplishing a range of other tasks needed on a day-to-day basis. This shortage (especially as it relates to having sufficient male staff) was also noted as an issue related to an incident in which an allegation against a female YCP was made that she had inappropriate physical/sexual contact with a male youth. While Mr. Harrington took immediate steps to investigate the April 28 allegation (the results of which indicated he could not confirm or fully rule out the allegation) and implemented some changes to help ensure the safety of youth, in response to the question of why a female YCP was assigned alone on the male unit on the overnight shift to conduct room wellness checks, the response was that he did not have a sufficient number of male staff available.
Mr. Harrington did appropriately refer the alleged incident to the Sheriff’s Department and the Department of Health/Human Services, but as of this writing Mr. Harrington had not received the results of their investigations. The staff member in question has been assigned to the control room on the evening (2nd) shift, thereby avoiding further direct contact with youth.
There are several specific follow-up actions that should be taken by Mr. Harrington, including: (1) obtaining results of the Sheriff’s and/or DHHS investigations as soon as possible, (2) providing the monitors with a review/summary of both his investigation and that of those other parties; and (3) implement a policy that youth in the housing unit are not left solely to the supervision of a YCP of the opposite sex.
88

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 89 of 117
In addition to an extremely low starting salary (essentially at the federal poverty level for a family of three), there is no pay progression system or other apparent incentive for continuing employment as a YCP. It was proffered by leadership that as much as 85% of YCP staff had at least one other job that competes for the energy and attention of YCPs. That is consistent with prior conversations monitors have had with line staff, almost all of whom indicate they have second jobs. It is recommended that the County take steps to increase the starting pay for YCP staff and develop some form of pay progression (based on service and/or training) system that supports retaining qualified staff.
83. Specifically prohibit the use of segregation as a disciplinary sanction for youth. Segregation may be used on a youth only when the individual’s behavior threatens imminent harm to the youth or others. This provision is in addition to, and not a substitute, for the provisions of this Agreement that apply to the use of segregation in general. In addition:
a. Prior to using segregation, staff members must utilize less restrictive techniques such as verbal de-escalation and individual counseling, by qualified mental health or other staff trained on the management of youth.
b. Prior to placing a youth in segregation, or immediately thereafter, a staff member must explain to the youth the reasons for the segregation, and the fact that the youth will be released upon regaining self-control.
c. Youth may be placed in segregation only for the amount of time necessary for the individual to regain self-control and no longer pose an immediate threat. As soon as the youth’s behavior no longer threatens imminent harm to the youth or others, the County must release the individual back to their regular detention location, school or other programming.
d. If a youth is placed in segregation, the County must immediately provide one-on-one crisis intervention and observation.
e. The County must specifically document and record the use of segregation on youth as part of its incident reporting and quality assurance systems.
f. A Qualified Medical Professional, or staff member who has completed all training required for supervising youth, must directly monitor any youth in segregation at least every fifteen (15) minutes. Such observation must be documented immediately after each check.
g. Youth may not be held in segregation for a continuous period longer than one (1) hour during waking hours. If staff members conclude that a youth is not sufficiently calm to allow a break in segregation after one hour, they must contact a Qualified Mental Health Professional. The Qualified Mental Health Professional must assess the youth and determine whether the youth requires treatment or services not available in the Jail. If the youth requires mental health services that are not provided by the Jail, the
89

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 90 of 117
Qualified Mental Health Provider must immediately notify the Jail Administrator and promptly arrange for hospitalization or other treatment services. h. If a youth is held in segregation for a continuous period longer than two (2) hours, Staff Members must notify the Jail Administrator. i. Any notifications or assessments required by this paragraph must be documented in the youth’s individual record.
Partial Compliance
This continues to be one of the more challenging provisions of the agreement, both in terms of implementing all the requirements and in monitoring proper implementation. As previously reported, there is tracking of both Behavior Management Isolations (BMI) (short-term, implemented by YSS staff) and Due Process Isolations (DPI) (longer-term confinement following a disciplinary review by leadership). However, materials provided for this review included only DPIs, for February through April noting that:
 In February 2020 there were 14 DPIs, a notable increase from prior months and considerably outside the trend that had been evidenced in earlier months.
 In March and April there were 9 such uses of isolation each month, closer to what had been true in prior months but still more than ideal.
 Almost all of the isolations logged were for 24 hours, suggesting that there has been a tendency to default to that period of time vs. trending toward shorter periods that had been seen in prior months. However, it also should be noted that not all Due Process Disciplinary Hearings resulted in room confinement, and use of alternate forms of accountability are encouraged.
 When asked about the use of DPIs in May, the response was that there had been none. The inability to review youth records made it impossible to audit/confirm that, but if true it would be a significant achievement.
Since the Agreement limits room confinement to a maximum of one hour unless the youth poses an imminent safety risk to staff or other youth, none of the Due Process Isolations meet that expectation. Staff again purport that during this 24-hour period youth can come out of their rooms for structured activities (school, recreation, group programming), but that could not be confirmed since observation logs could not be reviewed off site. It also was impossible to confirm remotely whether required mental health checks were made during any period of isolation.
It is recommended that additional attention be given to ensuring that all documentation related to the use of isolation, both for initial behavioral reasons or disciplinary reasons, is carefully kept and made available for review on subsequent visits. This includes documentation of whether
90

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 91 of 117
youth do, in fact, take the opportunity to be out of their room during any disciplinary period and whether required mental health checks are being made.
Ultimately the use of room confinement can be further reduced by continuing to improve the environment in the living units, retaining and expanding training of Youth Care Professional staff, continuing to expand social skill training, adding additional program opportunities, and ensuring a full complement of mental health support staff (i.e. a full-time psychologist).
Finally, the last Henley Young Policy/Procedure related to Due Process Confinement provided to the Juvenile Justice monitor is from September 2017 and does not match verbal representations by staff about current procedures. Despite prior requests, Henley Young has not yet provided the team with current/recently adopted Policies/Procedures so they can be reviewed to determine if they are consistent with requirements of the Agreement.
84. Develop and implement a behavioral treatment program appropriate for youth. This program must be developed with the assistance of a qualified consultant who has at least five years of experience developing behavioral programs for institutionalized youth. The Jail’s behavioral program must include all of the following elements:
a. The behavioral program must include positive incentives for changing youth behavior, outline prohibited behaviors, and describe the consequences for prohibited behaviors.
b. An individualized program must be developed by a youth’s interdisciplinary treatment team, and properly documented in each youth’s personal file. Documentation requirements must include the collection of data required for proper assessment and treatment of youth with behavioral issues. For instance, the County must track the frequency and duration of positive incentives, segregation, and targeted behaviors.
c. The program must include safeguards and prohibitions on the inappropriate use of restraints, segregation, and corporal punishment.
Partial Compliance The point/level system tool used to track and document youth behaviors has purportedly remained essentially the same as it was adopted just prior to the visit in September 2019, and Henley Young reports continuing technical assistance from Anne Nelson, a juvenile justice consultant serving as monitor in the SPLC case involving Henley Young. As it relates to this provision or others in this and the SPLC agreement, Mr. Harrington was informed that he should feel free to let monitoring team member Jim Moeser know if there ever are conflicts between recommendations made by Mr. Moeser and Ms. Nelson so they could be resolved. The existing point system does provide discrete time frames in which to document/track behaviors, and the person performing the role of Recreation Coordinator is responsible for documenting what
91

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 92 of 117
incentive youth choose based on what they earn. A review of point sheets was not possible as part of the remote visit, but the recommendations made in the past remain: (1) staff need to document in more detail why they “rate” a youth the way they do, both positively and negatively; simply providing a “number score” does little to reinforce and/or shape youth’s behavior going forward; (2) individual goals need to be added to the tool based on consultation with the YSS assigned to the youth so that discrete areas for improvement can be identified and reinforced; (3) more work needs to be done to expand options for incentives; and (4) Youth Care Professional staff need to be more overt in using the system as a “tool” for discussing with youth what they are doing well and how they can do better. Making this last recommendation effective is another complication resulting from the frequent staff turnover and need to focus on basic training rather than developing more advanced behavior change/management staff skills.
LAWFUL BASIS FOR DETENTION
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners are processed through the criminal justice system in a manner that respects their liberty interests. To that end:
85. The County will not accept or continue to house prisoners in the Jail without appropriate, completed paperwork such as an affidavit, arrest warrant, detention hold, or judge’s written detention order. Examples of inadequate paperwork include but are not limited to undated or unsigned court orders, warrants, and affidavits; documents memorializing oral instructions from court officers that are undated, unsigned, or otherwise fail to identify responsible individuals and the legal basis for continued detention or release; incomplete arresting police officer documents; and any other paperwork that does not establish a lawful basis for detention.
Partial Compliance The quality of the inmate records was difficult to evaluate during the remote site visit. Typically, the monitoring team is able to review the paper files and determine whether the appropriate paperwork is in the file. These are too voluminous to have scanned in for review. The documents requested were the status sheet showing the detention status and the chronology sheet showing the activity related to the inmate’s status. This was for approximately 30 randomly selected inmate files. Because of the remote nature of the site visit, it was not possible to compare the chronology sheet to the documentation in the inmate files. From having the Records Supervisor look up the inmates on the JMS system, it became apparent that a number of the chronology sheets were not up to date. In addition, the Records Supervisor stated that they had discontinued keeping the inmate status sheet based upon a communication from the prior Detention Administrator. This is inconsistent with the policies and procedure on Records and should be reinitiated. The summary of detention status should identify every matter that is causing the individual to be detained and identify the supporting documentation. This would allow for a
92

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 93 of 117
quick and accurate assessment of when court action warrants release. It would also allow for efficient auditing of the files. Currently, determining the status of the inmate requires a review of most of the paperwork in the file which can be voluminous.
The policies on pre-booking, booking and records have now been in place for a year. However, as evidenced by the failure to keep the inmate status sheet, they are apparently not being fully implemented. A Booking Manual is being developed and an initial review of the uncompleted manual indicates that it will be a useful document. There continue to be improved systems in place to track individuals and release them timely.
The tracking of individuals held on probation violations appears to be accurate. However, the tracking sheet indicated that there were 2 individuals who were held more than 21 days with no explanation.
There are several system issues that make it difficult to ensure timely release. The booking clerks have not consistently entered probation holds as such and still enter them as a warrant. This makes it impossible to run a report showing everyone that is in on a probation violation so that the Records Supervisor can track the 21-day time limit. She described having to run every inmate every day to get the information. To some extent they rely on the inmates to alert them. The lack of clarity and consistency on how to enter information into JMS was also illustrated by a case where the Jail was waiting for documentation from another jurisdiction of time served. The booking clerk had entered the information in the field for holds, so the Records Supervisor did not know to call the other jurisdiction. This individual was being transferred to MDOC so was not waiting for release into the community. There were several inmates who had extended stays waiting for other jurisdictions to pick them up. Without a better way to track people who remain in only on a hold from another jurisdiction, the Records Supervisor does not know to call the other jurisdiction to get them transported. Again, these are individuals who weren’t waiting for release into the community but this contributes to the population numbers at the Jail and potentially extends their overall time in detention. One recurring situation previously identified is that there is not a way to identify people in the Jail who are waiting for a preliminary hearing. Although it is the court’s responsibility to provide timely settings, the Jail currently has no way of tracking these individuals to alert the appropriate court when a preliminary hearing is overdue. There continue to be individuals detained beyond 90 days without indictment. However, it appears that the new District Attorney is committed to remedying this. It should be noted, however, that this does not mean these individuals will be released. As cases are reviewed, some will no doubt be dismissed but some will result in indictments.
The problem with individuals waiting for their first appearance in County Court appeared to have been resolved at the time of the last site visit. However, in the intervening months there was again the difficulty of having a judge available. For persons charged with felonies, the Jail has
93

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 94 of 117
worked with the court, to get a decision on release conditions. For persons charged with misdemeanors, the Jail is releasing them ROR.
86. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees in contravention of the protections of the United States Constitution as set forth and discussed in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) and Cassibry v. State, 453 So.2d 1298 (Miss. 1984). The County must develop and implement policies consistent with the applicable federal law and the terms of this Agreement.
Substantial Compliance As previously reported, policies on Pre-Booking, Booking, and Records have been completed and adopted. The Pre-booking policy provides that no person can be committed at the jail absent documentation that a meaningful analysis of the person’s ability to pay was conducted and written findings that any failure to pay was willful. At the time of the last three site visits and this remote site visit there have been no individuals in the facility on a fines and fees order. This will continue to be monitored closely as the policies are new and sentencing orders are sometimes ambiguous, but this provision is now listed as in substantial compliance.
87. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees absent (a) documentation demonstrating that a meaningful analysis of that person’s ability to pay was conducted by the sentencing court prior to the imposition of any sentence, and (b) written findings by the sentencing court setting forth the basis for a finding that the failure to pay the subject fines or fees was willful. At a minimum, the County must confirm receipt from the sentencing court of a signed “Order” issued by the sentencing court setting forth in detail the basis for a finding that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful.
Substantial Compliance The County has been pro-active in ensuring that valid court orders are utilized. The policy on pre-booking is consistent with this paragraph and at the time of this and three prior site visits there was no one in the facility for failure to pay fines and fees. However, at the time of the January site visit, a review of inmate files disclosed two individuals who had illegal orders to stay in jail until payment of fines and fees. It was reported that these individuals were not held on these orders. If in custody on another matter, the individual is considered to have time served on the fines and fees order. It was reported that the illegal fines and fees orders are typically not entered into the JMS system. The last monitoring report recommended that a better process would be to ensure that the orders are corrected as set out in this Settlement Agreement. There were no such improper orders reported at the time of the current site visit. These requirements will continue to be carried as in compliance as no one is being held on fines and fees.
94

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 95 of 117
88. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a person for failure to pay fines or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and any other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and must obtain a copy to justify continued detention of the prisoner. After 48 hours, that prisoner must be released promptly if the Jail staff cannot obtain the necessary documentation to verify that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful, and that person is incarcerated only for the failure to pay fines or fees.
Substantial Compliance See paragraph 87.
89. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a prisoner for failure to pay fines or fees, and if that person is incarcerated for other conviction(s) or charge(s), other than the failure to pay fines and/or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and to ascertain the prisoner’s length of sentence. If Jail staff cannot obtain a copy of the necessary documentation within 48 hours of the prisoner’s incarceration, Jail staff must promptly arrange for the prisoner’s transport to the sentencing court so that the court may conduct a legally sufficient hearing and provide any required documentation, including the fines or fees owed by the prisoner, and an assessment of the prisoner’s ability to pay and willfulness (or lack thereof) in failing to pay fines or fees.
Substantial Compliance See paragraph 87.
90. Jail staff must maintain the records necessary to determine the amount of time a person must serve to pay off any properly ordered fines or fees. To the extent that a sentencing court does not specifically calculate the term of imprisonment to be served, the Jail must obtain the necessary information within 24 hours of a prisoner’s incarceration. Within 48 hours of incarceration, each prisoner shall be provided with documentation setting forth clearly the term of imprisonment and the calculation used to determine the term of imprisonment.
Partial Compliance The WC continues to maintain a spreadsheet. There are no individuals currently incarcerated with an order to pay fines and fees. There was no documentation that prisoners were provided with documentation of their release date although they do typically have the orders from the court.
91. No pre-trial detainee or sentenced prisoner incarcerated by the County solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be required to perform physical labor. Nor shall any such detainee or
95

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 96 of 117

prisoner receive any penalty or other adverse consequence for failing to perform such labor, including differential credit toward sentences. Any physical labor by pre-trial detainees or by prisoners incarcerated solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be performed on a voluntary basis only, and the County shall not in any way coerce such pre-trial detainees or prisoners to perform physical labor.

Partial Compliance This has become a limited issue now that there are no individuals working off fines and fees. At the time of the September and the January site visit, the stated policy was that if Medical determined that the individual could not perform physical labor the individual got full credit. The spread sheet appears to be consistent with this stated policy. This is carried as partial compliance because there needs to be a written policy requiring that individuals who cannot work because of a medical or mental health condition or other disability receive full credit towards fines and fees.

92. The County must ensure that the Jail timely releases from custody all individuals entitled to

release. At minimum:

a. Prisoners are entitled to release if there is no legal basis for their continued

detention. Such release must occur no later than 11:59 PM on the day that a

prisoner is entitled to be released.

b. Prisoners must be presumed entitled to release from detention if there is a court

order that specifies an applicable release date, or Jail records document no

reasonable legal basis for the continued detention of a prisoner.

c. Examples of prisoners presumptively entitled to release include:

i.

Individuals who have completed their sentences;

ii. Individuals who have been acquitted of all charges after trial;

iii. Individuals whose charges have been dismissed;

iv. Individuals who are ordered released by a court order; and

v. Individuals detained by a law enforcement agency that then fails to

promptly provide constitutionally adequate, documented justification for

an individual’s continued detention.

Partial Compliance See response to number 85.

93. The County must develop and implement a reliable, complete, and adequate prisoner records system to ensure that staff members can readily determine the basis for a prisoner’s detention, when a prisoner may need to be released, and whether a prisoner should remain in detention. The records system must provide Jail staff with reasonable advance notice prior to an anticipated release date so that they can contact appropriate agencies to determine whether a prisoner should be released or remain in detention.

96

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 97 of 117
Partial Compliance As described in paragraph 85, the new Records policy establishes a system that should greatly improve the reliability of the prisoner record system. However, a complete updating and review of the records has not been completed and the system of auditing files has not been fully implemented. As noted above, the inmate status sheet required by the Records Policy has not been maintained. Similarly, when the Booking Manual is completed, there should be improvement in the initial entries into the JMS system. Additional problems described in paragraph 85 continue to exist. At present, the Jail is still partially reliant on inmate requests and grievances to identify people who are being over detained. The Records Policy requires that the Supervisor conduct an audit of 10 files a week and do a semi-annual review of all files. The Records Supervisor maintains a spread sheet of the files that she has audited. The entries prior to April most often don’t show the audit date so it is difficult to tell the frequency. It also was reported that another individual was doing audits in this time frame but they weren’t included in the spreadsheet and no number was reported. In April, there are more frequent notations of the date of the audit. In April, there were approximately 10 files audited although possibly 3 more without dates. In May, there were 35 files audited. The spread sheet spans January through May and shows 100 files audited. The May activity is close to that required by the Records Policy. However, earlier months do not appear to be close to compliance and the number through May would suggest that there will not be close to a review of all files in a six-month period. In addition to Booking staff, there are three individuals tracking the lawful basis of detention. They are all three using separate spreadsheets and lists which as noted above do not match reports run from the JMS system. Jail staff do not have access to the county court data base or the updated circuit court data base which would allow them to improve the accuracy of their records.
94. Jail record systems must accurately identify and track all prisoners with serious mental illness, including their housing assignment and security incident histories. Jail staff must develop and use records about prisoners with serious mental illness to more accurately and efficiently process prisoners requiring forensic evaluations or transport to mental hospitals or other treatment facilities, and to improve individual treatment, supervision, and community transition planning for prisoners with serious mental illness. Records about prisoners with serious mental illness must be incorporated into the Jail’s incident reporting, investigations, and medical quality assurance systems. The County must provide an accurate census of the Jail’s mental health population as part of its compliance reporting obligations, and the County must address this data when assessing staffing, program, or resource needs.
Non-Compliant The electronic medical record system and the various tracking logs that are maintained by medical and mental health have been described in prior reports, including the report of the last site visit. The various ways these records and logs are used has also been previously described.
97

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 98 of 117
With regard to full compliance with this provision, there are several issues that still need to be resolved. The first issue is what information should be shared with entities outside of the medical and mental health department and how should that information be shared. Although the sharing of certain information that would normally be HIPPA protected might be shared in a correctional setting, it still needs to be determined who needs what information in order to comply with this provision, and how that information should be shared.
The person who is reportedly tracking the individuals waiting for state hospital beds has not developed an effective system or contacts to be able to track who is waiting for an evaluation or a commitment to the state hospital. The monitor encouraged her to contact the doctor overseeing the state hospital forensic program to assist in tracking these individuals. Mental health staff are not involved with the transfer of prisoners to the state hospital for competency evaluations and/or the restoration of competency, and they are not even involved in the restoration of competency program that is provided by an outside provider at the facility. In fact, mental health staff are unaware of which prisoners are awaiting such transfer; staff have no idea who is responsible for making sure that such prisoners are transferred in a timely manner; and when prisoners are returned from the state hospital, staff do not receive a full report.
Neither medical nor mental health staff are involved in the incident reporting and review process. Although an incident report might indicate that a medical or mental health staff person was called/involved, neither medical nor mental health is asked what they thought and/or what they did, and so for the most part, that information is not included in an incident report. As noted in section 77, there is also not yet an operating policy and procedure that would require security to obtain medical and/or mental health input when there is an incident that might result in a disciplinary charge. Therefore, any reporting and review of incidences that have a medical or mental health element/component do not include information from medical and/or mental health (gathered at the time or after the fact), which compromises both the full reporting of and adequate review of such incidences.
95. All individuals who (i) were found not guilty, were acquitted, or had charges brought against them dismissed, and (ii) are not being held on any other matter, must be released directly from the court unless the court directs otherwise. Additionally:
a. Such individuals must not be handcuffed, shackled, chained with other prisoners, transported back to the Jail, forced to submit to bodily strip searches, or returned to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
b. Notwithstanding (a), above, individuals may request to be transported back to the Jail solely for the purpose of routine processing for release. If the County decides to allow such transport, the County must ensure that Jail policies and procedures
98

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 99 of 117

govern the process. At minimum, policies and procedures must prohibit staff

from:

i.

Requiring the individual to submit to bodily strip searches;

ii. Requiring the individual to change into Jail clothing if the individual is not

already in such clothing; and

iii. Returning the individual to general population or any other secure Jail

housing area containing prisoners.

Non-Compliant Individuals are not being released from the Court at this time. In connection with the drafting of policies and procedures, Jail staff are working on a process of releasing individuals from the downtown facility, JDC. Further collaboration with the courts will be necessary to allow for release from the court.

96. The County must develop, implement, and maintain policies and procedures to govern the release of prisoners. These policies and procedures must:
a. Describe all documents and records that must be collected and maintained in Jail files for determining the basis of a prisoner’s detention, the prisoner’s anticipated release date, and their status in the criminal justice system.
b. Specifically, detail procedures to ensure timely release of prisoners entitled to be released, and procedures to prevent accidental release.
c. Be developed in consultation with court administrators, the District Attorney’s Office, and representatives of the defense bar.
d. Include mechanisms for notifying community mental health providers, including the County’s Program of Assertive Community Treatment (“PACT”) team, when releasing a prisoner with serious mental illness so that the prisoner can transition safely back to the community. These mechanisms must include providing such prisoners with appointment information and a supply of their prescribed medications to bridge the time period from release until their appointment with the County PACT team, or other community provider.

Non-Compliant The Jail does not yet have an adopted policy on Releasing. A draft policy has been reviewed and is in the process of being finalized.

In prior monitoring reports, including the report of the January site visit, it has been noted that compliance with the provision for discharge planning involves multiple different activities.

The first set of activities include the development of a discharge plan for each prisoner on the mental health caseload who is likely to be released back into the community at some point;

99

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 100 of 117
providing those prisoners with the insight and understanding required for them to appreciate their need to continue with treatment once released and know what they have to do in order to continue with treatment; upon their release, make an initial appointment for them with a community-based provider of mental health services and provide them with enough medication to carry them until the time of that appointment; and assure that they know what to do in the event there is an emergency prior to the time of their scheduled appointment.
The mental health team has made significant gains with regard to this first set of activities. Discharge plans are prepared for individuals on the mental health caseload and, as noted above, one of the senior nurses has started a discharge planning group, focused on helping prisoners gain insight into their need for treatment, gain knowledge about what they have to do in order to continue with treatment, and learn what to do in the event there is an emergency before their first appointment; and prisoners are provided with enough medication to hold them until their first appointment, unless for some reason security does not bring them to medical as part of the discharge process in order to pick up that medication (which they are supposed to do as part of the discharge process).
As has been previously noted, despite these efforts, the successful referral rate (i.e., those, who upon their release, actually show up for their scheduled appointment with a community-based provider of mental health services) remains about 30%. Therefore, consideration has been given to adding an additional intervention that has been demonstrated to increase the rate of successful referrals in comparable facilities. This intervention would involve having staff from the community-based mental health provider actually visit the jail on a weekly basis; perform intake evaluations of prisoners who will be referred to them upon their release; and begin to establish a relationship with those prisoners prior to their release. It has been the experience of other comparable facilities that have employed such an initiative that released prisoners are more likely to follow-through with an appointment with someone who they have already met and begun to develop a relationship with, and if they still fail to show up for that initial appointment, staff from the community-based provider can better seek them out/follow-up with them.
Hinds County Behavioral Health has agreed to partner with the facility’s mental health staff to try to employ and then assess the outcome of such an initiative. HCBH has just recently agreed to initiate contact with inmates while they are still in the facility. This intervention will begin when the facility is open to outside individuals.
In addition, as has also been noted in prior reports, it has become clear that there is a group of individuals with serious mental health difficulties who are arrested and brought to the facility multiple times each year; each time one of them is arrested, he/she is only kept at the facility for 1 or 2 days, and therefore there is not enough time to engage any of them in any mental health services; and it at least appears that they are engaged in this pattern of frequent recidivism in
100

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 101 of 117
large part because they are not engaged in any type of community-based treatment. Therefore, consideration has been given to adding an intervention for this population as well, which would involve giving an individual’s contact information to a community-based provider of mental health services (whenever a known, seriously mentally ill individual is brought to and then immediately released from the facility), who would then use case managers to go out and visit the individual and attempt to engage him/her in treatment. If some of these individuals can be engaged in treatment in their community and then stabilized, this would be a benefit to them, their families and their communities, and also be a benefit for those involved in repeatedly arresting them and booking them in and out of the jail.
Hinds Behavioral Health has agreed to partner with the facility’s mental health staff to try to employ and then assess this initiative as well. Here too, since Hinds Behavioral Health does not have the funding to deploy staff for this purpose, in order to do this, QCHC will prepare a funding request to the county to support Hinds Behavioral Health’s involvement in this effort.
97. The County must develop, implement, and maintain appropriate post orders relating to the timely release of individuals. Any post orders must:
a. Contain up-to-date contact information for court liaisons, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Public Defender’s Office;
b. Describe a process for obtaining higher level supervisor assistance in the event the officer responsible for processing releases encounters administrative difficulties in determining a prisoner’s release eligibility or needs urgent assistance in reaching officials from other agencies who have information relevant to a prisoner’s release status.
Non-Compliant The County has not yet developed post orders in this area. The Records Supervisor and the individual working with County Court appear to have developed working relationships with individuals in the court systems.
98. Nothing in this Agreement precludes appropriate verification of a prisoner’s eligibility for release, including checks for detention holds by outside law enforcement agencies and procedures to confirm the authenticity of release orders. Before releasing a prisoner entitled to release, but no later than the day release is ordered, Jail staff should check the National Crime Information Center or other law enforcement databases to determine if there may be a basis for continued detention of the prisoner. The results of release verification checks must be fully documented in prisoner records.
Partial Compliance
101

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 102 of 117

At the time of the last site visit, the Booking staff reported that they run an NCIC check at the time of booking and again at release. NCIC reports run at the time of booking are in the inmate files. The files reviewed at that time did include a copy of the NCIC report at the time of release. There has been an issue of resolving holds promptly. The monitoring team was not able to review the physical files during the remote site visit. The releasing officers are aware of the holds in the system. However, the Records Supervisor cannot run an accurate report showing all holds because they are not always entered into the system in a consistent manner. This means that she cannot call the jurisdiction with the hold to determine whether they want to pick up the inmate. As a result, some inmates remain in the Jail instead of being released or transported.

99. The County must ensure that the release process is adequately staffed by qualified detention

officers and supervisors. To that end, the County must:

a. Ensure that sufficient qualified staff members, with access to prisoner records and

to the Jail’s e-mail account for receiving court orders, are available to receive and

effectuate court release orders twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.

b. Ensure that staff members responsible for the prisoner release process and related

records have the knowledge, skills, training, experience, and abilities to

implement the Jail’s release policies and procedures. At minimum, the County

must provide relevant staff members with specific pre-service and annual in-

service training related to prisoner records, the criminal justice process, legal

terms, and release procedures. The training must include instruction on:

i.

How to process release orders for each court, and whom to contact if a

question arises;

ii. What to do if the equipment for contacting other agencies, such as the

Jail’s fax machine or email service, malfunctions, or communication is

otherwise disrupted;

iii. Various types of court dispositions, and the language typically used

therein, to ensure staff members understand the meaning of court orders;

and

iv. How and when to check for detainers to ensure that an individual may be

released from court after she or he is found not guilty, is acquitted, or has

the charges brought against her or him dismissed.

c. Provide detention staff with sufficient clerical support to prevent backlogs in the

filing of prisoner records.

Partial Compliance It was reported that because of turnover in the Booking Clerk positions, some procedures that were adopted to address communication issues between Booking and Records get forgotten. There are now policies and procedures on Booking, Pre-Booking, and Records. A policy on Releasing has been circulated and returned with comments. These policies will assist in coming

102

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 103 of 117
into compliance in this area. In addition, a staff member is working on a Booking and Release Manual which will provide the detailed guidance required by this paragraph.
100. The County must annually review its prisoner release and detention process to ensure that it complies with any changes in federal law, such as the constitutional standard for civil or pretrial detention.
Non-Compliant At the time of the site visit, there had not been an initial review of this process to determine consistency with federal law.
101. The County must ensure that the Jail’s record-keeping and quality assurance policies and procedures allow both internal and external audit of the Jail’s release process, prisoner lengths of stay, and identification of prisoners who have been held for unreasonably long periods without charges or other legal process. The County must, at minimum, require:
a. A Jail log that documents (i) the date each prisoner was entitled to release; (ii) the date, time, and manner by which the Jail received any relevant court order; (iii) the date and time that prisoner was in fact released; (iv) the time that elapsed between receipt of the court order and release; (v) the date and time when information was received requiring the detention or continued detention of a prisoner (e.g., immigration holds or other detainers), and (vi) the identity of the authority requesting the detention or continued detention of a prisoner.
b. Completion of an incident report, and appropriate follow-up investigation and administrative review, if an individual is held in custody past 11:59 PM on the day that she or he is entitled to release. The incident report must document the reason(s) for the error. The incident report must be submitted to the Jail Administrator no later than one calendar day after the error was discovered.
Non-Compliant The record keeping process does not at this time allow for an audit other than a review of individual files. The log and summary that is now supposed to be in each individual file would provide this information. A technological solution should be considered to pull this information into a system wide log that would meet the requirements of subparagraph a. The County has provided their list of releases but the list does not include the information required by subparagraph a. Incident reports are not routinely prepared for over detention.
As noted in paragraph 94, in April, there were approximately 10 files audited although possibly 3 more without dates. In May, there were 35 files audited. The spread sheet spans January through May and shows 100 files audited. The May activity is close to that required by the Records Policy. However, earlier months do not appear to be close to compliance and the number through
103

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 104 of 117
May would suggest that there will not be close to a review of all files in a six month period as required by the Records Policy.
102. The County must appoint a staff member to serve as a Quality Control Officer with responsibility for internal auditing and monitoring of the release process. This Quality Control Officer will be responsible for helping prevent errors with the release process, and the individual’s duties will include tracking releases to ensure that staff members are completing all required paper work and checks. If the Quality Control Officer determines that an error has been made, the individual must have the authority to take corrective action, including the authority to immediately contact the Jail Administrator or other County official with authority to order a prisoner’s release. The Quality Control Officer’s duties also include providing data and reports so that release errors are incorporated into the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance process.
Non-Compliant The week of the site visit, the Sheriff’s Office hired an individual with the title of Quality Control Officer. She has prepared an initial spread sheet to meet the various requirements of the Settlement Agreement. This is currently in the review process but is certainly a step in the right direction. Previously, several individuals had some responsibility for tracking timely release as has been described in prior monitoring reports. This was not a coordinated, proactive auditing process as required by this paragraph. The hiring of an actual Quality Control Officer will assist in coming into compliance with this paragraph.
103. The County must require investigation of all incidents relating to timely or erroneous prisoner release within seven calendar days by appropriate investigators, supervisors, and the Jail Administrator. The Jail Administrator must document any deficiencies found and any corrective action taken. The Jail Administrator must then make any necessary changes to Jail policies and procedures. Such changes should be made, if appropriate, in consultation with court personnel, the District Attorney’s Office, members of the defense bar, and any other law enforcement agencies involved in untimely or erroneous prisoner releases.
Non-Compliant As was noted in the Ninth Monitoring Report, the documentation of untimely/erroneous releases is not required by an approved policy. As was previously noted, there have now been a few incident reports on erroneous releases. There have still not been any reports on untimely releases. There should be clarification as to who has the responsibility for completing the report. It was recommended by the corrections expert of the monitoring team that the Jail Administrator issue an HCDS Order requiring documentation of all such mistaken or untimely releases.
104

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 105 of 117
104. The County must conduct bi-annual audits of release policies, procedures, and practices. As part of each audit, the County must make any necessary changes to ensure that individuals are being released in a timely manner. The audits must review all data collected regarding timely release, including any incident reports or Quality Control audits referenced in Paragraph 102 above. The County must document the audits and recommendations and must submit all documentation to the Monitor and the United States for review.
Non-Compliant There has not been an initial audit of releasing practices. There are no incident reports regarding untimely releases even though such incidents have occurred.
105. The County must ensure that policies, procedures, and practices allow for reasonable attorney visitation, which should be treated as a safeguard to prevent the unlawful detention of citizens and for helping to ensure the efficient functioning of the County’s criminal justice system. The Jail’s attorney visitation process must provide sufficient space for attorneys to meet with their clients in a confidential setting and must include scheduling procedures to ensure that defense attorneys can meet with their clients for reasonable lengths of time and without undue delay. An incident report must be completed if Jail staff are unable to transport a prisoner to meet with their attorney, or if there is a delay of more than 30 minutes for transporting a prisoner for a scheduled attorney visit.
Partial Compliance Attorney/client visits do not appear to be a problem at the JDC or the WC, but the RDC, where the majority of the inmates are held, does not provide satisfactory space for attorneys to visit their clients in a convenient, secure area. Inmates either have to be escorted from their respective housing units to the front of the jail, or else attorneys have to be escorted to unspecified multipurpose spaces in each pod in order to conduct a visit. The monitoring team has made recommendations to correct this problem over a period of years, but to date nothing has been done to rectify the situation.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
The County must develop an effective system for identifying and self-correcting systemic violations of prisoner’s constitutional rights. To that end, the County must:
106. Develop and maintain a database and computerized tracking system to monitor all reportable incidents, uses of force, and grievances. This tracking system will serve as the repository of information used for continuing improvement and quality assurance reports.
Partial Compliance
105

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 106 of 117
The monitoring team has received the electronic monthly reports. Although the spreadsheet is helpful in that it provides a computerized listing of incidents including use of force, it does not include much of the information listed in paragraph 107 and 108 below and that would be needed to provide the information needed to inform continuing improvement or quality assurance reports. There continues to be a concern because of the lack of reports or the small number of reports that some types of incidents are underreported including late releases, use of force, and lost money and property. The new Quality Assurance Officer is preparing a new spreadsheet that should assist with compliance in this area.
The computerized grievance system does not allow for the compilation of a useful summary grievance report. However, the data in the system can now be pulled into an Excel spreadsheet which can be used to generate reports. The spreadsheet generated by Securus does not include some critical fields that are in the system but can’t be pulled into the spreadsheet. The Grievance Officer manually creates a separate spreadsheet and enters for each grievance the information in the Securus spreadsheet and adds the type of grievance, the date of response and the date of the response to an appeal. The new policy also is to reject grievances that are actually inmate requests and directs inmates to use the inmate request category. This policy allows a more accurate depiction of grievances. With the new policy, it should be possible to have a useful data base on grievance data. These reports are not yet being used to inform improvement or quality assurance efforts.
107. Compile an Incident Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Incident Summary Reports must compile and summarize incident report data in order to identify trends such as rates of incidents in general, by housing unit, by day of the week and date, by shift, and by individual prisoners or staff members. The Incident Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Brief summary of all reportable incidents, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. Description of all suicides and deaths, including the date, name of prisoner, housing
unit, and location where the prisoner died (including name of hospital if prisoner died off-site); c. The names and number of prisoners placed in emergency restraints, and segregation, and the frequency and duration of such placements; d. List and total number of incident reports received during the reporting period; e. List and Total number of incidents referred to IAD or other law enforcement agencies for investigation.
Partial Compliance There are two spreadsheets being generated. One has the text of the narrative of the initial incident report and some information. The other spreadsheet does not have the narrative but has some additional information. The spreadsheets now being created are a first step towards being
106

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 107 of 117
able to generate the reports required by this paragraph. At this time, it does not include all of the information required by this paragraph (e.g. use of restraints, segregation, referral to IAD) including information that would be necessary to be fully informed regarding the nature of the incident. Combined, the spreadsheets would have quite a bit of the required information but the information should be accessible in one summary report. Most importantly, neither spreadsheet has an actual summary of the incident. The spreadsheet pulls in the first incident report and not the supplements. The first incident report does not necessarily have important facts. Additional types of incidents that could be identified should be explored. For example, “assault” is used whether it is an inmate on inmate assault or an inmate on officer assault. Only by reading the narrative of the first report, can that be discerned. The spreadsheet also does not include the incidents or the total number of incidents referred to investigation.
108. Compile a Use of Force Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Use of Force Summary Reports must compile and summarize use of force report data in order to identify trends such as rates of use in general, by housing unit, by shift, by day of the week and date, by individual prisoners, and by staff members. The Use of Force Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Summary of all uses of force, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. List and total number of use of force reports received during the reporting period; c. List and total number of uses of force reports/incidents referred to IAD or other
law enforcement agencies for investigation.
Partial Compliance One of the new spreadsheets has some of this information with respect to Use of Force. The Use of Force incidents are now submitted on an incident report form. This is preferable to separate forms. Again, there is no summary of the use of force in the spreadsheet and there is no listing or totaling of referrals to investigation.
109. Compile a Grievance Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Grievance Summary Reports must compile and summarize grievance information in order to identify trends such as most frequently reported complaints, units generating the most grievances, and staff members receiving the most grievances about their conduct. To identify trends and potential concerns, at least quarterly, a member of the Jail’s management staff must review the Grievance Summary Reports and a random sample of ten percent of all grievances filed during the review period. These grievance reviews, any recommendations, and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Partial Compliance As mentioned above, the limitations of the reporting from the Securus system has led the Grievance Officer to manually create a spreadsheet. Neither system can generate a report by
107

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 108 of 117
location, shift, or persons involved. There are additional limitations. Any inmate response is treated by the system as an appeal when often the inmate has just responded by saying thank you. Again, this makes tracking what is actually happening difficult unless it is done manually. At the present time, there is no management review process in the grievance system. As mentioned above, the Grievance Officer is now keeping an Excel spreadsheet and manually entering information related to grievances. One option would be to expand the manual spreadsheet to include the information required by this paragraph, this should enable staff to generate a report consistent with this provision. However, even though the volume of grievances has been reduced maintaining an expanded manual spreadsheet would be a very time intensive process.
110. Compile a monthly summary report of IAD investigations conducted at the Facility. The IAD Summary Report must include:
a. A brief summary of all completed investigations, by type, shift, housing unit, and date;
b. A listing of investigations referred for disciplinary action or other final disposition by type and date;
c. A listing of all investigations referred to a law enforcement agency and the name of the agency, by type and date; and
d. A listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.
Partial Compliance Even though the IAD and CID functions have been separated, it is important that the two investigators continue to cooperate closely. As was mentioned previously, they need to compare notes so that their spreadsheets are as closely matched in structure as possible. The IAD spreadsheet sets the standard and should be used as the model for format.
Since January 1, 2020, the IAD investigator has handled 37 cases. Of that number only three were referred to IAD by the IAD supervisor while the investigator initiated 34 cases. While one would have expected more to have been referred from the Detention command staff, it may be an indication that the investigator is a motivated self-starter. Certainly, the timeliness of many of his investigations supports that position.
Of the 37 cases investigated, the vast majority involved allegations of excessive use of force, two were allegations of negligence, two involved officer conduct and one was for the introduction of contraband. One officer was terminated (for the introduction of contraband), but there are 11 cases still pending.
108

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 109 of 117
The IAD spreadsheet statistics confirm that the problems in the Jail System occur overwhelmingly at the RDC. One occurred at the WC, two at the JDC and 34 at the RDC. No IAD cases were referred to outside agencies.
The CID spreadsheet reflects similar statistics regarding the number and location of inmate on inmate and inmate on staff incidents that have to be investigated for criminal purposes. Of 41 cases investigated by the CID detective since January 1, 2020, three occurred at the JDC, two at the WC and 36 at the RDC. Two were referred to IAD and none were referred to an outside agency. The most surprising statistic was that no inmates were indicted as a result of the CID investigations. Considering the frequency and severity of the assaults and incidents that occur in the Jail System, the lack of prosecution of the perpetrators, in itself, requires further investigation.
The statistics generated by the IAD and CID investigators support the need for the HCSO to reimplement direct supervision at the RDC again as soon as possible. The huge disparity, with regard to the number of IAD and CID investigations at the RDC as compared to the WC and JDC, can only be explained by the fact that inmates at the RDC are not supervised by staff because officers are not assigned to the housing units.
111. Conduct a review, at least annually, to determine whether the incident, use of force, grievance reporting, and IAD systems comply with the requirements of this Agreement and are effective at ensuring staff compliance with their constitutional obligations. The County must make any changes to the reporting systems that it determines are necessary as a result of the system reviews. These reviews and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant There has been no annual review pursuant to this paragraph.
112. Ensure that the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance systems include an Early Intervention component to alert Administrators of potential problems with staff members. The purpose of the Early Intervention System is to identify and address patterns of behavior or allegations which may indicate staff training deficiencies, persistent policy violations, misconduct, or criminal activity. As part of the Early Intervention process, incident reports, use of force reports, and prisoner grievances must be screened by designated staff members for such patterns. If misconduct, criminal activity, or behaviors indicate the need for corrective action, the screening staff must refer the incidents or allegations to Jail supervisors, administrators, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies for investigation. Additionally:
109

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 110 of 117
a. The Early Intervention System may be integrated with other database and computerized tracking systems required by this Agreement, provided any unified system otherwise still meets the terms of this Agreement.
b. The Early Intervention System must screen for staff members who may be using excessive force, regardless of whether use of force reviews concluded that the uses complied with Jail policies and this Agreement. This provision allows identification of staff members who may still benefit from additional training and serves as a check on any deficiencies with use of force by field supervisors.
c. The Jail Administrator, or designee of at least Captain rank, must personally review Early Intervention System data and alerts at least quarterly. The Administrator, or designee, must document when reviews were conducted as well as any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken.
d. The County must maintain a list of any staff members identified by the Early Intervention System as possibly needing additional training or discipline. A copy of this list must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
e. The County must take appropriate, documented, and corrective action when staff members have been identified as engaging in misconduct, criminal activity, or a pattern of violating Jail policies.
f. The County must review the Early Intervention System, at least bi-annually, to ensure that it is effective and used to identify staff members who may need additional training or discipline. The County must document any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken as a result of these reviews. Copies of these reviews must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
Non-Compliant There is currently no Early Intervention program.
113. Develop and implement policies and procedures for Jail databases, tracking systems, and computerized records (including the Early Intervention System), that ensure both functionality and data security. The policies and procedures must address all of the following issues: data storage, data retrieval, data reporting, data analysis and pattern identification, supervisor responsibilities, standards used to determine possible violations and corrective action, documentation, legal issues, staff and prisoner privacy rights, system security, and audit mechanisms.
Non-Compliant The initial P&P Manual that was issued in April, 2017 did not include policies and procedures covering this matter. There is no draft of such a policy at this time.
110

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 111 of 117
114. Ensure that the Jail’s medical staff are included as part of the continuous improvement and quality assurance process. At minimum, medical and mental health staff must be included through all of the following mechanisms:
a. Medical staff must have the independent authority to promptly refer cases of suspected assault or abuse to the Jail Administrator, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies;
b. Medical staff representatives must be involved in mortality reviews and systemic reviews of serious incidents. At minimum, a physician must prepare a mortality review within 30 days of every prisoner death. An outside physician must review any mortalities associated with treatment by Jail physicians.
Partial Compliance Medical staff are not included in the review of serious incidents. This was discussed in a joint meeting between QCHC staff and command staff during the September site visit. It was decided that the Interdisciplinary Team meetings would be reinstituted and one task of the Team would be to review serious incidents. There is no indication that this has occurred. Medical staff do have independent authority to refer cases of assault or abuse.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
115. Hinds County will establish a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (“Coordinating Committee”) with subject matter expertise and experience that will assist in streamlining criminal justice processes and identify and develop solutions and interventions designed to lead to diversion from arrest, detention, and incarceration. The Coordinating Committee will focus particularly on diversion of individuals with serious mental illness and juveniles. Using the Sequential Intercept Model, or an alternative acceptable to the Parties, the Coordinating Committee will identify strategies for diversion at each intercept point where individuals may encounter the criminal justice system and will assess the County’s current diversion efforts and unmet service needs in order to identify opportunities for successful diversion of such individuals. The Committee will recommend appropriate changes to policies and procedures and additional services necessary to increase diversion.
Partial Compliance Hinds County had previously contracted with Justice Management Institute (JMI) to provide consulting and assist in implementing a CJCC. Those efforts were primarily focused on getting the CJCC implemented and developing a strategic plan. Hinds County is to be commended for getting the CJCC implemented and continuing its facilitation of those meetings despite a lack of participation by some key players. This paragraph is carried as partial compliance because it also requires that Hinds County establish a CJCC that has the subject matter expertise and experience to identify and develop solutions and interventions. Although the stakeholders that do participate
111

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 112 of 117
have expertise within their areas, the participants do not have the expertise in criminal justice system reform including diversion that would allow the CJCC to meet the requirements of this paragraph. As both JMI and the monitoring team have recommended, in order to have a CJCC with sufficient subject matter expertise and experience to carry out the mandate of this paragraph, the County will need to provide staff support. Among other duties, staff duties will include collection and analysis of data, facilitation, research and analysis, presentation, project management, consultation, and distribution of information to the policy makers on the committee so that they have the information they need to make policy decisions. The County had stated that it was going to hire a CJCC Coordinator. However, during this site visit, the monitoring team was informed that the Criminal Justice and Quality Control staff person (sometimes called the Court Liaison) was assigned to be the CJCC Coordinator and the Pre-Trial Services Director required by the Stipulated Order. This will not meet the requirements of this paragraph or the Stipulated Order as having both of these roles as well as the duties of her other full time position does not allow her to devote sufficient time to any of these roles to be effective. The requirement that the Committee identify opportunities for diversion and recommend measures to accomplish this has not been achieved. At this time, the County will need to drive the process of the CJCC identifying opportunities for diversion.
The Sequential Intercept Mapping required by this paragraph has already taken place under a grant to the Hinds County Behavioral Health from the GAINS Center. A two-day meeting was held on August 16-17, 2017 with broad participation including the County and Jail. The Sequential Intercept Model provides a conceptual framework for communities to use when considering the interface between the criminal justice and mental health systems as they address concerns about the criminalization of inmates with mental health illness. The GAINS center completed the report for Hinds County Behavioral Health. It includes recommendations for creating or improving intercepts in the jail and at release. This provides a useful road map for CJCC and for achieving compliance with the diversion and discharge planning requirements of the Settlement Agreement. However, staff support will still be needed to drive this effort. An update of the Sequential Intercept Map should be considered as the initial mapping will soon be two years old. This would be a useful activity for the CJCC.
116. The Coordinating Committee will include representation from the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office and Hinds County Board of Supervisors. The County will also seek representation from Hinds County Behavioral Health Services; the Jackson Police Department; Mississippi Department of Mental Health; Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services; judges from the Hinds County Circuit, Chancery, and County (Youth and Justice) Courts; Hinds County District Attorney Office; Hinds County Public Defender Office; relevant Jackson city officials; and private advocates or other interested community members.
Partial Compliance
112

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 113 of 117
As noted above the CJCC has met only twice in the last 12 months, the last meeting being in February. Not all of the identified agencies have been invited or represented at the meeting. The reported intention is to expand representation after further development. Although the County cannot control the participation of others, staff support would assist in engaging other stakeholders.
117. The Coordinating Committee will prioritize enhancing coordination with local behavioral health systems, with the goal of connecting individuals experiencing mental health crisis, including juveniles, with available services to avoid unnecessary arrest, detention, and incarceration.
Partial Compliance The CJCC adopted its strategic plan. Enhancing behavioral health services for justice involved individuals is included as a strategic priority. Hinds County Behavioral Health has participated in the CJCC. Further observation of the CJCC and the County’s leadership in the CJCC will be necessary to determine if behavioral health services are a priority in CJCC actions and deliberation.
118. Within 30 days of the Effective Date and in consultation with the United States, the County will select and engage an outside consultant to provide technical assistance to the County and Coordinating Committee regarding strategies for reducing the jail population and increasing diversion from criminal justice involvement, particularly for individuals with mental illness and juveniles. This technical assistance will include (a) a comprehensive review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing efforts to reduce recidivism and increase diversion; (b) identification of gaps in the current efforts, (c) recommendations of actions and strategies to achieve diversion and reduce recidivism; and (d) estimates of costs and cost savings associated with those strategies. The review will include interviews with representatives from the agencies and entities referenced in Paragraph 116 and other relevant stakeholders as necessary for a thorough evaluation and recommendation. Within 120 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the outside consultant will finalize and make public a report regarding the results of their assessment and recommendations. The Coordinating Committee will implement the recommended strategies and will continue to use the outside consultant to assist with implementation of the strategies when appropriate.
Partial Compliance The County did contract with an outside consultant, JMI, to provide technical assistance in developing the CJCC. However, that contract did not encompass the requirements listed above regarding an assessment of and recommendations for strategies to reduce recidivism and increase diversion. That contract ended over a year ago and the County has not renewed the contract with JMI.
113

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 114 of 117

IMPLEMENTATION, TIMING, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

Paragraphs 119 and 120 regarding duty to implement and effective date omitted.

121. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County must distribute copies

of the Agreement to all prisoners and Jail staff, including all medical and security staff, with

appropriate explanation as to the staff members’ obligations under the Agreement. At minimum:

a. A copy of the Agreement must be posted in each unit (including booking/intake

and medical areas), and program rooms (e.g., classrooms and any library).

b.

Individual copies of the Agreement must be provided to prisoners upon request.

Partial Compliance Initially, the HCSO/Detention Services printed a booklet-sized version of the Settlement Agreement which was distributed to staff. Whether or not it is still provided to new employees is undetermined. It was previously recommended that the Director of Training should include a segment of the annual in-service training program to include the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. The inability to be on site during the June remote site visit made it impractical for members of the monitoring team to determine whether or not conditions have regressed, remained the same or improved.

POLICY AND PROCEDURE REVIEW

130. The County must review all existing policies and procedures to ensure their compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. Where the Jail does not have a policy or procedure in place that complies with the terms of this Agreement, the County must draft such a policy or procedure, or revise its existing policy or procedure.

Partial Compliance This provision has been changed back to partial compliance. An initial attempt to draft policies and procedures was made in early 2017. The monitoring team and DOJ provided comments but the policies really needed to be rewritten. The plan to hire outside consultants fell through and there was no apparent progress. Since that time, Jail staff has been working with Karen Albert of the monitoring team to develop policies and procedures. A number of draft policies have been provided and at this time, twenty-one policies have been approved. It does not appear that there is a system in the policy development to incorporate requirements of the Settlement Agreement. There are some concrete requirements in the Settlement Agreement that could be addressed in the draft policies that get missed. A systematic approach to incorporating Settlement Agreement requirements in the draft policies would be valuable.

114

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 115 of 117
131. The County shall complete its policy and procedure review and revision within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
Non-Compliant Twenty-one policies and procedures have now been approved and several others have been drafted and circulated. There are many outstanding policies to be written but progress is being made.
132. Once the County reviews and revises its policies and procedures, the County must provide a copy of its policies and procedures to the United States and the Monitor for review and comment. The County must address all comments and make any changes requested by the United States or the Monitor within thirty (30) days after receiving the comments and resubmit the policies and procedures to the United States and Monitor for review.
Partial Compliance Draft policies are being provided to DOJ and the Monitor for review. As noted above, many policies still have to be written.
133. No later than three months after the United States’ approval of each policy and procedure, the County must adopt and begin implementing the policy and procedure, while also modifying all post orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the policies and procedures.
Non-Compliant In addition to completing the development of policies, this paragraph also requires that all the steps necessary to appropriately implement the new policies be undertaken. This has yet to be fully evaluated. The training process for the new policies will require extensive effort to develop training materials and provide training to all staff.
134. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, all new or revised policies and procedures must be implemented within six months of the United States’ approval of the policy or procedure.
Partial Compliance There have been twenty-one policies approved by DOJ. It does not appear that the policies have been fully incorporated into the training curriculum and some of the procedures have not yet been implemented. Most importantly, there are many policies yet to be drafted.
115

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 116 of 117
135. The County must annually review its policies and procedures, revising them as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures must be submitted to the United States and the Monitor for approval in accordance with paragraphs 129-131 above.
Non-Compliant This paragraph is now carried as non-compliant instead of not applicable because under the timeline established by the consent decree an annual review would now be due.
COUNTY ASSESSMENT AND COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR
Paragraphs 136 through 158 on Monitor duties omitted.
159. The County must file a self-assessment compliance report. The first compliance selfassessment report must be filed with the Court within four months of the Effective Date and at least one month before a Monitor site visit. Each self-assessment compliance report must describe in detail the actions the County has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and must make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. The report must include information supporting the County’s representations regarding its compliance with the Agreement such as quality assurance information, trends, statistical data, and remedial activities. Supporting information should be based on reports or data routinely collected as part of the audit and quality assurance activities required by this Agreement (e.g., incident, use of force, system, maintenance, and early intervention), rather than generated only to support representations made in the self-assessment.
Non-Compliant At the time of the October 2017 site visit, the County provided its first self-assessment. The selfassessment was not provided prior to the May 2018 site visit. A self-assessment was provided the week prior to the September 2018 site visit. The assessment was a significant step forward but did not include the level of detail required by this paragraph. A self-assessment was not provided prior to the January, May, or September, 2019 or the January, or June 2020 site visit. This paragraph is now carried as non-compliant based on this history. It should be noted that this requirement is not intended to be merely a bureaucratic requirement. Internal tracking of the Settlement Agreement requirements, remedial efforts, and progress towards the goals is a useful, if not essential, strategy in achieving compliance. The County has provided a self-assessment of the requirements of the Stipulated Order. However, this provision of the Settlement Agreement requires a self-assessment of compliance with the requirements of the entire Settlement Agreement.
160. The County must designate a full-time Compliance Coordinator to coordinate compliance activities required by this Agreement. This person will serve as a primary point of contact for
116

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 75 Filed 08/04/20 Page 117 of 117
the Monitor. Two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties may consult with each other and the Monitor to determine whether the Compliance Coordinator’s hours may be reduced. The Parties may then stipulate to any agreed reduction in hours. Sustained Compliance The County has designated a full-time Compliance Coordinator who is coordinating compliance activities. EMERGENT CONDITIONS 161. The County must notify the Monitor and United States of any prisoner death, riot, escape, injury requiring hospitalization, or over-detention of a prisoner (i.e. failure to release a prisoner before 11:59 PM on the day she or he was entitled to be released), within 3 days of learning of the event. Partial Compliance Immediate notifications are being provided. One concern is that there was an incident on May 18, 2020 which was labeled in the incident report as a riot. The Rapid Notification provided called the incident a minor disturbance. The incident involved the inmates from one housing unit “popping” the recreation door to another housing unit and rushing in. Four inmates received medical attention on site for lacerations, bruises, abrasions and puncture wounds. The officers retreated to the control room. It would not be accurate to describe this incident as a minor disturbance. It is important that the reporting not only be timely but also be accurate. Paragraphs 162-167 regarding jurisdiction, construction and the PLRA omitted.
117

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 91
Court-Appointed Monitor’s Fifth Monitoring Report United States v. Hinds County, et al. Civ. No. 3:16cv489 WHB-JCG

Elizabeth E. Simpson Court-Appointed Monitor

David M. Parrish

Jacqueline M. Moore Jim Moeser Dr. Richard Dudley

Corrections Operations Corrections Medicine Juvenile Justice Mental Health

1

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 2 of 91
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Corrections Operations
As has been reported previously, the critical lack of staff makes compliance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement problematic. Since the last site visit, the Detention Services Division (DSD) has lost a net of ten positions. Of the targeted 275 positions for the current fiscal year, only 231 are filled. This represents a decrease in filled positions of 20 since October 2017. Further, there has been no apparent action taken to reallocate financial resources to reach the goal of 275 funded positions during the current fiscal year.
The DSD continues to operate without an acceptable Policies and Procedures Manual, nor does it have relevant Post Orders located at each designated post throughout the three facilities. The contractual arrangement with Dr. James Austin to prepare the Manual was never finalized, leaving the HCSO, once again, without a plan in place to complete this basic component of compliance with the Settlement Agreement. At this point, it appears that Karen Albert, who has been providing technical assistance as part of the monitoring team, will assist with the development of policies dealing with Classification, Records and Booking. The Sheriff’s Legal Counsel and the Compliance Coordinator will address other critical policies.
Major maintenance issues in all three jails continue to remain uncorrected. At the Raymond Detention Center (RDC), two main corridor doors (Pods B and C), internal corridor doors in the pods and the control room doors in Pods A and B have been non-functional for many months (see the Third and Fourth Monitoring Reports). Now a primary entrance door to Booking as well as the Master Control Center entry door must be added to that list. At the Work Center (WC) the door to HU 4 does not lock, either with a key or electronic control, and the door to H U 1 can only be operated with a key since the electronic control does not function. The HVAC issues associated with the opening of HU 3 have still not been corrected, so that 64 bed unit remains vacant. At the Jackson Detention Center (JDC) a corridor door on the third floor cannot be locked. As is the case with staffing, maintenance issues appear to be regressing instead of improving.
Paragraph 46 of the Settlement Agreement includes several sub-paragraphs that address the need for the Jail Administrator to have control over the operations of the Jail. Concerns have been raised about the authority of the Jail Administrator to control operations both in terms of making decisions that require approval of others and others making decisions that undermine her control of operations. Two events after the site visit highlight this problem and are in non-compliance with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. The recent removal of the Deputy Jail Administrator and replacement by a new individual is contrary to subparagraph (a). That
2

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 3 of 91
provision states that policies, procedures, and practices must ensure that the Jail Administrator has the authority to make personnel decisions necessary to ensure adequate staffing, staff discipline, and staff oversight. This personnel authority must include the power to hire, transfer, and discipline staff. The Deputy Jail Administrator’s removal and replacement appears to have been done without the knowledge of the Jail Administrator who was on medical leave and certainly without the knowledge and approval of the Acting Jail Administrator who was the one removed. There was no documentation of the reason for removal. On a substantive level, there was no adequate process for transition in this key position. The resume of the new Deputy Jail Administrator has been requested but not yet received. At a minimum, it appears he has not had Jail Administrator training prior to placement as required by the Agreement. This is not to weigh in at this time on his suitability for the position, but the process was in non-compliance with the Agreement and is destabilizing for the staff. In addition, the process surrounding this event also highlights communication issues with the monitoring team. The Monitor attempted to speak with the Sheriff about this action twice by leaving voice mail messages, once by emailing a request for a telephone conference, and in a series of communications with the Sheriff’s attorney. No response by the Sheriff was provided.
Also relating to the authority of Jail Administrator over the operations of the jail, the recent shakedown on 6-7-18 was contrary to the requirements of 46 (b) which provides that the Jail Administrator must have the ability to monitor, ensure compliance with Jail policies, and take corrective action, for any staff members operating in the Jail and explicitly includes emergency response/tactical teams entering the Jail to conduct random shakedowns or to suppress prisoner disturbances. The shakedown was conducted by road deputies and Mississippi Dept. of Corrections officers without the approval or oversight by the Acting Jail Administrator. The need for jail staff oversight is apparent in the fact that the shakedown officers shot off a 12-guage shot gun (blanks) to create a “noise diversion.” Firearms should not be present in the jail except in extremely limited circumstances not present here.
A plan to implement Direct Supervision training was set forth in the Fourth Monitoring Report; however, because of fiscal issues at the federal level, technical assistance from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), is not currently available. An alternative option is available by having the Sheriff submit a letter to NIC requesting that a Cooperative Agreement be put in place to provide on-site training for command and line staff.
The County previously retained the services of JBHM Architects to plan for renovations of Booking at the RDC in order to make it operate as an “open booking”, i.e. direct supervision facility. In order to make the structural changes without negatively impacting booking activities, JBHM created a plan to temporarily relocate Booking to the WC. That also provided the opportunity to create a secure drive through the sally port at the WC so that inmates do not have to be processed through the public lobby as they are currently. It now appears that the County’s
3

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 4 of 91
plans have run into a financial roadblock. Recognizing that there are insufficient funds available to implement major facility renovations, and that there are not enough officers to fill existing positions, it is incumbent upon the County to re-examine the option of closing the JDC as a jail and repurposing it as a court transfer facility. This would have the added benefit of freeing up to 30 officers to staff the vacancies at the RDC and WC.
The automated report writing system that was developed for the Detention Services Division (DSD) is not consistent with the system used by the law enforcement side of the HCSO. Two previous meetings with operational and IT staff attempted to address the discrepancies and to make it useful to the reader and compliant with the Settlement Agreement. To date, those efforts have failed, but a third such meeting during the May site visit may prove to have positive results. If IT is able to make a number of practical changes, the DSD should be able to gather data and incident report information in a form that makes it possible to comply with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement.
Fire safety is a critical area of concern in the operation of any jail. In Hinds County the physical plant changes that resulted from the removal of the unit officers from the inmate housing areas, and a subsequent major riot, have never been corrected. Fire extinguishers and fire hoses are no longer available in the housing units at the RDC. Staff do not have keys readily available to those fire extinguishers and fire hose boxes that are located in the common areas. A concerted effort to re-establish fire safety as a priority needs to be implemented.
Medical and Mental Health
Since the January/February 2018 site visit, there have been significant and quite meaningful advances made with regard to the provision of core mental health services. More specifically, the mental health evaluation process, the psychiatric evaluation process, and the treatment plan development process have all been better defined; there are new forms for documenting these processes as well as new forms for recording follow-up mental health and psychiatric sessions; and while the evaluations and treatment that is now being done is being done consistent with these better defined and implemented processes, there is also an effort underway to evaluate, plan for, and treat prisoners who were already on the mental health caseload in a manner that is consistent with these revised policies and procedures.
At the May 2018 site visit, there was a joint meeting of mental health and security staff focused on areas of overlapping concern and responsibility, such as the review of prisoners in segregation, disciplinary review, and security use of force, especially with prisoners who are suffering from mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities. Another major area of focus during the May site visit was discharge planning, and what is required to refer prisoners for communitybased mental health services in a way that is most likely to be successful.
4

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 5 of 91
There continues to be concern about the adequacy of mental health staffing levels, and so a mental health staffing analysis is recommended. This analysis must be performed with full awareness of the already expanded responsibilities of mental health staff that have resulted from the above noted revisions of mental health policies and procedures; a full awareness of expansions in the mental health program that will be required to meet the provisions of this agreement; and an awareness of other mental health responsibilities that have only begun to be considered such as mental health’s responsibilities with regard to PREA, quality assurance review, and the data collection and organization of data required for the various levels of quality assurance review.
Youthful Offenders
This visit provided the opportunity for the expert on juvenile justice to spend the majority of his time at the Henley Young facility and dig deeper into the successes and challenges of the transition of Juveniles Charged as Adults (JCAs) to that facility. At the time of the visit, there were fourteen JCA youth at Henley Young and only five JCA youth remaining at the Raymond Detention Center (RDC). As youth continue to “age out” of the youth unit at RDC, it appears that no later than November of this year there will be no JCA youth at RDC.
While placement at Henley Young remains a vast improvement over RDC, there has been a notable increase in the frequency and nature of behavioral issues among JCA youth. This has been most evidenced by a growing use of segregation/isolation as a disciplinary response to youth misbehavior and noncompliance. Many of the recommendations contained in prior reports and/or requirements of the Settlement Agreement have not been implemented, so it is not surprising that the hopes of a successful transition are running into the reality of dealing with older, long-term youth. The core elements of the facility, staff, and program remain a reasonable foundation to build on, but language contained in the previous report perhaps foretells the state of the situation as observed in May.
Concerns about the limitations of the Henley Young facility have been referenced in prior reports and should be given heightened attention as the time to make decisions and facility improvements is before problems occur, not after. Therefore, the most important recommendation conveyed in this report is that a plan be developed as soon as possible including action steps, timetables, and resources needed to address the concerns at Henley Young so that youth from RDC can be successfully housed there.
The current situation is complicated further by the temporary absence of Mr. McDaniels, Executive Director of Henley Young, which places an added burden on the key leaders remaining at Henley Young who are doing their best to keep up with the changes and challenges faced by holding JCA youth. Nonetheless, while meeting the requirements related
5

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 6 of 91
to youthful offenders, let alone the Settlement Agreement as a whole, seems overwhelming the importance of fully committing to this type of planning and step-by-step implementation of changes remains the most important blueprint to moving forward.
Criminal Justice and System Issues
Little has changed since the last site visit. The Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) has continued to meet. Some agencies are still not participating but will hopefully engage as it becomes clear that the collaborative effort can address issues of interest to all the stakeholders.
The County continues to have no one incarcerated on unlawful orders regarding fines and fees but has not yet adopted policies to ensure a process for addressing this should such orders be used in the future. These policies have been initiated and are undergoing review by the policy and procedure team and then the administration for final approval. The full time Quality Control Officer who was newly hired at the last visit has gained experience and is identifying people who should be or can be released. However, this continues to be a reactive process responding to inmate grievances and requests. As previously reported it continues to be difficult to track individuals in the records system. There continue to be three individuals maintaining separate manual spreadsheets outside the case management system. In addition, there continues to be an unclear line of authority between Records and Booking for overseeing the documentation. Previously reported systemic challenges continue to exist. As a result, a number of people were identified who had been detained beyond their release date and there is inadequate documentation for the detention of others. Consultation with the monitoring team’s expert, Karen Albert, took place after the site visit and following that visit, policies and procedures have been drafted and are being vetted.
The paper grievance system was replaced by a computerized system. Some of the initial problems have been remedied but the system still does not function well. The staff has learned to run reports to find grievances that drop off the current listing without a response. However, at the time of the site visit, the Work Center grievance officer could not run such a report and Medical had not been trained on running the report. There is no procedure to oversee the actual implementation of grievance responses. The system is also either dysfunctional or not understood in its ability to generate reports. The staff does not know how to generate reports, if it is possible, to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement or be useful to them.
Compliance with PREA continues to improve. Some orientation of inmates and training of staff has occurred. Some posters are now up identifying reporting mechanisms. The reporting mechanisms were not fully in place at the time of the site visit. At that time, most inmates and staff have not received orientation or training. There is also concern that some of the PREA policies said to be in place were not actually functioning as they should. In particular, potential
6

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 7 of 91

victims although identified did not appear to be classified to the most appropriate housing. This area will require some attention at the higher administrative levels to begin to move towards compliance.
Monitoring Activities
The Monitoring Team conducted a Site Visit May 22nd through May 25th. The site visit schedule was as follows:

May 22nd through May 25th Site Visit Schedule

Date Tuesday a.m.

Lisa Meeting with Fielder Tour Booking and meet with Booking staff

Dave Meeting with Fielder Tour RDC

Jim Meet with Burnside, Dorsey, principal, case managers, Dr. Payne

Jackie Meet briefly with HSA and DON Tour RDC

Dudley Meet briefly with HSA and DON Tour RDC

Tuesday p.m.
Wednesday a.m.
Wednesday p.m.

Observe RDC booking Meet with Jones on grievances and review grievances Meet with Ken Lewis Meet with Sgt. Tillman Review records Meet with Moore re PREA
Meet with IT re update on reportsreview what can be seen in JMS

Meet with Fire Safety officer Meet with property officer Continue tour of RDC Meet with Training captain Meet with Recruitment Officer Continue at RDC
Meet with IT re update on reports-review what can be seen in JMS

Review files Tour HY
Review education file/records
Continue at HY, review medical records and video
Review files, incident reports, observation logs Meet with staff; program presentation
Meet with SPLC

Observe competency restoration
Review records
Tour JDC
Review Records
Tour WC
Review Records
Meet with Discharge Planner

Tour RDC Tour WC
Tour JDC Meet with Hinds County Behavioral Health
Meet with Mental Health team
Meet with Discharge Planner

7

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 8 of 91

Thursday a.m. Thursday p.m.

Meet with Deputy County Manager: Convey PTS info, discuss repairs JDCgrievances WC grievances, fines and fees, daily credit

Tour JDC Meet with Deputy County Manager re repairs
Tour WC
Tour RDC

Friday a.m.

8:30 to10:00 Exit meeting 10:00 to 12:00 Meeting with counsel and command staff re priority items

Exit meeting
Meeting with counsel and command staff re priority items

RDC-Review individual files, interview youth

RDC-booking

Henley Young Review records, interview youth, observe disciplinary hearing Exit meeting

Records Exit meeting

Review Records
Meet with Interdisciplinary team; review policies and procedures
Exit meeting

COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW
The Monitoring Team will track progress towards compliance with the following chart. This chart will be added to with each Monitoring Report showing the date of the site visit and the number of Settlement Agreement requirements in full, partial or non-compliance. Requirements that have not yet been triggered such as an annual review are listed as NA (not applicable) at this time. Sustained compliance is achieved when compliance with a particular Settlement Agreement requirement has been sustained for 18 months or more. The count of 92 requirements is determined by the number of Settlement Agreement paragraphs which have substantive requirements. Introductory paragraphs and general provisions are not included. Some paragraphs may have multiple requirements which are evaluated independently in the text of the report but are included as one requirement for purposes of this chart. The provisions on Youthful Offenders were evaluated in the text below for compliance at Henley Young and Raymond Detention Center but only the results for Raymond Detention Center are included in the totals in this chart.

8

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 9 of 91

Site Visit
Date
2/7-10/17
6/1316/17 10/1620/17 1/262/2/18 5/2225/18

Sustained Compliance 0 0
0
0
0

Substantial Compliance 1 1
1
1
1

Partial Compliance 4 18
26
29
30

NA at this time
2 2

NonCompliant 85 71

1

64

0

62

0

61

Total
92 92 92 92 92

INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS

Text of paragraphs 1-34 regarding “Parties,” “Introduction,” and “Definitions” omitted.

SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS

PROTECTION FROM HARM

Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to provide prisoners with safety, protect prisoners from violence committed by other prisoners, and ensure that prisoners are not subjected to abuse by Jail staff. To that end, the County must:

37. Develop and implement policies and procedures to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment for prisoners and staff. Such policies and procedures must include the following:
a. Booking; b. Objective classification; c. Housing assignments; d. Prisoner supervision; e. Prisoner welfare and security checks (“rounds”); f. Posts and post orders; g. Searches; h. Use of force; i. Incident reporting; j. Internal investigations; k. Prisoner rights; l. Medical and mental health care; m. Exercise and treatment activities; n. Laundry; o. Food services;
9

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 10 of 91
p. Hygiene; q. Emergency procedures; r. Grievance procedures; and s. Sexual abuse and misconduct.
Non-Compliant This provision has been changed from partial compliance to non-compliant. An initial attempt was made to draft policies and procedures in early 2017. The Monitoring Team and DOJ provided comments but the policies essentially needed to be rewritten. The County identified a consulting team to assist with the policies but that has apparently fallen through. The County informed the monitoring team that the plan is back to preparing the policies and procedures inhouse. Because there has been no apparent forward progress, this provision has been changed to non-compliant. At present, the Monitor’s expert dealing with Classification and Records consolidation is expected to work on policies associated with Classification, Records and Booking. The County’s Compliance Coordinator and the Sheriff’s in house legal counsel will address other priority areas of concern unless a satisfactory alternative can be found.
Since the January/February 2018 site visit, there has been a considerable effort by Quality Correctional Health Care (QCHC) to update or create new QCHC mental health policies and procedures. There has also been considerable effort to update or create forms for recording mental health activities such as an initial mental health assessment, an initial psychiatric examination, a psychiatric progress note, a follow-up mental health treatment session/progress note, and a mental health treatment plan. These policies and procedures were carefully reviewed and discussed with staff during the site visit, and by and large, they were quite good. The forms were also reviewed, and for the most part, they were found to include the important clinical information that should be assessed and recorded.
Further improvement of the various mental health policies and procedures should include: (1) Where appropriate, a clear distinction should be made between ‘emergency’, ‘urgent’ and ‘routine’ responses, with specific time periods given for each type of response; (2) The frequency of visits for various different types of visits should also be established in accordance with recognized standards of practice. For example, it should be clear how soon an individual newly placed on medication should be seen again for psychiatric follow-up with regard to an assessment of efficacy, adverse effects and the individual’s compliance with treatment, and then how frequently the individual should be seen once stabilized on medication. Similarly, it should be clear how frequently an individual on the mental health case load should be seen for a mental health follow-up appointment; (3) Where appropriate, it should be clear what level of training and expertise is required to perform certain tasks, such as to order or discontinue suicide watch.
As was requested by the mental health expert, there was also a joint meeting of all mental health staff during the May 2018 site visit, which was apparently a fairly unusual event that should be
10

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 11 of 91
happening on a regular basis. This provided an opportunity to review policies, procedures, and the above noted forms with the entire staff, and also provided an opportunity to discuss other steps that must be taken to address the provisions of the Settlement Agreement.
There continue to be concerns about the medication administration that needs to be addressed by adoption and implementation of policies and procedures. Two nurses have been permanently assigned to perform pill pass at the Raymond Facility. Observation made during pill pass indicated that neither nurses nor officers routinely checked the inmate’s mouth for hoarding their medication. Charting is not performed in real time but done after the medication pass is finished using the pill envelops as a guide as to whether the inmate took his medicines. After the nurses come back to the clinic they then go back to the housing units to obtain refusals from inmates. Medication Administration was also observed at the work center. The nurse also pre-poured her medication but did chart it in actual time. Again, officers and the nurse were not diligent in checking to see that the inmate actually swallowed his medication. Medication administration should be charted in actual time.
38. Ensure that the Jail is overseen by a qualified Jail Administrator and a leadership team with substantial education, training and experience in the management of a large jail, including at least five years of related management experience for their positions, and a bachelor’s degree. When the Jail Administrator is absent or if the position becomes vacant, a qualified deputy administrator with comparable education, training, and experience, must serve as acting Jail Administrator.
Partial Compliance As was previously reported, this paragraph is carried as being in Partial Compliance because of the Jail Administrator’s lack of a BA degree. Since the last site inspection, Captain Chandler resigned from his position in charge of the WC and was replaced by Lt. Anthony Simon who was promoted to Captain. Although he has no college education, he has extensive experience with the HCSO, from 2000 to 2006 (left at the rank of Sergeant) and from 2015 to the present. He was promoted to Sergeant in 2015 and Lieutenant in 2017. Shortly after the site visit, the Deputy Jail Administrator was replaced by a new individual. The monitoring team has not received a copy of his resume to determine his qualifications for the position consistent with this requirement.
39. Ensure that all Jail supervisors have the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing needed to effectively supervise both prisoners and other staff members. At minimum, Jail supervisors must have at least 3 years of field experience, including experience working in the Jail. They must also be familiar with Jail policies and procedures, the terms of this Agreement, and prisoner rights.
11

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 12 of 91
Partial Compliance Until there are policies and procedures, the supervisors will not be able to be familiar with them. Since the last site visit a number of individuals have been promoted. They include the following:
B. W.—was previously employed by the HCSO from 1997 to 2012. He was re-employed in August 2017 and was promoted to Sergeant in February 2018. He has a high school diploma and is qualified as an EMT and Nursing Assistant. K. C.—was previously employed by the HCSO from 2008 to 2010, when he was terminated for excessive use of force. He was rehired in January 2011 but was then suspended for five days in 2013. Promoted to Sergeant in May 2018, he has a two-year college degree. G. N.—was employed in 2008 and was promoted to Sergeant in March 2018. Although he has a high school diploma and ten years as a Sheriff’s Office employee, his personnel file does not account for 18 years of his life between 1981 and 1999. K. J.—was employed in 2013 and was promoted directly to Lieutenant in 2018. Prior to being employed by the HCSO she served for a year with the Mississippi Department of Corrections. She has a high school education. K. M.—was employed by the HCSO from 2001 to 2013 and held the rank of Sergeant when he resigned. From 2013 to 2017 he worked for the Oakley Youth Development Facility. He has a high school education. He was re-employed by the HCSO in December 2017 and was promoted to the rank of Sergeant in January 2018.
40. Ensure that no one works in the Jail unless they have passed a background check, including a criminal history check.
Non-Compliant The Jail has still not complied with previous requests to provide a listing of all current employees, their date of employment and the date of their background check. Until the HCSO provides documentation reflecting that all employees have successfully passed a background check, including a criminal history check, this paragraph will continue to be carried as NonCompliant.
41. Ensure that Jail policies and procedures provide for the “direct supervision” of all Jail housing units.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph. The Policies and Procedures Manual has yet to be published. Further, no staff members have received training with regard to the principles and dynamics of direct supervision. One of the Priority Recommendations made by the monitoring team has been for the County to coordinate with the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to provide “Train the Trainers” support. To date that has not been
12

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 13 of 91
accomplished. Since NIC’s budget was cut by approximately 50% this year, there is no funding available for a Technical Assistance grant; however, money is available, through a Cooperative Agreement arrangement, to provide the specified direct supervision training. The Sheriff’s Office has submitted the request to the NIC with a copy provided to the monitoring team.
42. Ensure that the Jail has sufficient staffing to adequately supervise prisoners, fulfill the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the safe operation of the Jail. The parties recognize that the Board allocates to the Sheriff lump sum funding on a quarterly basis. The Sheriff recognizes that sufficient staffing of the Jail should be a priority for utilizing those funds. To that end, the County must at minimum:
a. Hire and retain sufficient numbers of detention officers to ensure that: i. There are at least two detention officers in each control room at all times; ii. There are at least three detention officers at all times for each housing unit, booking area, and the medical unit;
iii. There are rovers to provide backup and assistance to other posts; iv. Prisoners have access to exercise, medical treatment, mental health
treatment, and attorney visitation as scheduled; v. There are sufficient detention officers to implement this Agreement. b. Fund and obtain a formal staffing and needs assessment (“study”) that determines with particularity the minimum number of staff and facility improvements required to implement this Agreement. As an alternative to a new study, the September 2014 study by the National Institute of Corrections may be updated if the updated study includes current information for the elements listed below. The study or study update must be completed within six months of the Effective Date and must include the following elements: i. The staffing element of the study must identify all required posts and
positions, as well as the minimum number and qualifications of staff to cover each post and position. ii. The study must ensure that the total number of recommended positions includes a “relief factor” so that necessary posts remain covered regardless of staff vacancies, turnover, vacations, illness, holidays, or other temporary factors impacting day-to-day staffing. iii. As part of any needs assessment, the study’s authors must estimate the number of prisoners expected to be held in the Jail and identify whether additional facilities, including housing, may be required. c. Once completed, the County must provide the United States and the Monitor with a copy of the study and a plan for implementation of the study’s recommendations. Within one year after the Monitor’s and United States’ review of the study and plan, the County must fund and implement the staffing and
13

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 14 of 91
facility improvements recommended by the study, as modified and approved by the United States. d. The staffing study shall be updated at least annually and staffing adjusted accordingly to ensure continued compliance with this Agreement. The parties recognize that salaries are an important factor to recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, so the County will also annually evaluate salaries. e. The County will also create, to the extent possible, a career ladder and system of retention bonuses for Jail staff.
Non-Compliant While this paragraph was previously carried as being in Partial Compliance, the lack of progress, as exemplified by a net loss of 20 personnel during the past eight months, warrants a change to Non-Compliant. At the JDC and the WC, required posts are generally filled, but at the RDC, the largest facility in the Jail System, there has been no progress toward filling essential posts. The only housing unit that has an assigned officer (inside the unit) is A-1 which houses only five juveniles. All of the adult male housing units are still left unattended. In Booking, only one officer is assigned to the processing area to conduct well-being checks on those detainees who are housed in holding cells for up to eight hours.
The current staffing is inadequate to safely operate the jail. Serious inmate assaults included inmates with the following injuries: 1. 4/18/18 A scalp laceration and contusion of his head. 2. 4/19/18 A head injury and laceration of his face with sutures above his left eyebrow. 3. 4/19/18 A concussion and facial contusion. 4. 4/22/18 An assault by seven inmates with some kind of weapon. The inmate has two broken hands and facial lacerations and almost lost his right eye. He had a subconjunctival hemorrhage. Both of his hands are in casts and he is being seen by an ophthalmologist on a regular basis. 5. 4/16/18 A sexual assault. A review of the incident reports indicates that most of the inmate on inmate assaults occur when there are no officers present on the unit. Officers are alerted by the noise, by the video stream, and sometimes only when they discover the injured inmate.
f. Develop and implement an objective and validated classification and housing assignment procedure that is based on risk assessment rather than solely on a prisoner’s charge. Prisoners must be classified immediately after booking, and then housed based on the classification assessment. At minimum, a prisoner’s bunk, cell, unit, and facility assignments must be based on his or her objective classification assessment, and staff members may not transfer or move prisoners into a housing area if doing so would violate classification principles (e.g.,
14

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 15 of 91
placing juveniles with adults, victims with former assailants, and minimum security prisoners in a maximum security unit). Additionally, the classification and housing assignment process must include the following elements:
i. The classification process must be handled by qualified staff who have additional training and experience on classification.
ii. The classification system must take into account objective risk factors including a prisoner’s prior institutional history, history of violence, charges, special needs, physical size or vulnerabilities, gang affiliation, and reported enemies.
iii. Prisoner housing assignments must not be changed by unit staff without proper supervisor and classification staff approval.
iv. The classification system must track the location of all prisoners in the Jail and help ensure that prisoners can be readily located by staff. The County may continue to use wrist bands to help identify prisoners, but personal identification on individual prisoners may not substitute for a staffcontrolled and centralized prisoner tracking and housing assignment system.
v. The classification system must be integrated with the Jail prisoner record system, so that staff have appropriate access to information necessary to provide proper supervision, including the current housing assignment of every prisoner in the Jail.
vi. The designation and use of housing units as “gang pods” must be phased out under the terms of this Agreement. Placing prisoners together because of gang affiliation alone is prohibited. The County must replace current gang-based housing assignments with a more appropriate objective classification and housing process within one year after the Effective Date.
Partial Compliance There has been no significant change in the status of this paragraph since the last reporting period; however, the Monitor’s expert in this area is in the process of working with Classification, Records and Booking staff to consolidate their activities into a cohesive unit. Once this is accomplished, it should be possible to expand the hours of coverage by Classification and Records personnel so that initial classification of arrestees can be accomplished as part of the booking process. Further, communication with the courts will be funneled through only one point in the Jail, thus improving the accuracy and completeness of inmate records.
g. Develop and implement positive approaches for promoting safety within the Jail including:
15

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 16 of 91
i. Providing all prisoners with at least 5 hours of outdoor recreation per week;
ii. Developing rewards and incentives for good behavior such as additional commissary, activities, or privileges;
iii. Creating work opportunities, including the possibility of paid employment;
iv. Providing individual or group treatment for prisoners with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other behavioral or medical conditions, who would benefit from therapeutic activities;
v. Providing education, including special education, for youth, as well as all programs, supports, and services required for youth by federal law;
vi. Screening prisoners for serious mental illness as part of the Jail’s booking and health assessment process, and then providing such prisoners with appropriate treatment and therapeutic housing;
vii. Providing reasonable opportunities for visitation. h. Ensure that policies, procedures, and practices provide for higher levels of
supervision for individual prisoners if necessary due to a prisoner’s individual circumstances. Examples of such higher level supervision include (a) constant observation (i.e., continuous, uninterrupted one-on-one monitoring) for actively suicidal prisoners (i.e., prisoners threatening or who recently engaged in suicidal behavior); (b) higher frequency security checks for prisoners locked down in maximum security units, medical observation units, and administrative segregation units; and (c) more frequent staff interaction with youth as part of their education, treatment and behavioral management programs. i. Continue to update, maintain, and expand use of video surveillance and recording cameras to improve coverage throughout the Jail, including the booking area, housing units, medical and mental health units, special management housing, facility perimeters, and in common areas.
Non-Compliant Regarding 42 (g)(i) Outdoor recreation is still unavailable to almost all inmates in the Hinds County Jail System. Although there has never been an outdoor recreation yard at the JDC, recently inmates have been permitted to play basketball in the indoor car wash bay. At the RDC the outdoor recreation yards have been closed for over five years, subsequent to a major riot. In the past year, outdoor recreation has been available only to juveniles housed in A-1. During the most recent site visit, it was reported that outdoor recreation was available to adult prisoners periodically, but not routinely; however, a review of pod logs did not reveal documented verification. As was reported previously, the WC unit logs confirmed that outdoor recreation was available approximately half of the time that the Settlement Agreement calls for. Since that time, no updated records have been made available to verify the amount of recreation provided.
16

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 17 of 91
Regarding 42 (g)(iv) There is not an adequate level of mental health services being provided. The first issue is the issue of mental health staffing levels. Since the January/February 2018 site visit, a mental health coordinator has been added to the roster of mental health staff (the prior social worker has left, but at the time of the May site visit, a new social worker was about to come on board). While this is a very positive development, the mental health expert continues to believe that there is clearly inadequate psychiatric time to meet the provisions of the agreement and continues to believe that there needs to be a mental health staffing analysis to determine whether or not there is an adequate number of other mental health staff to meet the provisions of the agreement.
As it now stands, the psychiatrist may see as many as 10 individuals during the several hours each week that he is at the facility, which leaves him a very limited amount a time to complete the above noted new forms. This also leaves him virtually no time to perform a more in-depth examination of more complicated individuals, perform face-to-face evaluations of individuals on suicide watch or other more intense mental health monitoring, actively participate in the treatment planning process, provide consultative help to other members of the mental health treatment team, and actively participate in any regular meetings of the mental health treatment team. In addition, adequate mental health programming at the facility should eventually include a psychoeducational group therapy program, focused on helping individuals understand their illnesses, the importance of treatment, and how best to participate in their own treatment; such a group therapy program would also include a focus on medication, benefits and risks of adverse effects, and the importance of compliance; and so eventually, the psychiatrist would either participate in or at least help to develop and supervise such an effort.
The second issue, previously noted in the report of the January/February 2018 site visit, is that there are multiple mental health related provisions that cannot be addressed by mental health staff alone. During the May 2018 site visit, there was a joint meeting of mental health staff and security staff to discuss these provisions. More specifically, there was a discussion of the roles and responsibilities of mental health staff with regard to disciplinary review, segregation review, and security use of force; the roles and responsibilities of mental health staff with regard to PREA; the roles and responsibilities of security staff with regard to suicide watch or individuals who are on other forms of mental health observations; and the roles and responsibilities of security staff with regard to accompanying nursing staff while they pass/administer medication. The progress made during this joint meeting of mental health staff and security staff and the yet unresolved issues will be noted in applicable sections of this report.
The third issue, also previously noted in the report of the January/February 2018 site visit, is the matter of how to define/describe individuals who should be on the mental health case load. Although there is general agreement that those with ‘serious mental illness’ (SMI) should be on
17

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 18 of 91
the mental health case load, SMI is not clearly defined. Then in addition, most definitions of SMI do not include individuals with serious trauma histories and resultant trauma-related psychiatric difficulties; therefore, their psychiatric difficulties are rarely identified and addressed; and this is despite the fact that these individuals tend to function quite poorly while incarcerated and they make up a significant percentage of individuals placed in segregation. Therefore, the mental health team should explore this issue of who should be on the mental health caseload. In so doing, when evaluating prisoners with disciplinary charges, prisoners being held in disciplinary segregation, and prisoners against which there was a use of force, staff should explore for a history of trauma and assess the mental health impact of any trauma that is identified. Then, if it becomes clear that a history of trauma with associated trauma-related psychiatric difficulties makes adjustment to incarceration difficult for a significant number of prisoners (as is the case in most jails and prisons), staff can explore how they might best design and implement mental health interventions focused on meeting the needs of such prisoners, thereby improving their capacity to function while incarcerated and upon their release. At the time of the January/February 2018 site visit, the absence of mental health evaluations and treatment plans made it impossible to assess whether or not prisoners with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other behavioral or medical conditions were receiving and benefiting from appropriate therapeutic interventions. By the time of the May 2018 site visit, for newly admitted prisoners, mental health evaluations were being performed and recorded on the new form for such evaluations; where indicated, psychiatric evaluations were being performed and recorded on the new form for such evaluations; and treatment plans were being developed and recorded on the new treatment plan form. In addition, there was a plan to perform and record mental health evaluations, perform and record psychiatric evaluations, and develop treatment plans for prisoners who were already on the mental health case load. These efforts, coupled with the better recording of information obtained during psychiatric and mental health follow-up visits, will now provide an extremely important part of the base of information required to assess whether or not prisoners on the mental health case load are receiving appropriate therapeutic interventions.
The internal assessment of whether or not prisoners with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other behavior or medical conditions are receiving and benefiting from appropriate therapeutic interventions should be done in several ways. More specifically, a regularly scheduled, treatment plan review process should be developed where the mental health team reviews the progress towards treatment goals and thereby determines whether or not modifications of the treatment plan are required. A ‘mental health chronic care log’, should be developed that would include such information as diagnosis or problem to be addressed, related therapeutic intervention(s), last and next visit, and instances when a prisoner was seen on an emergency or urgent basis prior to the next scheduled visit. Such a log would make it easy to assess whether or not prisoners were being seen with appropriate frequency and in a timely manner, consistent with mental health policies and procedures, and such a log would also
18

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 19 of 91
indicate whether or not prisoners are being seen frequently enough (i.e., whether or not prisoners end up needing emergency or urgent visits prior to the time of their next scheduled visit). In addition, when the most appropriate/indicated treatment for a prisoner’s mental health problem is not available at the facility and an alternative, less appropriate therapeutic intervention is employed, this should be noted on the treatment plan, because this will support the need to develop additional, needed therapeutic interventions. Furthermore, efforts should be made to identify important gaps in the range of mental health services available to prisoners; for example, it is already clear that there are no services designed to prepare prisoners to continue with treatment once released and there are no trauma-informed therapeutic interventions for prisoners with significant trauma histories. Plans should then be developed to provide such important mental health services/interventions.
With respect to medical interventions, lack of staffing continues to be a concern. There are four LPN nursing vacancies at all of the facilities. There are no relief factors in the current staffing plan, thus the health administrator must utilize agency, PRN and overtime to fill vacancies caused by vacation, holidays or sick time of the regular staff. Staffing at the work release does not permit night time coverage. A new nurse practitioner was hired shortly before the site visit. While she is a FT employee, not all of her hours are at the Hinds County Detention Center. She also provides care at the Madison County Jail.
There are no hours recorded for the physician Dr. Martin. The timesheet indicated that he is paid a contract rate and his hours are not logged. This is not a good accounting practice nor does it show if the County is receiving adequate services for physician services. The Monitoring team will request at the next site visit a copy of the contract for Dr. Martin and his schedule at the various jail facilities.
Chronic care is still in the beginning stage of development. A new nurse practitioner has recently started at the Hinds County Detention Center; thus, the care and scheduling are not timely. A delay of 90 days to obtain Hemoglobin test on diabetics is not acceptable. Most facilities perform laboratory testing within a month or sooner of the inmate’s incarceration.
Sick call is written by the inmates on a kiosk system. The nurses print off the sick call requests daily. The nurses date-stamp the request when they receive it. The sick call policy at QCHC is that if the nurse sees the inmate three times for the same request, it is then referred to a provider. Depending on the severity of the request, this can be a dangerous situation. A protocol needs to be created providing nurses guidance on when to refer to a provider based on the severity of the complaint and the results of initial treatment attempts.
One of the inmates submitted a sick call request for a rash due to the harshness of the soap. He was placed on hydrocortisone cream by way of a nursing protocol. After three unsuccessful nursing visits, he filed a grievance. Three visits to confirm that the initial intervention was not
19

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 20 of 91
working was not a useful approach. The reply that he received on the grievance was that the medical department did not provide soap. There was no attempt to solve the complaint by either having the family bring in a special soap or by arranging to sell the soap in the commissary.
Another inmate indicated that she put in several requests for sick call and requested to see the doctor. She indicated that she was severely depressed. Chart review indicated that her comments were true and that she had only been referred to a social worker. She was not referred to the psychiatrist or psychologist.
Another inmate complained of left lower leg pain. The request was placed on 5/6/18; however, the inmate was not seen until 5/15/18. A nurse practitioner saw him and ordered an x-ray. The NP did not perform a physical exam nor order a blood test on the inmate, nor did she order an ultrasound which is the preferred method of diagnosis. She diagnosed the inmate with a musculoskeletal disease. This case did not result in a serious complication but could have led to further complications such as a pulmonary embolism.
The sick call procedure is unnecessarily cumbersome by the kiosk system. The complaints listed by the kiosk are vague and provide no space for the inmate to elaborate on their problem. The categories are asthma, general pain, sprain, constipation, sore throat, dental tooth pain, mental health. The mental health does not indicate if the inmate is depressed, suicidal or can’t sleep. Thus, when the inmates see the nurses, the nurses are unaware of what the complaint is truly about. There is no free text available so that the inmate can elaborate on their complaint.
The dental assistant has resigned, thus inmates that have dental problems must wait for over a month to be seen. Dental care is not timely. Treatment consists of verbal orders for Naproxen and Augmentin. Telephone order sheets were not consistently found on the charts on any of the five records reviewed. A new dental assistant has been hired and she will begin her employment on June 4, 2018. When the health administrator was questioned regarding the dental care, she indicated that there were only nine inmates on the dental list. This number appears to be underreported in light of the many complaints made by inmates regarding the lack of this service.
Regarding 42(g)(vi) Although there is mental health screening at the time of booking and during the initial health assessment process, the adequacy of this screening has yet to be fully evaluated. Based on the observation of one such screening, it appeared that questions were asked in such a way as to overly determine the response (for example, ‘you haven’t had XYZ, have you?’; and the structure of the questions appeared to be based on the nurse’s premature perception of the incoming prisoner instead of being structured to fully explore the prisoner’s history. Of course, this one screening may have been atypical, but whether it was or not, the adequacy of these screenings needs to be assessed.
20

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 21 of 91
As a step towards assessing the intake screening process, a ‘mental health sick call log’ should be developed. Such a log would record all prisoners who, post intake, were self-referred to mental health, or referred to mental health by medical or security staff or identified as in need of mental health services via some other mechanism (for example, a suicide attempt, evidencing unusual behavior that resulted in disciplinary charges, decompensation while placed in segregation, etc.). Then in each case, the question of why the prisoner wasn’t identified as in need of a mental health assessment at the time of intake can be explored, followed by an exploration of the question of whether or not the intake mental health screening process needs to be revised and/or whether or not those performing such intake screens require further mental health training.
See paragraphs 74 and 77 (i and j) regarding housing decisions and the availability of appropriate housing for prisoners with serious mental illness.
Regarding 42 (g)(vii) Visitation records reflect that there has been an improvement in access to visitation at the JDC but a decrease at the RDC and WC. A review of visitation records at the JDC and RDC/WC covering three and three quarter months, revealed that inmates at the JDC are able to complete an average of one visit per month, while at the RDC and WC, whose records are combined, only one inmate in ten is able to complete a visit monthly. Since the majority of the inmates are housed in these two jails, it is apparent that very few inmates in the DSD are able to visit with family and friends on a routine basis. It should be noted that only about half of the inmates who initiate a video visitation communication actually are able to complete it. The most common reason for non-completion is listed as “cancelled by admin” while the next two frequent reasons are “missed by inmate” and “missed by caller”.
Regarding 42 (h) The revised ‘suicide prevention’ QCHC policy is quite good with a few recommendations for improvement. The policy should provide that when medical or security staff suspect that a prisoner is potentially suicidal, the prisoner should be placed under constant observation (versus close observation), pending a mental health assessment, and that the need for such a mental health assessment should be considered to be an emergency (see paragraph 42, with regard to the need to delineate emergency, urgent and routine responses). The policies should also provide that in the event of an actual suicide attempt, successful or unsuccessful, a rigorous, multi-disciplinary ‘morbidity or mortality review’ and report is indicated, whereby every aspect of the prisoner’s stay at the facility is reviewed, with an eye towards identifying and correcting any avoidable missteps in how the prisoner (or other prisoners) was assessed and managed by each discipline within the facility. This review process and report would include recommendations to address any identified missteps, such as changes in policies and/or procedures, clarifications or directives that might lead to better adherence to existing policies and/or procedures, or staff training focused on helping staff obtain the knowledge and skills required to better adhere to existing or revised policies and/or procedures.
21

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 22 of 91
Although the ‘suicide prevention’ policy is in place, there remain questions about the implementation of the policy. More specifically, there is no structured tool or form used for the evaluation of potentially suicidal prisoners to determine the need for placement on suicide watch, adjustments of the suicide watch level, or removal from suicide watch. It is unclear to what extent the psychiatrist must be involved in the assessment process and whether an actual face-toface assessment by the psychiatrist is required (all complicated by the availability of the psychiatrist). Although it is noted that a ‘clinical assessment’ will be performed at least every 4 hours, it is unclear what type of staff must perform that clinical assessment, and if it is to be performed by mental health staff (a QMHP), it does not appear that there are an adequate number of mental health staff to implement that policy. Although the policy also describes the level of monitoring by security staff and nursing staff for each level of suicide watch, a mechanism for the documentation of adherence to this part of the policy in a form that can be readily reviewed by mental health staff needs to be developed.
Special mental health observation, for acutely mentally ill prisoners, is also described in the ‘suicide prevention’ policy, with a level of monitoring that is to be prescribed by mental health. With regard to implementation, it is important to make it clear to all staff that a prisoner might be on special observation either because they are suicidal and/or because they are acutely ill while efforts are being made to stabilize them. If an inmate is on special mental health observation for both reasons, it should be clear that each type of watch has to be terminated individually. In other words, although suicide watch might be then terminated, that does not mean that the inmate is sufficiently stabilized to end the watch required while still trying to stabilize the inmate.
Regarding 42 (i) Video surveillance capabilities at the various facilities have not changed since the last site visit. Supervisory staff at the RDC have been able to utilize that facility’s video records to review escapes and other significant incidents, in order to determine what actually occurred. Video related to those events is reviewed on occasion but not routinely.
43. Include outcome measures as part of the Jail’s internal data collection, management, and administrative reporting process. The occurrence of any of the following specific outcome measures creates a rebuttable presumption in this case that the Jail fails to provide reasonably safe conditions for prisoners:
a. Staff vacancy rate of more than 10% of budgeted positions; b. A voluntary staff turnover rate that results in the failure to staff critical posts (such
as the housing units, booking, and classification) or the failure to maintain experienced supervisors on all shifts; c. A major disturbance resulting in the takeover of any housing area by prisoners; d. Staffing where fewer than 90% of all detention officers have completed basic jailer training;
22

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 23 of 91
e. Three or more use of force or prisoner-on-prisoner incidents in a fiscal year in which a prisoner suffers a serious injury, but for which staff members fail to complete all documentation required by this Agreement, including supervision recommendations and findings;
f. One prisoner death within a fiscal year, where there is no documented administrative review by the Jail Administrator or no documented mortality review by a physician not directly involved in the clinical treatment of the deceased prisoner (e.g. corporate medical director or outside, contract physician, when facility medical director may have a personal conflict);
g. One death within a fiscal year, where the death was a result of prisoner-onprisoner violence and there was a violation of Jail supervision, housing assignment, or classification procedures.
Non-Compliant Jail administration does not currently create a report covering each of these areas although they respond when asked for this information. At the time of the site visit, 14.8% of the authorized/funded positions are vacant (271 authorized, 40 vacant). And the 271 funded positions are far less than the 433 positions needed to adequately staff the facilities. That would be a 47% vacancy rate. For the past two site visits the number of vacancies has increased. There were 32 in February 2018 and 21 in October 2017. Previously, the turnover rate was reported as excessive and not in compliance with this paragraph’s standard. The same holds true at this time. There have been multiple incidents of prisoner on prisoner violence resulting in serious injury without adequate documentation. As noted elsewhere, the incident reports do not provide for documentation of supervisory review and recommendations. Injuries are typically not photographed or documented. Witness statements are seldom taken and video is seldom reviewed. These findings trigger the rebuttable presumption that the Jail fails to provide reasonably safe conditions for the prisoners.
44. To complement, but not replace, “direct supervision,” develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that detention officers are conducting rounds as appropriate. To that end:
a. Rounds must be conducted at least once every 30 minutes in general population housing units and at least once every 15 minutes for special management prisoners (including prisoners housed in booking cells).
b. All security rounds must be conducted at irregular intervals to reduce their predictability and must be documented on forms or logs.
c. Officers must only be permitted to enter data on these forms or logs at the time a round is completed. Forms and logs must not include pre-printed dates or times. Officers must not be permitted to fill out forms and logs before they actually conduct their rounds.
23

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 24 of 91
d. The parties anticipate that “rounds” will not necessarily be conducted as otherwise described in this provision when the Jail is operated as a “direct supervision” facility. This is because a detention officer will have constant, active supervision of all prisoners in the detention officer’s charge. As detailed immediately below, however, even under a “direct supervision” model, the Jail must have a system in place to document and ensure that staff are providing adequate supervision.
e. Jail policies, procedures, and practices may utilize more than one means to document and ensure that staff are supervising prisoners as required by “direct supervision,” including the use and audit of supervisor inspection reports, visitation records, mealtime records, inmate worker sheets, medical treatment files, sick call logs, canteen delivery records, and recreation logs. Any system adopted to ensure that detention officers are providing “direct supervision” must be sufficiently detailed and in writing to allow verification by outside reviewers, including the United States and Monitor.
Partial Compliance There has been no progress made with regard to the provisions of this paragraph since the last Monitoring Report. None of the facilities are meeting the requirement to do well-being checks every 30 minutes in general population and every 15 minutes in segregation. While well-being checks at JDC were found to be routinely recorded properly, on the appropriate forms, for inmates in general population (hourly) and in segregation/confinement (30 minutes), even this less frequent timetable was not met at the WC and the RDC. At those facilities, unit log records reflected that hourly inspections were conducted approximately 50% of the time for general population inmates. At the WC, 30-minute checks for inmates in segregation/confinement were documented on individual forms posted next to each cell. At the RDC there was no standard system in place. The inmates in B-4 and B-4 ISO were both supervised by the same officer. When B-4 ISO was created, it was staffed by one officer continuously. Apparently, that is no longer the case. In Booking, the 15-minute observation forms were maintained in the office area, not posted by each holding cell. Although the proper procedure has been explained in detail during previous site visits, communication through the chain of command and between shifts has been less than effective.
See paragraph 76 with regard to mental health rounds for prisoners in segregation. See paragraph 42 (h) with regard to prisoners who require special management due to acute mental health difficulties.
45. Ensure that all correctional officers receive adequate pre- and post-service training to provide for reasonably safe conditions in the Jail. To that end, the County must ensure that the Jail
24

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 25 of 91
employs Qualified Training Officers, who must help to develop and implement a formal, written training program. The program must include the following:
a. Mandatory pre-service training. Detention officers must receive State jailer training and certification prior to start of work. Staff who have not received such training by the Effective Date of this Agreement must complete their State jailer training within twelve months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. During that twelve month period, the County must develop an in-house detention training academy.
b. Post Order training. Detention officers must receive specific training on unitspecific post orders before starting work on a unit, and every year thereafter. To document such training, officers must be required to sign an acknowledgement that they have received such training, but only after an officer is first assigned to a unit, after a Post Order is updated, and after completion of annual retraining.
c. “Direct supervision” training. Detention officers must receive specific pre- and post service training on “direct supervision.” Such training must include instruction on how to supervise prisoners in a “direct supervision” facility, including instruction in effective communication skills and verbal de-escalation. Supervisors must receive training on how to monitor and ensure that staff are providing effective “direct supervision.”
d. Jail administrator training. High-level Jail supervisors (i.e., supervisors with facility-wide management responsibilities), including the Jail Administrator and his or her immediate deputies (wardens), must receive jail administrator training prior to the start of their employment. High-level supervisors already employed at the Jail when this Agreement is executed must complete such training within six months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Training comparable to the Jail Administration curriculum offered by the National Institute of Corrections will meet the requirements of this provision.
e. Post-service training. Detention officers must receive at least 120 hours per year of post-service training in their first year of employment and 40 hours per year after their first year. Such training must include refresher training on Jail policies. The training may be provided during roll call, staff meetings, and post-assignment meetings. Post-service training should also include field and scenario-based training.
f. Training for Critical Posts. Jail management must work with the training department to develop a training syllabus and minimum additional training requirements for any officer serving in a critical position. Such additional training must be provided for any officer working on a tactical team; in a special management, medical or mental health unit; in a maximum security unit; or in booking and release.
25

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 26 of 91
g. Special management unit training. Officers assigned to special management units must receive at least eight hours of specialized training each year regarding supervision of such units and related prisoner safety, medical, mental health, and security policies.
h. Training on all Jail policies and procedures including those regarding prisoner rights and the prevention of staff abuse and misconduct.
Non-Compliant During the January/February site visit it appeared that the HCSO had committed to hiring a qualified individual, with extensive detention experience, at the rank of lieutenant. Unfortunately, that did not occur. The Training Director still does not have anyone on staff with the requisite credentials to head training for the Detention Services Division, which comprises approximately 60% of the authorized positions in the HCSO.
In spite of numerous requests for information regarding the status of training for all DSD personnel, it is still not possible for the Monitor to determine how many officers have not completed basic academy training, which officers have received in service training during the past year and what topics that training covered or the status of specialized training required for critical posts and special management units. Finally, all important training on policies and procedures has not occurred because the Policies and Procedures Manual has still not been submitted, approved and issued.
As was noted in the report of the January/February 2018 site visit, security staff persons receive at least some training at the academy with regard to ‘special needs’ prisoners, which includes prisoners who suffer from mental illness. There is also a recently developed, in-service training program, entitled ‘Mental Health First Aid’, and security staff persons are beginning to receive this training. The curriculum for these trainings had been reviewed, both of which include some very important information but issues with the adequacy of the training include whether the curriculum covers the full range of mental health difficulties that might impact on a prisoner’s capacity to function in the correctional setting; whether the curriculum adequately describes for security staff what they should look for to indicate that a prisoner is suffering from mental illness; and whether the curriculum offers security staff enough tools to manage prisoners with various types of mental health difficulties. Therefore, existing training programs should be reviewed by appropriate persons within and/or outside of the facility, with these questions in mind.
There does not appear to be any extra or special training offered to security staff who may be posted on units where there is an increased likelihood of having to work with mentally ill prisoners.
26

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 27 of 91
Subsequent to the site visit, the prior Deputy Jail Administrator was removed and a new Deputy Jail Administrator was appointed who because of the Jail Administrator’s medical absence is Acting Jail Administrator. The monitoring team has requested but has not received his resume. It does not appear that he has received jail administration training as required by subsection (d).
There are various ways to assess the adequacy of the mental health training that is currently being provided. QCHC staff should develop a form that security staff can easily use to refer prisoners to mental health; the form would allow staff to check mark symptoms observed and otherwise note the reason for such a referral; and ideally, after a mental health assessment has been performed, the mental health staff person performing the assessment could offer feedback to the security staff person who made the referral. This same form could be used by security staff when a disciplinary charge is filed against a prisoner and security staff suspects that the prisoner might be suffering from a mental illness that might have contributed to the problematic behavior; by submitting the form under this circumstance, security staff are also requesting a mental health assessment in connection with the prisoner’s disciplinary proceeding; and this type of involvement by mental health in disciplinary proceedings is not only an important requirement of this agreement (see paragraph 37 – over riding issues), but it also provides mental health staff with another opportunity to communicate with security staff about mental health issues. Then in addition, discussion between security staff and mental health staff in areas of over lapping responsibility (such as the segregation review process, etc.) provides other opportunities to assess the impact of the mental health training for security staff.
46. Develop and implement policies and procedures for adequate supervisory oversight for the Jail. To that end, the County must:
a. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the authority to make personnel decisions necessary to ensure adequate staffing, staff discipline, and staff oversight. This personnel authority must include the power to hire, transfer, and discipline staff. Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) allocated for budget purposes represent a salaried slot and are not a restriction on personnel assignment authority. While the Sheriff may retain final authority for personnel decisions, the Jail’s policies and procedures must document and clearly identify who is responsible for a personnel decision, what administrative procedures apply, and the basis for personnel decisions.
b. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the ability to monitor, ensure compliance with Jail policies, and take corrective action, for any staff members operating in the Jail, including any who are not already reporting to the Jail Administrator and the Jail’s chain of command. This provision covers road deputies assigned to supervise housing units and emergency response/tactical teams entering the Jail to conduct random shakedowns or to suppress prisoner disturbances.
27

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 28 of 91
c. Ensure that supervisors conduct daily rounds on each shift in the prisoner housing units, and document the results of their rounds.
d. Ensure that staff conduct daily inspections of all housing and common areas to identify damage to the physical plant, safety violations, and sanitation issues. This maintenance program must include the following elements: i. Facility safety inspections that include identification of damaged doors, locks, cameras, and safety equipment. ii. An inspection process. iii. A schedule for the routine inspection, repair, and replacement of the physical plant, including security and safety equipment. iv. A requirement that any corrective action ordered be taken. v. Identification of high priority repairs to assist Jail and County officials with allocating staff and resources. vi. To ensure prompt corrective action, a mechanism for identifying and notifying responsible staff and supervisors when there are significant delays with repairs or a pattern of problems with equipment. Staff response to physical plant, safety, and sanitation problems must be reasonable and prompt.
Non-Compliant Until the Policies and Procedures Manual is revised and re-issued, compliance with this paragraph cannot be achieved. Because of undetermined issues, the work of writing the P&P Manual was not awarded to Dr. James Austin. Consequently, valuable time has lapsed with no progress made toward meeting this critical requirement of the Settlement Agreement. At this point it is imperative that the HCSO take whatever action is necessary to hire a qualified consultant or individual(s) to expedite the process.
The recent removal of the Deputy Jail Administrator and replacement by a new individual appears to be contrary to subparagraph (a). The Deputy Jail Administrator’s removal and replacement appears to have been done without the knowledge of the Jail Administrator who was on medical leave and certainly without the knowledge and approval of the Deputy Jail Administrator who was the one removed. There was no documentation of the reason for removal. On a substantive level, there was no adequate process for transition in this key position. The Monitor attempted to speak with the Sheriff twice by leaving voice mail messages, once by emailing a request for a telephone conference, and in a series of communications with the Sheriff’s attorney. No response by the Sheriff was provided.
The recent shakedown described in Incident Report #181015, dated 6-7-18 was contrary to the requirements of subsection (b) of this paragraph. The shakedown was conducted by road deputies and Mississippi Dept. of Corrections officers without the apparent approval or oversight
28

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 29 of 91
by the Acting Jail Administrator. The monitoring team had been told that this practice was stopped some time ago, but it appears that is not the case. The need for jail staff oversight is apparent in the fact that the shakedown officers shot off a 12-guage shot gun (blanks) to create a “noise diversion.” Firearms should not be present in the jail except in circumstances not present here.
Supervisors still do not follow a systemic procedure to document their inspection rounds. The failure to develop a simplistic solution is tied directly to the inability of the HCSO to issue a Policies and Procedures Manual.
Maintenance issues, always problematic, have gotten worse since the January/February site visit. All of the detailed security problems associated with electronically controlled doors that do not open or close, and with key operated doors that cannot be locked, are still in need of repair. However, additional security doors in the main corridor at the RDC, the main corridor at the WC and the third-floor corridor at the JDC now need to be added to the list of major security breaches in need of immediate repair. An electrical cord that ran across the floor in the lobby of the WC, noted during the last four site visits, was found to still be in place. This obvious violation of fire and safety regulations remained uncorrected even though it did not require action on the part of the County’s maintenance personnel. This relatively minor discrepancy is mentioned because it is indicative of the mentality that has set in over the years throughout the DSD. Personnel are so used to having problems go uncorrected, that they just accept unsafe and unsanitary conditions as the norm throughout the Jail System, even when they can correct them themselves.
47. Ensure that staff members conduct random shakedowns of cells and common areas so that prisoners do not possess or have access to dangerous contraband. Such shakedowns must be conducted in each housing unit at least once per month, on an irregular schedule to make them less predictable to prisoners and staff.
Non-Compliant In spite of assurances that shakedowns of cells and common areas are now conducted only by DSD personnel, Incident Report 181015, dated June 7, 2018, details how a law enforcement sergeant (not assigned to the DSD), along with members of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and other HCSO law enforcement personnel, conducted a shakedown of all housing units in B Pod at the RDC. Although they did not report any use of force, they did fire 12-gauge shotguns (utilizing blank rounds) in B-1, B-2 and B-3 in order to get the attention of “…inmates who refused to comply with orders to lay on the floor with their hands on their heads.” Firearms should never be taken inside a jail unless there has been a major riot or hostage situation and there is a need to regain control of the facility. The practice of bringing in law enforcement or outside agency officers to conduct shakedowns is counterproductive. Once the outside officers
29

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 30 of 91
leave, the DSD officers, whose authority has been undercut, are tasked with trying to regain control of their facility. The Sheriff needs to issue an order permanently curtailing the use of law enforcement and outside agency officers to conduct such shakedowns.
Inmates still have ready access to contraband items, particularly at the RDC. The problem is so pervasive that breaches of security (escapes from the facility) are routinely accomplished so that inmates can retrieve drugs and cell phones provided to them by friends on the outside. They then return to their housing units through holes in the roof instead of leaving the grounds. Examples of this are reflected in Incident Reports 1800654, 1800659 and 1800900.
48. Install cell phone jammers or other electronic equipment to detect, suppress, and deter unauthorized communications from prisoners in the Jail. Installation must be completed within two years after the Effective Date.
Non-Compliant There has been no action to deal with this issue since the last site visit.
49. Develop and implement a gang program in consultation with qualified experts in the field that addresses any link between gang activity in the community and the Jail through appropriate provisions for education, family or community involvement, and violence prevention.
Partial Compliance There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the last site visit. An officer was assigned to work on this issue approximately a year ago. Inmates are no longer assigned to specific units based on their gang affiliation.
USE OF FORCE STANDARDS
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to prevent excessive force by staff and ensure force is used safely and only in a manner commensurate with the behavior justifying it. To that end, the County must:
50. Develop and implement policies and procedures to regulate the use of force. The policies and procedures must:
a. Prohibit the use of force as a response to verbal insults or prisoner threats where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff or visitors;
b. Prohibit the use of force as a response to prisoners’ failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff, visitors, or property;
30

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 31 of 91
c. Prohibit the use of force against a prisoner after the prisoner has ceased to resist and is under control;
d. Prohibit the use of force as punishment or retaliation; e. Limit the level of force used so that it is commensurate with the justification for
use of force; and f. Limit use of force in favor of less violent methods when such methods are more
appropriate, effective, or less likely to result in the escalation of an incident.
Non-Compliant Since the Policies and Procedures Manual has not been revised, reissued and approved, compliance with this paragraph cannot be achieved. There continue to be examples of excessive use of force that appear in the incident reports. One, was the shakedown of the RDC, B Pod, on June 7, 2018. The involved officers from Law Enforcement and the Mississippi Department of Corrections fired a shotgun in Units 1, 2 and 3 (blank shells) in order to coerce the inmates to lie on the floor with their hands on their heads. Another occurred at the RDC, C Pod, Unit 1 on May 22, 2018. Officers used chemical spray to subdue an inmate who refused to surrender his contraband cell phone. As a result, all of the inmates in the unit were moved to the recreation yard. When the sergeant arrived on the scene, he observed an officer walk up to the previously mentioned inmate and strike him in the face several times. The sergeant had to physically restrain the officer. To the sergeant’s credit, his supplemental report included a recommendation that the officer should be suspended for several days without pay. It should be noted that the officer who initiated the incident report made no mention of the excessive use of force in his report.
51. Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure timely notification, documentation, and communication with supervisors and medical staff (including mental health staff) prior to use of force and after any use of force. These policies and procedures must specifically include the following requirements:
a. Staff members must obtain prior supervisory approval before the use of weapons (e.g., electronic control devices or chemical sprays) and mechanical restraints unless responding to an immediate threat to a person’s safety.
b. If a prisoner has a serious medical condition or other circumstances exist that may increase the risk of death or serious injury from the use of force, the type of force that may be used on the prisoner must be restricted to comply with this provision. These restrictions include the following: i. The use of chemical sprays, physical restraints, and electronic control devices must not be used when a prisoner may be at risk of positional asphyxia. ii. Electronic control devices must not be used on prisoners when they are in a location where they may suffer serious injury after losing voluntary
31

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 32 of 91
muscle control (e.g., prisoner is standing atop a stairwell, wall, or other elevated location). iii. Physical strikes, holds, or other uses of force or restraints may not be used if the technique is not approved for use in the Jail or the staff member has not been trained on the proper use of the technique.
Non-Compliant To date there are no recorded instances of staff members obtaining supervisory approval prior to using weapons and mechanical restraints. The same can be said for the use of chemical sprays, physical restraints and electronic control devices being used when a prisoner may be at risk of appositional asphyxia.
c. Staff members must conduct health and welfare checks every 15 minutes while a prisoner is in restraints. At minimum, these checks must include (i) logged firstperson observations of a prisoner’s status while in restraints (e.g. check for blood flow, respiration, heart beat), and (ii) documented breaks to meet the sanitary and health needs of prisoners placed in emergency restraints (e.g., restroom breaks and breaks to prevent cramping or circulation problems).
d. The County must ensure that clinical staff conduct medical and mental health assessments immediately after a prisoner is subjected to any Level 1 use of force. Prisoners identified as requiring medical or mental health care during the assessment must receive such treatment.
Non-Compliant The Policies and Procedures Manual is still a work in progress. Nothing has been submitted to the Monitor and the DOJ for review for the past year. Fifteen-minute well-being checks are maintained in Booking and in the RDC, B-4 ISO Unit. Since the last monitoring report, the process of recording those well-being checks has actually regressed in that an officer is no longer assigned exclusively to B-4 ISO and observation forms are no longer posted next to each cell. Now one officer is responsible for both B-4 and B4 ISO and the records for well-being checks are incorporated into the B-4 Unit Log.
There is no evidence that mental health staff assess prisoners who have been subjected to level 1 use of force. Although this issue was raised at the joint mental health staff and security staff meeting that occurred during the May 2018 site visit, it remains unclear to what extent efforts will be made to address this provision.
There is no evidence that mental health staff is being consulted prior to a planned use of force on prisoners with serious mental health issues. This issue was also raised at the joint mental health
32

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 33 of 91
staff and security staff meeting that occurred during the May 2018 site visit, it remains unclear to what extent efforts will be made to address this provision.
e. A first-line supervisor must personally supervise all planned uses of force, such as cell extractions.
f. Security staff members must consult with medical and mental health staff before all planned uses of force on juveniles or prisoners with serious mental illness, so that medical and mental health staff may offer alternatives to or limitations on the use of force, such as assisting with de-escalation or obtaining the prisoner’s voluntary cooperation.
g. The Jail must have inventory and weapon controls to establish staff member responsibility for their use of weapons or other security devices in the facility. Such controls must include: i. a sign-out process for staff members to carry any type of weapon inside the Jail, ii. a prohibition on staff carrying any weapons except those in the Jail’s tracked inventory, and iii. random checks to determine if weapons have been discharged without report of discharge (e.g., by checking the internal memory of electronic control devices and weighing pepper spray canisters).
h. A staff member must electronically record (both video and sound) all planned uses of force with equipment provided by the Jail.
i. All staff members using force must immediately notify their supervisor. j. All staff members using a Level 1 use of force must also immediately notify the
shift commander after such use of force, or becoming aware of an allegation of such use by another staff member.
Non-Compliant A planned use of force requires that the use of force be videotaped. This is not done. As an example, Incident Report 1800801, dated May 2, 2018, documents a case where planned use of force procedures should have been followed. When an inmate refused multiple orders to exit his cell for a scheduled medical appointment, the two officers on scene did not attempt to physically move him; instead, they left the unit and reported the situation to their sergeant. At this point they should have obtained video equipment before they returned to the unit to again attempt to move the inmate. The officers followed correct procedure in reporting the situation to their sergeant but video equipment should have been obtained at that point. In this incident, the inmate was noted to be mentally impaired. This paragraph also requires that if an inmate has serious mental illness, mental health staff should be consulted. That was not done. A review of incident reports involving the use of force revealed that involved inmates are routinely sent to medical for examination subsequent to such incidents.
33

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 34 of 91
USE OF FORCE TRAINING
52. The County must develop and implement a use of force training program. Every staff member who supervises prisoners must receive at least 8 hours of pre-service use of force training and annual use of force refresher training.
Non-Compliant As was previously noted, Training records do not reflect use of force training for all personnel, either in the academy or through annual in-service training. The inability to determine whether or not the HCSO is providing such training results in the finding of Non-Compliant.
53. Topics covered by use of force training must include: a. Instruction on what constitutes excessive force; b. De-escalation tactics; c. Methods of managing prisoners with mental illness to avoid the use of force; d. Defensive tactics; e. All Jail use of force policies and procedures, including those related to documentation and review of use of force.
Non-Compliant As was previously reported, these topics cannot be addressed until the P&P Manual is revised and published.
54. The County must randomly test at least 5 percent of Jail Staff members annually to determine whether they have a meaningful, working knowledge of all use of force policies and procedures. The County must also evaluate the results to determine if any changes to Jail policies and procedures may be necessary and take corrective action. The results and recommendations of such evaluations must be provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant This action cannot be undertaken until the revised P&P Manual is issued, officers are trained and sufficient time has passed to conduct the random testing of at least five percent of Jail staff.
55. The County must update any use of force training within 30 days after any revision to a use of force policy or procedure.
Non-Compliant This cannot be updated until the policies and procedures on the use of force have been completed.
34

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 35 of 91
USE OF FORCE REPORTING
To prevent and remedy the unconstitutional use of force, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting use of force. To that end, the County must:
56. Develop and implement use of force reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information to analyze and respond appropriately to use of force.
Non-Compliant There has been no change with regard to this paragraph. It cannot be addressed until the P&P Manual is revised and issued to all personnel. During a third meeting with IT and Operations personnel, the shortcomings of the Detention Jail Management System (JMS) and the incident reports were outlined by the monitoring team. The ability of the monitoring team has been severely hampered with regard to determining compliance because adequate incident reports are not provided to the team. It is impossible to determine who wrote a report (unless that information is contained in the body of the report), when or if a supervisor reviewed it and whether or not he/she made a recommendation about its acceptability. The reports themselves are often very cryptic such as IR # 1800889 where the officer’s explanation was that he used “...the necessary force to secure the situation.” In a few incidents a supplemental report is made by the supervisor but this is rare. Even in those cases, conclusions or recommendations are not included. There is seldom any information or charts on the nature of any injuries. There are typically supplemental reports by witnessing officers but not other witnesses. There is typically no indication that video tapes are reviewed. During the past two site visits, joint meetings addressed these shortcomings, but the issues still remain unresolved. If the HCSO cannot correct the shortcomings of the JMS it should be replaced by a jail version of what is provided to the law enforcement side of the Sheriff’s Office.
57. Require each staff member who used or observed a use of force to complete a Use of Force Report as promptly as possible, and no later than by the end of that staff member’s shift. Staff members must accurately complete all fields on a Use of Force Report. The failure to report any use of force must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination. Similarly, supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
Non-Compliant There has been no change with regard to this paragraph. The quality of incident reports in the DSD is generally poor. Officers and supervisors tend to repeat unnecessary information multiple times throughout their reports, such as “I, Officer XXX, did something”. There should be no
35

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 36 of 91
need for an officer or supervisor to state, “I, Officer XXX” in the body of the report because it should be reflected by who wrote the report. Similarly, the foundation of the report should indicate where the incident occurred. It is not possible to tell from the incident report form when it was prepared. There is only one date field which appears to be for the date of the incident. There is no place to indicate supervisory review and recommendations. Sometimes a supervisor does a supplemental report but this appears rarely. Unfortunately, because the reports generated out of the JMS system do not capture some of those fields, that basic information is not readily available to the reader of the incident reports.
58. Ensure that Jail use of force reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, use of force reports must document the following information:
a. A unique tracking number for each use of force; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. A description of the events leading to the use of force, including what precipitated
or appeared to precipitate those events. f. A description of the level of resistance, staff response, and the type and level of
force (including frequency and duration of use). For instance, use of force reports must describe the number of discharges from electronic control devices and chemical munitions canisters; the amount of discharge from chemical munitions canisters; whether the Staff Member threatened to use the device or actually discharged the device; the type of physical hold or strike used; and the length of time a prisoner was restrained, and whether the prisoner was released from restraints for any period during that time; g. A description of the staff member’s attempts to de-escalate the situation without use of force; h. A description of whether the staff member notified supervisors or other personnel, including medical or mental health staff, before or after the use of force; i. A description of any observed injuries to staff or prisoners; j. Whether medical care was required or provided to staff or prisoners; k. Reference to any associated incident report or prisoner disciplinary report completed by the reporting officer, which pertains to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force; l. A signature of the staff member completing the report attesting to the report’s accuracy and completeness.
Partial Compliance The third session with IT, Investigations, Operations and Detention staff, held during the May site visit, addressed the same issues that had been previously reviewed. If the DSD is to be able
36

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 37 of 91
to comply with the conditions of the Settlement Agreement, it is essential that the JMS be given the same level of detail and compatibility as the law enforcement system. Until that occurs, the monitoring team cannot access critical information and the DSD cannot submit what the Settlement Agreement calls for in an intelligible format.
USE OF FORCE SUPERVISOR REVIEWS
59. The County must ensure that Jail supervisors review, analyze, and respond appropriately to use of force. At minimum:
a. A supervisor must review all use of force reports submitted during the supervisor’s watch by the end of the supervisor’s watch.
b. A supervisor must ensure that staff members complete their use of force reports by the end of their watch.
c. Reviewing supervisors must document their findings as to the completeness of each staff member’s use of force report, and must also document any procedural errors made by staff in completing their reports.
d. If a Use of Force report is incomplete, reviewing supervisors must require Staff Members to provide any required information on a revised use of force report, and the Jail must maintain both the original and any revised report in its records.
e. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing use of force reports must document their use of force review as described in Paragraph 62 sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted.
f. All Level 1 uses of force must be sent to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD.
g. A Level 2 use of force must be referred to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD if a reviewing supervisor concludes that there may have been a violation of law or policy. Level 2 uses of force may also be referred to IAD if the County requires such reporting as a matter of Jail policy and procedure, or at the discretion of any reviewing supervisor.
Non-Compliant No final determination can be made until the P&P Manual is revised and re-issued. The monitoring team is still not able to view the entries of supervisors on incident reports. Consequently, it is not possible to see whether or not they are approving/disapproving and/or making recommendations rather than simply signing and sending reports up through the chain of command.
60. After any Level 1 use of force, responding supervisors will promptly go to the scene and take the following actions:
37

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 38 of 91
a. Ensure the safety of everyone involved in or proximate to the incident. Determine if anyone is injured and ensure that necessary medical care is or has been provided.
b. Ensure that photos are taken of all injuries sustained, or as evidence that no injuries were sustained, by prisoners and staff involved in a use of force incident. Photos must be taken no later than two hours after a use of force. Prisoners may refuse to consent to photos, in which case they should be asked to sign a waiver indicating that they have refused consent. If they refuse to sign a waiver, the shift commander must document that consent was requested and refused.
c. Ensure that staff members and witnesses are identified, separated, and advised that communications with other staff members or witnesses regarding the incident are prohibited.
d. Ensure that victim, staff, and witness statements are taken confidentially by reviewing supervisors or investigators, outside of the presence of other prisoners or involved staff.
e. Document whether the use of force was recorded. If the use of force was not recorded, the responding supervisors must review and explain why the event was not recorded. If the use of force was recorded, the responding supervisors must ensure that any record is preserved for review.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the last site visit. The specified actions are not routinely followed by supervisors. A review of use of force reports revealed that photographs are seldom taken and that waivers related to the refusal to be photographed are never included. Witness statements are virtually non-existent and use of force incidents are not recorded. On some occasions a supplemental report indicates a review of video recordings but this is rare.
61. All uses of force must be reviewed by supervisors who were neither involved in nor approved the use of force by the end of the supervisor’s shift. All level 1 uses of force must also be reviewed by a supervisor of Captain rank or above who was neither involved in nor approved the use of force. The purposes of supervisor review are to determine whether the use of force violated Jail policies and procedures, whether the prisoner’s rights may have been violated, and whether further investigation or disciplinary action is required.
Non-Compliant At this point it is still not possible to determine whether or not supervisors are performing their required duties because the monitoring team does not have access to the supplemental information that may be included in the JMS reports. The limited documentation available
38

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 39 of 91
through Drop Box does not reflect supervisory action regarding approval, disapproval and recommended action on individual reports.
62. Reviewing supervisors must document the following: a. Names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses interviewed by the supervisor; b. Witness statements; c. Review date and time; d. The findings, recommendations, and results of the supervisor’s review; e. Corrective actions taken; f. The final disposition of the reviews (e.g., whether the Use of Force was found to comply with Jail policies and procedures, or whether disciplinary action was taken against a staff member); g. Supporting documents such as incident reports, logs, and classification records. Supervisors must also obtain and review summary medical and mental health records describing – i. The nature and extent of injuries, or lack thereof; ii. The date and time when medical care was requested and actually provided; iii. The names of medical or mental health staff conducting any medical or mental health assessments or care. h. Photos, video/digital recordings, or other evidence collected to support findings and recommendations.
Non-Compliant Until it is possible to access the supervisory review portion of use of force reports, it is not possible to determine whether or not supervisors are taking required actions and appropriately documenting them.
INCIDENT REPORTING AND REVIEW
To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting and reviewing incidents in the Jail that may pose a threat to the life, health, and safety of prisoners. To that end, the County must:
63. Develop and implement incident reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information in order to respond appropriately to reportable incidents.
Non-Compliant
39

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 40 of 91
The P&P Manual must be revised and issued to all personnel before the level of compliance can be determined. As described above, see, e.g. paragraphs 56-62. The current incident reports do not have sufficient information to allow for an appropriate review by supervisors.
64. Ensure that Incident Reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, Incident Reports must contain the following information:
a. Tracking number for each incident; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner, and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. Type of incident; f. Injuries to staff or prisoner; g. Medical care; h. All staff involved or present during the incident and their respective roles; i. Reviewing supervisor and supervisor findings, recommendations, and case
dispositions; j. External reviews and results; k. Corrective action taken; and l. Warden and Administrator review and final administrative actions.
Partial Compliance There has been no change with regard to the status of this paragraph since the last site visit. Compliance is dependent upon the publication and issuance of the P&P Manual. Incident report documentation currently provides for some of the information specified in this paragraph. Reports routinely have a tracking number, and list all persons involved, including staff and inmates, although inmate witness statements are infrequently noted. Many reports still do not specify in which facility the incident occurred. Supervisory review information cannot be reviewed and validated until the monitoring team is able to access more sections of the automated report writing system. The same applies to external reviews and results, corrective action taken, Warden/Administrator review and final administrative actions.
65. Require each staff member directly involved in a reportable incident to accurately and thoroughly complete incident reports as promptly as possible, by the end of the staff member’s shift. At minimum:
a. Staff members must complete all fields on an Incident Report for which they have responsibility for completion. Staff members must not omit entering a date, time, incident location, or signature when completing an Incident Report. If no injuries are present, staff members must write that; they may not leave that section blank.
b. Failure to report any reportable incident must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination.
40

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 41 of 91
c. Supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will also be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the last site visit. While documentation of incidents is more routine than was the case a year ago, the fact that there still have been no reports of lost money and property, or late releases and overstays, is indicative of a failure to document. During each site visit, a review of inmate records has revealed multiple cases where inmates have been held beyond their scheduled or ordered release, yet no incident reports documenting these situations have been written. Consequently, there has been no follow up and corrective action taken, to include disciplinary action and re-training. Based on the expected experience regarding money and property at even the best run jails, there will typically be some incidents of lost money or property. For there to be no incident reports in this area suggests that officers have not been trained to document such occurrences with incident reports.
66. Ensure that Jail supervisors review and respond appropriately to incidents. At minimum: a. Shift commanders must document all reportable incidents by the end of their shift, but no later than 12 hours after a reportable incident. b. Shift commanders must report all suicides, suicide attempts, and deaths, no later than one hour after the incident, to a supervisor, IAD, and medical and mental health staff. c. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing Incident Reports must document their incident review within 24 hours of receipt of an Incident Report sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted. Such documentation must include the same categories of information required for supervisor use of force reviews such as names of individuals interviewed by the supervisor, witness statements, associated records (e.g. medical records, photos, and digital recordings), review dates, findings, recommendations, and case dispositions. d. Reportable incidents must be reviewed by a supervisor not directly involved in the incident.
Partial Compliance There has been no change in the status of this paragraph. It should be noted that compliance has actually been hampered by the transition to an electronic report writing system in that the monitoring team cannot track the actions of supervisors after the initial report has been submitted.
41

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 42 of 91
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
67. To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to address sexual abuse and misconduct. Such policies and procedures must include all of the following:
a. Zero tolerance policy towards any sexual abuse and sexual harassment as defined by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementing regulations;
b. Staff training on the zero tolerance policy, including how to fulfill their duties and responsibilities to prevent, detect, report and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment under the policy;
c. Screening prisoners to identify those who may be sexually abusive or at risk of sexual victimization;
d. Multiple internal ways to allow both confidential and anonymous reporting of sexual abuse and sexual harassment and any related retaliation, including a mechanism for prisoners to directly report allegations to an outside entity;
e. Both emergency and ongoing medical and mental health care for victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment, including rape kits as appropriate and counseling;
f. A complete ban on cross-gender strip searches or cross-gender visual body cavity searches except in exigent circumstances or when performed by a medical examiner;
g. A complete ban on cross-gender pat searches of women prisoners, absent exigent circumstances;
h. Regular supervisory review to ensure compliance with the sexual abuse and sexual harassment policies; and
i. Specialized investigative procedures and training for investigators handling sexual abuse and sexual harassment allegations.
Partial Compliance The PREA officer and jail staff are working on policies and procedures which have not yet been adopted. There has been progress in the implementation of PREA requirements. There are now posters in some of the units with a plan to put them in all of the units. The posters have reporting instructions, however, the PREA officer did not have a cell phone to forward the calls to and there was some debate about having the calls go through dispatch so the reporting mechanisms had not been fully worked out. The PREA officer had completed some orientation to inmates at JDC with Lt. Petty following up with more detailed information. The PREA officer has also completed a training class of about 3-4 hours at the training academy. There are discussions underway with Catholic Charities to determine whether that agency can provide counseling to any victims of sexual assault or harassment. Although this is very good progress in this area, there are still a number of areas of non-compliance and some of the stated practices do not
42

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 43 of 91
appear to be fully operationalized. Areas of concern include lack of training for all officers on PREA, lack of ongoing notice to inmates at booking or comprehensive education following, lack of required information in the Inmate Handbook, postings on how to report in all the units, unresolved mechanisms for reporting, no volunteer or contractor training, reporting is not being completed in the JMS system, and investigation officers do not have PREA training. It was reported that supervisory staff do not get the investigation reports once completed. This prevents any opportunity to use that information to determine whether discipline is appropriate or remedial measures should be implemented. Although the classification process includes a screening for PREA issues, the housing decisions do not appear to reflect attention to those issues. One individual at risk for sexual victimization was being housed in the segregation unit of the WC. At least one staff member indicated that he/she was at the Work Center because no one else wanted him/her. Less restrictive housing for this individual should be evaluated.
The mental health expert reviewed PREA issues from a mental health perspective. He identified two prisoners at risk of sexual victimization, one of which is quite clearly at high risk of such victimization; neither one of these two prisoners have been interviewed/assessed by mental health in connection with PREA-related issues; although one of them was receiving mental health services, none of those mental health services were focused on PREA-related issues; and neither one of these two prisoners appeared to have a real understanding of PREA and its significance to their experience at the facility. The interview of both of these men revealed the need for mental health services focused on PREA-related issues; it was also clear that each of them could benefit from other PREA-related interventions (such as changes in housing assignment); and so a mental health evaluation would not only result in the provision of appropriate mental health treatment, but the mental health evaluator could also consult with appropriate staff and advocate for other, PREA-related interventions.
INVESTIGATIONS
68. The County shall ensure that it has sufficient staff to identify, investigate, and correct misconduct that has or may lead to a violation of the Constitution. At a minimum, the County shall:
a. Develop and implement comprehensive policies, procedures, and practices for the thorough and timely (within 60 days of referral) investigation of alleged staff misconduct, sexual assaults, and physical assaults of prisoners resulting in serious injury, in accordance with this Agreement, within 90 days of its Effective Date. At a minimum, an investigation will be conducted if: i. Any prisoner exhibited a serious injury; ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious accounts of the incident; or
43

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 44 of 91
iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member).
b. Per policy, investigations shall: i. Be conducted by qualified persons, who do not have conflicts of interest that bear on the partiality of the investigation; ii. Include timely, thorough, and documented interviews of all relevant staff and prisoners who were involved in or who witnessed the incident in question, to the extent practicable; and iii. Include all supporting evidence, including logs, witness and participant statements, references to policies and procedures relevant to the incident, physical evidence, and video or audio recordings.
c. Provide investigators with pre-service and annual in-service training so that investigators conduct quality investigations that meet the requirements of this Agreement;
d. Ensure that any investigative report indicating possible criminal behavior will be referred to the appropriate criminal law enforcement agency;
e. Within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, IAD must have written policies and procedures that include clear and specific criteria for determining when it will conduct an investigation. The criteria will require an investigation if: i. Any prisoner exhibited serious, visible injuries (e.g., black eye, obvious bleeding, or lost tooth); ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious accounts of the incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member).
f. Provide the Monitor and United States a periodic report of investigations conducted at the Jail every four months. The report will include the following information: i. a brief summary of all completed investigations, by type and date; ii. a listing of investigations referred for administrative investigation; iii. a listing of all investigations referred to an appropriate law enforcement agency and the name of the agency; and iv. a listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.
44

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 45 of 91
v. a description of any corrective actions or changes in policies, procedures, or practices made as a result of investigations over the reporting period.
g. Jail management shall review the periodic report to determine whether the investigation system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement and make recommendations regarding the investigation system or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor and United States.
Partial Compliance Subsequent to the last site visit, the IAD investigator provided a status report regarding the number of cases under review and resolved. That report indicates that a total of 48 cases have been referred to IAD between May 2017 and January 2018. Of those, five resulted in termination, five in suspension, two in transfer, one in a written reprimand and one in reassignment. The quality of the investigations and reports are inconsistent.
GRIEVANCE AND PRISONER INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Because a reporting system provides early notice of potential constitutional violations and an opportunity to prevent more serious problems before they occur, the County must develop and implement a grievance system. To that end:
69. The grievance system must permit prisoners to confidentially report grievances without requiring the intervention of a detention officer.
Partial Compliance The use of the new kiosk system will eventually allow the prisoners to report grievances without the intervention of detention officers. However, the system is still not working as it should. Several problems reported at the time of the last site visit appear to have been remedied. At the time of the last site visit, grievances not answered within a certain time period appeared to be dropped from the system. In order to find those grievances, a report had to be run setting the necessary fields to locate them. At the time of the January/February visit, staff did not know to do that. It appears that the staff overseeing grievances now know to do that. However, at the time of the site visit the grievance officer at the WC was not able to run such a report so she still had no way of determining if there were outstanding grievances. And the medical staff had not been trained to run the reports to locate the grievances that appeared to drop off.
Although the kiosk system does not require the intervention of a detention officer, the physical set up does not allow for privacy. This could potentially result in an officer observing the grievance being filed. It was reported that inmates can observe another’s PIN number and then use it to purchase commissary on the other inmate’s account. There has also been a problem
45

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 46 of 91
with inmates communicating with each other through the kiosk system. These issues will need to be addressed.
As noted in the introduction to this section, one function of a grievance system is to identify potential constitutional problems and to prevent more serious problems from developing. The defects in the system prevent its use for meaningful tracking of potential problems. Probably the most problematic is that of the grievances reviewed, most were actually inmate requests, not grievances. Staff cannot recategorize these as inmate requests so any compilation will not accurately identify actual grievances. Within inmate requests, there is no way to identify subject matter so as to compile a report by the area of inmate requests. Even if there were, however, most notably, the system cannot generate a report by subject. Any inmate response is treated by the system as an appeal when often the inmate has just responded by saying thank you. Again, this makes tracking what is actually happening difficult unless it is done manually.
70. Grievance policies and procedures must be applicable and standardized across the entire Jail.
Non-Compliant Policies and procedures have yet to be finalized. A draft policy on grievances does not describe the current process of using the kiosk.
71. All grievances must receive appropriate follow-up, including a timely written response by an impartial reviewer and staff tracking of whether resolutions have been implemented or still need implementation. Any response to a medical grievance or a grievance alleging threats or violence to the grievant or others that exceeds 24 hours shall be presumed untimely.
Partial Compliance With the knowledge to run reports to find grievances that appear to have dropped out of the system, it was possible to see that most grievances were responded to. However, there continued to be some that showed up as not answered in some cases for over several months. In addition, as mentioned above, the Work Center Grievance Officer was not able to run a report to see if there were unanswered grievances. The new system creates a spreadsheet to track grievances and responses. The Grievance Officer can track who has been assigned to respond to a grievance on the spreadsheet. It appears that there is not one person who oversees the grievance process for all three facilities. Lieutenant Jones appears to be the grievance officer for only RDC. She does not assign the grievances at the other facilities and cannot determine whether grievances at the other facilities have been answered. There is no one who is overseeing whether a promised action in response to a grievance is actually implemented. It appears that medical has not been trained on how to locate grievances that appear to have dropped out of the system. The person assigned to respond to a grievance is assigned based on housing and subject matter. However, this can result in some situations where the responding individual is not impartial. This would be the case
46

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 47 of 91
where the grievance is about an issue that is the responsibility of the responding individual. The assignments need to be evaluated both generally and in the specific case to ensure that an impartial person is reviewing the grievance. No one is tracking whether medical grievances are being responded to in a timely manner. No one is overseeing whether medical responses are adequate. One example, is given in response to paragraph 42(g)(iv). The new system has no means known to staff for marking a grievance as an emergency or otherwise identifying emergent grievances.
The system is also being used for sick call requests. A serious deficiency is that there is no text box for sick call requests. There is a drop-down field that has limited choices and even within those choices there could be some much more serious than others with no way for the inmate to communicate that. See, response to 42(g)(4).
72. The grievance system must accommodate prisoners who have physical or cognitive disabilities, are illiterate, or have LEP, so that these prisoners have meaningful access to the grievance system.
Non-Compliant Prisoners are assisting one another but that carries the risk of them accessing and using another prisoner’s PIN number. This may inhibit the use of the grievance system and also allows access to the prisoner’s funds. There does not appear to be any language choices in the system or voice recognition features. There does not appear to be any policy for providing access for individuals with cognitive disabilities. Currently, the staff assumes that other prisoners will assist with prisoners who cannot access the current system. This does not meet the requirements of this paragraph.
73. The County must ensure that all current and newly admitted prisoners receive information about prison rules and procedures. The County must provide such information through an inmate handbook and, at the discretion of the Jail, an orientation video, regarding the following topics: understanding the Jail’s disciplinary process and rules and regulations; reporting misconduct; reporting sexual abuse, battery, and assault; accessing medical and mental health care; emergency procedures; visitation; accessing the grievance process; and prisoner rights. The County must provide such information in appropriate languages for prisoners with LEP.
Non-Compliant The Inmate Handbook has outdated information about most of these issues and will need to be updated. It is not available in Spanish or any other language.
47

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 48 of 91
RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SEGREGATION
In order to ensure compliance with constitutional standards and to prevent unnecessary harm to prisoners, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to limit the use of segregation. To that end, this Agreement imposes the following restrictions and requirements:
74. Within 8 hours of intake, prisoners in the booking cells must be classified and housed in more appropriate long-term housing where staff will provide access to exercise, meals, and other services.
Partial Compliance There has been no significant change in compliance with the terms of this paragraph since the January/February site visit. Classification takes place within 24 hours of entry to the RDC, but not within eight hours of intake as this paragraph requires. Detainees are processed through the Booking area within eight hours.
However, after classification, there are limited options to appropriately house individuals based on their risks and needs. There is a concern about the limited availability of housing options (other than segregation) for prisoners who need to be protected from themselves or others as a result of a mental illness, intellectual disability or other special needs or who need a therapeutic setting.
75. The County must document the placement and removal of all prisoners to and from segregation.
Partial Compliance The monthly summary reports submitted by each facility now include a listing of inmates who have been placed on, or removed from, confinement segregation. The format for each report is inconsistent. The monthly segregation log provided by JDC includes information useful to both the monitors and the command staff such as the reasons for placement and the expected length of segregation. This would be a good model for all the facilities.
76. Qualified Mental Health Professionals must conduct mental health rounds at least once a week (in a private setting if necessary to elicit accurate information), to assess the mental health status of all prisoners in segregation and the effect of segregation on each prisoner’s mental health, in order to determine whether continued placement in segregation is appropriate. These mental health rounds must not be a substitute for treatment.
Partial Compliance Weekly mental health rounds on prisoners in segregation are now being conducted by the new mental health coordinator, and a record of those rounds is being maintained. Further assessment
48

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 49 of 91
is needed to determine the quality of the rounds and the impact of the findings obtained during such segregation rounds on decisions to continue or discontinue placement in segregation.
77. The County must develop and implement restrictions on the segregation of prisoners with serious mental illness. These safeguards must include the following:
a. All decisions to place a prisoner with serious mental illness in segregation must include the input of a Qualified Mental Health Professional who has conducted a face-to-face evaluation of the prisoner in a confidential setting, is familiar with the details of the available clinical history, and has considered the prisoner’s mental health needs and history.
b. Segregation must be presumed contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness.
c. Within 24 hours of placement in segregation, all prisoners on the mental health caseload must be screened by a Qualified Mental Health Professional to determine whether the prisoner has serious mental illness, and whether there are any acute mental health contraindications to segregation.
d. If a Qualified Mental Health Professional finds that a prisoner has a serious mental illness or exhibits other acute mental health contraindications to segregation, that prisoner must not be placed or remain in segregation absent documented extraordinary and exceptional circumstances (i.e. for an immediate and serious danger which may arise during unusual emergency situations, such as a riot or during the booking of a severely psychotic, untreated, violent prisoner, and which should last only as long as the emergency conditions remain present).
e. Documentation of such extraordinary and exceptional circumstances must be in writing. Such documentation must include the reasons for the decision, a comprehensive interdisciplinary team review, and the names and dated signatures of all staff members approving the decision.
f. Prisoners with serious mental illness who are placed in segregation must be offered a heightened level of care that includes the following: i. If on medication, the prisoner must receive at least one daily visit from a Qualified Medical Professional. ii. The prisoner must be offered a face-to-face, therapeutic, out-of-cell session with a Qualified Mental Health Professional at least once per week. iii. If the prisoner is placed in segregation for more than 24 hours, he or she must have his or her case reviewed by a Qualified Mental Health Professional, in conjunction with a Jail physician and psychiatrist, on a weekly basis.
49

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 50 of 91
g. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, A Qualified Mental Health Professional will assess all prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation. This assessment must include a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Prisoners requiring follow-up for additional clinical assessment or care must promptly receive such assessment and care.
h. If a prisoner on segregation decompensates or otherwise develops signs or symptoms of serious mental illness, where such signs or symptoms had not previously been identified, the prisoner must immediately be referred for appropriate assessment and treatment by a Qualified Mental Health Professional. Any such referral must also result in a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Signs or symptoms requiring assessment or treatment under this clause include a deterioration in cognitive, physical, or verbal function; delusions; self-harm; or behavior indicating a heightened risk of suicide (e.g., indications of depression after a sentencing hearing).
i. The treatment and housing of prisoners with serious mental illness must be coordinated and overseen by the Interdisciplinary Team (or Teams), and guided by formal, written treatment plans. The Interdisciplinary Team must include both medical and security staff, but access to patient healthcare information must remain subject to legal restrictions based on patient privacy rights. The intent of this provision is to have an Interdisciplinary Team serve as a mechanism for balancing security and medical concerns, ensuring cooperation between security and medical staff, while also protecting the exercise of independent medical judgment and each prisoner’s individual rights.
j. Nothing in this Agreement should be interpreted to authorize security staff, including the Jail Administrator, to make medical or mental health treatment decisions, or to overrule physician medical orders.
Non-Compliant There is no evidence that a mental health professional is being consulted prior to placing an individual in segregation. The need to address this provision of the Settlement Agreement was raised during the joint meeting of mental health staff and security staff held during the May site visit.
It does not appear that segregation is presumed to be contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness. This provision of the Settlement Agreement was also raised during the joint meeting of mental health staff and security staff held during the May site visit.
50

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 51 of 91
There is no evidence that prisoners on the mental health caseload and placed in segregation are being screened by a QMHP. It is unclear if security staff even knows which prisoners are on the mental health caseload. It also appears that mental health discovers that a prisoner on the mental health caseload has been placed in segregation at the time of his/her next visit or during the weekly, mental health segregation rounds.
There is no evidence that a mental health screen is being conducted prior to use of segregation or that mental health considerations resulted in someone not being placed in segregation. This is in part due to the fact that the mental health evaluations described in paragraph 76 and 77 (a, b and c) were not being performed (as noted above, the evaluations described in paragraph 76/the weekly mental health rounds on prisoners in segregation have just recently begun to occur); in part due to the prior absence of the presumption that segregation is contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness as noted in paragraph 77 (b); and in part due to the absence of a policy that addresses this provision of the agreement, including a clear description of ‘extraordinary and exceptional circumstances’.
There is no evidence that the review of mental health inmates in segregation is happening so there is no documentation of the circumstances. See paragraph 77 (d).
Prisoners with serious mental illness who are on medication and in segregation do have at least one daily visit with a nurse during medication pass. However, it is unclear whether or not there is or should be any difference in the level of care given during the medication pass for prisoners with serious mental illness who are in segregation, compared to those in the general population. It should be noted that since such prisoners in segregation do not see a Qualified Mental Health Professional on a daily basis, it should be made clear (in policy and procedure) to what extent the level of care provided by the nurses during medication pass includes some type of assessment of the prisoner’s mental status.
It does not appear that prisoners with mental illness in segregation are provided a weekly therapeutic session. This was in part due to the shortage of Qualified Mental Health Professionals; but as noted in paragraph 37, an additional QMHP is about to be added to the mental health team; and so therefore, this staffing issue is about to be addressed. Now, when developing and implementing a plan to address this provision, it will be important to remember, as noted in paragraph 76, that the weekly mental health rounds for prisoners in segregation must not be a substitute for this therapeutic session(s).
It does not appear that prisoners with mental illness in segregation more than 24 hours are being reviewed by a QMHP. However, as noted in paragraph 76, the new mental health coordinator is now performing weekly rounds for all prisoners in segregation. Therefore, the next step towards
51

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 52 of 91
addressing this provision of the agreement will be the development of a plan whereby the mental health coordinator, in conjunction with a jail physician and psychiatrist, can perform a weekly review of the status of the prisoners in segregation who are also on, or should be added to the mental health caseload.
Since the mental health expert’s first involvement in this matter was the January/February 2018 site visit, he could not at the time determine whether or not prisoners in segregation were assessed within 30 days of the settlement agreement. However, based on a review of the medical records of a small sample of prisoners with serious mental illness currently housed in segregation, it does not appear that such prisoners (regardless of how long they have been held in segregation) have received a mental health assessment by a QMHP that includes a documented evaluation, a determination of whether or not there is a need for additional clinical assessment or care, and recommendations regarding more appropriate housing.
At the May 18 site visit, there was a joint meeting of the mental health team and security staff. Among the issues discussed at that meeting was the need for a monthly review of all prisoners who have been held in segregation for more than 30 days. It was noted that the review team should be interdisciplinary and include a representative from mental health; the representative from mental health should report on each prisoner’s mental status; and when the prisoner is experiencing clinically significant mental health difficulties (that existed prior to the prisoner’s placement in segregation or that have developed since the prisoner was placed in segregation), the representative from mental health should offer recommendations for an alternative placement (other than segregation) and any follow-up mental health evaluations or treatment that might be indicated. The information gathered on each prisoner during each monthly segregation review meeting should be documented; the decisions made about placement and the prisoner’s need for further evaluation and treatment should also be documented; and each member of the review team should sign each prisoner’s monthly segregation review form (a form that will have to be developed). It was also noted that at any time that the mental health team finds that a prisoner being held in segregation is suffering as a result of mental illness, the team should immediately discuss the findings with security staff (without waiting for the monthly segregation review team meeting); the mental health team and security staff should jointly develop an appropriate intervention; and this discussion, along with the agreed upon intervention, should be documented.
The additional questions raised in paragraph 77(h) are (1) the extent to which non-mental health staff persons (i.e., security staff and medical staff) are assessing whether or not prisoners held in segregation are decompensating or otherwise developing signs or symptoms of serious mental illness, where such signs and symptoms had not previously been identified, and (2) if non-mental health staff are identifying such prisoners, are they immediately referring them to mental health. This will be evaluated at the time of the next site visit.
52

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 53 of 91
There is no interdisciplinary team that attempts to balance security concerns and medical/mental health concerns when decisions are being made about the housing of prisoners with serious mental illness. As noted in paragraph 42, a mental health treatment planning process and a form for documenting treatment plans has been developed; but at present, the treatment plans do not include recommendations regarding housing; and it is yet to be determined the extent to which available housing options meet the housing needs of prisoners with serious mental illness. Therefore, such an interdisciplinary team needs to be established; there needs to be a fuller assessment of the extent to which available housing options meet the housing needs of prisoners with serious mental illness; and then, mental health should include recommendations for housing in the treatment plans being developed for each prisoner with serious mental illness.
YOUTHFUL PRISONERS
As long as the County houses youthful prisoners, it must develop and implement policies and procedures for their supervision, management, education, and treatment consistent with federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482. Within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will determine where it will house youthful prisoners. During those six months, the County will consult with the United States, the monitor of the Henley Young Juvenile Detention Center Settlement Agreement, and any other individuals or entities whose input is relevant. The United States will support the County’s efforts to secure appropriate housing for youthful prisoners, including supervised release. Within 18 months after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will have completed transitioning to any new or replacement youthful prisoner housing facility.
Partial Compliance
Since more Juveniles Charged as Adults (JCAs) are now placed at Henley Young, a greater focus of this site visit was on assessing the status of the agreement requirements at Henley Young. Other than a gradually reducing number of JCA youth at the Raymond Detention Center (RDC) there has been no notable change in practice or the conditions for the youth at RDC. As of this visit:
• There were fourteen JCAs at Henley Young (includes two admitted during the site visit – one male and one female) and five JCAs remaining at the Raymond facility;
• Three of the five JCA youth at RDC will turn 18 by August 1 (one in June, one in July, one on August 1) and the two remaining youth have birthdays in the fall (October and November). This means that by no later than November of this year, the transition of youth out of RDC will be complete;
53

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 54 of 91
• One JCA youth at RDC who was 15 at the time of the January/February visit was subsequently transferred to Henley Young and turned 16 in March (unless transferred, this youth would not have “aged out” of RDC until March 2020);
• The length of JCA youth’s placement at Henley Young as of May 22 ranged from a high of 259 days to a low of 26 days (not including the new admissions);
• Four of the JCA youth at Henley Young have birthdays in 2000 and will turn 18 yet this year, albeit several of them late in the year;
• Only three of the JCA youth at Henley Young have been indicted, leaving four youth that have been in placement 90 days or more without being indicted;
• As of May 22, there were only four non-JCA youth held at Henley Young (all boys);
As noted in the previous report, it had become increasingly inefficient to take up a whole unit at RDC for the declining number of JCA youth held. The draft report included a recommendation to move the JCA’s to a smaller unit. Between the time of the draft report and the final report, the remaining JCA’s were moved to an ISO unit to allow the larger unit to be used for adults.
In the last Monitoring Report, a number of recommendations were made related to changes at Henley Young that would support a successful transition (i.e. physical plant changes, security improvements, increased programming, speeding up case processing, improving the overall behavior management system, etc.). The report indicated that as the length of time JCA youth are in placement increases, the more important these changes would become. Specifically, the previous report included this language:
All of these steps will become increasingly important as the number of JCAs at Henley Young grows and/or their length of stay increases, so proper planning (including needed funding) for/implementation of these changes should be done as soon as possible. County staff indicates that some bonding authority has been approved in the budget and that some portion of those funds can be directed to make these changes. A concern is that given the relative success of the transition to date, the sense of urgency needed to commit the necessary funding in a timely manner is diminished. The County needs to establish, articulate, and implement a plan (including action steps, fiscal resources, and timelines) to complete the transition of Juveniles Charged as Adults (JCAs) to the Henley Young facility.
Unfortunately, most of those recommendations were not implemented, and some projected problems that have arisen since the last visit will be referenced later in this section. The one item that seems to be “holding” is the reduced number of non-JCA youth being placed at Henley Young, reducing the pressure on overall space and staffing needs. If the current pattern holds true, Henley Young will essentially be transitioning from a short-term detention facility that holds some long-term youthful offenders to a long-term facility that holds some short-term
54

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 55 of 91
youth. Overall, this represents a significant shift in organizational culture that can build on the previous progress at Henley Young but significantly “raises the bar” to become an effective long-term solution to housing youthful offenders/JCAs.
Reporting compliance on the remaining conditions will reference one or both locations (Henley Young and RDC) as appropriate.
For any youthful prisoners in custody, the County must:
78. Develop and implement a screening, assessment and treatment program to ensure that youth with serious mental illness and disabilities, including developmental disabilities, receive appropriate programs, supports, education, and services.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young Any JCAs booked at RDC and then housed at Henley Young are screened for mental health concerns using the MAYSI-II, an appropriate screening for use with adolescents. The Case Managers continue to play a helpful support role to youth and other staff. The Case Managers are in daily contact with their assigned youth, provide information and support to maintain appropriate family contact(s), interact with court staff, help link youth with external resources, and can intervene to prevent behavioral problems. The counseling staff provides more on-going therapy and support and can help coordinate services with Hinds County Behavioral Health or other resources.
A significant, albeit limited, step forward occurred as Henley Young was successful in developing a contractual relationship with Dr. Payne, a licensed psychologist, to help provide overall direction and support for the mental health program as well as direct services to youth as needed. Dr. Payne was just beginning her work at Henley Young at the time of this visit and is focusing initial efforts on developing and improving some of the basic procedures and policies related to the mental health program, including how to best implement a successful team approach in partnership with the Case Managers and Therapists. Dr. Payne appears to be very committed to working with youth and a positive addition to the program, although her time is limited to essentially a .5 FTE. That limitation will make it difficult to meet the full demands for comprehensive assessment and treatment of JCA youth and assessing progress in this area will be an important component of the next site visit.
Concerns remaining include: (1) the only psychiatric time provided to Henley Young is apparently a once-a-week short visit by Dr. Kumar. As noted for the Settlement Agreement as a whole the amount of psychiatric support allotted is insufficient, let alone for the JCA youth; and (2) the introduction of other coordinated programming (e.g. cognitive-behavioral programs, life skills, AODA, etc.) that could be led by Case Managers and Counselors has been delayed
55

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 56 of 91
pending direction/leadership from the psychologist. Additional psychoeducational, skill development, and other programming remains limited, and again this will be a focus of the next site visit.
Addressing these issues as well as recommendations submitted in the Henley Young litigation included in Dr. Lisa Boesky’s December 2017 report (improvements in the intake/screening process, strengthening the assessment process related to substance abuse and trauma, and making physical plant/environmental changes that will support behavior management and educational programming) should be part of the agenda for improvements led by Dr. Payne.
Non-Compliant at RDC There is no substantive change in how JCAs confined at RDC are screened and/or served in relation to the various components required in this provision. Mental health services remain limited to dealing with crisis situations (i.e. suicide concerns) and issues related to psychotropic medications (i.e. adjustments in medications).
79. Ensure that youth receive adequate free appropriate education, including special education.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young Education services at Henley Young are provided by the Jackson Public School (JPS) system. A more detailed review of educational programming is available in the November 2017 report submitted by Carol Cramer-Brooks in the Henley Young litigation. That report noted progress made in 2016-17 but there has been no substantive change since the January/February site visit. JCA youth are provided some education, scheduled currently in essentially a morning group for some youth and an afternoon group for others. This does not meet the expected standard for time in class, and in looking at educational records for JCA youth there was no indication that youth who may be eligible for special education services or an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) were receiving those services. There is an assessment of basic skills for youth and some identification of individual goals, but the plan falls short of what should be done.
At the time of the May visit, staff indicated that they were on the verge of implementing a GED program for those youth for whom that would be the appropriate and best choice. That is a step forward in some ways, but that education time will then be limited to a two-hour block during the late afternoon. Given the lack of other structured programming, for youth involved in the GED program this will likely be a step backward in terms of overall program opportunities and will lead to even more “down time” which has been a problem in the past and will likely contribute to behavioral issues.
56

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 57 of 91
It does appear that the County has concluded, probably appropriately, that the services and resources provided by Jackson Public Schools (JPS) will not be sufficient to meet the needs of youth or the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. This may first become evident if, as has been stated, JPS does not provide summer school programming. If JPS does not provide that programming that further reduces the amount of programmed time for youth unless Hinds County/Henley Young invest in additional services. That said, outreach efforts have been undertaken to work with the Center for Educational Excellence in Alternative Settings (CEEAS) by inviting David Dominici who has been successful in implementing model alternative programs in a number of juvenile facilities. This hopefully will lead to the development of an independent/charter school program on-site at Henley Young that will both meet the educational needs of youth as well as be a positive contribution to the overall behavior management program. At best, it appears that this program could not be in place before January, 2019.
As noted in prior reports and referenced earlier, Henley Young will benefit by the development of additional cognitive behavioral programming, AODA groups and individual work, decisionmaking skill classes, tutoring, and engaging outside community groups and resources to provide pro-social learning opportunities for youth. Hopefully with the leadership of Dr. Payne now on board, more of those programs can be developed and implemented.
Non-Compliant at the Raymond Detention Center The program at RDC remains essentially the same as prior reports, with youth benefiting, albeit on a very limited basis, from the continued and generous support of a volunteer for Adult Basic Education (ABE) services. Youth have daily access to individualized instruction for relatively brief periods of time (e.g. 1-2 hours), but there remains no routine screening process (other than assessment related to ABE skills) to determine whether and what educational services a juvenile or youthful offender was engaged in prior to admission that would help determine what the appropriate, and often legally required, services should be for the youth while confined. While this is less of an issue given that “new” youth are not placed at RDC, there undoubtedly remain young adults (age 18-21) who need similar assessment and are perhaps legally eligible for specialized educational services.
80. Ensure that youth are properly separated by sight and sound from adult prisoners.
Full Compliance at Henley Young Since there are no adult prisoners placed at Henley Young, this provision is met. As JCA youth in placement at Henley Young turn 18, they will be transferred to RDC (although more recent interpretations of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act may permit those youth to remain at a juvenile facility pending conviction/sentencing).
Partial Compliance at the Raymond Detention Center
57

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 58 of 91
Youth are housed in a separate unit so that the potential for contact with adults is minimized. As noted in other sections of this report, the lack of complete Policies and Procedures makes it difficult to determine if the facility has all procedures in place to fully assess compliance. But, in talking briefly with youth at RDC, they indicate there have been no instances of adults’ incursion onto the juvenile living unit (something that some youth indicated was occurring when interviewed during the baseline visit).
81. Ensure that the Jail’s classification and housing assignment system does not merely place all youth in the same housing unit, without adequate separation based on classification standards. Instead, the system must take into account classification factors that differ even within the youth sub-class of prisoners. These factors include differences in age, dangerousness, likelihood of victimization, and sex/gender.
Partial Compliance at the Raymond Detention Center and Henley Young Although given the small number of youth remaining at RDC who will soon become adults this requirement is will soon be at least temporarily moot. However, in the development of policies and procedures, classification and housing of JCA’s should be addressed so that when JCA’s are booked into RDC it is clear how their classification and housing is addressed. The continued small number of non-JCA youth at Henley Young has allowed them to utilize two units for housing JCA youth and make case-by-case decisions as to which housing unit is most appropriate. The use of two units also allows for lower youth to staff ratios and allows youth to be separated if there is conflict. While staff leadership does seem to take the required criteria into account, actual documentation of classification decisions and use of a consistent classification tool will require further review. On a positive note, that decision is informed by prior experience with most of the youth placed, so they are able to consider actual prior behavior rather than rely on simply the most recent “charge”.
82. Train staff members assigned to supervise youth on the Jail’s youth-specific policies and procedures, as well as on age-appropriate supervision and treatment strategies. The County must ensure that such specialized training includes training on the supervision and treatment of youth, child and adolescent development, behavioral management, crisis intervention, conflict management, child abuse, juvenile rights, the juvenile justice system, youth suicide prevention and mental health, behavioral observation and reporting, gang intervention, and de-escalation.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young
As noted in the previous (February) report, training for staff at Henley Young has included training beyond new employee orientation such as Suicide Prevention/Mental Health, Behavioral Management, PREA, Policies and Procedures review, and Crisis Intervention. In reviewing the training records for individual staff to date in 2018, however, training appears to have been
58

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 59 of 91
limited to three content areas: policy/procedure review, fire safety, and effective communications. Given the changing nature of the facility (i.e. dealing with JCA youth over longer periods of time) it becomes increasingly important for additional training related to adolescent development, behavior management, trauma, and mental health. A more complete review of training, with hopefully more diverse components, can be completed as part of the next site visit.
Non-Compliant at the Raymond Detention Center There has been no change at RDC related to staff training, again likely the result of viewing this as unnecessary as the number of JCA youth held declines. As noted in the prior report, the last specialized training for supervising youthful prisoners was held in June 2017 prior to the site visit. It appears that no discernible effort has been made to then clearly assign those trained staff, with the exception of Officer Tower, to the juvenile unit (A-1). While the general course of training for new detention officers does include some basic elements that are appropriate for youthful offenders (e.g. special populations), the lack of additional training and lack of focus on assigning specific staff to the juvenile unit remains a concern. Even if the remaining JCA youth are moved to a smaller unit, it still makes sense to identify a core of officers that would be best suited to monitor that unit.
83. Specifically prohibit the use of segregation as a disciplinary sanction for youth. Segregation may be used on a youth only when the individual’s behavior threatens imminent harm to the youth or others. This provision is in addition to, and not a substitute, for the provisions of this Agreement that apply to the use of segregation in general. In addition:
a. Prior to using segregation, staff members must utilize less restrictive techniques such as verbal de-escalation and individual counseling, by qualified mental health or other staff trained on the management of youth.
b. Prior to placing a youth in segregation, or immediately thereafter, a staff member must explain to the youth the reasons for the segregation, and the fact that the youth will be released upon regaining self-control.
c. Youth may be placed in segregation only for the amount of time necessary for the individual to regain self-control and no longer pose an immediate threat. As soon as the youth’s behavior no longer threatens imminent harm to the youth or others, the County must release the individual back to their regular detention location, school or other programming.
d. If a youth is placed in segregation, the County must immediately provide one-on-one crisis intervention and observation.
e. The County must specifically document and record the use of segregation on youth as part of its incident reporting and quality assurance systems.
f. A Qualified Medical Professional, or staff member who has completed all training required for supervising youth, must directly monitor any youth in segregation at least
59

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 60 of 91
every fifteen (15) minutes. Such observation must be documented immediately after each check. g. Youth may not be held in segregation for a continuous period longer than one (1) hour during waking hours. If staff members conclude that a youth is not sufficiently calm to allow a break in segregation after one hour, they must contact a Qualified Mental Health Professional. The Qualified Mental Health Professional must assess the youth and determine whether the youth requires treatment or services not available in the Jail. If the youth requires mental health services that are not provided by the Jail, the Qualified Mental Health Provider must immediately notify the Jail Administrator and promptly arrange for hospitalization or other treatment services. h. If a youth is held in segregation for a continuous period longer than two (2) hours, Staff Members must notify the Jail Administrator. i. Any notifications or assessments required by this paragraph must be documented in the youth’s individual record.
Non-Compliance at Henley Young This site visit provided the opportunity to spend more time assessing compliance with the expectations related to the use of segregation as a disciplinary measure, and it became clear that this proved to be the most disconcerting change in monitoring since the last site visit. This was because the leadership at HY did not seem to know what the terms of the agreement are related to the use of segregation and because the increased use of segregation reflects a deteriorating relationship between staff and youth in large part because of the lack of programming, limited to no incentives/system to help shape positive behaviors (individually and/or as a group), limited options to respond to minor non-compliance, and limitations created by the physical plant/environment. In part this change is the result of spending significantly more time at Henley Young reviewing individual youth files, Incident Reports, and requesting additional documents in contrast to the prior visit in which both staff and youth represented that use of segregation was pretty limited. In larger part, however, it seems to be the result of an actual change in youth behaviors and how the staff is responding to those behaviors.
Specifically, based on a more detailed review of youth files and the Due Process Isolation Log, there has been an increase in the use of segregation for disciplinary purposes in recent months. For example, in April there were 12 instances in which youth were confined for disciplinary reasons for 24 hours or more (four in March, eight in February, and eight in January). There were additional Due Process Isolations in May, including multiple youth isolated following a significant incident on May 12 in which an altercation occurred between staff and youth and assistance was required from the Hinds County Sheriff’s office. The incident stemmed from a youth refusing to comply with staff directive to go to his room and a struggle ensuing between a staff member who attempted to then restrain the youth and place them in his room. The youth resisted, and other youth came to his aid as the staff member. As additional staff came to assist, more youth also got involved in physically preventing the youth’s removal from the day area. There were other concerns noted from that incident, including whether the staff-written Incident Reports completely and accurately described the incident as it related to one of the staff members needing to be removed from the unit (written reports indicate that concern that a staff
60

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 61 of 91
member may be subject to further assault by youth, whereas viewing the video suggests that the staff member was not in danger and was in fact further aggravating the situation). In any case, it resulted in four youth placed in Due Process Isolation status for more than 24 hours with no evidence that they continued to pose a danger to others. While the subsequent segregation of the identified youth is the most direct violation of the agreement, the incident also reflects a concern about the ability of the staff member in question to deescalate the situation (reflecting a need for additional training and supervision) and the lack of an overall behavior management system that could provide alternative response when staff are faced with some form of non-compliance.
Policy and practice at Henley Young provide for three different types of isolation: (1) Behavior Management Isolation (BMI) for short periods of time as a “cooling off” or short-term consequence1; (2) Administrative Isolation in which there is a supervisory decision to keep a youth in their cell pending a due process hearing; and (3) Due Process Isolation2 that permits the use of segregation as discipline for up to 72 hours following a Disciplinary/Due Process hearing3. The use of Due Process or Administrative Isolation for an extended period of time is in contradiction to the DOJ Settlement Agreement that defines segregation as: “24. …….involuntary confinement in a locked room or cell with two or fewer prisoners, for at least the majority of waking hours per day…..”4 and are not consistent with the Henley Young/Southern Poverty Law Center Settlement Agreement (note that Provision 6.2 limits the use of isolation for discipline to not more than 24 hours).
It should be noted that in discussing the contradiction between the policy/practice and the requirements of the two agreements, Mr. Burnside, Operational Manager and Mr. Dorsey, Quality Assurance Manager, surprisingly indicated that they were not aware of the specifics of the DOJ Settlement Agreement related to segregation, that they did not have a copy of that agreement. Regardless of how that happened (e.g. somehow the result of the temporary absence of Mr. McDaniels), it is clear that key staff leaders are now aware of these requirements and that immediate attention needs to be given to changing policies and practice accordingly.
Related to documentation for youth placed in segregation, there are logs submitted by staff that allegedly document the required observations. It was in reviewing these logs that the extensive use of segregation became evident and further information was requested. The use of the term “allegedly” in the preceding sentence reflects that far too many of the observation logs include documentation of “15 minute” wellness checks that are exactly 15 minutes apart. While this is more common on the overnight shift, it is not limited to that shift. Although signed off on by a shift supervisor, it is simply not believable that those checks are being made at exactly 15 minute intervals and therefore it raises the question of whether they are being made at all. Although a
1 Henley Young Policies and Procedures, 3.C.8. 2 Henley Young Policies and Procedures, 3.C.7. 3 Henley Young Policies and Procedures, 3.C.2. 4 Settlement Agreement, Page 8.
61

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 62 of 91
challenge given current leadership resources, a more proactive quality assurance process should be implemented.
It also remains difficult to link Incident Reports to the resulting room confinement. On a positive note, the format of the Incident Report works pretty well and there is a Supervisor Report/cover sheet that helps ensure some consistency and review of incidents, more work remains in training staff to completely cover the needed information in their reports, and supervisors need to take a more proactive role in ensuring all information is completed correctly (too frequent errors on the IR forms submitted and few, if any, supervisor comments as to follow up action/steps. The only cumulative log related to isolation/segregation tracks Due Process Isolations, so there is no readily available way to determine the extent of the use of BMIs or other administrative isolation. Similarly, some of the individual observation logs do include indications that the youth was seen by a supervisor, case manager, or one of the qualified mental health staff, but again this is inconsistent and difficult to monitor.
Alternative forms of discipline and/or incentives need to be implemented in lieu of the use of Due Process Isolation that exceeds the requirements of the agreement. Related to documentation and quality assurance: (a) Supervisory staff and key facility leaders need to take a more proactive role in ensuring that these checks are being made as required; (b) Additional information should be clear in the comments section of the Incident Report cover page related to the subsequent actions taken, particularly if any form of isolation is utilized; and (c) Confirming the recommendation made in the last report, all use of isolation that exceeds one hour (the last report recommended one hour) should be documented on a centralized isolation log that includes the type of isolation, the duration, the staff member(s) directing the segregation, and provides information to link it to a related incident report. Keeping a more extensive record of segregation will permit key facility staff as well as the monitors to evaluate progress in reducing the use of segregation overall. This would be one relatively easy benchmark to track as part of a performance-based standards effort.
Non-Compliant at the Raymond Detention Center There has been no change at RDC related to this requirement. As noted in the prior report: “…There remains no evidence of sufficient policies/procedures or documentation related to the use of room confinement or other forms of isolation/segregation for youth. One source of documentation that may help track this is that staff on the juvenile unit are required to document at least every 30 minutes what each juvenile is doing on the unit. Wading through that documentation is at best a challenge but does reveal a wide range of “activities” that youth are engaged in, with notes that include everything to “on the unit” to “ sleeping in room” to “out for program” and various other descriptors. It is not uncommon for a youth to be listed as “sleeping in room” or “in room” for substantial periods of time during what would be
62

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 63 of 91
considered “waking hours”, and the staff explanation is that the youth is voluntarily in their room…”
Unfortunately, as a result of a change in how grievances are reported/documented (transitioned to electronic form) staff were unable to provide a list or copies of youth grievances which may have revealed concerns related to cell confinement, although the few youths interviewed did not provide any sense that cell confinement was being used to deal with behavior issues. That said, there is no way to realistically confirm compliance with the segregation requirements at RDC.
84. Develop and implement a behavioral treatment program appropriate for youth. This program must be developed with the assistance of a qualified consultant who has at least five years of experience developing behavioral programs for institutionalized youth. The Jail’s behavioral program must include all of the following elements:
a. The behavioral program must include positive incentives for changing youth behavior, outline prohibited behaviors, and describe the consequences for prohibited behaviors.
b. An individualized program must be developed by a youth’s interdisciplinary treatment team, and properly documented in each youth’s personal file. Documentation requirements must include the collection of data required for proper assessment and treatment of youth with behavioral issues. For instance, the County must track the frequency and duration of positive incentives, segregation, and targeted behaviors.
c. The program must include safeguards and prohibitions on the inappropriate use of restraints, segregation, and corporal punishment.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young Despite the positives noted during the last site visit, it has become apparent that continued delays in developing programs (educational, skill development, psychoeducation, Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AODA) programming, etc.), the lack of adequate programming space, the lack of modifications to the living units, continued delays in youth’s cases moving through the court system, and the delays in getting a psychologist on board have contributed to a deteriorating situation in terms of youth’s behavior and staff response. Along with that, the relatively rudimentary point/level system that works reasonably well for short term youth has not been augmented or modified to either incentivize improved behavior(s) or provide individual goals for youth to work on while in confinement.
Successful behavior management, in the end, comes from a combination of good staff training and supervision, keeping youth actively engaged throughout most of the waking hours in constructive and pro-social activities, utilizing the expertise of mental health staff to address youth’s mental health needs and develop preventive and proactive responses to youth’s
63

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 64 of 91
misbehavior, implementing well-researched cognitive behavioral programs that help teach and allow youth to practice new and improved behaviors, establishing and incentivizing clear behavior expectations, and consistent implementation of discipline to redirect misbehavior. It is common for juvenile facilities to use some form of a point/level system as part of the overall behavior management system, but overreliance on that system (particularly when not well suited for youth in long term placement) as the sole means to deal with behavior is increasingly recognized as poor practice.
There are a number of steps that should be taken that can help in developing a more comprehensive and effective behavior management system, including: Given the apparent decision not to make substantive facility changes to provide well-integrated additional programming space (there is an apparent plan to in the near future to add some temporary classroom space – a short-term solution at best if it comes to pass), the county can and should invest in improving the living unit environment (e.g. installing acoustical panels to reduce noise, removing the steel tables/benches and replace with other durable furniture to create flexible areas for youth within the unit and create a more normative environment).
As required in the DOJ Settlement Agreement, the County should obtain the services of a qualified consultant to help them to develop a more effective and comprehensive behavior management system. Even prior to that current staff could take steps to augment the existing point/level system by developing additional incentives that can be applied on an individual basis to encourage new and improved behaviors. Additional programming needs to be developed to more actively engage youth during waking hours in constructive and organized activities. Support for this may be done by creating an additional staff position (or repurposing an existing position) with responsibility for overall program development, including potential outreach to the community for volunteers or other organizations that can provide support;
Leadership should review staffing assignments to ensure that those staff best trained and suited to working with JCA youth are assigned to those units. If need be, some form of differential pay on an hourly basis may be helpful in supporting staff that take on this more complex responsibility.
Based on discussion with key leadership at Henley Young, Mr. Burnside and Mr. Dorsey, it is clear that they had made significant progress in changing the culture and operations of Henley Young to meet many of the requirements of the SPLC agreement but are now struggling to “push the envelope” much further as it relates to serving long-term youth. To their credit, Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Burnside recognize the challenges they are facing and seem committed to making continued progress but given the temporary absence of Mr. McDaniels in the Executive Director role, they find themselves again juggling additional duties with limited time to deal with some of these issues. Providing added support through a consultant and exposing them to programs that
64

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 65 of 91
have been successful in developing successful behavior management programs will be beneficial.
Non-Compliant at the Raymond Detention Center As with other components of the agreement, there has been no movement toward the development of a behavior management program at RDC. It was noted in the prior report that a daily schedule had been developed/posted, but that posting was destroyed by youth – evidence of the continued lack of supervision and inability of RDC to develop substantive programming for JCA youth. There remains no evidence of a consistent set of expectations, incentives to meet those expectations, and/or consistency in how staff view expected behaviors. As the number of youth declines at RDC, it actually could become easier to implement a rudimentary behavior/incentive system, but there is no indication leadership is considering doing so.
LAWFUL BASIS FOR DETENTION
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners are processed through the criminal justice system in a manner that respects their liberty interests. To that end:
85. The County will not accept or continue to house prisoners in the Jail without appropriate, completed paperwork such as an affidavit, arrest warrant, detention hold, or judge’s written detention order. Examples of inadequate paperwork include but are not limited to undated or unsigned court orders, warrants, and affidavits; documents memorializing oral instructions from court officers that are undated, unsigned, or otherwise fail to identify responsible individuals and the legal basis for continued detention or release; incomplete arresting police officer documents; and any other paperwork that does not establish a lawful basis for detention.
Non-Compliant There continue to be problems with lack of paperwork and timely release. Jail staff recently worked with Karen Albert, a consultant with the monitoring team, to standardize and improve practices in this area and develop policies and procedures reflecting the new practices. The site visit predated this session and so any improvement resulting from this consultation will be measured at the next site visit. At the time of the site visit some of the problems noticed previously continued to exist. There are several individuals who are assigned the task of identifying prisoners who do not have appropriate paperwork to be detained or for continued detention. They are identifying those individuals but the current procedures do not adequately prevent these situations from occurring. There are several situations that occur fairly commonly. One seen repeatedly on this site visit involved holds in the system. Individuals whose local case was resolved continued to remain in custody because the system reflected a hold from another jurisdiction. In a number of instances, the other jurisdiction was not contacted in a timely
65

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 66 of 91
fashion. In several of those situations, the other jurisdiction did not have paperwork warranting the hold or no longer wanted the individual. A number of individuals remained in custody beyond what should have been their release date as a result. Another recurring situation is that there is not a way to identify people in the jail who are waiting for a preliminary hearing. Individuals who do not have an attorney have no one to request a preliminary hearing. These individuals currently get lost in the system and some stay long periods of time in the jail. There continued to be some individuals who stayed beyond the 21 days for those waiting for a probation violation hearing. A number of individuals were listed in the JMS system as in custody on charges that didn’t match the court records. The court liaison was investigating these individuals. The staff working on records and releasing continue to keep manual records. Because of the lack of standardized entry of data, the JMS system cannot run accurate reports. The manual records of unindicted individuals does not match the system generated list. Similarly, the manual records of people waiting for probation violation hearings does not match the system generated list.
86. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees in contravention of the protections of the United States Constitution as set forth and discussed in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) and Cassibry v. State, 453 So.2d 1298 (Miss. 1984). The County must develop and implement policies consistent with the applicable federal law and the terms of this Agreement.
Partial Compliance At the time of the site visit there was no one in the facility on an unlawful order for failure to pay fines and fees compared to 100 inmates detained on unlawful fines and fees orders at the time of the January 2017 visit. As a result of separate litigation and the adoption of Mississippi Supreme Court rules for criminal procedure, the Jail has not been receiving unlawful orders. This requirement is listed as partial compliance because the Jail has not developed or implemented policies as specified in paragraphs 87 through 89 below. As the Supreme Court rules are very new, it would be advisable to have polices to address orders that are not compliant with the new rules.
87. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees absent (a) documentation demonstrating that a meaningful analysis of that person’s ability to pay was conducted by the sentencing court prior to the imposition of any sentence, and (b) written findings by the sentencing court setting forth the basis for a finding that the failure to pay the subject fines or fees was willful. At a minimum, the County must confirm receipt from the sentencing court of a signed “Order” issued by the sentencing court setting forth in detail the basis for a finding that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful.
Partial Compliance
66

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 67 of 91
The County has been pro-active in ensuring that valid court orders are utilized. The County sponsored a training session on the new rules as related to orders on fines and fees. This is to be commended. This requirement is carried as partial compliance in that a process was not adopted to address non-compliant orders.
88. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a person for failure to pay fines or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and any other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and must obtain a copy to justify continued detention of the prisoner. After 48 hours, that prisoner must be released promptly if the Jail staff cannot obtain the necessary documentation to verify that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful, and that person is incarcerated only for the failure to pay fines or fees.
Partial Compliance See response to number 87 above.
89. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a prisoner for failure to pay fines or fees, and if that person is incarcerated for other conviction(s) or charge(s), other than the failure to pay fines and/or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and to ascertain the prisoner’s length of sentence. If Jail staff cannot obtain a copy of the necessary documentation within 48 hours of the prisoner’s incarceration, Jail staff must promptly arrange for the prisoner’s transport to the sentencing court so that the court may conduct a legally sufficient hearing and provide any required documentation, including the fines or fees owed by the prisoner, and an assessment of the prisoner’s ability to pay and willfulness (or lack thereof) in failing to pay fines or fees.
Partial Compliance See response to number 87 above.
90. Jail staff must maintain the records necessary to determine the amount of time a person must serve to pay off any properly ordered fines or fees. To the extent that a sentencing court does not specifically calculate the term of imprisonment to be served, the Jail must obtain the necessary information within 24 hours of a prisoner’s incarceration. Within 48 hours of incarceration, each prisoner shall be provided with documentation setting forth clearly the term of imprisonment and the calculation used to determine the term of imprisonment.
Partial Compliance The WC continues to maintain a spreadsheet. There are some individuals who have a sentence of confinement. Some of these individuals show fines and fees but with the notation of a payment
67

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 68 of 91
plan in effect. This signifies that they will be released after the sentence of confinement. The Monitor will continue to track these entries to ensure that individuals are released after the confinement period. There was no documentation that prisoners were provided with documentation of their release date although they do typically have the orders from the court.
91. No pre-trial detainee or sentenced prisoner incarcerated by the County solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be required to perform physical labor. Nor shall any such detainee or prisoner receive any penalty or other adverse consequence for failing to perform such labor, including differential credit toward sentences. Any physical labor by pre-trial detainees or by prisoners incarcerated solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be performed on a voluntary basis only, and the County shall not in any way coerce such pre-trial detainees or prisoners to perform physical labor.
Non-Compliant This has become a limited issue now that virtually no individuals are working off fines and fees. As reported recently, the recent standard practice at the WC is to give half the amount of credit towards fines and fees for individuals who do not perform physical labor. This includes individuals who cannot perform physical labor because of a medical or mental health condition. The most recent stated practice was to determine the amount of credit on a case by case basis. There needs to be a written policy requiring that individuals who cannot work because of a medical or mental health condition or other disability receive full credit towards fines and fees.
92. The County must ensure that the Jail timely releases from custody all individuals entitled to release. At minimum:
a. Prisoners are entitled to release if there is no legal basis for their continued detention. Such release must occur no later than 11:59 PM on the day that a prisoner is entitled to be released.
b. Prisoners must be presumed entitled to release from detention if there is a court order that specifies an applicable release date, or Jail records document no reasonable legal basis for the continued detention of a prisoner.
c. Examples of prisoners presumptively entitled to release include: i. Individuals who have completed their sentences; ii. Individuals who have been acquitted of all charges after trial; iii. Individuals whose charges have been dismissed; iv. Individuals who are ordered released by a court order; and v. Individuals detained by a law enforcement agency that then fails to promptly provide constitutionally adequate, documented justification for an individual’s continued detention.
68

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 69 of 91
Non-Compliant See response to number 85. There continue to be many individuals being held past 90 days without indictment. The new court orders from the preliminary hearings state they should go before a judge for a release decision. The jail is providing the lists of unindicted individuals to the judge, but perhaps due to the volume many of the individuals do not get before the judge in a timely fashion. This is, of course, a system issue which hopefully the CJCC will address. The Jail could consider making the list of unindicted individuals more useful to the judge by identifying those individuals who are lawfully in custody in another matter so that the judge can prioritize those individuals who are only in custody on the unindicted case. The Jail should also ensure that youth being charged as adults and being held at Henley Young are being identified on the unindicted list that is provided to the judge.
93. The County must develop and implement a reliable, complete, and adequate prisoner records system to ensure that staff members can readily determine the basis for a prisoner’s detention, when a prisoner may need to be released, and whether a prisoner should remain in detention. The records system must provide Jail staff with reasonable advance notice prior to an anticipated release date so that they can contact appropriate agencies to determine whether a prisoner should be released or remain in detention.
Non-Compliant There is still no known process to methodically check for adequate documentation for detention and identify those that should be released. The Jail still relies on inmate requests and grievances to identify people who are being over detained. The booking, release, and records process continues to suffer from a lack of coordination. In addition to Booking staff, there are three individuals tracking the lawful basis of detention. They are all three using separate spreadsheets and lists which as noted above do not match reports run from the JMS system. There continues to be a lack of business process to check all law enforcement and court documents. Jail staff do not have access to the county court data base or the updated circuit court data base which would allow them to improve the accuracy of their records.
94. Jail record systems must accurately identify and track all prisoners with serious mental illness, including their housing assignment and security incident histories. Jail staff must develop and use records about prisoners with serious mental illness to more accurately and efficiently process prisoners requiring forensic evaluations or transport to mental hospitals or other treatment facilities, and to improve individual treatment, supervision, and community transition planning for prisoners with serious mental illness. Records about prisoners with serious mental illness must be incorporated into the Jail’s incident reporting, investigations, and medical quality assurance systems. The County must provide an accurate census of the Jail’s
69

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 70 of 91
mental health population as part of its compliance reporting obligations, and the County must address this data when assessing staffing, program, or resource needs.
Non-Compliant As was noted in paragraph 42, considerable progress has been made with regard to collecting and organizing the data and developing the records and other forms of documentation that would form the informational base for responding to this provision of the agreement. More specifically, full mental health evaluations are now being performed and documented; mental health treatment plans are also being developed, which would include whether or not a prisoner must be transferred to another facility in order to receive a required treatment; and a list (or census) of prisoners on the mental health caseload is now being maintained. As noted in section 42 (g, vi), a mental health care log should be developed that would chart the care being given to each prisoner on the mental health caseload; the suggested log would include housing assignment, which would include an indication for prisoners being held in segregation; but although the log would indicate whether a prisoner had been placed on suicide watch or a special mental health watch, the log would not track other security incidents. Given the nature and the amount of the information that will be tracked on this recommended mental health care log, another log should be developed and maintained by security and mental health to track security incidents for prisoners on the mental health caseload. It should also be noted here that a log that tracks mental health and security incidents would also help the mental health team further explore what type of adjustment difficulties prisoners with various different types of mental health difficulties are likely to experience (see also paragraph 37).
Although the above described data and records will form part of the base of information that will be used to perform mental health quality assurance assessments, such a mental health quality assurance program has yet to be developed and must be developed. As a step in that direction, there should be a regular schedule of treatment plan reviews, performed by the entire mental health treatment team; such reviews will enhance the supervision of mental health treatment; and such reviews will also be an initial step towards assessing the quality of the treatment being provided. Treatment plans will also note the treatment of choice, regardless of whether or not it is available at the facility and note that an alternative treatment is being used when the treatment of choice is not available at the facility. This will provide documentation of gaps in services that can serve as the base for exploring the need to expand mental health services at the facility and/or the need to increase mental health staffing levels.
At present, there is no specific plan for incorporating records about prisoners with serious mental illness into the Jails’ incident reporting and investigations, and this part of this provision requires further exploration. However, the involvement of mental health with regard to the use of force as described in paragraph 51 (d & f), and the involvement of mental health with regard to
70

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 71 of 91
disciplinary review and the use of segregation as described in paragraph 76 and 77 would be a step in the direction of addressing this provision of the agreement.
95. All individuals who (i) were found not guilty, were acquitted, or had charges brought against them dismissed, and (ii) are not being held on any other matter, must be released directly from the court unless the court directs otherwise. Additionally:
a. Such individuals must not be handcuffed, shackled, chained with other prisoners, transported back to the Jail, forced to submit to bodily strip searches, or returned to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
b. Notwithstanding (a), above, individuals may request to be transported back to the Jail solely for the purpose of routine processing for release. If the County decides to allow such transport, the County must ensure that Jail policies and procedures govern the process. At minimum, policies and procedures must prohibit staff from: i. Requiring the individual to submit to bodily strip searches; ii. Requiring the individual to change into Jail clothing if the individual is not already in such clothing; and iii. Returning the individual to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
Non-Compliant Individuals are not being released from the Court at this time.
96. The County must develop, implement, and maintain policies and procedures to govern the release of prisoners. These policies and procedures must:
a. Describe all documents and records that must be collected and maintained in Jail files for determining the basis of a prisoner’s detention, the prisoner’s anticipated release date, and their status in the criminal justice system.
b. Specifically detail procedures to ensure timely release of prisoners entitled to be released, and procedures to prevent accidental release.
c. Be developed in consultation with court administrators, the District Attorney’s Office, and representatives of the defense bar.
d. Include mechanisms for notifying community mental health providers, including the County’s Program of Assertive Community Treatment (“PACT”) team, when releasing a prisoner with serious mental illness so that the prisoner can transition safely back to the community. These mechanisms must include providing such prisoners with appointment information and a supply of their prescribed medications to bridge the time period from release until their appointment with the County PACT team, or other community provider.
Non-Compliant
71

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 72 of 91
In the initial Policies and Procedures that were adopted there are two policies that may relate to this requirement-the policy on records and the policy on booking which includes some requirements related to release. These policies do not have the specificity or the breadth required by this paragraph. These policies as with the others have been stalled. The current practices, as described above, do not meet the requirements of this paragraph. Neither the DA’s office nor the defense bar has been involved in the drafting. The level of specificity required by this paragraph will require significant revision of the policy. The policies and procedures now being drafted with Karen Albert should enable compliance with a and b of this paragraph.
The primary focus of subsection d of this provision is the referral of prisoners with mental health difficulties to community mental health services. As noted in the provision, there are, in fact, community-based mental health services, and so the core issue here is how prisoners can be referred in a meaningful way that is most likely to be effective. At the present time, effective discharge planning and mechanisms to connect discharging prisoners with community-based services are not being implemented.
There were multiple important findings from a meeting with the Director and senior staff of Hinds Behavioral Health Center and the mental health expert during the site visit that included:
• Hinds Behavioral Health is a comprehensive, community-based mental health services provider that has multiple treatment programs that are designed in such a way that they are ideal for prisoners with mental health difficulties who are being released back into the community, including, for example: o There is the PACT program (mentioned in this provision) that provides intensive mental health treatment and other services to persons with severe mental illness; most participants in the program have been court ordered to obtain mental health treatment, but some of them already have a history of incarceration; and so ways in which this program could be made available to prisoners with serious mental illness who are being released from jail or prison should be explored. o There is an Adult Treatment program; this is the program that already has at least some communication with the Discharge Planner at the facility; but this program is open to explore better ways of referring prisoners to them upon their release. o There is a Psycho-social Rehabilitation program for persons who need rehabilitation services; this is a day program; and although two of the program’s sites are housed in nursing homes and are focused on the elderly, there is a third site for younger adults. o There is a Crisis Intervention program that focuses on individuals who have deteriorated/become acutely ill, and staff will work to stabilize the individual on an outpatient basis or through emergency hospitalization, before the individual commits a crime.
72

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 73 of 91
o There is an Alcohol and Drug treatment program; this is particularly relevant since substance abuse is yet another risk factor for incarceration and many prisoners have substance abuse difficulties; and for prisoners who are ‘duallydiagnosed’ (i.e., they have substance abuse difficulties and other mental health difficulties), this program can coordinate treatment with other mental health treatment programs at the facility (which is good since it has been well established that such ‘dual-diagnosed’ patients need coordinated and integrated treatment of both difficulties if they are to get better).
o Then in addition, Hinds Behavioral Health has open access to intake screens every morning at 8:00 AM. Therefore, when there is a sudden, unexpected release from the facility, the individuals could go to Hinds the next morning, without waiting for an appointment, if they have been told about this option prior to their release date.
• Hinds Behavioral Health also has programs that focus on and address some of the other problems faced by persons with mental illness that are considered ‘risk factors’ for arrest and incarceration, including, for example: o There is a Community Support service which offers intensive case management to keep people in treatment and provide needed ‘wrap-around’ services, all of which is particularly valuable for ex-prisoners with mental health difficulties who need support and other services in order to stay in treatment, but do not have any family or other support systems. o There is a Supervised Housing program that provides 24/7 support for persons with serious mental illness and rehabilitation services, such as the learning of basic living skills. o Then in addition, there is a Drop-In Center for persons who become homeless; this program provides a range of services focused on helping the homeless obtain stable housing, including employment services for those who are able to work; and there are also half-way houses connected to this program. Since the lack of housing is also a risk factor for arrest and incarceration, this program could be extremely helpful to some of the prisoners with mental health difficulties who are being released.
• Staff from Hinds Behavioral Health used to go into the Jail (prior to the time that there were mental health staff at the Jail), so as to evaluate and begin to connect with prisoners who would eventually be referred to the Center for outpatient treatment, and they are still willing and able to do this.
• Hinds Behavioral Health is also specifically interested in knowing which of their patients have been arrested and are being detained in jail.
In summary, Hinds Behavioral Health Center offers a range of programs and services that could specifically meet the needs of prisoners with mental health difficulties who are being released
73

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 74 of 91
back into the community. These programs and services range from the possibility of performing intakes and beginning to develop a connection with prisoners while they are still in the facility; to the capacity to perform intakes on a walk-in basis virtually immediately upon a prisoner’s release from the facility (in cases where no intake was done while the prisoner was being held in the facility); to a full range of therapeutic programs and services, including substance abuse treatment services; to many other services that are focused on addressing the problems that exprisoners with mental health difficulties face that place them at high risk of getting into trouble and returning to the facility. In order to fully utilize these services, QCHC and HCDC staff will need to coordinate with Hinds Behavioral Health Center to ensure a warm handoff to community-based services. Therefore, staff of the facility should meet with staff of Hinds Behavioral Health to further explore ways that they can work together to address this provision of the agreement.
It is important to note that the facility will also have to take some other steps to fully address this provision of the agreement. These include:
• The recognition of the fact that meaningful discharge planning begins when a prisoner who is likely to be eventually released is first admitted to the facility. When a discharge plan is developed, it should become a part of the prisoner’s treatment plan.
• Effective discharge planning and a meaningful/successful referral for outpatient mental health services is most likely to occur where the prisoner is not only stabilized, but also receives psychoeducational services focused on helping the prisoner learn about his/her mental illness, the need for treatment, and his/her roles and responsibilities for obtaining and managing treatment.
• Upon the release of a prisoner with mental health difficulties, in addition to providing the prisoner with an appointment for outpatient mental health services and enough medication to hold them until that appointment, for some prisoners there are other extremely important considerations that might need to be addressed in the discharge plan, such as whether they have a place to live or any psycho-social support outside of the facility.
Discharge planning on the medical side has gathered some momentum since the last audit. Inmates that receive a PPD test for tuberculosis, and are released prior to it being read, are now sent to the health department to have the test read. Inmates are provided a handout which describes positive findings for the inmates to be aware of.
Beginning in April 2018, inmates that are released are sent to the medical unit to retrieve their medications. A three-day supply of medication is provided. As previously noted, a three-day supply will generally not be sufficient to ensure that the released inmate can obtain a prescription and medications in time to allow for uninterrupted medication. A 14 day supply was recommended by Hinds County Behavioral Health as needed.
74

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 75 of 91
The discharge process is hampered in that the Courts don’t send the release papers to the jail until after 5 PM. Applications for the re-entry centers cannot be processed that late and if the inmate is not immediately placed, the inmate will be lost to follow-up care. It would be helpful if the judge’s clerk could fax the release papers at noon and then again at 4:30 PM so that the discharge planner can start the application process to re-entry facilities.
97. The County must develop, implement, and maintain appropriate post orders relating to the timely release of individuals. Any post orders must:
a. Contain up-to-date contact information for court liaisons, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Public Defender’s Office;
b. Describe a process for obtaining higher level supervisor assistance in the event the officer responsible for processing releases encounters administrative difficulties in determining a prisoner’s release eligibility or needs urgent assistance in reaching officials from other agencies who have information relevant to a prisoner’s release status.
Non-Compliant The County has not yet developed post orders in this area.
98. Nothing in this Agreement precludes appropriate verification of a prisoner’s eligibility for release, including checks for detention holds by outside law enforcement agencies and procedures to confirm the authenticity of release orders. Before releasing a prisoner entitled to release, but no later than the day release is ordered, Jail staff should check the National Crime Information Center or other law enforcement databases to determine if there may be a basis for continued detention of the prisoner. The results of release verification checks must be fully documented in prisoner records.
Partial Compliance The Booking staff reportedly now runs an NCIC check at the time of booking and again at release. A recent release of inmate K.L. on or about February 21, 2018 with a hold from another county demonstrated a deficiency in this area. Jail staff reportedly checked with the other jurisdiction and was told he was no longer wanted by the jurisdiction. This was inadequately documented. In another situation, the Work Center checked with the other jurisdiction and was told the individual was no longer wanted. This documentation was not sent to records or entered in the JMS system. During the process of releasing, Booking checked with the other jurisdiction and was told that he was still wanted. There was apparently some confusion in the other jurisdiction but having multiple individuals independently operating in this area without updating the JMS system allows for errors to occur.
75

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 76 of 91
99. The County must ensure that the release process is adequately staffed by qualified detention officers and supervisors. To that end, the County must:
a. Ensure that sufficient qualified staff members, with access to prisoner records and to the Jail’s e-mail account for receiving court orders, are available to receive and effectuate court release orders twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
b. Ensure that staff members responsible for the prisoner release process and related records have the knowledge, skills, training, experience, and abilities to implement the Jail’s release policies and procedures. At minimum, the County must provide relevant staff members with specific pre-service and annual inservice training related to prisoner records, the criminal justice process, legal terms, and release procedures. The training must include instruction on: i. How to process release orders for each court, and whom to contact if a question arises; ii. What to do if the equipment for contacting other agencies, such as the Jail’s fax machine or email service, malfunctions, or communication is otherwise disrupted; iii. Various types of court dispositions, and the language typically used therein, to ensure staff members understand the meaning of court orders; and iv. How and when to check for detainers to ensure that an individual may be released from court after she or he is found not guilty, is acquitted, or has the charges brought against her or him dismissed.
c. Provide detention staff with sufficient clerical support to prevent backlogs in the filing of prisoner records.
Non-Compliant Staffing in the Booking area continues to be unbalanced. While there is routinely only one officer in the holding cell area (where two should be on duty at all times), there are two, three or more Booking Clerks on duty in the office area. Considering the fact that only 14 people are booked on a typical day, this misallocation of manpower should be addressed. When an average of just over one person is booked every two hours, it seems apparent that the number of personnel assigned to the office environment is excessive.
100. The County must annually review its prisoner release and detention process to ensure that it complies with any changes in federal law, such as the constitutional standard for civil or pretrial detention.
Non-Compliant At the time of the site visit, there had not been an initial review of this process to determine consistency with federal law.
76

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 77 of 91
101. The County must ensure that the Jail’s record-keeping and quality assurance policies and procedures allow both internal and external audit of the Jail’s release process, prisoner lengths of stay, and identification of prisoners who have been held for unreasonably long periods without charges or other legal process. The County must, at minimum, require:
a. A Jail log that documents (i) the date each prisoner was entitled to release; (ii) the date, time, and manner by which the Jail received any relevant court order; (iii) the date and time that prisoner was in fact released; (iv) the time that elapsed between receipt of the court order and release; (v) the date and time when information was received requiring the detention or continued detention of a prisoner (e.g., immigration holds or other detainers), and (vi) the identity of the authority requesting the detention or continued detention of a prisoner.
b. Completion of an incident report, and appropriate follow-up investigation and administrative review, if an individual is held in custody past 11:59 PM on the day that she or he is entitled to release. The incident report must document the reason(s) for the error. The incident report must be submitted to the Jail Administrator no later than one calendar day after the error was discovered.
Non-Compliant The record keeping process does not at this time allow for an audit other than a review of individual files. The County has provided their list of releases but the list does not include the information required by subparagraph a. Incident reports are not prepared for errors in releasing.
102. The County must appoint a staff member to serve as a Quality Control Officer with responsibility for internal auditing and monitoring of the release process. This Quality Control Officer will be responsible for helping prevent errors with the release process, and the individual’s duties will include tracking releases to ensure that staff members are completing all required paper work and checks. If the Quality Control Officer determines that an error has been made, the individual must have the authority to take corrective action, including the authority to immediately contact the Jail Administrator or other County official with authority to order a prisoner’s release. The Quality Control Officer’s duties also include providing data and reports so that release errors are incorporated into the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance process.
Partial Compliance The Jail now has an individual whose title is Qualify Control Officer. At the present time, his work is primarily reactive. When an individual is brought to his attention, he researches the situation and takes corrective action. He does not track releases or prevent errors in the releasing process. He maintains a spreadsheet that includes release errors that he has addressed, but he does not at the present time collect and report on releasing errors. His work is not incorporated
77

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 78 of 91
into a continuous improvement and quality assurance process. Another individual serves as a court liaison with the lower courts. She also attempts to identify individuals entitled to release. This individual has been promoted to oversee the Records and Classification Office. It is not known whether someone will be assigned to her prior duties. Like the Quality Control Officer, she operated independently of the booking and release process and maintains her own spreadsheets. There still is no systemic approach to ensuring proper detention and release processes are being developed. This is being addressed by the monitoring team consultant in this area.
103. The County must require investigation of all incidents relating to timely or erroneous prisoner release within seven calendar days by appropriate investigators, supervisors, and the Jail Administrator. The Jail Administrator must document any deficiencies found and any corrective action taken. The Jail Administrator must then make any necessary changes to Jail policies and procedures. Such changes should be made, if appropriate, in consultation with court personnel, the District Attorney’s Office, members of the defense bar, and any other law enforcement agencies involved in untimely or erroneous prisoner releases.
Non-Compliant No documentation was provided of incident reports being created for untimely or erroneous prisoner release or any investigations of such incidents.
104. The County must conduct bi-annual audits of release policies, procedures, and practices. As part of each audit, the County must make any necessary changes to ensure that individuals are being released in a timely manner. The audits must review all data collected regarding timely release, including any incident reports or Quality Control audits referenced in Paragraph 102 above. The County must document the audits and recommendations and must submit all documentation to the Monitor and the United States for review.
Non-Compliant Initial policies or procedures have been adopted but require significant revision. There has not been an initial audit of releasing practices. There are no incident reports regarding untimely releases even though such incidents have occurred.
105. The County must ensure that policies, procedures, and practices allow for reasonable attorney visitation, which should be treated as a safeguard to prevent the unlawful detention of citizens and for helping to ensure the efficient functioning of the County’s criminal justice system. The Jail’s attorney visitation process must provide sufficient space for attorneys to meet with their clients in a confidential setting and must include scheduling procedures to ensure that defense attorneys can meet with their clients for reasonable lengths of time and without undue delay. An incident report must be completed if Jail staff are unable to transport a prisoner to
78

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 79 of 91
meet with their attorney, or if there is a delay of more than 30 minutes for transporting a prisoner for a scheduled attorney visit.
Non-Compliant This makes the third time that the monitoring team has recommended that the DSD should take advantage of unused video visitation space in front of the control room officer’s station in the A, B and C Pods at the RDC to be repurposed as attorney/client visitation rooms. With very little effort, and almost no expense, they can be easily transformed into secure rooms that meet the needs of the facility.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
The County must develop an effective system for identifying and self-correcting systemic violations of prisoner’s constitutional rights. To that end, the County must:
106. Develop and maintain a database and computerized tracking system to monitor all reportable incidents, uses of force, and grievances. This tracking system will serve as the repository of information used for continuing improvement and quality assurance reports.
Non-Compliant The County is making progress towards computerized incident and other reports as well as the development of summary reports that would allow the aggregation and sorting of reports. The monitoring team spent a significant amount of time with the IT team in this site visit to identify areas in which the incident reports were deficient. This included adding some fields and moving some fields into the computer-generated report. There continues to be a problem with providing a process in the reporting for approval/disapproval/action required blocks for supervisors. The incident reports are not linked to the investigation reports which often contain important additional information. It was reported that supervisory staff do not receive the investigation reports so they do not have access to this information which may be relevant to discipline, training, or remedial measures. There continues to be a concern because of the lack of reports or the small number of reports that some incidents and grievances are underreported including late releases, lost money and property, medical grievances and some use of force incidents.
The new computerized grievance system does not allow for the compilation of a useful summary grievance report. Currently, this is not possible for several reasons. The reporting functions of the system are either problematic or not adequately conveyed to staff. Staff reported that they could not generate reports with identified parameters. If the prisoner replies via the kiosk in any fashion to the grievance response, that is then automatically converted to an appeal which inaccurately reflects the number of appeals. The system needs to be able to generate accurate reports.
79

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 80 of 91
107. Compile an Incident Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Incident Summary Reports must compile and summarize incident report data in order to identify trends such as rates of incidents in general, by housing unit, by day of the week and date, by shift, and by individual prisoners or staff members. The Incident Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Brief summary of all reportable incidents, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. Description of all suicides and deaths, including the date, name of prisoner, housing
unit, and location where the prisoner died (including name of hospital if prisoner died off-site); c. The names and number of prisoners placed in emergency restraints, and segregation, and the frequency and duration of such placements; d. List and total number of incident reports received during the reporting period; e. List and Total number of incidents referred to IAD or other law enforcement agencies for investigation.
Non-Compliant The County provided a monthly report of incidents in the three facilities. Although the information was helpful, it did not meet the requirements of this paragraph. As mentioned above the IT department is working on a computerized report that should allow for a summary report to be generated. The summary reports are manually created and vary by facility. Because they are manually compiled, it is difficult to identify trends over time. The computerized summary report should remedy this. Even then, it will be essential to determine that reports are being submitted such that an accurate summary report can be generated.
108. Compile a Use of Force Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Use of Force Summary Reports must compile and summarize use of force report data in order to identify trends such as rates of use in general, by housing unit, by shift, by day of the week and date, by individual prisoners, and by staff members. The Use of Force Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Summary of all uses of force, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. List and total number of use of force reports received during the reporting period; c. List and total number of uses of force reports/incidents referred to IAD or other
law enforcement agencies for investigation.
Non-Compliant The County provided a monthly report of use of force in the three facilities. Although the information was helpful, it did not meet the requirements of this paragraph in that the reports are manually prepared each month and do not allow for identifying trends over time. As mentioned above the IT department is working on a computerized report that should allow for a summary
80

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 81 of 91
report to be generated. In meeting with the IT department, it was learned that not all the requirements of this paragraph were addressed. That should be remedied. Even then, it will be essential to determine that reports are being submitted such that an accurate summary report can be generated.
109. Compile a Grievance Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Grievance Summary Reports must compile and summarize grievance information in order to identify trends such as most frequently reported complaints, units generating the most grievances, and staff members receiving the most grievances about their conduct. To identify trends and potential concerns, at least quarterly, a member of the Jail’s management staff must review the Grievance Summary Reports and a random sample of ten percent of all grievances filed during the review period. These grievance reviews, any recommendations, and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant See response to 106 above.
110. Compile a monthly summary report of IAD investigations conducted at the Facility. The IAD Summary Report must include:
a. A brief summary of all completed investigations, by type, shift, housing unit, and date;
b. A listing of investigations referred for disciplinary action or other final disposition by type and date;
c. A listing of all investigations referred to a law enforcement agency and the name of the agency, by type and date; and
d. A listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.
Partial Compliance See response to paragraph 68. Subsequent to the last site visit, the IAD investigator provided a summary sheet reflecting the status of IAD investigations since 2017; however, the level of detail included does not comply with all of the requirements of this paragraph.
111. Conduct a review, at least annually, to determine whether the incident, use of force, grievance reporting, and IAD systems comply with the requirements of this Agreement and are effective at ensuring staff compliance with their constitutional obligations. The County must make any changes to the reporting systems that it determines are necessary as a result of the system reviews. These reviews and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
81

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 82 of 91
Non-Compliant There has been no annual review pursuant to this paragraph.
112. Ensure that the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance systems include an Early Intervention component to alert Administrators of potential problems with staff members. The purpose of the Early Intervention System is to identify and address patterns of behavior or allegations which may indicate staff training deficiencies, persistent policy violations, misconduct, or criminal activity. As part of the Early Intervention process, incident reports, use of force reports, and prisoner grievances must be screened by designated staff members for such patterns. If misconduct, criminal activity, or behaviors indicate the need for corrective action, the screening staff must refer the incidents or allegations to Jail supervisors, administrators, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies for investigation. Additionally:
a. The Early Intervention System may be integrated with other database and computerized tracking systems required by this Agreement, provided any unified system otherwise still meets the terms of this Agreement.
b. The Early Intervention System must screen for staff members who may be using excessive force, regardless of whether use of force reviews concluded that the uses complied with Jail policies and this Agreement. This provision allows identification of staff members who may still benefit from additional training and serves as a check on any deficiencies with use of force by field supervisors.
c. The Jail Administrator, or designee of at least Captain rank, must personally review Early Intervention System data and alerts at least quarterly. The Administrator, or designee, must document when reviews were conducted as well as any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken.
d. The County must maintain a list of any staff members identified by the Early Intervention System as possibly needing additional training or discipline. A copy of this list must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
e. The County must take appropriate, documented, and corrective action when staff members have been identified as engaging in misconduct, criminal activity, or a pattern of violating Jail policies.
f. The County must review the Early Intervention System, at least bi-annually, to ensure that it is effective and used to identify staff members who may need additional training or discipline. The County must document any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken as a result of these reviews. Copies of these reviews must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
Non-Compliant There is currently no Early Intervention program.
82

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 83 of 91
113. Develop and implement policies and procedures for Jail databases, tracking systems, and computerized records (including the Early Intervention System), that ensure both functionality and data security. The policies and procedures must address all of the following issues: data storage, data retrieval, data reporting, data analysis and pattern identification, supervisor responsibilities, standards used to determine possible violations and corrective action, documentation, legal issues, staff and prisoner privacy rights, system security, and audit mechanisms.
Non-Compliant The initial P&P Manual that was issued in April, 2017 did not include policies and procedures covering this matter.
114. Ensure that the Jail’s medical staff are included as part of the continuous improvement and quality assurance process. At minimum, medical and mental health staff must be included through all of the following mechanisms:
a. Medical staff must have the independent authority to promptly refer cases of suspected assault or abuse to the Jail Administrator, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies;
b. Medical staff representatives must be involved in mortality reviews and systemic reviews of serious incidents. At minimum, a physician must prepare a mortality review within 30 days of every prisoner death. An outside physician must review any mortalities associated with treatment by Jail physicians.
Partial Compliance Medical Administration (MAC) meetings were held in February and May 2018. The Deputy Jail Administrator is conducting the meetings while the Jail Administrator has been out on sick leave.
Quarterly Continuous Quality Improvement meetings are conducted. Topics have included discharge planning, TB skin tests, medication administration. At the JDC, CQI studies included discharge planning, medication administration and compliance in conducting the suicide screen during the intake process
There were no critical incidents of deaths since the last audit. During the May site visit a chart of RW who expired on 5/4/17 was located. A request for medical records was made to the hospital on 5/18/17 but has not been received by the jail. A mortality review was not conducted.
83

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 84 of 91
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
115. Hinds County will establish a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (“Coordinating Committee”) with subject matter expertise and experience that will assist in streamlining criminal justice processes and identify and develop solutions and interventions designed to lead to diversion from arrest, detention, and incarceration. The Coordinating Committee will focus particularly on diversion of individuals with serious mental illness and juveniles. Using the Sequential Intercept Model, or an alternative acceptable to the Parties, the Coordinating Committee will identify strategies for diversion at each intercept point where individuals may encounter the criminal justice system and will assess the County’s current diversion efforts and unmet service needs in order to identify opportunities for successful diversion of such individuals. The Committee will recommend appropriate changes to policies and procedures and additional services necessary to increase diversion.
Partial Compliance Hinds County has contracted with Justice Management Institute (JMI) to provide consulting and assist in implementing a CJCC. The first three meetings of the CJCC have taken place. In order to have a CJCC with sufficient expertise and experience to carry out the mandate of this paragraph, the County will need to provide staff support. The recently hired Quality Control Officer may have been designated to provide some staff support but as yet is not familiar with the CJCC. It is unlikely that he will be able to do his job as Quality Control Officer and provide the needed CJCC staff support. At this time, the CJCC is not yet at a place to identify and develop solutions for diversion.
The Sequential Intercept Mapping required by this paragraph has already taken place under a grant to the Hinds County Behavioral Health from the GAINS Center. A two-day meeting was held on August 16-17, 2017 with broad participation including the County and Jail. The Sequential Intercept Model provides a conceptual framework for communities to use when considering the interface between the criminal justice and mental health systems as they address concerns about the criminalization of inmates with mental health illness. The GAINS center completed the report for Hinds County Behavioral Health. It includes recommendations for creating or improving intercepts in the jail and at release. This provides a useful road map for compliance with the diversion and discharge planning requirements of the consent decree.
116. The Coordinating Committee will include representation from the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office and Hinds County Board of Supervisors. The County will also seek representation from Hinds County Behavioral Health Services; the Jackson Police Department; Mississippi Department of Mental Health; Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services; judges from the Hinds County Circuit, Chancery, and County (Youth and Justice)
84

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 85 of 91
Courts; Hinds County District Attorney Office; Hinds County Public Defender Office; relevant Jackson city officials; and private advocates or other interested community members.
Partial Compliance As noted above the CJCC had its first three meetings. Not all of the identified agencies were represented at the meeting. The reported intention is to expand representation after further development.
117. The Coordinating Committee will prioritize enhancing coordination with local behavioral health systems, with the goal of connecting individuals experiencing mental health crisis, including juveniles, with available services to avoid unnecessary arrest, detention, and incarceration.
Non-Compliant The CJCC has not yet formally adopted priorities.
118. Within 30 days of the Effective Date and in consultation with the United States, the County will select and engage an outside consultant to provide technical assistance to the County and Coordinating Committee regarding strategies for reducing the jail population and increasing diversion from criminal justice involvement, particularly for individuals with mental illness and juveniles. This technical assistance will include (a) a comprehensive review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing efforts to reduce recidivism and increase diversion; (b) identification of gaps in the current efforts, (c) recommendations of actions and strategies to achieve diversion and reduce recidivism; and (d) estimates of costs and cost savings associated with those strategies. The review will include interviews with representatives from the agencies and entities referenced in Paragraph 116 and other relevant stakeholders as necessary for a thorough evaluation and recommendation. Within 120 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the outside consultant will finalize and make public a report regarding the results of their assessment and recommendations. The Coordinating Committee will implement the recommended strategies and will continue to use the outside consultant to assist with implementation of the strategies when appropriate.
Non-Compliant The County did contract with an outside consultant to provide technical assistance in developing the CJCC. However, that contract does not encompass the requirements listed above regarding an assessment of and recommendations for strategies to reduce recidivism and increase diversion.
85

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 86 of 91
IMPLEMENTATION, TIMING, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
Paragraphs 119 and 120 regarding duty to implement and effective date omitted.
121. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County must distribute copies of the Agreement to all prisoners and Jail staff, including all medical and security staff, with appropriate explanation as to the staff members’ obligations under the Agreement. At minimum:
a. A copy of the Agreement must be posted in each unit (including booking/intake and medical areas), and program rooms (e.g., classrooms and any library).
b. Individual copies of the Agreement must be provided to prisoners upon request.
Partial Compliance The HCSO has still not implemented this relatively simple solution. Staff and inmates are not familiar with the details of the Settlement Agreement, which would not be the case if handbook sized copies of it were made available to all personnel (staff and inmates).
POLICY AND PROCEDURE REVIEW
130. The County must review all existing policies and procedures to ensure their compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. Where the Jail does not have a policy or procedure in place that complies with the terms of this Agreement, the County must draft such a policy or procedure, or revise its existing policy or procedure.
Non-Compliant This provision has been changed from partial compliance to non-compliant. An initial attempt to draft policies and procedures was made in early 2017. The Monitoring Team and DOJ provided comments but the policies really needed to be rewritten. The County identified a consulting team to assist with the policies but that has apparently fallen through. It is stated that the plan is back to preparing the policies and procedures in-house. Because there is no apparent forward progress, this provision has been changed to non-compliant.
131. The County shall complete its policy and procedure review and revision within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
Non-Compliant See response to 130.
132. Once the County reviews and revises its policies and procedures, the County must provide a copy of its policies and procedures to the United States and the Monitor for review and comment. The County must address all comments and make any changes requested by the
86

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 87 of 91
United States or the Monitor within thirty (30) days after receiving the comments and resubmit the policies and procedures to the United States and Monitor for review.
Non-Compliant See response to 130.
133. No later than three months after the United States’ approval of each policy and procedure, the County must adopt and begin implementing the policy and procedure, while also modifying all post orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the policies and procedures.
Non-Compliant See response to 130.
134. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, all new or revised policies and procedures must be implemented within six months of the United States’ approval of the policy or procedure.
Non-Compliant There have not yet been policies and procedures approved by the United States.
135. The County must annually review its policies and procedures, revising them as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures must be submitted to the United States and the Monitor for approval in accordance with paragraphs 129-131 above.
Non-Compliant This paragraph is now carried as non-compliant instead of not applicable because under the timeline established by the consent decree an annual review would now be due.
COUNTY ASSESSMENT AND COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR
Paragraphs 136 through 158 on Monitor duties omitted.
159. The County must file a self-assessment compliance report. The first compliance selfassessment report must be filed with the Court within four months of the Effective Date and at least one month before a Monitor site visit. Each self-assessment compliance report must describe in detail the actions the County has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and must make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. The report must include information supporting the County’s representations regarding its compliance with the Agreement such as quality assurance information, trends, statistical data,
87

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 88 of 91
and remedial activities. Supporting information should be based on reports or data routinely collected as part of the audit and quality assurance activities required by this Agreement (e.g., incident, use of force, system, maintenance, and early intervention), rather than generated only to support representations made in the self-assessment.
Non-Compliant At the time of the October site visit, the County provided its first self-assessment. The assessment was a good first step towards compliance with this paragraph but needed to have the level of detail required by this paragraph. This paragraph was listed as Partial Compliance in the last monitoring report. It is now listed as non-compliant because it requires that the selfassessment be updated one month before each site visit, and that was not completed.
160. The County must designate a full-time Compliance Coordinator to coordinate compliance activities required by this Agreement. This person will serve as a primary point of contact for the Monitor. Two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties may consult with each other and the Monitor to determine whether the Compliance Coordinator’s hours may be reduced. The Parties may then stipulate to any agreed reduction in hours.
Compliant The County has designated a full-time Compliance Coordinator who is coordinating compliance activities. The Monitor will continue to track this assignment to ensure sustained compliance in this area.
EMERGENT CONDITIONS
161. The County must notify the Monitor and United States of any prisoner death, riot, escape, injury requiring hospitalization, or over-detention of a prisoner (i.e. failure to release a prisoner before 11:59 PM on the day she or he was entitled to be released), within 3 days of learning of the event.
Partial Compliance Immediate notifications have been provided. However, the County has not been providing notification of over-detention and, in fact, is not currently identifying prisoners who have been detained beyond their release date. The records office needs to be reorganized to implement business practices that accurately identify release dates and process releases. In the interim, the County needs to continue and improve its internal audit procedures to identify individuals entitled to release and prepare incident reports for persons who were detained beyond their legal release date.
Paragraphs 162-167 regarding jurisdiction, construction and the PLRA omitted.
88

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 89 of 91

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 1 2018, I electronically filed the Court-Appointed Monitor’s Fifth Monitoring Report with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to the following:

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

JOHN M. GORE Acting Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

D. MICHAEL HURST, JR.. U.S. Attorney Southern District of Mississippi

STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section steven.rosenbaum@usdoj.gov

LAURA COWALL Special Counsel U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20530 laura.coon@usdoj.gov

CHRISTOPHER N. CHENG Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-8892 (202) 514-6273 (fax) christopher.cheng@usdoj.gov

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 90 of 91
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS – HINDS COUNTY; MEMBERS OF THE HINDS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; THE SHERIFF OF HINDS COUNTY IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY:
PIETER TEEUWISSEN Board Attorney P.O. Box 686 Jackson, MS 39205-0686 (601) 968-6797 (601) 968-6794 (fax) pteeuwissen@co.hinds.ms.us
CLAIRE BARKER Counsel to the Sheriff 407 East Pascagoula Street Jackson, MS 39205 (601) 974-2967 (Fax) cbarker@co.hinds.ms.us

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 23 Filed 08/01/18 Page 91 of 91
COUNSEL FOR INTERESTED PARTY, DISABILITY RIGHTS MISSISSIPPI:
ELISSA JOHNSON JODY E. OWENS PALOMA WU Southern Poverty Law Center 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 948-8882 (601) 948-8885 (Fax) elissa.johnson@splcenter.org
/s Aaron S. Fleisher AARON S. FLEISHER Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 307-6457 (202) 514-4883 (fax) aaron.fleisher@usdoj.gov

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 62
Court-Appointed Monitor’s First Monitoring Report United States v. Hinds County, et al. Civ. No. 3:16cv489 WHB-JCG

David M. Parrish Corrections Operations

Elizabeth E. Simpson, J.D. Court-Appointed Monitor

Jacqueline M. Moore, RN, Ph.D. Corrections Medicine

Jim Moeser Juvenile Justice

1

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 2 of 62
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Following the first site inspection in October 2016, the Monitor prepared the Baseline Visit Report which summarized the status of the County with regard to the many provisions of the Settlement Agreement. Subsequent to the first visit, the County hired a Compliance Coordinator which has improved communication with the Monitor and appears to be facilitating steps towards compliance. In addition, the Sheriff’s Office took a positive step in December when it began to utilize some of the available space in the Work Center (WC) to accommodate prisoners that were (and are) crowding the understaffed Raymond Detention Center (RDC).
There followed the second visit and the first actual monitoring visit in February, 2017. Progress had been made in a number of areas. However, there were a number of critical areas of deficiency having substantial impact on the health and safety of the prisoners. The body of this report contains a listing of each substantive requirement of the consent decree and a description of the status of compliance as of the time of the site visit. This executive summary highlights some areas of progress and those areas of greatest concern. Communications since the time of the site visit indicate that additional progress has been made subsequent to the site visit. This report, however, reflects conditions at the time of the site visit. The progress since that time will be reflected in the report on the next site visit.
Corrections Operations
The overarching problem facing the Hinds County Jail System is the inability to hire and retain enough qualified personnel (deputies) to staff required positions. No matter what other steps are taken to address operational problems within the facilities, compliance with conditions of the Settlement Agreement cannot be achieved until this matter is successfully addressed.
For at least five years, there have not been enough officers on board to staff direct supervision housing units, particularly at the RDC, as they were originally designed. This has left prisoners in charge, which resulted in riots, prisoner deaths and major structural damage to the facility. Repairs to the jails have not been long-term solutions because, unsupervised, the prisoners are free to quickly destroy what has been repaired. Until each direct supervision housing unit is continuously staffed, and sufficient escort officers are on board to relieve and back them up, the cycle of facility and equipment destruction cannot be broken.
In order to identify and address a problem it is necessary to record accurate data. Until one has a baseline against which to measure progress, it is impossible to move forward. The lack of accurate, verifiable data with regard to incidents that occur within the Hinds County Jail System,
2

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 3 of 62
makes corrective action problematic at best. Based on the amount of damage that is readily observable throughout the facilities, the obvious lack of staff in critical positions, and the dearth of incident reports that one would expect to be generated regarding such conditions, it is apparent that report writing is not a primary concern of Hinds County Jail staff. It will take a great deal of effort to reverse this historical failure to document significant incidents.
A positive result of the various committees created by the Compliance Coordinator is reflected in the fact the WC has already made modifications to the ten confinement cells located on each side of the main corridor. The double deck bunks have been replaced with single beds and the (unused) corridor surveillance gangway has been removed. Once the other recommendations submitted by the Monitor have been put into place, the WC will become a much more staffefficient, and secure, facility.
Youthful Offenders
There has been little, if any, substantive progress in addressing requirements related to youthful prisoners since the baseline visit in 2016. The assignment of an officer to the youthful prisoner unit on a more consistent basis is a step forward as is the recognition that more needs to be done related to providing appropriate programming for youth, including educational assessment and supports as well as other services. However, overall staff and physical plant limitations continue to be a significant barrier to progress. A decision on where to house youthful offenders in the future needs to be made as soon as possible, as making a successful transition will require substantial planning and will have fiscal implications that should be considered in the development of the county’s 2018 budget.
The responsiveness of key leadership in Hinds County is a positive sign of their recognition of the importance of addressing the requirements for youthful prisoners, but it is evident that the scope and complexity of issues facing the County makes it difficult to make progress in this area separate from addressing other fundamental concerns. Nonetheless, the County must take steps to incorporate additional support services (e.g. education assessment and instruction programming beyond GED supports, mental health assessment and treatment services, life skill programming, etc.) that could be provided on a limited basis within the current structure of the facility.
Medical and Mental Health
Quality Correctional Health Care (“QCHC”), the contract medical and mental health provider for the Hinds County detention facilities, has developed health care policies and procedures, however they are not specific to the requirements of the consent decree nor are they in accordance with NCCHC standards. This will be a priority for the next quarter. Two new
3

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 4 of 62
forms have been developed for mental health. One is an AIMS test (Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) for tardive dyskinesia and the second is a mental health consent form. Yet to be implemented is a use of force report. Despite the prevalence of mental illness among the prisoner population, there is little or no discharge planning. A discharge planner should be a priority for the County and QCHC.
Criminal Justice and Correctional System Issues
In this area as well, key leadership in the county expressed strong support for developing systemic improvements. At the time of the site visit, the County brought together potential facilitators and contributors to the development of a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (“CJCC”) as a start to laying the groundwork for the implementation of such a committee. County leadership demonstrates an effort to be strategic in building an effective CJCC. However, a broader meeting of the stakeholders has not yet taken place nor has the County retained a consultant to assist with this process, a consent decree requirement that is now long overdue. Of great concern is the lack of any progress at the time of the site visit in the area of detaining individuals unlawfully when fines and fees are ordered although as of the date of this report, some progress is reported. This has included some individuals who are detained solely for old fines or fees after present pending issues are resolved including situations where there has never been a court order of detention. Equally concerning is the lack of tracking at Raymond of expected release dates. Records staff relies upon the prisoner to notify them when the prisoner believes they should be released. It also became apparent that the record system is significantly inaccurate even with respect to who is in the facility.
County and correctional staff also demonstrated motivation to develop the systems that will allow them to track and achieve compliance. The hiring of a compliance coordinator is a good step in this direction. However, the infrastructure to track, demonstrate and ultimately achieve compliance still needs to be developed. This includes completing a self-assessment, initiating and improving record keeping, and developing the ability to generate routine reports and respond to special inquiries. The ability to access data is not just for purposes of demonstrating compliance; it is an important internal tool for tracking and achieving safety and security within the facility.
Priority Recommendations
Following the February 2017 site visit, the Monitoring Team identified steps that could be taken to make interim improvements so that real, measurable progress could be made in some priority areas while the Board worked on the financial solution. To that end, in late February, the Monitor submitted a list of Priority Recommendations. (Attachment 1) They included seven items associated with jail operations; three regarding juvenile offenders; six concerning criminal
4

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 5 of 62

justice system issues; and four associated with medical/mental health issues. All of the Priority Items represent action that the County can take without waiting to go through the annual budget cycle for funding.
Shortly after the second site visit the Compliance Coordinator organized a number of working groups, which have designated members, specific assignments and a set meeting schedule. They are: (1) Steering/Reporting Group; (2) Workforce Development; (3) Facilities Maintenance/Housing/Equipment; (4) Mental Health and Substance Abuse; and (5) Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee. The Priority Recommendations submitted by the Monitor were passed along to each of these working groups for their respective action. As was reported in the Clarion Ledger on March 10, 2017, these steps have already resulted in a change that is both cost effective and operationally efficient. By no longer participating in the program that allows it to house and work state prisoners, Hinds County saves the cost of food and medical care, frees up approximately twenty deputies who can now supervise Division of Detention prisoners and makes 200 beds at the WC available to help ease the crowded conditions at the RDC.

MONITORING ACTIVITIES
The Monitoring Team conducted a Site Visit February 7th through the 10th, 2017. The Site Visit schedule was as follows:

February 7th
A.M.
A.M.

Track One

Track Two

Track Three

Introductory Meeting With Stakeholders including Board of Supervisors, County and

Sheriff Attorneys, Sheriff, Sheriff and Detention Staff, Medical Staff, Hinds County

Behavioral Health Staff, Potential CJCC participants

Moeser visits Henley Young Moore and Parrish go to

Simpson meets with

Discussions with Director Jackson facility

Attorneys,

Johnny McDaniels,

Compliance

Operations Manager Eric

Coordinator, and

Burnside, and Kenneth

potential CJCC

Devine, School Principal

participants

P.M.
February 8th
A.M.

Moeser visits Henley Young Moore and Parrish go to Work Center

Simpson goes to Work Center to review fines and fees records; meets with Capt. Chandler, Deputy Neal

Meeting with Major Rushing and Raymond Leadership; County Attorneys join at

5

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 6 of 62

A.M. P.M.

10:00 Moeser and Parrish tour Raymond and review records
Parrish and Moeser continue tour of Raymond and review

February 9th
A.M.

11:00 P.M.

Parrish continues to tour Raymond

February 10th
A.M.

Moore tours medical areas and reviews medical records
Moore continues record review; Moeser joins for review of juvenile records

Simpson tours booking; reviews booking and release records Simpson meets with Compliance Coordinator to go over self-assessment

Simpson and team meet with compliance coordinator and IT team to discuss reports that must be generated and documents to be produced Simpson and Moore meet with QCHC Simpson, Moeser and Moore meet with combined jail based and community based mental health stakeholders Simpson reviews grievance and court tracking records; Tours visitation areas

Exit Meeting

Prior to the site visit, the County provided some documents in response to previous document requests. The attached spreadsheet indicates the documents requested and those received. (Attachment 2) All documents received were reviewed either prior to or, because of the short time available prior to the site visit, after the site visit.
In the course of the site visit, the team interviewed numerous staff members, contractors, prisoners and stakeholders as mentioned below when relevant. In addition, facility and prisoner records on site were reviewed during the course of the site visit again as referenced below when relevant. A number of documents related to staffing and budget were reviewed but there
6

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 7 of 62

remained a lack of clarity in this area and additional documents were requested post visit. Draft policies and procedures were reviewed but final policies and procedures have not yet been completed. With respect to youthful prisoners, on-site activities included discussions with Major Rushing related to education programming, the review of 21 youthful prisoner records and the GED files for all enrolled, the interview of 4 youthful prisoners, brief interview of Sgt. Tower, and an interview of Deputy Newell, the Programming Officer. With respect to medical and mental health, prisoner medical records and QCHC records were reviewed.
An additional document request was made after the site visit. This request is attached in spreadsheet form showing what documents have been provided. (Attachment 3) Those that have been provided have been reviewed. Some requests are still pending. Specific to youthful offenders, post visit document review included daily count records for Henley Young for approximately November 2016 through early March 2017, Raymond 2017 draft Policies and Procedures Manual and Raymond daily count records related to youthful prisoners.
COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW
The monitoring team will track progress towards compliance with the following chart. This chart will be added to with each monitoring report showing the date of the site visit and the number of consent decree requirements in full, partial or non-compliance. Requirements that have not yet been triggered such as an annual review are listed as NA (not applicable) at this time. Sustained compliance is achieved when compliance with a particular settlement agreement requirement has been sustained for 18 months or more. The count of 91 requirements is determined by the number of settlement agreement paragraphs which have substantive requirements. Introductory paragraphs and general provisions are not included. Some paragraphs may have multiple requirements which are evaluated independently in the text of the report but are included as one requirement for purposes of this chart.

Site Visit Date 2/7-10/17

Sustained Compliance 0

Full Compliance 1

Partial Compliance 4

NA at Nonthis time compliant

2

85

Total 92

INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS Text of paragraphs 1-34 regarding “Parties,” “Introduction,” and “Definitions” omitted.

7

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 8 of 62
SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS
PROTECTION FROM HARM
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to provide prisoners with safety, protect prisoners from violence committed by other prisoners, and ensure that prisoners are not subjected to abuse by Jail staff. To that end, the County must: 37. Develop and implement policies and procedures to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment for prisoners and staff. Such policies and procedures must include the following:
a. Booking; b. Objective classification; c. Housing assignments; d. Prisoner supervision; e. Prisoner welfare and security checks (“rounds”); f. Posts and post orders; g. Searches; h. Use of force; i. Incident reporting; j. Internal investigations; k. Prisoner rights; l. Medical and mental health care; m. Exercise and treatment activities; n. Laundry; o. Food services; p. Hygiene; q. Emergency procedures; r. Grievance procedures; and s. Sexual abuse and misconduct. Non-Compliant A Policies and Procedures Manual for the Detention Division has yet to be compiled. During the February site visit draft versions of independent manuals for each jail were provided to the Monitor. The failure to develop a single manual that applies to all three facilities reflects the long history of each jail acting as a stand-alone facility instead of an integral part of a jail system. Work is now underway to consolidate the three drafts and develop one manual. According to status reports developed by the Compliance Coordinator, the manual was to be completed and presented at the March 20, 2017, meeting of the Board of Supervisors, then on to the Monitor by April 1, 2017.
8

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 9 of 62
With respect to the medical policy and procedure there are several deficiencies that should be specifically addressed. All intakes are still performed by Correctional Officers at the Raymond Facility. Nurses have been assigned to the intake area but rather than performing the receiving screening they are providing a health assessment. The nurses have been provided with a room in the intake area but there is no examination table there. There is no ophthalmoscope or otoscope to look into the patient’s eyes or ears. Instead the nurses bring a flashlight which is totally unacceptable.
Nurses at the Jackson Facility are required to review the charts created at the Raymond Facility and follow up on any medications or appointments. There is a space on the intake form for nurses to sign when they have reviewed the chart; however 80% of the time it was not signed indicating review by the Jackson nursing staff was not completed. The electronic medical record is not used by all providers.
Dr. Kumar, the contract psychiatrist, visits the Jackson Facility at 7 AM in the morning once every two weeks. Many of the patients that are on his list do not get up to attend their appointment and thus do not receive mental health counseling or medication therapy. The appointments are marked refused and are not re-scheduled. Consideration should be provided for appropriate appointment times and all appointments should be re-scheduled at least for a second visit.
A review of medication administration records and interviews with prisoners indicated that bedtime medications are distributed around 5 PM. It is recognized that the prisoners are locked in their cells by 9PM, however many of the medications given at bedtime have short half-lives, thus if the medication is given too early the effects will peak out at 6 hours and the patient will be awake all night which is not the purpose of the medication order.
There has not been an administrative meeting with the medical staff since five months ago. This was brought up at the exit conference. The meetings should be held quarterly and involve the doctor, social worker, health administrator and correctional supervisors. The Health staff has not implemented a continuous quality improvement system. Chart audits and peer reviews should be performed on a monthly basis. The policies and procedures have been reviewed. The policies have been pulled together from several different projects that QCHC manages and are not specific to the consent decree.
38. Ensure that the Jail is overseen by a qualified Jail Administrator and a leadership team with substantial education, training and experience in the management of a large jail, including at least five years of related management experience for their positions, and a bachelor’s degree. When the Jail Administrator is absent or if the position becomes vacant, a qualified deputy
9

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 10 of 62
administrator with comparable education, training, and experience, must serve as acting Jail Administrator. Partial Compliance The current Jail Administrator does not have the requisite bachelor’s degree. Although she majored in Criminal Justice at Mississippi Valley State University (1978-80) and Chicago State University (1980-81) she did not graduate. Consideration should be given, however, to her extensive experience in law enforcement and corrections at both the local and state level. Beginning as a police officer with the Flora, Mississippi Police Department from 1981 to 1986, she moved on to become the Jail Administrator for the Madison County (Mississippi) Sheriff’s Department from 1986 to 2000. Thereafter she was employed by the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office where she rose through the ranks from Corporal to Assistant Director between 2002 and 2006 and to Director from 2006 to 2012. That was followed by almost two years (2012-2013) with the Mississippi Department of Corrections as a Facility Commander and two more years as Warden of the Yazoo County Regional Correctional Facility (2014-2015). In January 2016 she assumed her present position as the Major in charge of the Hinds County Division of Detention. Based on her extensive experience, completion of numerous career development courses and obvious commitment to the position, the monitoring team does not recommend a personnel change in this position. Although there is an authorized deputy administrator position in the table of organization, it is presently unfilled.
39. Ensure that all Jail supervisors have the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing needed to effectively supervise both prisoners and other staff members. At minimum, Jail supervisors must have at least 3 years of field experience, including experience working in the Jail. They must also be familiar with Jail policies and procedures, the terms of this Agreement, and prisoner rights. Non-Compliant A number of senior level supervisory positions (three lieutenants) have not yet been filled. The personnel files of the three captains and existing sergeants have not yet been examined to determine whether or not they meet the minimum three-year experience standard. This provision is noted as non-compliant as compliance has not been demonstrated. It should be noted, however, that their familiarity with Jail policies and procedures must be questioned considering the fact that there is no published manual available at this time.
40. Ensure that no one works in the Jail unless they have passed a background check, including a criminal history check. Non-Compliant Individual employee records have not yet been examined due to time constraints during the site visit. This provision is noted as non-compliant as compliance has not been demonstrated.
10

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 11 of 62
41. Ensure that Jail policies and procedures provide for the “direct supervision” of all Jail housing units. Non-Compliant Since the Policies and Procedures Manual has not yet been issued, this item cannot be measured; however, it should be noted that currently only the Work Center operates under the principles of Direct Supervision. While the Raymond Detention Center was designed for and operated that way initially, it will not be able to re-implement Direct Supervision until enough deputies are hired to staff the housing units. The Jackson Detention Center was built before the practice of Direct Supervision was conceived and will never be able to become a Direct Supervision facility because of its design.
42. Ensure that the Jail has sufficient staffing to adequately supervise prisoners, fulfill the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the safe operation of the Jail. The parties recognize that the Board allocates to the Sheriff lump sum funding on a quarterly basis. The Sheriff recognizes that sufficient staffing of the Jail should be a priority for utilizing those funds. To that end, the County must at minimum:
a. Hire and retain sufficient numbers of detention officers to ensure that: i. There are at least two detention officers in each control room at all times; ii. There are at least three detention officers at all times for each housing unit, booking area, and the medical unit;
iii. There are rovers to provide backup and assistance to other posts; iv. Prisoners have access to exercise, medical treatment, mental health
treatment, and attorney visitation as scheduled; v. There are sufficient detention officers to implement this Agreement. b. Fund and obtain a formal staffing and needs assessment (“study”) that determines with particularity the minimum number of staff and facility improvements required to implement this Agreement. As an alternative to a new study, the September 2014 study by the National Institute of Corrections may be updated if the updated study includes current information for the elements listed below. The study or study update must be completed within six months of the Effective Date and must include the following elements: i. The staffing element of the study must identify all required posts and
positions, as well as the minimum number and qualifications of staff to cover each post and position. ii. The study must ensure that the total number of recommended positions includes a “relief factor” so that necessary posts remain covered regardless of staff vacancies, turnover, vacations, illness, holidays, or other temporary factors impacting day-to-day staffing.
11

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 12 of 62
iii. As part of any needs assessment, the study’s authors must estimate the number of prisoners expected to be held in the Jail and identify whether additional facilities, including housing, may be required.
c. Once completed, the County must provide the United States and the Monitor with a copy of the study and a plan for implementation of the study’s recommendations. Within one year after the Monitor’s and United States’ review of the study and plan, the County must fund and implement the staffing and facility improvements recommended by the study, as modified and approved by the United States.
d. The staffing study shall be updated at least annually and staffing adjusted accordingly to ensure continued compliance with this Agreement. The parties recognize that salaries are an important factor to recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, so the County will also annually evaluate salaries.
e. The County will also create, to the extent possible, a career ladder and system of retention bonuses for Jail staff.
Non-Compliant The Jail system has insufficient staff, both authorized and on board, to effectively operate the facilities or fulfill the terms of the Agreement. The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Staffing Analysis (2014) has not been reviewed or updated. In fact, the most basic of computations, an in-house post, shift and position classification requirement, with associated relief factor, is not available to validate the need for a specified number of positions. During the February site visit the steps necessary to carry out this initial effort were covered in detail with the Division Major and three facility Captains. Once that has been accomplished, the resultant figures need to be carefully compared to the NIC study and the Consent Agreement to clarify inconsistencies. In the interim, the 5.1 relief factor identified by then Sheriff Tyrone Lewis in his memorandum dated September 23, 2013, should be utilized as the basis for preliminary staffing computations. This equates to 1.2 staff required for a single shift, five days per week (not 1.4 as was stated in the previously mentioned memorandum); 1.7 staff for a single shift seven days per week; and 5.1 for a post that is operated seven days per week on all three shifts. These figures should be utilized by Hinds County when computing workforce projections. Current turnover projections for 2016, based on the first nine months of the year, indicate that the WC will be 30.3%, the JDC 22.7% and the RDC 56.2%. While those numbers reflect an improvement over previous years, they are still excessive to the point that the RDC, in particular, cannot function effectively. Further, the accuracy of any figures associated with the authorized and actual work force is suspect because neither the County nor the Sheriff’s Office has been able to provide a valid list to date. It is imperative that a comprehensive list of all authorized positions, identified by a permanent position number, and organized by Operations and Detention Division of the Sheriff’s Office, be provided to the Monitor as soon as possible. In order to address the County’s inability to hire and retain enough qualified deputies, it is essential that immediate action be taken to create a competitive salary schedule that recognizes and
12

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 13 of 62
rewards longevity. The current system, which pays the same amount to a ten-year deputy as it does to a new hire, is entirely untenable.
f. Develop and implement an objective and validated classification and housing assignment procedure that is based on risk assessment rather than solely on a prisoner’s charge. Prisoners must be classified immediately after booking, and then housed based on the classification assessment. At minimum, a prisoner’s bunk, cell, unit, and facility assignments must be based on his or her objective classification assessment, and staff members may not transfer or move prisoners into a housing area if doing so would violate classification principles (e.g., placing juveniles with adults, victims with former assailants, and minimum security prisoners in a maximum security unit). Additionally, the classification and housing assignment process must include the following elements: i. The classification process must be handled by qualified staff who have additional training and experience on classification. ii. The classification system must take into account objective risk factors including a prisoner’s prior institutional history, history of violence, charges, special needs, physical size or vulnerabilities, gang affiliation, and reported enemies. iii. Prisoner housing assignments must not be changed by unit staff without proper supervisor and classification staff approval. iv. The classification system must track the location of all prisoners in the Jail, and help ensure that prisoners can be readily located by staff. The County may continue to use wrist bands to help identify prisoners, but personal identification on individual prisoners may not substitute for a staff-controlled and centralized prisoner tracking and housing assignment system. v. The classification system must be integrated with the Jail prisoner record system, so that staff have appropriate access to information necessary to provide proper supervision, including the current housing assignment of every prisoner in the Jail. vi. The designation and use of housing units as “gang pods” must be phased out under the terms of this Agreement. Placing prisoners together because of gang affiliation alone is prohibited. The County must replace current gang-based housing assignments with a more appropriate objective classification and housing process within one year after the Effective Date.
Partial Compliance While significant progress has been made toward the development and implementation of an objective and validated classification and housing system, major enhancements are required before compliance can be achieved. The Classification staff is only available Monday through
13

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 14 of 62
Friday on the day shift. Further, they do not have total authority on facility, unit and cell assignments. They are not even routinely kept up to date when changes are made during their absence. Currently, prisoners arrested over the weekend are not interviewed for classification until mid-day Monday. In order to make significant progress in this area, Classification staff needs to be on duty seven days per week. All prisoner movements must be cleared through Classification in advance. During the evening and night shifts, supervisors must document any movements and forward that information to Classification so that corrective action can be taken in the morning, if necessary. Strong consideration should be given to combining Classification and Records in order to expand hours of operation while standardizing record keeping. There needs to be a single point of information for every prisoner in the Jail System instead of compartmentalized records in the various facilities. While gang based unit assignment has been curtailed, behavior based classification, as opposed to charge based, has yet to be implemented.
g. Develop and implement positive approaches for promoting safety within the Jail including: i. Providing all prisoners with at least 5 hours of outdoor recreation per week; ii. Developing rewards and incentives for good behavior such as additional commissary, activities, or privileges; iii. Creating work opportunities, including the possibility of paid employment; iv. Providing individual or group treatment for prisoners with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other behavioral or medical conditions, who would benefit from therapeutic activities; v. Providing education, including special education, for youth, as well as all programs, supports, and services required for youth by federal law; vi. Screening prisoners for serious mental illness as part of the Jail’s booking and health assessment process, and then providing such prisoners with appropriate treatment and therapeutic housing; vii. Providing reasonable opportunities for visitation.
h. Ensure that policies, procedures, and practices provide for higher levels of supervision for individual prisoners if necessary due to a prisoner’s individual circumstances. Examples of such higher level supervision include (a) constant observation (i.e., continuous, uninterrupted one-on-one monitoring) for actively suicidal prisoners (i.e., prisoners threatening or who recently engaged in suicidal behavior); (b) higher frequency security checks for prisoners locked down in maximum security units, medical observation units, and administrative segregation units; and (c) more frequent staff interaction with youth as part of their education, treatment and behavioral management programs.
14

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 15 of 62
i. Continue to update, maintain, and expand use of video surveillance and recording cameras to improve coverage throughout the Jail, including the booking area, housing units, medical and mental health units, special management housing, facility perimeters, and in common areas.
Non-Compliant Outdoor recreation has been non-existent throughout the Jail System, except in the WC, since the riot at the RDC in 2012. Other programs and educational opportunities are rarely available due to lack of staff. Enhanced security for problematic/high security prisoners is not available for the same reason. Hourly well-being checks at the RDC and JDC are sporadically documented, but are essentially meaningless in that deputies do not enter the units and check individual cells. More frequent well-being checks, as specified in the Settlement Agreement are not performed except when a prisoner is on a suicide watch in the Infirmary of the RDC. Progress has been made with regard to the juveniles housed at the RDC in that their unit is staffed at least part time. An enhanced video surveillance and recording system at the RDC represents a significant step forward; however, there is no one available to monitor it except for the single deputy assigned to Master Control, and that officer is already severely overtaxed with time-consuming duties. At the time of the February site visit, the JDC had no video or recording capability, but in March cameras and recording equipment were installed. They cover some support areas of the jail as well as the third and fourth floor corridors.
With respect to programing for youthful prisoners, based on discussions with Deputy Newell and Major Rushing, it is apparent that the adult GED program is still in place, although it is not clear how many prisoners, including young adults, take advantage of the program compared to how many may be eligible given more staffing and space. Deputy Newell seems to be in the process of building up other programming that could be available to prisoners, utilizing his connections in the faith community to recruit potential volunteers and other programs to provide services. Deputy Newell indicates that he circulates information about programming options to prisoners, and prisoners can then express their interest in the various options (e.g. Reading, Anger Management, Fatherhood, Computer Skills, Employment, Parenting, Credit Recovery, Alcohol/Substance Abuse). Even if Deputy Newell is successful in getting these program offerings off the ground, significant staffing and physical plant challenges will remain in being able to provide appropriate services.
Individuals who would benefit from group treatment would include individuals with substance abuse, prisoners charged with or who have been involved in domestic violence and prisoners on the mental health unit which could include courses of daily living.
43. Include outcome measures as part of the Jail’s internal data collection, management, and administrative reporting process. The occurrence of any of the following specific outcome
15

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 16 of 62
measures creates a rebuttable presumption in this case that the Jail fails to provide reasonably safe conditions for prisoners:
a. Staff vacancy rate of more than 10% of budgeted positions; b. A voluntary staff turnover rate that results in the failure to staff critical posts (such
as the housing units, booking, and classification) or the failure to maintain experienced supervisors on all shifts; c. A major disturbance resulting in the takeover of any housing area by prisoners; d. Staffing where fewer than 90% of all detention officers have completed basic jailer training; e. Three or more use of force or prisoner-on-prisoner incidents in a fiscal year in which a prisoner suffers a serious injury, but for which staff members fail to complete all documentation required by this Agreement, including supervision recommendations and findings; f. One prisoner death within a fiscal year, where there is no documented administrative review by the Jail Administrator or no documented mortality review by a physician not directly involved in the clinical treatment of the deceased prisoner (e.g. corporate medical director or outside, contract physician, when facility medical director may have a personal conflict); g. One death within a fiscal year, where the death was a result of prisoner-onprisoner violence and there was a violation of Jail supervision, housing assignment, or classification procedures. Non-Compliant These outcome measures are not routinely collected as part of the Jail’s internal reporting processes. Currently, several of the outcome measures listed create a rebuttable presumption of unsafe conditions. The turnover rate for all three facilities exceeds 20%, while at the RDC, the largest jail, the turnover rate is more than 50%. This results in no staff being available to stand required posts. With the exception of the Juvenile Unit, all units at the RDC are routinely left unattended. During the most recent site visit, Pod B did not have a single officer assigned, except for the Control Room, on the second shift (February 8th). This shortage was only rectified when Captain Shields ordered an officer to be pulled from Booking so that there would at least be a rover in the corridors for the Pod. Use of force reports are still suspect in that the number of recorded reports is unrealistically low considering the number of incidents that resulted in media coverage and the level of destruction in the facilities, particularly the RDC. An outcome measures system is not in place with regard to data collection. Incident reports requested by the Monitor have not been provided beyond September 2016.
44. To complement, but not replace, “direct supervision,” develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that detention officers are conducting rounds as appropriate. To that end:
16

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 17 of 62
a. Rounds must be conducted at least once every 30 minutes in general population housing units and at least once every 15 minutes for special management prisoners (including prisoners housed in booking cells).
b. All security rounds must be conducted at irregular intervals to reduce their predictability, and must be documented on forms or logs.
c. Officers must only be permitted to enter data on these forms or logs at the time a round is completed. Forms and logs must not include pre-printed dates or times. Officers must not be permitted to fill out forms and logs before they actually conduct their rounds.
d. The parties anticipate that “rounds” will not necessarily be conducted as otherwise described in this provision when the Jail is operated as a “direct supervision” facility. This is because a detention officer will have constant, active supervision of all prisoners in the detention officer’s charge. As detailed immediately below, however, even under a “direct supervision” model, the Jail must have a system in place to document and ensure that staff are providing adequate supervision.
e. Jail policies, procedures, and practices may utilize more than one means to document and ensure that staff are supervising prisoners as required by “direct supervision,” including the use and audit of supervisor inspection reports, visitation records, mealtime records, prisoner worker sheets, medical treatment files, sick call logs, canteen delivery records, and recreation logs. Any system adopted to ensure that detention officers are providing “direct supervision” must be sufficiently detailed and in writing to allow verification by outside reviewers, including the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant At present, only the WC adequately documents well-being checks. They are recorded in the unit master log on an hourly basis when the unit deputy confirms the current count. Even here, however, the practice does not comply with what the Settlement Agreement requires (30 minute well-being checks). At the JDC well-being checks are recorded in the control rooms on the third and fourth floors. That practice needs to be modified by placing a log at the end of each corridor for the respective floor officers to sign as they make their rounds. While that still does not insure that the officer has checked each cell, at least it will guarantee that he/she has traversed the wing at least once per half hour as required. At the RDC there is no system in place to satisfy the requirements of this section. It cannot be met until a deputy is assigned inside each unit on every shift.
45. Ensure that all correctional officers receive adequate pre and post-service training to provide for reasonably safe conditions in the Jail. To that end, the County must ensure that the Jail employs Qualified Training Officers, who must help to develop and implement a formal, written training program. The program must include the following:
17

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 18 of 62
a. Mandatory pre-service training. Detention officers must receive State jailer training and certification prior to start of work. Staff who have not received such training by the Effective Date of this Agreement must complete their State jailer training within twelve months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. During that twelve month period, the County must develop an in-house detention training academy.
b. Post Order training. Detention officers must receive specific training on unitspecific post orders before starting work on a unit, and every year thereafter. To document such training, officers must be required to sign an acknowledgement that they have received such training, but only after an officer is first assigned to a unit, after a Post Order is updated, and after completion of annual retraining.
c. “Direct supervision” training. Detention officers must receive specific pre- and post-service training on “direct supervision.” Such training must include instruction on how to supervise prisoners in a “direct supervision” facility, including instruction in effective communication skills and verbal de-escalation. Supervisors must receive training on how to monitor and ensure that staff are providing effective “direct supervision.”
d. Jail administrator training. High-level Jail supervisors (i.e., supervisors with facility-wide management responsibilities), including the Jail Administrator and his or her immediate deputies (wardens), must receive jail administrator training prior to the start of their employment. High-level supervisors already employed at the Jail when this Agreement is executed must complete such training within six months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Training comparable to the Jail Administration curriculum offered by the National Institute of Corrections will meet the requirements of this provision.
e. Post-service training. Detention officers must receive at least 120 hours per year of post-service training in their first year of employment and 40 hours per year after their first year. Such training must include refresher training on Jail policies. The training may be provided during roll call, staff meetings, and post-assignment meetings. Post-service training should also include field and scenario-based training.
f. Training for Critical Posts. Jail management must work with the training department to develop a training syllabus and minimum additional training requirements for any officer serving in a critical position. Such additional training must be provided for any officer working on a tactical team; in a special management, medical or mental health unit; in a maximum security unit; or in booking and release.
g. Special management unit training. Officers assigned to special management units must receive at least eight hours of specialized training each year regarding
18

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 19 of 62
supervision of such units and related prisoner safety, medical, mental health, and security policies. h. Training on all Jail policies and procedures including those regarding prisoner rights and the prevention of staff abuse and misconduct. Non-Compliant While pre-service training for new officers is now being conducted, there is still a backlog of required pre, post and in-service training. Further, Direct Supervision training for deputies and supervisors is lacking. The Major has attended specialized management training at NIC’s Large Jail Network, but similar training has yet to be provided to the facility commanders (Captains). Post Order training is dependent upon the issuance of current Post Orders, which has not been done because the Policies and Procedures Manual has not yet been issued. Required specialized training is similarly lacking.
46. Develop and implement policies and procedures for adequate supervisory oversight for the Jail. To that end, the County must:
a. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the authority to make personnel decisions necessary to ensure adequate staffing, staff discipline, and staff oversight. This personnel authority must include the power to hire, transfer, and discipline staff. Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) allocated for budget purposes represent a salaried slot and are not a restriction on personnel assignment authority. While the Sheriff may retain final authority for personnel decisions, the Jail’s policies and procedures must document and clearly identify who is responsible for a personnel decision, what administrative procedures apply, and the basis for personnel decisions.
b. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the ability to monitor, ensure compliance with Jail policies, and take corrective action, for any staff members operating in the Jail, including any who are not already reporting to the Jail Administrator and the Jail’s chain of command. This provision covers road deputies assigned to supervise housing units and emergency response/tactical teams entering the Jail to conduct random shakedowns or to suppress prisoner disturbances.
c. Ensure that supervisors conduct daily rounds on each shift in the prisoner housing units, and document the results of their rounds.
d. Ensure that staff conduct daily inspections of all housing and common areas to identify damage to the physical plant, safety violations, and sanitation issues. This maintenance program must include the following elements: i. Facility safety inspections that include identification of damaged doors, locks, cameras, and safety equipment. ii. An inspection process.
19

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 20 of 62
iii. A schedule for the routine inspection, repair, and replacement of the physical plant, including security and safety equipment.
iv. A requirement that any corrective action ordered be taken. v. Identification of high priority repairs to assist Jail and County officials
with allocating staff and resources. vi. To ensure prompt corrective action, a mechanism for identifying and
notifying responsible staff and supervisors when there are significant delays with repairs or a pattern of problems with equipment. Staff response to physical plant, safety, and sanitation problems must be reasonable and prompt. Non-Compliant The Policies and Procedures Manual has not yet been published and issued. While the Sheriff’s General Orders Manual does specify that the Detention Services Division Major is responsible for the operation of the Division, and thus all three facilities, it is not sufficiently specific to be responsive to the management issues specified in this section. There is currently no way to confirm that supervisors conduct daily rounds on each shift in the housing units. A review of unit logs at the RDC does not support such activity there. Nor is there a system in place to identify and correct maintenance issues. This was apparent at each facility where long standing damage and maintenance items go uncorrected. At the RDC the prisoner wristband system in Booking was found to be out of operation. The best estimate of the duration of the problem was “two months or more” as stated by the officer assigned to the Identification Post (mug shots, finger prints and wristbands). During the walk through of the housing units, several showers were found to be running constantly. They were incapable of being shut off at the showerhead. This appears to be an ongoing problem that is simply accepted by staff. At the WC a toilet in Unit 4 has been out of order for over seven months. After it was noted during both the October 2016 and February 2017 site visits, Captain Chandler researched the matter and determined that a work order was submitted on June 29, 2016. At the JDC, lights in the two holding cells in Intake have been inoperative for an undetermined amount of time, but worse yet; the ventilation in those cells is either non-functional or inadequate to the point that officers have to periodically open the cell doors so that the prisoners can breather fresh(er) air. While written work orders are submitted to County maintenance staff, there is no system in place to insure their timely completion.
47. Ensure that staff members conduct random shakedowns of cells and common areas so that prisoners do not possess or have access to dangerous contraband. Such shakedowns must be conducted in each housing unit at least once per month, on an irregular schedule to make them less predictable to prisoners and staff. Non-Compliant While shakedowns may occur on an irregular basis, there is no schedule and record to reflect that such is happening. Indicative of this shortfall was the recent escape at the RDC that occurred
20

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 21 of 62
just prior to the Super Bowl football game. A prisoner literally pounded and chiseled a hole in the exterior wall of his cell, exited the facility and was captured by the outside security officer as he attempted to retrieve contraband items that an outside accomplice had thrown over the perimeter fence. The ease of access to contraband items by prisoners is exacerbated by the fact that deputies are not assigned to duty inside each housing unit as they should be. Over a period of just three days in early April, large holes were found in the perimeter fence and the exterior walls of two cells in A Pod at the RDC. During a follow up cell search, a mobile phone, a “shank” and thirty unauthorized blankets were recovered.
48. Install cell phone jammers or other electronic equipment to detect, suppress, and deter unauthorized communications from prisoners in the Jail. Installation must be completed within two years after the Effective Date. Non-Compliant There is no record that action has been taken to address this issue.
49. Develop and implement a gang program in consultation with qualified experts in the field that addresses any link between gang activity in the community and the Jail through appropriate provisions for education, family or community involvement, and violence prevention. Non-Compliant There is no record that action has been taken to address this issue. In the Monitor’s Baseline Report it was noted that the practice of classifying and housing prisoners according to gang affiliation had been ended shortly after the new Sheriff’s administration assumed command. It should be noted, however, that some incident reports indicate that the impact of gang membership is still significant.
USE OF FORCE STANDARDS
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to prevent excessive force by staff and ensure force is used safely and only in a manner commensurate with the behavior justifying it. To that end, the County must:
50. Develop and implement policies and procedures to regulate the use of force. The policies and procedures must:
a. Prohibit the use of force as a response to verbal insults or prisoner threats where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff or visitors;
b. Prohibit the use of force as a response to prisoners’ failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff, visitors, or property;
21

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 22 of 62
c. Prohibit the use of force against a prisoner after the prisoner has ceased to resist and is under control;
d. Prohibit the use of force as punishment or retaliation; e. Limit the level of force used so that it is commensurate with the justification for
use of force; and f. Limit use of force in favor of less violent methods when such methods are more
appropriate, effective, or less likely to result in the escalation of an incident. Non-Compliant Until the Policies and Procedures Manual is issued to all personnel the adequacy of procedures associated with use of force cannot be determined. In the interim, under the technical assistance provision of the Consent Agreement, model Incident Report and Use of Force Report forms from the Volusia and Hillsborough County Jail Systems in Florida were provided to the Compliance Coordinator for use by Hinds County Detention staff. It should be noted that the number of incident reports and use of force reports that were filed through September, 2016, appear to be very low considering the amount of damage that is obvious throughout the Jail System. It is doubtful that incident reports and use of force reports accurately reflect the number of incidents that should be documented.
51. Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure timely notification, documentation, and communication with supervisors and medical staff (including mental health staff) prior to use of force and after any use of force. These policies and procedures must specifically include the following requirements:
a. Staff members must obtain prior supervisory approval before the use of weapons (e.g., electronic control devices or chemical sprays) and mechanical restraints unless responding to an immediate threat to a person’s safety.
b. If a prisoner has a serious medical condition or other circumstances exist that may increase the risk of death or serious injury from the use of force, the type of force that may be used on the prisoner must be restricted to comply with this provision. These restrictions include the following: i. The use of chemical sprays, physical restraints, and electronic control devices must not be used when a prisoner may be at risk of positional asphyxia. ii. Electronic control devices must not be used on prisoners when they are in a location where they may suffer serious injury after losing voluntary muscle control (e.g., prisoner is standing atop a stairwell, wall, or other elevated location). iii. Physical strikes, holds, or other uses of force or restraints may not be used if the technique is not approved for use in the Jail or the staff member has not been trained on the proper use of the technique.
22

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 23 of 62
c. Staff members must conduct health and welfare checks every 15 minutes while a prisoner is in restraints. At minimum, these checks must include (i) logged firstperson observations of a prisoner’s status while in restraints (e.g. check for blood flow, respiration, heart beat), and (ii) documented breaks to meet the sanitary and health needs of prisoners placed in emergency restraints (e.g., restroom breaks and breaks to prevent cramping or circulation problems).
d. The County must ensure that clinical staff conduct medical and mental health assessments immediately after a prisoner is subjected to any Level 1 use of force. Prisoners identified as requiring medical or mental health care during the assessment must receive such treatment.
e. A first-line supervisor must personally supervise all planned uses of force, such as cell extractions.
f. Security staff members must consult with medical and mental health staff before all planned uses of force on juveniles or prisoners with serious mental illness, so that medical and mental health staff may offer alternatives to or limitations on the use of force, such as assisting with de-escalation or obtaining the prisoner’s voluntary cooperation.
g. The Jail must have inventory and weapon controls to establish staff member responsibility for their use of weapons or other security devices in the facility. Such controls must include: i. a sign-out process for staff members to carry any type of weapon inside the Jail, ii. a prohibition on staff carrying any weapons except those in the Jail’s tracked inventory, and iii. random checks to determine if weapons have been discharged without report of discharge (e.g., by checking the internal memory of electronic control devices and weighing pepper spray canisters).
h. A staff member must electronically record (both video and sound) all planned uses of force with equipment provided by the Jail.
i. All staff members using force must immediately notify their supervisor. j. All staff members using a Level 1 use of force must also immediately notify the
shift commander after such use of force, or becoming aware of an allegation of such use by another staff member. Non-Compliant Until the Policies and Procedures Manual is issued to all personnel, the adequacy of policies dealing with use of force and coordination between line and medical/mental health staff cannot be determined. Current incident reports and use of force reports do not reflect compliance with this section’s referenced standards. Until the Policies and Procedures Manual is issued to all personnel, the adequacy of policies dealing with periodic well-being checks and follow up by medical and mental health personnel cannot be determined. There are no records maintained
23

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 24 of 62
regarding 15 minute well-being checks except in the Infirmary where prisoners are under suicide watch. No records have been provided to date regarding prisoners who are in restraints. Until the Policies and Procedures Manual is issued to all personnel, the adequacy of policies associated with planned use of force situations, video recording, non-lethal weapons inventory and supervisory notification, cannot be determined. No records have been provided to date regarding planned use of force situations. There is no record of an inventory of less than lethal weapons, nor is there a record of discharge of such weapons.
The County does not utilize restraint chairs but does utilize pepper spray and tasers. The QCHC staff has been instructed to develop a use of force report and to document whenever force is utilized. QCHC has also been tasked with the development of medical policies when pepper spray is utilized and when tasers are used. These policies have not yet been developed.
The policy for QCHC is for the health care staff to respond to all use of force incidents and cell extractions. The policy indicates that security will consult with medical for allergies such as asthma, other respiratory conditions or mental health illness. Health monitoring, is put in place and if a medical or mental health condition develops, then the physician is notified.
The QCHC policy indicates that security will consult with medical staff before and after all use of force on juveniles or prisoners so that medical and mental health can offer alternatives such as de-escalation techniques and voluntary cooperation with medications. The practice will be reviewed at the next site visit to determine if this practice is followed.
USE OF FORCE TRAINING
52. The County must develop and implement a use of force training program. Every staff member who supervises prisoners must receive at least 8 hours of pre-service use of force training and annual use of force refresher training. Non-Compliant The Policies and Procedures Manual has not yet been issued to all personnel; however the Training Director is developing an on-going program for new and existing employees. Records are not yet available to validate compliance.
53. Topics covered by use of force training must include: a. Instruction on what constitutes excessive force; b. De-escalation tactics; c. Methods of managing prisoners with mental illness to avoid the use of force; d. Defensive tactics; e. All Jail use of force policies and procedures, including those related to documentation and review of use of force.
24

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 25 of 62
Non-Compliant The Policies and Procedures Manual must be issued to all personnel before this section can be properly analyzed. The Training Director needs to provide a training curriculum covering use of force, de-escalation tactics, and defensive tactics. The training curriculum has been requested.
54. The County must randomly test at least 5 percent of Jail Staff members annually to determine whether they have a meaningful, working knowledge of all use of force policies and procedures. The County must also evaluate the results to determine if any changes to Jail policies and procedures may be necessary and take corrective action. The results and recommendations of such evaluations must be provided to the United States and Monitor. Non-Compliant This cannot be completed until after the training is completed.
55. The County must update any use of force training within 30 days after any revision to a use of force policy or procedure. Non-Compliant This cannot be updated until the requisite training has been completed.
USE OF FORCE REPORTING
To prevent and remedy the unconstitutional use of force, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting use of force. To that end, the County must:
56. Develop and implement use of force reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information to analyze and respond appropriately to use of force. Non-Compliant This matter cannot be addressed until the Policies and Procedures Manual is issued to all personnel. Current forms and procedures do not provide for adequate supervisory review. The forms simply provide a space for “Supervisor Signature”. That is inadequate in that a supervisor’s signature does not indicate approval, disapproval or recommendation for corrective/follow up action.
57. Require each staff member who used or observed a use of force to complete a Use of Force Report as promptly as possible, and no later than by the end of that staff member’s shift. Staff members must accurately complete all fields on a Use of Force Report. The failure to report any use of force must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination. Similarly, supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations. Non-Compliant
25

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 26 of 62
This requirement will be analyzed once the Policies and Procedures Manual is issued to all personnel. At present, it is not possible to tell whether or not incident reports are submitted in a timely fashion or whether supervisors follow through within the time parameters specified in the Settlement Agreement.
58. Ensure that Jail use of force reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, use of force reports must document the following information:
a. A unique tracking number for each use of force; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. A description of the events leading to the use of force, including what precipitated
or appeared to precipitate those events; f. A description of the level of resistance, staff response, and the type and level of
force (including frequency and duration of use). For instance, use of force reports must describe the number of discharges from electronic control devices and chemical munitions canisters; the amount of discharge from chemical munitions canisters; whether the Staff Member threatened to use the device or actually discharged the device; the type of physical hold or strike used; and the length of time a prisoner was restrained, and whether the prisoner was released from restraints for any period during that time; g. A description of the staff member’s attempts to de-escalate the situation without use of force; h. A description of whether the staff member notified supervisors or other personnel, including medical or mental health staff, before or after the use of force; i. A description of any observed injuries to staff or prisoners; j. Whether medical care was required or provided to staff or prisoners; k. Reference to any associated incident report or prisoner disciplinary report completed by the reporting officer, which pertains to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force; l. A signature of the staff member completing the report attesting to the report’s accuracy and completeness. Non-Compliant After the Policies and Procedures Manual is issued to all personnel, and a revised Use of Force Report is put in place, it will be possible to determine whether or not policies comply with this standard. In the interim, forms and existing procedures do not comply with the Settlement Agreement.
26

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 27 of 62
USE OF FORCE SUPERVISOR REVIEWS
59. The County must ensure that Jail supervisors review, analyze, and respond appropriately to use of force. At minimum:
a. A supervisor must review all use of force reports submitted during the supervisor’s watch by the end of the supervisor’s watch.
b. A supervisor must ensure that staff members complete their use of force reports by the end of their watch.
c. Reviewing supervisors must document their findings as to the completeness of each staff member’s use of force report, and must also document any procedural errors made by staff in completing their reports.
d. If a Use of Force report is incomplete, reviewing supervisors must require Staff Members to provide any required information on a revised use of force report, and the Jail must maintain both the original and any revised report in its records.
e. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing use of force reports must document their use of force review as described in Paragraph 62 sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted.
f. All Level 1 uses of force must be sent to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD.
g. A Level 2 use of force must be referred to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD if a reviewing supervisor concludes that there may have been a violation of law or policy. Level 2 uses of force may also be referred to IAD if the County requires such reporting as a matter of Jail policy and procedure, or at the discretion of any reviewing supervisor.
Non-Compliant Appropriate supervisory review cannot be determined until the Policies and Procedures Manual is issued to all personnel and they have had an opportunity to implement it. Currently, supervisors merely sign off on forms. Their signature does not reflect agreement, disagreement or recommended action.
60. After any Level 1 use of force, responding supervisors will promptly go to the scene and take the following actions:
a. Ensure the safety of everyone involved in or proximate to the incident. Determine if anyone is injured and ensure that necessary medical care is or has been provided.
b. Ensure that photos are taken of all injuries sustained, or as evidence that no injuries were sustained, by prisoners and staff involved in a use of force incident. Photos must be taken no later than two hours after a use of force. Prisoners may refuse to consent to photos, in which case they should be asked to sign a waiver
27

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 28 of 62
indicating that they have refused consent. If they refuse to sign a waiver, the shift commander must document that consent was requested and refused. c. Ensure that staff members and witnesses are identified, separated, and advised that communications with other staff members or witnesses regarding the incident are prohibited. d. Ensure that victim, staff, and witness statements are taken confidentially by reviewing supervisors or investigators, outside of the presence of other prisoners or involved staff. e. Document whether the use of force was recorded. If the use of force was not recorded, the responding supervisors must review and explain why the event was not recorded. If the use of force was recorded, the responding supervisors must ensure that any record is preserved for review. Non-Compliant Until the Policies and Procedures Manual is issued to all personnel it is impossible to determine whether or not proper supervisory review practices were followed. Currently, both forms and practice do not reflect compliance with the terms of this section.
61. All uses of force must be reviewed by supervisors who were neither involved in nor approved the use of force by the end of the supervisor’s shift. All level 1 uses of force must also be reviewed by a supervisor of Captain rank or above who was neither involved in nor approved the use of force. The purposes of supervisor review are to determine whether the use of force violated Jail policies and procedures, whether the prisoner’s rights may have been violated, and whether further investigation or disciplinary action is required. Non-Compliant See the previous response, above. With only three use of force reports submitted from January through September, 2016, it is not reasonable to assume that such incidents are being routinely documented or that supervisory review is being conducted appropriately. The three use of force reports in question did not comply with the Settlement Agreement’s standards.
62. Reviewing supervisors must document the following: a. Names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses interviewed by the supervisor; b. Witness statements; c. Review date and time; d. The findings, recommendations, and results of the supervisor’s review; e. Corrective actions taken; f. The final disposition of the reviews (e.g., whether the Use of Force was found to comply with Jail policies and procedures, or whether disciplinary action was taken against a staff member);
28

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 29 of 62
g. Supporting documents such as incident reports, logs, and classification records. Supervisors must also obtain and review summary medical and mental health records describing – i. The nature and extent of injuries, or lack thereof; ii. The date and time when medical care was requested and actually provided; iii. The names of medical or mental health staff conducting any medical or mental health assessments or care.
h. Photos, video/digital recordings, or other evidence collected to support findings and recommendations.
Non-Compliant See the previous response, above. Existing incident reports and use of force reports do not reflect compliance with the above referenced criteria. Photographs, digital recording and related records are not currently maintained.
INCIDENT REPORTING AND REVIEW
To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting and reviewing incidents in the Jail that may pose a threat to the life, health, and safety of prisoners. To that end, the County must:
63. Develop and implement incident reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information in order to respond appropriately to reportable incidents. Non-Compliant Incident Report policies and procedures have not yet been issued. When they have been put forth in the required Policies and Procedures Manual, this matter will be addressed. As was previously noted, the Monitoring team has provided sample forms to Hinds County from agencies that have model documents and procedures in place.
QCHC policy requires that all injuries to staff and prisoners are to be reported on a log. Also included are the medical care received and the housing area of the occurrence. Medical staff that has been involved or has observed a reportable incident are to complete an incident report.
64. Ensure that Incident Reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, Incident Reports must contain the following information:
a. Tracking number for each incident; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner, and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time;
29

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 30 of 62
e. Type of incident; f. Injuries to staff or prisoner; g. Medical care; h. All staff involved or present during the incident and their respective roles; i. Reviewing supervisor and supervisor findings, recommendations, and case
dispositions; j. External reviews and results; k. Corrective action taken; and l. Warden and Administrator review and final administrative actions. Non-Compliant The comments associated with the previous section apply. As an indicator of non-compliance, on March 4, 2017, three prisoners escaped from the RDC. Their escape was not even noted until an arresting officer from another agency called the facility and reported that there was a prisoner outside of the facility by A Pod. A review of records revealed that the officer responsible for conducting the head count prior to the incident had obviously counted a “body” as opposed to a prisoner. No corrective action or recommendation by a supervisor was noted on any incident report. In fact, some forms were not even signed by a supervisor. Certainly, nothing went to the level of the Captain or Major.
65. Require each staff member directly involved in a reportable incident to accurately and thoroughly complete incident reports as promptly as possible, by the end of the staff member’s shift. At minimum:
a. Staff members must complete all fields on an Incident Report for which they have responsibility for completion. Staff members must not omit entering a date, time, incident location, or signature when completing an Incident Report. If no injuries are present, staff members must write that; they may not leave that section blank.
b. Failure to report any reportable incident must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination.
c. Supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will also be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
Non-Compliant Policies and Procedures must first be issued before compliance with these criteria can be measured. It is not possible to determine whether or not disciplinary action is required when nothing has been documented at the supervisory level.
66. Ensure that Jail supervisors review and respond appropriately to incidents. At minimum: a. Shift commanders must document all reportable incidents by the end of their shift, but no later than 12 hours after a reportable incident.
30

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 31 of 62
b. Shift commanders must report all suicides, suicide attempts, and deaths, no later than one hour after the incident, to a supervisor, IAD, and medical and mental health staff.
c. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing Incident Reports must document their incident review within 24 hours of receipt of an Incident Report sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted. Such documentation must include the same categories of information required for supervisor use of force reviews such as names of individuals interviewed by the supervisor, witness statements, associated records (e.g. medical records, photos, and digital recordings), review dates, findings, recommendations, and case dispositions.
d. Reportable incidents must be reviewed by a supervisor not directly involved in the incident.
Non-Compliant The Policies and Procedures Manual must be issued to all personnel before this matter can be addressed. Based on existing incident reports, supervisors are in non-compliance with the criteria.
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
67. To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to address sexual abuse and misconduct. Such policies and procedures must include all of the following:
a. Zero tolerance policy towards any sexual abuse and sexual harassment as defined by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementing regulations;
b. Staff training on the zero tolerance policy, including how to fulfill their duties and responsibilities to prevent, detect, report and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment under the policy;
c. Screening prisoners to identify those who may be sexually abusive or at risk of sexual victimization;
d. Multiple internal ways to allow both confidential and anonymous reporting of sexual abuse and sexual harassment and any related retaliation, including a mechanism for prisoners to directly report allegations to an outside entity;
e. Both emergency and ongoing medical and mental health care for victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment, including rape kits as appropriate and counseling;
f. A complete ban on cross-gender strip searches or cross-gender visual body cavity searches except in exigent circumstances or when performed by a medical examiner;
31

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 32 of 62
g. A complete ban on cross-gender pat searches of women prisoners, absent exigent circumstances;
h. Regular supervisory review to ensure compliance with the sexual abuse and sexual harassment policies; and
i. Specialized investigative procedures and training for investigators handling sexual abuse and sexual harassment allegations.
Non-Compliant This matter cannot be addressed until the Policies and Procedures Manual is issued to all personnel and a Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Coordinator is designated. At present there is no record on file to reflect compliance with any aspect of this section.
QCHC has not yet developed a formal policy that meets PREA guidelines. The medical policy when developed should identify needed staff training, the process for screening prisoners for rape at the local hospital, the availability of prophylactic treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, and the completion of an examination by a qualified mental health. In practice, prisoners are sent to a community hospital. In the new policy, QCHC should have the authority to promptly refer cases of suspected abuse to the jail administrator, IAD or other law enforcement agencies.
INVESTIGATIONS
68. The County shall ensure that it has sufficient staff to identify, investigate, and correct misconduct that has or may lead to a violation of the Constitution. At a minimum, the County shall:
a. Develop and implement comprehensive policies, procedures, and practices for the thorough and timely (within 60 days of referral) investigation of alleged staff misconduct, sexual assaults, and physical assaults of prisoners resulting in serious injury, in accordance with this Agreement, within 90 days of its Effective Date. At a minimum, an investigation will be conducted if: i. Any prisoner exhibited a serious injury; ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious accounts of the incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member).
b. Per policy, investigations shall: i. Be conducted by qualified persons, who do not have conflicts of interest that bear on the partiality of the investigation;
32

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 33 of 62
ii. Include timely, thorough, and documented interviews of all relevant staff and prisoners who were involved in or who witnessed the incident in question, to the extent practicable; and
iii. Include all supporting evidence, including logs, witness and participant statements, references to policies and procedures relevant to the incident, physical evidence, and video or audio recordings.
c. Provide investigators with pre-service and annual in-service training so that investigators conduct quality investigations that meet the requirements of this Agreement;
d. Ensure that any investigative report indicating possible criminal behavior will be referred to the appropriate criminal law enforcement agency;
e. Within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, IAD must have written policies and procedures that include clear and specific criteria for determining when it will conduct an investigation. The criteria will require an investigation if: i. Any prisoner exhibited serious, visible injuries (e.g., black eye, obvious bleeding, or lost tooth); ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious accounts of the incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member).
f. Provide the Monitor and United States a periodic report of investigations conducted at the Jail every four months. The report will include the following information: i. a brief summary of all completed investigations, by type and date; ii. a listing of investigations referred for administrative investigation; iii. a listing of all investigations referred to an appropriate law enforcement agency and the name of the agency; and iv. a listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation. v. a description of any corrective actions or changes in policies, procedures, or practices made as a result of investigations over the reporting period.
g. Jail management shall review the periodic report to determine whether the investigation system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement and make recommendations regarding the investigation system or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor and United States.
33

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 34 of 62
Non-Compliant Compliance with this section cannot be achieved until the Policies and Procedures Manual is issued to all personnel. Currently, criminal investigators conduct an analysis of significant incidents in the Jail System. For example, when there was an escape from the WC on February 15, 2017, by a prisoner who had completed his sentence, but was due to be held for ICE, detectives conducted a thorough investigation. The same can be said when three prisoners escaped from the RDC on March 4, 2017. It should be noted, however, that in both cases no action was apparently taken with regard to the officers involved, although it may be that action will follow once the full investigations are complete.
GRIEVANCE AND PRISONER INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Because a reporting system provides early notice of potential constitutional violations and an opportunity to prevent more serious problems before they occur, the County must develop and implement a grievance system. To that end: 69. The grievance system must permit prisoners to confidentially report grievances without requiring the intervention of a detention officer. Partial Compliance On this monitoring visit the Monitoring team reviewed the grievance system only at RDC. The grievance process that is described in the Prisoner Handbook is significantly different from the process described by the grievance officer. The process described in the Handbook requires the prisoner to talk first to the Housing Deputy and then the shift lieutenant. Then, the prisoner may file a request with the facility commander. According to the Handbook, the prisoner must then request an Prisoner Grievance Form by writing a letter requesting the form to the Warden and then submitting it through a detention officer. This process requires the intervention of a detention officer at multiple times in the process and would not be compliant with this requirement. The process as described by the Grievance Officer at RDC is very different from that in the Handbook. Grievance forms are in the control room. A prisoner has to ask the housing deputy to get a grievance form. Deputy Newell who was described as overseeing program security, goes around to the housing units daily with a cart/box. The prisoner drops the grievance in the box. Deputy Newell then pulls them out, initials and dates the request, and then gives them to the grievance officer. This does not require as much involvement of detention officers. However, the prisoner must still make the initial request to the housing deputy to get the form. In the short term, it would be better if Deputy Newell could provide the form when he is collecting previously filled out grievance forms. A number of jurisdictions use an electronic kiosk system for many prisoner communication functions including submitting grievances. The County should consider this in the future.
QCHC has developed a grievance policy which requires all grievances to be addressed in a timely manner according to the facility policy. During prisoner orientation, prisoners are advised
34

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 35 of 62
of the manner in which complaints regarding health services can be resolved both informally and formally. Tracking of grievances is maintained in a prisoner grievance log. The grievances and the response are faxed to the Corporate Director of Nursing.
70. Grievance policies and procedures must be applicable and standardized across the entire Jail. Non-Compliant The monitoring team did not have time to investigate the grievance procedures at each of the three facilities. The Work Center Handbook is consistent with the RDC handbook. However, the procedure described in the RDC handbook is not the one used at RDC. At this time it is not known if the WC process is consistent with the WC Handbook, or the current RDC procedure or is different from both. The County needs to identify a consistent process across all facilities and revise the handbook to reflect that process and adequately inform the prisoners.
71. All grievances must receive appropriate follow-up, including a timely written response by an impartial reviewer and staff tracking of whether resolutions have been implemented or still need implementation. Any response to a medical grievance or a grievance alleging threats or violence to the grievant or others that exceeds 24 hours shall be presumed untimely. Partial Compliance The grievance system at RDC is a functional system. Grievances are tracked and are responded to. The Warden responds to all grievances. The Grievance officer maintains an up to date spreadsheet. The spreadsheet needed to include additional data points including the officer involved, the resolution and whether the resolution was implemented in order to accurately track the relevant information related to grievances. The Grievance Officer sends medical grievances directly to the Medical Contractor. These are not logged in and the Grievance Officer does not track the response. The Grievance Officer should be logging them in and ensuring a timely response. The Monitoring Team will determine in the next site visit whether the expanded spreadsheet is being maintained.
72. The grievance system must accommodate prisoners who have physical or cognitive disabilities, are illiterate, or have LEP, so that these prisoners have meaningful access to the grievance system. Non-Compliant There is currently no identified practice to accommodate prisoners with disabilities or who might otherwise require assistance to access the grievance system. Other prisoners are permitted to assist a prisoner but there is no other identified mechanism for assistance. This does not meet the requirements of the settlement agreement.
73. The County must ensure that all current and newly admitted prisoners receive information about prison rules and procedures. The County must provide such information
35

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 36 of 62
through an inmate handbook and, at the discretion of the Jail, an orientation video, regarding the following topics: understanding the Jail’s disciplinary process and rules and regulations; reporting misconduct; reporting sexual abuse, battery, and assault; accessing medical and mental health care; emergency procedures; visitation; accessing the grievance process; and prisoner rights. The County must provide such information in appropriate languages for prisoners with LEP. Non-Compliant As noted above, the grievance procedure described in the Handbook is not the one that is utilized and would not be consistent with paragraph 69 above. There is nothing in the Handbook describing how to report misconduct, sexual abuse, or battery and assault. The Handbook does not describe prisoner rights. It was previously reported that a translation into Spanish was being worked on but that has not been provided.
RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SEGREGATION
In order to ensure compliance with constitutional standards and to prevent unnecessary harm to prisoners, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to limit the use of segregation. To that end, this Agreement imposes the following restrictions and requirements:
74. Within 8 hours of intake, prisoners in the booking cells must be classified and housed in more appropriate long-term housing where staff will provide access to exercise, meals, and other services. Non-Compliant The Policies and Procedures Manual has not yet been issued to all personnel. In the interim, Booking cells continue to be inappropriately used for long term housing of problematic prisoners. During the February site visit it was noted that two prisoners were held there in single cells that do not meet basic standards for housing—one for two and one half years and the other for eight and one half months. All prisoners held in multiple occupancy cells at the time of the inspection had been there for less than eight hours.
75. The County must document the placement and removal of all prisoners to and from segregation. Non-Compliant At the RDC, general population housing units are designed to hold approximately 60 prisoners each and are supposed to be staffed with one officer continuously. In this Direct Supervision configuration the prisoners should be in the dayroom throughout the day and be in their locked cells only at night and during special evolutions such as headcount and in preparation for feeding. Confinement housing, sometimes referred to as lockdown or segregation, is designed to house prisoners who cannot get along in general population. These prisoners are usually held in isolation for disciplinary, administrative or protective custody reasons. They are locked in their
36

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 37 of 62
cells for 22 or 23 hours per day with only an hour or two out of cell time for showering, visitation, recreation and to have access to a telephone. Confinement housing should be subdivided into small components of from four to sixteen cells (modules) within a 48 to 64 cell unit. This type of housing is more expensive to construct than general population and is much more labor intensive to operate. Realistically, three officers are required to operate a 64 bed confinement unit. None of the housing units at the RDC are properly designed to serve as confinement units because they are not sub-divided into modules. This makes the job of keeping problem prisoners separate from each other much more difficult. All of these issues are exacerbated at the RDC because the shortage of deputies makes it impossible to assign officers to any of the adult housing units. A separate segregation log is not maintained, rather, notations are made in the Pod Control Logs and some notations are made in Classification records. Once a designated (and properly staffed) Segregation/ Confinement Unit is operational it should be possible to achieve compliance.
76. Qualified Mental Health Professionals must conduct mental health rounds at least once a week (in a private setting if necessary to elicit accurate information), to assess the mental health status of all prisoners in segregation and the effect of segregation on each prisoner’s mental health, in order to determine whether continued placement in segregation is appropriate. These mental health rounds must not be a substitute for treatment. Non-Compliant This section requires that all prisoners held in segregation be seen by a Qualified Mental Health Professional at least weekly, to determine his/her status, in addition to regularly scheduled treatment. At the RDC, Housing Unit C-1 holds mental health prisoners, A-3 holds high risk prisoners and some single cells in Booking hold long term, segregated mental health prisoners. While it was not possible to review logs associated with the weekly status review requirement during the February site visit, the absence of security staff, who must be available to assist with this activity, makes it most unlikely that it is being carried out. This will be reviewed at the next site visit.
77. The County must develop and implement restrictions on the segregation of prisoners with serious mental illness. These safeguards must include the following:
a. All decisions to place a prisoner with serious mental illness in segregation must include the input of a Qualified Mental Health Professional who has conducted a face-to-face evaluation of the prisoner in a confidential setting, is familiar with the details of the available clinical history, and has considered the prisoner’s mental health needs and history.
b. Segregation must be presumed contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness.
c. Within 24 hours of placement in segregation, all prisoners on the mental health caseload must be screened by a Qualified Mental Health Professional to
37

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 38 of 62
determine whether the prisoner has serious mental illness, and whether there are any acute mental health contraindications to segregation. d. If a Qualified Mental Health Professional finds that a prisoner has a serious mental illness or exhibits other acute mental health contraindications to segregation, that prisoner must not be placed or remain in segregation absent documented extraordinary and exceptional circumstances (i.e. for an immediate and serious danger which may arise during unusual emergency situations, such as a riot or during the booking of a severely psychotic, untreated, violent prisoner, and which should last only as long as the emergency conditions remain present). e. Documentation of such extraordinary and exceptional circumstances must be in writing. Such documentation must include the reasons for the decision, a comprehensive interdisciplinary team review, and the names and dated signatures of all staff members approving the decision. f. Prisoners with serious mental illness who are placed in segregation must be offered a heightened level of care that includes the following: i. If on medication, the prisoner must receive at least one daily visit from a
Qualified Medical Professional. ii. The prisoner must be offered a face-to-face, therapeutic, out-of-cell
session with a Qualified Mental Health Professional at least once per week. iii. If the prisoner is placed in segregation for more than 24 hours, he or she must have his or her case reviewed by a Qualified Mental Health Professional, in conjunction with a Jail physician and psychiatrist, on a weekly basis. g. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, A Qualified Mental Health Professional will assess all prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation. This assessment must include a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Prisoners requiring follow-up for additional clinical assessment or care must promptly receive such assessment and care. h. If a prisoner on segregation decompensates or otherwise develops signs or symptoms of serious mental illness, where such signs or symptoms had not previously been identified, the prisoner must immediately be referred for appropriate assessment and treatment by a Qualified Mental Health Professional. Any such referral must also result in a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Signs or symptoms requiring assessment or treatment under this clause include a deterioration in cognitive, physical, or
38

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 39 of 62
verbal function; delusions; self-harm; or behavior indicating a heightened risk of suicide (e.g., indications of depression after a sentencing hearing). i. The treatment and housing of prisoners with serious mental illness must be coordinated and overseen by the Interdisciplinary Team (or Teams), and guided by formal, written treatment plans. The Interdisciplinary Team must include both medical and security staff, but access to patient healthcare information must remain subject to legal restrictions based on patient privacy rights. The intent of this provision is to have an Interdisciplinary Team serve as a mechanism for balancing security and medical concerns, ensuring cooperation between security and medical staff, while also protecting the exercise of independent medical judgment and each prisoner’s individual rights. j. Nothing in this Agreement should be interpreted to authorize security staff, including the Jail Administrator, to make medical or mental health treatment decisions, or to overrule physician medical orders.
Non-Compliant By design, a Direct Supervision housing unit should be staffed continuously with one officer to manage approximately 64 prisoners. Segregation (also known as “confinement”) housing units generally require three officers to handle the same number of prisoners. They are much more labor intensive because the prisoners must be dealt with individually, they are usually the most problematic prisoners and documented well-being checks are required at least every 30 minutes. Due to the lack of staff in the Hinds County Jail System, it is impossible to operate segregation housing as it should be. At the RDC none of the housing units are staffed appropriately. In fact, only A-1 which houses juveniles, has a deputy assigned even part time. At the WC prisoners placed in the two, five cell segregation modules are left virtually unattended for the duration of their stay. Without officers available to provide security, medical and mental health professionals cannot perform their mandated function.
YOUTHFUL PRISONERS
As long as the County houses youthful prisoners, it must develop and implement policies and procedures for their supervision, management, education, and treatment consistent with federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482. Within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will determine where it will house youthful prisoners. During those six months, the County will consult with the United States, the monitor of the Henley Young Juvenile Detention Center consent decree, and any other individuals or entities whose input is relevant. The United States will support the County’s efforts to secure appropriate housing for youthful prisoners, including supervised
39

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 40 of 62
release. Within 18 months after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will have completed transitioning to any new or replacement youthful prisoner housing facility. Non-Compliant As of the February site visit there was not a clear decision on where Hinds County will house youthful prisoners. It is apparent that further discussions have occurred, and as referenced in the baseline report, consideration of utilizing the Henley Young facility is a logical option and in many ways the most feasible choice. The programming and staffing at Henley Young makes it much more likely that the county can meet the conditions of this agreement. However, based on this visit and discussions with Henley Young staff, actually making this transition functional will rely on considerable planning that includes resolution related to a number of issues identified in the baseline report, including:  Review of physical plant alterations and/or expansion that could be required to provide
sufficient flexibility for (a) appropriate classification of youthful offenders and placement in appropriate housing unit(s); (b) expanded and/or reconfigured education and other programming space, as current space is fairly limited/restricted and may not be appropriate for inclusion of all youthful offenders; and (c) review of existing outdoor space (and related access) to ensure security is sufficient for longer-term youthful offenders. The current education space is marginal, at best, for the current population, and with only one other multi-purpose space the county should consider some expansion of the current Henley Young facility that would provide appropriate separation and supervision of youth based on their educational needs. This would best be done in conjunction with other architectural recommendations included in the February 2017 Monitoring Report completed by Leonard Dixon. There are a number of physical plant options/changes that could be made to improve utilization of Henley Young while at the same time creating a more appropriate and sustainable configuration to house youthful prisoners.  Staffing requirements that need to be in place to meet best practice standards for current juveniles as well as a determination of the number of added staff that may be needed to safely supervise youthful offenders, especially during the early stages of transition to HenleyYoung. Currently it is reported that two staff are present supervising youth in the living units/pods. If the majority of youthful prisoners are placed in a single unit, a third staff member should be added.  Meeting the requirements of the Hinds County Settlement Agreement without jeopardizing the progress that has been made towards compliance with the Henley-Young Consent Decree especially related to the implementation of an appropriate behavior management program/system, provision of mental health services/supports (note that the County is in the process of adding Case Managers which is a good step forward), and reducing the use of isolation/segregation for disciplinary purposes. If the County decides to move the youth being tried as adults to Henley-Young, the County should ensure that these components of the Henley-Young decree are sufficiently implemented so that transferring in additional youth will not set back the conditions of individuals housed there.
40

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 41 of 62
 Ensuring that appropriate educational assessment and support services, particularly related to youth with special needs, are available and prepared to deal with a slightly older population. Based on the most recent monitoring report and meeting with the relatively new school Principal, again progress appears to have been made, but limitations of both the physical plant and educational staffing would make transition of youthful offenders a challenge.
 Implementing reforms to reduce the population of juveniles at Henley-Young to ensure that only those youth who present a danger to the community and/or those for which there is reason to believe they would be unavailable for court proceedings are confined and that court processes are established to promote appropriately expeditious processing of juvenile cases. Based on a review of the reason for confinement for youth in Henley-Young at the time of the site visit and on discussions with leadership at Henley-Young, a significant portion of the youth held were being held for offenses that do not pose a danger to the community or represent youth who have a chronic history of missing court. For example, a number of youth were being referred for confinement and held as the result of “domestic battery” type incidents in which the youth poses no danger to the general public but given the lack of a non-secure or other alternatives end up being at Henley-Young. A number of youth are held in what is now a “21 day” program use primarily for technical violations of court orders, when in reality there is little research to support that any length of stay in secure confinement is a net positive in changing behavior and in many cases exacerbates problems for the youth reentering the community. These kinds of issues have been addressed successfully and much more cost-effectively in dozens of jurisdictions around the nation. With the transition to Judge Priester in mid-February as the presiding juvenile judge there is an opportunity to revisit both the process and the criteria used for screening placements of youth in the facility. This monitor reviewed (and provided some feedback on) a Detention Risk Assessment Instrument that is consistent with good screening practices. Additionally, as part of the transition with a new judge it is recommended that the county revisit specifically who is making the detention placement decisions. Ideally, these decisions would be made based on policies and criteria that provide greater control over admissions by the Henley Young Director.
In order for the county to achieve compliance with the 18 month provision to have the any planned move of youthful offenders completed, the County must ensure that the 2018 budget process happening now addresses the fiscal implications of the decision.
For any youthful prisoners in custody, the County must:
78. Develop and implement a screening, assessment and treatment program to ensure that youth with serious mental illness and disabilities, including developmental disabilities, receive appropriate programs, supports, education, and services. Non-Compliant
41

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 42 of 62
There has not been a suitable screening tool implemented on a routine basis beyond the basic screening completed at the time of booking, which is a cursory review of the youth’s presenting status. There is no evidence of post-booking assessment in the required areas beyond that which has been done related to those youth that have participated in the prior GED programming.
79. Ensure that youth receive adequate free appropriate education, including special education. Non-Compliant As of the February visit, the only educational program, GED programming, which had been in place, was suspended pending securing another provider for that program. A review of records for youth that had been receiving GED support reflected appropriate documentation of skill levels and progress, including some evidence of youth making progress in related GED testing. Major Rushing indicated that she is in the process of finding another provider for that service and has plans to visit with Director McDaniels and others at Henley Young to learn more about the nature of the programming that is provided there. That said, there are no other educational services in place, including lack of initial assessment services, linkage with prior enrollment/school programming, provision of required curriculum, and/or any special education services to which a youth may be entitled. Initial outreach has been made to the Jackson school system, but the indication is that any additional services would not be available until next year. However, Hinds Countyremains responsible for obtaining the required assessment, instruction, and special educational services from a local district or other properly accredited provider as soon as possible.
Implementation of an adequate educational program is limited not only by lack of education personnel and resources but also by both physical plant and staffing limitations that will make providing proper space and supervision for educational programming a challenge. The program space that is available is adequate, at best, but use of that space requires scheduling it for use of adult programs so there is not adult-juvenile contact, and proper staff supervision for a “classroom” environment will require more staff than appear to be currently available. Meeting the appropriate educational requirements for youth would likely require scheduling that space for a substantial portion of each day and significantly limit program delivery to adult offenders.
80. Ensure that youth are properly separated by sight and sound from adult prisoners. Non-Compliant Youth are housed in a separate unit so that contact with adults is minimized. Since the baseline visit, a staff member has been regularly assigned to provide direct supervision in the juvenile unit, which is an improvement. Youth seem to respect the officer assigned, and she indicates a willingness and some affinity to supervising youth, which is not always true for officers used to supervising adult offenders. However, that assignment covers only the day shifts five days per
42

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 43 of 62
week. Other staff are assigned, on a rotating basis, to the juvenile unit during evening, overnight, and weekend shifts, and there was an indication that due to staff limitations in the facility overall those staff would need to leave the youth unit for periods of time to check on other units.
Absent review of specific policies and procedures related to separation, including policies related to documentation of any violations/incidents of impermissible contact, it is difficult to determine that all staff is aware of the specifics of this requirement or the proper procedures required to maintain it.
81. Ensure that the Jail’s classification and housing assignment system does not merely place all youth in the same housing unit, without adequate separation based on classification standards. Instead, the system must take into account classification factors that differ even within the youth sub-class of prisoners. These factors include differences in age, dangerousness, likelihood of victimization, and sex/gender. Non-Compliant All youthful prisoners are housed in the same unit, making meeting this provision moot at this point. If/when steps are taken to develop alternate housing for youthful prisoners, part of the planning for that change should include development of appropriate screening and classification criteria. Criteria can include age, nature of admitting offense, and most importantly any information about prior behaviors that provide insight into the potential behavior of the youth on a housing unit. As noted in the baseline report, if a decision is made to transfer youthful prisoners to Henley-Young, further discussion of classification in that facility, as well as any physical plant modifications would need to take place prior to transfer.
82. Train staff members assigned to supervise youth on the Jail’s youth-specific policies and procedures, as well as on age-appropriate supervision and treatment strategies. The County must ensure that such specialized training includes training on the supervision and treatment of youth, child and adolescent development, behavioral management, crisis intervention, conflict management, child abuse, juvenile rights, the juvenile justice system, youth suicide prevention and mental health, behavioral observation and reporting, gang intervention, and de-escalation. Non-Compliant During the baseline visit, the curriculum for training supervising staff related to supervision of youthful prisoners was reviewed. That curriculum was adequate as a starting point for staff training, and the plan to train supervising staff prior to direct supervision officers made sense. However, that training did not take place as planned, undoubtedly related to reasons related to the general staffing shortage and what would have been an inevitable gap between the time of training lead/supervising staff and then training line officers. Additionally, one would expect that this training would impact policies and procedures related to supervising youthful prisoners and any behavior management program, and integrating any appropriate changes probably
43

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 44 of 62
should be done prior to further staff training. Additionally, the relevance of this requirement is ultimately dependent on what decision is made related to actual placement of youth, i.e. if youth are placed at Henley Young, it would not be necessary to train Raymond/Jackson staff accordingly (albeit there are many aspects of this training that would be relevant for young adult (age 18-21) offenders as well as youth. On-going review of training documentation and consultation as to other potential areas for training can be completed on subsequent site visits.
83. Specifically prohibit the use of segregation as a disciplinary sanction for youth. Segregation may be used on a youth only when the individual’s behavior threatens imminent harm to the youth or others. This provision is in addition to, and not a substitute, for the provisions of this Agreement that apply to the use of segregation in general. In addition:
a. Prior to using segregation, staff members must utilize less restrictive techniques such as verbal de-escalation and individual counseling, by qualified mental health or other staff trained on the management of youth.
b. Prior to placing a youth in segregation, or immediately thereafter, a staff member must explain to the youth the reasons for the segregation, and the fact that the youth will be released upon regaining self-control.
c. Youth may be placed in segregation only for the amount of time necessary for the individual to regain self-control and no longer pose an immediate threat. As soon as the youth’s behavior no longer threatens imminent harm to the youth or others, the County must release the individual back to their regular detention location, school or other programming.
d. If a youth is placed in segregation, the County must immediately provide one-onone crisis intervention and observation.
f. The County must specifically document and record the use of segregation on youth as part of its incident reporting and quality assurance systems.
g. A Qualified Medical Professional, or staff member who has completed all training required for supervising youth, must directly monitor any youth in segregation at least every fifteen (15) minutes. Such observation must be documented immediately after each check.
h. Youth may not be held in segregation for a continuous period longer than one (1) hour during waking hours. If staff members conclude that a youth is not sufficiently calm to allow a break in segregation after one hour, they must contact a Qualified Mental Health Professional. The Qualified Mental Health Professional must assess the youth and determine whether the youth requires treatment or services not available in the Jail. If the youth requires mental health services that are not provided by the Jail, the Qualified Mental Health Provider must immediately notify the Jail Administrator and promptly arrange for hospitalization or other treatment services.
44

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 45 of 62
i. If a youth is held in segregation for a continuous period longer than two (2) hours, Staff Members must notify the Jail Administrator.
j. Any notifications or assessments required by this paragraph must be documented in the youth’s individual record.
Non-Compliant In reviewing the individual records of all youthful prisoners confined at the time of this visit, there was no documentation of room confinement/segregation, although several youth interviewed indicated there are periods of time during what would be normal waking hours that they are confined to their cells. This appears to be a practice related to managing the population “out” at any one time in the unit rather than disciplinary isolation/segregation, but it is also likely that there are times when youth are confined to their rooms for other reasons as well. Given the general nature of the staffing shortage, the lack of training related to working with youthful prisoners, the lack of adequate policies/procedures, limited documentation, and the lack of other behavior management programming it is safe to assume that these requirements are not being met
84. Develop and implement a behavioral treatment program appropriate for youth. This program must be developed with the assistance of a qualified consultant who has at least five years of experience developing behavioral programs for institutionalized youth. The Jail’s behavioral program must include all of the following elements:
a. The behavioral program must include positive incentives for changing youth behavior, outline prohibited behaviors, and describe the consequences for prohibited behaviors.
b. An individualized program must be developed by a youth’s interdisciplinary treatment team, and properly documented in each youth’s personal file. Documentation requirements must include the collection of data required for proper assessment and treatment of youth with behavioral issues. For instance, the County must track the frequency and duration of positive incentives, segregation, and targeted behaviors.
c. The program must include safeguards and prohibitions on the inappropriate use of restraints, segregation, and corporal punishment.
Non-Compliant As with other aspects related to youthful prisoners, there is no indication that any aspects of this requirement have been implemented. Major Rushing did provide some anecdotal information about some “group rewards” that had been provided to youth, intermittently and/or related to a special occasion. That is an indication of interest and intent in moving in the right direction, but no substantive behavioral treatment program has begun. There does not appear to be any information in the 2017 Raymond Detention Facility Policies and Procedures related to youthful prisoners related to this requirement, or any other for that matter. This stands in stark contrast to the progress that has been made at Henley Young in this regard, albeit there have been, and
45

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 46 of 62
likely will continue to be, significant staffing, training, and physical plant challenges at Raymond that take precedence. While implementing a comprehensive behavioral treatment program is complicated and will take time, there are some steps that could be taken in the short term with the assistance of a consultant.
LAWFUL BASIS FOR DETENTION
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners are processed through the criminal justice system in a manner that respects their liberty interests. To that end: 85. The County will not accept or continue to house prisoners in the Jail without appropriate, completed paperwork such as an affidavit, arrest warrant, detention hold, or judge’s written detention order. Examples of inadequate paperwork include, but are not limited to undated or unsigned court orders, warrants, and affidavits; documents memorializing oral instructions from court officers that are undated, unsigned, or otherwise fail to identify responsible individuals and the legal basis for continued detention or release; incomplete arresting police officer documents; and any other paperwork that does not establish a lawful basis for detention. Non-compliant In a review of the paperwork of approximately 25 prisoners at the Work Center, there was no or insufficient paperwork supporting the incarceration of 10 individuals. Deputy Neal stated that the paperwork could be in the file at RDC and explained that the RDC file would be the official file. There was insufficient time to check all of the files in RDC but a check of 3 individual files showed that there was a similar lack of paperwork in the RDC file. Missing paperwork included court ordered sentences, holds, bonds, an order for a competency evaluation, fines and fees, and warrants, and the missing paperwork reflected multiple jurisdictions.
86. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees in contravention of the protections of the United States Constitution as set forth and discussed in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) and Cassibry v. State, 453 So.2d 1298 (Miss. 1984). The County must develop and implement policies consistent with the applicable federal law and the terms of this Agreement. Non-Compliant See response to number 87 below.
87. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees absent (a) documentation demonstrating that a meaningful analysis of that person’s ability to pay was conducted by the sentencing court prior to the imposition of any sentence, and (b) written findings by the sentencing court setting forth the basis for a finding that the failure to pay the subject fines or fees was willful. At a minimum, the County must confirm receipt from the
46

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 47 of 62
sentencing court of a signed “Order” issued by the sentencing court setting forth in detail the basis for a finding that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful. Non-Compliant At this time, neither RDC nor the WC is determining whether there has been a meaningful analysis of a person’s ability to pay. In other jurisdictions, when a person is ordered to pay fines and fees, they are released from custody and if they fail to pay the fines or fees, a warrant is issued and they are arrested and brought back to court. This is when an analysis of the person’s ability to pay would take place. The Jackson Municipal Court, after being sued for its practices on fines and fees, now conducts this analysis in the initial order and creates a payment plan. Orders coming from Justice Court do not include this analysis either before or after the initial order, and at the time of the site visit to the Work Center, these orders continued to be handled as they had been in the past. Under this process, when an individual comes back from Justice Court with an order to pay fines and fees, they continue to be incarcerated until they work off the fines and fees. If the prisoner or a family member can pay the total amount of the fines and fees, they will be released, but otherwise they are not released until they have worked off the fines and fees. This is also true at RDC. (The monitor did not review Jackson files on this site visit).
There is an additional problem in the handling of old fines and fees. At the Work Center, the Justice Court data system is checked to see if there are old fines or fees. This may include traffic tickets on which the individual never appeared in court. If there are old fines and fees, a setting with Justice Court is requested. However, it is reportedly difficult to get a setting and sometimes impossible. (RDC staff reports similar problems). In the meantime, the old fines and fees are added to the total and the individual works off those as well. In some instances, the old fines and fees for which there has never been a court order of incarceration are the only thing keeping an individual in custody. One individual at the WC had been waiting over a month for a setting on new charges, for which there was no paperwork, and so was working off old fines and fees.
At RDC, it was reported that when there is an individual set to be released, they will check to see if there are old fines or fees in Justice Court. If there are, Justice Court is called and a clerk reportedly typically instructs that the prisoner can’t be released until the fines and fees are paid. The prisoners will then continue to be held until the fines and fees are worked off. The prisoners are not taken to court prior to holding on the old fines and fees. A court liaison reviews the daily booking list. If there is a Justice Court charge a setting is requested. However, if Justice Court does not respond and old fines and fees are located in the data base, the prisoner will continue to be held without a warrant or other court order. If there is no documentation of old fines and fees, release is requested in 48 hours.
This issue was included on the Monitoring Team’s List of Priority Recommendations to be addressed promptly.
47

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 48 of 62
88. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a person for failure to pay fines or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and any other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and must obtain a copy to justify continued detention of the prisoner. After 48 hours, that prisoner must be released promptly if the Jail staff cannot obtain the necessary documentation to verify that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful, and that person is incarcerated only for the failure to pay fines or fees. Non-Compliant See response to number 87 above.
89. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a prisoner for failure to pay fines or fees, and if that person is incarcerated for other conviction(s) or charge(s), other than the failure to pay fines and/or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and to ascertain the prisoner’s length of sentence. If Jail staff cannot obtain a copy of the necessary documentation within 48 hours of the prisoner’s incarceration, Jail staff must promptly arrange for the prisoner’s transport to the sentencing court so that the court may conduct a legally sufficient hearing and provide any required documentation, including the fines or fees owed by the prisoner, and an assessment of the prisoner’s ability to pay and willfulness (or lack thereof) in failing to pay fines or fees. Non-Compliant See response to paragraph 87 above. The 48 hour requirement is being applied. However, it appears that locating old fines and fees in the Justice Court database is considered sufficient documentation for continued incarceration.
90. Jail staff must maintain the records necessary to determine the amount of time a person must serve to pay off any properly ordered fines or fees. To the extent that a sentencing court does not specifically calculate the term of imprisonment to be served, the Jail must obtain the necessary information within 24 hours of a prisoner’s incarceration. Within 48 hours of incarceration, each prisoner shall be provided with documentation setting forth clearly the term of imprisonment and the calculation used to determine the term of imprisonment. Non-Compliant As stated in response to paragraph 85 above, a number of files did not have any or sufficient paperwork supporting the order of incarceration including the fines and fees. In the case of old fines and fees, the County appears to consider the Justice Court data system sufficient for holding individuals on old fines and fees. This should not be considered sufficient. The WC does keep a spreadsheet with the calculation of the term of incarceration based upon the staff’s understanding of the law. RDC does not keep a spreadsheet or other system for calculating the term of imprisonment. (The Monitor did not review the Jackson system during this site visit).
48

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 49 of 62
91. No pre-trial detainee or sentenced prisoner incarcerated by the County solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be required to perform physical labor. Nor shall any such detainee or prisoner receive any penalty or other adverse consequence for failing to perform such labor, including differential credit toward sentences. Any physical labor by pre-trial detainees or by prisoners incarcerated solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be performed on a voluntary basis only, and the County shall not in any way coerce such pre-trial detainees or prisoners to perform physical labor. Non-Compliant The standard practice at the work center is to give half the amount of credit towards fines and fees for individuals who do not preform physical labor. This includes individuals who cannot perform physical labor because of a medical or mental health condition. Captain Chandler stated that individuals with medical conditions did get the full amount of credit without working. However, Deputy Neal stated that only in special situations would they get full credit. He would make the recommendation to the Captain based upon criteria such as how long the prisoner has been incarcerated, the nature of the charge and generally a subjective judgement.
92. The County must ensure that the Jail timely releases from custody all individuals entitled to release. At minimum:
a. Prisoners are entitled to release if there is no legal basis for their continued detention. Such release must occur no later than 11:59 PM on the day that a prisoner is entitled to be released.
b. Prisoners must be presumed entitled to release from detention if there is a court order that specifies an applicable release date, or Jail records document no reasonable legal basis for the continued detention of a prisoner.
c. Examples of prisoners presumptively entitled to release include: i. Individuals who have completed their sentences; ii. Individuals who have been acquitted of all charges after trial; iii. Individuals whose charges have been dismissed; iv. Individuals who are ordered released by a court order; and v. Individuals detained by a law enforcement agency that then fails to promptly provide constitutionally adequate, documented justification for an individual’s continued detention.
Non-Compliant As described above, individuals continue to be detained based upon old fines and fees without a court order of incarceration. The practice of not releasing individuals when they are given an order to pay fines and fees also results in an unlawful basis of detention. The failure to track the sentences of individuals at RDC, but rather relying on prisoner requests for release no doubt results in some individuals staying longer than lawful although the Monitor learned of this practice late in the site visit and did not review individual files for this purpose. There did appear
49

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 50 of 62
to be at least one individual who was still incarcerated beyond the length of her sentence. The Monitor has requested further explanation of this situation.
93. The County must develop and implement a reliable, complete, and adequate prisoner records system to ensure that staff members can readily determine the basis for a prisoner’s detention, when a prisoner may need to be released, and whether a prisoner should remain in detention. The records system must provide Jail staff with reasonable advance notice prior to an anticipated release date so that they can contact appropriate agencies to determine whether a prisoner should be released or remain in detention. Non-Compliant As described in response to paragraph 85 above, the documentation of individuals at the Work Center was incomplete and the files at RDC on those individuals did not fill in the gaps in the paperwork. Reference to the Justice Court data system for old fines and fees is not a sufficient basis for continued detention. The Jail Information Management System appears to be highly inaccurate. Using the “Unindicted List” of prisoners in custody, the Monitor and Records staff looked up 17 individuals who appeared to be in custody for an unusually long period of time. Of the 17 individuals reviewed through the Jail Management System, hard files, and the “blue screen,” 10 of them were not actually in custody. Other errors appeared as well including an individual listed as waiting for an indictment for a felony who was actually sentenced on a misdemeanor, an individual who had been indicted, and an individual whose picture did not match her name and it was unclear whether the current prisoner was the one in the picture or the one on the booking sheet. With this percentage of error, the JMS system cannot give an accurate picture of who is in the jail or even how many people are in the jail.
There should be one complete prisoner file in one location and one central office responsible for ensuring that the court information is complete and accurate. This would normally be the records office. Currently, it appears that the separate facilities contact the courts separately and may have documentation that records does not or records may have documentation that the facilities do not. The court liaison maintains separate records. Booking appears to obtain documentation that may or may not get to records.
94. Jail record systems must accurately identify and track all prisoners with serious mental illness, including their housing assignment and security incident histories. Jail staff must develop and use records about prisoners with serious mental illness to more accurately and efficiently process prisoners requiring forensic evaluations or transport to mental hospitals or other treatment facilities, and to improve individual treatment, supervision, and community transition planning for prisoners with serious mental illness. Records about prisoners with serious mental illness must be incorporated into the Jail’s incident reporting, investigations, and medical quality assurance systems. The County must provide an accurate census of the Jail’s
50

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 51 of 62
mental health population as part of its compliance reporting obligations, and the County must address this data when assessing staffing, program, or resource needs. Non-compliant The jail record system does not identify persons with serious mental illness. Although jail and QCHC staff attempt to move individuals to the state hospital as needed, this continues to be a systemic problem. Transition planning is minimal at best.
95. All individuals who (i) were found not guilty, were acquitted, or had charges brought against them dismissed, and (ii) are not being held on any other matter, must be released directly from the court unless the court directs otherwise. Additionally:
a. Such individuals must not be handcuffed, shackled, chained with other prisoners, transported back to the Jail, forced to submit to bodily strip searches, or returned to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
b. Notwithstanding (a), above, individuals may request to be transported back to the Jail solely for the purpose of routine processing for release. If the County decides to allow such transport, the County must ensure that Jail policies and procedures govern the process. At minimum, policies and procedures must prohibit staff from: i. Requiring the individual to submit to bodily strip searches; ii. Requiring the individual to change into Jail clothing if the individual is not already in such clothing; and iii. Returning the individual to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
Non-Compliant Individuals are not being released from the Court at this time.
96. The County must develop, implement, and maintain policies and procedures to govern the release of prisoners. These policies and procedures must:
a. Describe all documents and records that must be collected and maintained in Jail files for determining the basis of a prisoner’s detention, the prisoner’s anticipated release date, and their status in the criminal justice system.
b. Specifically detail procedures to ensure timely release of prisoners entitled to be released, and procedures to prevent accidental release.
c. Be developed in consultation with court administrators, the District Attorney’s Office, and representatives of the defense bar.
d. Include mechanisms for notifying community mental health providers, including the County’s Program of Assertive Community Treatment (“PACT”) team, when releasing a prisoner with serious mental illness so that the prisoner can transition safely back to the community. These mechanisms must include providing such prisoners with appointment information and a supply of their prescribed
51

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 52 of 62
medications to bridge the time period from release until their appointment with the County PACT team, or other community provider. Non-Compliant The County/Sheriff has not yet promulgated policies and procedures on release of prisoners. Neither the County nor QCHC have developed sufficient mechanisms for the transition of persons with mental illness into community based services.
97. The County must develop, implement, and maintain appropriate post orders relating to the timely release of individuals. Any post orders must:
a. Contain up-to-date contact information for court liaisons, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Public Defender’s Office;
b. Describe a process for obtaining higher level supervisor assistance in the event the officer responsible for processing releases encounters administrative
difficulties in determining a prisoner’s release eligibility or needs urgent assistance in reaching officials from other agencies who have information relevant to a prisoner’s release status. Non-Compliant The County has not yet developed post orders in this area.
98. Nothing in this Agreement precludes appropriate verification of a prisoner’s eligibility for release, including checks for detention holds by outside law enforcement agencies and procedures to confirm the authenticity of release orders. Before releasing a prisoner entitled to release, but no later than the day release is ordered, Jail staff should check the National Crime Information Center or other law enforcement databases to determine if there may be a basis for continued detention of the prisoner. The results of release verification checks must be fully documented in prisoner records. Non-Compliant The booking staff runs an NCIC check at the time of booking but not at the time of release.
99. The County must ensure that the release process is adequately staffed by qualified detention officers and supervisors. To that end, the County must:
a. Ensure that sufficient qualified staff members, with access to prisoner records and to the Jail’s e-mail account for receiving court orders, are available to receive and effectuate court release orders twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
b. Ensure that staff members responsible for the prisoner release process and related records have the knowledge, skills, training, experience, and abilities to implement the Jail’s release policies and procedures. At minimum, the County must provide relevant staff members with specific pre-service and annual inservice training related to prisoner records, the criminal justice process, legal terms, and release procedures. The training must include instruction on:
52

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 53 of 62
i. How to process release orders for each court, and whom to contact if a question arises;
ii. What to do if the equipment for contacting other agencies, such as the Jail’s fax machine or email service, malfunctions, or communication is otherwise disrupted;
iii. Various types of court dispositions, and the language typically used therein, to ensure staff members understand the meaning of court orders; and
iv. How and when to check for detainers to ensure that an individual may be released from court after she or he is found not guilty, is acquitted, or has the charges brought against her or him dismissed.
c. Provide detention staff with sufficient clerical support to prevent backlogs in the filing of prisoner records.
Non-Compliant Records staff stated that there is a shortage of clerks in booking. In fact, on the day of the site visit to booking, there was only 1 booking clerk. The Sergeant stated that there were supposed to be 4. The NIC staffing study stated that there should be 2 at all times and 3 at peak times. Records staff stated that this shortage results in court information including release information not getting into the system. Records will sometimes get a separate hard copy and will check the system. However, their copy is usually mailed instead of faxed so this results in a delay in releasing. The Monitor did not determine the training process for the booking and releasing staff during this site visit.
100. The County must annually review its prisoner release and detention process to ensure that it complies with any changes in federal law, such as the constitutional standard for civil or pretrial detention. Non-Compliant There has not been an initial review of this process to determine consistency with federal law.
101. The County must ensure that the Jail’s record-keeping and quality assurance policies and procedures allow both internal and external audit of the Jail’s release process, prisoner lengths of stay, and identification of prisoners who have been held for unreasonably long periods without charges or other legal process. The County must, at minimum, require:
a. A Jail log that documents (i) the date each prisoner was entitled to release; (ii) the date, time, and manner by which the Jail received any relevant court order; (iii) the date and time that prisoner was in fact released; (iv) the time that elapsed between receipt of the court order and release; (v) the date and time when information was received requiring the detention or continued detention of a prisoner (e.g., immigration holds or other detainers), and (vi) the identity of the authority requesting the detention or continued detention of a prisoner.
53

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 54 of 62
b. Completion of an incident report, and appropriate follow-up investigation and administrative review, if an individual is held in custody past 11:59 PM on the day that she or he is entitled to release. The incident report must document the reason(s) for the error. The incident report must be submitted to the Jail Administrator no later than one calendar day after the error was discovered.
Non-Compliant The record keeping process does not at this time allow for an audit other than a review of individual files. WC keeps a spreadsheet which contains some but not all of the information in sub-paragraph (a) above. The Jackson facility reportedly keeps a spreadsheet that was not reviewed at the time of this site visit. RDC does not keep a spreadsheet or a log. There are large books in the booking/release area that contain some of the information but not in a log format. Incident reports are not completed for delayed releases.
102. The County must appoint a staff member to serve as a Quality Control Officer with responsibility for internal auditing and monitoring of the release process. This Quality Control Officer will be responsible for helping prevent errors with the release process, and the individual’s duties will include tracking releases to ensure that staff members are completing all required paper work and checks. If the Quality Control Officer determines that an error has been made, the individual must have the authority to take corrective action, including the authority to immediately contact the Jail Administrator or other County official with authority to order a prisoner’s release. The Quality Control Officer’s duties also include providing data and reports so that release errors are incorporated into the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance process. Non-Compliant The County has not appointed a Quality Control Officer. Ms. Kenisha Jones performs some of these functions at RDC; Deputy Neal at the WC; and Ms. Whitley at Jackson. However, none of these individuals preform a full audit and quality control function.
103. The County must require investigation of all incidents relating to timely or erroneous prisoner release within seven calendar days by appropriate investigators, supervisors, and the Jail Administrator. The Jail Administrator must document any deficiencies found and any corrective action taken. The Jail Administrator must then make any necessary changes to Jail policies and procedures. Such changes should be made, if appropriate, in consultation with court personnel, the District Attorney’s Office, members of the defense bar, and any other law enforcement agencies involved in untimely or erroneous prisoner releases. Non-Compliant No documentation was provided of incident reports being created for untimely or erroneous prisoner release or any investigations of such incidents.
54

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 55 of 62
104. The County must conduct bi-annual audits of release policies, procedures, and practices. As part of each audit, the County must make any necessary changes to ensure that individuals are being released in a timely manner. The audits must review all data collected regarding timely release, including any incident reports or Quality Control audits referenced in Paragraph 102 above. The County must document the audits and recommendations, and must submit all documentation to the Monitor and the United States for review. Non-Compliant There not being policies or procedures at this time, there has not been an audit of those. There has not been an initial audit of releasing practices.
105. The County must ensure that policies, procedures, and practices allow for reasonable attorney visitation, which should be treated as a safeguard to prevent the unlawful detention of citizens and for helping to ensure the efficient functioning of the County’s criminal justice system. The Jail’s attorney visitation process must provide sufficient space for attorneys to meet with their clients in a confidential setting, and must include scheduling procedures to ensure that defense attorneys can meet with their clients for reasonable lengths of time and without undue delay. An incident report must be completed if Jail staff are unable to transport a prisoner to meet with their attorney, or if there is a delay of more than 30 minutes for transporting a prisoner for a scheduled attorney visit. Non-Compliant There appears to be sufficient space for confidential attorney visitation. The Monitoring Team did not have time to confirm whether there are delays in transporting individuals for attorney visitation. That will be investigated in the next site visit.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
The County must develop an effective system for identifying and self-correcting systemic violations of prisoner’s constitutional rights. To that end, the County must: 106. Develop and maintain a database and computerized tracking system to monitor all reportable incidents, uses of force, and grievances. This tracking system will serve as the repository of information used for continuing improvement and quality assurance reports. Non-Compliant There is currently no database tracking these activities. The grievance officer maintains a spreadsheet regarding grievances.
107. Compile an Incident Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Incident Summary Reports must compile and summarize incident report data in order to identify trends such as rates of incidents in general, by housing unit, by day of the week and date, by shift, and by individual prisoners or staff members. The Incident Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
55

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 56 of 62
a. Brief summary of all reportable incidents, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. Description of all suicides and deaths, including the date, name of prisoner, housing
unit, and location where the prisoner died (including name of hospital if prisoner died off-site); c. The names and number of prisoners placed in emergency restraints, and segregation, and the frequency and duration of such placements; d. List and total number of incident reports received during the reporting period; e. List and Total number of incidents referred to IAD or other law enforcement agencies for investigation. Non-Compliant There is currently no Incident Summary Report being compiled.
108. Compile a Use of Force Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Use of Force Summary Reports must compile and summarize use of force report data in order to identify trends such as rates of use in general, by housing unit, by shift, by day of the week and date, by individual prisoners, and by staff members. The Use of Force Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Summary of all uses of force, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. List and total number of use of force reports received during the reporting period; c. List and total number of uses of force reports/incidents referred to IAD or other
law enforcement agencies for investigation. Non-Compliant There is no Use of Force Summary Report currently being compiled.
109. Compile a Grievance Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Grievance Summary Reports must compile and summarize grievance information in order to identify trends such as most frequently reported complaints, units generating the most grievances, and staff members receiving the most grievances about their conduct. To identify trends and potential concerns, at least quarterly, a member of the Jail’s management staff must review the Grievance Summary Reports and a random sample of ten percent of all grievances filed during the review period. These grievance reviews, any recommendations, and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor. Non-Compliant There is no Grievance Summary Report currently being compiled. There is a spreadsheet being maintained. It did not have all the data points required by this paragraph.
110. Compile a monthly summary report of IAD investigations conducted at the Facility. The IAD Summary Report must include:
a. A brief summary of all completed investigations, by type, shift, housing unit, and date;
56

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 57 of 62
b. A listing of investigations referred for disciplinary action or other final disposition by type and date;
c. A listing of all investigations referred to a law enforcement agency and the name of the agency, by type and date; and
d. A listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.
Non-Compliant There is currently no summary report of IAD investigations currently being compiled.
111. Conduct a review, at least annually, to determine whether the incident, use of force, grievance reporting, and IAD systems comply with the requirements of this Agreement and are effective at ensuring staff compliance with their constitutional obligations. The County must make any changes to the reporting systems that it determines are necessary as a result of the system reviews. These reviews and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor. N/A-Annual Review would not yet be due.
112. Ensure that the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance systems include an Early Intervention component to alert Administrators of potential problems with staff members. The purpose of the Early Intervention System is to identify and address patterns of behavior or allegations which may indicate staff training deficiencies, persistent policy violations, misconduct, or criminal activity. As part of the Early Intervention process, incident reports, use of force reports, and prisoner grievances must be screened by designated staff members for such patterns. If misconduct, criminal activity, or behaviors indicate the need for corrective action, the screening staff must refer the incidents or allegations to Jail supervisors, administrators, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies for investigation. Additionally:
a. The Early Intervention System may be integrated with other database and computerized tracking systems required by this Agreement, provided any unified system otherwise still meets the terms of this Agreement.
b. The Early Intervention System must screen for staff members who may be using excessive force, regardless of whether use of force reviews concluded that the uses complied with Jail policies and this Agreement. This provision allows identification of staff members who may still benefit from additional training and serves as a check on any deficiencies with use of force by field supervisors.
c. The Jail Administrator, or designee of at least Captain rank, must personally review Early Intervention System data and alerts at least quarterly. The Administrator, or designee, must document when reviews were conducted as well as any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken.
57

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 58 of 62
d. The County must maintain a list of any staff members identified by the Early Intervention System as possibly needing additional training or discipline. A copy of this list must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
e. The County must take appropriate, documented, and corrective action when staff members have been identified as engaging in misconduct, criminal activity, or a pattern of violating Jail policies.
f. The County must review the Early Intervention System, at least bi-annually, to ensure that it is effective and used to identify staff members who may need additional training or discipline. The County must document any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken as a result of these reviews. Copies of these reviews must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
Non-Compliant There is currently no Early Intervention program.
113. Develop and implement policies and procedures for Jail databases, tracking systems, and computerized records (including the Early Intervention System), that ensure both functionality and data security. The policies and procedures must address all of the following issues: data storage, data retrieval, data reporting, data analysis and pattern identification, supervisor responsibilities, standards used to determine possible violations and corrective action, documentation, legal issues, staff and prisoner privacy rights, system security, and audit mechanisms. Non-Compliant There are currently no policies and procedures covering this matter.
114. Ensure that the Jail’s medical staff are included as part of the continuous improvement and quality assurance process. At minimum, medical and mental health staff must be included through all of the following mechanisms:
a. Medical staff must have the independent authority to promptly refer cases of suspected assault or abuse to the Jail Administrator, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies;
b. Medical staff representatives must be involved in mortality reviews and systemic reviews of serious incidents. At minimum, a physician must prepare a mortality review within 30 days of every prisoner death. An outside physician must review any mortalities associated with treatment by Jail physicians.
Non-Compliant Currently there is no policy on mortality review by QCHC. In order to conduct adequate mortality reviews, the review must be completed by an outside physician not contracted or employed by the jail and should include an administrative component regarding an assessment of correctional officer and health care staff emergency response actions, an assessment of the clinical care the prisoner received and the circumstances leading up to his death, and a
58

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 59 of 62
psychological autopsy which has an emphasis on factors in the individual’s life with an emphasis on factors that led up to or contributed to the death.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
115. Hinds County will establish a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (“Coordinating Committee”) with subject matter expertise and experience that will assist in streamlining criminal justice processes, and identify and develop solutions and interventions designed to lead to diversion from arrest, detention, and incarceration. The Coordinating Committee will focus particularly on diversion of individuals with serious mental illness and juveniles. Using the Sequential Intercept Model, or an alternative acceptable to the Parties, the Coordinating Committee will identify strategies for diversion at each intercept point where individuals may encounter the criminal justice system, and will assess the County’s current diversion efforts and unmet service needs in order to identify opportunities for successful diversion of such individuals. The Committee will recommend appropriate changes to policies and procedures and additional services necessary to increase diversion. Non-Compliant The County is laying the groundwork for a CJCC but has not yet established one.
116. The Coordinating Committee will include representation from the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office and Hinds County Board of Supervisors. The County will also seek representation from Hinds County Behavioral Health Services; the Jackson Police Department; Mississippi Department of Mental Health; Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services; judges from the Hinds County Circuit, Chancery, and County (Youth and Justice) Courts; Hinds County District Attorney Office; Hinds County Public Defender Office; relevant Jackson city officials; and private advocates or other interested community members. Non-Compliant See 115 above.
117. The Coordinating Committee will prioritize enhancing coordination with local behavioral health systems, with the goal of connecting individuals experiencing mental health crisis, including juveniles, with available services to avoid unnecessary arrest, detention, and incarceration. Non-Compliant See 115 above.
118. Within 30 days of the Effective Date and in consultation with the United States, the County will select and engage an outside consultant to provide technical assistance to the County and Coordinating Committee regarding strategies for reducing the jail population and increasing diversion from criminal justice involvement, particularly for individuals with mental illness and
59

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 60 of 62
juveniles. This technical assistance will include (a) a comprehensive review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing efforts to reduce recidivism and increase diversion; (b) identification of gaps in the current efforts, (c) recommendations of actions and strategies to achieve diversion and reduce recidivism; and (d) estimates of costs and cost savings associated with those strategies. The review will include interviews with representatives from the agencies and entities referenced in Paragraph 116 and other relevant stakeholders as necessary for a thorough evaluation and recommendation. Within 120 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the outside consultant will finalize and make public a report regarding the results of their assessment and recommendations. The Coordinating Committee will implement the recommended strategies and will continue to use the outside consultant to assist with implementation of the strategies when appropriate. Non-Compliant The County has not engaged a consultant to provide technical assistance on jail population reduction and diversion.
IMPLEMENTATION, TIMING, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
Paragraphs 119 and 120 regarding duty to implement and effective date omitted.
121. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County must distribute copies of the Agreement to all prisoners and Jail staff, including all medical and security staff, with appropriate explanation as to the staff members’ obligations under the Agreement. At minimum:
a. A copy of the Agreement must be posted in each unit (including booking/intake and medical areas), and program rooms (e.g., classrooms and any library).
b. Individual copies of the Agreement must be provided to prisoners upon request. Non-Compliant During the February site visit, copies of the Consent Agreement were found to be posted in many, but not all of the housing units of the Jail System. Some, but not all, support areas had copies posted.
Paragraphs 122-129 regarding third party beneficiaries, costs, severability, etc. omitted.
POLICY AND PROCEDURE REVIEW
130. The County must review all existing policies and procedures to ensure their compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. Where the Jail does not have a policy or procedure in place that complies with the terms of this Agreement, the County must draft such a policy or procedure, or revise its existing policy or procedure. Non-Compliant
60

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 61 of 62
At the time of the site visit, the County/Sheriff did not have policies and procedures in place and so had no policies and procedures to review. The County/Sheriff has not completed drafting policies and procedures.
131. The County shall complete its policy and procedure review and revision within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement. Non-Compliant Six months expired on January 19, 2017. The policy and procedure review and drafting has not been completed.
132. Once the County reviews and revises its policies and procedures, the County must provide a copy of its policies and procedures to the United States and the Monitor for review and comment. The County must address all comments and make any changes requested by the United States or the Monitor within thirty (30) days after receiving the comments and resubmit the policies and procedures to the United States and Monitor for review. Non-Compliant The policies and procedures have not been completed and so have not been submitted to the United States or the Monitor for review and comment.
133. No later than three months after the United States’ approval of each policy and procedure, the County must adopt and begin implementing the policy and procedure, while also modifying all post orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the policies and procedures. Non-Compliant Again, the policies and procedures are not completed so can’t be implemented at this time.
134. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, all new or revised policies and procedures must be implemented within six months of the United States’ approval of the policy or procedure. Non-Compliant Policies and procedures have not been adopted so are not ready for approval or implementation.
135. The County must annually review its policies and procedures, revising them as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures must be submitted to the United States and the Monitor for approval in accordance with paragraphs 129-131 above. NA at this time
Paragraphs 136-158 regarding appointment and duties of the monitor omitted.
61

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 12-1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 62 of 62
COUNTY ASSESSMENT AND COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR
159. The County must file a self-assessment compliance report. The first compliance selfassessment report must be filed with the Court within four months of the Effective Date and at least one month before a Monitor site visit. Each self-assessment compliance report must describe in detail the actions the County has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and must make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. The report must include information supporting the County’s representations regarding its compliance with the Agreement such as quality assurance information, trends, statistical data, and remedial activities. Supporting information should be based on reports or data routinely collected as part of the audit and quality assurance activities required by this Agreement (e.g., incident, use of force, system, maintenance, and early intervention), rather than generated only to support representations made in the self-assessment. Non-Compliant At the time of the site visit, the County had not yet completed its first self-assessment which is overdue.
160. The County must designate a full-time Compliance Coordinator to coordinate compliance activities required by this Agreement. This person will serve as a primary point of contact for the Monitor. Two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties may consult with each other and the Monitor to determine whether the Compliance Coordinator’s hours may be reduced. The Parties may then stipulate to any agreed reduction in hours. Compliant The County has designated a full-time Compliance Coordinator who is coordinating compliance activities. The Monitor will continue to track this assignment to ensure sustained compliance in this area.
EMERGENT CONDITIONS
161. The County must notify the Monitor and United States of any prisoner death, riot, escape, injury requiring hospitalization, or over-detention of a prisoner (i.e. failure to release a prisoner before 11:59 PM on the day she or he was entitled to be released), within 3 days of learning of the event. Non-Compliant At the time of the site visit, the monitoring team was not receiving any immediate notifications. Since that time, numerous immediate notifications have been received. The team will continue to monitor to determine whether notices are being provided in all instances where required.
Paragraphs 162-167 regarding jurisdiction, construction and the PLRA omitted.
62

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 1 of 85
Court-Appointed Monitor’s Fourth Monitoring Report United States v. Hinds County, et al. Civ. No. 3:16cv489 WHB-JCG

Elizabeth E. Simpson Court-Appointed Monitor

David M. Parrish

Jacqueline M. Moore Jim Moeser Dr. Richard Dudley

Corrections Operations Corrections Medicine Juvenile Justice Mental Health

1

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 2 of 85
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Corrections Operations
While the lack of staff continues to be the most significant problem facing the Detention Services Division (DSD), it is now possible to determine the number of positions that are actually assigned to, and work in, the Division. Currently, 271 positions are authorized and funded. Four additional positions need to be funded or moved from the Operations side of the Sheriff’s Office in order to meet the goal of 275 Detention positions in the current fiscal year. Only 239 of the 271 positions are filled, which represents a decrease of 11 since the October site visit. Although the monitoring team set 275 positions as a goal for the current fiscal year, the result of the staffing analysis is that 433 positions are needed to adequately staff the detention facilities. The target of 275 positions is still significantly below the needed staffing level.
The creation of a Policies and Procedures Manual is still a work in progress. After attempting to handle the project in house, the Sheriff’s Office and County have decided to contract with Dr. James Austin, an expert in the field of corrections and criminal justice systems, to move forward with the work as expeditiously as possible. The expected completion date is July 2018. Individual policies will be submitted to the Monitor and DOJ staff for review as they are completed. The policies were originally to be provided in January, 2017. A draft set was provided in April,2017; comments by DOJ and the monitoring team were provided; and a final set of policies and procedures were to be provided 30 days thereafter. The project stalled at that point and now the policies and procedures are significantly overdue. This represents a major hurdle in coming into compliance as staff can not be properly trained until there are adequate policies and procedures to form the basis of the training.
Maintenance issues in the three jail facilities continue to be a problem but most significantly at the Raymond Detention Center (RDC). While both roll up sally port doors in Booking were finally found to be functional during the January/February site visit, major security issues need to be corrected as soon as possible. Two of the three doors that separate the main corridor (Great Hall) from the three pods do not function. This same problem was noted during the October site visit. Further, several of the doors that allow access to the pod control rooms are in such a state of disrepair that maintenance staff have been forced to develop a hand operated latching mechanism which requires an officer in the corridor to lift up a lever in the tracking system so that the door can be opened. The County’s plan to replace all of these doors should be carried out as quickly as possible.
2

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 3 of 85
At the Work Center (WC) a wall has been built so that the facility now has four housing units. In addition, 36 beds have been removed from each unit so that they are all now rated at 64 inmates. However, Housing Unit 4 is still not on line because of HVAC problems that surfaced when the wall, separating HU3 from HU4 was added. A second chain link fence has been installed outside each recreation yard, but it does not provide the level of security that a solid wall would by limiting visual contact. County maintenance staff are currently working on a solution.
While extensive training is required by the terms of the Settlement Agreement, direct supervision training is critical for DSD staff so that the WC can function according to the principles and dynamics of direct supervision and so that the RDC can be returned to direct supervision operation once officers are permanently re-assigned to the housing units. To that end, the Sheriff’s Office needs to obtain the services of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to provide “Train the Trainers” instruction. A cadre of qualified trainers can then provide instruction to all DSD staff.
On January 28th the DSD designated C4 Isolation at the RDC as the location for future suicide watches. This four-cell unit can hold four or more inmates in the dayroom space, properly supervised by an officer who is permanently assigned inside the same area. Three of the cells are locked shut (unoccupied) while the fourth is left open so that the inmates have access to water and toilet facilities. This mini-direct supervision unit allows for constant supervision (not just every 15 minutes) of inmates in a much more humane setting than the two cells in Medical that were previously used for suicide watches.
The County has retained the services of JBHM Architects to plan for renovations of Booking at the RDC in order to make it operate as an “open booking”, i.e. direct supervision facility. In order to make the structural changes without negatively impacting booking activities, JBHM has created a plan to temporarily relocate Booking to the WC. That also provides the opportunity to create a secure drive through sally port at the WC so that inmates do not have to be processed through the public lobby as they are now.
Over the past year the DSD has undergone a change in reporting systems from paper to electronic. While it will ultimately prove to be an asset to both the staff and administration, the changeover has left the monitoring team without access to critical reporting information and documentation of supervisory review. A second planning and coordination meeting with all affected personnel was held during the January/February site visit in order to identify expectations and to determine how best to achieve the desired results. Hopefully, the gaps in the reporting process will be resolved shortly.
3

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 4 of 85
Fire safety is a critical matter in a jail. At the WC there is an alarm and sprinkler system with fire extinguishers readily available to each unit officer; but at the Jackson Detention Center (JDC) and RDC the lack of access to fire hoses and extinguishers as well as the lack of operable alarm and sprinkler systems creates an unsafe environment. Recognizing that, the Department of Justice sent a letter to the County and Sheriff’s Office on February 8, 2018, that outlined the seriousness of the situation as well as expected actions. DOJ requested documentation of remedial actions within 30 days which was not provided. This area of concern will receive more detailed attention during the May site visit.
Medical and Mental Health
There continues to be a shortage of nurses and health care staff in the jail facilities. Since the last site visit, the health administrator and regional manager for QCHC have been replaced. The physician resigned two weeks prior to the visit and a new physician has not yet been hired. A new health administrator has been hired. A new corporate director of nursing has been hired for all of the QCHC facilities. The corporate director of nursing has had years of experience in the Florida juvenile and adult system and has made positive changes in the medical unit. A new discharge planner has been hired and she has developed policies and procedures related to releasing inmates. She is working with Hinds Behavioral Health to develop effective discharge planning and reentry practices. There are five nursing positions that are currently unfilled. Medical records are being maintained in paper files and while not completely organized, the organization is much better than previously. QCHC has developed an electronic medical records (EMR) system but it is still not operational due to issues with internet reception.
Chronic care services related to diabetes, hypertension, AIDS, and COPD are in place at all of the facilities. RDC has initiated a chronic care program within the last two months. The other two facilities have maintained chronic care quarterly visits conducted by the nurse practitioner.
The policy on alcohol withdrawal should be addressed and reviewed with the nursing staff. It was noted in the chart review that there were inmates who admitted during the intake process to drinking heavily and daily. However, there were no indications that these inmates were referred to a nursing staff member or placed on a withdrawal protocol. During interviews with nurses, the nurses were not familiar with the withdrawal policy. Similarly, observations of the medication administration indicate problems that should be addressed in both the QCHC policies and procedures and the Security policies and procedures. These include the responsibility of detention officers to assist in supervising inmates and checking for ingestion and signing for refusals.
Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) studies indicate a high number of missed medications. A corrective action plan has not been initiated. A MAC meeting has not been held since the last monitoring report.
4

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 5 of 85
This was the first site visit for the mental health consultant to the monitoring team, and due to prior commitments, the consultant was only able to participate in the site visit for the first two days. Therefore, there was not enough time during this first visit to assess progress towards addressing all of the mental health provisions of the Settlement Agreement. However, during the visit, it became clear that there is inadequate documentation in multiple critical areas required for the facilities’ own internal monitoring and review by the monitoring team. For example, due to the absence of full mental health evaluations, psychiatric evaluations (when indicated), and treatment plans it is impossible to assess the quality and effectiveness of mental health treatment. Even when there are mental health emergencies, such as a suicidal inmate, there is no documentation of an evaluation that confirms the emergency status and the precise interventions required; there is no documentation that indicates that the interventions have been followed as prescribed; and there is no documentation of an evaluation that indicates that the emergency has been resolved.
There are also mental health provisions that have not been addressed at all, such as mental health participation in the disciplinary process, mental health monitoring of inmates placed in segregation, mental health assessment in cases of use of force, mental health assessment in cases of sexual abuse and misconduct, and the development of mental health programs that would support inmates with special needs and facilitate the discharge planning for inmates with serious mental illness. It is clear that the current mental health staffing pattern is woefully inadequate to address all of the provisions of this agreement, in that there is simply not enough staff to do the work and in that the scheduling of the existing mental health staff is such that there is no opportunity for mental health staff to meet together and thereby function as a team.
Youthful Offenders
This visit afforded the opportunity to assess the progress made in transitioning Juveniles Charged as Adults (JCAs) to the Henley Young Juvenile facility following the decision to begin placing “new” JCA youth there in September 2017. In general, the transition has been successful and holds out promise that the Henley Young facility, with some substantive facility and programming improvements, can be a long-term solution to meet the requirements of this Agreement. This is in large part the result of the significant progress that the County has made in meeting the requirements of the Hinds County/Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Consent Decree, many of which are essentially the same as this Agreement. It is the understanding of the monitoring team that both the Consent Decree and this Agreement will continue in effect simultaneously.
At the time of this visit there were eleven JCAs in placement at Henley Young and seven JCAs remaining at RDC. Whereas a number of the requirements of the Agreement can be considered
5

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 6 of 85
to be in substantial compliance at Henley Young, the status of the JCAs at RDC remains relatively unchanged, albeit benefiting somewhat from the reduced number of juveniles in placement. There is little evidence of further movement toward the compliance requirements for those youth. Concerns about the limited educational programming, mental health services, training of supervising staff, and case processing in adult court remain.
Improvements that need to be made at Henley Young are related to the differing needs and opportunities that result from youth being placed/confined for much longer periods of time. This is reflected in recommendations including enhancing the mental health services, expanding the educational program, modifying the behavioral management program, and developing additional cognitive-behavioral and positive youth development programs. Concerns about the limitations of the Henley Young facility have been referenced in prior reports and should be given heightened attention as the time to make decisions and facility improvements is before problems occur, not after. Therefore, the most important recommendation conveyed in this report is that a plan including action steps, timetables, and resources needed to complete the transition of youth out of RDC be developed as soon as possible.
Criminal Justice and System Issues
There were several areas of progress since the last site visit. The CJCC was convened and the first meeting was held. The Sequential Intercept Mapping, although anticipated under the Settlement Agreement to be facilitated by the CJCC, was actually completed by the Hinds County Behavioral Health agency with a grant from the GAINS Center. The final report was issued and provides a useful road map for developing diversion and re-entry strategies.
The County continues to have no one incarcerated on unlawful orders regarding fines and fees but has not yet adopted policies to ensure a process for addressing this should such orders be used in the future. A full time Quality Control Officer was designated to identify persons who can or should be released. However, this continues to be a reactive process responding to inmate grievances and requests. As previously reported it continues to be difficult to track individuals in the records system. As recommended after the last site visit, there needs to be a centralized, cohesive system for receiving, updating, and maintaining records related to detention and release. Currently, there are three individuals maintaining separate spreadsheets outside the case management system. In addition, there continues to be an unclear line of authority between Records and Booking for overseeing the documentation. Previously reported systemic challenges continue to exist. As a result, a number of people were identified who had been detained beyond their release date and there is inadequate documentation for the detention of others. Consultation with the records expert should be utilized to assist in this area.
6

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 7 of 85

The paper grievance system was replaced by a computerized system. Some of the initial problems have been remedied but new problems have been identified. Most troubling is that numerous grievances appear to get lost in the system and, as a result, many grievances never receive a response. The system is also either dysfunctional or not understood in its ability to generate reports. The staff does not know how to generate reports, if it is possible, to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement or be useful to them.

More focused attention was provided on PREA compliance and, although there is some new attention to this area, the jail is woefully out of compliance with PREA. This area will require some attention at the higher administrative levels to begin to move towards compliance.

Reporting including the summary reports on incidents, use of force, grievances, and IAD investigations as required by the Settlement Agreement continues to be a work in progress. It appears that progress is being made towards having adequate incident reports and summary reports. However, the reporting currently received by the monitoring team does not meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.

Monitoring Activities
The Monitoring Team conducted a Site Visit January 29th through February 2nd. The site visit schedule was as follows:

January 29-February 2, 2018 Site Visit Schedule

Date and Time Monday 9:00 A.M.
Monday 10:30

Lisa Simpson
Meet with Major Rushing, Fielder, and Synarus Tour Medical Unit, Meet Medical Staff

Dave Parrish

Jim Moeser

Monday P.M.

12:30 Meet with Dr. Kumar 2:00 Meet with Dr. Melvin Davis

7

Jackie Moore

Richard Dudley Meet with Major Rushing, Fielder, and Synarus Tour Medical Unit, Meet Medical Staff 12:30 Meet with Dr. Kumar 2:00 Meet with Dr. Melvin Davis

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 8 of 85

4:00 Meet with Philip Gaines

4:00 Meet with Philip Gaines

Tuesday A.M.
Tuesday P.M.
Wednesday A.M.

Review records with Kanisha Jones
11:00 Meet with Ken Lewis
1:00 Meet with County Attorney Mumford 3:00 Meet with RDC grievance officer Observe grievance kiosks Meet with Policy and Procedure team 10:30 Meet on recruiting and training plan (Sheriff, Miller, Fielder) 11:00 Capt. Dalton & Lt. Petty about Chancery Court

9:00 Meet with Major Rushing, Doris Coleman, Synarus and Fielder re staffing levels and position control Tour RDC
Continue work at RDC
4:00 Meet with new FSSO, Rohlan Tucker
Meet with Policy and Procedure team 10:30 Meet on recruiting and training plan 11:00 Capt. Dalton & Lt. Petty about Chancery Court

At Henley Young meet w. Johnnie McDaniels, Eddie Burnside, Eric Dorsey, Tom Devine, Tamika Barber, Mashara Cook, Brenda Froelich, Fernice Galloway Tour at Henley Young; meet w. staff from SPLC
Tour at RDC; Interview youth; review JCA files; Sgt. Tower; Assistant Admin. Fielder; Lead QCHC Nurse; thru afternoon

Meet with Richard Dudley and jointly tour, interview, or look at charts
Observe competency session 4:00 Meet with social worker Brown Follow up as needed
Continue at RDC

Meet with Jackie Moore and jointly tour, interview, or look at charts
Observe competency session 4:00 Meet with social worker Brown Follow up as needed

8

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 9 of 85

Wednesday P.M.
Thursday A.M.
Thursday P.M.
Friday A.M.

1:30 Meet with Chancery Court Captain Dalton, Major Rushing, Synarus, and Chancery Judge
3:00 Meet with architect 9:00 Meet with Sheriff, DOJ
10:30 Meeting on reports and summary reports
11:30 Meet with Medical 1:30 Meet with Dalton and JDC grievance staff 3:00 Meet on PREA requirementsPREA officers
Exit Meeting

1:30 Meet with Chancery CourtCaptain Dalton, Major Rushing, Synarus, and Chancery Judge 3:00 Meet with architect

Continue at RDC as needed Review training records Review programming documentation

Tour JDC

9:00 Meet with Sheriff, DOJ
10:30 Meeting on reports and summary reportsSupervisory staff and IT

Meeting on reports and summary reports

Tour JDC with Capt. Dalton & Lt. Petty
2:45 Tour Work Center
Exit Meeting Complete tour of RDC with Captain Fielder

Tour Henley Young; Meeting. W. Johnnie McDaniels; Malcolm Sanders Recreation Coord.), Nurse La Flore, Alan Hines (Trng. Officer) Exit Meeting

Follow up at RDC
11:30 Meet with medical Tour Work Center
Exit Meeting

9

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 10 of 85

COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW

The Monitoring Team will track progress towards compliance with the following chart. This chart will be added to with each Monitoring Report showing the date of the site visit and the number of Settlement Agreement requirements in full, partial or non-compliance. Requirements that have not yet been triggered such as an annual review are listed as NA (not applicable) at this time. Sustained compliance is achieved when compliance with a particular Settlement Agreement requirement has been sustained for 18 months or more. The count of 92 requirements is determined by the number of Settlement Agreement paragraphs which have substantive requirements. Introductory paragraphs and general provisions are not included. Some paragraphs may have multiple requirements which are evaluated independently in the text of the report but are included as one requirement for purposes of this chart. The provisions on Youthful Offenders were evaluated in the text below for compliance at Henley Young and Raymond Detention Center but only the results for Raymond Detention Center are included in the totals in this chart.

Site Visit
Date
2/7-10/17
6/1316/17 10/1620/17 1/262/2/18

Sustained Compliance 0 0
0
0

Full Compliance 1 1
1
1

Partial Compliance 4 18
26
29

NA at this time
2 2

Noncompliant 85 71

1

64

0

62

Total
92 92 92 92

INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS

Text of paragraphs 1-34 regarding “Parties,” “Introduction,” and “Definitions” omitted.

SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS

PROTECTION FROM HARM

Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to provide prisoners with safety, protect prisoners from violence committed by other prisoners, and ensure that prisoners are not subjected to abuse by Jail staff. To that end, the County must:

10

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 11 of 85
37. Develop and implement policies and procedures to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment for prisoners and staff. Such policies and procedures must include the following:
a. Booking; b. Objective classification; c. Housing assignments; d. Prisoner supervision; e. Prisoner welfare and security checks (“rounds”); f. Posts and post orders; g. Searches; h. Use of force; i. Incident reporting; j. Internal investigations; k. Prisoner rights; l. Medical and mental health care; m. Exercise and treatment activities; n. Laundry; o. Food services; p. Hygiene; q. Emergency procedures; r. Grievance procedures; (Lisa) and s. Sexual abuse and misconduct.
Partial Compliance Work on writing and issuing a Policies and Procedures Manual that complies with the conditions and standards of the Settlement Agreement has been ongoing for the best part of a year. The first effort, completed in house, resulted in an unsatisfactory compilation of Policies and Procedures and redundant, but somewhat different, Post Orders. They were adopted by the County but upon review by the Monitor and DOJ staff they were found to be inadequate. After some exploration of options, the County has contracted with Dr. Austin to complete the policies and procedures. He has retained the services of Mr. Emmett Sparkman to assist with policy development. Mr. Sparkman has over forty years of corrections experience including time as the Deputy Secretary of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Individual policies will be submitted to the Monitor and DOJ as they are completed for review and approval. It is anticipated that the entire Manual will be drafted by July 2018.
The policy on alcohol withdrawal should be addressed and reviewed with the nursing staff. There was no indication that inmates who, at the time of intake, admitted to drinking heavily and daily were referred to a nursing staff member or placed on a withdrawal protocol. During interviews with nurses, the nurses were not familiar with the withdrawal policy. Medication administration should also be addressed in the policies and procedures. The officer making
11

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 12 of 85
rounds with the nurse did not attempt to control the inmates receiving medication nor did he check the inmate’s mouth to ensure that the inmate was not hoarding the medication. Inmates that were no-shows to the medication line were not called to sign a refusal of medication. Refusals should be signed in real time and if the inmate refused to get up then signed by the officer and the nurse. There was an incident in which the door and cabinet in the dental suite was unlocked and dental instruments were stolen. Counts had not been maintained so it was not known how many sharps were missing. Adequate security and accounting of medical equipment should be addressed in the policies and procedures.
Needed policies and procedures related to mental health are addressed below if required by a specific Settlement Agreement provision. However, in order to develop and implement the necessary policies and procedures additional mental health staffing will be required. Based on a review of mental health related provisions of the Agreement, and even just a preliminary assessment of what it will take to address those provisions, it is quite clear that there are not enough mental health staff hours currently available to implement the policies and procedures that would be required to address the mental health related provisions of the Agreement. Furthermore, there is no time that all of the mental health staff are at the facility at the same time in order to discuss and coordinate in a way required to do such things as treatment planning and discharge planning. Therefore, a mental health staffing analysis, with a commitment to increasing the mental health staff is required.
During the next site visit, the consultant will arrange meetings with QCHC, County and Jail staff to clarify with staff the meaning and significance of a provision, to provide background with regard to why such a provision is important, and to describe best practices with regard to addressing a provision. It then offers an opportunity for health and mental health staff, and also often security staff, to discuss relevant issues, questions and concerns, as they jointly move towards the development and/or refinement of policies and an implementation plan. Addressing these provisions will require that other medical staff, security staff, and administrative staff also participate in this effort.
38. Ensure that the Jail is overseen by a qualified Jail Administrator and a leadership team with substantial education, training and experience in the management of a large jail, including at least five years of related management experience for their positions, and a bachelor’s degree. When the Jail Administrator is absent or if the position becomes vacant, a qualified deputy administrator with comparable education, training, and experience, must serve as acting Jail Administrator.
Partial Compliance As was previously reported, the Jail Administrator, Major Rushing is well qualified for the job, but has only an AA degree, not the BA degree that the position requires. Captain Richard
12

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 13 of 85
Fielder, who previously was the Training Captain, has taken on the post of Assistant Jail Administrator. His education (BA) and experience meet the standard set forth in the Settlement Agreement. This section will continue to be carried as being in Partial Compliance because of the Jail Administrator’s AA degree.
39. Ensure that all Jail supervisors have the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing needed to effectively supervise both prisoners and other staff members. At minimum, Jail supervisors must have at least 3 years of field experience, including experience working in the Jail. They must also be familiar with Jail policies and procedures, the terms of this Agreement, and prisoner rights.
Partial Compliance Other than the Assistant Jail Administrator’s position, reported above, there have been no changes in supervisory positions. This section continues to be carried as being in Partial Compliance since the P&P Manual has not been issued and it has not been possible to determine whether or not all supervisors are familiar with it and the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
40. Ensure that no one works in the Jail unless they have passed a background check, including a criminal history check.
Non-Compliant The Jail was requested to provide at the time of the site visit a listing of all current jail employees, the date of their employment and the date of their background check. This was not provided. Until the HCSO provides documentation reflecting that all employees have successfully passed a background check, including a criminal history check, this paragraph will continue to be carried as Non-Compliant.
41. Ensure that Jail policies and procedures provide for the “direct supervision” of all Jail housing units.
Non-Compliant The Policies and Procedures Manual has yet to be published. Further, no staff members have received training with regard to the principles and dynamics of direct supervision. One of the Priority Recommendations made by the monitoring team subsequent to the January/February site visit was that the County coordinate with the National Institute of Corrections to obtain “Train the Trainers” support so that staff assigned to the WC can be properly trained. Once that is done, it will be possible to rotate officers through that facility to gain hands on experience in direct supervision before they are reassigned to the RDC as it slowly transitions back to being a direct supervision jail.
13

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 14 of 85
42. Ensure that the Jail has sufficient staffing to adequately supervise prisoners, fulfill the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the safe operation of the Jail. The parties recognize that the Board allocates to the Sheriff lump sum funding on a quarterly basis. The Sheriff recognizes that sufficient staffing of the Jail should be a priority for utilizing those funds. To that end, the County must at minimum:
a. Hire and retain sufficient numbers of detention officers to ensure that: i. There are at least two detention officers in each control room at all times; ii. There are at least three detention officers at all times for each housing unit, booking area, and the medical unit;
iii. There are rovers to provide backup and assistance to other posts; iv. Prisoners have access to exercise, medical treatment, mental health
treatment, and attorney visitation as scheduled; v. There are sufficient detention officers to implement this Agreement. b. Fund and obtain a formal staffing and needs assessment (“study”) that determines with particularity the minimum number of staff and facility improvements required to implement this Agreement. As an alternative to a new study, the September 2014 study by the National Institute of Corrections may be updated if the updated study includes current information for the elements listed below. The study or study update must be completed within six months of the Effective Date and must include the following elements: i. The staffing element of the study must identify all required posts and
positions, as well as the minimum number and qualifications of staff to cover each post and position. ii. The study must ensure that the total number of recommended positions includes a “relief factor” so that necessary posts remain covered regardless of staff vacancies, turnover, vacations, illness, holidays, or other temporary factors impacting day-to-day staffing. iii. As part of any needs assessment, the study’s authors must estimate the number of prisoners expected to be held in the Jail and identify whether additional facilities, including housing, may be required. c. Once completed, the County must provide the United States and the Monitor with a copy of the study and a plan for implementation of the study’s recommendations. Within one year after the Monitor’s and United States’ review of the study and plan, the County must fund and implement the staffing and facility improvements recommended by the study, as modified and approved by the United States. d. The staffing study shall be updated at least annually and staffing adjusted accordingly to ensure continued compliance with this Agreement. The parties recognize that salaries are an important factor to recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, so the County will also annually evaluate salaries.
14

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 15 of 85
e. The County will also create, to the extent possible, a career ladder and system of retention bonuses for Jail staff.
Partial Compliance As was previously reported, the total required staffing for the Jail System is 433 positions. The goal for the current year is 275 positions, of which 271 have been funded. Four still require funding or else reassignment of that number of positions from other areas of the Sheriff’s Office. While 250 positions were reported as filled during the October site visit, that number has dropped to 239 in spite of the fact that the new salary schedule for entry-level officers represented a significant increase in compensation. It should be noted that the career ladder and bonus system outlined in the Settlement Agreement are still not in place. During the January/February site visit, the Sheriff agreed to make Investigator Marquette Funchess the fulltime recruiter for the HCSO. Previously only 25% of his time was dedicated to this function. He has worked up a six-month plan of action for recruiting activities which will, hopefully, result in a larger pool of potential employees.
The number of officers assigned to each shift, particularly at the RDC, is insufficient to meet the criteria of the Settlement Agreement. Routinely, less than half the required number is available. Only the juvenile unit (HU A1) at the RDC has an officer assigned to a post inside the unit on each shift; however, the officers assigned have not been trained with regard to direct supervision operation. At best, half of the units have an officer who sits in the vestibule, not inside the unit. Even in the Confinement/Segregation unit, (HU B3), where the inmates are locked down in individual cells, the officer sits in the vestibule, from which position he is supposed to conduct thirty-minute well-being checks on each inmate—an impractical expectation. In Booking little has changed since the last Monitor Report. Routinely, only one Detention Officer is on duty instead of two (exclusive of the ID officer) while one, sometimes two Booking Clerks are on post. It should be noted that a female Booking Clerk is often called upon to handle intake duties when a female detainee is received. This is acceptable in that booking clerks are also detention officers, but the practice reflects the shortage of personnel. As was previously reported, the staffing situation at the JDC and WC is not as critical as at the RDC because portions of those two facilities are currently vacant and they are operating at well below rated capacity.
f. Develop and implement an objective and validated classification and housing assignment procedure that is based on risk assessment rather than solely on a prisoner’s charge. Prisoners must be classified immediately after booking, and then housed based on the classification assessment. At minimum, a prisoner’s bunk, cell, unit, and facility assignments must be based on his or her objective classification assessment, and staff members may not transfer or move prisoners into a housing area if doing so would violate classification principles (e.g., placing juveniles with adults, victims with former assailants, and minimum
15

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 16 of 85
security prisoners in a maximum security unit). Additionally, the classification and housing assignment process must include the following elements:
i. The classification process must be handled by qualified staff who have additional training and experience on classification.
ii. The classification system must take into account objective risk factors including a prisoner’s prior institutional history, history of violence, charges, special needs, physical size or vulnerabilities, gang affiliation, and reported enemies.
iii. Prisoner housing assignments must not be changed by unit staff without proper supervisor and classification staff approval.
iv. The classification system must track the location of all prisoners in the Jail, and help ensure that prisoners can be readily located by staff. The County may continue to use wrist bands to help identify prisoners, but personal identification on individual prisoners may not substitute for a staff-controlled and centralized prisoner tracking and housing assignment system.
v. The classification system must be integrated with the Jail prisoner record system, so that staff have appropriate access to information necessary to provide proper supervision, including the current housing assignment of every prisoner in the Jail.
vi. The designation and use of housing units as “gang pods” must be phased out under the terms of this Agreement. Placing prisoners together because of gang affiliation alone is prohibited. The County must replace current gang-based housing assignments with a more appropriate objective classification and housing process within one year after the Effective Date.
Partial Compliance There has been no change with regard to compliance in this section since the last reporting period. The Classification Sergeant has prepared some preliminary draft proposals, but has not submitted any Policies and Procedures for inclusion in the P&P Manual as was suggested in the last report. Misdemeanant detainees continue to be assigned directly to the WC from Booking prior to being classified. Movement of inmates by supervisors when Classification officers are not on duty now must be documented by a report that goes to the Classification supervisor so that follow up can occur the following morning. The use of gang pods ended almost a year ago; however, many classification decisions still default to charges rather than behavior.
g. Develop and implement positive approaches for promoting safety within the Jail including: i. Providing all prisoners with at least 5 hours of outdoor recreation per week;
16

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 17 of 85
ii. Developing rewards and incentives for good behavior such as additional commissary, activities, or privileges;
iii. Creating work opportunities, including the possibility of paid employment;
iv. Providing individual or group treatment for prisoners with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other behavioral or medical conditions, who would benefit from therapeutic activities; (Jackie)
v. Providing education, including special education, for youth, as well as all programs, supports, and services required for youth by federal law; (Jim and Jackie)
vi. Screening prisoners for serious mental illness as part of the Jail’s booking and health assessment process, and then providing such prisoners with appropriate treatment and therapeutic housing;
vii. Providing reasonable opportunities for visitation. h. Ensure that policies, procedures, and practices provide for higher levels of
supervision for individual prisoners if necessary due to a prisoner’s individual circumstances. Examples of such higher level supervision include (a) constant observation (i.e., continuous, uninterrupted one-on-one monitoring) for actively suicidal prisoners (i.e., prisoners threatening or who recently engaged in suicidal behavior); (b) higher frequency security checks for prisoners locked down in maximum security units, medical observation units, and administrative segregation units; and (c) more frequent staff interaction with youth as part of their education, treatment and behavioral management programs. i. Continue to update, maintain, and expand use of video surveillance and recording cameras to improve coverage throughout the Jail, including the booking area, housing units, medical and mental health units, special management housing, facility perimeters, and in common areas.
Non-Compliant 42 (g)(i) Outdoor recreation is still unavailable to almost all inmates in the Hinds County Jail System. It has never been available at the JDC because there is no outdoor recreation yard. At the RDC it has not been available for over five years. After the riot that caused major damage to Pod C all recreation ceased and most doors to the recreation yards were welded shut, as well as many other doors, including pipe chases, throughout the jail. Only at the WC is outdoor recreation feasible, but even there it is not documented in a format that allows for readily tracking when recreation was made available. Subsequent to the January/February site visit, the WC forwarded a copy of the log entries from HU3 covering 2-1-18 to 2-14-18. A review of those entries revealed that recreation was made available on seven of fourteen days, for a total of five hours and forty minutes. On three days there were log entries made when the recreation
17

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 18 of 85
yard was opened but none made to show when it closed. The total documented outdoor recreation was just over half of what is required by the Settlement Agreement.
42(g)(iv) Due to the fact that prisoners’ medical records do not include adequate mental health evaluations or treatment plans, at present, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to assess (internally and/or by the monitor) whether or not any given prisoner with a serious mental illness, developmental disability, or other behavioral or medical condition is receiving appropriate therapeutic interventions. At minimum, a mental health evaluation should include the prisoner’s history, a description of the prisoner’s signs and symptoms of mental illness and related distress and/or impairments in functioning, and a diagnostic opinion and/or psychodynamic formulation. For prisoners for whom medication might be indicated and/or prisoners who are experiencing some type of mental health emergency, a psychiatric evaluation should also be performed and documented in the medical record. In the absence of such evaluations that are documented in prisoners’ medical records, there is no way to know why a prisoner is receiving mental health treatment or what the prisoner is being treated for.
At minimum, a treatment plan should include a list of problems to be addressed noting the therapeutic intervention(s) which will be employed to address each problem and the expected outcome or goal of such treatment within a designated timeframe. If an indicated treatment is simply not available within the facility and significant compromises must be made, this should also be noted in the treatment plan. There should also be evidence that treatment plans are reviewed on a regular basis (consistent with community standards of practice for the treatment of the particular psychiatric difficulty), and that any indicated adjustments in the treatment plan have been made. In addition, since both treatment planning and treatment plan review is a multidisciplinary effort, mental health, nursing and security staffs must work together to discuss and ensure that everyone understands their role in the development and implementation of the treatment plans. As noted above, this multi-disciplinary treatment planning and review process is one of the efforts that is complicated by the fact that there is no time when all mental health staff are at the facility at the same time, and so options for addressing this complication will also have to be explored. In the absence of treatment plans, there is no way to know whether or not prescribed treatment is appropriate or effective.
Furthermore, the absence of a detailed log for the mental health caseload makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to assess (internally and by the monitor) whether or not the overall caseload of prisoners with serious mental illness, developmental disability, or other behavior or medical conditions is receiving appropriate therapeutic interventions. There is a list of prisoners seen by the psychiatrist or the psychologist each week, which also notes if and when another appointment should be scheduled. However, at minimum, a detailed log would list each prisoner on the mental health caseload, with their diagnosis, prescribed treatment, staff providing treatment, most recent and next scheduled visits, and any special circumstances, such as prisoner non-
18

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 19 of 85
compliance, suicide watch, segregation, etc. As noted, the lack of this documentation not only affects the monitoring team’s ability to determine compliance with the mental health provisions of the Settlement Agreement, it also impacts the ability of the County and medical provider to ensure that appropriate treatment is being provided.
With respect to this provision, current recommended actions are: 1. Mental health evaluations must be performed on all prisoners on the mental health case load. For prisoners for whom medication might be indicated and/or prisoners who are experiencing some type of mental health emergency, a psychiatric evaluation should also be performed. 2. Treatment plans must be developed for each prisoner on the mental health caseload, and must then be periodically reviewed. 3. Documentation of a mental health evaluation and/or psychiatric evaluation, and documentation of a treatment plan and treatment plan review must be included in the prisoner’s medical record. 4. A detailed log for the mental health caseload must be developed and maintained.
42(g)(v) An assessment of efforts to comply with this provision was initiated during the site visit, but was not completed. However as of this point, it at least appears that education and other programs, supports, and services for youth remain very limited. This will be explored further during the next site visit.
42(g)(vi) Although there is mental health screening at the time of booking and during the initial health assessment process, the adequacy of this screening is yet to be determined. One tool that would be helpful in this regard is the development and maintenance of a log for self-referral for mental health services and referrals for mental health services made by security staff or other medical staff, which indicates whether or not mental illness was identified during the initial screening processes. Such a log would also indicate how quickly the prisoner was seen, who saw the prisoner, and the outcome, and so it would also help with internal (and external) monitoring/assessment of the responsiveness of mental health to such referrals. In addition, the screening tools used will be further assessed by the monitor.
Recommended actions at this time are to develop the above described log that would track selfreferrals for mental health services as well as referrals for mental health services made by security staff or health staff.
See paragraph 74 and paragraph 77 (i and j) regarding housing decisions and the availability of appropriate housing for prisoners with serious mental illness. See section 42 (g)(iv) with regard to the availability of appropriate treatment.
19

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 20 of 85
42(g)(vii) Visitation records are similarly problematic. A review of visitation records covering two weeks, from 12-31-17 to 1-13-18 revealed the following--
(1) At the JDC, 68 inmates were scheduled to have a visit with family and friends; however, only 31 actually were able to complete a visit. The others were cancelled by administration, missed by the inmate or caller, or were interrupted.
(2) At the RDC and WC visitation records are combined, so it is not possible to differentiate between facilities. A total of 82 inmates were scheduled to visit, but only 36 actually completed their visits. The others were cancelled by administration, missed by the inmate or caller, or listed as “unpaid refusal”. Staff described the “unpaid refusal” as a system problem in that the inmate’s family has money in the account but the recording says number restricted. The provider, Securus has said that the problem is on the jail end.
Based on the number of inmates held at the three facilities, on average only 48% of the inmates at the JDC actually have a visit during a month’s time, while at the RDC and WC that figure is only 14%. Since the majority of the population is held at these two jails, it is apparent that very few inmates in the custody of the Detention Services Division are able to visit with family and friends on a routine basis.
42(h) During a review of the medical records for a small number of prisoners who had been on suicide watch, there was no documentation of a mental health assessment that resulted in the placement of the prisoner on suicide watch or the continuation of an emergency suicide watch originally initiated by security staff who were concerned about a prisoner’s suicide potential. Without such an evaluation, compliance with this provision is not possible as it is the mental health assessment that would form the basis for an opinion on the level of supervision required. There was also no documentation of a mental health assessment that resulted in the termination of a period of suicide watch. In addition, it remains unclear which staff has the authority to terminate/responsibility for terminating a suicide watch. Furthermore, if this authority and responsibility is limited to the psychiatrist and/or the psychologist, there are at least 5 days each week when neither one of them are at the facility to assume this responsibility.
Logs that would document some higher level of supervision by security staff have been requested. Therefore, further assessment is required to determine whether or not there is documentation of security supervision and then whether or not any documented supervision is adequate. As noted above, this is somewhat complicated by the lack of clear mental health orders regarding the level of supervision required, based on mental health assessments.
This is an area where medical policies and security policies when they are completed must be consistent. Assuring a higher level of supervision by must be addressed at the level of policy and practice to clearly delineate the levels of supervision required and the respective roles of security
20

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 21 of 85
and mental health staff. This issue also intersects with issues of staffing levels to ensure that such higher levels of supervision can actually be provided.
42(i) Video surveillance capabilities vary greatly between facilities. While the JDC and WC have no such capability, the RDC has been upgraded significantly. Supervisory staff at that facility should take advantage of the ability to monitor and review incidents and daily activity.
43. Include outcome measures as part of the Jail’s internal data collection, management, and administrative reporting process. The occurrence of any of the following specific outcome measures creates a rebuttable presumption in this case that the Jail fails to provide reasonably safe conditions for prisoners:
a. Staff vacancy rate of more than 10% of budgeted positions; b. A voluntary staff turnover rate that results in the failure to staff critical posts (such
as the housing units, booking, and classification) or the failure to maintain experienced supervisors on all shifts; c. A major disturbance resulting in the takeover of any housing area by prisoners; d. Staffing where fewer than 90% of all detention officers have completed basic jailer training; e. Three or more use of force or prisoner-on-prisoner incidents in a fiscal year in which a prisoner suffers a serious injury, but for which staff members fail to complete all documentation required by this Agreement, including supervision recommendations and findings; f. One prisoner death within a fiscal year, where there is no documented administrative review by the Jail Administrator or no documented mortality review by a physician not directly involved in the clinical treatment of the deceased prisoner (e.g. corporate medical director or outside, contract physician, when facility medical director may have a personal conflict); g. One death within a fiscal year, where the death was a result of prisoner-onprisoner violence and there was a violation of Jail supervision, housing assignment, or classification procedures.
Non-Compliant Currently, 11.8 % of the authorized positions are vacant (271 authorized, 32 vacant). Turnover statistics for 2017 reflect a continuing problem in the Detention Services Division. At the JDC it was 18.4%, at the WC it was 26.0% and at the RDC it was 48.9%. Ideally, a 10% turnover rate should be the goal, but the JDC and WC fall within a manageable range. The RDC’s turnover rate, however, is not sustainable. When almost 50% of a facility’s staff leave during a one-year period, maintaining continuity and consistency of daily activities is not possible.
44. To complement, but not replace, “direct supervision,” develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that detention officers are conducting rounds as appropriate. To that end:
21

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 22 of 85
a. Rounds must be conducted at least once every 30 minutes in general population housing units and at least once every 15 minutes for special management prisoners (including prisoners housed in booking cells).
b. All security rounds must be conducted at irregular intervals to reduce their predictability, and must be documented on forms or logs.
c. Officers must only be permitted to enter data on these forms or logs at the time a round is completed. Forms and logs must not include pre-printed dates or times. Officers must not be permitted to fill out forms and logs before they actually conduct their rounds.
d. The parties anticipate that “rounds” will not necessarily be conducted as otherwise described in this provision when the Jail is operated as a “direct supervision” facility. This is because a detention officer will have constant, active supervision of all prisoners in the detention officer’s charge. As detailed immediately below, however, even under a “direct supervision” model, the Jail must have a system in place to document and ensure that staff are providing adequate supervision.
e. Jail policies, procedures, and practices may utilize more than one means to document and ensure that staff are supervising prisoners as required by “direct supervision,” including the use and audit of supervisor inspection reports, visitation records, mealtime records, inmate worker sheets, medical treatment files, sick call logs, canteen delivery records, and recreation logs. Any system adopted to ensure that detention officers are providing “direct supervision” must be sufficiently detailed and in writing to allow verification by outside reviewers, including the United States and Monitor.
Partial Compliance Well-being checks continue to be conducted more effectively than previously, although still not in compliance with the Settlement Agreement. In Booking they are conducted at 15-minute intervals. In general population areas of the RDC they are sometimes maintained at hourly intervals, although consistency of entries in the Unit logs is sporadic at best with gaps of four or more hours, and even whole shifts, noted. In Isolation Unit B4, the 15-minute well-being checks are routinely recorded on the individual inmate logs; however, the Unit Log, which was in place during the October site visit, was no longer in use during the January/February site visit. In Confinement/Segregation Unit B3, 30-minute well-being checks are maintained by the officer who sits in the vestibule (see paragraph 42 above). The Settlement Agreement calls for 15minute well-being checks. At the JDC, general population 30-minute well-being checks were recorded appropriately on forms located at the end of each corridor. The 30-minute confinement/segregation logs for those inmates who were in a lock down status were not maintained on individual forms, as they should have been, (and as they were during the October site visit). Instead, 30-minute Activity Logs were kept on each inmate, which reflected feeding,
22

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 23 of 85
out of cell time and other evolutions rather than 30-minute well-being checks. At the WC, officers made inconsistent entries in the Unit Logs which were sometimes hourly and sometimes only sporadic, if at all, throughout the shift. While direct supervision housing does not require the maintenance of a routine well-being check notation when other activity entries reflect continuing supervision, standard procedures regarding log entries need to be developed, so that all officers follow the same practices.
See section 76 with regard to mental health rounds for prisoners in segregation. See section 42 (h) with regard to prisoners who require special management due to acute mental health difficulties.
45. Ensure that all correctional officers receive adequate pre- and post-service training to provide for reasonably safe conditions in the Jail. To that end, the County must ensure that the Jail employs Qualified Training Officers, who must help to develop and implement a formal, written training program. The program must include the following:
a. Mandatory pre-service training. Detention officers must receive State jailer training and certification prior to start of work. Staff who have not received such training by the Effective Date of this Agreement must complete their State jailer training within twelve months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. During that twelve month period, the County must develop an in-house detention training academy.
b. Post Order training. Detention officers must receive specific training on unitspecific post orders before starting work on a unit, and every year thereafter. To document such training, officers must be required to sign an acknowledgement that they have received such training, but only after an officer is first assigned to a unit, after a Post Order is updated, and after completion of annual retraining.
c. “Direct supervision” training. Detention officers must receive specific pre- and post service training on “direct supervision.” Such training must include instruction on how to supervise prisoners in a “direct supervision” facility, including instruction in effective communication skills and verbal de-escalation. Supervisors must receive training on how to monitor and ensure that staff are providing effective “direct supervision.”
d. Jail administrator training. High-level Jail supervisors (i.e., supervisors with facility-wide management responsibilities), including the Jail Administrator and his or her immediate deputies (wardens), must receive jail administrator training prior to the start of their employment. High-level supervisors already employed at the Jail when this Agreement is executed must complete such training within six months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Training comparable to the Jail Administration curriculum offered by the National Institute of Corrections will meet the requirements of this provision.
23

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 24 of 85
e. Post-service training. Detention officers must receive at least 120 hours per year of post-service training in their first year of employment and 40 hours per year after their first year. Such training must include refresher training on Jail policies. The training may be provided during roll call, staff meetings, and post-assignment meetings. Post-service training should also include field and scenario-based training.
f. Training for Critical Posts. Jail management must work with the training department to develop a training syllabus and minimum additional training requirements for any officer serving in a critical position. Such additional training must be provided for any officer working on a tactical team; in a special management, medical or mental health unit; in a maximum security unit; or in booking and release.
g. Special management unit training. Officers assigned to special management units must receive at least eight hours of specialized training each year regarding supervision of such units and related prisoner safety, medical, mental health, and security policies.
h. Training on all Jail policies and procedures including those regarding prisoner rights and the prevention of staff abuse and misconduct.
Non-Compliant As was previously noted, then Training Director, Captain Fielder, recently took on the position of Assistant Jail Administrator. In his place Captain Miller assumed responsibility for training. One of the first things that he put into place was elimination of the 40-hour orientation block of instruction for new Detention Officers. Now new employees are immediately assigned to the 120-hour basic recruit academy which they must complete before being assigned to a facility. Training records do not yet reflect how many officers still need to complete this training within the first year of employment or how many officers received 40 hours of in-service training during the past year. Post Order training, Critical Post training, Special Management Unit training and Direct Supervision training are as yet not identified. The HCSO attempted to hire a Director of Detention Training but was unable to attract candidates at the pay level that was offered. The HCSO needs to recruit and hire a Director of Detention Training, at the level of a lieutenant, as soon as possible. This position requires a candidate who has extensive detention experience to ensure that the training curriculum and schedule provides the needed training for detention officers.
During the past year the Division Major attended the Large Jail Network’s training program put on by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), and the Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues seminar hosted by the Americans for Effective Law Enforcement Legal Center. The newly appointed Assistant Jail Administrator is slated to attend New Warden’s Training through NIC later this year.
24

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 25 of 85
Reportedly, there is a modest amount of mental health training that occurs when security staff persons are in training at the academy. This training curriculum will be reviewed. More recently, an in-service training program, entitled “Mental Health First Aid” has become available, and security staff persons are beginning to receive this training. This training curriculum will also be reviewed.
46. Develop and implement policies and procedures for adequate supervisory oversight for the Jail. To that end, the County must:
a. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the authority to make personnel decisions necessary to ensure adequate staffing, staff discipline, and staff oversight. This personnel authority must include the power to hire, transfer, and discipline staff. Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) allocated for budget purposes represent a salaried slot and are not a restriction on personnel assignment authority. While the Sheriff may retain final authority for personnel decisions, the Jail’s policies and procedures must document and clearly identify who is responsible for a personnel decision, what administrative procedures apply, and the basis for personnel decisions.
b. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the ability to monitor, ensure compliance with Jail policies, and take corrective action, for any staff members operating in the Jail, including any who are not already reporting to the Jail Administrator and the Jail’s chain of command. This provision covers road deputies assigned to supervise housing units and emergency response/tactical teams entering the Jail to conduct random shakedowns or to suppress prisoner disturbances.
c. Ensure that supervisors conduct daily rounds on each shift in the prisoner housing units, and document the results of their rounds.
d. Ensure that staff conduct daily inspections of all housing and common areas to identify damage to the physical plant, safety violations, and sanitation issues. This maintenance program must include the following elements: i. Facility safety inspections that include identification of damaged doors, locks, cameras, and safety equipment. ii. An inspection process. iii. A schedule for the routine inspection, repair, and replacement of the physical plant, including security and safety equipment. iv. A requirement that any corrective action ordered be taken. v. Identification of high priority repairs to assist Jail and County officials with allocating staff and resources.
25

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 26 of 85
vi. To ensure prompt corrective action, a mechanism for identifying and notifying responsible staff and supervisors when there are significant delays with repairs or a pattern of problems with equipment. Staff response to physical plant, safety, and sanitation problems must be reasonable and prompt.
Non-Compliant Until the P&P Manual is revised and re-issued, compliance with this paragraph cannot be achieved. The revision work was recently assigned to Dr. James Austin with an expected completion date of July 2018. Individual policies will be submitted to the Monitor and DOJ for review and approval as they are completed. No progress has been made with regard to the requirement for supervisors to document the results of their rounds. This long-standing problem needs to be addressed immediately. At a minimum, a supervisor should make an entry in the Unit Log or Control Room Log.
Maintenance issues are still not resolved in a timely fashion, particularly at the RDC. As was previously reported, two of the three primary corridor doors leading from the “Great Hall” to the three pods (A, B and C) still do not function. They are propped open because they cannot be properly secured/locked. In A and B Pods the control room doors also cannot be secured, so maintenance staff have jury rigged a manual locking system that depends upon an officer in the corridor to lift a mechanism located above the door before it can be opened. This totally unacceptable situation can be rectified when the County replaces the security doors into the pods. At that time, they should eliminate the two sets of security doors located in the corridors between the Great Hall and the control rooms since they serve no purpose other than to impede the ability of staff to move between the Great Hall and the housing units. When that work is done, the County should also create a safety vestibule, with two swinging security doors, as the single point of entry to each control room. The single sliding doors located on each side of the three control rooms should be removed and the walls secured. It was also observed that many cells lacked functioning lights causing inmates in segregation cells to lay on the floor and use light coming through from the hall when light was needed.
While the JDC and WC do not have the overall appearance of neglect that afflicts the RDC, they need more timely correction of maintenance problems regarding plumbing and electrical work. An example is the electrical cord that runs across the floor in the lobby of the WC. This obvious violation of fire and safety regulations has been noted during each of the past three site visits. There is still no standard format in place at each of the three facilities for the documentation and repair of maintenance issues.
47. Ensure that staff members conduct random shakedowns of cells and common areas so that prisoners do not possess or have access to dangerous contraband. Such shakedowns must be
26

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 27 of 85
conducted in each housing unit at least once per month, on an irregular schedule to make them less predictable to prisoners and staff.
Non-Compliant Random shakedowns of cells and common areas are still not accomplished and documented as this paragraph requires although a review of incident reports reflects an increase in the number that are conducted. While the monitoring team was informed that shakedowns are now conducted solely by Detention Officers, not by law enforcement officers, at least one incident report, #171283, dated 12-14-17, indicated that such is not the case. On that date, HCSO patrol deputies, SRT Team members and a Mississippi Department of Corrections RRT team conducted a shakedown of RDC, Unit A2. If law enforcement officers are involved, they should provide back up and work under the direction of Detention Center staff. The practice of undercutting the authority and responsibility of Detention Officers by allowing law enforcement and outside agency officers to assume their duties is inappropriate and counterproductive. On January 31, 2018, Assistant Jail Administrator Fielder issued a memo to all personnel that calls for each facility to conduct two shakedowns per month.
48. Install cell phone jammers or other electronic equipment to detect, suppress, and deter unauthorized communications from prisoners in the Jail. Installation must be completed within two years after the Effective Date.
Non-Compliant While no concrete action has been taken to date to deal with this issue, in December the Jail Administrator received a briefing from Securus Technologies on a Wireless Containment Services (WCS) system, which may be a viable option to control contraband cell phones in the jail facilities.
49. Develop and implement a gang program in consultation with qualified experts in the field that addresses any link between gang activity in the community and the Jail through appropriate provisions for education, family or community involvement, and violence prevention.
Partial Compliance There has been no change in the status of this paragraph. No additional information was provided during the most recent site visit beyond the fact that a law enforcement officer is assigned to conduct investigations within the Jail System.
27

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 28 of 85
USE OF FORCE STANDARDS
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to prevent excessive force by staff and ensure force is used safely and only in a manner commensurate with the behavior justifying it. To that end, the County must:
50. Develop and implement policies and procedures to regulate the use of force. The policies and procedures must:
a. Prohibit the use of force as a response to verbal insults or prisoner threats where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff or visitors;
b. Prohibit the use of force as a response to prisoners’ failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff, visitors, or property;
c. Prohibit the use of force against a prisoner after the prisoner has ceased to resist and is under control;
d. Prohibit the use of force as punishment or retaliation; e. Limit the level of force used so that it is commensurate with the justification for
use of force; and f. Limit use of force in favor of less violent methods when such methods are more
appropriate, effective, or less likely to result in the escalation of an incident.
Non-Compliant Since the P&P Manual has still not been revised, reissued and approved, compliance with this paragraph cannot be achieved. The significance of non-compliance was reinforced by two use of force reports in early February that reflected a lack of understanding regarding some of the practices outlined in this paragraph by command level staff, the very people who are responsible for ensuring that subordinate staff follow proper procedures.
51. Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure timely notification, documentation, and communication with supervisors and medical staff (including mental health staff) prior to use of force and after any use of force. These policies and procedures must specifically include the following requirements:
a. Staff members must obtain prior supervisory approval before the use of weapons (e.g., electronic control devices or chemical sprays) and mechanical restraints unless responding to an immediate threat to a person’s safety.
b. If a prisoner has a serious medical condition or other circumstances exist that may increase the risk of death or serious injury from the use of force, the type of force that may be used on the prisoner must be restricted to comply with this provision. These restrictions include the following:
28

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 29 of 85
i. The use of chemical sprays, physical restraints, and electronic control devices must not be used when a prisoner may be at risk of positional asphyxia.
ii. Electronic control devices must not be used on prisoners when they are in a location where they may suffer serious injury after losing voluntary muscle control (e.g., prisoner is standing atop a stairwell, wall, or other elevated location).
iii. Physical strikes, holds, or other uses of force or restraints may not be used if the technique is not approved for use in the Jail or the staff member has not been trained on the proper use of the technique.
Non-Compliant To date there are no recorded instances of staff members obtaining supervisory approval prior to using weapons and mechanical restraints. The same can be said for the use of chemical sprays, physical restraints and electronic control devices being used when a prisoner may be at risk of positional asphyxia. The fact that a non-approved use of force technique was used during a recent incident by a member of the Detention Services Division command staff (Incident Report #1800268) is reflective of the need for intensive and extensive training for all Detention personnel.
c. Staff members must conduct health and welfare checks every 15 minutes while a prisoner is in restraints. At minimum, these checks must include (i) logged firstperson observations of a prisoner’s status while in restraints (e.g. check for blood flow, respiration, heart beat), and (ii) documented breaks to meet the sanitary and health needs of prisoners placed in emergency restraints (e.g., restroom breaks and breaks to prevent cramping or circulation problems).
d. The County must ensure that clinical staff conduct medical and mental health assessments immediately after a prisoner is subjected to any Level 1 use of force. Prisoners identified as requiring medical or mental health care during the assessment must receive such treatment.
Non-Compliant The P&P Manual is still under review. Revised policies and post orders should be submitted for review by the Monitor and DOJ staff by July. Fifteen-minute well-being checks are now maintained both in Booking and in the RDC, B4 Isolation Unit. Suicide watch procedures changed on January 28, 2018, with the closure of the two cells in Medical that were previously used for that purpose. Suicide watches are now maintained in C4 Isolation and the assigned officer stays inside the unit making it possible to achieve constant supervision instead of only a 15-minute well-being check. Four or more inmates can be supervised by one officer in this configuration. There is no evidence that mental health staff assess prisoners who have been subjected to Level 1 use of force.
29

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 30 of 85
e. A first-line supervisor must personally supervise all planned uses of force, such as cell extractions.
f. Security staff members must consult with medical and mental health staff before all planned uses of force on juveniles or prisoners with serious mental illness, so that medical and mental health staff may offer alternatives to or limitations on the use of force, such as assisting with de-escalation or obtaining the prisoner’s voluntary cooperation.
g. The Jail must have inventory and weapon controls to establish staff member responsibility for their use of weapons or other security devices in the facility. Such controls must include: i. a sign-out process for staff members to carry any type of weapon inside the Jail, ii. a prohibition on staff carrying any weapons except those in the Jail’s tracked inventory, and iii. random checks to determine if weapons have been discharged without report of discharge (e.g., by checking the internal memory of electronic control devices and weighing pepper spray canisters).
h. A staff member must electronically record (both video and sound) all planned uses of force with equipment provided by the Jail.
i. All staff members using force must immediately notify their supervisor. j. All staff members using a Level 1 use of force must also immediately notify the
shift commander after such use of force, or becoming aware of an allegation of such use by another staff member.
Non-Compliant To date there has not been a recorded incident of a planned use of force, which would have, in turn, necessitated notification of supervisory staff and video recording of the event. A review of use of force reports for December indicated that there were three such reports written at the RDC, none at the JDC and no monthly report submitted for the WC. In January there were three reports submitted at the JDC and none at the WC, but no monthly report submitted by the RDC. The monthly reports by the three facilities need to be done uniformly utilizing the same format. The only report of a taser being used was at the RDC in November. That report reflected the proper use of the taser in defense of the officer, but also that he threatened to use it on the inmate if he did not comply with an order to submit to a strip search. This coercive use of the taser is in violation of the standards set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Inmates were routinely sent to medical for a follow up review and, when necessary, they were transported to a local hospital for treatment.
30

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 31 of 85
There is no evidence that mental health staff is being consulted prior to a planned use of force on juveniles or prisoners with serious mental illness.
USE OF FORCE TRAINING
52. The County must develop and implement a use of force training program. Every staff member who supervises prisoners must receive at least 8 hours of pre-service use of force training and annual use of force refresher training.
Non-Compliant With the change in Training Directors since the October site visit, there has been a reset in the area of staff training. Use of force is covered during the basic 120-hour academy, but there is no record of comprehensive use of force training for all personnel, either in the academy or through annual in-service training.
53. Topics covered by use of force training must include: a. Instruction on what constitutes excessive force; b. De-escalation tactics; c. Methods of managing prisoners with mental illness to avoid the use of force; d. Defensive tactics; e. All Jail use of force policies and procedures, including those related to documentation and review of use of force.
Non-Compliant As was previously reported, these topics cannot be addressed until the P&P Manual is revised and published.
54. The County must randomly test at least 5 percent of Jail Staff members annually to determine whether they have a meaningful, working knowledge of all use of force policies and procedures. The County must also evaluate the results to determine if any changes to Jail policies and procedures may be necessary and take corrective action. The results and recommendations of such evaluations must be provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant This action cannot be undertaken until the revised P&P Manual is issued, officers are trained and sufficient time has passed to conduct the random testing of at least five percent of Jail staff.
55. The County must update any use of force training within 30 days after any revision to a use of force policy or procedure.
31

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 32 of 85
Non-Compliant This cannot be updated until the policies and procedures on use of force have been completed.
USE OF FORCE REPORTING
To prevent and remedy the unconstitutional use of force, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting use of force. To that end, the County must:
56. Develop and implement use of force reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information to analyze and respond appropriately to use of force.
Non-Compliant There has been no change with regard to this paragraph. It cannot be addressed until the P&P Manual is revised and issued to all personnel. According to Information Technology and Jail staff, the new computerized incident report and use of force report forms contain information that has not been made available to the monitoring team. In addition, it is reported that a separate investigation report that is not linked to the incident and use of force report forms contains additional information. Also, it is reported that on the computer-based forms there is a space for supervisory approval, disapproval and recommended action. Unfortunately, that documentation has not been made available to the monitoring team for review. At present, it is still not possible for a determination to be made as to the adequacy and accuracy of supervisory review. The team has requested that jail and IT staff be able to generate and provide reports to the monitoring team that provide the information needed to determine compliance.
57. Require each staff member who used or observed a use of force to complete a Use of Force Report as promptly as possible, and no later than by the end of that staff member’s shift. Staff members must accurately complete all fields on a Use of Force Report. The failure to report any use of force must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination. Similarly, supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
Non-Compliant There has been no change with regard to this paragraph. The requirement cannot be analyzed until the P&P Manual is revised and issued to all personnel. While report writing is improving throughout the Jail System, because the incident reports provided to the monitoring team lack information, it is still not possible to determine whether all incident reports are submitted in a timely fashion or whether supervisors follow up as required.
32

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 33 of 85
58. Ensure that Jail use of force reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, use of force reports must document the following information:
a. A unique tracking number for each use of force; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. A description of the events leading to the use of force, including what precipitated
or appeared to precipitate those events. f. A description of the level of resistance, staff response, and the type and level of
force (including frequency and duration of use). For instance, use of force reports must describe the number of discharges from electronic control devices and chemical munitions canisters; the amount of discharge from chemical munitions canisters; whether the Staff Member threatened to use the device or actually discharged the device; the type of physical hold or strike used; and the length of time a prisoner was restrained, and whether the prisoner was released from restraints for any period during that time; g. A description of the staff member’s attempts to de-escalate the situation without use of force; h. A description of whether the staff member notified supervisors or other personnel, including medical or mental health staff, before or after the use of force; i. A description of any observed injuries to staff or prisoners; j. Whether medical care was required or provided to staff or prisoners; k. Reference to any associated incident report or prisoner disciplinary report completed by the reporting officer, which pertains to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force; l. A signature of the staff member completing the report attesting to the report’s accuracy and completeness.
Partial Compliance During the January/February site visit another training session was held with IT, Investigations, Operations and Detention staff to facilitate compliance with the reporting requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Special emphasis was placed on the need for all incidents to be given a specific number with any supplemental reports and investigation reports tied back to that original number no matter whether that report was a use of force, rule violation, mechanical problem or any other matter worthy of being recorded. While the monitoring team is still unable to see everything that appears in the Jail Management System (JMS), hopefully, the critical measurable details will soon be available through Drop Box.
33

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 34 of 85
USE OF FORCE SUPERVISOR REVIEWS
59. The County must ensure that Jail supervisors review, analyze, and respond appropriately to use of force. At minimum:
a. A supervisor must review all use of force reports submitted during the supervisor’s watch by the end of the supervisor’s watch.
b. A supervisor must ensure that staff members complete their use of force reports by the end of their watch.
c. Reviewing supervisors must document their findings as to the completeness of each staff member’s use of force report, and must also document any procedural errors made by staff in completing their reports.
d. If a Use of Force report is incomplete, reviewing supervisors must require Staff Members to provide any required information on a revised use of force report, and the Jail must maintain both the original and any revised report in its records.
e. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing use of force reports must document their use of force review as described in Paragraph 62 sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted.
f. All Level 1 uses of force must be sent to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD.
g. A Level 2 use of force must be referred to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD if a reviewing supervisor concludes that there may have been a violation of law or policy. Level 2 uses of force may also be referred to IAD if the County requires such reporting as a matter of Jail policy and procedure, or at the discretion of any reviewing supervisor.
Non-Compliant No final determination can be made until the P&P Manual is revised and re-issued. It was reported that formatting changes have been made in the electronic reporting system that allow the supervisory review required by this paragraph. However, because of the limitation on what the system can provide in paper form, the monitoring staff cannot, as yet, see whether or not supervisors are taking appropriate follow up action on each report.
60. After any Level 1 use of force, responding supervisors will promptly go to the scene and take the following actions:
a. Ensure the safety of everyone involved in or proximate to the incident. Determine if anyone is injured and ensure that necessary medical care is or has been provided.
b. Ensure that photos are taken of all injuries sustained, or as evidence that no injuries were sustained, by prisoners and staff involved in a use of force incident. Photos must be taken no later than two hours after a use of force. Prisoners may
34

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 35 of 85
refuse to consent to photos, in which case they should be asked to sign a waiver indicating that they have refused consent. If they refuse to sign a waiver, the shift commander must document that consent was requested and refused. c. Ensure that staff members and witnesses are identified, separated, and advised that communications with other staff members or witnesses regarding the incident are prohibited. d. Ensure that victim, staff, and witness statements are taken confidentially by reviewing supervisors or investigators, outside of the presence of other prisoners or involved staff. e. Document whether the use of force was recorded. If the use of force was not recorded, the responding supervisors must review and explain why the event was not recorded. If the use of force was recorded, the responding supervisors must ensure that any record is preserved for review.
Non-Compliant The specified actions of this paragraph are not routinely followed by supervisors. A review of recent use of force reports revealed that photographs are seldom taken and waivers related to the refusal to be photographed are not included. Witness statements are virtually non-existent and use of force incidents are not recorded. It would seem that supervisors at the RDC should be able to review video of incidents by examining recordings in Master Control.
61. All uses of force must be reviewed by supervisors who were neither involved in nor approved the use of force by the end of the supervisor’s shift. All level 1 uses of force must also be reviewed by a supervisor of Captain rank or above who was neither involved in nor approved the use of force. The purposes of supervisor review are to determine whether the use of force violated Jail policies and procedures, whether the prisoner’s rights may have been violated, and whether further investigation or disciplinary action is required.
Non-Compliant At this point it is still not possible to determine whether or not supervisors are performing their required duties because the monitoring team does not have access to the supplemental information that may be included in the JMS reports. The limited documentation available through Drop Box does not reflect supervisory action regarding approval, disapproval and recommended action on individual reports.
62. Reviewing supervisors must document the following: a. Names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses interviewed by the supervisor; b. Witness statements; c. Review date and time;
35

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 36 of 85
d. The findings, recommendations, and results of the supervisor’s review; e. Corrective actions taken; f. The final disposition of the reviews (e.g., whether the Use of Force was found to
comply with Jail policies and procedures, or whether disciplinary action was taken against a staff member); g. Supporting documents such as incident reports, logs, and classification records. Supervisors must also obtain and review summary medical and mental health records describing – i. The nature and extent of injuries, or lack thereof; ii. The date and time when medical care was requested and actually
provided; iii. The names of medical or mental health staff conducting any medical or
mental health assessments or care. h. Photos, video/digital recordings, or other evidence collected to support findings
and recommendations.
Non-Compliant Until it is possible to review the supervisory review portion of use of force reports it is not possible to determine whether or not supervisors are taking the required actions and appropriately documenting them.
INCIDENT REPORTING AND REVIEW
To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting and reviewing incidents in the Jail that may pose a threat to the life, health, and safety of prisoners. To that end, the County must:
63. Develop and implement incident reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information in order to respond appropriately to reportable incidents.
Non-Compliant The P&P Manual must be revised and issued to all personnel before the level of compliance can be determined.
64. Ensure that Incident Reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, Incident Reports must contain the following information:
a. Tracking number for each incident; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner, and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time;
36

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 37 of 85
e. Type of incident; f. Injuries to staff or prisoner; g. Medical care; h. All staff involved or present during the incident and their respective roles; i. Reviewing supervisor and supervisor findings, recommendations, and case
dispositions; j. External reviews and results; k. Corrective action taken; and l. Warden and Administrator review and final administrative actions.
Partial Compliance While compliance is dependent upon the publication and issuance of the P&P Manual, Incident Report documentation currently provides for some of the information specified in this paragraph. Reports routinely have a tracking number, list all persons involved, including staff and inmates, although inmate witnesses are infrequently noted. Many reports still do not specify in which facility the incident occurred. Supervisory review information cannot be reviewed and validated until the monitoring team is able to access more sections of the automated report writing system. The same applies to external reviews and results, corrective action taken, Warden/Administrator review and final administrative actions.
65. Require each staff member directly involved in a reportable incident to accurately and thoroughly complete incident reports as promptly as possible, by the end of the staff member’s shift. At minimum:
a. Staff members must complete all fields on an Incident Report for which they have responsibility for completion. Staff members must not omit entering a date, time, incident location, or signature when completing an Incident Report. If no injuries are present, staff members must write that; they may not leave that section blank.
b. Failure to report any reportable incident must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination.
c. Supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will also be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph. While documentation of incidents is certainly more routine than was the case just a year ago, the fact that there have still been no reports of lost money and property or late releases and overstays is indicative of a failure to document. During each site visit, a review of inmate records has revealed multiple cases where inmates have been held beyond their scheduled or ordered release, yet no incident reports documenting these situations have been written. Consequently, there has been no follow up and
37

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 38 of 85
corrective action taken to include disciplinary action and re-training. Based on the expected experience with money and property at even the best run jails, there will typically be some incidents of lost money or property. For there to be no incident reports in this area suggests that officers have not been trained to provide incident reports on these incidents.
66. Ensure that Jail supervisors review and respond appropriately to incidents. At minimum: a. Shift commanders must document all reportable incidents by the end of their shift, but no later than 12 hours after a reportable incident. b. Shift commanders must report all suicides, suicide attempts, and deaths, no later than one hour after the incident, to a supervisor, IAD, and medical and mental health staff. c. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing Incident Reports must document their incident review within 24 hours of receipt of an Incident Report sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted. Such documentation must include the same categories of information required for supervisor use of force reviews such as names of individuals interviewed by the supervisor, witness statements, associated records (e.g. medical records, photos, and digital recordings), review dates, findings, recommendations, and case dispositions. d. Reportable incidents must be reviewed by a supervisor not directly involved in the incident.
Partial Compliance There has been no change in the status of this paragraph; however, validation of supervisory actions has actually been hampered by the transition to an electronic report writing system in that the monitoring team cannot track the actions of supervisors after the initial report has been submitted. Hopefully, the previously mentioned coordination meeting that took place during the January/February site visit will help to rectify this problem.
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
67. To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to address sexual abuse and misconduct. Such policies and procedures must include all of the following:
a. Zero tolerance policy towards any sexual abuse and sexual harassment as defined by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementing regulations;
b. Staff training on the zero tolerance policy, including how to fulfill their duties and responsibilities to prevent, detect, report and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment under the policy;
38

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 39 of 85
c. Screening prisoners to identify those who may be sexually abusive or at risk of sexual victimization;
d. Multiple internal ways to allow both confidential and anonymous reporting of sexual abuse and sexual harassment and any related retaliation, including a mechanism for prisoners to directly report allegations to an outside entity;
e. Both emergency and ongoing medical and mental health care for victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment, including rape kits as appropriate and counseling;
f. A complete ban on cross-gender strip searches or cross-gender visual body cavity searches except in exigent circumstances or when performed by a medical examiner;
g. A complete ban on cross-gender pat searches of women prisoners, absent exigent circumstances;
h. Regular supervisory review to ensure compliance with the sexual abuse and sexual harassment policies; and
i. Specialized investigative procedures and training for investigators handling sexual abuse and sexual harassment allegations.
Non-Compliant Until the P&P Manual is published and issued, even partial compliance is not possible. Separate from the issuance of adequate policies and procedures, the practices at the jail are woefully inadequate under PREA. There is a PREA Coordinator who is newly focused on achieving compliance and is informed regarding PREA requirements. However, there is a long way to go. Areas of concern include lack of training on PREA, lack of notice to inmates at booking or comprehensive education following, lack of required information in the Inmate Handbook, no postings on how to report, insufficient options for reporting, no volunteer or contractor training, reporting and investigations are inadequate, and the evaluation of remedial measures is nonexistent. There needs to be involvement at the highest administrative level to begin to implement measures that would bring the Jail into compliance with PREA. A first step would be to ensure that incident reports are prepared following incidents of sexual assault, that those incidents are adequately investigated, and remedial measures adopted.
INVESTIGATIONS
68. The County shall ensure that it has sufficient staff to identify, investigate, and correct misconduct that has or may lead to a violation of the Constitution. At a minimum, the County shall:
a. Develop and implement comprehensive policies, procedures, and practices for the thorough and timely (within 60 days of referral) investigation of alleged staff misconduct, sexual assaults, and physical assaults of prisoners resulting in serious
39

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 40 of 85
injury, in accordance with this Agreement, within 90 days of its Effective Date. At a minimum, an investigation will be conducted if: i. Any prisoner exhibited a serious injury; ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious
accounts of the incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy,
or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member). b. Per policy, investigations shall: i. Be conducted by qualified persons, who do not have conflicts of interest that bear on the partiality of the investigation; ii. Include timely, thorough, and documented interviews of all relevant staff and prisoners who were involved in or who witnessed the incident in question, to the extent practicable; and iii. Include all supporting evidence, including logs, witness and participant statements, references to policies and procedures relevant to the incident, physical evidence, and video or audio recordings. c. Provide investigators with pre-service and annual in-service training so that investigators conduct quality investigations that meet the requirements of this Agreement; d. Ensure that any investigative report indicating possible criminal behavior will be referred to the appropriate criminal law enforcement agency; e. Within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, IAD must have written policies and procedures that include clear and specific criteria for determining when it will conduct an investigation. The criteria will require an investigation if: i. Any prisoner exhibited serious, visible injuries (e.g., black eye, obvious bleeding, or lost tooth); ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious accounts of the incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member). f. Provide the Monitor and United States a periodic report of investigations conducted at the Jail every four months. The report will include the following information: i. a brief summary of all completed investigations, by type and date;
40

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 41 of 85
ii. a listing of investigations referred for administrative investigation; iii. a listing of all investigations referred to an appropriate law enforcement
agency and the name of the agency; and iv. a listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because
of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation. v. a description of any corrective actions or changes in policies, procedures, or practices made as a result of investigations over the reporting period. g. Jail management shall review the periodic report to determine whether the investigation system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement and make recommendations regarding the investigation system or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor and United States.
Partial Compliance There has been no improvement noted with regard to Investigations since the Second Monitoring Report was submitted. Although there is a designated investigator, the monitoring team has not received notification of investigative dispositions on individual cases. While this may be due to technical problems associated with the electronic reporting system, the lack of information is so significant that it is not possible to provide an update on the problems that were noted in the last Monitoring Report. As an example, it is still not known what happened to the officer who was found guilty of making a false statement, refusal or non-compliance with a direct lawful order and making improper use of his official position to include introduction of contraband to the facility. The IAD investigation into this case was dated August 14, 2017.
GRIEVANCE AND PRISONER INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Because a reporting system provides early notice of potential constitutional violations and an opportunity to prevent more serious problems before they occur, the County must develop and implement a grievance system. To that end:
69. The grievance system must permit prisoners to confidentially report grievances without requiring the intervention of a detention officer.
Partial Compliance The use of the new kiosk system will eventually allow the prisoners to report grievances without the intervention of detention officers. However, the system is still not working as it should. Several problems reported at the time of the last site visit appear to have been remedied. There were no reports at the time of this site visit of inmates not being able to submit grievances because of their pin number being rejected. The system at the WC which was completely non-
41

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 42 of 85
functioning at the time of the last site visit appears to be working now. However, it appears that grievances “get lost” in the system. The grievance officer at RDC showed the page in the program which lists all pending grievances and a second page showing pending grievances assigned to her. There were none on either page pending more than 7 days. However, when a report was run looking for all grievances in the category of waiting assignment, 21% of the grievances showed as waiting assignment over 21 days. These were unknown to the grievance officer because they did not appear on the working pages. One inmate was asked to put in his pin so the monitor could view the system as the inmates operate it. He had 14 unanswered grievances going back to November. One that was answered could not be opened to see the response. A similar situation was observed at JDC. The grievance officer’s page and the general page showed nothing over 7 days. However, when a report was run for grievances in the working category, 67% were “working” over 21 days. A report of grievances assigned but not completed showed 87% pending over 21 days. Some of these grievances were assigned to the grievance officer but did not appear on her “pending” page. An inmate who opened his grievance list could not actually open any of the grievances; a report run on his grievances showed 3 grievances dating back to November and December that had not been responded to. Improvements to the system should be addressed promptly. In the interim, the grievance officers will need to run the reports and not rely on the page that supposedly lists all open grievances. There is some confusion with medical grievances. Inmates are using the grievance system to request sick call. Sick call will soon be available through the kiosk system but at this time, they are coming through as grievances.
Although the kiosk system does not require the intervention of a detention officer, the physical set up does not allow for privacy. This could potentially result in an officer observing the grievance being filed. It was reported that inmates can observe another’s PIN number and then used it to purchase commissary on the other inmate’s account. There has also been a problem with inmates communicating with each other through the kiosk system. These issues will need to be addressed.
70. Grievance policies and procedures must be applicable and standardized across the entire Jail.
Non-Compliant The policy on grievances does not describe the current process of using the kiosk. The practice that is described in the current policy does not comply with the requirements of the consent decree.
71. All grievances must receive appropriate follow-up, including a timely written response by an impartial reviewer and staff tracking of whether resolutions have been implemented or still
42

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 43 of 85
need implementation. Any response to a medical grievance or a grievance alleging threats or violence to the grievant or others that exceeds 24 hours shall be presumed untimely.
Partial Compliance The new system creates a spreadsheet to track grievances and responses. The Grievance Officer can track who has been assigned to respond to a grievance on the spreadsheet. There are currently several problems with the process that prevent compliance. As described above, unbeknownst to anyone many grievances were not showing up on the pending pages and as a result, many grievances are not being responded to. A review of the paper grievances used at the WC until recently also showed many grievances with no response reflected on the grievance. The person assigned to respond to a grievance is assigned based on housing and subject matter. However, this can result in some situations where the responding individual is not impartial. This would be the case where the grievance is about an issue that is the responsibility of the responding individual. The assignments need to be evaluated both generally and in the specific case to ensure that an impartial person is reviewing the grievance. At the RDC, there is no one routinely checking to ensure that all grievances have been responded to and no one ensuring whether resolutions have been implemented. No one is tracking whether medical grievances are being responded to in a timely manner. The new system has no means known to staff for marking a grievance as an emergency or otherwise identifying emergent grievances.
72. The grievance system must accommodate prisoners who have physical or cognitive disabilities, are illiterate, or have LEP, so that these prisoners have meaningful access to the grievance system.
Non-Compliant The staff is currently not well-trained on the capabilities of the system. They will need to be trained so that they can assist prisoners with accessing the system once it is functional. Prisoners are assisting one another but that carries the risk of them accessing and using another prisoner’s PIN number. Staff did not know whether a different language could be selected and utilized with the system. The screen allows one to select Spanish. However, the monitor could not get it to pull up the handbook in Spanish (which had outdated instructions on grievances anyway). Neither did staff know whether it had a voice recognition feature. These questions should be addressed to the vendor. Currently, the staff assumes that other prisoners will assist with prisoners who cannot access the current system. This does not meet the requirements of this paragraph.
73. The County must ensure that all current and newly admitted prisoners receive information about prison rules and procedures. The County must provide such information through an inmate handbook and, at the discretion of the Jail, an orientation video, regarding the following topics: understanding the Jail’s disciplinary process and rules and regulations;
43

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 44 of 85
reporting misconduct; reporting sexual abuse, battery, and assault; accessing medical and mental health care; emergency procedures; visitation; accessing the grievance process; and prisoner rights. The County must provide such information in appropriate languages for prisoners with LEP.
Non-Compliant The Inmate Handbook has outdated information about most of these issues and will need to be updated and will need to provide more detail to assist prisoners in using the system. It is not available in Spanish or any other language.
RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SEGREGATION
In order to ensure compliance with constitutional standards and to prevent unnecessary harm to prisoners, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to limit the use of segregation. To that end, this Agreement imposes the following restrictions and requirements:
74. Within 8 hours of intake, prisoners in the booking cells must be classified and housed in more appropriate long-term housing where staff will provide access to exercise, meals, and other services.
Partial Compliance There has been no significant change in compliance with the terms of this paragraph since the October site visit. Classification now takes place within 24 hours of entry to the RDC, but not within eight hours of intake as this paragraph requires. Single cells in the Booking area are being used only for the processing of new detainees. Fifteen-minute well-being checks appear to be current.
75. The County must document the placement and removal of all prisoners to and from segregation.
Partial Compliance The monthly summary reports submitted by each facility now include a listing of inmates who have been placed on or removed from confinement/segregation. The format for each report is inconsistent, but the basic data is available.
76. Qualified Mental Health Professionals must conduct mental health rounds at least once a week (in a private setting if necessary to elicit accurate information), to assess the mental health status of all prisoners in segregation and the effect of segregation on each prisoner’s mental health, in order to determine whether continued placement in segregation is appropriate. These mental health rounds must not be a substitute for treatment.
44

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 45 of 85
Non-Compliant Although the social worker does see at least some of the prisoners being held in segregation, these visits are not the type of mental health rounds described in this provision. A nurse conducts daily rounds of segregation.
77. The County must develop and implement restrictions on the segregation of prisoners with serious mental illness. These safeguards must include the following:
a. All decisions to place a prisoner with serious mental illness in segregation must include the input of a Qualified Mental Health Professional who has conducted a face-to-face evaluation of the prisoner in a confidential setting, is familiar with the details of the available clinical history, and has considered the prisoner’s mental health needs and history.
b. Segregation must be presumed contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness.
c. Within 24 hours of placement in segregation, all prisoners on the mental health caseload must be screened by a Qualified Mental Health Professional to determine whether the prisoner has serious mental illness, and whether there are any acute mental health contraindications to segregation.
d. If a Qualified Mental Health Professional finds that a prisoner has a serious mental illness or exhibits other acute mental health contraindications to segregation, that prisoner must not be placed or remain in segregation absent documented extraordinary and exceptional circumstances (i.e. for an immediate and serious danger which may arise during unusual emergency situations, such as a riot or during the booking of a severely psychotic, untreated, violent prisoner, and which should last only as long as the emergency conditions remain present).
e. Documentation of such extraordinary and exceptional circumstances must be in writing. Such documentation must include the reasons for the decision, a comprehensive interdisciplinary team review, and the names and dated signatures of all staff members approving the decision.
f. Prisoners with serious mental illness who are placed in segregation must be offered a heightened level of care that includes the following: i. If on medication, the prisoner must receive at least one daily visit from a Qualified Medical Professional. ii. The prisoner must be offered a face-to-face, therapeutic, out-of-cell session with a Qualified Mental Health Professional at least once per week. iii. If the prisoner is placed in segregation for more than 24 hours, he or she must have his or her case reviewed by a Qualified Mental Health
45

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 46 of 85
Professional, in conjunction with a Jail physician and psychiatrist, on a weekly basis. g. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, A Qualified Mental Health Professional will assess all prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation. This assessment must include a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Prisoners requiring follow-up for additional clinical assessment or care must promptly receive such assessment and care. h. If a prisoner on segregation decompensates or otherwise develops signs or symptoms of serious mental illness, where such signs or symptoms had not previously been identified, the prisoner must immediately be referred for appropriate assessment and treatment by a Qualified Mental Health Professional. Any such referral must also result in a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Signs or symptoms requiring assessment or treatment under this clause include a deterioration in cognitive, physical, or verbal function; delusions; self-harm; or behavior indicating a heightened risk of suicide (e.g., indications of depression after a sentencing hearing). i. The treatment and housing of prisoners with serious mental illness must be coordinated and overseen by the Interdisciplinary Team (or Teams), and guided by formal, written treatment plans. The Interdisciplinary Team must include both medical and security staff, but access to patient healthcare information must remain subject to legal restrictions based on patient privacy rights. The intent of this provision is to have an Interdisciplinary Team serve as a mechanism for balancing security and medical concerns, ensuring cooperation between security and medical staff, while also protecting the exercise of independent medical judgment and each prisoner’s individual rights. j. Nothing in this Agreement should be interpreted to authorize security staff, including the Jail Administrator, to make medical or mental health treatment decisions, or to overrule physician medical orders.
Non-Compliant There is no evidence that the required activities under this paragraph are being done. There is no evidence that segregation is presumed contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness (SMI). Prisoners with serious mental illness who are on medication and in segregation do have a daily visit from a nurse during medication pass. However, during the limited amount of time that was available during this site visit, it was not possible to assess the extent to which the nurse performing medication pass assessed the prisoner’s status. There is no evidence that signs of
46

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 47 of 85
decompensation are being observed or addressed. Given the absence of mental health monitoring of prisoners in segregation, it is also quite possible that mental health staff don’t know if prisoners are decompensating or developing new signs or symptoms of mental illness.
Although there appears to be a unit where many of the prisoners who suffer from serious mental illness are housed, there is no evidence of an Interdisciplinary Team as described in this provision, and there is no evidence of treatment plans, even treatment plans that only involve mental health staff.
Addressing the requirements of this paragraph will first require addressing some of the larger issues noted under earlier provisions, regarding the performance of mental health evaluations, the development of treatment plans, and the documentation of such evaluations and treatment plans. Once those issue are addressed, there should be a meeting of health and mental health staff, security staff, and the monitors to discuss this provision and plans to move towards compliance with this provision. Such a discussion would have to include what role(s) security staff might play; the identification and selection of security staff who might assume such a role(s); and the training that selected security staff require in order to assume such a role(s).
YOUTHFUL PRISONERS
As long as the County houses youthful prisoners, it must develop and implement policies and procedures for their supervision, management, education, and treatment consistent with federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482. Within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will determine where it will house youthful prisoners. During those six months, the County will consult with the United States, the monitor of the Henley Young Juvenile Detention Center Settlement Agreement, and any other individuals or entities whose input is relevant. The United States will support the County’s efforts to secure appropriate housing for youthful prisoners, including supervised release. Within 18 months after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will have completed transitioning to any new or replacement youthful prisoner housing facility.
Partial Compliance
Although some Juveniles Charged as Adults (JCAs) had been at Henley Young prior to the last visit, this visit was a better opportunity to evaluate the progress made in transitioning “new” JCAs to the Henley Young Juvenile Detention facility that began with admitting those youth in September 2017 as well as evaluate any substantive changes for JCAs at the Raymond Detention Center (RDC). As of this visit:
• There were eleven JCAs at Henley Young and seven JCAs remaining at the Raymond facility;
47

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 48 of 85
• All youth at Raymond, except one, are age 17 and will “age” into adulthood during this calendar year (March, June, July, August, October, and November);
• The remaining JCA will turn 16 in March; • Of the eleven JCAs at Henley Young, the ages are 17 (5), 16 (4), and 14 (2); as with
RDC, some of these youth will “age out” and be transferred to an adult unit at RDC during the calendar year unless otherwise released; • Charges for the JCAs at Henley Young include Armed Robbery (7 youth), Armed Auto Theft (2), Capital Murder, and Murder; • Five of the JCAs at Henley Young have been in placement for five months, three more youth for 2-3 months, and 3 youth two weeks or less; • Only two of the youth in confinement have been indicted in Hinds County. Two additional youth had been indicted in another county prior to their arrest and confinement in Hinds County; • There were eleven non-JCA youth (all males) being held at Henley Young.
As noted in the previous report and in Mr. Dixon’s Henley Young Monitoring Report, the remaining JCAs at RDC present greater challenges in transitioning to Henley Young as a result of their long-term confinement at the RDC and the resulting “adultification” they have experienced by being housed in a setting that has offered little programming, minimal mental health services, often inadequate supervision, and generally poor living conditions. However, as the number of JCAs at RDC continues to decline, options other than Henley Young may become more practical (e.g. another unit within RDC, housing in a neighboring/other county) pending achieving full compliance with this requirement. It will become increasingly inefficient to utilize a full housing unit for the dwindling number of JCAs held at RDC and getting those youth out of RDC may allow the county to get into an “empty” unit to complete repairs/needed maintenance or even utilize the space for other purposes.
In general, the transition of new JCAs to Henley Young has been successful, albeit not without concerns. The process for booking youth at RDC prior to bringing them to Henley Young has worked well, although ironically the youth admitted to Henley Young during the term of this visit did not come with accompanying documentation (a youth should not be admitted to the facility without required documentation). Both staff and youth express general satisfaction with the transition of JCA youth to Henley Young, and as one might expect most of the youth admitted had been at Henley Young as juveniles.
In sum, the first steps toward transition have been made, but it is not clear that firm decisions have been made to complete the transition, particularly changes needed to address previous recommendations, including:
1. Making additional physical plant modifications at HY related to perimeter and living unit security. There are legitimate concerns that as more serious offenders are held for longer
48

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 49 of 85
periods of time, additional security for the perimeter (to prevent escape, incursion from the outside, tossing contraband into the “yard”, etc.) is increasingly critical. 2. Constructing additional classroom, multi-purpose, and recreational programming space(s) that will permit proper programming, classification, and supervision for all youth at Henley Young; 3. Reviewing staffing alignment and positions to ensure additional staffing and supports as additional JCAs are transferred from RDC. This may include adding security staff to ensure perimeter and access safety; 4. Addressing case processing concerns in the adult system that has resulted in lengthy periods of confinement for JCAs at RDC and, absent changes, will result in similar lengths of stay at Henley Young. This not only delays resolution of the youth’s case but also increases the likelihood that the population of JCAs at Henley Young will grow and create additional challenges for operation of the facility as a whole; 5. Making structural improvements to the living units that will support more effective supervision and programming for youth including:
a. Installing soundproofing materials (e.g. acoustic ceiling tiles, acoustic wall panels, carpeting in portions of the floor) to reduce the noise level created by normal adolescent behavior(s); noise that makes it not only difficult to properly interact with/supervise youth but also adds to the overall noise level that unnecessarily elevates the emotional level of youth. This is consistent with recommendations included in the report by Dr. Boesky as it relates to creating a trauma-reducing environment;
b. Removing the steel tables and replace them with movable, security grade tables and chairs that are more comfortable, flexible, and permit rearrangement for purposes of programming in small groups, separation of youth within a unit, and/or even individual program purposes; and
6. Continuing to implement practices and policies that limit the number of non-JCA youth confined at Henley Young. At the time of this visit there were eleven non-JCA youth in the facility, all male, making the total for the facility 22, within the 32 limit of the Henley Young agreement. If/as girls are added and/or as the number of both JCA and non-JCA youth held grows the flexibility to manage youth will diminish. It seems inevitable that the need for secure placement of a small number of non-JCA girls and/or JCA girls will occur, so planning needs to consider how that need will be accommodated, whether that be at Henley Young or through some alternate arrangements. In any case, use of Henley Young for non-JCA youth should be limited to those youth that pose a danger to the community or circumstances in which it is necessary to secure a youth’s appearance in court; and for those youth only as long as those conditions remain a concern.
All of these steps will become increasingly important as the number of JCAs at Henley Young grows and/or their length of stay increases, so proper planning (including needed funding)
49

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 50 of 85
for/implementation of these changes should be done as soon as possible. County staff indicate that some bonding authority has been approved in the budget and that some portion of those funds can be directed to make these changes. A concern is that given the relative success of the transition to date, the sense of urgency needed to commit the necessary funding in a timely manner is diminished. The County needs to establish, articulate, and implement a plan (including action steps, fiscal resources, and timelines) to complete the transition of Juveniles Charged as Adults (JCAs) to the Henley Young facility.
Reporting compliance on the remaining conditions will reference one or both locations as appropriate.
For any youthful prisoners in custody, the County must:
78. Develop and implement a screening, assessment and treatment program to ensure that youth with serious mental illness and disabilities, including developmental disabilities, receive appropriate programs, supports, education, and services.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young Continuing Partial Compliance on this component is solely the result of transitioning some youth to the Henley Young facility. Any JCAs booked at RDC and then housed at Henley Young are screened for mental health concerns using the MAYSI-II, a common screening tool that is appropriate for use with adolescents. The Case Managers, now about one year into that role, seem to be adapting well to providing an appropriate and very helpful support role to youth and other staff. The Case Managers are in daily contact with their assigned youth, provide information and support to maintain appropriate family contact(s), interact with court staff, help link youth with external resources, and can intervene to prevent behavioral problems. The counseling staff provide more on-going therapy and support and can help coordinate services with Hinds County Behavioral Health or other resources. These staff provide a good foundation for the day-to-day behavioral health services needed for youth.
However, there are three remaining concerns: 1. As of the site visit the County had not yet been able to secure the services of a qualified psychologist. As noted in prior reports by Dr. Boesky and Leonard Dixon, adding a psychologist will fill in a needed gap in the ability of the program to provide more comprehensive psychological assessments, treatment and other programming for all youth. This is particularly important for JCA youth who will be held for long periods of time. Mr. McDaniels at Henley Young indicated that they were in negotiations with a psychologist at the time of the site visit, however, at last communication, that agreement has not been reached;
50

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 51 of 85
2. The only psychiatric time provided to Henley Young is apparently a once-a-week short visit by Dr. Kumar. As noted for the agreement as a whole the amount of psychiatric support allotted is insufficient, let alone for the JCA youth. It seems likely that at most some sort of cursory psychiatric review of records is possible in the limited time available; and
3. The introduction of other coordinated programming (e.g. cognitive-behavioral programs, life skills, AODA, etc.) that could be led by Case Managers and Counselors has been slowed by waiting for the direction/leadership from the psychologist. If there are further delays in filling that role, existing staff should be charged with developing additional programming utilizing any number of well-researched, evidence-supported curriculums.
A more comprehensive assessment of mental health services at Henley Young is available in the December 2017 report from Dr. Lisa Boesky. In that report she highlights both the progress made over the past two years and includes a number of additional recommendations for on-going quality improvement of services. Those recommendations include suggesting improvements in the intake/screening process, strengthening the assessment process (e.g. AODA assessments, trauma assessment), and making physical plant/environmental changes that will support behavior management and educational programming.
Non-Compliant at RDC There is no substantive change in how JCAs confined at RDC are screened and/or served in relation to the various components required in this provision. Mental health services remain limited to dealing with crisis situations (i.e. suicide concerns) and issues related to psychotropic medications (i.e. adjustments in medications). There has been some increase in the “life skill” programming that youth can participate in, but it is not focusing specifically on mental health or substance abuse issues.
Special Note re: Youthful Prisoner D.C. (DOB: 3/21/2000): A particular concern was raised with RDC staff related to a diagnosed, yet untreated medical condition for this juvenile. Specifically, there was an indication that the youth complained of an abdominal problem that was subsequently diagnosed as a lingual hernia. As of that date the plan was to follow up within 4 weeks for laparoscopic surgery, but as of the time of this site visit there had been no further action taken, apparently because a determination had been made that the surgery was not urgent. Although perhaps not urgent, the youth continued to complain of discomfort, and Hinds County should take the necessary steps to resolve the problem. The Compliance Coordinator conveyed via e-mail (2/13/18) that as of February 5 the plan is to schedule a follow-up evaluation with the surgeon.
Recommendations (continued from prior report):
51

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 52 of 85
1. Assuming the transition of JCAs to Henley Young continues, the case manager recently employed to work with the JCA youth at Henley Young should begin outreach to the remaining JCAs at RDC to begin a more complete assessment process and assist in the transition of those youth to Henley Young; and
2. The County should secure a psychologist for Henley Young consistent with the terms of that Consent Decree and should increase psychiatry consultation time.
79. Ensure that youth receive adequate free appropriate education, including special education.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young Education services at Henley Young are provided by the Jackson Public School (JPS) system. A more detailed review of educational programming is available in the November 2017 report submitted by Carol Cramer-Brooks. As with the report filed by Dr. Boesky, the report recognizes the significant progress (leadership, assessment, instruction, etc.) that has been made in the past two years in meeting the educational needs of youth confined as well as noting some areas for continued improvement. At the time of her review, serving JCA youth was still in its early stages, but key elements of her recommendations remain relevant for all youth, including:
1. More fully integrating education staff as an important part of the overall behavior management system;
2. Improving teachers’ ability to provide differentiated instruction (based on the diverse needs of confined youth);
3. Increasing time and resources allotted to providing specialized educational services; 4. Improve classroom and other support spaces; 5. In particular developing a different educational program for JCA, long-term youth who
due to their age and length of stay require a different approach than has been developed for the short-term non-JCA youth.
At the time of the last site visit, the plan for JCA youth included integrating younger offenders into the regular school program and developing an appropriate GED program for those youth who may be appropriately assessed to be on that track. However, due to concerns that arose in “mixing” some youth, it is understood that all JCA youth now receive educational instruction on their living unit on a limited basis, i.e. 2-3 hours/day. That is not a sufficient substitute for a full educational assessment and programming consistent with the requirements of this Agreement, particularly for youth who may be eligible for special educational services. Further work needs to be done to implement a more complete educational program for JCA youth, although significant progress will be hampered by the physical plant limitations.
All youth interviewed indicated that there was too much “down time” when there was not structured programming for them to be involved in. The daily schedule for JCA youth does
52

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 53 of 85
include “recreation time”, but that term is used generically for any number of unstructured activities other than specific education time. As noted earlier, Henley Young will benefit by the development of additional cognitive behavioral programming, AODA groups and individual work, decision-making skill classes, tutoring, and engaging outside community groups and resources to provide pro-social learning opportunities for youth.
Non-Compliant at the Raymond Detention Center The program at RDC remains essentially the same as prior reports, with youth benefiting, albeit on a very limited basis, from the continued support of a volunteer for Adult Basic Education (ABE) services. Youth have daily access to individualized instruction for relatively brief periods of time (e.g. 1-2 hours).
There remains no routine screening process (other than assessment related to ABE skills) to determine whether and what educational services a juvenile or youthful offender was engaged in prior to admission that would help determine what the appropriate, and often legally required, services should be for the youth while confined. However, per County staff steps are being taken to have the educational staff at Henley Young that do those assessments begin to do that with the remaining JCA youth at RDC, starting perhaps with the youngest remaining JCA.
Recommendation: Continue development of a more complete educational program, including GED support, at both Henley Young and at the Raymond facility. Using the Jackson Public School staff at Henley Young to assess the needs of the remaining JCAs at Raymond would be a positive step to at least understanding what is needed for those youth and taking additional steps forward.
80. Ensure that youth are properly separated by sight and sound from adult prisoners.
Full Compliance at Henley Young Since there are no adult prisoners placed at Henley Young, this provision is met, and as JCA youth in placement turn 18, they will be transferred to RDC.
Partial Compliance at the Raymond Detention Center Youth are housed in a separate unit so that the potential for contact with adults is minimized. As noted in prior reports, the lack of Policies and Procedures make it difficult to determine if the facility has all procedures in place to fully assess compliance, but in talking with youth and staff there is at least an indication that youth are kept on the youthful offender unit and there are not problems with adult contact. As noted in prior reports, there is no evidence of signage or consistent policies that indicate appropriate attention to the requirements of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) related to youthful offenders, including separation and supervision.
53

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 54 of 85
81. Ensure that the Jail’s classification and housing assignment system does not merely place all youth in the same housing unit, without adequate separation based on classification standards. Instead, the system must take into account classification factors that differ even within the youth sub-class of prisoners. These factors include differences in age, dangerousness, likelihood of victimization, and sex/gender.
Partial Compliance at the Raymond Detention Center and Henley Young With only one unit in RDC, this provision cannot be fully met, but as the number of youth declines and given that all but one youth is 17 years old, this is less of a concern.
The limited number of non-JCA youth at Henley Young has allowed them wisely to utilize two units for housing JCA youth and even some placement of non-JCA youth (on a limited basis) in one of those units. The use of two units allows for lower youth to staff ratios and allows youth to be separated if there is conflict, so to date the staff has made reasonable placement decisions. As with other aspects of this transition, as more youth are housed, this will become an increasingly important decision and will require managing the number of non-JCA youth housed at Henley Young.
82. Train staff members assigned to supervise youth on the Jail’s youth-specific policies and procedures, as well as on age-appropriate supervision and treatment strategies. The County must ensure that such specialized training includes training on the supervision and treatment of youth, child and adolescent development, behavioral management, crisis intervention, conflict management, child abuse, juvenile rights, the juvenile justice system, youth suicide prevention and mental health, behavioral observation and reporting, gang intervention, and de-escalation.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young In discussion with Alan Hines, Training Coordinator for Henley Young and reviewing the 2017 Training Report, substantial progress has been made in developing a training program, and staff are afforded significant training opportunities. Highlights of the training plan include:
1. Five New Employee Orientation Classes (40 hours total/36 staff) that includes training in Suicide Prevention/Mental Health, Behavioral Management, PREA, Policies and Procedures, and Crisis Intervention. Each certified detention officer must complete 40 hours of on-going training annually in these areas as “refresher” training;
2. New employees and veteran staff are trained and certified in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI), a well-respected curriculum that is appropriate for dealing with crisis situations with youth and focuses on the use of verbal de-escalation as well as providing basic control/restraint techniques that can safely be used with youth. In 2017, 40 staff received CPI certification (a two-year certification), but some of those staff have since left Henley Young;
54

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 55 of 85
3. Twenty-nine detention officers completed a state-required 120-hour Basic Adult and Juvenile Detention certification program; and
4. Over 30 staff completed a required CPR certification (two-year certification).
As changes have been made at Henley Young there has been a significant number of new staff hired. In 2017 a total of 31 officers were hired, but given a variety of reasons by year’s end only 16 of them remained on staff as certified officers. This was in part due to appropriate termination decisions made by administration, challenges in hiring related to the low salary paid to staff, and some others simply choosing to take a different path. The County has approved a pay raise for detention officers (reallocating funds from several vacant positions) that hopefully will help with recruitment and retention, but the progress made in developing a professional training program is a significant step forward. A more detailed examination of all training records can be completed during the next site visit, but Henley Young is well on its way to Full Compliance in this area.
Non-Compliant at the Raymond Detention Center The last specialized training for supervising youthful prisoners was held in June 2017 prior to the site visit. Ten staff participated in the training, although seven of the ten are staff currently assigned to the JDC, leaving only three RDC staff receiving the training. And, it appears that no effort has been made to then clearly assign those trained staff to the juvenile unit (A-1) with the exception of Sgt. Tower. While the general course of training for new detention officers does include some basic elements that are appropriate for juveniles, the lack of additional training and lack of focus on assigning specific staff to the juvenile unit is of significant concern. Overall this remains a concern.
While the number of JCAs at RDC has dwindled and the number and severity of problems with youth has also declined, the unit has not been without incidents of concern. There continue to be security problems with the operation of the room doors, youth access to recreation has been more limited, and incidents that should not be occurring with proper supervision and training. For example:
1. On November 9 in the evening there was a physical confrontation/assault of an officer on the unit; this incident occurred after Major Rushing had noted (via camera) that there was no officer on the juvenile unit (at approximately 4:30 p.m.), in violation of policy that requires an officer to be on the unit at all times;
2. On November 28 there was a physical altercation between a staff member and a juvenile following a disruption that included several other youths. What is disconcerting about this incident, based on reports, is that it occurred at 11:10 p.m., long after youth should have been securely confined in their cells. Additionally, the reporting officer indicated he was confronted by youth as he entered the unit despite the fact that current policy requires a staff member to be in the unit at all times;
55

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 56 of 85
3. On December 11 at 2:00 a.m. there was an altercation between several youth who had gotten out of their cells, and upon entering the facility staff noted one youth up on the second tier of cells holding a metal bar that could be used as a weapon.
The lack of consistent, trained staff assigned to this unit contributes to an environment in which youth can “run the unit”, taking advantage of new, inexperienced staff as well as continuing to damage the facility. In addition to constant tampering with the security of cell doors, damages occurred to the steel tabletops in the juvenile unit so that all tabletops have been removed (either through damage or simply to prevent further damage). The result if the complete absence of anything resembling a table that can be used for dining, writing, playing cards, etc.. A good security step has been taken to reduce the number of cells that can be used for juveniles, but apparently even those cells cannot be properly monitored to ensure they are secure. One can only assume that absent a change in staff assignments, training, and improved supervision these problems will continue.
Recommendations: 1. Related to Henley Young, the recommendation is to sustain the positive progress made in developing core and introductory training programs and then to (a) augment that training through strategic use of “refresher” trainings that can be included as part of staff meetings or other brief training opportunities; and (b) identify additional competencies for which training can be developed (internally or outreach to other community resources), e.g. training in understanding trauma, gang awareness/intervention, family engagement, professional communications, etc.. Increasing the “professionalism” of staff will prove beneficial for management of the facility and help with staff retention; 2. Related to RDC, the recommendation is for leadership to identify, select, train, and schedule a core group of staff to supervise the juvenile unit. In order to cover the unit on a 24/7 basis and provide some flexibility in scheduling, this may require identifying 8-10 staff that can ultimately work as a “team” to ensure greater consistency, safety, and security.
83. Specifically prohibit the use of segregation as a disciplinary sanction for youth. Segregation may be used on a youth only when the individual’s behavior threatens imminent harm to the youth or others. This provision is in addition to, and not a substitute, for the provisions of this Agreement that apply to the use of segregation in general. In addition:
a. Prior to using segregation, staff members must utilize less restrictive techniques such as verbal de-escalation and individual counseling, by qualified mental health or other staff trained on the management of youth.
b. Prior to placing a youth in segregation, or immediately thereafter, a staff member must explain to the youth the reasons for the segregation, and the fact that the youth will be released upon regaining self-control.
56

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 57 of 85
c. Youth may be placed in segregation only for the amount of time necessary for the individual to regain self-control and no longer pose an immediate threat. As soon as the youth’s behavior no longer threatens imminent harm to the youth or others, the County must release the individual back to their regular detention location, school or other programming.
d. If a youth is placed in segregation, the County must immediately provide one-on-one crisis intervention and observation.
e. The County must specifically document and record the use of segregation on youth as part of its incident reporting and quality assurance systems.
f. A Qualified Medical Professional, or staff member who has completed all training required for supervising youth, must directly monitor any youth in segregation at least every fifteen (15) minutes. Such observation must be documented immediately after each check.
g. Youth may not be held in segregation for a continuous period longer than one (1) hour during waking hours. If staff members conclude that a youth is not sufficiently calm to allow a break in segregation after one hour, they must contact a Qualified Mental Health Professional. The Qualified Mental Health Professional must assess the youth and determine whether the youth requires treatment or services not available in the Jail. If the youth requires mental health services that are not provided by the Jail, the Qualified Mental Health Provider must immediately notify the Jail Administrator and promptly arrange for hospitalization or other treatment services.
h. If a youth is held in segregation for a continuous period longer than two (2) hours, Staff Members must notify the Jail Administrator.
i. Any notifications or assessments required by this paragraph must be documented in the youth’s individual record.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young Based on conversations with staff and youth and in reviewing incident reports and other records, segregation as defined in this agreement is uncommon in that there are short periods of time when youth may be confined to a cell for disciplinary reasons but not for a majority of waking hours. A number of instances of cell confinement were noted for less than two hours, and appropriate well-being check documentation was provided. Youth did not report being confined to their cells for disciplinary purposes, other than one youth that is referenced in the incident below.
The HY Policy and Procedure Manual (Chapters 3.C.7 and 3.C.8,) articulate policies and expectations for how discipline and rules are to be enforced in a manner that is consistent with the expectations of the Agreement. These procedures cover “Behavior Management Isolation” that may be used for short periods of time only as needed (and only for as long as needed) in
57

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 58 of 85
instances where a youth needs to be separated to ensure safety as well as “Due Process Isolation” for up to a limit of 72 hours.
There were two incidents that required longer periods of cell confinement (Due Process Isolation), one an assault on another juvenile and one involving an assault on staff. In both cases, discipline involved a period of cell confinement of approximately 48 hours and in the case of the fight involving youth their separation into different living units. There was documentation of the incident, well-being checks, appropriate referral for involvement of mental health staff, notification of leadership, and a prompt determination of how to successfully get the youth back into the population. However, time did not permit complete review of all details of all aspects required, but again Henley Young is well on its way to Full Compliance. Given the limited number of incidents and relatively short tenure of JCA youth this will remain a focus of review for future site visits.
Non-Compliant at the Raymond Detention Center There remains no evidence of sufficient policies/procedures or documentation related to the use of room confinement or other forms of isolation/segregation for youth. One source of documentation that may help track this is that staff on the juvenile unit are required to document at least every 30 minutes what each juvenile is doing on the unit. Wading through that documentation is at best a challenge but does reveal a wide range of “activities” that youth are engaged in, with notes that include everything from “on the unit” to “ sleeping in room” to “out for program” and various other descriptors. It is not uncommon for a youth to be listed as “sleeping in room” or “in room” for substantial periods of time during what would be considered “waking hours”, and the staff explanation is that the youth is voluntarily in their room. That is consistent with youth continuing to report that room confinement for disciplinary reasons is not occurring. Youth did complain less about not being “let out of their room” at required times, but also indicated they are not getting as much outdoor recreation time as they had been previously. This is apparently the result of a policy change related to how Sgt. Tower supervises the youth weekdays.
Recommendations: Related to Henley Young, the recommendation is to continue to ensure that all staff are consistently documenting any period of cell confinement/isolation, whether part of the behavior management system or for safety reasons; for RDC compliance can be improved by (1) developing clear policies/procedures, consistent with the Agreement requirements, related to the use of segregation or other forms of isolation/confinement for disciplinary purposes; and (2) keeping a room confinement log that documents any period of time in which a youth is placed in segregation/room confinement for disciplinary purposes that includes the name of the youth, the time confined, the officer implementing the confinement, brief reason for the confinement, and any involvement of medical/mental health staff to review confinement if it is extended; and (3) require the writing of an Incident Report for any such confinement that exceeds one hour.
58

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 59 of 85
84. Develop and implement a behavioral treatment program appropriate for youth. This program must be developed with the assistance of a qualified consultant who has at least five years of experience developing behavioral programs for institutionalized youth. The Jail’s behavioral program must include all of the following elements:
a. The behavioral program must include positive incentives for changing youth behavior, outline prohibited behaviors, and describe the consequences for prohibited behaviors.
b. An individualized program must be developed by a youth’s interdisciplinary treatment team, and properly documented in each youth’s personal file. Documentation requirements must include the collection of data required for proper assessment and treatment of youth with behavioral issues. For instance, the County must track the frequency and duration of positive incentives, segregation, and targeted behaviors.
c. The program must include safeguards and prohibitions on the inappropriate use of restraints, segregation, and corporal punishment.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young This site visit afforded the opportunity to review in more detail the behavior management (point/level) system in place at Henley Young. As described in the prior report, the facility has developed a reasonable system that is particularly suitable for short-term residents and to date has been applying that same program for the longer-term JCA youth, with reasonable success. The system identifies basic daily expectations and incentives that contribute to the safe operation of the facility and makes clear what additional privileges youth can earn the next day by meeting those expectations as well as an additional incentive for a good “week”. Given the longer time that some JCA youth had been in placement, it was not surprising to hear them be able to reasonably articulate both the expectations and the incentives included in the system. This is in contrast often to short-term youth who do not always grasp the details of such a system. Therefore, the fact that youth seem to understand the system and take some pride in doing well on the system is a definite positive. Additionally, the Policy and Procedure Manual (3.C.5.) for Henley Young clearly articulates the purposes and details that are incorporated into the point system.
That said, the program does not fully meet the requirements of the Agreement as it relates to incorporating individualized, longer-term case planning for JCA youth. The program will benefit by the addition of a psychologist to the staff and the development of a team case planning approach that can identify goals for individual youth to learn and exhibit new and improved prosocial behaviors, sound decision-making skills, and completing other skill and treatment programs. Also, the Agreement requires substantial documentation of how the program is
59

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 60 of 85
implemented for individual youth, which will require additional planning to enable staff to do so in a relatively efficient manner.
Non-Compliant at the Raymond Detention Center There has been no movement toward the development of a behavior management program at RDC. As noted in the prior report, there has been a small step forward in developing a daily schedule, but that schedule remains relatively limited despite some improvements in offering some structured groups led by volunteers. There is no evidence of a consistent set of expectations, incentives to meet those expectations, and/or consistency in how staff view expected behaviors. This is one of the areas in which identifying a core group of staff that can work as a team in providing more defined expectations and incentives could be at least a small step toward meeting this requirement for youth remaining at RDC.
Recommendation: As the transition of youth to Henley Young continues, a cross-disciplinary team of staff should look at the current behavior point system and develop strategies to enhance it for working with JCA youth, including how to identify targeted behaviors (remedial or new), additional individualized incentives that may be useful in shaping behavior(s), and how these changes can be integrated within an overall behavioral health and youth development perspective. Related to RDC, it may be too much to expect the development of a behavior management program that meets the conditions of the Agreement, but at least if a core group of staff are identified it may be possible to implement some basic behavior incentives and rewards that help with both the daily structure of the program and prevent some of the more troublesome behaviors that continue to occur.
LAWFUL BASIS FOR DETENTION
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners are processed through the criminal justice system in a manner that respects their liberty interests. To that end:
85. The County will not accept or continue to house prisoners in the Jail without appropriate, completed paperwork such as an affidavit, arrest warrant, detention hold, or judge’s written detention order. Examples of inadequate paperwork include, but are not limited to undated or unsigned court orders, warrants, and affidavits; documents memorializing oral instructions from court officers that are undated, unsigned, or otherwise fail to identify responsible individuals and the legal basis for continued detention or release; incomplete arresting police officer documents; and any other paperwork that does not establish a lawful basis for detention.
60

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 61 of 85
Non-Compliant There continue to be problems with lack of paperwork and timely release. There were significant problems with paperwork not supporting continued detention when release was warranted by existing paperwork. This is described under paragraph 92 below. In addition, there were files missing copies of the warrant or capias supporting initial detention. One individual booked in August was described as “just being lost in the system.” There was no assigned attorney so no preliminary hearing had been set. There was an instruction to “put a hold” on the release but this was a verbal order, not a written order.
86. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees in contravention of the protections of the United States Constitution as set forth and discussed in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) and Cassibry v. State, 453 So.2d 1298 (Miss. 1984). The County must develop and implement policies consistent with the applicable federal law and the terms of this Agreement.
Partial Compliance At the time of the site visit there was no one in the facility on an unlawful order for failure to pay fines and fees compared to 100 inmates detained on unlawful fines and fees orders at the time of the February 2017 visit. As a result of separate litigation and the adoption of Mississippi Supreme Court rules for criminal procedure, the jail has not been receiving unlawful orders. This requirement is listed as non-compliant because the jail has not developed or implemented policies as specified in paragraphs 87 through 89 below. As the Supreme Court rules are very new, it would be advisable to have polices to address orders that are not compliant with the new rules.
87. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees absent (a) documentation demonstrating that a meaningful analysis of that person’s ability to pay was conducted by the sentencing court prior to the imposition of any sentence, and (b) written findings by the sentencing court setting forth the basis for a finding that the failure to pay the subject fines or fees was willful. At a minimum, the County must confirm receipt from the sentencing court of a signed “Order” issued by the sentencing court setting forth in detail the basis for a finding that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful.
Partial Compliance The County has been pro-active in ensuring that valid court orders are utilized. The County sponsored a training session on the new rules as related to orders on fines and fees. This is to be commended. This requirement is carried as partial compliance in that a process was not adopted to address non-compliant orders. If this becomes moot because of the rule change, the parties could explore dropping this requirement.
61

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 62 of 85
88. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a person for failure to pay fines or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and any other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and must obtain a copy to justify continued detention of the prisoner. After 48 hours, that prisoner must be released promptly if the Jail staff cannot obtain the necessary documentation to verify that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful, and that person is incarcerated only for the failure to pay fines or fees.
Partial Compliance See response to number 87 above.
89. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a prisoner for failure to pay fines or fees, and if that person is incarcerated for other conviction(s) or charge(s), other than the failure to pay fines and/or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and to ascertain the prisoner’s length of sentence. If Jail staff cannot obtain a copy of the necessary documentation within 48 hours of the prisoner’s incarceration, Jail staff must promptly arrange for the prisoner’s transport to the sentencing court so that the court may conduct a legally sufficient hearing and provide any required documentation, including the fines or fees owed by the prisoner, and an assessment of the prisoner’s ability to pay and willfulness (or lack thereof) in failing to pay fines or fees.
Partial Compliance See response to number 87 above.
90. Jail staff must maintain the records necessary to determine the amount of time a person must serve to pay off any properly ordered fines or fees. To the extent that a sentencing court does not specifically calculate the term of imprisonment to be served, the Jail must obtain the necessary information within 24 hours of a prisoner’s incarceration. Within 48 hours of incarceration, each prisoner shall be provided with documentation setting forth clearly the term of imprisonment and the calculation used to determine the term of imprisonment.
Partial Compliance The WC continues to maintain a spreadsheet. There are some individuals who have a sentence of confinement. Some of these individuals show fines and fees but with the notation of a payment plan in effect. This signifies that they will be released after the sentence of confinement. The Monitor will continue to track these entries to ensure that individuals are released after the confinement period. There was no documentation that prisoners were provided with documentation of their release date although they do typically have the orders from the court.
62

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 63 of 85
91. No pre-trial detainee or sentenced prisoner incarcerated by the County solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be required to perform physical labor. Nor shall any such detainee or prisoner receive any penalty or other adverse consequence for failing to perform such labor, including differential credit toward sentences. Any physical labor by pre-trial detainees or by prisoners incarcerated solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be performed on a voluntary basis only, and the County shall not in any way coerce such pre-trial detainees or prisoners to perform physical labor.
Non-Compliant This has become a limited issue now that virtually no individuals are working off fines and fees. As reported recently, the recent standard practice at the WC is to give half the amount of credit towards fines and fees for individuals who do not perform physical labor. This includes individuals who cannot perform physical labor because of a medical or mental health condition. In the October site visit, Captain Chandler stated that individuals with medical conditions did get the full amount of credit without working. However, Deputy Neal stated that only in special situations would they get full credit. He would make the recommendation to the Captain based upon criteria such as how long the prisoner has been incarcerated, the nature of the charge and generally a subjective judgement. The monitor did not revisit this information during the current site visit. There needs to be a written policy requiring that individuals who cannot work because of a medical or mental health condition or other disability receive full credit towards fines and fees.
92. The County must ensure that the Jail timely releases from custody all individuals entitled to release. At minimum:
a. Prisoners are entitled to release if there is no legal basis for their continued detention. Such release must occur no later than 11:59 PM on the day that a prisoner is entitled to be released.
b. Prisoners must be presumed entitled to release from detention if there is a court order that specifies an applicable release date, or Jail records document no reasonable legal basis for the continued detention of a prisoner.
c. Examples of prisoners presumptively entitled to release include: i. Individuals who have completed their sentences; ii. Individuals who have been acquitted of all charges after trial; iii. Individuals whose charges have been dismissed; iv. Individuals who are ordered released by a court order; and v. Individuals detained by a law enforcement agency that then fails to promptly provide constitutionally adequate, documented justification for an individual’s continued detention.
63

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 64 of 85
Non-Compliant A new scenario was observed during this site visit. A number of prisoners had orders from the preliminary hearing stating that they should be released if not indicted within 90 days. This is consistent with the recent Fifth Circuit case Jauch v. Choctow County, No. 16-60690 (5th Cir. 2017). Some of these prisoners had reached the 90 days but had not been released. It was explained that the judge had issued a verbal order that all of the prior orders should require a release order from the Circuit Court. This has resulted in a number of prisoners having a written order in their case mandating release but not being released. More recent orders on the preliminary hearings specify that the prisoner should be released after 90 days with an order from Circuit Court. However, there is no process to effectuate this. The Jauch case found that the Choctaw County Sheriff violated the Constitution when it held the plaintiff 96 days after arrest without an indictment. The County should seek guidance from the courts on how it should implement this case law. In addition, there were several other instances of persons being held beyond when they should have been released. One individual had been ordered to be released on an unsecured bond. This has not typically been used in the past and releasing staff did not know what to do with it so the individual was not released timely. Another individual had a court order for release if not indicted but was held 6 ½ months beyond the court ordered release date. Several individuals were held beyond the 21 days for Probation Violations without a hearing. One individual was released after 97 days; one after 53 days.
93. The County must develop and implement a reliable, complete, and adequate prisoner records system to ensure that staff members can readily determine the basis for a prisoner’s detention, when a prisoner may need to be released, and whether a prisoner should remain in detention. The records system must provide Jail staff with reasonable advance notice prior to an anticipated release date so that they can contact appropriate agencies to determine whether a prisoner should be released or remain in detention.
Non-Compliant There is still no known process to methodically check for adequate documentation for detention and identify those that should be released. The Jail still relies on inmate requests and grievances to identify people who are being over detained. The booking, release, and records process continues to suffer from a lack of coordination. In addition to Booking staff, there are three individuals tracking the lawful basis of detention. They are all three using separate spreadsheets and lists. There continues to be a lack of business process to check all law enforcement and court documents. The records consultant for the monitoring team has completed an initial site visit and is planning on working with the jail to develop policies and procedures that will address these issues.
94. Jail record systems must accurately identify and track all prisoners with serious mental illness, including their housing assignment and security incident histories. Jail staff must
64

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 65 of 85
develop and use records about prisoners with serious mental illness to more accurately and efficiently process prisoners requiring forensic evaluations or transport to mental hospitals or other treatment facilities, and to improve individual treatment, supervision, and community transition planning for prisoners with serious mental illness. Records about prisoners with serious mental illness must be incorporated into the Jail’s incident reporting, investigations, and medical quality assurance systems. The County must provide an accurate census of the Jail’s mental health population as part of its compliance reporting obligations, and the County must address this data when assessing staffing, program, or resource needs.
Non-Compliant The Jail record system does not identify persons with serious mental illness. While there are incident reports submitted, the forms do not have a place to indicate if the individual had a mental health illness. And, there is no electronic method of identifying individuals with mental illness at the time an incident is occurring. Unless a computerized program is developed between the contractor and the medical vendor, officers will not know in advance of inmates with special mental health needs. Health staff can identify the information after the fact, which may be useful but does not allow security staff to adjust its response to a developing incident based on possible mental health issues.
The QCHC staff continue to keep records as described before with a list of individuals on psychiatric medications and a tally of encounters with the psychiatrist or the psychologist. As described in response to paragraph 42 above there is no systematic process or log that would allow for the identification of the mental health case load. The tally of encounters is not broken down by how many individual patients were seen or whether they were assessments or for ongoing care. Based on this information, it would appear that the Jail is significantly under identifying persons with mental illness.
Although Jail and QCHC staff attempt to move individuals to the state hospital as needed, this continues to be a systemic problem. There are only 15 forensic beds at the State Hospital to serve the entire state for competency evaluations or restoration. There are an additional 20 beds that are for individuals for civil commitments. Of the 15 forensic beds, two are reserved for females.
At the time of the last site visit there was significant discrepancy between the number of individuals QCHC thought were waiting for a hospital bed and the number the state hospital had on the list. Updated lists were not provided at this site visit. As mentioned above, there appears to be a lack of knowledge on the part of both detention and medical staff as to competency proceedings and the status of individuals in those proceedings. QCHC and legal staff should review the list with the state hospital to ensure the correct status of those individuals.
65

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 66 of 85
The jail-based restoration to competency program reported its progress since its inception in June, 2017. The program reports that nine individuals have been participating in the program and that three individuals were re-evaluated and found to be restored to competency in the program and are no longer waiting for a state hospital bed. It is understood that the services are minimal and are being provided in an extremely non-therapeutic environment. This program is a pilot program and should be evaluated. As a substitute for state hospital restoration, an appropriate therapeutic environment that does not currently exist in the Jail will need to be created. However, the twice-weekly sessions with mental health workers does provide some therapeutic interaction that does not otherwise exist in the facility. There does not appear to be coordination between the Jail’s contracted psychiatrist and the on-site state hospital staff or state hospital psychiatrist. Although such coordination would not occur if the competency restoration were taking place in the hospital, given that the jail psychiatrist and state hospital staff are simultaneously addressing the individual’s mental health needs, it would be advisable to consider whether and what kind of communication would be appropriate.
95. All individuals who (i) were found not guilty, were acquitted, or had charges brought against them dismissed, and (ii) are not being held on any other matter, must be released directly from the court unless the court directs otherwise. Additionally:
a. Such individuals must not be handcuffed, shackled, chained with other prisoners, transported back to the Jail, forced to submit to bodily strip searches, or returned to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
b. Notwithstanding (a), above, individuals may request to be transported back to the Jail solely for the purpose of routine processing for release. If the County decides to allow such transport, the County must ensure that Jail policies and procedures govern the process. At minimum, policies and procedures must prohibit staff from: i. Requiring the individual to submit to bodily strip searches; ii. Requiring the individual to change into Jail clothing if the individual is not already in such clothing; and iii. Returning the individual to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
Non-Compliant Individuals are not being released from the Court at this time.
96. The County must develop, implement, and maintain policies and procedures to govern the release of prisoners. These policies and procedures must:
a. Describe all documents and records that must be collected and maintained in Jail files for determining the basis of a prisoner’s detention, the prisoner’s anticipated release date, and their status in the criminal justice system.
66

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 67 of 85
b. Specifically detail procedures to ensure timely release of prisoners entitled to be released, and procedures to prevent accidental release.
c. Be developed in consultation with court administrators, the District Attorney’s Office, and representatives of the defense bar.
d. Include mechanisms for notifying community mental health providers, including the County’s Program of Assertive Community Treatment (“PACT”) team, when releasing a prisoner with serious mental illness so that the prisoner can transition safely back to the community. These mechanisms must include providing such prisoners with appointment information and a supply of their prescribed medications to bridge the time period from release until their appointment with the County PACT team, or other community provider.
Non-Compliant In the initial Policies and Procedures that were adopted there are two policies that may relate to this requirement-the policy on records and the policy on booking which includes some requirements related to release. These policies do not have the specificity or the breadth required by this paragraph. The monitoring team and DOJ provided comments on these policies and a second draft should be forthcoming. Neither the DA’s office nor the defense bar has been involved in the drafting. The level of specificity required by this paragraph will require significant revision of the policy.
Neither the County nor QCHC have developed sufficient mechanisms for the transition of persons with mental illness into community-based services. At the time of the last site visit, the recently hired discharge planner had resigned. A meeting with Hinds County Behavioral Health indicated that effective coordination had not been accomplished. At the time of this site visit, a new discharge planner had recently started and there was a renewed focus on discharge planning for prisoners who were identified as needing behavioral health services. Therefore, there was some preliminary discussion of issues, with a promise to follow up and explore these issues in more detail during the next site visit. Of particular concern is the identification of steps that could be taken that might increase the possibility that a prisoner will comply with a discharge plan and related referrals. One approach that has proved successful is inviting community providers into the facility to connect with prisoners who will eventually be referred to them upon discharge; with such an effort, the prisoner has actually met and begun to develop a relationship with the provider long before discharge, which significantly increases the compliance rate; and the facility is currently in discussion with community providers about starting such an effort. Another approach that has proved successful is the provision of psychoeducation groups for mentally ill prisoners; such groups help prisoners to learn about their illness and their need for treatment, and also help them identify and address barriers to continued treatment; but providing this type of therapeutic intervention will require additional mental health staff hours.
67

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 68 of 85
It was reported that clearance by Medical has been made part of the releasing process so that the discharge medications are being provided. It was unclear whether a 14-day supply or just whatever was left in the blister pack was being provided. Providing a 14-day supply is difficult when QCHC does not receive advance notice of a release. This will be addressed at the next site visit.
Recommendations: 1. Continue working on improvements in the discharge planning process. 2. Continue to explore enhanced working relationships with community providers, including a mechanism whereby such providers might meet and connect with prisoners prior to discharge. 3. Explore the feasibility of adding psychoeducation to the therapeutic interventions provided within the facility.
97. The County must develop, implement, and maintain appropriate post orders relating to the timely release of individuals. Any post orders must:
a. Contain up-to-date contact information for court liaisons, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Public Defender’s Office;
b. Describe a process for obtaining higher level supervisor assistance in the event the officer responsible for processing releases encounters administrative difficulties in determining a prisoner’s release eligibility or needs urgent assistance in reaching officials from other agencies who have information relevant to a prisoner’s release status.
Non-Compliant The County has not yet developed post orders in this area.
98. Nothing in this Agreement precludes appropriate verification of a prisoner’s eligibility for release, including checks for detention holds by outside law enforcement agencies and procedures to confirm the authenticity of release orders. Before releasing a prisoner entitled to release, but no later than the day release is ordered, Jail staff should check the National Crime Information Center or other law enforcement databases to determine if there may be a basis for continued detention of the prisoner. The results of release verification checks must be fully documented in prisoner records.
Partial Compliance The Booking staff reportedly now runs an NCIC check at the time of booking and again at release. This will be verified at the next site visit. The business processes of booking and release need to be evaluated and revised in conjunction with the records consultation.
68

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 69 of 85
99. The County must ensure that the release process is adequately staffed by qualified detention officers and supervisors. To that end, the County must:
a. Ensure that sufficient qualified staff members, with access to prisoner records and to the Jail’s e-mail account for receiving court orders, are available to receive and effectuate court release orders twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
b. Ensure that staff members responsible for the prisoner release process and related records have the knowledge, skills, training, experience, and abilities to implement the Jail’s release policies and procedures. At minimum, the County must provide relevant staff members with specific pre-service and annual inservice training related to prisoner records, the criminal justice process, legal terms, and release procedures. The training must include instruction on: i. How to process release orders for each court, and whom to contact if a question arises; ii. What to do if the equipment for contacting other agencies, such as the Jail’s fax machine or email service, malfunctions, or communication is otherwise disrupted; iii. Various types of court dispositions, and the language typically used therein, to ensure staff members understand the meaning of court orders; and iv. How and when to check for detainers to ensure that an individual may be released from court after she or he is found not guilty, is acquitted, or has the charges brought against her or him dismissed.
c. Provide detention staff with sufficient clerical support to prevent backlogs in the filing of prisoner records.
Non-Compliant Staffing levels in Booking are still inadequate. They should routinely have at least two officers assigned in order to be able to receive arrestees and monitor those who are held in the cells, and there should be at least two booking clerks on duty. Consistent with the last report, at one time when booking was visited during the site visit there was only one officer on duty (plus the ID officer). Similarly, during one visit to booking there was only one booking clerk posted while on another visit to booking there were two. It should be noted that the booking clerks are actually detention officers, so when they have a female detainee delivered to Booking they pull the female booking clerk out to handle the pat down procedure. While this is not an ideal situation, it allows them to get by without having to pull an officer from some other part of the jail.
100. The County must annually review its prisoner release and detention process to ensure that it complies with any changes in federal law, such as the constitutional standard for civil or pretrial detention.
69

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 70 of 85
Non-Compliant There has not been an initial review of this process to determine consistency with federal law.
101. The County must ensure that the Jail’s record-keeping and quality assurance policies and procedures allow both internal and external audit of the Jail’s release process, prisoner lengths of stay, and identification of prisoners who have been held for unreasonably long periods without charges or other legal process. The County must, at minimum, require:
a. A Jail log that documents (i) the date each prisoner was entitled to release; (ii) the date, time, and manner by which the Jail received any relevant court order; (iii) the date and time that prisoner was in fact released; (iv) the time that elapsed between receipt of the court order and release; (v) the date and time when information was received requiring the detention or continued detention of a prisoner (e.g., immigration holds or other detainers), and (vi) the identity of the authority requesting the detention or continued detention of a prisoner.
b. Completion of an incident report, and appropriate follow-up investigation and administrative review, if an individual is held in custody past 11:59 PM on the day that she or he is entitled to release. The incident report must document the reason(s) for the error. The incident report must be submitted to the Jail Administrator no later than one calendar day after the error was discovered.
Non-Compliant The record keeping process does not at this time allow for an audit other than a review of individual files. The County has provided their list of releases but the list does not include the information required by subparagraph a. Incident reports are not prepared for errors in releasing.
102. The County must appoint a staff member to serve as a Quality Control Officer with responsibility for internal auditing and monitoring of the release process. This Quality Control Officer will be responsible for helping prevent errors with the release process, and the individual’s duties will include tracking releases to ensure that staff members are completing all required paper work and checks. If the Quality Control Officer determines that an error has been made, the individual must have the authority to take corrective action, including the authority to immediately contact the Jail Administrator or other County official with authority to order a prisoner’s release. The Quality Control Officer’s duties also include providing data and reports so that release errors are incorporated into the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance process.
Partial Compliance The Jail now has an individual whose title is Qualify Control Officer. This individual has only recently been hired and is developing his work process. At the present time, his work is primarily reactive. When an individual is brought to his attention, he researches the situation and takes
70

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 71 of 85
corrective action. He does not track releases or prevent errors in the releasing process. He maintains a spreadsheet that includes release errors that he has addressed, but he does not at the present time collect and report on releasing errors. His work is not incorporated into a continuous improvement and quality assurance process. Another individual serves as a court liaison with the lower courts. She also attempts to identify individuals entitled to release. Like the Quality Control Officer she operates independently of the booking and release process and maintains her own spreadsheets. There still is no systemic approach to ensuring proper detention and release processes are being developed. The records consultant will address this in the development of policies and procedures.
103. The County must require investigation of all incidents relating to timely or erroneous prisoner release within seven calendar days by appropriate investigators, supervisors, and the Jail Administrator. The Jail Administrator must document any deficiencies found and any corrective action taken. The Jail Administrator must then make any necessary changes to Jail policies and procedures. Such changes should be made, if appropriate, in consultation with court personnel, the District Attorney’s Office, members of the defense bar, and any other law enforcement agencies involved in untimely or erroneous prisoner releases.
Non-Compliant No documentation was provided of incident reports being created for untimely or erroneous prisoner release or any investigations of such incidents.
104. The County must conduct bi-annual audits of release policies, procedures, and practices. As part of each audit, the County must make any necessary changes to ensure that individuals are being released in a timely manner. The audits must review all data collected regarding timely release, including any incident reports or Quality Control audits referenced in Paragraph 102 above. The County must document the audits and recommendations, and must submit all documentation to the Monitor and the United States for review.
Non-Compliant Initial policies or procedures have been adopted but require significant revision. There has not been an initial audit of releasing practices. There are no incident reports regarding untimely releases.
105. The County must ensure that policies, procedures, and practices allow for reasonable attorney visitation, which should be treated as a safeguard to prevent the unlawful detention of citizens and for helping to ensure the efficient functioning of the County’s criminal justice system. The Jail’s attorney visitation process must provide sufficient space for attorneys to meet with their clients in a confidential setting, and must include scheduling procedures to ensure that defense attorneys can meet with their clients for reasonable lengths of time and without undue
71

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 72 of 85
delay. An incident report must be completed if Jail staff are unable to transport a prisoner to meet with their attorney, or if there is a delay of more than 30 minutes for transporting a prisoner for a scheduled attorney visit.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the last report. The current attorney/client visitation spaces in the pods at the RDC do not allow officers to monitor them for safety and security. The situation is exacerbated by the shortage of staff, however, a reasonable solution to the problem is readily at hand as a result of the recent change of video visitation vendors. The new equipment is located inside each housing unit, which makes the old video visitation space, adjacent to the three pod control rooms, available for repurposing. Once the old equipment and floor mounted stainless-steel stools are removed, the addition of typical office type tables and chairs will create three private, yet easily observed attorney/client visitation rooms. Although this recommendation was included in the last report, no action to implement it has been taken to date. At the JDC and WC, adequate space and facilities are available to allow attorney client visitation.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
The County must develop an effective system for identifying and self-correcting systemic violations of prisoner’s constitutional rights. To that end, the County must:
106. Develop and maintain a database and computerized tracking system to monitor all reportable incidents, uses of force, and grievances. This tracking system will serve as the repository of information used for continuing improvement and quality assurance reports.
Non-Compliant The County is making progress towards computerized incident and other reports as well as the development of summary reports that would allow the aggregation and sorting of reports. It was learned in this site visit that the reports provided to the monitor do not incorporate all the information that is accessible in the system. The monitoring team cannot routinely access the data base system to evaluate the information that is in the system and, at this time, there is not an ability to provide that information in an electronic or paper report form (other than the timeconsuming process of creating screen shots). The request was made to provide a report form that provides the monitoring team and internal staff with a report containing the most important information for review. There is better capacity to tie all records on an incident to the original report number. However, it was discovered that the information that was being requested by the monitoring team but not provided was actually included in an investigation report that was not being provided and is not linked by a uniform number. There continues to be a problem with providing a process in the reporting for approval/disapproval/action required blocks for
72

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 73 of 85
supervisors. There continues to be a concern because of the lack of reports or the small number of reports that some incidents and grievances are underreported including late releases, lost money and property, medical grievances and some use of force incidents. The ability to aggregate the reports into a summary report is being developed.
The new computerized grievance system should allow for the compilation of a summary grievance report. Currently, this is not possible for several reasons. As noted above, the system is not functioning properly at this time and grievances seem to be lost in the system. The reporting functions of the system are either problematic or not adequately conveyed to staff. Staff reported that they could not generate reports with identified parameters. If the prisoner replies via the kiosk in any fashion to the grievance response, that is then automatically converted to an appeal which inaccurately reflects the number of appeals. The system needs to be able to generate accurate reports.
107. Compile an Incident Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Incident Summary Reports must compile and summarize incident report data in order to identify trends such as rates of incidents in general, by housing unit, by day of the week and date, by shift, and by individual prisoners or staff members. The Incident Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Brief summary of all reportable incidents, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. Description of all suicides and deaths, including the date, name of prisoner, housing
unit, and location where the prisoner died (including name of hospital if prisoner died off-site); c. The names and number of prisoners placed in emergency restraints, and segregation, and the frequency and duration of such placements; d. List and total number of incident reports received during the reporting period; e. List and Total number of incidents referred to IAD or other law enforcement agencies for investigation.
Non-Compliant The County provided a monthly report of incidents in the three facilities. Although the information was helpful, it did not meet the requirements of this paragraph. As mentioned above the IT department is working on a computerized report that should allow for a summary report to be generated. The summary reports are manually created and vary by facility. Because they are manually compiled, it is difficult to identify trends over time. The computerized summary report should remedy this. Even then, it will be essential to determine that reports are being submitted such that an accurate summary report can be generated.
108. Compile a Use of Force Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Use of Force Summary Reports must compile and summarize use of force report data in order to identify
73

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 74 of 85
trends such as rates of use in general, by housing unit, by shift, by day of the week and date, by individual prisoners, and by staff members. The Use of Force Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Summary of all uses of force, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. List and total number of use of force reports received during the reporting period; c. List and total number of uses of force reports/incidents referred to IAD or other
law enforcement agencies for investigation.
Non-Compliant The County provided a monthly report of use of force in the three facilities. Although the information was helpful, it did not meet the requirements of this paragraph in that the reports are manually prepared each month and do not allow for identifying trends over time. As mentioned above the IT department is working on a computerized report that should allow for a summary report to be generated. In meeting with the IT department, it was learned that not all the requirements of this paragraph were addressed. That should be remedied. Even then, it will be essential to determine that reports are being submitted such that an accurate summary report can be generated.
109. Compile a Grievance Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Grievance Summary Reports must compile and summarize grievance information in order to identify trends such as most frequently reported complaints, units generating the most grievances, and staff members receiving the most grievances about their conduct. To identify trends and potential concerns, at least quarterly, a member of the Jail’s management staff must review the Grievance Summary Reports and a random sample of ten percent of all grievances filed during the review period. These grievance reviews, any recommendations, and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant See response to 106 above.
110. Compile a monthly summary report of IAD investigations conducted at the Facility. The IAD Summary Report must include:
a. A brief summary of all completed investigations, by type, shift, housing unit, and date;
b. A listing of investigations referred for disciplinary action or other final disposition by type and date;
c. A listing of all investigations referred to a law enforcement agency and the name of the agency, by type and date; and
74

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 75 of 85
d. A listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.
Non-Compliant There is currently no summary report of IAD investigations being provided to the monitors.
111. Conduct a review, at least annually, to determine whether the incident, use of force, grievance reporting, and IAD systems comply with the requirements of this Agreement and are effective at ensuring staff compliance with their constitutional obligations. The County must make any changes to the reporting systems that it determines are necessary as a result of the system reviews. These reviews and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant There has been no annual review pursuant to this paragraph.
112. Ensure that the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance systems include an Early Intervention component to alert Administrators of potential problems with staff members. The purpose of the Early Intervention System is to identify and address patterns of behavior or allegations which may indicate staff training deficiencies, persistent policy violations, misconduct, or criminal activity. As part of the Early Intervention process, incident reports, use of force reports, and prisoner grievances must be screened by designated staff members for such patterns. If misconduct, criminal activity, or behaviors indicate the need for corrective action, the screening staff must refer the incidents or allegations to Jail supervisors, administrators, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies for investigation. Additionally:
a. The Early Intervention System may be integrated with other database and computerized tracking systems required by this Agreement, provided any unified system otherwise still meets the terms of this Agreement.
b. The Early Intervention System must screen for staff members who may be using excessive force, regardless of whether use of force reviews concluded that the uses complied with Jail policies and this Agreement. This provision allows identification of staff members who may still benefit from additional training and serves as a check on any deficiencies with use of force by field supervisors.
c. The Jail Administrator, or designee of at least Captain rank, must personally review Early Intervention System data and alerts at least quarterly. The Administrator, or designee, must document when reviews were conducted as well as any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken.
75

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 76 of 85
d. The County must maintain a list of any staff members identified by the Early Intervention System as possibly needing additional training or discipline. A copy of this list must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
e. The County must take appropriate, documented, and corrective action when staff members have been identified as engaging in misconduct, criminal activity, or a pattern of violating Jail policies.
f. The County must review the Early Intervention System, at least bi-annually, to ensure that it is effective and used to identify staff members who may need additional training or discipline. The County must document any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken as a result of these reviews. Copies of these reviews must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
Non-Compliant There is currently no Early Intervention program.
113. Develop and implement policies and procedures for Jail databases, tracking systems, and computerized records (including the Early Intervention System), that ensure both functionality and data security. The policies and procedures must address all of the following issues: data storage, data retrieval, data reporting, data analysis and pattern identification, supervisor responsibilities, standards used to determine possible violations and corrective action, documentation, legal issues, staff and prisoner privacy rights, system security, and audit mechanisms.
Non-Compliant The initial P&P Manual that was issued in April, 2017 did not include policies and procedures covering this matter.
114. Ensure that the Jail’s medical staff are included as part of the continuous improvement and quality assurance process. At minimum, medical and mental health staff must be included through all of the following mechanisms:
a. Medical staff must have the independent authority to promptly refer cases of suspected assault or abuse to the Jail Administrator, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies;
b. Medical staff representatives must be involved in mortality reviews and systemic reviews of serious incidents. At minimum, a physician must prepare a mortality review within 30 days of every prisoner death. An outside physician must review any mortalities associated with treatment by Jail physicians.
76

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 77 of 85
Non-Compliant Medical Administrative meetings are supposed to be held quarterly. There has not been a MAC meeting since the last audit. CQI meetings have addressed one issue, missed medications. In January 2018 there were 78 % of inmates with missed medications. However, evidence of corrective actions on this issue have not been provided.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
115. Hinds County will establish a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (“Coordinating Committee”) with subject matter expertise and experience that will assist in streamlining criminal justice processes, and identify and develop solutions and interventions designed to lead to diversion from arrest, detention, and incarceration. The Coordinating Committee will focus particularly on diversion of individuals with serious mental illness and juveniles. Using the Sequential Intercept Model, or an alternative acceptable to the Parties, the Coordinating Committee will identify strategies for diversion at each intercept point where individuals may encounter the criminal justice system, and will assess the County’s current diversion efforts and unmet service needs in order to identify opportunities for successful diversion of such individuals. The Committee will recommend appropriate changes to policies and procedures and additional services necessary to increase diversion.
Partial Compliance Hinds County has contracted with Justice Management Institute (JMI) to provide consulting and assist in implementing a CJCC. The first two meetings of the CJCC have taken place. In order to have a CJCC with sufficient expertise and experience to carry out the mandate of this paragraph, the County will need to provide staff support. The recently hired Quality Control Officer may have been designated to provide some staff support but as yet is not familiar with the CJCC. It is unlikely that he will be able to do his job as Quality Control Officer and provide the needed CJCC staff support. At this time, the CJCC is not yet at a place to identify and develop solutions for diversion.
The Sequential Intercept Mapping required by this paragraph has already taken place under a grant to the Hinds County Behavioral Health from the GAINS Center. A two-day meeting was held on August 16-17, 2017 with broad participation including the County and Jail. The Sequential Intercept Model provides a conceptual framework for communities to use when considering the interface between the criminal justice and mental health systems as they address concerns about the criminalization of inmates with mental health illness. The GAINS center completed the report for Hinds County Behavioral Health. It includes recommendations for creating or improving intercepts in the jail and at release. This provides a useful road map for compliance with the diversion and discharge planning requirements of the consent decree.
77

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 78 of 85
116. The Coordinating Committee will include representation from the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office and Hinds County Board of Supervisors. The County will also seek representation from Hinds County Behavioral Health Services; the Jackson Police Department; Mississippi Department of Mental Health; Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services; judges from the Hinds County Circuit, Chancery, and County (Youth and Justice) Courts; Hinds County District Attorney Office; Hinds County Public Defender Office; relevant Jackson city officials; and private advocates or other interested community members.
Partial Compliance As noted above the CJCC had its first two meetings. Not all of the identified agencies were represented at the meeting. The reported intention is to expand representation after further development.
117. The Coordinating Committee will prioritize enhancing coordination with local behavioral health systems, with the goal of connecting individuals experiencing mental health crisis, including juveniles, with available services to avoid unnecessary arrest, detention, and incarceration.
Non-Compliant The CJCC has met only twice and has not yet formally adopted priorities.
118. Within 30 days of the Effective Date and in consultation with the United States, the County will select and engage an outside consultant to provide technical assistance to the County and Coordinating Committee regarding strategies for reducing the jail population and increasing diversion from criminal justice involvement, particularly for individuals with mental illness and juveniles. This technical assistance will include (a) a comprehensive review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing efforts to reduce recidivism and increase diversion; (b) identification of gaps in the current efforts, (c) recommendations of actions and strategies to achieve diversion and reduce recidivism; and (d) estimates of costs and cost savings associated with those strategies. The review will include interviews with representatives from the agencies and entities referenced in Paragraph 116 and other relevant stakeholders as necessary for a thorough evaluation and recommendation. Within 120 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the outside consultant will finalize and make public a report regarding the results of their assessment and recommendations. The Coordinating Committee will implement the recommended strategies and will continue to use the outside consultant to assist with implementation of the strategies when appropriate.
Non-Compliant The County did contract with an outside consultant to provide technical assistance in developing the CJCC. However, that contract does not encompass the requirements listed above regarding
78

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 79 of 85
an assessment of and recommendations for strategies to reduce recidivism and increase diversion.
IMPLEMENTATION, TIMING, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
Paragraphs 119 and 120 regarding duty to implement and effective date omitted.
121. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County must distribute copies of the Agreement to all prisoners and Jail staff, including all medical and security staff, with appropriate explanation as to the staff members’ obligations under the Agreement. At minimum:
a. A copy of the Agreement must be posted in each unit (including booking/intake and medical areas), and program rooms (e.g., classrooms and any library).
b. Individual copies of the Agreement must be provided to prisoners upon request.
Partial Compliance The creation of an Inmate Handbook sized copy of the Settlement Agreement for distribution to staff has proven to be a viable means of making it available; however, it was not possible to conduct a significant survey during the January/February site visit to determine whether or not most employees had a copy. Based on a random sampling of inmates at each facility, when questioned, they were not familiar with the Settlement Agreement and did not know how or where to obtain a copy of the document.
POLICY AND PROCEDURE REVIEW
130. The County must review all existing policies and procedures to ensure their compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. Where the Jail does not have a policy or procedure in place that complies with the terms of this Agreement, the County must draft such a policy or procedure, or revise its existing policy or procedure.
Partial Compliance At the time of the site visit, the County/Sheriff had adopted an initial set of policies and procedures. These have been reviewed and been found to not be fully compliant with the terms of the agreement. The Monitoring Team and DOJ provided comments and a second round of drafting should be underway. As recommended, the County/Sheriff is identifying key policies to develop first and circulate for review. This will help guide the process in the remaining areas.
131. The County shall complete its policy and procedure review and revision within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
79

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 80 of 85
Partial Compliance Six months expired on January 19, 2017. The policy and procedure review and drafting was completed after that time. Those policies are not sufficiently in compliance so this requirement is listed as partially compliant.
132. Once the County reviews and revises its policies and procedures, the County must provide a copy of its policies and procedures to the United States and the Monitor for review and comment. The County must address all comments and make any changes requested by the United States or the Monitor within thirty (30) days after receiving the comments and resubmit the policies and procedures to the United States and Monitor for review.
Non-Compliant The policies and procedures were completed and submitted to the United States and the Monitor in April for review and comment. The comments were provided on June 1, 2017. Changes have not been made in the 30-day time frame.
133. No later than three months after the United States’ approval of each policy and procedure, the County must adopt and begin implementing the policy and procedure, while also modifying all post orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the policies and procedures.
Non-Compliant The policies and procedures are in need of revision. They should be revised before training and other ensuing operations.
134. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, all new or revised policies and procedures must be implemented within six months of the United States’ approval of the policy or procedure.
Non-Compliant There have not yet been policies and procedures approved by the United States.
135. The County must annually review its policies and procedures, revising them as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures must be submitted to the United States and the Monitor for approval in accordance with paragraphs 129-131 above.
Non-Compliant This paragraph is now carried as non-compliant instead of not applicable because under the timeline established by the consent decree an annual review would now be due.
80

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 81 of 85
COUNTY ASSESSMENT AND COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR
Paragraphs 136 through 158 on Monitor duties omitted.
159. The County must file a self-assessment compliance report. The first compliance selfassessment report must be filed with the Court within four months of the Effective Date and at least one month before a Monitor site visit. Each self-assessment compliance report must describe in detail the actions the County has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and must make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. The report must include information supporting the County’s representations regarding its compliance with the Agreement such as quality assurance information, trends, statistical data, and remedial activities. Supporting information should be based on reports or data routinely collected as part of the audit and quality assurance activities required by this Agreement (e.g., incident, use of force, system, maintenance, and early intervention), rather than generated only to support representations made in the self-assessment.
Non-Compliant At the time of the October site visit, the County provided its first self-assessment. The assessment was a good first step towards compliance with this paragraph but needed to have the level of detail required by this paragraph. This paragraph was listed as Partial Compliant in the last monitoring report. It is now listed as non-compliant because it requires that the selfassessment be updated one month before each site visit, and that was not completed.
160. The County must designate a full-time Compliance Coordinator to coordinate compliance activities required by this Agreement. This person will serve as a primary point of contact for the Monitor. Two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties may consult with each other and the Monitor to determine whether the Compliance Coordinator’s hours may be reduced. The Parties may then stipulate to any agreed reduction in hours.
Compliant The County has designated a full-time Compliance Coordinator who is coordinating compliance activities. The Monitor will continue to track this assignment to ensure sustained compliance in this area.
EMERGENT CONDITIONS
161. The County must notify the Monitor and United States of any prisoner death, riot, escape, injury requiring hospitalization, or over-detention of a prisoner (i.e. failure to release a prisoner before 11:59 PM on the day she or he was entitled to be released), within 3 days of learning of the event.
81

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 82 of 85 Partial Compliance Immediate notifications have been provided. However, the County has not been providing notification of over-detention and, in fact, is not currently identifying prisoners who have been detained beyond their release date. The records office needs to be reorganized to implement business practices that accurately identify release dates and process releases. In the interim, the County needs to continue and improve its internal audit procedures to identify individuals entitled to release and prepare incident reports for persons who were detained beyond their legal release date. Paragraphs 162-167 regarding jurisdiction, construction and the PLRA omitted.
82

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 83 of 85

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 18, 2018, I electronically filed the Court-Appointed Monitor’s Fourth Monitoring Report with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following:

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

JOHN M. GORE Acting Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

D. MICHAEL HURST, JR.. U.S. Attorney Southern District of Mississippi

STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section steven.rosenbaum@usdoj.gov

LAURA COWALL Special Counsel U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20530 laura.coon@usdoj.gov

CHRISTOPHER N. CHENG Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-8892 (202) 514-6273 (fax) christopher.cheng@usdoj.gov

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 84 of 85
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS – HINDS COUNTY; MEMBERS OF THE HINDS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; THE SHERIFF OF HINDS COUNTY IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY:
PIETER TEEUWISSEN Board Attorney P.O. Box 686 Jackson, MS 39205-0686 (601) 968-6797 (601) 968-6794 (fax) pteeuwissen@co.hinds.ms.us
CLAIRE BARKER Counsel to the Sheriff 407 East Pascagoula Street Jackson, MS 39205 (601) 974-2967 (Fax) cbarker@co.hinds.ms.us

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 22 Filed 04/18/18 Page 85 of 85
COUNSEL FOR INTERESTED PARTY, DISABILITY RIGHTS MISSISSIPPI:
ELISSA JOHNSON JODY E. OWENS PALOMA WU Southern Poverty Law Center 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 948-8882 (601) 948-8885 (Fax) elissa.johnson@splcenter.org
/s Christopher N. Cheng CHRISTOPHER N. CHENG Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-8892 (202) 514-4883 (fax) christopher.cheng@usdoj.gov

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 1 of 102
Court-Appointed Monitor’s Ninth Monitoring Report United States v. Hinds County, et al. Civ. No. 3:16cv489 -JCG

David M. Parrish Corrections Operations

Elizabeth E. Simpson Court-Appointed Monitor

Jim Moeser Juvenile Justice

Dr. Richard Dudley Corrections Mental Health

1

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 2 of 102
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Corrections Operations
While the Settlement Agreement is a comprehensive document, its most basic components deal with the safety and security of inmates held in the three jail facilities—the Raymond Detention Center (RDC), Jackson Detention Center (JDC) and Work Center (WC). At the latter two facilities progress is being made toward compliance, but at the RDC the living conditions for inmates and working conditions for staff continue to decline. The inability of staff to secure inmates in their cells, and even housing units, because of locks and doors that cannot be secured, reflects an unacceptable situation.
The Sheriff’s Orders of March 20, 2019, returned Captain Richard Fielder to the Assistant Jail Administrator’s position and clearly spelled out the authority of Major Mary Rushing to administer all aspects of the Detention Services Division (DSD). In fact, however, it does not appear that the orders have materially changed day-to-day operations.
The lack of staff is still the most critical problem facing the DSD. As has been reported in previous Monitoring Reports, of the 433 positions that the staffing analysis calls for, only 275 have been authorized by the County and only 271 of them are actually funded. Over the past two and a half years the greatest number of positions that were actually filled was 251. During the September site visit that number was down to 218, a new low. Even with C Pod at the RDC closed for renovation, based on the posts needed for the remaining pods and the other facilities, 399 positions are needed system-wide and 246 positions at RDC. However, RDC is operating with only 113 filled positions, 133 less than needed. The uncertainty caused by the election has reportedly made it even more difficult to recruit new detention officers or to promote/hire personnel to take key positions.
With the lack of staff, direct supervision is an impossibility, and even remote surveillance from outside the housing units is an unrealistic goal when officers spend most of their time in the pod control rooms filling out unit logs with entries that cannot be validated. Recognizing the futility of this situation, the Monitor and Corrections Operations member of the monitoring team worked with the DSD command staff to develop a more practical and meaningful method of recording well-being checks during the most recent site visit explained below; however, it will not be possible to determine how well the revised procedures work until records and the facility are examined during the January 2020, site visit.
Policies and procedures (P & P) are finally being developed through the efforts of Karen Albert, who was originally brought on the Monitoring Team to facilitate the consolidation of the Records and Classification Units into one Section. Since that work was undertaken, she has
2

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 3 of 102
continued on the monitoring team and has assumed responsibility for the oversight and coordination of the P & P effort in conjunction with DSD staff. To date, approximately 18 policies have been entered into the review process. This is something that, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) should have set in motion and completed within the first year of the monitoring process.
Maintenance issues are significant in each DSD facility, but are especially severe at the RDC. The problems there are compounded by the fact that the Jail Administrator does not have budgetary authority over, or operational control of, the County’s maintenance efforts. In the Eighth Monitoring Report it was noted that the County finally brought on board a professional correctional maintenance contractor, CML Security, to repair control room and housing unit entry doors in A Pod and to fix one sample cell door in C Pod. Each was converted to a swinging configuration, which is more secure than the slider system that was in place. Unfortunately, once that sample work was done, the County did not proceed with similar corrective work in each pod and housing unit. Consequently, the Monitor has submitted a list of suggested corrective actions for the RDC to include C Pod, B Pod and A Pod in that order. Hopefully, the County will adopt a schedule of action to be taken according to a firm, documented timetable.
The combination of the lack of adequate staffing and cell and housing unit doors that don’t lock creates a volatile situation. This contributed to the riots on June 28th and 29th 2019 in which one officer was injured and at one point the officers were barricaded in the control room and planning to retreat to the restroom. In September alone there were 10 incident reports which involved cell or housing unit doors that were rigged to stay unlocked or were popped open. There continue to be numerous assaults between inmates with 10 in September, at least two of which required hospitalization. This situation, no doubt, contributes to the difficulty in retaining officers.
Tracking use of force incidents presents a challenge. It is difficult to know whether all uses of force are reported. The titles of incident reports may reflect an incident type that does not reflect a use of force. There is a check box in the JMS system for a use of force but it is not clear whether it is always checked. For October, 2019, 7 incidents were listed in the spreadsheet as involving a use of force. However, in reviewing the actual incident reports an additional 4 incidents involved the use of force. In addition, the description of the use of force in the incident report may significantly understate the use of force employed. And the deficits in the JMS system do not allow for documentation of corrective action when use of force is used. This troubling situation was highlighted in a use of force incident in August when an egregious use of force described below occurred and neither the use of force nor the corrective action was adequately documented.
3

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 4 of 102
The direct supervision Train the Trainers program that was put on by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) in July proved to be a great success. Since then, five officers have been identified who will serve as the core group of trainers for all Detention staff. That work will be undertaken during annual in-service training so that officers can obtain firsthand experience working in a direct supervision environment at the WC. Eventually, that will make it possible to open individual housing units at the RDC in a direct supervision mode, beginning with C Pod, as the renovations there are completed.
Fire safety continues to be a critical area of concern at the RDC. The State Fire Marshal’s annual inspections are of little value since they are not specific and do not address major issues such as the lack of a sprinkler system and fire hoses. The Monitor’s effort to obtain input from the Fire Marshal’s Office, through a face-to-face meeting during a site visit, has proven to be ineffectual since no representative is willing to appear and participate. It is therefore, incumbent upon the HCSO/DSD to take on the responsibility of voluntarily meeting basic fire safety code standards that are recognized by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
Medical and Mental Health
At the time of the prior site visit, the nurses reported being harassed and not being consistently protected by security staff during medication pass. In response, security changed the location of the medication pass from the entrance to each pod to a passthrough window away from the pods. Since this change of location for medication pass, the medication refusal rate has skyrocketed to an unacceptable level. Furthermore, the nurses are no longer able to observe and speak to prisoners who refuse medication in an effort to determine if their medical and/or mental health status is deteriorating as a result of their refusal to take medication. Therefore, security and medical must develop an alternative plan for medication pass that assures the safety of the nurses while allowing them to do their job, does not unnecessarily burden security staff, and does not act as an impediment to prisoners’ compliance with prescribed medication.
The small mental health staff is stretched to the limit with providing mental health services to a case load of 183 prisoners housed at three different facilities, performing assessments of new prisoners referred to them, responding to/managing mental health emergencies including suicidal prisoners, performing PREA assessments and providing treatment when indicated, performing weekly rounds in segregation, and maintaining records and logs. Therefore, they have not been able to implement the planned expansion of mental health services that is required to meet the provisions of this agreement (for example, adding mental health therapy groups and a more rigorous discharge planning program), and they have not been able to implement other required corrective actions (for example, regularly scheduled treatment plan reviews and increased liaison with community-based providers). As has been previously reported, in January 2019, QCHC requested permission to hire two additional mental health staff, but the County has still not responded to that request. Meanwhile, as security policies regarding disciplinary review,
4

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 5 of 102
segregation review, use of force and incident reporting and review are completed and implemented, the mental health staff will have additional responsibilities in connection with these activities. Then in addition, if/when a special needs/mental health unit is opened the development and implementation of programming for that unit will also be the responsibility of the mental health staff. Therefore, the County must respond to QCHC’s request to hire additional mental health staff.
Youthful Offenders
As of the September visit, there were fifteen youthful prisoners (all male) at Henley Young. Overall, Henley Young is operating as a safe and secure environment for youthful offenders. The program at Henley Young continues to evolve in a positive direction in a number of areas, including: (1) the decreased use of segregation/room confinement for disciplinary purposes; (2) continued stability in the population of both the youthful prisoners as well as the traditional short-term youth placed in the detention facility; (3) improvements in the educational programming for youth; (4) selection of a new Executive Director; and (5) some modifications in how the point/level system is utilized with youth. Additionally, planning has taken place to implement a new court process to review youth’s cases, focusing on promoting more timely decisions related to indictment, returning the case to the youth court, and/or altering bail conditions. As Henley Young has moved from being a short-term facility that houses some longterm youth to a longer-term facility that also houses some short-term youth, it becomes increasingly difficult to develop and implement adequate educational and treatment programming in a way that supports the successful transition of youth to the next step/stage in the process. The new court process was scheduled to be implemented beginning in October and should have a positive impact on moving the youth’s cases through the appropriate court system more promptly.
Concerns remain related to: (1) the limited time provided to achieve optimal functioning of the mental health team, particularly as it relates to limits on the time allotted to the psychologist and psychiatrist position(s); and (2) there have been no changes in the physical plant/facility that provide either more appropriate space for living units and a variety of programming or address some of the security safety concerns that have been expressed in prior reports and/or by facility leadership.
Criminal Justice and System Issues
A number of steps were taken that, while not achieving compliance in many areas, are certainly a step towards compliance. The policy on Inmate Records Management was adopted prior to the last site visit and includes a number of procedures that should improve the accuracy of the records and ensure the lawful basis of detention and timely release. The Records staff has begun
5

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 6 of 102
a review of every file. The initial targeted pace has not been achieved as only one staff member is completing the review. She has completed about 70 files but a number of those individuals had discharged by the time she completed the review. As a result, there are probably about 450 active files that have not been reviewed. There is also no system in place to ensure that the deficiencies that are identified are remedied. As this is just the beginning of this process, there continue to be a number of files with inaccurate or incomplete information at the time of this site visit that give rise to the potential for over detention or mistaken release.
There are also systemic issues that contribute to over detention. Although not the fault of the County, it is particularly troubling that many defendants are not getting their first appearance on felony arrests in 48 hours because of the unavailability of the judge. The Jail is entering a bail amount from a bail schedule but individuals who cannot make that bail are held potentially weeks before getting before a judge and being released. And, of course, the number of individuals being held without indictment continues to be a travesty. There are 15 individuals booked in 2018 that have still not been indicted.
The County IT Department is now creating reports that can pull data from the JMS system. This will assist in identifying release dates and ensuring timely release. However, this is not entirely reliable because information is not being entered consistently, so manual tracking is still required. Some practices exacerbate the limitations of the JMS system. As described previously, the Warrants Division within the Sheriff’s Office does not use the JMS system, and does not enter warrants into the JMS system so warrants known by one arm of the Sheriff’s Office are not known to another. Warrants arising after a person is booked are not known to the Records Office. Although the ability to generate reports is improving, incident reports and summary reports are still lacking some information required by the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of guiding corrective action and quality assurance.
The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) has not had consistent participation by a number of stakeholders. This has limited its effectiveness. Reducing the Jail population is one method for addressing the severe staffing shortage. However, an effective CJCC or some collaborative body will be needed to implement most jail population reduction strategies. The monitoring team has recommended that the County hire a CJCC coordinator to improve the effectiveness of the CJCC. This has not been done and the County has not renewed the contract of the CJCC consultant.
A significant change in policy by the stakeholders that was fostered by Hinds County was the elimination of individuals held in the Jail for failure to pay fines and fees. At the time of the last and current site visits, there has been no one incarcerated on court orders for fines and fees. In addition, the Pre-Booking and Inmate Records Management Policies have been adopted which
6

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 7 of 102

mandate compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. These provisions are now shown as compliant. However, this area will continue to be monitored to ensure that the policy is followed.
The kiosk grievance system continues to present problems. During this site visit, a report was once again run from the system to locate outstanding grievances that had fallen off the dashboard. Once again, hundreds of outstanding grievances were found but significantly less than during some prior site visits. A new manual system is only now getting started to ensure that all grievances are actually answered. There is still no system to review whether responses are adequate; and no oversight to determine that promised actions are actually completed.
Monitoring Activities
The Monitoring Team conducted a Site Visit September 24th through September 28th. The site visit schedule was as follows:

Site Visit Schedule September 24-28, 2019

Date and Time

Lisa Simpson

Monday evening: 6:00 Lobby of Hotel
Tuesday A.M.

Team Meeting
Meet with command staff

Tour Pod C Meet with Ms. Davis, Mr. Bell, Rushing, Fielder and Williams re repairs

Tuesday P.M.

Meet with Sgt Hubbard

Wednesday A.M.

Meet with Sgt Newell and program staff
Meet with Felicia Johnson Review records

Dave Parrish
Team Meeting
Meet with command staff Tour Pod C Meet with Ms. Davis, Mr. Bell, Rushing, Fielder and Williams re repairs
Meet with Marlo Brinnon Meet with Rholonn Tucker
RDC
7

Jim Moeser Team Meeting

Dr. Richard Dudley
Team Meeting

HY-meet with HY Fernandez Frazier
Meet with Off. Young-Training Officer

Meet with mental health and medical team

Education: Ed. Consultant and Principal
Meet with Operations Manager

RDC

Recreation Coordinator

QMHP/clinician
Policy update meeting with

Tour RDC

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 8 of 102

Meet with Kenny Lewis

Meet with Captain Miller and Lt. Knox
Meet with Jeremy Nelson

Quality Assurance Mgr.
Review training documents
Review current roster with leadership

Wednesday P.M.

Meet with Rushing, Fielder, and Lt. McBride re housing unit officer procedures
Meet with Kenisha Jones

Meet with Rushing, Fielder, and RDC Captain re housing unit officer procedures
RDC

Review special ed. Process and GED with Special Ed and GED teacher Review Incident reports and hearing notes
Meet with Youth Support Specialist

RDC WC

Meet with Judge McDaniels

Thursday A.M. Thursday P.M.

Status Conference
Meet with mental health staff and RDC command staff
Tour Pod C-4 for use as mental health unit

Status Conference JDC

Interview youth Status Conference
Review youth master files
Meet with Supervisors
Exit Discussion

Status Conference Meet with mental health staff and RDC command staff
Tour Pod C-4 for use as mental health unit

Meet with Tanika

JDC

Moore

Friday 9:00 A.M. Meet with Kenny WC

Lewis re pretrial

Meet with Lt. George

Meet with Ms. Jackson

COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW

8

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 9 of 102
The Monitoring Team will track progress towards compliance with the following chart. This chart will be added to with each Monitoring Report showing the date of the site visit and the number of Settlement Agreement requirements in full, partial or non-compliance. Sustained compliance is achieved when compliance with a particular Settlement Agreement requirement has been sustained for 18 months or more. The count of 92 requirements is determined by the number of Settlement Agreement paragraphs which have substantive requirements. Introductory paragraphs and general provisions are not included. Some paragraphs may have multiple requirements which are evaluated independently in the text of the report but are included as one requirement for purposes of this chart. The provisions on Youthful Offenders were evaluated in the text below for compliance at Henley Young and Raymond Detention Center but only the results for Henley Young are included in the totals in this chart. This is a change from the last report which showed compliance at RDC in the totals. The reason for this is that there are no more juveniles at RDC.

Site Visit
Date
2/7-10/17
6/1316/17 10/1620/17 1/262/2/18 5/2225/18 9/1821/18 1/1518/19 5/7-10/19 9/2429/19

Sustained Compliance 0 0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1

Substantial Compliance 1 1
1
1
1
0
1
6
6

Partial Compliance 4 18
26
29
30
37
44
42
47

NA at this time
2 2

NonCompliant 85 71

1

64

0

62

0

61

0

54

0

46

0

43

0

38

Total
92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92

INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS

Text of paragraphs 1-34 regarding “Parties,” “Introduction,” and “Definitions” omitted.

SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS

9

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 10 of 102
PROTECTION FROM HARM
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to provide prisoners with safety, protect prisoners from violence committed by other prisoners, and ensure that prisoners are not subjected to abuse by Jail staff. To that end, the County must:
37. Develop and implement policies and procedures to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment for prisoners and staff. Such policies and procedures must include the following:
a. Booking; b. Objective classification; c. Housing assignments; d. Prisoner supervision; e. Prisoner welfare and security checks (“rounds”); f. Posts and post orders; g. Searches; h. Use of force; i. Incident reporting; j. Internal investigations; k. Prisoner rights; l. Medical and mental health care; m. Exercise and treatment activities; n. Laundry; o. Food services; p. Hygiene; q. Emergency procedures; r. Grievance procedures; and s. Sexual abuse and misconduct.
Non-Compliant To date approximately 18 policies have been entered into the review process and only 3 have been approved. While that represents a significant increase since the Eighth Monitoring Report, it falls far short of what is required. For an agency the size of the HCSO, a Policies and Procedures Manual encompassing far more than a hundred individual policies would be expected. While it is encouraging that progress is finally being made, the fact that the monitoring process has been in place for approximately two and a half years, and that there are only three policies approved to date, is disturbing. The Sheriff’s Office has complained that the process has been hampered by a cumbersome review process. A revised process is being initiated that will hopefully expedite the adoption of policies. Implementation of those policies as required by the paragraph will require a significant training effort. Until Hinds County develops a comprehensive Policies and Procedures Manual, along with Post Orders, the staff of the Hinds County Jail System cannot be expected to comply with the provisions of the Settlement
10

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 11 of 102
Agreement. It is apparent that a great deal of effort needs to be put forth before significant progress can be achieved.
As noted in prior reports there are multiple health and mental health related provisions that cannot be addressed by health and mental health staff alone. These have included, for example, the participation of mental health in the disciplinary review process, the use of suicide watch, the participation of health and mental health in the segregation review process, incidences where there is an anticipated/planned use of force and incidences where there has already been a use of force, and the roles and responsibilities of health and mental health with regard to PREA. Security policies and procedures that would address these issues have still not been developed, approved, and implemented. The medical and mental health staff should be involved in the development of these policies and procedures when that occurs.
38. Ensure that the Jail is overseen by a qualified Jail Administrator and a leadership team with substantial education, training and experience in the management of a large jail, including at least five years of related management experience for their positions, and a bachelor’s degree. When the Jail Administrator is absent or if the position becomes vacant, a qualified deputy administrator with comparable education, training, and experience, must serve as acting Jail Administrator.
Partial Compliance The administrative realignment noted in the Eighth Monitoring Report resulted in a qualified Assistant Jail Administrator being returned to his former position. In addition, the Sheriff’s Order of March 20, 2019, specified that the Jail Administrator (Major) has full authority to manage the day-to-day operations of the Jail System. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Sheriff’s Order has had much practical impact. In at least one recent event, the Sheriff intervened in the personnel hearing process. The Major had recommended termination as a result of excessive use of force but the Sheriff advocated to the Personnel Committee for suspension instead of termination. The individual was ultimately terminated but this, once again, appeared to undermine the Major’s authority at the Jail. As has been noted previously, the Jail Administrator does not have the credentials required by this paragraph.
39. Ensure that all Jail supervisors have the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing needed to effectively supervise both prisoners and other staff members. At minimum, Jail supervisors must have at least 3 years of field experience, including experience working in the Jail. They must also be familiar with Jail policies and procedures, the terms of this Agreement, and prisoner rights.
Partial Compliance Until there are approved policies and procedures in place, the supervisors will not be able to become familiar with them. Since the last site visit the most significant supervisory change has
11

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 12 of 102
been the retirement of Captain Shields, who commanded the RDC. There is currently no one in line to fill that position, so the Assistant Jail Administrator is the acting RDC facility commander. There were no other promotions to supervisory positions. The most recent individuals promoted to supervisory positions were described in the Eighth Monitoring Report and it was noted that not all of the appointments met the specific education and/or experience requirements of this provision, but that the appointments appeared to be merit based in terms of job performance.
40. Ensure that no one works in the Jail unless they have passed a background check, including a criminal history check.
Substantial Compliance The most recent hires for the position of detention officer appear to be in compliance with this paragraph in that they successfully passed a criminal history check. Since that standard has been met on consecutive site visits, this paragraph is moved from Partial Compliance to Substantial Compliance.
41. Ensure that Jail policies and procedures provide for the “direct supervision” of all Jail housing units.
Non-Compliant There has been only nominal change in the status of this paragraph since the Eighth Monitoring Report. The Policies and Procedures Manual has yet to be published. While some policies (approximately 15) are under review and 3 adopted, the vast majority have yet to be addressed. Even when that is done, the physical design of the JDC, which is a linear facility, makes implementation of direct supervision there an impossibility. At the WC progress is being made to implement direct supervision. Once security enhancements are put in place at the fire exit doors of each housing unit (a camera and alarm system), it will be possible to eliminate the second officer from each unit. This represents a savings of 20.4 officers (4 posts times 5.1 officers per post).
Although there is insufficient staff at RDC to provide direct supervision, current practices exacerbate the lack of supervision of the housing units. During the current and prior site visits including the site visit with the Judge, it was frequently observed that there were multiple detention officers in the control rooms in addition to the officer assigned to Control. This is reflected in incident reports, e.g. IR #191139 in which 4 officers were in the control room in addition to the control room officer and IR #191429 which describes 5 officers sitting in the control room when an inmate left the housing unit and was standing by the control room door. At the time of the September site visit, this was attributed to officers completing their logs in the
12

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 13 of 102
control room. A solution was discussed that would involve the housing unit officers radioing their log entries for entry by the control room officer. In addition, officers would make entries on log forms outside any locked down cell. This may not be the complete solution but policies, procedures, training and supervision need to emphasize increased presence of the officers in the housing units.
The direct supervision Train the Trainers program that was put on by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) in July was well attended. From interviews of staff, it appears that the concepts of direct supervision were understood and well received. Since then, five officers have been identified who will serve as the core group of trainers for all Detention staff. That work will be undertaken during annual in-service training so that officers can obtain firsthand experience working in a direct supervision environment at the WC. Eventually, that will make it possible to open individual housing units at the RDC in a direct supervision mode, beginning with C Pod, as the renovations there are completed. A staffing plan involving rotation of officers between facilities so that this can be achieved is being developed and the current stated plan is not to reopen C Pod until they can operate it as a direct supervision pod.
42. Ensure that the Jail has sufficient staffing to adequately supervise prisoners, fulfill the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the safe operation of the Jail. The parties recognize that the Board allocates to the Sheriff lump sum funding on a quarterly basis. The Sheriff recognizes that sufficient staffing of the Jail should be a priority for utilizing those funds. To that end, the County must at minimum:
a. Hire and retain sufficient numbers of detention officers to ensure that: i. There are at least two detention officers in each control room at all times; ii. There are at least three detention officers at all times for each housing unit, booking area, and the medical unit;
iii. There are rovers to provide backup and assistance to other posts; iv. Prisoners have access to exercise, medical treatment, mental health
treatment, and attorney visitation as scheduled; v. There are sufficient detention officers to implement this Agreement. b. Fund and obtain a formal staffing and needs assessment (“study”) that determines with particularity the minimum number of staff and facility improvements required to implement this Agreement. As an alternative to a new study, the September 2014 study by the National Institute of Corrections may be updated if the updated study includes current information for the elements listed below. The study or study update must be completed within six months of the Effective Date and must include the following elements: i. The staffing element of the study must identify all required posts and
positions, as well as the minimum number and qualifications of staff to cover each post and position.
13

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 14 of 102
ii. The study must ensure that the total number of recommended positions includes a “relief factor” so that necessary posts remain covered regardless of staff vacancies, turnover, vacations, illness, holidays, or other temporary factors impacting day-to-day staffing.
iii. As part of any needs assessment, the study’s authors must estimate the number of prisoners expected to be held in the Jail and identify whether additional facilities, including housing, may be required.
c. Once completed, the County must provide the United States and the Monitor with a copy of the study and a plan for implementation of the study’s recommendations. Within one year after the Monitor’s and United States’ review of the study and plan, the County must fund and implement the staffing and facility improvements recommended by the study, as modified and approved by the United States.
d. The staffing study shall be updated at least annually and staffing adjusted accordingly to ensure continued compliance with this Agreement. The parties recognize that salaries are an important factor to recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, so the County will also annually evaluate salaries.
e. The County will also create, to the extent possible, a career ladder and system of retention bonuses for Jail staff.
Non-Compliant Since the Eighth Monitoring Report was submitted, the number of filled positions has dropped to a new low of 218. This means that only 50% of the required ((433) per the staffing analysis of the facilities at capacity) positions are filled. Even with one Pod at RDC closed the level of staffing is significantly deficient. The total number of staff needed for the three facilities is 399 making the current staffing rate 55%. The closure of one pod at the RDC means that only 246 positions are required. However, RDC is operating with only 113 filled positions, 133 less than needed. That is a staffing rate of 46%. Over the past two and a half years the County’s goal has never been met; in fact, the number of filled positions has not gone up; rather, it has gone down.
The WC and JDC are both understaffed, but they function fairly effectively because, at the JDC, the count (115) is well below the number of authorized beds (192), while at the WC, officers who used to supervise outside work crews are now available to fill required housing posts. This was made possible by the HCSO’s decision to return State prisoners to the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) shortly after the monitoring process began.
At the RDC there are not enough officers available to operate the facility effectively, even with remote supervision for outside the housing units, in spite of the fact that one third of the jail is shut down for repairs (C Pod has been closed for several months; only A and B Pods are open). There are certainly not enough officers to implement direct supervision (where an officer is
14

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 15 of 102
assigned permanently inside each housing unit) as C Pod is repaired and put back on line. The lack of staff, coupled with locks and doors that do not function properly or cannot be secured, led to a riot in A Pod on April 19, 2019, that was followed by three more riots in A Pod in late June and contributes to ongoing assaults of inmates, safety threats to staff and proliferation of contraband.
The Staffing Analysis that was completed by the County/HCSO and Monitor has not been updated annually as is required, nor has the County addressed the issues of a career ladder or a retention bonus system for Jail staff that were submitted by the HCSO. The County did, however, approve a $100 per month pay increase for all detention officers (excluding supervisors) effective January 1, 2020. As noted in the last report, the County has hired additional detention officers; however, it has lost an even greater number of officers. The Monitor has recommended and is facilitating consultation with a corrections recruitment and retention consultant. With the assistance of this consultant, the County and the Sheriff’s Office will work on some of the previous recommendations such as the development of a recruitment plan.
f. Develop and implement an objective and validated classification and housing assignment procedure that is based on risk assessment rather than solely on a prisoner’s charge. Prisoners must be classified immediately after booking, and then housed based on the classification assessment. At minimum, a prisoner’s bunk, cell, unit, and facility assignments must be based on his or her objective classification assessment, and staff members may not transfer or move prisoners into a housing area if doing so would violate classification principles (e.g., placing juveniles with adults, victims with former assailants, and minimum security prisoners in a maximum security unit). Additionally, the classification and housing assignment process must include the following elements: i. The classification process must be handled by qualified staff who have additional training and experience on classification. ii. The classification system must take into account objective risk factors including a prisoner’s prior institutional history, history of violence, charges, special needs, physical size or vulnerabilities, gang affiliation, and reported enemies. iii. Prisoner housing assignments must not be changed by unit staff without proper supervisor and classification staff approval. iv. The classification system must track the location of all prisoners in the Jail and help ensure that prisoners can be readily located by staff. The County may continue to use wrist bands to help identify prisoners, but personal identification on individual prisoners may not substitute for a staff-
15

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 16 of 102
controlled and centralized prisoner tracking and housing assignment system. v. The classification system must be integrated with the Jail prisoner record system, so that staff have appropriate access to information necessary to provide proper supervision, including the current housing assignment of every prisoner in the Jail. vi. The designation and use of housing units as “gang pods” must be phased out under the terms of this Agreement. Placing prisoners together because of gang affiliation alone is prohibited. The County must replace current gang-based housing assignments with a more appropriate objective classification and housing process within one year after the Effective Date.
Partial Compliance The changes in the Classification Unit’s management, reported in the Eighth Monitoring Report, have resulted in a return to “behavior based” as the foundation for classification decisions. Accordingly, this paragraph has been moved from Non-Compliant to Partial Compliance. The Sergeant now overseeing classification has reviewed most of the files of active inmates and all files are reviewed at 90-day intervals which will result in a review of all files. A review of eleven files found that none of them had the previously routine override based on current charge which had resulted in the system not being “behavior based.” However, there continue to be some errors and systemic concerns. One such systemic concern is that the Classification Officer does not have access to the NCIC report on prior arrests (the “rap sheet”) in preparing the risk assessment. Booking runs the NCIC report that is limited to outstanding warrants and puts that in the file. The only source for prior arrests that Classification has is the JMS system which includes only bookings in Hinds County. One individual stated that he was previously convicted of aggravated robbery. This was not in the JMS system so wasn’t scored. Also, involving the JMS system, one case had a different charge in the JMS system from the booking packet which would have significantly changed the classification level. There were a number of files where documents were missing or errors occurred, but, in general, the files were improved and indicated behavior-based classification.
Accurately scoring the risk assessment is an important step, however, it is also essential that the scores then be used to house inmates appropriately. Despite requests, there has never been a clear articulation of how inmates are assigned to the three facilities. The WC being a dormitory style facility would be expected to serve mostly minimum level inmates. The custody level as reflected on a report run shortly before the site visit shows that there were 129 minimum custody inmates, 25 medium, 6 medium high and 17 maximum security inmates. There was no indication of an override on the higher custody inmates. This is an issue that should be addressed in the developing policies and procedures.
16

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 17 of 102
According to the Sergeant in charge of the unit, there is a classification officer on duty almost 24/7. There is a short gap from 3:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. on weekends. The Intake/Classification housing unit, currently B-1, no longer houses just newly arrested detainees. Because C Pod is closed for renovation, space is at a premium; therefore, new detainees and other inmates are mixed in B-1.
While cell assignments and inmate transfers are supposed to be cleared through Classification, there is no policy in place that requires that action, consequently, supervisors sometimes make such transfers on their own. This practice, however, appears to occur infrequently. Finally, while the decision to end housing according to gang affiliation was made early on by the Jail Administrator, the lack of supervision within the housing units at the RDC makes it impossible to stop physical conflict from developing between competing groups of gang members even when gang affiliation is considered in the classification process.
g. Develop and implement positive approaches for promoting safety within the Jail including: i. Providing all prisoners with at least 5 hours of outdoor recreation per week; ii. Developing rewards and incentives for good behavior such as additional commissary, activities, or privileges; iii. Creating work opportunities, including the possibility of paid employment; iv. Providing individual or group treatment for prisoners with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other behavioral or medical conditions, who would benefit from therapeutic activities; v. Providing education, including special education, for youth, as well as all programs, supports, and services required for youth by federal law; vi. Screening prisoners for serious mental illness as part of the Jail’s booking and health assessment process, and then providing such prisoners with appropriate treatment and therapeutic housing; vii. Providing reasonable opportunities for visitation.
h. Ensure that policies, procedures, and practices provide for higher levels of supervision for individual prisoners if necessary due to a prisoner’s individual circumstances. Examples of such higher level supervision include (a) constant observation (i.e., continuous, uninterrupted one-on-one monitoring) for actively suicidal prisoners (i.e., prisoners threatening or who recently engaged in suicidal behavior); (b) higher frequency security checks for prisoners locked down in maximum security units, medical observation units, and administrative segregation units; and (c) more frequent staff interaction with youth as part of their education, treatment and behavioral management programs.
17

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 18 of 102
i. Continue to update, maintain, and expand use of video surveillance and recording cameras to improve coverage throughout the Jail, including the booking area, housing units, medical and mental health units, special management housing, facility perimeters, and in common areas.
Partial Compliance Regarding 42 (g) (i), five hours of outdoor recreation per week is still not provided to all inmates in the Jail System. The WC is the only facility that is in compliance. A separate log tracks the availability of outdoor recreation there on a daily basis. At the RDC a recreation log is now maintained, but it still reflects only sporadic and incomplete entries. Compliance will require far more staff and a better record keeping system. At the JDC compliance is not possible because the facility does not have an outdoor recreation yard. While the facility commander has implemented a number of innovative means for increasing out of cell recreation time, none can comply with this requirement of the Settlement Agreement.
Regarding 42 (g)(ii) and (iii), there is no incentive program. There are work opportunities at the WC but not paid employment and the only opportunities at JDC and RDC are working as trusties.
Regarding 42 (g)(iv), At the time of this site visit, there were a total of 183 prisoners on the mental health caseload; 146 prisoners were receiving psychotropic medication; and 131 prisoners were defined as ‘seriously mentally ill’, employing the most narrow definition of ‘seriously mentally ill’ (i.e., prisoners with psychotic disorders and/or major mood disorders).
Except for two prisoners who have to date refused treatment, prisoners on the mental health caseload are receiving individual treatment sessions, albeit not always as frequently as might be indicated. Presently, there is only one mental health therapy group that is up and running; given the limited number of mental health staff persons, that is all that can be offered at this time; and so, access to group therapy remains extremely limited.
The mental health staff consists of one full-time QMHP/Mental Health Coordinator, another fulltime QMHP, a part-time psychologist, and a part-time Psychiatric Nurse Clinician (supported by a psychiatrist). In addition to providing individual treatment sessions for the 183 prisoners on the mental health case load, housed at three different facilities, and the one group therapy program, the two QMHPs perform mental health assessments of new prisoners referred to mental health, develop treatment plans for all prisoners on the mental health caseload and discharge plans when appropriate, perform assessments, manage mental health emergencies (assessing suicidal prisoners/suicide watch, crisis management, etc.), provide any assessments and treatment required for PREA-involved prisoners, perform weekly rounds for all prisoners held in segregation, and maintain all records and logs. As all of the security policies and procedures
18

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 19 of 102
required to comply with all provisions of the agreement are developed and implemented, the two QMHPs will have numerous additional responsibilities related to the disciplinary process, segregation review, and security uses of force. In addition, a review of incident reports indicates that mental health should be more engaged in the incident-reporting and review process (see section on Incident Reporting). Obviously, two QMHPs cannot adequately assume all of these responsibilities.
QCHC (the contract provider for health and mental health services) has asked to expand their contract in order to hire another QMHP and a counselor who would also assume certain clerical and record keeping duties now assumed by the Mental Health Coordinator; this additional staff would allow for the much needed further development of the group therapy program; but to date, the County has not responded to QCHC’s request. The much needed expansion of the group therapy program would include, for example, the development of groups focused on psychoeducation (regarding one’s mental illness, need for treatment and one’s responsibility to actively participate in one’s treatment), medication/medication compliance, discharge planning, daily living skills, relationship management, and trauma/trauma-related issues.
Furthermore, the additional mental health staff requested by QCHC will be required in order for the mental health unit to have the capacity to assume the other above noted anticipated additional responsibilities, and also required if the facility is to open a special needs/mental health unit.
Providing medication is a necessary part of treatment. The adequacy of providing medications has recently diminished because of newly adopted procedural barriers which were well intended but problematic. At the time of the previous site visit, the Mental Health member of the monitoring team expressed concern about the fact that the nursing staff had reported multiple incidences of harassment by prisoners during medication pass and stated that therefore, they did not feel that all security staff assigned to supervise medication pass were consistently protecting them. It was anticipated that the response to this expressed concern would be that security administration would make it clear to security staff that when assigned to supervise medication pass they had three responsibilities – gather all inmates who were on medication, assure that each inmate actually consumed the medication, and protect the nurses who were doing the medication pass. However instead, the location of the medication pass was changed; the nurses now pass medication through a window removed from the unit; and now therefore, during medication pass, the nurses are unable to see what is happening on each unit. This change is particularly of concern when it comes to prisoners who reportedly refuse medication; such prisoners are not being called out to the window so as to sign a medication refusal form, and so even if a signed refusal form is brought to the nurse, the nurse cannot confirm that it was actually signed by the prisoner; and most importantly, since the nurse can’t see the prisoner, the nurse cannot observe whether or not the prisoner is deteriorating due to the fact that he/she is not taking prescribed medication. The impact of this change in the medication pass procedure is all the more alarming when one reviews the data kept by the medical department on medication refusals. In the
19

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 20 of 102
months prior to this change in how/where medications were passed, refusal numbers ranged from 3/month to a high of 10/month, but during the month of September/after the change was made, the refusal number was 146.
Although the change was well intended, it has had a significant negative impact. Security staff should reconsider the location and the procedure for medication pass understanding that it is important for nurses to actually see and interact with a prisoner even if the prisoner refuses to accept prescribed medication
A recent incident also raises the concern for adequate overnight medical coverage at the WC. If there is a medical emergency there at night, it must await the transport of the nurse from RDC to the WC; she must bring an emergency kit with her because the medical office at the WC is all locked up for the night; and then she will likely have to transport the prisoner back to RDC. All of this can be a waste of time in a medical emergency where time is of the essence, which was evidenced in a recent situation where a prisoner at the WC had a stroke in the early morning hours. This individual survived, but time is of the essence when responding to a stroke and the delay inherent in this staffing of the WC has the potential for negative outcomes.
Regarding 42 (g)(v), there has been significant expansion of educational and life skills programming. The programming includes GED instruction, anger management, computer skills, reading, recovery groups, mental health groups, finance class, job skills, and fatherhood groups. There is some 1on 1 support for individuals needing a remedial level of critical thinking training. They have close to 20 volunteers. The GED program has served 258 students in the last 15 months. There are several barriers to the program including the lack of a classroom at JDC where they can only use the visitation room one day a week and evenings. Currently, the program cannot do the GED testing so individuals cannot actually get their GED even though they may be ready.
Regarding 42 (g)(vi), During the Jail’s booking process, new admissions complete a mental health history form; this is forwarded to the medical department; and this form helps to flag new admissions who might be in need of mental health services. During the initial nurses’ health assessment process, the nurses also screen for mental health difficulties, and the majority of prisoners on the mental health caseload were first identified and referred to mental health during that initial screening process. It should be noted however that over a third of the prisoners on the mental health caseload were not identified during the booking process or the initial health assessment process, but were later identified by the mental health team, and several prisoners who were not previously identified self-referred for mental health services. Referral of prisoners to mental health by security staff continues to be unexpectedly rare (see section 45-f, and the sections on Incident Reporting, Disciplinary Review, Segregation Review and Use of Force). Therefore, there continues to be concern about the ability of medical and security staff to identify prisoners who are in need of mental health services.
20

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 21 of 102
With regard to initial mental health assessments (performed by the mental health team when a prisoner is referred to mental health), over the last year there has been considerable improvement with regard to the timeliness of these assessments. More specifically, during the period covered by this site visit, there were 10 prisoners referred to mental health for whom it took more than 3 days for them to be seen/assessed by mental health, while during this same period in 2018, there were 20 prisoners referred to mental health for whom it took more than 3 days for them to be seen/assessed by mental health. However, despite staff shortages, mental health staff must continue to strive to see/assess all prisoners referred to them within 3 days.
Therapeutic housing is not available at this time. Prior to the closure of C Pod, individuals with mental illness were typically placed in one particular housing unit in that pod. However, there were no enhanced services on that unit or specially trained officers. As such it was not a therapeutic housing unit. Currently, with the closure of C Pod, individuals with mental illness are housed in various locations which clearly does not allow for a therapeutic housing unit. As a result of the lack of therapeutic housing, inmates with mental illness at times exhibit behavioral problems and are placed in segregation housing where they can further decompensate. The magnitude of this problem is described in Paragraph 76 and 77. There is some discussion of the creation of a mental health unit in the renovated C Pod. The physical requirements would be minimal. However, as stated previously, in order to provide the therapeutic activities of a mental health unit and as required by this Settlement Agreement, two additional mental health professionals are needed.
Regarding 42 (g) (vii), Representative visitation records provided to the monitoring team for this reporting period were incomplete. The partial data that was available reflected a significant drop in visitation activity at the WC and RDC. Detailed records covering the months of October through December 2019, will be analyzed in the Tenth Monitoring Report.
Regarding 42 (h), As has been previously noted, various staff are responsible for the higher levels of supervision required for prisoners who are on suicide watch and other special medical or mental health observation. Security staff are responsible for the more constant observation and supervision of prisoners on suicide watch, and the level of suicide watch ordered by mental health defines the extent of that supervision. However, the extent to which security staff fulfill this responsibility remains unclear, given that there are times that the monitors have observed prisoners on suicide watch without any security staff observing them and given the inadequacy of security logs that would document such supervision. Although there is no policy that covers this situation, male inmates under suicide watch at the RDC are supposed to be monitored continuously (constant supervision) by security staff, with 15-minute notations. While that standard is sometimes maintained, on several occasions the suicide watch isolation unit has been found to be either not staffed, or staffed by a part time officer who is responsible for other duties
21

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 22 of 102
beyond his/her primary function. At the JDC, female inmates on suicide watch are observed every fifteen minutes, not constantly.
Prisoners on suicide watch are seen daily by both mental health staff and medical staff, including on weekends (as has been previously noted, mental health staff have assumed the additional responsibility of taking weekend call on a rotating basis, which has included coming into the facility to see prisoners on suicide watch and assess any new mental health emergencies).
Prisoners on special medical observation are seen daily by medical staff. At present, there is no special mental health observation for acutely ill prisoners; most acutely ill prisoners are being held in segregation; but it is anticipated that if/when a mental health unit is established, a part of the function of that unit would be to provide a higher level of supervision by mental health, medical and security staff, as well as more appropriate therapeutic intervention for such acutely mentally ill prisoners.
Regarding 42 (i), video surveillance capabilities have not changed since the first site visit. At the RDC cameras in the corridors and housing units are recorded, so incidents can be reviewed after the fact. At the WC live action cameras allow visual coverage of the hallways and housing units, but they are not recorded, so there is no way that incidents can be reviewed after the fact. At the JDC, there are cameras that cover and record the hallways and the drive through sally port/transfer waiting area, but there is no coverage inside the housing units. In every previous Monitoring Report it has been suggested that action be taken to provide full recording capability for all housing and operational areas of each facility. To date nothing has been done, nor has a plan of action been submitted.
While the IAD and CID investigator now have access to the video recording system so that they can quickly view incidents, they still cannot obtain copies of them without having to go through a request process with Information Technology. It is imperative that these investigators be granted immediate access to both view and record copies of previously recorded incidents.
43. Include outcome measures as part of the Jail’s internal data collection, management, and administrative reporting process. The occurrence of any of the following specific outcome measures creates a rebuttable presumption in this case that the Jail fails to provide reasonably safe conditions for prisoners:
a. Staff vacancy rate of more than 10% of budgeted positions; b. A voluntary staff turnover rate that results in the failure to staff critical posts (such
as the housing units, booking, and classification) or the failure to maintain experienced supervisors on all shifts; c. A major disturbance resulting in the takeover of any housing area by prisoners;
22

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 23 of 102
d. Staffing where fewer than 90% of all detention officers have completed basic jailer training;
e. Three or more use of force or prisoner-on-prisoner incidents in a fiscal year in which a prisoner suffers a serious injury, but for which staff members fail to complete all documentation required by this Agreement, including supervision recommendations and findings;
f. One prisoner death within a fiscal year, where there is no documented administrative review by the Jail Administrator or no documented mortality review by a physician not directly involved in the clinical treatment of the deceased prisoner (e.g. corporate medical director or outside, contract physician, when facility medical director may have a personal conflict);
g. One death within a fiscal year, where the death was a result of prisoner-onprisoner violence and there was a violation of Jail supervision, housing assignment, or classification procedures.
Non-Compliant While the HCSO still does not create a report covering each of these areas, a review of specific data reveals that the agency is not in compliance with almost every aspect of this paragraph. With only 218 of the 271 funded positions filled as of the September site visit, the DSD has a vacancy rate of 20% of funded positions, well above the 10% threshold. (As previously noted, the vacancy rate of needed positions is 55%). Consequently, the DSD is unable to staff required posts, particularly at the RDC.
In June 2019, that facility experienced three riots in A Pod where staff lost control of the majority of the housing units and almost ceded the pod control room as well. The situation was so critical that staff even planned on retreating to the control room’s bathroom in the event that the inmates were able to breach the control room entry door. Incident Reports 191145, 191148 and 191162 provide a synopsis of the situation as it evolved over time. Inmates “masked up” so that they could not be identified on video recordings. They threatened to stab officers with shanks and they took their keys. While the incident reports do not reflect it, subsequent investigation revealed that at least one officer provided his keys to the inmates.
During the past year there have been numerous incidents reported where inmates were assaulted and injured some very seriously. However, the severity of the injuries, the involvement of staff, or other significant details have not always been reported and have come to the attention of the Monitor only as a result of media coverage or a lawsuit filed on behalf of the victim. The case of inmate Landon Veal is indicative of this point. On September 18, 2018, he was assaulted in the RDC and so brutally beaten by a number of inmates that he is no longer able to function independently. When officers responded to the scene, they questioned other inmates, but left the victim lying on the floor and failed to provide any first aid or assistance before leaving the
23

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 24 of 102
housing unit. A video recording of the incident was released to the media by the inmate’s attorney in October 2019. The video recording and allegations of the lawsuit disclose a much more serious and troubling event than could be gleaned from the jail reporting.
In December 2018, an inmate was beaten to death in the RDC, Housing Unit B-3. Although three inmates were charged with murder in January 2019, there has been no Administrative Review or Morality Review conducted to date. The investigative report identifies five other inmates who were involved in the incident, but it does not appear that they have been charged. While it makes no findings with regard to the actions of staff, the matter has not been referred to the IAD Investigator for review.
44. To complement, but not replace, “direct supervision,” develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that detention officers are conducting rounds as appropriate. To that end:
a. Rounds must be conducted at least once every 30 minutes in general population housing units and at least once every 15 minutes for special management prisoners (including prisoners housed in booking cells).
b. All security rounds must be conducted at irregular intervals to reduce their predictability and must be documented on forms or logs.
c. Officers must only be permitted to enter data on these forms or logs at the time a round is completed. Forms and logs must not include pre-printed dates or times. Officers must not be permitted to fill out forms and logs before they actually conduct their rounds.
d. The parties anticipate that “rounds” will not necessarily be conducted as otherwise described in this provision when the Jail is operated as a “direct supervision” facility. This is because a detention officer will have constant, active supervision of all prisoners in the detention officer’s charge. As detailed immediately below, however, even under a “direct supervision” model, the Jail must have a system in place to document and ensure that staff are providing adequate supervision.
e. Jail policies, procedures, and practices may utilize more than one means to document and ensure that staff are supervising prisoners as required by “direct supervision,” including the use and audit of supervisor inspection reports, visitation records, mealtime records, inmate worker sheets, medical treatment files, sick call logs, canteen delivery records, and recreation logs. Any system adopted to ensure that detention officers are providing “direct supervision” must be sufficiently detailed and in writing to allow verification by outside reviewers, including the United States and Monitor.
Partial Compliance
24

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 25 of 102
As has been reported previously, none of the facilities meet the requirement that well-being checks be conducted every 30 minutes on general population inmates, however, progress has been made towards compliance. At the JDC and WC, well-being checks are routinely conducted and documented on an hourly basis. Further, at those facilities, 30-minute well-being checks are maintained on inmates held in confinement housing cells (although the Settlement Agreement calls for 15-minute well-being checks for those inmates). At the RDC, even the hourly standard for general population and 30-minute standard for confinement inmates is not met consistently.
Officers at the RDC spend a great deal of time inside their respective control rooms filling out unit logs and individual inmate logs instead of actually doing the required checks. In essence, the pod control rooms are used as break rooms for the officers. In order to correct this problem, the Monitor, Corrections Operations member of the monitoring team and command staff from the DSD and RDC met during the most recent site visit in order to work out a better system of well-being check documentation that actually reflects what occurs. It was decided that detention officers will be restricted from entering the pod control rooms, except to use bathroom facilities, and that they would spend all of their time inside housing units conducting well-being checks, dealing directly with inmates, assisting with laundry, medical, food service and other staff in conducting routine operational business. Officers will call in their well-being checks by radio to the pod control room officer(s) who will make the entries in the pod control log. In addition, the housing unit officer will make entries on logs posted by the door of any locked down inmate. Once direct supervision is reinstituted, the unit logs will be used again and be located within the housing units.
In Booking, the correct 15-minute well-being check form was found to be in place for the second consecutive site visit. Each log was current and no inmates were detained in the multiple occupancy holding cells for more than eight hours. The only discrepancy noted was that a single cell had been reactivated to house a problematic inmate. This misuse of a holding cell (for housing—over eight hours) represents a violation of previously adopted standards.
45. Ensure that all correctional officers receive adequate pre- and post-service training to provide for reasonably safe conditions in the Jail. To that end, the County must ensure that the Jail employs Qualified Training Officers, who must help to develop and implement a formal, written training program. The program must include the following:
a. Mandatory pre-service training. Detention officers must receive State jailer training and certification prior to start of work. Staff who have not received such training by the Effective Date of this Agreement must complete their State jailer training within twelve months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. During that twelve month period, the County must develop an in-house detention training academy.
25

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 26 of 102
b. Post Order training. Detention officers must receive specific training on unitspecific post orders before starting work on a unit, and every year thereafter. To document such training, officers must be required to sign an acknowledgement that they have received such training, but only after an officer is first assigned to a unit, after a Post Order is updated, and after completion of annual retraining.
c. “Direct supervision” training. Detention officers must receive specific pre- and post service training on “direct supervision.” Such training must include instruction on how to supervise prisoners in a “direct supervision” facility, including instruction in effective communication skills and verbal de-escalation. Supervisors must receive training on how to monitor and ensure that staff are providing effective “direct supervision.”
d. Jail administrator training. High-level Jail supervisors (i.e., supervisors with facility-wide management responsibilities), including the Jail Administrator and his or her immediate deputies (wardens), must receive jail administrator training prior to the start of their employment. High-level supervisors already employed at the Jail when this Agreement is executed must complete such training within six months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Training comparable to the Jail Administration curriculum offered by the National Institute of Corrections will meet the requirements of this provision.
e. Post-service training. Detention officers must receive at least 120 hours per year of post-service training in their first year of employment and 40 hours per year after their first year. Such training must include refresher training on Jail policies. The training may be provided during roll call, staff meetings, and post-assignment meetings. Post-service training should also include field and scenario-based training.
f. Training for Critical Posts. Jail management must work with the training department to develop a training syllabus and minimum additional training requirements for any officer serving in a critical position. Such additional training must be provided for any officer working on a tactical team; in a special management, medical or mental health unit; in a maximum security unit; or in booking and release.
g. Special management unit training. Officers assigned to special management units must receive at least eight hours of specialized training each year regarding supervision of such units and related prisoner safety, medical, mental health, and security policies.
h. Training on all Jail policies and procedures including those regarding prisoner rights and the prevention of staff abuse and misconduct.
Partial Compliance
26

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 27 of 102
Based on the actions taken to implement training requirements, this paragraph is moved from Non-Compliant to Partial Compliance. As was noted in the Eighth Monitoring Report, a qualified detention officer was promoted to the Detention Training Lieutenant’s position. Since then the HCSO has completed the second phase of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Train the Trainers program (in direct supervision) in July. The annual in-service training program will now concentrate on direct supervision training for all officers with priority given to WC staff so that direct supervision can be completely implemented there, followed by C Pod at the RDC as it is reopened after renovation.
The Training Director (Captain Miller) provided an updated written synopsis of training completed as follows—
 Mandatory Pre-Service Training—219 of 220 (since this was reported, the number of detention officers has dropped to 218).
 Post Order Training—All officers have received training on the existing (not approved) post orders. Training will be conducted on the new post orders once they have been written and approved.
 Direct Supervision Training—Training was conducted on March 26-28, 2019, for leadership personnel. Train the Trainers for Direct Supervision was conducted on July 15-19, 2019, for staff who will assist in implementing direct supervision.
 Jail Administrator Training—This has not yet been provided for the Assistant Jail Administrator.
 In Service Training—190 of 210 officers have attended in service training since January 2019. A new round of in-service training will commence on October 23, 2019.
 Training for Critical Posts—Less than Lethal and Use of Force training was provided for Corrections Emergency Response Team (CERT) members. In service training was provided for Booking and Classification personnel.
 Special Management Unit Training—Officers have not yet received training for Special Management Units; however, officers have received an eight-hour block of instruction on Mental Health and First Aid for Public Safety.
 Policy and Procedures, to include prisoner rights and the prevention of staff abuse and misconduct—No compliant training has been conducted to date. Training will be conducted once the Policies and Procedures Manual has been approved and issued.
Presently, although there are security staff assigned to the medical/mental health exam and office areas of the facility, there are no medical or mental health units, and so prisoners with special medical needs and/or mental health difficulties are housed throughout the facility. Furthermore, even if/when a mental health unit is established, it will not be big enough to house all of the prisoners on the mental health caseload, and so there will still be prisoners who are suffering from mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities housed in general population. Therefore, with regard to this provision of the agreement, it is important to consider the mental health training
27

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 28 of 102
provided to all security staff, as well as the need for additional training that might be provided to security staff assigned to any special needs/mental health unit that might be eventually established.
Although the corrections training on ‘special needs inmates’ is generally quite good, there are several concerns that merit review. The first concern is with regard to the identification of prisoners with special needs, especially those who are suffering from mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities. There is considerable discussion in the training program about the various levels of assessment performed at the facility as if the findings of those assessments will help security staff identify mentally ill prisoners; but security staff doesn’t have access to medical records which would provide the findings of those assessments; and so security staff must rely more heavily on their capacity to recognize the signs and symptoms of illness. Therefore, although signs and symptoms of mental illness are listed in the training materials, this area of the training should be expanded in order to help staff actually visualize those signs and symptoms by employing videos, etc.
A second area of concern is with regard to some of the recommendations made (or not made) for security staff intervention. For example, in the section on suicide prevention there is a section on making a ‘non-suicide agreement’ with a prisoner who might be having suicidal thoughts. There is some concern about the capacity of all security officers to do this, and the appropriateness of security officers doing this, especially in the absence of assistance from mental health. For example, the section on suicide prevention also includes a list of risk factors for prisoners who are at especially high risk of becoming suicidal, but there is no clear instruction about what a security officer should do when faced with such a prisoner. Therefore, specific recommendations made in the training program should be reviewed.
The third area of concern is with regard to whether or not the information contained in the training will be consistent with the security policies and procedures that are currently being developed. In this regard, there are obvious areas of concern such as the part of the training that deals with administrative segregation, but there are also less obvious areas of concern such as the part of the training that deals with alcohol and other drug detoxification. Therefore, as new policies and procedures are finalized, the training program will have to be adjusted to conform to the new policies and procedures.
If/when a special needs/mental health unit is established, security staff assigned to that unit will require additional training. This is because they will be dealing with the most seriously ill prisoners; their interaction with such prisoners will be more ongoing and more intense; and it is anticipated that they will be working in a more coordinated/collaborative way with mental health staff. In essence, this additional training should include much more about the signs and symptoms of mental health and intellectual disability; the impact of the various mental illnesses
28

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 29 of 102
and intellectual disability on an individual’s ability to function; and approaches to the management of prisoners with mental illness and/or intellectual disability that can dovetail with the therapeutic services being provided, thereby creating an overall and consistently run therapeutic environment.
46. Develop and implement policies and procedures for adequate supervisory oversight for the Jail. To that end, the County must:
a. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the authority to make personnel decisions necessary to ensure adequate staffing, staff discipline, and staff oversight. This personnel authority must include the power to hire, transfer, and discipline staff. Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) allocated for budget purposes represent a salaried slot and are not a restriction on personnel assignment authority. While the Sheriff may retain final authority for personnel decisions, the Jail’s policies and procedures must document and clearly identify who is responsible for a personnel decision, what administrative procedures apply, and the basis for personnel decisions.
b. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the ability to monitor, ensure compliance with Jail policies, and take corrective action, for any staff members operating in the Jail, including any who are not already reporting to the Jail Administrator and the Jail’s chain of command. This provision covers road deputies assigned to supervise housing units and emergency response/tactical teams entering the Jail to conduct random shakedowns or to suppress prisoner disturbances.
c. Ensure that supervisors conduct daily rounds on each shift in the prisoner housing units, and document the results of their rounds.
d. Ensure that staff conduct daily inspections of all housing and common areas to identify damage to the physical plant, safety violations, and sanitation issues. This maintenance program must include the following elements: i. Facility safety inspections that include identification of damaged doors, locks, cameras, and safety equipment. ii. An inspection process. iii. A schedule for the routine inspection, repair, and replacement of the physical plant, including security and safety equipment. iv. A requirement that any corrective action ordered be taken. v. Identification of high priority repairs to assist Jail and County officials with allocating staff and resources. vi. To ensure prompt corrective action, a mechanism for identifying and notifying responsible staff and supervisors when there are significant delays with repairs or a pattern of problems with equipment. Staff
29

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 30 of 102
response to physical plant, safety, and sanitation problems must be reasonable and prompt.
Non-Compliant Compliance with the provisions of this paragraph cannot be realistically achieved until the Policies and Procedures Manual is approved and issued. Priority needs to be given to the development of comprehensive policies and procedures as well as post orders.
As was noted in the Eighth Monitoring Report, on March 19, 2019, the Sheriff issued Special Order 2019-054, which specifically designated “…Major Mary Rushing as his designee to execute all duties and responsibilities relating to Detention Services…”. While that is consistent with the expectations outlined in the Settlement Agreement, in practical terms the order has made little difference in the day-to-day operation of the Jail System. Both the Jail Administrator and Assistant Jail Administrator are still unable to make routine personnel decisions without the approval of the Sheriff. These include such basic matters as the enforcement of individual uniform grooming standards as well as more serious matters such as the termination of an officer for use of excessive force discussed above. It must be acknowledged, however, that there have been no unauthorized shakedowns of DSD facilities by law enforcement deputies or Mississippi Department of Corrections personnel since the Special Order was issued.
Lack of supervisory responsibility and accountability continues to be a significant problem at the RDC. While each jail operates with inadequate and unapproved (by DOJ and the Monitor) policies and procedures as well as post orders, the inconsistency of operation is greater at the RDC than at the JDC and WC. When procedures at the RDC are set in place, actual practice tends to deviate over time because supervisors do not ensure consistent compliance or because they allow modification for undetermined reasons.
Supervisors are also supposed to make documented daily rounds of the housing units to ensure that inmates are properly managed and to identify maintenance issues that must be resolved. While supervisors fairly routinely document the fact that they have made rounds in the pod or unit logs (either personally or by the pod/unit officer’s entry) maintenance issues are not documented. This may be because they are so prevalent that the repeated documentation of them on each shift would be a redundant exercise in futility.
One year ago, during the September 2018, site visit, reference was made to the Maintenance Report, prepared by Mr. Bell, the Maintenance Director for the County. At that time, it was anticipated that copies of this spreadsheet would be made available to each facility captain so that they could track the status of requested maintenance projects as well as the monitor team. During the site visit in January 2019, and again in May 2019, it was determined that the facility captains and the Jail Administrator still did not receive copies of the Maintenance Report.
30

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 31 of 102
Neither had the monitoring team received the spread sheet. In the Eighth Monitoring Report the failure of the County and DSD to address this issue was highlighted. Now, a full year after this matter came to light, the facility captains, Jail Administrator and even the (newly created) Chief of Maintenance, Security and Sanitation for the DSD still do not routinely receive the Maintenance Report. During the September site visit the Chief of Maintenance had to request a copy from the County so that it could be provided to the facility captains and the Corrections Operations member of the monitoring team. The monitoring team finally received a copy of the spreadsheet from the County Manager after the site visit. As is clear from many sections of this report, the physical condition of the RDC facility is a key problem and the ability of both the jail staff and the monitoring team to track repairs and renovations is critical. There continues to be a lack of communication and cooperation between the County and the HCSO/DSD over this matter.
During the January site visit, the shortage of keys to the housing units and cells at the RDC was pointed out and a solution (the assignment of a set of keys to each on duty officer) was offered, but the May site visit revealed that the problem had not been corrected. During the September site visit, key sets were found in the pod control rooms, but they are not assigned to officers. What began as a simple solution has been complicated by the fact that the control room officers in A and B Pods cannot electronically open and close doors, so it is impractical to give an officer a complete set of keys. If he/she were to be overpowered by inmates they would be able to access all security doors. Although this presents an unacceptable security risk, that security risk actually occurs on a daily basis as a result of other adjustments made to address the lack of electronically operated doors. When an officer takes a key set from the control room and enters a housing unit, he/she leaves both doors open. That is because it takes another officer, with a separate set of keys, to enter the unit to provide assistance if each door is secured after it is opened. Until the electronic control panels in A and B Pods are replaced, it will impossible for security to be maintained, even if each officer has a set of keys.
Another key related security problem recently came to light when inmates took a recreation yard key from an officer (see Incident Report 191145). Because each recreation yard door is not fitted with a unique lock, the inmates were able to gain access to the adjacent housing unit through the connecting recreation yard. This security issue should be addressed by the firm that is retained by the County to upgrade doors and locks at the RDC.
During the September site visit, the Monitor and Corrections Operations member of the monitoring team met with the Jail Administrator, Assistant Jail Administrator and a lieutenant (shift commander) at the RDC to review well-being check and log entry documentation procedures. At the WC and JDC officers perform their duties and enter the appropriate information in unit/control room logs as required, but the same is not the case at the RDC. There the control rooms serve as place for officers to spend time and fill out entries in the housing unit
31

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 32 of 102
log books which, because the log books are not actually in the housing units are not verifiable in the sense that the entry does not itself prove the officer’s presence in the unit. Rather than spending their time inspecting conditions inside the housing units, officers literally waste their time making log entries that serve no purpose.
In order to eliminate time spent making unverifiable log entries and to have officers use their time conducting productive housing inspections, it was decided that the only log to be maintained would be the Pod Log. Once direct supervision is reinstated at the RDC it will be possible to have individual housing unit logs again. Until that time, officers will enter the housing unit in pairs, conduct required hourly well-being checks, and call them in to the pod control officer by radio. In confinement pods (currently B-4) individual 30-minute well-being check logs will be maintained on the wall/door by each cell.
The need for the repair of security doors and locks at the RDC has been documented in previous monitoring reports, but the County has not developed a plan for correcting problems there in a timely and systematic manner. Consequently, during the September site visit the Monitor and Corrections Operations member of the monitoring team met with the County Administrator, County Maintenance Director, Jail Administrator, Assistant Jail Administrator and Chief of Maintenance (along with DOJ representatives) to set a plan in place. The meeting resulted in a comprehensive list of priority items for each facility. It was presented by the Monitor to the County/HCSO/DSD for consideration and implementation. While the full record of those proposals is contained in separate documents provided to the parties, the following highlights reflect the priority items for consideration.
 RDC. The renovation of C Pod will be completed by October or November. That pod has a new electronic control panel that allows all doors to be opened and locked from the control room. The cell doors will remain as sliders. One control room door, all housing unit entry doors and the two recreation yard doors will be changed to swinging. One control room door is already a swinging door.
 RDC. B Pod will have a new electronic control panel installed and both control room doors, all housing unit entry doors and the two recreation yard doors will be changed to swinging. The cell doors in housing units B-3 and B-4 will be changed to swinging. The cell doors in B-1 and B-2 will be left as sliders but with enhanced security strips. Note: The interior, retrofitted (cage) doors must be equipped with a keyway on the inside (housing unit side).
 RDC. The primary security door that controls access to the main corridor from B Pod, must be repaired because it cannot be operated electronically. Currently, an officer must stand by with a key to open and close it.
 RDC. A Pod will be left unchanged unless it must still be used for housing. In that case, a new electronic control panel must be installed and all control room, housing unit entry doors and the two recreation yard doors must be converted to swinging. Note: The
32

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 33 of 102
interior, retrofitted (cage) doors must be equipped with a keyway on the inside (housing unit side).  WC. Each of the four housing units needs to be equipped with an alarm system and a video camera system covering the fire exit door. Longer term renovations identified were:  WC. The double entry doors for housing units 1 and 3 need to be upgraded so that they are secure. The repair work done in house is unsatisfactory. The County maintenance staff attempted to resolve the problem by tack welding the left side of the double door. They did not reinforce or permanently replace that door, as they should have, which means that it can still be forced open if inmates make a concerted effort to breach it.  WC. Each of the four housing units should have a safety vestibule installed so that inmates cannot rush out when the existing single door is opened. As a part of this security upgrade, a time out cell should be created next to the entry.  JDC. The two holding cells in the Transfer Waiting area should be eliminated so that the whole space becomes open. Replacement holding cells can be created in the adjacent inmate search space.  JDC. Create an outdoor recreation yard on the fifth floor of the facility.
Because cell doors, housing unit entry doors, pod control room doors, and at least one main corridor (Great Hall) entry door (to B Pod) cannot be electronically controlled, must be key operated or cannot be secured at all, it is impossible to maintain the most basic security measures at the RDC. During the June riots, staff actually considered barricading themselves inside the staff bathroom, inside the A Pod control room, when it appeared that inmates would be able to breach the entry door. The lack of secure cell and housing unit doors not only contributed to the riots in April and June, but they create an ongoing inability to manage the inmate population. In September there were no less than 10 incident reports involving inmates that were letting themselves out of cells or out of the housing units. This leaves the inmates in control on the units, if not the pods. An August 10th incident report, IR#191331, stated that the inmates in B4 refused to comply with lockdown orders. The officer states “The inmates kicked open doors, keyed doors so that they could freely come in and out of cells. I gave multiple verbal command for them to go back in cells throughout the day and also to un-key the cell doors in which they all refused orders.” An August 11th incident report, IR#191337, reported that one inmate opened his cell door and refused to go back. It states “he has his door rigged so he can come and go as he pleases. At around 1305 hours he kicked open [another inmate’s] door and let him out as well.”
Although the County took steps to bring on board a qualified security contractor, CML, and actually had sample A Pod control room and housing unit entry doors modified, as well as one cell door in C Pod, once that was done, no further action was taken. During the September site visit, at a joint meeting of HCSO, County and monitoring team representatives, they reviewed reasonable options and priorities for corrective action. Since then the Monitor has submitted a
33

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 34 of 102
recommended plan of action for fixing security door/lock problems at the RDC. It is hoped that the County will accept this plan and implement it in a timely fashion.
Fire safety issues continue to be problematic at the RDC. While the Fire Safety Officer, Rholonn Tucker, has been left in place, he still has duties outside of the DSD. The State Fire Marshall’s representative did not participate in the September site visit, as requested. It is apparent that he/she does not hold local jurisdictions to reasonable fire safety regulations that are the norm in most states. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the DSD/HCSO to voluntarily comply with recognized national fire safety standards.
47. Ensure that staff members conduct random shakedowns of cells and common areas so that prisoners do not possess or have access to dangerous contraband. Such shakedowns must be conducted in each housing unit at least once per month, on an irregular schedule to make them less predictable to prisoners and staff.
Non-Compliant There is no central record maintained at each facility to reflect the accomplishment of random shakedowns. Incident reports reflect that inmates still have access to contraband items and that staff respond to incidents after the fact. In a direct supervision setting they would identify problems in advance of incidents, thus preventing them from occurring.
48. Install cell phone jammers or other electronic equipment to detect, suppress, and deter unauthorized communications from prisoners in the Jail. Installation must be completed within two years after the Effective Date.
Non-Compliant There has been no action taken to deal with this issue since the beginning of the monitoring process. Approximately three years have passed since the effective date of the Settlement Agreement.
49. Develop and implement a gang program in consultation with qualified experts in the field that addresses any link between gang activity in the community and the Jail through appropriate provisions for education, family or community involvement, and violence prevention.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph for more than a year. An officer was assigned to work on this issue, but there is no documentation of a program that meets the requirement of this paragraph. Gang activities cannot be monitored or managed at the RDC because the housing units are not staffed.
34

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 35 of 102
USE OF FORCE STANDARDS
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to prevent excessive force by staff and ensure force is used safely and only in a manner commensurate with the behavior justifying it. To that end, the County must:
50. Develop and implement policies and procedures to regulate the use of force. The policies and procedures must:
a. Prohibit the use of force as a response to verbal insults or prisoner threats where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff or visitors;
b. Prohibit the use of force as a response to prisoners’ failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff, visitors, or property;
c. Prohibit the use of force against a prisoner after the prisoner has ceased to resist and is under control;
d. Prohibit the use of force as punishment or retaliation; e. Limit the level of force used so that it is commensurate with the justification for
use of force; and f. Limit use of force in favor of less violent methods when such methods are more
appropriate, effective, or less likely to result in the escalation of an incident.
Non-Compliant Although the Use of Force Policy has not yet been approved and adopted, it has been reviewed by the DOJ and Monitor. Once it is adopted, the HCSO should provide staff training, even before the rest of the Policies and Procedures Manual is issued.
Incident reports and CID/IAD investigative reports continue to reflect serious violations of Settlement Agreement requirements, particularly at the RDC. At the JDC and WC, the number of use of force (UOF) cases is less than at the RDC on a per capita basis but it is difficult to track the actual number of use of force incidents. In addition, the inappropriate UOF is greater at the RDC than at the JDC and WC combined. Incident Report 191294 describes how an inmate was forced back into his cell in B-4 at the RDC and in the process fell face first onto the floor. His arm was broken and he had to be sent to the hospital. In Incident Report 191111 the officer explained his actions by stating that “necessary force” was used to gain control of the situation. There was no explanation of what that entailed.
Tracking use of force incidents presents a challenge. It is difficult to know whether all uses of force are reported. The titles of incident reports may reflect an incident type that does not reflect a use of force. There is a check box in the JMS system for a use of force but it is not
35

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 36 of 102
clear whether it is always checked. For October, 2019, 7 incidents were listed in the spread sheet as involving a use of force. However, in reviewing the actual incident reports an additional 4 incidents involved the use of force. In addition, the description of the use of force in the incident report may significantly understate the use of force employed. And the deficits in the JMS system do not allow for documentation of corrective action when use of force is used.
This troubling situation was highlighted in a use of force incident in August when an egregious use of force occurred and neither the use of force nor the corrective action was adequately documented. Incident Report 191336 was titled “Assault.”’ The event described involved the UOF by multiple officers, which resulted in serious injury of an inmate. The incident report indicated only an open hand blow to the face and abdomen (in itself questionable but far less than the injuries ultimately described by medical staff including boot marks left on the body and a broken shoulder). Medical transport to a local hospital was required. Although extremely troubling that this egregious use of force was by a lieutenant, the subsequent IAD investigation resulted in the appropriate dismissal of the lieutenant and a detention officer for excessive UOF and “untruthfulness.”
51. Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure timely notification, documentation, and communication with supervisors and medical staff (including mental health staff) prior to use of force and after any use of force. These policies and procedures must specifically include the following requirements:
a. Staff members must obtain prior supervisory approval before the use of weapons (e.g., electronic control devices or chemical sprays) and mechanical restraints unless responding to an immediate threat to a person’s safety.
b. If a prisoner has a serious medical condition or other circumstances exist that may increase the risk of death or serious injury from the use of force, the type of force that may be used on the prisoner must be restricted to comply with this provision. These restrictions include the following: i. The use of chemical sprays, physical restraints, and electronic control devices must not be used when a prisoner may be at risk of positional asphyxia. ii. Electronic control devices must not be used on prisoners when they are in a location where they may suffer serious injury after losing voluntary muscle control (e.g., prisoner is standing atop a stairwell, wall, or other elevated location). iii. Physical strikes, holds, or other uses of force or restraints may not be used if the technique is not approved for use in the Jail or the staff member has not been trained on the proper use of the technique.
c. Staff members must conduct health and welfare checks every 15 minutes while a prisoner is in restraints. At minimum, these checks must include (i) logged first-
36

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 37 of 102
person observations of a prisoner’s status while in restraints (e.g. check for blood flow, respiration, heart beat), and (ii) documented breaks to meet the sanitary and health needs of prisoners placed in emergency restraints (e.g., restroom breaks and breaks to prevent cramping or circulation problems). d. The County must ensure that clinical staff conduct medical and mental health assessments immediately after a prisoner is subjected to any Level 1 use of force. Prisoners identified as requiring medical or mental health care during the assessment must receive such treatment. e. A first-line supervisor must personally supervise all planned uses of force, such as cell extractions. f. Security staff members must consult with medical and mental health staff before all planned uses of force on juveniles or prisoners with serious mental illness, so that medical and mental health staff may offer alternatives to or limitations on the use of force, such as assisting with de-escalation or obtaining the prisoner’s voluntary cooperation. g. The Jail must have inventory and weapon controls to establish staff member responsibility for their use of weapons or other security devices in the facility. Such controls must include:
i. a sign-out process for staff members to carry any type of weapon inside the Jail,
ii. a prohibition on staff carrying any weapons except those in the Jail’s tracked inventory, and
iii. random checks to determine if weapons have been discharged without report of discharge (e.g., by checking the internal memory of electronic control devices and weighing pepper spray canisters).
h. A staff member must electronically record (both video and sound) all planned uses of force with equipment provided by the Jail.
i. All staff members using force must immediately notify their supervisor. j. All staff members using a Level 1 use of force must also immediately notify the
shift commander after such use of force, or becoming aware of an allegation of such use by another staff member.
Non-Compliant This section is still carried as Non-Compliant because there are no policies and procedures in place. There have been no recorded instances of staff obtaining supervisory approval prior to using weapons or chemical restraints since the Eighth Monitoring Report. There are no records of inmates being held in restraints while in the Jail System except as part of the routine acceptance of arrestees, transfers between facilities or as part of the restraining process (handcuffs) when force is used. The DSD does not use the restraint chair as a means of controlling violent inmates and there are no incident reports of an inmate being restrained to
37

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 38 of 102
his/her bunk. As a matter of practice, inmates who have been involved in use of force incidents are taken to Medical for examination and treatment.
There were no reported planned use of force incidents during the previous four months, consequently, there were no incidents that were electronically recorded and there was no need for coordination with medical or mental staff beforehand. Based on a review of incident reports, it does appear that supervisors are notified when staff members are involved in use of force incidents.
As has been reported in all previous Monitoring Reports, the DSD does not have hand held video cameras available in any of its facilities so that planned use of force incidents can be recorded as required by the Settlement Agreement. To date there has been no evidence submitted to the Monitor that indicates that the DSD/HCSO has taken any action to obtain/purchase such equipment.
USE OF FORCE TRAINING
52. The County must develop and implement a use of force training program. Every staff member who supervises prisoners must receive at least 8 hours of pre-service use of force training and annual use of force refresher training.
Partial Compliance While there are still no approved policies regarding the use of force, according to the Training Director, pre-service training for all current detention officers has been provided this year utilizing an in-house training curriculum that includes information provided by the monitoring team to address training deficiencies. Based on a review of the incident reports since the last site visit, staff no longer appear to be using either OC spray or tasers as a coercive tool, rather they use them as a defensive measure, which is their designed purpose.
53. Topics covered by use of force training must include: a. Instruction on what constitutes excessive force; b. De-escalation tactics; c. Methods of managing prisoners with mental illness to avoid the use of force; d. Defensive tactics; e. All Jail use of force policies and procedures, including those related to documentation and review of use of force.
Partial Compliance The use of force training does include a continuum of appropriate force responses to escalating situations, de-escalation tactics and defensive tactics, but it does not specifically deal with
38

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 39 of 102
managing prisoners with mental illness, nor are there any approved use of force policies and procedures in place yet.
54. The County must randomly test at least 5 percent of Jail Staff members annually to determine whether they have a meaningful, working knowledge of all use of force policies and procedures. The County must also evaluate the results to determine if any changes to Jail policies and procedures may be necessary and take corrective action. The results and recommendations of such evaluations must be provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant This paragraph cannot be addressed until policies and procedures on the use of force have been approved and published and staff have been appropriately trained.
55. The County must update any use of force training within 30 days after any revision to a use of force policy or procedure.
Non-Compliant Use of force training cannot be updated until the policies and procedures on the use of force have been approved, published and implemented.
USE OF FORCE REPORTING
To prevent and remedy the unconstitutional use of force, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting use of force. To that end, the County must:
56. Develop and implement use of force reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information to analyze and respond appropriately to use of force.
Non-Compliant There has been no change with regard to the status of this paragraph. It cannot be addressed until appropriate use of force reporting policies and procedures have been approved, published and implemented. Although reports generated through the current JMS system do not provide the level of detail that the Settlement Agreement calls for, the HCSO Information Technology (IT) Unit is in the process of making significant changes that will allow supervisors, commanders and the monitoring team to track compliance. While IT now publishes a list of all incident reports, separate from the details of each, it does not appear that this information has resulted in any change in supervisory review.
57. Require each staff member who used or observed a use of force to complete a Use of Force Report as promptly as possible, and no later than by the end of that staff member’s shift. Staff
39

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 40 of 102
members must accurately complete all fields on a Use of Force Report. The failure to report any use of force must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination. Similarly, supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
Non-Compliant It is still not possible for the monitoring team to know when a report was written because the reports include only the date/time of the incident, not when the report was generated. The same shortcoming applies to the date/time of supervisory review. The inadequacies of the JMS system are being addressed, but they have not resulted in a resolution of this problem. Virtually any incident report reflects these shortcomings. The time of the incident is recorded but there is no way to tell when the report was generated, nor is there any way to tell when a supervisor reviewed or noted anything about the incident. A hand written signature shows on the incident report copies that are forwarded to the monitoring team. A date/time of review is not included and there is no record of the supervisor’s determination (approval/disapproval or recommendation).
58. Ensure that Jail use of force reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, use of force reports must document the following information:
a. A unique tracking number for each use of force; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. A description of the events leading to the use of force, including what precipitated
or appeared to precipitate those events. f. A description of the level of resistance, staff response, and the type and level of
force (including frequency and duration of use). For instance, use of force reports must describe the number of discharges from electronic control devices and chemical munitions canisters; the amount of discharge from chemical munitions canisters; whether the Staff Member threatened to use the device or actually discharged the device; the type of physical hold or strike used; and the length of time a prisoner was restrained, and whether the prisoner was released from restraints for any period during that time; g. A description of the staff member’s attempts to de-escalate the situation without use of force; h. A description of whether the staff member notified supervisors or other personnel, including medical or mental health staff, before or after the use of force; i. A description of any observed injuries to staff or prisoners; j. Whether medical care was required or provided to staff or prisoners;
40

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 41 of 102
k. Reference to any associated incident report or prisoner disciplinary report completed by the reporting officer, which pertains to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force;
l. A signature of the staff member completing the report attesting to the report’s accuracy and completeness.
Partial Compliance There has been no change with regard to use of force reports since the last site visit although changes to the reporting system are being programed by IT. The JMS incident report/use of force format does not directly follow the sub-sections of this paragraph; therefore, incident reports do not reflect all of the information that is specified. While there is a unique tracking number, and the names of staff members, and sometimes those of involved inmates, are included, witnesses are seldom listed. A cell location is almost always noted (although the facility is not), but not its classification. Generally, the narrative includes the steps taken by an officer to manage the situation prior to the use of force, what methods were used to apply force and whether or not medical attention was required and provided; however, many reports do not provide all of the specified information. A copy of the reporting officer’s signature is now noted on the report, but there is no indication of approval, disapproval or recommended action on the part of the supervisor.
Incident Report 190092 is indicative of the problem. An inmate was transported to the hospital, but there is no explanation as to what caused the injury or how it occurred.
USE OF FORCE SUPERVISOR REVIEWS
59. The County must ensure that Jail supervisors review, analyze, and respond appropriately to use of force. At minimum:
a. A supervisor must review all use of force reports submitted during the supervisor’s watch by the end of the supervisor’s watch.
b. A supervisor must ensure that staff members complete their use of force reports by the end of their watch.
c. Reviewing supervisors must document their findings as to the completeness of each staff member’s use of force report, and must also document any procedural errors made by staff in completing their reports.
d. If a Use of Force report is incomplete, reviewing supervisors must require Staff Members to provide any required information on a revised use of force report, and the Jail must maintain both the original and any revised report in its records.
e. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing use of force reports must document their use of force review as described in Paragraph 62 sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted.
41

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 42 of 102
f. All Level 1 uses of force must be sent to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD.
g. A Level 2 use of force must be referred to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD if a reviewing supervisor concludes that there may have been a violation of law or policy. Level 2 uses of force may also be referred to IAD if the County requires such reporting as a matter of Jail policy and procedure, or at the discretion of any reviewing supervisor.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the Eighth Monitoring Report. Compliance is not possible until the Policies and Procedures Manual is approved and published. Based on the current JMS system, there is no way to determine whether or not supervisors review use of force reports by the end of their watch; nor is it possible to determine whether or not they comply with the other sub-sections of this paragraph. Supervisors do not indicate whether or not they approve or disapprove of the actions taken by officers; they also do not make recommendations for corrective action. Use of force reports are forwarded to the CID Investigator for follow up. Duplicate copies are provided to the IAD Investigator.
Incident Report 191015 reflects the inadequacy of documentation. An inmate in B-4 (facility not identified) refused to lock down so deputies forced him into his cell. During that process he struck his head on the “door corner of his cell” and began to bleed. Staff took him to Medical, but never stated that they used force in the incident report.
60. After any Level 1 use of force, responding supervisors will promptly go to the scene and take the following actions:
a. Ensure the safety of everyone involved in or proximate to the incident. Determine if anyone is injured and ensure that necessary medical care is or has been provided.
b. Ensure that photos are taken of all injuries sustained, or as evidence that no injuries were sustained, by prisoners and staff involved in a use of force incident. Photos must be taken no later than two hours after a use of force. Prisoners may refuse to consent to photos, in which case they should be asked to sign a waiver indicating that they have refused consent. If they refuse to sign a waiver, the shift commander must document that consent was requested and refused.
c. Ensure that staff members and witnesses are identified, separated, and advised that communications with other staff members or witnesses regarding the incident are prohibited.
d. Ensure that victim, staff, and witness statements are taken confidentially by reviewing supervisors or investigators, outside of the presence of other prisoners or involved staff.
42

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 43 of 102
e. Document whether the use of force was recorded. If the use of force was not recorded, the responding supervisors must review and explain why the event was not recorded. If the use of force was recorded, the responding supervisors must ensure that any record is preserved for review.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph for the past five site visits. The specified actions are not routinely followed by supervisors. A review of use of force reports revealed that photographs are seldom taken. Waivers related to the refusal to be photographed are not included. Witness statements are infrequent at best, and although use of force incidents may be recorded at the RDC, because it has a digital recording system, that is not possible at the JDC (recording is limited to hallways in the housing areas) and the WC (which has no recording capability).
61. All uses of force must be reviewed by supervisors who were neither involved in nor approved the use of force by the end of the supervisor’s shift. All level 1 uses of force must also be reviewed by a supervisor of Captain rank or above who was neither involved in nor approved the use of force. The purposes of supervisor review are to determine whether the use of force violated Jail policies and procedures, whether the prisoner’s rights may have been violated, and whether further investigation or disciplinary action is required.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status since the last Monitoring Report. It is not possible to determine whether or not supervisors are performing their required duties because the monitoring team does not have access to the supplemental information that may be in the JMS reports. Currently, the limited documentation available through Google Docs, the repository for documents being provided to the monitoring team, does not reflect supervisory action regarding approval, disapproval and recommended action on individual reports.
62. Reviewing supervisors must document the following: a. Names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses interviewed by the supervisor; b. Witness statements; c. Review date and time; d. The findings, recommendations, and results of the supervisor’s review; e. Corrective actions taken; f. The final disposition of the reviews (e.g., whether the Use of Force was found to comply with Jail policies and procedures, or whether disciplinary action was taken against a staff member);
43

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 44 of 102

g. Supporting documents such as incident reports, logs, and classification records.

Supervisors must also obtain and review summary medical and mental health

records describing –

i.

The nature and extent of injuries, or lack thereof;

ii. The date and time when medical care was requested and actually

provided;

iii. The names of medical or mental health staff conducting any medical or

mental health assessments or care.

h. Photos, video/digital recordings, or other evidence collected to support findings

and recommendations.

Non-Compliant Currently, the supervisory portion of JMS is limited to a check box with no ability to indicate recommended action or discrepancies noted regarding the items for which this paragraph requires review. Even the check box does not appear in the generated report. As a result, the supervisors have been signing the reports to indicate a review but this alone this does not meet the requirements of this paragraph. The documentation that exists, therefore, does not disclose whether the supervisors are making an appropriate review and they are definitely not documenting it if they are.

INCIDENT REPORTING AND REVIEW

To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting and reviewing incidents in the Jail that may pose a threat to the life, health, and safety of prisoners. To that end, the County must:

63. Develop and implement incident reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information in order to respond appropriately to reportable incidents.

Non-Compliant The Policies and Procedures Manual must be approved and issued to all personnel before the level of compliance can be determined (see paragraphs 56 to 62 above). The current incident reports should provide sufficient information for supervisors to make an appropriate review, but the reports are routinely deficient. The PDF reports provided to the monitoring team do not include everything that is in the JMS system. The monitoring team’s inability to see everything that is entered into the automated reporting system further hampers its ability to analyze the shortcomings. IT is working on a new report that should address some, or all, of the deficiencies of the current form.
44

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 45 of 102

64. Ensure that Incident Reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At

minimum, Incident Reports must contain the following information:

a. Tracking number for each incident;

b. The names of all staff members, prisoner, and other participants or witnesses;

c. Housing classification and location;

d. Date and time;

e. Type of incident;

f. Injuries to staff or prisoner;

g. Medical care;

h. All staff involved or present during the incident and their respective roles;

i.

Reviewing supervisor and supervisor findings, recommendations, and case

dispositions;

j.

External reviews and results;

k. Corrective action taken; and

l.

Warden and Administrator review and final administrative actions.

Partial Compliance There has been no change with regard to the status of this paragraph for the last five site visits. Compliance is dependent upon the approval and publication of the Policies and Procedures Manual. Incident report documentation currently provides only some of the information specified in this paragraph. Reports routinely have a tracking number and list all staff involved. Inmate witnesses are almost never noted, nor are witness statements. The nature of inmate injuries is noted sporadically. More photographs accompany the reports than in the past, but almost all reports do not specify the facility in which the incident occurred. That can only be determined by having knowledge of the housing unit configurations of each jail, and thereby recognizing the facility by how the unit, pod or cell is identified.

The lack of sufficient information in incident reports can be seen in IR # 191151 and 191156, both of which involve individuals being returned from the hospital with no indication of why they went to the hospital or their condition. Another incident report, IR #191057, states that a call from a family member had caused jail administration to question an inmate. He was described as very scared. He was taken to medical. Medical reported “that something had happen to him and he may need to move downtown.” There is no indication of what had happened to him. If this was a PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) issue there may be cause for discretion. However, there was no corresponding PREA investigation. More troubling is the lack of detailed reporting that has come to light as a result of the recent article and video published by the Clarion Ledger. This involved the brutal and prolonged assault on an inmate in September, 2018. The incident report at the time, IR#181498 indicated that medical came to the unit to get the inmate and that he and three other inmates were escorted to Medical. The only description of his

45

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 46 of 102
injuries was in the investigation report which stated that he had been hit by an object causing the left side of his face to swell. There is nothing in the original report or a supplemental report that describes the severity of the injuries which, according to the Clarion Ledger, became known to jail administration not long after the incident if not at the time of the incident.
65. Require each staff member directly involved in a reportable incident to accurately and thoroughly complete incident reports as promptly as possible, by the end of the staff member’s shift. At minimum:
a. Staff members must complete all fields on an Incident Report for which they have responsibility for completion. Staff members must not omit entering a date, time, incident location, or signature when completing an Incident Report. If no injuries are present, staff members must write that; they may not leave that section blank.
b. Failure to report any reportable incident must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination.
c. Supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will also be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the last site visit. Since the start of the monitoring process, approximately three years ago, there have been only two incident reports written regarding lost money or property. While there is no specific policy in place which requires that a report be written in such instances, both this Settlement Agreement and accepted correctional practice mandate documentation. As was previously recommended, it would be appropriate for the Jail Administrator to issue a special order to address this matter until such time as an approved policy is published.
Based on the current status of the JMS system, it is not possible to determine whether or not incident reports are written in a timely fashion (by end of shift or within 12 hours of the incident) and whether or not supervisors do likewise as required (within 24 hours of receipt of an incident report). The only thing that can be determined is the reported time of the incident as it appears in the written document.
As noted in paragraph 64, incident reports frequently lack important information.
66. Ensure that Jail supervisors review and respond appropriately to incidents. At minimum: a. Shift commanders must document all reportable incidents by the end of their shift, but no later than 12 hours after a reportable incident.
46

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 47 of 102
b. Shift commanders must report all suicides, suicide attempts, and deaths, no later than one hour after the incident, to a supervisor, IAD, and medical and mental health staff.
c. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing Incident Reports must document their incident review within 24 hours of receipt of an Incident Report sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted. Such documentation must include the same categories of information required for supervisor use of force reviews such as names of individuals interviewed by the supervisor, witness statements, associated records (e.g. medical records, photos, and digital recordings), review dates, findings, recommendations, and case dispositions.
d. Reportable incidents must be reviewed by a supervisor not directly involved in the incident.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph. There are no approved policies in place that specify what supervisors and shift commanders are to do. The monitoring team cannot determine whether or not supervisors even review incident reports (other than to sign on a printed copy) because of the previously mentioned shortcomings of the JMS system. There is no documentation that reflects, approval, disapproval or recommended actions.
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
67. To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to address sexual abuse and misconduct. Such policies and procedures must include all of the following:
a. Zero tolerance policy towards any sexual abuse and sexual harassment as defined by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementing regulations;
b. Staff training on the zero tolerance policy, including how to fulfill their duties and responsibilities to prevent, detect, report and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment under the policy;
c. Screening prisoners to identify those who may be sexually abusive or at risk of sexual victimization;
d. Multiple internal ways to allow both confidential and anonymous reporting of sexual abuse and sexual harassment and any related retaliation, including a mechanism for prisoners to directly report allegations to an outside entity;
e. Both emergency and ongoing medical and mental health care for victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment, including rape kits as appropriate and counseling;
47

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 48 of 102

f. A complete ban on cross-gender strip searches or cross-gender visual body cavity

searches except in exigent circumstances or when performed by a medical

examiner;

g. A complete ban on cross-gender pat searches of women prisoners, absent exigent

circumstances;

h. Regular supervisory review to ensure compliance with the sexual abuse and

sexual harassment policies; and

i.

Specialized investigative procedures and training for investigators handling sexual

abuse and sexual harassment allegations.

Partial Compliance There is a draft PREA policy that has been circulated for review, but it has not yet been finalized or approved. Incidents reported to the PREA officer usually result in relocation of the involved inmates, however, there has not been a practice of disciplinary action taken against perpetrators.

The PREA officer provides a four-hour program as part of the new officer training orientation. Additional in-service training is planned to inform officers of the need to make appropriate referrals to the PREA officer.

Although the classification process includes a screening for PREA issues, the housing decisions have not in the past appeared to reflect attention to those issues. During this reporting period there was an issue involving a transgender inmate at the WC. There have been problems in the past at the WC. The incident report and the PREA report states that the officers at the WC talked with the inmates involved and they agreed to get along. The PREA officer did not interview the involved inmates. Further investigation by the PREA officer should be completed to determine whether the WC is an appropriate housing location for transgender inmates given the ongoing issues there when there is a transgender inmate housed there.

Nursing staff continue to be involved in the screening of prisoners to identify those who may be sexually abusive or at risk of sexual victimization as part of the initial intake screening process. New admissions so identified are referred to the PREA officer. Mental health staff perform a mental health assessment of all such new admissions forwarded to them by the PREA officer. In addition, if medical or mental health staff identify a PREA eligible prisoner who was not identified as such at the point of admission to the facility, that prisoner is also referred to the PREA officer. There remains the issue of what housing is appropriate once identified.

There are multiple internal ways to report sexual abuse and harassment including filing a grievance and reporting through the kiosk system. The PREA officer now has a cell phone to which kiosk calls are forwarded. However, the PREA number on the kiosk system had to be changed from 999 to 888. When this happened, inmates were charged a fee for reporting a PREA

48

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 49 of 102
violation. This was reportedly being remedied and follow up is needed to determine if that has occurred. There is not a system for reporting to an outside entity other than through paid phone calls and there is no guidance on appropriate entities to call. However, the Sheriff’s Office is negotiating an agreement with the Mississippi Coalition Against Sexual Assault to provide inmates access to MSCASA for reporting and counseling services. At the time of the site visit, this had not been completed.
In order to be effective, inmates must be fully informed of what constitutes sexual abuse and harassment and how to report it. As previously reported, all of the units visited had PREA posters posted. The posters have reporting instructions. The Inmate Handbook does not have current information on the PREA process but a separate form is now provided at booking that explains the process. The PREA officer no longer does orientation or education of inmates. The PREA Officer did not know if any orientation or education was taking place at JDC or the WC.
As noted above, mental health staff perform a mental health assessment on all new admissions who are referred to mental health by the PREA officer. When mental health treatment is indicated, the PREA officer is notified of that and the new admission is offered mental health treatment. If a prisoner is a victim of sexual assault and/or sexual harassment, both the medical and mental health staff are prepared to provide any emergency and ongoing care that might be indicated. The social worker employed by QCHC who was providing this support has resigned and a new social worker had not yet been identified at the time of the site visit. Prompt replacement will be necessary to fill this critical role. Also, as noted above, the Sheriff’s Office is negotiating with MSCASA to fill this role as well.
It is reported that all cross-gender searches have been banned. No documentation of this was provided. The draft policy on PREA/Sexual Safety provides HCDS does not conduct crossgender pat searches by males of females or cross-gender visual body searches unless under exigent circumstances, and then only with the approval of the Shift Supervisor. However, the draft policy on Searches does not require approval of the Shift Supervisor and for pat searches by a male officer of a female inmate, it appears to define exigent circumstances to include possible disposal or concealment of contraband. This would allow cross gender searches of females by males in less than emergent situations.
The PREA Officer keeps a file on each referral, has a report form, and keeps numbered reports. She has completed an on-line training on investigating PREA incidents. Incidents involving alleged staff misconduct or criminal activity are referred to other investigators who have not received PREA training. The reports of these other investigators are not in the PREA Officer’s file and her file does not reflect the results of the investigation. The incident referred to above reflects the lack of investigation by the PREA officer. The incident took place at the WC. The PREA officer called security staff to interview the inmates. The security staff then reported that
49

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 50 of 102

the situation was resolved. The PREA Officer also reported that upon receiving a PREA complaint at RDC, either she or the Lt. interviews the inmate. The PREA Officer does not get the medical records when there has been a referral to Medical. There is no regular supervisory oversight of the PREA officer’s work or reports.

INVESTIGATIONS

68. The County shall ensure that it has sufficient staff to identify, investigate, and correct

misconduct that has or may lead to a violation of the Constitution. At a minimum, the County

shall:

a. Develop and implement comprehensive policies, procedures, and practices for the

thorough and timely (within 60 days of referral) investigation of alleged staff

misconduct, sexual assaults, and physical assaults of prisoners resulting in serious

injury, in accordance with this Agreement, within 90 days of its Effective Date.

At a minimum, an investigation will be conducted if:

i.

Any prisoner exhibited a serious injury;

ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital;

iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious

accounts of the incident; or

iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy,

or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate

personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the

smuggling of contraband by a staff member).

b. Per policy, investigations shall:

i.

Be conducted by qualified persons, who do not have conflicts of interest

that bear on the partiality of the investigation;

ii. Include timely, thorough, and documented interviews of all relevant staff

and prisoners who were involved in or who witnessed the incident in

question, to the extent practicable; and

iii. Include all supporting evidence, including logs, witness and participant

statements, references to policies and procedures relevant to the incident,

physical evidence, and video or audio recordings.

c. Provide investigators with pre-service and annual in-service training so that

investigators conduct quality investigations that meet the requirements of this

Agreement;

d. Ensure that any investigative report indicating possible criminal behavior will be

referred to the appropriate criminal law enforcement agency;

e. Within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, IAD must have written

policies and procedures that include clear and specific criteria for determining

when it will conduct an investigation. The criteria will require an investigation if:

50

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 51 of 102

i.

Any prisoner exhibited serious, visible injuries (e.g., black eye, obvious

bleeding, or lost tooth);

ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital;

iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious

accounts of the incident; or

iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy,

or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate

personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the

smuggling of contraband by a staff member).

f. Provide the Monitor and United States a periodic report of investigations

conducted at the Jail every four months. The report will include the following

information:

i.

a brief summary of all completed investigations, by type and date;

ii. a listing of investigations referred for administrative investigation;

iii. a listing of all investigations referred to an appropriate law enforcement

agency and the name of the agency; and

iv. a listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because

of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also

contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.

v. a description of any corrective actions or changes in policies, procedures,

or practices made as a result of investigations over the reporting period.

g. Jail management shall review the periodic report to determine whether the

investigation system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement and make

recommendations regarding the investigation system or other necessary changes

in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be

documented and provided to the Monitor and United States.

Partial Compliance During the September site visit the Corrections Operations member of the monitoring team met with both the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) Investigator and the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Investigator in order to develop consistent reporting practices and spreadsheet formats. Both investigators provided copies of their most recent investigative reports for review.

During the January site visit, it was noted that the CID Investigator was going to be re-located from downtown Jackson to the RDC, but that never occurred. Subsequently, the Monitor endorsed this move because most of the Investigator’s work is generated at the RDC, and the IAD Investigator is already located there. For unknown reasons, the HCSO has not followed through with this practical change.

51

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 52 of 102
The previous CID Investigator, who was responsible for the investigation into the death (murder) of an inmate at the RDC in December, 2018, has apparently completed her investigation. Affidavits seeking arrest warrants on three inmates were filed with the court on January 31, 2019. Five other inmates were identified as being involved in the murder, but the report does not reflect their status. While the report makes no findings with regard to the actions of staff, that matter has not yet been referred to the IAD Investigator for review.
The lack of approved policies and procedures regarding investigations makes compliance with this paragraph impossible. While the investigators are making progress, they cannot be expected to meet the provisions of the Settlement Agreement until policies and procedures are in place.
IAD and CID investigations tend to examine issues and list HCSO rule violations, but do not reflect the disposition of many cases. Because the investigators do not routinely receive such information, it is not possible to tie investigative efforts to results. A detailed report of disciplinary and/or criminal prosecution of each IAD/CID investigative report should be provided to the respective investigator so that those results can be incorporated into their investigative spread sheets.
GRIEVANCE AND PRISONER INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Because a reporting system provides early notice of potential constitutional violations and an opportunity to prevent more serious problems before they occur, the County must develop and implement a grievance system. To that end:
69. The grievance system must permit prisoners to confidentially report grievances without requiring the intervention of a detention officer.
Partial Compliance There is no change in the condition of the grievance system. The use of the new kiosk system in theory allows the prisoners to report grievances without the intervention of detention officers. Although the kiosk system does not require the intervention of a detention officer, the physical set up does not allow for privacy. This could potentially result in an officer or other inmates observing the grievance being filed. Non-English speaking persons and persons with disabilities still require the intervention of another inmate or officer.
70. Grievance policies and procedures must be applicable and standardized across the entire Jail.
Partial Compliance Policies and procedures have yet to be finalized. A draft policy has now been written and is being circulated for comment. The policy would standardize the grievance system. At present,
52

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 53 of 102
the kiosk system works the same across facilities but a unified process is still in the process of being developed with the development of the policy. Even with the policy in place, there will need to be training on how to properly respond to grievances in order to achieve consistency. There continues to be significant progress in developing an actual grievance process including identifying the duties of the system wide grievance officer, clarifying the roles of the system wide grievance officer and the facility grievance officers, developing a tracking system, creating a tiered appeal process, and addressing the process for requests vs. grievances.
71. All grievances must receive appropriate follow-up, including a timely written response by an impartial reviewer and staff tracking of whether resolutions have been implemented or still need implementation. Any response to a medical grievance or a grievance alleging threats or violence to the grievant or others that exceeds 24 hours shall be presumed untimely.
Partial Compliance As previously reported, the system itself presents several challenges in this regard. Notably, if a grievance is not responded to in seven days, it drops off the dashboard. The only way to find the grievance is to run a report for a longer time frame and search for grievances in different status categories. The Grievance Officer reports that she runs back reports and clears old grievances. However, during this site visit, in order to check whether there were outstanding grievances that had fallen off the dashboard, a report was run for grievances assigned but not answered from January 1, 2019 through one week before the site visit. The report showed 272 that had not been responded to after 21 days. It is not clear why these would not have been identified in the report the Grievance Officer was working from. A report run specifically to the WC showed 243 assigned but not answered after 21 days. It is possible that the assigned individual responded to the grievance but didn’t change the status in the system. The system will also show a grievance as awaiting assignment if it has been answered and appealed. The tracking system recently developed should be able to identify these situations and allow for correction. That spreadsheet does not currently have a column identifying when a grievance received a response. Adding this to the spreadsheet should help ensure that grievances receive a timely response going forward. Even with the new tracking system, running a report from the system should be incorporated in the process to ensure that all grievances get a response.
Although the new system should ensure responses, there needs to be some training on what constitutes a grievance as opposed to a request, what is an adequate response, oversight to determine that promised actions are taken and then some quality assurance to check the adequacy of responses. The Grievance Officer has prepared some routine responses, for example, informing the inmate that the grievance is a request and how to submit a request. This has improved the responses in a large number of cases. There are still some where the adequacy of the response need improvement. Some responses promise some future action but there is no process to ensure that promised actions are actually taken.
53

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 54 of 102
A review of medical grievances and responses indicated that although there were only a very small number of such grievances, the medical grievances that were submitted were responded to virtually immediately upon receipt by medical. In the overwhelming majority of instances, the response to medical grievances was an attempt to clarify the procedure the prisoner must follow to get what the prisoner was asking for. In the two instances where it appeared that medical might have failed to adequately address a prisoner’s medical needs, in response to the grievance Medical immediately met with and evaluated the prisoner. However, in the above noted overwhelming majority of cases, there was no attempt by medical to determine if the prisoner required an emergency medical assessment and therefore didn’t have the time to try to go back and seek medical attention in a more appropriate manner, and there was no attempt by medical to determine whether or not the prisoner was able to comprehend medical’s response/explanation of the procedure that the prisoner must follow to get what the prisoner was asking for. Therefore, in that sense, ‘staff tracking’ of whether resolution had been implemented or still needed to be implemented was lacking. One possible glitch in the system, is that if a grievance is filed as an emergency, it is not identified as a medical grievance and the Grievance Officer cannot assign it to Medical. She has to identify it as a medical grievance, print it out and hand carry it to Medical. It does not appear that this has led to delays or omissions but it has that potential.
72. The grievance system must accommodate prisoners who have physical or cognitive disabilities, are illiterate, or have LEP, so that these prisoners have meaningful access to the grievance system.
Non-Compliant Prisoners are assisting one another but that carries the risk of them accessing and using another prisoner’s PIN number in addition to the potential of having to disclose private information. This may inhibit the use of the grievance system and also allows access to the prisoner’s funds. There does not appear to be any language choices in the system or voice recognition features.
73. The County must ensure that all current and newly admitted prisoners receive information about prison rules and procedures. The County must provide such information through an inmate handbook and, at the discretion of the Jail, an orientation video, regarding the following topics: understanding the Jail’s disciplinary process and rules and regulations; reporting misconduct; reporting sexual abuse, battery, and assault; accessing medical and mental health care; emergency procedures; visitation; accessing the grievance process; and prisoner rights. The County must provide such information in appropriate languages for prisoners with LEP.
Non-Compliant The Inmate Handbook has outdated information about most of these issues and will need to be updated. It is not available in Spanish or any other language.
54

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 55 of 102
RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SEGREGATION
In order to ensure compliance with constitutional standards and to prevent unnecessary harm to prisoners, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to limit the use of segregation. To that end, this Agreement imposes the following restrictions and requirements:
74. Within 8 hours of intake, prisoners in the booking cells must be classified and housed in more appropriate long-term housing where staff will provide access to exercise, meals, and other services.
Partial Compliance During the September 2018, and January 2019, site visits hourly and 30-minute well-being check logs were observed in the booking area; but the appropriate (15 minute) logs were found to be in place during the May and September 2019, site visits. No inmates were held in holding cells for more than eight hours, with one exception. In order to deal with a problematic inmate who was returned to the DSD, after being held there previously, he was permanently housed in a single cell. This inappropriate use of a holding cell (for housing) had previously been corrected. The inmate was transferred to another county prior to the end of the four-day site visit.
Presently, there is no mechanism by which either medical or mental health have any input into classification or the assignment of housing. Although there are barriers to this, in particular the level of mental health staffing, it will be especially important to seek this input when there is a special needs/mental health unit. There will have to be input from mental health regarding which of the prisoners on their caseload can best benefit from placement on such a unit (especially given that the mental health caseload is too big to put everyone on the caseload on that unit).
Accomplishing this will have to address several issues. The first is whether or not a mental health assessment can be done within 8 hours of intake in order to determine whether or not a new admission is a potential candidate for the mental health unit. The second issue is that if a new admission is a potential candidate for the mental health unit, is there room on the unit or will getting them a space on the unit take more than 8 hours. Then, of course, there is the issue of a policy and procedure that establishes some type of cooperation between classification and mental health so that any of this can happen.
In addition, there is the issue of housing the more acutely mentally ill inmates – especially those who are currently viewed by classification and security staff as a danger to themselves or others and/or likely to be victimized by others – who are currently housed in segregation. A mental health unit with access to a number of lock down cells would address this need.
75. The County must document the placement and removal of all prisoners to and from segregation.
55

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 56 of 102
Partial Compliance The monthly summary reports submitted by each facility used to include a listing of inmates who have been placed in segregation (confinement). This is no longer the case and should be remedied so this can be tracked. However, the monitoring team was able to review the reports on site. The format utilized by the JDC has now been adopted by the RDC and WC. It does more than simply list inmates; rather, it reflects when they went into segregation and when they were removed, as required by this paragraph.
76. Qualified Mental Health Professionals must conduct mental health rounds at least once a week (in a private setting if necessary, to elicit accurate information), to assess the mental health status of all prisoners in segregation and the effect of segregation on each prisoner’s mental health, in order to determine whether continued placement in segregation is appropriate. These mental health rounds must not be a substitute for treatment.
Partial Compliance Mental health staff continue to perform weekly rounds for prisoners who are being held in segregation; when indicated, they offer mental health services to a prisoner that is not already on the mental health caseload; or when indicated, they might make adjustments in the treatment that is being provided to a prisoner who is already on the mental health caseload. However, to date, no mechanism has been established whereby any findings from those rounds can be shared with security staff and possibly have any impact on any decisions made by security staff regarding the continuation or termination of a prisoner’s placement in segregation.
Obviously, although mental health staff persons are conducting weekly rounds in segregation, at present, there is still no mechanism for the incorporation of the mental health information obtained during the mental health rounds in segregation into the decisions made by security about inmates who are placed in segregation. More specifically, as required by Paragraph 77(i) there is still no security policy and procedure governing monthly, interdisciplinary segregation rounds, where security and mental health review and discuss each inmate being held in segregation for more than 30 days, with a focus on whether or not segregation is causing a deterioration in the inmate’s mental health, whether placement in segregation should be continued or an alternative placement is indicated, and whether there is a need for further enhanced mental health services and/or other supportive services. Therefore, there still are no such monthly, interdisciplinary segregation rounds. In addition, there is still no security policy and procedure governing the mental health input that security could obtain on a weekly basis, following the weekly mental health rounds in segregation. When an inmate’s mental health is deteriorating while being held in segregation, the development of a mechanism for obtaining this weekly available information would allow for an even more timely response by security, without having to wait for the monthly segregation review meeting. Of course, in addition, the development of these security policies and procedures would make it clear that a prisoner’s
56

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 57 of 102
mental health status while being held in segregation is something that security must consider when making decisions to continue placement in segregation.
As has been previously reported, the finding that so many of the prisoners placed in segregation experience a deterioration in their mental health status while in segregation appears to be due to multiple factors. These include: (1) In the absence of the yet to be completed security policies and procedures governing the disciplinary review process, there is no input from mental health with regard to the disciplinary process which sends inmates to segregation, and therefore prisoners who are already mentally ill inmates are placed in segregation. (2) The conditions of confinement in most of the segregation cells are unacceptable, especially at Raymond, in that many of the cells do not even have lights and there are rodents. (3) The conditions of confinement in most of the segregation cells makes maintaining one’s mental health while in segregation all the more difficult, it further impairs the mental health of already mentally ill individuals, and it makes the mental health rounds in segregation much more complicated, given that it is so difficult to see the inmate and examine the cell. (4) As noted above, the fact that so many inmates in segregation use the weekly mental health rounds as their opportunity to express grievances raises concern about their access to the facility’s mechanisms for filing grievances and the extent to which they view themselves as suffering without recourse.
The monitoring team facilitated a meeting between the QCHC staff and security command staff at the time of the site visit to highlight the areas where coordination between the two was needed. Among other results, it was decided that interdisciplinary meetings would be reconvened and members of QCHC staff would be included in the development of policies and procedures that require coordination between security and medical/mental health staff.
77. The County must develop and implement restrictions on the segregation of prisoners with serious mental illness. These safeguards must include the following:
a. All decisions to place a prisoner with serious mental illness in segregation must include the input of a Qualified Mental Health Professional who has conducted a face-to-face evaluation of the prisoner in a confidential setting, is familiar with the details of the available clinical history, and has considered the prisoner’s mental health needs and history.
b. Segregation must be presumed contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness.
c. Within 24 hours of placement in segregation, all prisoners on the mental health caseload must be screened by a Qualified Mental Health Professional to determine whether the prisoner has serious mental illness, and whether there are any acute mental health contraindications to segregation.
d. If a Qualified Mental Health Professional finds that a prisoner has a serious mental illness or exhibits other acute mental health contraindications to segregation, that prisoner must not be placed or remain in segregation absent
57

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 58 of 102
documented extraordinary and exceptional circumstances (i.e. for an immediate and serious danger which may arise during unusual emergency situations, such as a riot or during the booking of a severely psychotic, untreated, violent prisoner, and which should last only as long as the emergency conditions remain present). e. Documentation of such extraordinary and exceptional circumstances must be in writing. Such documentation must include the reasons for the decision, a comprehensive interdisciplinary team review, and the names and dated signatures of all staff members approving the decision. f. Prisoners with serious mental illness who are placed in segregation must be offered a heightened level of care that includes the following: i. If on medication, the prisoner must receive at least one daily visit from a
Qualified Medical Professional. ii. The prisoner must be offered a face-to-face, therapeutic, out-of-cell
session with a Qualified Mental Health Professional at least once per week. iii. If the prisoner is placed in segregation for more than 24 hours, he or she must have his or her case reviewed by a Qualified Mental Health Professional, in conjunction with a Jail physician and psychiatrist, on a weekly basis. g. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, A Qualified Mental Health Professional will assess all prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation. This assessment must include a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Prisoners requiring follow-up for additional clinical assessment or care must promptly receive such assessment and care. h. If a prisoner on segregation decompensates or otherwise develops signs or symptoms of serious mental illness, where such signs or symptoms had not previously been identified, the prisoner must immediately be referred for appropriate assessment and treatment by a Qualified Mental Health Professional. Any such referral must also result in a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Signs or symptoms requiring assessment or treatment under this clause include a deterioration in cognitive, physical, or verbal function; delusions; self-harm; or behavior indicating a heightened risk of suicide (e.g., indications of depression after a sentencing hearing). i. The treatment and housing of prisoners with serious mental illness must be coordinated and overseen by the Interdisciplinary Team (or Teams), and guided by formal, written treatment plans. The Interdisciplinary Team must
58

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 59 of 102
include both medical and security staff, but access to patient healthcare information must remain subject to legal restrictions based on patient privacy rights. The intent of this provision is to have an Interdisciplinary Team serve as a mechanism for balancing security and medical concerns, ensuring cooperation between security and medical staff, while also protecting the exercise of independent medical judgment and each prisoner’s individual rights. j. Nothing in this Agreement should be interpreted to authorize security staff, including the Jail Administrator, to make medical or mental health treatment decisions, or to overrule physician medical orders.
Non-Compliant Regarding 77(a): There is still no mechanism for input from a QMHP in the decision to place someone in segregation. The security policy and procedures that would speak to this provision have not yet been developed. Such a policy would require security to seek and then consider mental health input in the disciplinary review process that leads to the placement of a prisoner in segregation or the decision to place an individual in administrative segregation or any other decision that results in segregation, and would outline the roles and responsibilities of mental health in that process. This policy would apply to all prisoners on the mental health caseload, and should also apply to any prisoner who, at the time of an infraction or behavior, appears to be evidencing signs and symptoms of mental illness, regardless of whether or not the prisoner is already on the mental health caseload. There have been numerous meetings with security staff about the need for such a policy, and during this most recent site visit, there was a joint meeting with security staff and mental health staff about the development of such a policy.
Regarding 77(b): Presently, there does not appear to be a presumption that segregation is contraindicated for persons with SMI. At the time of the site visit, there were 24 prisoners being held in segregation on B-4; 14 of them were on the mental health caseload; and at least 10 of those 14 are considered to be seriously mentally ill. In addition, there were 4 seriously mentally ill prisoners in segregation on A-4 Isolation, and there were also 4 seriously mentally ill prisoners in segregation on A-1 Isolation.
During this site visit, the medical records of these 22 prisoners on the mental health caseload who are being held in segregation were reviewed. Each case was discussed with the mental health staff, and some of the prisoners were interviewed. Some (about 10) of these prisoners are so actively seriously mentally ill that they are unable to adequately care for themselves and/or present a risk to others; some (about 5) are not currently psychotic but in segregation as a form of protective custody; others (about 4) were quite ill when placed in segregation, but have since been stabilized on medication, but yet are still being held in segregation; and it at least appears that some prisoners (about 3) have deteriorated while in segregation. Although it was not always
59

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 60 of 102
clear how each prisoner ended up being placed in segregation, it at least appears that most were placed there because they were difficult to manage and/or protect (via the classification process), but there were clearly a couple who were placed there for disciplinary reasons and a couple who were placed there because they were transferred from another facility while in segregation and therefore were continued in segregation.
During this site visit, this monitor also reviewed these 22 prisoners with an eye towards which of them could be managed on a special needs/ mental health unit. There were several assumptions used in this analysis, which included (1) that there would be a section of the mental health unit for acutely ill prisoners, focused on a more intense effort to obtain their compliance with treatment, coupled with a more rigorous program of therapeutic interventions focused on stabilizing them and helping them with daily living skills as required, (2) the unit would be supervised in such a way that it would be a safe place for more vulnerable prisoners, (3) the programming on the unit would include behavioral programs designed to address and correct inappropriate behavior, and (4) the unit would be run by an interdisciplinary team, that offers a full range of interventions in a therapeutic environment. With these assumptions in mind, virtually all of the 22 prisoners could be better managed and receive a more appropriate set of mental health services on a mental health unit.
Regarding 77(c): Prisoners on the mental health caseload are not screened by a QMHP for SMI. In fact, mental health staff are not even notified when a prisoner is placed in segregation.
Regarding 77(d) and (e): As noted in section 77-a, the mental health staff are not being offered the opportunity to assess any prisoners prior to their placement in segregation. The security policy and procedures that would address this provision have not been developed and implemented.
It should be noted that security staff are aware of the fact that there are some seriously mentally ill prisoners being held in segregation. However, there does not appear to be any specific documentation regarding the ‘extraordinary and exceptional circumstances’ that have required their placement in segregation. Furthermore, the placement of these prisoners in segregation has not been short term, and this monitor is unaware of the development of any individualized plans (developed by security staff and/or mental health staff) to get these prisoners out of segregation as quickly as possible.
Regarding 77(f): For prisoners who are compliant with the medication that has been prescribed for them, they are receiving a face to face visit by the nurses during medication pass. However, as noted in the discussion on medication pass, with the revised procedure for medication pass, the nurses have been unable to observe/visit with a prisoner who refuses medication on any given day. This is in contrast to the old procedure for medication pass where the nurses would at
60

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 61 of 102
least have the opportunity to observe/visit with a prisoner who refuses medication on any given day.
Prisoners on the mental health caseload who are being held in segregation do have therapeutic sessions with a QMHP. However, due to the shortage of mental health staff, this does not consistently occur on a weekly basis. Furthermore, due to the shortage of security staff, these individual sessions are not consistently out-of-cell sessions.
As noted above, a QMHP makes weekly rounds for all prisoners placed in segregation, during which each prisoner’s mental health status and need for mental health services is assessed. However, this assessment/review is not performed in conjunction with a jail physician and a psychiatrist, or in conjunction with anyone else. Furthermore, given that the services that would be provided by a jail physician and a psychiatrist are provided by a medical nurse clinician and a psychiatric nurse clinician, compliance with this provision as currently written is unlikely to occur. Therefore, there should be a review of this provision to determine whether weekly review by a QMHP in conjunction with the two nurse clinicians is acceptable, and if so, the two nurse clinicians should begin to participate in such a weekly review. If this is not acceptable, the staffing pattern outlined in the QCHC contract will have to be reviewed.
Regarding 77(h): There is no evidence of any occasion where security staff referred a prisoner to mental health due to the prisoner’s decompensation while being held in segregation. However, mental health staff, during the course of making weekly rounds in segregation and/or while providing mental health services to prisoners held in segregation, have identified at least three prisoners who have decompensated while being held in segregation, one of which was not previously on the mental health caseload and was identified as evidencing decompensation during mental health rounds in segregation.
As has been noted in prior reports, although mental health staff carefully considers what additional mental health services can be provided to such prisoners, currently there is no formal mechanism whereby mental health staff can share these findings with security staff and thereby possibly impact on security staff’s decision to continue or discontinue placement in segregation. In other words, there is still no policy and procedure for interdisciplinary segregation review. Such a policy would require regularly scheduled interdisciplinary review of all prisoners being held in segregation; both medical and mental health would have an opportunity to provide input into the decision to continue or discontinue placement in segregation; and it is recommended that each prisoner also participate in his/her regularly scheduled review.
It should also be noted that there is no mutually accepted informal mechanism to deal with this issue. Mental health staff report that when they have attempted to raise concerns about a prisoner with security staff, security staff has been unresponsive.
61

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 62 of 102
Finally, as was noted in section 77-b, the provision of more integrated and therapeutic housing for most of the prisoners on the mental health caseload who are being held in segregation awaits the development of a special needs/mental health unit.
Regarding 77(l): See section 77-b with regard to the need for a special needs/mental health unit, and see section 45-f with regard to the provision of additional special training for security staff who would be assigned to that unit. If/when a mental health unit is opened, it is expected that medical, mental health and security staff would work together as an interdisciplinary team to provide a safe environment for mentally ill inmates and staff, while providing mentally ill inmates with the level of mental health services that they require. While this will be important for the management and treatment of all prisoners who will be housed on that unit, it will be particularly important for the management and treatment of the most acutely ill prisoners, most of whom are currently being held in segregation.
It should be noted that security staff who are assigned to the mental health unit will largely focus on each prisoner’s behavior and, in consultation with the mental health staff, the best way of managing/responding to each prisoner’s behavior in a way that is also consistent with the goals, objectives and interventions outlined in the prisoner’s treatment plan. In fact, there will be many cases where the treatment plan might include specific interventions that will be made by security staff. Therefore, while communication and cooperation between security staff and mental health staff will be critical to the success of a mental health unit, this will not require that the security staff have any type of access to information or records that would violate a prisoner’s privacy rights.
YOUTHFUL PRISONERS
As long as the County houses youthful prisoners, it must develop and implement policies and procedures for their supervision, management, education, and treatment consistent with federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482. Within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will determine where it will house youthful prisoners. During those six months, the County will consult with the United States, the monitor of the Henley Young Juvenile Detention Center Settlement Agreement, and any other individuals or entities whose input is relevant. The United States will support the County’s efforts to secure appropriate housing for youthful prisoners, including supervised release. Within 18 months after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will have completed transitioning to any new or replacement youthful prisoner housing facility.
Substantial Compliance Consistent with the practice begun in September 2017, Juveniles Charged as Adults (JCAs) continue to be placed at Henley Young after being booked at the Raymond facility. When they
62

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 63 of 102
turn 18, they are now transferred to the Jackson Detention Center (JDC) pending further court action (vs. returning to the Raymond facility). As of this site visit there were 15 youthful prisoners (JCAs) at Henley Young and no juvenile remained at the Raymond Detention Center (RDC), the last youthful prisoner turning 18 in mid-February. It is understood by the monitoring team that no more youth under age 18 will be housed at any of the adult facilities, including Juveniles Convicted as Adults (either waiting to be placed at the Mississippi Department of Corrections [MDOC] or previously convicted and arrested for a new offense or probation violation).
Compliance with this requirement will be monitored in the future to ensure sustained compliance.
As of this visit (date used is September 25):  Of the fifteen JCAs at Henley Young, all fifteen were males; at one point over the summer there were two JCA girls;  The age range for youth was 14 through 17, specifically 14 (3), 15 (1), 16 (5), and 17 (6);  The length of stay (LOS) ranged from a low of 1 day to a high of 751 days for one of the youth that was in the original group placed at Henley Young in September 2017. That particular youth recently turned 16. Four youth have been in placement for 360 days or more; eight youth have been in placement less than 90 days;  Of the fifteen juveniles, only five had been indicted for the incident that resulted in placement;  During the interim between the last site visit and this September visit, nine JCA youth were admitted, three of whom were also released during this time frame; that brings the total number of JCAs placed at Henley Young since initiation of the policy in September 2017 to 65 (over approximately 24 months, an average of 2.7/month);  The overall population of youth at Henley Young (including non-JCA youth) has remained below the cap of 32 (although there is an increase in the number of non-JCA youth which raises the overall average), as required in the Henley Young/SPLC agreement and reflecting a relatively stable number of JCA youth detained. While the number of JCA youth has been steady, that does not alleviate concerns that for those individual youth that the court system delays are inappropriate and need to be addressed. Refer to the chart below for the average daily population for the period June 1 through September 24, 2019;
63

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 64 of 102

Average Daily Population Henley Young
June 1 thru Sept.24, 2019

25.0

2.0

3.4

2.4

20.0

7.5

5.4

3.2

7.0

15.0

2.0

1.5

4.6

0.0

0.7

10.0

12.87

13.1

10.97

12.92

5.0

0.0 June
JCA male

July
JCA Female

August
Non‐JCA male

Sept (thru24th)
Non‐JCA female

There are two particular comments related to length of stay (LOS) relevant at this point in the discussion: 1. The length of stay for JCAs at Henley Young has been an expressed concern in all prior
monitoring reports. While true for adult inmates in the other Hinds County facilities as well, it is particularly disconcerting that these delays are occurring for the JCA youth during their critical adolescent development years. Not only has one youth been in placement for over 750 days, but four youth have been in placement for essentially a year or more. Even under the best of circumstances, to have a youth that age confined in what is a “holding” facility serves neither the best interests of the youth or the community, let alone that this is a preconviction placement. While the County cannot control the length of stay, these extended lengths of stay are inextricably linked to the ability of the facility to provide adequate and appropriate educational programming, skill development training, and mental health treatment. This is a larger system issue that cannot be solved by Henley Young alone.
While there is not a “guaranteed” link between length of stay and declining behavior, it is not uncommon to see a youth’s behavior and response to interventions degrade over time. Significant delays in getting through the court process and moving on to the next step no matter what that may be (e.g. return home, correctional or other placement) reduces the likelihood of successful transition to subsequent treatment and development. In fact, in many

64

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 65 of 102
ways, extending youth in this sort of limbo status increases the likelihood of failure and future criminal activity.
2. Given this concern, the county and court are to be commended for taking steps to develop a new process, a Minors Diversion Docket, was scheduled to be implemented beginning on October, in which Youth Court Judge McDaniels will be able to act as a Circuit Court Judge to hold expedited hearings to ensure timely review of status of the charge(s) and any bond requirement. A component of this plan includes securing a psychological assessment of youth that can be done in a timely manner and assist the court in making a well-informed decision relative to potential changes in court assignment (i.e. keep case in adult court or remand to youth court) or other conditions. Progress on implementing this change can be assessed at the time of the next site visit.
Assuming the length of stay for JCAs can be reduced and the number of youth being admitted remains at a relatively constant level, the number of JCAs in placement at Henley Young could decline. While reducing the number of JCA’s at the facility is important for the continued stability and functioning of Henley Young, it is even more important to the youth to be held no longer than necessary.
The program is in the process of updating/revising all its policies and procedures, in consultation with Ann Nelson, the monitor assigned for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) agreement and Mr. Leonard Dixon who is now providing additional technical assistance. While the existing policies and procedures were already pretty well done, this review has provided an opportunity to make some improvements in specific expectations for staff and update them in light of the increased length of stay for the JCA youth. As new policies are approved, the training coordinator schedules briefings with staff to update them on changes.
There have been no changes to the physical plant. It is still recommended that: (1) additional classroom/treatment program space is provided/developed to help meet requirements for education and mental health programming, and (2) improvements be made to the housing units to “normalize” the environment to help reduce the emotional arousal experienced by youth as a result of the environment.
A somewhat simplified way of thinking about successfully managing youth’s behavior and ensuring a safe environment is to think of three key components that impact youth’s behavior: (1) the physical environment, recognizing that youth are particularly impacted by things like excessive noise, lack of natural light, limited/tight spaces, etc.; (2) the program, including education, mental health, behavior management, recreation, etc.; and (3) staffing, including the level of staff, their skills and training, and how they relate to and interact with youth. Henley Young has continued to progress in the latter two of these three components but has been “stuck”
65

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 66 of 102
in making any physical plant/environmental changes that could contribute to better and safer supervision of youth in placement.
For any youthful prisoners in custody, the County must:
78. Develop and implement a screening, assessment and treatment program to ensure that youth with serious mental illness and disabilities, including developmental disabilities, receive appropriate programs, supports, education, and services.
Partial Compliance Prior reports have outlined the basic screening and mental health services provided for youth at Henley Young, including the use of initial screening tools (MAYSI-II, a strength based assessment, and interviews conducted by qualified mental health clinicians), the provision and documentation of one-on-one counseling and therapeutic services performed by the two mental health clinicians, and the group work and counseling provided by the three Youth Support Specialists (YSS).
In addition, members of that mental health group continue to form a treatment team for each youth that establishes treatment goals and meets regularly to review the youth’s behavior and progress on those goals. The Youth Support Specialists (YSS) continue to serve as contact points for parent(s) of youth in placement, and the clinicians and Youth Support Specialists participate in addressing behavioral issues/incidents that arise during placement.
Protocols related to suicide concerns are in place and are reflected in documentation in Incident Reports, intake assessment(s), monitoring of youth exhibiting suicide/self-harm concerns, and documentation of review by mental health staff and “release” from suicide watch status. Henley Young has implemented an appropriate supervision protocol for youth on suicide watch status, and there is documentation of required observation checks, albeit some of the documentation raises questions about its accuracy (see section related to observations conducted during disciplinary isolation periods).
As indicated in the previous report, it was clear to see how the influence of Dr. Payne, on staff as a .5 FTE Psychologist was contributing to a more comprehensive and effective mental health treatment team. Her role in providing both direct therapeutic interventions with youth as well as coordinating the work of other team members was important. Ideally, she will be replaced with someone who will fill the role of performing psychological assessments of each youth, supervising/coaching other members of the mental health team, coordinating treatment teams and plans, providing direction and support for much of the treatment programming, interacting with and supporting family engagement, and teaming with other staff in responding to crisis situations.
66

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 67 of 102
With the departure of Dr. Payne in June of this year, the mental health/treatment program has taken a step backward, and that position has yet to be filled. County staff indicate that despite posting the position for a 1.0 FTE position prior to Dr. Payne’s departure, they have been unable to find a replacement. Other staff have attempted to “fill in the gaps”, but that is not a long-term substitute for having a full-time individual to lead the mental health program. The County will not be able to reach full compliance with this aspect of the agreement unless/until they can obtain the services of a qualified individual to provide leadership for the program. Even once someone is hired, it will take some time for that person to further shape the quality of programming and delivery of mental health supports.
On a positive note, multiple staff continue to be positive about the change in the provision of psychiatric services/consultation from Dr. Kumar to Dr. Bell, a change that occurred in the spring. Staff indicate that Dr. Bell comes regularly to the facility, responds as needed, and most importantly does a good job working directly with the youth.
Related to appropriate programs, the mental health Clinicians and the Youth Support Specialists continue to provide various group sessions for youth. In addition to various groups conducted and referenced in the prior report (e.g. Avoiding Trouble, Managing Anger, Social Supports, Character Traits, etc.) one of the YSS staff has begun using the Power Source curriculum, a wellresearched curriculum that includes activities and support materials related to things such as techniques and strategies for impulse control, anger management, stress reduction, and conflict resolution; high-risk behaviors, such as substance abuse, criminal activity, and gang involvement; and childhood abuse and neglect and the resulting feelings of shame, grief, anger, and loss. This is exactly the kind of evidence-based curriculum that could form the basis of a more integrated treatment program, i.e. used by other YSS staff and direct supervision staff to better reinforce youth’s behavior on the living units.
Individual YSS and clinicians have taken the initiative to develop these programs, but there are a number of improvements that could be made, including: (1) strengthening the cohesion in how the various groups and programs “fit together” to work toward an underlying and consistent approach (e.g. as referenced above related to Power Source, which is just one example of a curriculum that could be used); and (2) the Youth Support Specialists cite that it is not uncommon that lack of a suitable space for their program and/or a shortage of staff available to get youth to and then supervise the program limits their ability to provide the programming that is scheduled.
There is simply not appropriately therapeutic space in which to conduct either individual therapy or do the group work. Most areas of the facility are noisy, the furniture is uncomfortable at best, and using space that is designed for other purposes (including using the classroom space) is not
67

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 68 of 102
at all conducive to the kind of privacy or environment in which youth can calm down and get the maximum benefit from the services provided. Thus, it remains a recommendation to either add portable classrooms and/or group programming space that can meet these needs, as there is not “extra” space that could be appropriately reconfigured/remodeled to accomplish this goal.
79. Ensure that youth receive adequate free appropriate education, including special education.
Partial Compliance There continue to be improvements in delivery of educational services for JCA youth, including:  There are currently five youth involved in the GED, and those youth also participate in the
daily classroom instruction as well. There has been a change in the GED testing site that will be used for these youth, and credit goes to Ms. Finley for her continued attention to trying to move youth forward towards their GED. Efforts to reconfigure/remodel space at Henley Young and obtain the needed certification to perform on-site testing have been discontinued given the offer of a local church based education program to provide a GED test site for the youth;  There is currently one vacancy in the Special Ed. Teacher position, so all of the special education work is currently being performed by Ms. Finley, and her passion and commitment to ensuring youth are receiving adequate services is evident. There appears to be a wellplanned and consistent process in place to promptly get a youth’s previous education records when a youth comes to Henley Young, including obtaining any Individual Education Plans for youth receiving exceptional education services. Those IEPs are reviewed initially, updated as needed, and then reviewed periodically as required. That review includes engaging with parent(s) and obtaining needed authorizations and approval(s).  School is scheduled from 8:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. including a one hour lunch period. Attendance of youth is appropriately tracked and reported to the Jackson Public School information management system;  The space previously used for providing some Special Ed. programming (essentially a converted closet) is now used for testing purposes only – an improvement, albeit that space is still not particularly conducive for any educational purpose.  Additional software for credit recovery and providing greater individualized programming remains to be fully implemented.
On a positive note, in an effort to further assess and improve education services, the Jackson Public School District has contracted with Mr. David Domenici, Director of the Center for Educational Excellence in Alternative Settings (CEEAS) as a consultant for the school system. His tasks includes taking a look at the education program at Henley Young. Mr. Domenici was coincidentally on site at Henley Young on the 24th, so a direct conversation with him was possible. This appears to have been the first on-site opportunity for Mr. Domenici, and he will
68

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 69 of 102
be following up with some observations as well as visiting again after the new year. His impressions of the current program and recommendations for improvement will be helpful in assessing the educational program.
That said, the operative word in this particular compliance condition is “adequate”, and there are some concerns about whether and when to consider Henley Young to be in full compliance, including: (1) The overall educational program space is confined; the classrooms are adequate at best, although certainly not ideal, and there is not sufficient space or staffing to fully individualize programming at an adequate level; (2) Youth in facilities like Henley Young vary considerably in age, ability, and learning styles, and although each youth is given an initial assessment, it is not clear that programming is individualized in a way to meet those varied needs; (3) Both of these problems are exacerbated by the very lengthy stays that some youth are experiencing. What has to be seen as at best a temporary education program and facility is illequipped to properly educate youth for one or more years; and (4) the bottom line for any educational program is to what extent youth are actually learning versus just attending, and further assessment by Mr. Domenici and a review of any measures of academic progress will be helpful in assessing that quality.
To move toward substantial compliance, it is recommended to: (1) Provide additional adequate space for special education services. Adding some portable classroom space would accomplish that as well as providing space for additional educational, treatment, and behavioral programming; (2) Conduct a review of any measures of academic progress to assess what youth are actually learning, what skills they are improving in, and to what extent individual learning plans are implemented. A focus for the next site visit will be to see what kind of measures are in place; and (3) Utilize information provided by Mr. Domenici (and previous recommendations from Carol Cramer-Brooks, the prior education consultant evaluating the program at Henley Young) to develop an overall improvement plan for the school program.
It should also be noted that (unless additional information is provided by the County and verified by the monitoring team) young adults held in the Jackson or Raymond Detention Center(s) who are legally eligible for continued special education services are not receiving that support.
80. Ensure that youth are properly separated by sight and sound from adult prisoners.
Substantial Compliance Since all youth under 18 have “aged out” of RDC and there are no adult prisoners at Henley Young, this provision is met. As JCA youth in placement at Henley Young turn 18, they will be transferred to RDC or the Jackson Detention Center (JDC). One youth (J.L) currently in placement will turn 18 prior to the next site visit, and unless that youth’s case is otherwise resolved by the court he will be transferred to the JDC.
69

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 70 of 102
81. Ensure that the Jail’s classification and housing assignment system does not merely place all youth in the same housing unit, without adequate separation based on classification standards. Instead, the system must take into account classification factors that differ even within the youth sub-class of prisoners. These factors include differences in age, dangerousness, likelihood of victimization, and sex/gender.
Partial Compliance (from Substantial Compliance in May report) The most relevant classification issue for JCA youth at Henley Young is related to which unit to house the youth in. Two of the four housing units are designated for JCA males, one unit is for non-JCA males, and one unit houses both JCA and non-JCA girls. In discussing housing decisions with staff, it is apparent that they do take into consideration the factors indicated above, and the current policy includes them, but documentation for the decision had been lacking. The primary focus for classification at Henley Young is to ensure youth’s safety. While the presenting offense provides some information that informs the placement decision, they also have the benefit of often having prior experience with the youth based on a prior juvenile placement at Henley Young. Thus, they are able to gather information about prior behavioral concerns, age, gang affiliation if any, and other factors relevant to placement.
Following the prior site visit staff developed a form for documenting the classification decision, and based on representation that the form would be implemented the prior report listed this provision as being in Substantial Compliance (subject to verification during the September visit). However, as part of a complete review and rewrite of all their policies in consultation with the monitor for the Southern Poverty Law Center agreement, they have in fact not implemented a change in documentation for classification. While the previous policy was deemed to be sufficient, in order to reach substantial compliance Henley Young will need to document implementation of that or any newly adopted policy.
82. Train staff members assigned to supervise youth on the Jail’s youth-specific policies and procedures, as well as on age-appropriate supervision and treatment strategies. The County must ensure that such specialized training includes training on the supervision and treatment of youth, child and adolescent development, behavioral management, crisis intervention, conflict management, child abuse, juvenile rights, the juvenile justice system, youth suicide prevention and mental health, behavioral observation and reporting, gang intervention, and de-escalation.
Partial Compliance Henley Young continues to provide training on an on-going basis for some requirements of this provision, including new employee orientation for new staff, updates on policies and procedures
70

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 71 of 102
as they are adopted, use of force refresher training, CPR training, fingerprint training (for intake purposes), and use of radio/communication equipment. As in past reports, this reflects that the bulk of training conducted for Youth Support Specialists (YSS -the line staff position) is on basic operational skills and falls short of the intent of providing more advanced training on issues such as the impact of trauma on youth behaviors, trauma-informed practice, adolescent development, and mental health.
This visit provided the opportunity to interview the staff member, Ms. Young, who has recently been designated to lead future training for YSS. Officer Cole the formerly designated Training Officer was again on deployment out of the country (which has been the case for much of the last three years), and Officer Hines who was essentially the Acting Training Officer is phasing out toward retirement. On a positive note, Ms. Young has a background as a certified trainer in trauma-based cognitive behavioral treatment approaches which are particularly applicable to working with youthful offenders and is consistent with much of the group training provided by the Youth Support Specialists. It is her stated intent to broaden the training curriculum for line staff, so it will be of interest for the next site visit to see what has been accomplished in terms of developing a training plan that includes more advanced opportunities.
Several staff members (Director Frazier, Ms. Frelix, Ms. Barber, and Off. Nelson) traveled to Chicago to tour the Cook County youth facility and get program ideas from Mr. Leonard Dixon. Mr. Dixon is the former monitor for the SPLC agreement and now provides technical assistance to Henley Young. Several other staff members attended a recent Leadership Development Symposium conducted by the National Partnership for Juvenile Services. Both of these represent an interest in learning more about best practices related to supervising youth in confinement, and time will tell to what extent that information translates to changes in policy and practice at Henley Young. In addition, coincidental to this visit, the two mental health clinicians were scheduled to attend an annual mental health conference (25th-27th) focused on dealing with the impact of trauma.
Developing a more complete training program is hampered somewhat by rather consistent turnover of youth supervision staff. Although there were only three vacancies at the time of this site visit, since the May visit at one point the number of vacant positions had risen to 13 (approximately 30% of the positions). This not only makes basic supervision challenging but also means that the bulk of the training effort be directed at new employee orientation and basic training related to policies and procedures. If/as staff retention continues to be a problem, at any point in time no matter how good the training program is there will be a notable portion of staff on duty that have not had more advanced youth supervision training.
Overall there is progress related to the overall training effort at Henley Young, but the recommendations for this report remain essentially the same as prior reports (particularly as it
71

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 72 of 102
relates to training for youth supervision staff), namely (1) developing more advanced training programs that build on the basic skills learned in the current training curriculum. Given Ms. Young’s recent assignment to the training position, it seems unlikely that actual training sessions will be in place by the time of the next visit, but hopefully there will be evidence of a more advanced training plan for 2020. Some of this training could perhaps be provided through local/regional resources, e.g. through the universities, Hinds Behavioral Health, or other programs that focus on working with youth; and (2) the County should consider linking more advanced training to additional performance and/or longevity incentives that would enhance staff retention, increase the staff skill level, and provide reinforcement for staff to advance those skills. This is clearly a challenge given limited resources, but if/when additional incentives are put in place to help retain staff this could be one component of such a plan.
83. Specifically prohibit the use of segregation as a disciplinary sanction for youth. Segregation may be used on a youth only when the individual’s behavior threatens imminent harm to the youth or others. This provision is in addition to, and not a substitute, for the provisions of this Agreement that apply to the use of segregation in general. In addition:
a. Prior to using segregation, staff members must utilize less restrictive techniques such as verbal de-escalation and individual counseling, by qualified mental health or other staff trained on the management of youth.
b. Prior to placing a youth in segregation, or immediately thereafter, a staff member must explain to the youth the reasons for the segregation, and the fact that the youth will be released upon regaining self-control.
c. Youth may be placed in segregation only for the amount of time necessary for the individual to regain self-control and no longer pose an immediate threat. As soon as the youth’s behavior no longer threatens imminent harm to the youth or others, the County must release the individual back to their regular detention location, school or other programming.
d. If a youth is placed in segregation, the County must immediately provide one-on-one crisis intervention and observation.
e. The County must specifically document and record the use of segregation on youth as part of its incident reporting and quality assurance systems.
f. A Qualified Medical Professional, or staff member who has completed all training required for supervising youth, must directly monitor any youth in segregation at least every fifteen (15) minutes. Such observation must be documented immediately after each check.
g. Youth may not be held in segregation for a continuous period longer than one (1) hour during waking hours. If staff members conclude that a youth is not sufficiently calm to allow a break in segregation after one hour, they must contact a Qualified Mental Health Professional. The Qualified Mental Health Professional must assess the youth
72

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 73 of 102
and determine whether the youth requires treatment or services not available in the Jail. If the youth requires mental health services that are not provided by the Jail, the Qualified Mental Health Provider must immediately notify the Jail Administrator and promptly arrange for hospitalization or other treatment services. h. If a youth is held in segregation for a continuous period longer than two (2) hours, Staff Members must notify the Jail Administrator. i. Any notifications or assessments required by this paragraph must be documented in the youth’s individual record.
Partial Compliance This continues to be one of the more challenging provisions of the Agreement, both in terms of implementing all of the requirements and in monitoring proper implementation. An important step was taken over this last period to document all Behavior Management Confinements, those that are implemented by staff for relatively short periods of time to defuse or respond to behavior incidents. It appears that this documentation process is not yet fully functional, but approximately 30 instances of use of this isolation are noted, with the majority of them being for only 15 minutes. That is consistent with the plan to use these isolations essentially as a short time out to remove the youth temporarily from the situation pending some resolution of the situation. In a few cases in which this confinement lasted for more than an hour, there are notes indicating that the youth was continuing to be disruptive.
Of greater concern are those situations resulting from more serious behavior or what Henley Young characterizes as major violations. Between June 1 and the time of this site visit there were 10 incidents that resulted in the use of isolation for an extended period of time and required the use of a Due Process Hearing for the imposition of a consequence. In terms of number, this reflects an increase in such incidents from the prior period but still a notable decrease from the trend in 2018.
There were two incidents involving multiple youth worthy of note: (1) An incident on July 10 in which several youth obtained a cellphone and created/posted a
video message to a relative of one of the youth’s alleged victims. The person receiving the message contacted the facility, and leadership promptly investigated to determine what had happened. Per Director Frazier, in violation of policy a staff member provided a cell phone and allowed the youth to use a cell for the period of time in which the message was created/sent. Mr. Frazier indicted that the staff member involved was promptly terminated for this serious breach of policy. The youth involved were confined for 24 hours. (2) An incident on September 3 in which five youth were involved in assaulting a staff member, initially on the recreation yard and continuing into the living unit. In observing the video and per the follow-up conducted by facility leadership it appears that the incident was initiated by one of the more volatile youth following a conversation with the staff member, and other
73

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 74 of 102
youth jumped in. While the situation was responded to promptly by other staff, youth continued to act out until support from the Sheriff’s Department responded with assistance and ultimately were secured in their cells. The staff member did sustain a wrist injury. The youth involved were confined in their cells for five days, one day as a consequence and four more days as what the facility calls “Administrative Confinement.” Use of confinement for an extended, determinate length of time as discipline is not consistent with the time-limited, imminent harm standard of the agreement. It will be important to monitor that “Administrative Confinement” is not used on a recurring basis.
In addition to reviewing reports about the incidents and the due process records, the relevant observation logs were also reviewed. These are the logs kept when a youth is confined in their room/cell on which staff are supposed to document their wellness checks.
Reviewing all incident reports (including these more serious reports as well as a sample of other less serious reports), the due process records, and the observation logs documenting required wellness checks for youth in confinement raises several issues that will need additional work in order to reach compliance. This includes: (1) All of the more serious incidents resulting in isolation/confinement beyond one hour are
beyond the intent of this provision to limit disciplinary confinement to no more than one hour (with some exceptions). Especially for more serious incidents, this will be difficult to meet given the limited options the facility provides to supervise youth or provide other disciplinary alternatives. (2) While leadership indicates that youth on more extended confinement are allowed out of their rooms to attend school, attend groups, and access recreation, it is very difficult to confirm if that is actually happening. The observation logs used to track wellness checks for isolated youth only occasionally actually reflected that was the case. Additional notes or codes need to be developed so it is clear whether or not a youth is “in” or “out” of their cell during those periods of time. (3) Additional notes have been made on the observation logs indicating that one of the mental health team members or the assigned Youth Support Specialist are checking on the youth during confinement, but that documentation does not occur regularly enough to verify that the required clinician involvement always occurs as required. More careful documentation of those checks needs to be made. (4) While the nature of the September 3 incident (assault on staff) is very serious and may require extended confinement, simply categorizing it differently without taking added steps to evaluate and document subsequent intervention is not sufficient. The use of any Administrative Confinement based on concerns that a youth represents a danger to staff or other youth requires more documentation of actions taken, involvement of mental health staff, and regular assessment/review of the youth’s situation by administrative staff. It may
74

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 75 of 102
be worth creating a different tracking mechanism for these situations that would permit verification of all that was done to ensure youth’s safety. (5) The Observation Logs used to document checks for youth in confinement still too frequently reflect exactly 15-minute interval checks. This suggests that staff are filling the logs out after the fact rather than at actual times checks are conducted. More attention by supervisors to proper completion of those logs will help ensure compliance.
Overall the use of room confinement can be further reduced by continuing to improve the environment in the living units, retaining and expanding training of direct supervision staff, continuing to expand social skill training, adding additional program opportunities, and ensuring a full complement of mental health support staff (i.e. a full-time psychologist).
84. Develop and implement a behavioral treatment program appropriate for youth. This program must be developed with the assistance of a qualified consultant who has at least five years of experience developing behavioral programs for institutionalized youth. The Jail’s behavioral program must include all of the following elements:
a. The behavioral program must include positive incentives for changing youth behavior, outline prohibited behaviors, and describe the consequences for prohibited behaviors.
b. An individualized program must be developed by a youth’s interdisciplinary treatment team, and properly documented in each youth’s personal file. Documentation requirements must include the collection of data required for proper assessment and treatment of youth with behavioral issues. For instance, the County must track the frequency and duration of positive incentives, segregation, and targeted behaviors.
c. The program must include safeguards and prohibitions on the inappropriate use of restraints, segregation, and corporal punishment.
Partial Compliance As part of the behavior management program, Henley Young has again revised the point/level system tool used to document youth’s performance and provide the basis for certain rewards or incentives (in consultation with Ann Nelson). Once again, it seems to be an improvement in that it breaks up the daily schedule into more discrete observation periods, which can be a positive in terms of more routinely documenting youth behaviors. Also, this revised tool adds the weekend; that has been a repeated recommendation in prior reports, so youth behaviors will now be documented on weekends as well as weekdays. The change is too recent to evaluate how it has been implemented and how it has impacted youth behavior(s). The Recreation Officer, Mr. Nelson, does track what incentives youth select each week based on the number of points they have earned, although that information is kept in a separate record than the point sheets themselves.
75

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 76 of 102
Just having a new “tool” does not in and of itself ensure that it will work properly to shape youth behavior(s). As with prior reports, there are several recommendations that would contribute to this being an adequate component of the behavior management system, including: (1) staff need to document reasons for scoring the form, one way or the other; the more immediate and complete the positive or negative feedback about the behavior, the more likely it is to be effective in shaping the behavior. The current practice of having the Recreation Officer go over the point sheet at the end of the week is acceptable, but he has no way of explaining to youth why it was scored the way it was; (2) add a weekly behavior goal to the point system, coordinating that goal with the youth’s treatment team. This will help youth focus on new and improved individualized behaviors that can be reinforced throughout the week rather than relying solely on interactions with the Youth Support Specialists; (3) continue to expand the nature of potential incentives youth can “earn”; and (4) simply make a note on the individual point sheet what incentive(s) the youth selected for each week, so that information is recorded not only in a central log kept by the Recreation Officer but also is reflected on the youth’s individual form as well. This would simply make it easier to track individualized incentives. Fully implementing use of this tool will also require continued training of line staff as to how best to use it as one way to interact with youth.
Overall, Henley Young has made continued progress toward achieving compliance on most areas related to this requirement. Leonard Dixon continues to be available to them as a consultant, and they seem to be utilizing Ann Nelson, monitor for the SPLC agreement. Both are well-respected professionals in the youth confinement field.
LAWFUL BASIS FOR DETENTION
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners are processed through the criminal justice system in a manner that respects their liberty interests. To that end:
85. The County will not accept or continue to house prisoners in the Jail without appropriate, completed paperwork such as an affidavit, arrest warrant, detention hold, or judge’s written detention order. Examples of inadequate paperwork include but are not limited to undated or unsigned court orders, warrants, and affidavits; documents memorializing oral instructions from court officers that are undated, unsigned, or otherwise fail to identify responsible individuals and the legal basis for continued detention or release; incomplete arresting police officer documents; and any other paperwork that does not establish a lawful basis for detention.
Partial Compliance
76

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 77 of 102
At the time of the last site visit the policies on pre-booking, booking and records had recently been adopted. A Booking Manual is reportedly being developed although this has been for some time with no provided draft. There continue to be improved systems in place to track individuals and release them timely. However, there continue to be some systemic problems that make this a challenge. The new Records Policy requires uniform organization of the files and requires a summary sheet that tracks the individual’s detention status. Updates are immediately reviewed by a peer and the Supervisor is to conduct an audit of 10 files a week and do a semi-annual review of all files. The policy was adopted on March 11, 2019 and was not fully operationalized at the time of the last site visit. A staff member is reviewing files, reorganizing them and creating the summary sheet. As she reviews the files, she documents any missing paperwork. As this process progresses, there should be fewer examples of files without documentation of the basis for detention. This staff member is the only one reviewing the files in this manner and as a result this process is taking longer than anticipated. To date, she estimates that she has reviewed approximately 70 files. Generally, her reviews are thorough and the report she creates on each file appears to be clear and complete. However, when the file paperwork is described as disorganized, there does not appear to be a conclusion regarding the adequacy of the court documents.
At the present time, there continue to be some instances of people being booked without proper paperwork or being detained longer than they should be. There were 3 individuals that were detained 5 days without appropriate paperwork for booking. Another individual was detained 5 days longer than he should have been because of a problem getting the paperwork from the court. Another individual was no billed but the charge listed in the no bill did not match the charge in the JMS system. In fact, it was intended to be the same charge. The no bill was 6/22/19 and he was released 9/13/19. Although Jail staff ultimately pieced this together, the inquiry should have been made when the no bill came in instead of after 2 and ½ months of over incarceration.
The Records Supervisor was not on site during the site visit. The Supervisor tracks the probation violation charges and timely release. This information could not be updated. At the time of the last site visit, the Supervisor reported that there was improved communication with the Probation and Parole Department resulting in more timely release. The Records Supervisor now runs a report out of the JMS showing everyone in jail on a probation or parole violation. One weekly report was provided and reviewed at the time of the current site visit and no untimely releases were noted. However, the Supervisor previously reported that this report is not always complete. If Booking has entered the Probation Violation (PV) as a hold, it will not appear in the report. The Records Supervisor also tracks people booked on a PV but if the PV is entered after booking she won’t catch it. The Records Supervisor has to use multiple methods to track everyone in on a PV and she reported that people can still get lost in the system.
77

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 78 of 102
Improper releases continue to be a potential problem as a result of the Warrants Division using a different data base than the rest of the Sheriff’s Office. The Warrants Division of HCSO uses an old data base and so does not enter warrants into the JMS system. If a warrant is entered after 5:00 or on the weekend, the Records Office won’t know about it until the next business day.
There are several system issues that result in over-detention. One recurring situation previously identified is that there is not a way to identify people in the Jail who are waiting for a preliminary hearing. Although it is the court’s responsibility to provide timely settings, the Jail currently has no way of tracking these individuals to alert the court. There continue to be individuals detained beyond 90 days without indictment. There are still 15 people currently in custody without indictment who were booked in 2018. Again, this appears to be primarily a problem with the District Attorney and the courts. Initially, the Jail was not maintaining a useful list of these individuals. It now appears that staff is maintaining and providing to the court an accurate list of unindicted individuals.
There continues to be a problem with individuals waiting for their first appearance in County Court. This is supposed to occur within 48 hours. Because of frequent absences of the judge and the lack of weekend coverage, defendants are routinely not appearing before a judge in the required 48 hours. For those individuals, the Jail is entering a bail bond amount from a bail schedule. If they can’t post the bail amount, they stay in jail without having seen a judge.
86. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees in contravention of the protections of the United States Constitution as set forth and discussed in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) and Cassibry v. State, 453 So.2d 1298 (Miss. 1984). The County must develop and implement policies consistent with the applicable federal law and the terms of this Agreement.
Substantial Compliance As reported at the time of the last site visit, policies on Pre-Booking, Booking, and Records have been completed and adopted. The Pre-booking policy provides that no person can be committed at the jail absent documentation that a meaningful analysis of the person’s ability to pay was conducted and written findings that any failure to pay was willful. At the time of the last site visit and this site visit there have been no individuals in the facility on a fines and fees order. This will continue to be monitored closely as the policies are new and sentencing orders are sometimes ambiguous, but this provision is now listed as in substantial compliance.
87. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees absent (a) documentation demonstrating that a meaningful analysis of that person’s ability to pay was conducted by the sentencing court prior to the imposition of any sentence, and (b) written findings by the sentencing court setting forth the basis for a finding that the failure to pay the
78

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 79 of 102
subject fines or fees was willful. At a minimum, the County must confirm receipt from the sentencing court of a signed “Order” issued by the sentencing court setting forth in detail the basis for a finding that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful.
Substantial Compliance The County has been pro-active in ensuring that valid court orders are utilized. The policy on pre-booking is consistent with this paragraph and at the time of this and the prior site visit there was no one in the facility for failure to pay fines and fees.
88. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a person for failure to pay fines or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and any other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and must obtain a copy to justify continued detention of the prisoner. After 48 hours, that prisoner must be released promptly if the Jail staff cannot obtain the necessary documentation to verify that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful, and that person is incarcerated only for the failure to pay fines or fees.
Substantial Compliance The policy on Records Management meets the requirement of this paragraph and at the time of this and the prior site visit there was no one in the facility for failure to pay fines and fees.
89. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a prisoner for failure to pay fines or fees, and if that person is incarcerated for other conviction(s) or charge(s), other than the failure to pay fines and/or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and to ascertain the prisoner’s length of sentence. If Jail staff cannot obtain a copy of the necessary documentation within 48 hours of the prisoner’s incarceration, Jail staff must promptly arrange for the prisoner’s transport to the sentencing court so that the court may conduct a legally sufficient hearing and provide any required documentation, including the fines or fees owed by the prisoner, and an assessment of the prisoner’s ability to pay and willfulness (or lack thereof) in failing to pay fines or fees.
Substantial Compliance The policy on Records Management meets the requirement of this paragraph and at the time of this and the last site visit there was no one in the facility for failure to pay fines and fees.
90. Jail staff must maintain the records necessary to determine the amount of time a person must serve to pay off any properly ordered fines or fees. To the extent that a sentencing court does not specifically calculate the term of imprisonment to be served, the Jail must obtain the necessary
79

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 80 of 102
information within 24 hours of a prisoner’s incarceration. Within 48 hours of incarceration, each prisoner shall be provided with documentation setting forth clearly the term of imprisonment and the calculation used to determine the term of imprisonment.
Partial Compliance The WC continues to maintain a spreadsheet. There are no individuals currently incarcerated with an order to pay fines and fees. There was no documentation that prisoners were provided with documentation of their release date although they do typically have the orders from the court.
91. No pre-trial detainee or sentenced prisoner incarcerated by the County solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be required to perform physical labor. Nor shall any such detainee or prisoner receive any penalty or other adverse consequence for failing to perform such labor, including differential credit toward sentences. Any physical labor by pre-trial detainees or by prisoners incarcerated solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be performed on a voluntary basis only, and the County shall not in any way coerce such pre-trial detainees or prisoners to perform physical labor.
Partial Compliance This has become a limited issue now that there are no individuals working off fines and fees. As reported recently, the recent standard practice at the WC was to give half the amount of credit towards fines and fees for individuals who do not perform physical labor. This included individuals who could not perform physical labor because of a medical or mental health condition. In prior site visits the stated practice was reported as determining the amount of credit on a case by case basis. At the time of the last site visit, the stated policy was that if Medical determined that the individual could not perform physical labor the individual got full credit. This is carried as partial compliance because there needs to be a written policy requiring that individuals who cannot work because of a medical or mental health condition or other disability receive full credit towards fines and fees.
92. The County must ensure that the Jail timely releases from custody all individuals entitled to release. At minimum:
a. Prisoners are entitled to release if there is no legal basis for their continued detention. Such release must occur no later than 11:59 PM on the day that a prisoner is entitled to be released.
b. Prisoners must be presumed entitled to release from detention if there is a court order that specifies an applicable release date, or Jail records document no reasonable legal basis for the continued detention of a prisoner.
c. Examples of prisoners presumptively entitled to release include:
80

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 81 of 102

i.

Individuals who have completed their sentences;

ii. Individuals who have been acquitted of all charges after trial;

iii. Individuals whose charges have been dismissed;

iv. Individuals who are ordered released by a court order; and

v. Individuals detained by a law enforcement agency that then fails to

promptly provide constitutionally adequate, documented justification for

an individual’s continued detention.

Partial Compliance See response to number 85.

93. The County must develop and implement a reliable, complete, and adequate prisoner records system to ensure that staff members can readily determine the basis for a prisoner’s detention, when a prisoner may need to be released, and whether a prisoner should remain in detention. The records system must provide Jail staff with reasonable advance notice prior to an anticipated release date so that they can contact appropriate agencies to determine whether a prisoner should be released or remain in detention.

Partial Compliance As described in paragraph 85, the new Records policy establishes a system that should greatly improve the reliability of the prisoner record system. However, a complete updating and review of the records has not been completed and the system of auditing files has not been implemented. Similarly, when the Booking Manual is completed, there should be improvement in the initial entries into the JMS system. Additional problems described in paragraph 85 continue to exist. At present, the Jail is still partially reliant on inmate requests and grievances to identify people who are being over detained. In addition to Booking staff, there are four individuals tracking the lawful basis of detention. They are all four using separate spreadsheets and lists which as noted above do not match reports run from the JMS system. There continues to be a lack of specified procedures to check all law enforcement and court documents. Jail staff do not have access to the county court data base or the updated circuit court data base which would allow them to improve the accuracy of their records.

94. Jail record systems must accurately identify and track all prisoners with serious mental illness, including their housing assignment and security incident histories. Jail staff must develop and use records about prisoners with serious mental illness to more accurately and efficiently process prisoners requiring forensic evaluations or transport to mental hospitals or other treatment facilities, and to improve individual treatment, supervision, and community transition planning for prisoners with serious mental illness. Records about prisoners with serious mental illness must be incorporated into the Jail’s incident reporting, investigations, and medical quality assurance systems. The County must provide an accurate census of the Jail’s

81

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 82 of 102
mental health population as part of its compliance reporting obligations, and the County must address this data when assessing staffing, program, or resource needs.
Non-Compliant Medical and mental health use an electronic medical records system, which keeps a full record of all medical and mental health assessments and treatments. Of course, as is legally required, only medical and mental health staff have access to these records. Mental health staff also maintain a log for prisoners on the mental health caseload. Although this log has not consistently included prisoners on the mental health caseload who were not receiving medication, these prisoners will now be added to the log. The log tracks the location of each prisoner, booking date, the date of the initial nursing intake assessment, the date the prisoner was referred to mental health and the source of the referral, the date of the initial mental health assessment, the date of the initial psychiatric assessment, the prisoner’s diagnosis, the date the treatment plan was developed, whether or not the prisoner is on psychotropic medication, whether or not there is a discharge plan, and the prisoner’s length of stay. There is a separate log/tracking system for prisoners placed on suicide watch.
The above noted medical records and logs document the work that is being done and are constantly referred to when continuing to plan for and provide treatment. In this regard, treatment plans should be periodically reviewed and updated when indicated; but this process of formal treatment plan review has not yet been initiated; however, it is anticipated that such a formal process of treatment plan review will be initiated once requested additional mental health staff have been brought on board.
The above noted records and logs are kept confidential due to prisoner/patient privacy rights. However, see paragraph 77(l) for a discussion of how medical and mental health staff can work with security staff in the interest of providing a safe environment for mentally ill prisoners while providing such prisoners with an appropriate level of mental health services.
Based on the logs maintained by the mental health staff, the mental health staff is able to provide an accurate census of the population on the mental health caseload. This census count, along with consideration for the other current and anticipated responsibilities of the mental health staff (see section 42), was used to assess the mental health staffing needs; this resulted in the request from QCHC for two additional mental health staff persons; but as noted above, the County has not yet responded to that request. In addition, the need for a special needs/mental health unit was also made clear based on a review of all of the records and documents maintained by the medical and mental health staff.
82

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 83 of 102
Mental health staff are not involved with the transfer of prisoners to the state hospital for competency evaluations and/or the restoration of competency. In fact, mental health staff are unaware of which prisoners are awaiting such transfer, and staff have no idea who is responsible for making sure that such prisoners are transferred in a timely manner.
Presently, mental health staff are also not involved in the incident reporting and review process. However, a review of incident reports for this monitoring period indicates that there were incidences reported for which there was important, relevant information that could have been obtained from mental health that was not obtained from mental health; there are no security policy and procedures that require this and provide a mechanism for doing this; and so such policies and procedures need to be developed. Furthermore, a review of these incidences, coupled with the mental health information that was available, demonstrates how important and useful such a fuller, more interdisciplinary incident reporting system can be. More specifically, for example, this broader review of these incidences highlights the need for certain policies and procedures, specifies certain mental health training needs, and informs the development of approaches to the management of prisoners with serious mental illness.
The incident reports for which there was important, relevant mental health information fall into several categories. The first group consists of 4 suicide-related incident reports. In 2 of these incidences, the prisoners reported being suicidal; therefore, they were placed on suicide watch; but then they acknowledged to the mental health staff that they had claimed to be suicidal to escape problems on their units. If security staff knew of this outcome, it might have helped security staff identify and address problems on their units. A third incident was an actual attempt and the prisoner had left a suicide note; mental health staff recognized this as the severe mood dysregulation of a prisoner with an extensive early childhood trauma history; and triggering events for the attempt were identified. This fuller understanding of this incident might suggest that mental health training for security staff should include more about trauma and its effects, but it also suggests that information about and an understanding of triggers and their role in precipitating such an attempt could help security staff better manage the prisoner. The fourth incident was yet another, even more severe suicide attempt; a review of available records indicates that actually, the situation had escalated over the course of about 24 hours, during which time the prisoner’s behavior on the unit was deteriorating; and the prisoner had been seen in medical twice on the day of the attempt, the second time being 10 minutes before the attempt. This incident requires an even more in depth review; whether or not medical and/or security failed to recognize warning signs/the seriousness of the situation should be examined; and of course, the ultimate question is should this prisoner have been placed on some type of special observation or at least housed with another prisoner, instead of being left alone in his cell where he made the suicide attempt.
83

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 84 of 102
The second group consist of 5 medication pass/medication refusal incidences that ended up in some level of confrontation between security staff and the prisoner. In all 5 of these incidences the prisoner was suffering from acute mental health difficulties. If the impact of these difficulties on a prisoner’s ability to function was understood by security staff, and if security staff were given additional tools for the management of prisoners with such mental health difficulties, security staff might have managed these prisoners some other way, thereby avoiding the confrontations. This group of incident reports also focuses attention on the importance of mental health input into the disciplinary review process, in that the problematic behavior of these 5 prisoners (which resulted in incident reports) was clearly a symptom of their mental illnesses.
The third group, which consist of 4 misconduct-related incidences, raises similar questions about the impact of mental illness on a prisoner’s ability to function and the importance of mental health input in the disciplinary review process. It should also be noted that in one of these cases, the prisoner, who had been relatively stable on medication, clearly deteriorated over time as a result of multiple transfers to various units (after C pod was closed); this deterioration was not clearly recognized and/or not adequately considered as it relates to the management and repeated movement of this prisoner; and ultimately, there was an incident where the prisoner was seriously injured.
Another incident involved a prisoner who appeared to have an acute medical emergency and was therefore sent to medical. What is missing from the incident report is that medical and mental health discovered that the reported acute physical symptoms were actually a reaction to some illicit drugs that the prisoner had taken – i.e., it was a classic allergic response to those specific drugs and the drugs were found in his urine. Obviously, security should be informed that such drugs were available on the unit.
The last incident demonstrates the possibilities/potential benefits of a good working relationship between sensitive and knowledgeable security staff and mental health staff. In this incident, the security officer recognized that the prisoner was deteriorating (i.e., not his usual self) and had become ‘a danger to himself and others’; so the officer took the prisoner to medical, where he discovered that the prisoner had been refusing his antipsychotic medication; and the security officer assisted medical/mental health in getting the prisoner medicated (he was given an injection), which then helped the prisoner to calm down.
This requirement envisions coordination and communication between security and mental health staff in working with individuals with SMI. While this happens on a sporadic basis in individual incidents, this communication is not built in to jail operations through interdisciplinary teams, consistent participation in disciplinary and classification decisions, and procedures requiring regular communication. Although there are confidentiality concerns to be accommodated, at the
84

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 85 of 102

present time there is no systemic process for communication and coordination between the mental health staff and security staff.

95. All individuals who (i) were found not guilty, were acquitted, or had charges brought against

them dismissed, and (ii) are not being held on any other matter, must be released directly from

the court unless the court directs otherwise. Additionally:

a. Such individuals must not be handcuffed, shackled, chained with other prisoners,

transported back to the Jail, forced to submit to bodily strip searches, or returned

to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.

b. Notwithstanding (a), above, individuals may request to be transported back to the

Jail solely for the purpose of routine processing for release. If the County decides

to allow such transport, the County must ensure that Jail policies and procedures

govern the process. At minimum, policies and procedures must prohibit staff

from:

i.

Requiring the individual to submit to bodily strip searches;

ii. Requiring the individual to change into Jail clothing if the individual is not

already in such clothing; and

iii. Returning the individual to general population or any other secure Jail

housing area containing prisoners.

Non-Compliant Individuals are not being released from the Court at this time. In connection with the drafting of policies and procedures, Jail staff are working on a process of releasing individuals from the downtown facility, JDC.

96. The County must develop, implement, and maintain policies and procedures to govern the release of prisoners. These policies and procedures must:
a. Describe all documents and records that must be collected and maintained in Jail files for determining the basis of a prisoner’s detention, the prisoner’s anticipated release date, and their status in the criminal justice system.
b. Specifically, detail procedures to ensure timely release of prisoners entitled to be released, and procedures to prevent accidental release.
c. Be developed in consultation with court administrators, the District Attorney’s Office, and representatives of the defense bar.
d. Include mechanisms for notifying community mental health providers, including the County’s Program of Assertive Community Treatment (“PACT”) team, when releasing a prisoner with serious mental illness so that the prisoner can transition safely back to the community. These mechanisms must include providing such prisoners with appointment information and a supply of their prescribed

85

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 86 of 102
medications to bridge the time period from release until their appointment with the County PACT team, or other community provider.
Non-Compliant The Jail does not yet have an adopted policy on Releasing. A draft policy has been circulated for review. The draft currently addresses some but not all of these requirements. The draft policy primarily addresses procedures that would ensure the accurate release of inmates completing a sentence. This is a small percentage of the releases. Inmates are released in a variety of circumstances including pretrial release on bond, ROR or electronic monitoring, releases of holds, pick ups on holds, expiration of time limits on detention, and others. The policy should address these other forms of release.
As noted in previous monitoring reports, compliance with this provision actually involves several different activities. The first is the development of a written discharge plan for each prisoner who is likely to be eventually released; the plan would include the type of treatment needed, where the prisoner will obtain that treatment, and any other wrap-around services that might be indicated (housing assistance, vocational assistance, case management, etc.); and ultimately, the plan should be developed and shared with the prisoner, with the goal of obtaining the prisoner’s commitment to the plan. Once the prisoner is relatively stable within the facility, the second activity is to prepare the prisoner for release; this is done via psychoeducation and medication management groups, discharge planning groups, etc.; and where indicated, it may also involve other individual and group therapeutic interventions that maximize the prisoner’s ability to function outside of the facility. The third activity is the development of working relationships with community-based providers of mental health services and other important wrap-around services; this effort is to assure that such community-based providers will accept referrals; and this effort should also be focused on the mechanics of referral and how to maximize the possibility of having a successful/completed referral. The fourth activity is finding ways to bridge the gap between release time and the prisoner’s first meeting with a communitybased provider; this includes giving the prisoner medication upon their release from the facility to hold them over until they see the community-based provider, but it might also include making sure that the prisoner knows how to access any emergency services that the prisoner might require prior to the time the prisoner meets with the community-based provider; and ways to do this must be developed even for prisoners who are released directly from court or otherwise fail to go through the medical clearance process upon their release from the facility.
Although there was an initial burst of activity around these various activities, during this last monitoring period not much has happened to continue to move forward with these activities, largely due to staff shortages. More specifically, although there have been discussions about the need to develop written discharge plans, that activity has not been initiated. Similarly, although there are plans to eventually start psychoeducation and medication management groups,
86

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 87 of 102
discharge planning groups, etc., those groups have not been initiated. There has also not been any follow-up after initial meetings with Hinds Behavioral Health, regarding better ways to assure successful referral to the various programs they provide; although this monitor met with another potential referral source during this most recent site visit (Dr. Chandler, Director of Adolescent and Family Services, LLC) that possibility will also require follow-up; and in both cases, there are funding issues that need to be further explored. Finally, there continues to be a considerable number of prisoners who are released without medical clearance and therefore fail to get a supply of medication that is waiting for them in medical; so there still needs to be improvement there; and it is still anticipated that once medication groups, discharge planning groups, etc. are in place, prisoners can learn about available ways to get emergency medication if they do leave the facility without a supply of medication.
97. The County must develop, implement, and maintain appropriate post orders relating to the timely release of individuals. Any post orders must:
a. Contain up-to-date contact information for court liaisons, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Public Defender’s Office;
b. Describe a process for obtaining higher level supervisor assistance in the event the officer responsible for processing releases encounters administrative difficulties in determining a prisoner’s release eligibility or needs urgent assistance in reaching officials from other agencies who have information relevant to a prisoner’s release status.
Non-Compliant The County has not yet developed post orders in this area. The Records Supervisor and her assistant and the individual working with County Court appear to have developed working relationships with individuals in the court systems.
98. Nothing in this Agreement precludes appropriate verification of a prisoner’s eligibility for release, including checks for detention holds by outside law enforcement agencies and procedures to confirm the authenticity of release orders. Before releasing a prisoner entitled to release, but no later than the day release is ordered, Jail staff should check the National Crime Information Center or other law enforcement databases to determine if there may be a basis for continued detention of the prisoner. The results of release verification checks must be fully documented in prisoner records.
Partial Compliance The Booking staff reportedly now runs an NCIC check at the time of booking and again at release. NCIC reports run at the time of booking are in the inmate files. The files reviewed did include a copy of the NCIC report at the time of release. Once the policy on Release is revised
87

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 88 of 102

and adopted, and the files continue to contain the required documentation, the county can be considered compliant.

99. The County must ensure that the release process is adequately staffed by qualified detention

officers and supervisors. To that end, the County must:

a. Ensure that sufficient qualified staff members, with access to prisoner records and

to the Jail’s e-mail account for receiving court orders, are available to receive and

effectuate court release orders twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.

b. Ensure that staff members responsible for the prisoner release process and related

records have the knowledge, skills, training, experience, and abilities to

implement the Jail’s release policies and procedures. At minimum, the County

must provide relevant staff members with specific pre-service and annual in-

service training related to prisoner records, the criminal justice process, legal

terms, and release procedures. The training must include instruction on:

i.

How to process release orders for each court, and whom to contact if a

question arises;

ii. What to do if the equipment for contacting other agencies, such as the

Jail’s fax machine or email service, malfunctions, or communication is

otherwise disrupted;

iii. Various types of court dispositions, and the language typically used

therein, to ensure staff members understand the meaning of court orders;

and

iv. How and when to check for detainers to ensure that an individual may be

released from court after she or he is found not guilty, is acquitted, or has

the charges brought against her or him dismissed.

c. Provide detention staff with sufficient clerical support to prevent backlogs in the

filing of prisoner records.

Partial Compliance There are now policies and procedures on Booking, Pre-Booking, and Records. A policy on Releasing has been circulated and returned with comments. These policies will assist in coming into compliance in this area. As stated in paragraph 85 above, there is a problem in checking for detainers because the Warrants Division does not enter warrants in the JMS system and the Records Supervisor does not have access to their system after hours.

The imbalance of staffing in Booking needs to emphasized again (see the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Monitoring Reports). While there is routinely only one officer in the holding cell area (where there should be two at all times, one male and one female) three or four Booking Clerks (who are Detention Officers) are routinely on duty in the office area. Considering the fact that

88

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 89 of 102
only 14 people are booked on a typical day (slightly more than one every two hours), this misallocation of manpower should have been addressed previously.
100. The County must annually review its prisoner release and detention process to ensure that it complies with any changes in federal law, such as the constitutional standard for civil or pretrial detention.
Non-Compliant At the time of the site visit, there had not been an initial review of this process to determine consistency with federal law.
101. The County must ensure that the Jail’s record-keeping and quality assurance policies and procedures allow both internal and external audit of the Jail’s release process, prisoner lengths of stay, and identification of prisoners who have been held for unreasonably long periods without charges or other legal process. The County must, at minimum, require:
a. A Jail log that documents (i) the date each prisoner was entitled to release; (ii) the date, time, and manner by which the Jail received any relevant court order; (iii) the date and time that prisoner was in fact released; (iv) the time that elapsed between receipt of the court order and release; (v) the date and time when information was received requiring the detention or continued detention of a prisoner (e.g., immigration holds or other detainers), and (vi) the identity of the authority requesting the detention or continued detention of a prisoner.
b. Completion of an incident report, and appropriate follow-up investigation and administrative review, if an individual is held in custody past 11:59 PM on the day that she or he is entitled to release. The incident report must document the reason(s) for the error. The incident report must be submitted to the Jail Administrator no later than one calendar day after the error was discovered.
Non-Compliant The record keeping process does not at this time allow for an audit other than a review of individual files. The log and summary that is now supposed to be in each individual file would provide this information. A technological solution should be considered to pull this information into a system wide log that would meet the requirements of subparagraph a. The County has provided their list of releases but the list does not include the information required by subparagraph a. Incident reports are not routinely prepared for over detention.
102. The County must appoint a staff member to serve as a Quality Control Officer with responsibility for internal auditing and monitoring of the release process. This Quality Control
89

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 90 of 102
Officer will be responsible for helping prevent errors with the release process, and the individual’s duties will include tracking releases to ensure that staff members are completing all required paper work and checks. If the Quality Control Officer determines that an error has been made, the individual must have the authority to take corrective action, including the authority to immediately contact the Jail Administrator or other County official with authority to order a prisoner’s release. The Quality Control Officer’s duties also include providing data and reports so that release errors are incorporated into the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance process.
Partial Compliance The Jail now has an individual whose title is Quality Control Officer or sometimes is referred to as the Court Liaison. At the present time, his work is primarily reactive. When an individual is brought to his attention, he researches the situation and takes corrective action. He does not track releases or prevent errors in the releasing process. He maintains a spreadsheet that includes release errors that he has addressed, but he does not at the present time collect and report on releasing errors that he has not himself addressed. His work is not incorporated into a continuous improvement and quality assurance process.
Another individual serves as a court liaison with the lower courts. She also attempts to identify individuals entitled to release. Like the Quality Control Officer, she operates independently of the booking and release process and maintains her own spreadsheets but she does not perform all the duties listed in this paragraph.
103. The County must require investigation of all incidents relating to timely or erroneous prisoner release within seven calendar days by appropriate investigators, supervisors, and the Jail Administrator. The Jail Administrator must document any deficiencies found and any corrective action taken. The Jail Administrator must then make any necessary changes to Jail policies and procedures. Such changes should be made, if appropriate, in consultation with court personnel, the District Attorney’s Office, members of the defense bar, and any other law enforcement agencies involved in untimely or erroneous prisoner releases.
Non-Compliant As noted above, incident reports are not routinely created for untimely releases, nor are any investigations initiated for such incidents. The Court Liaison does investigate and prepare a report on incidents that he has investigated, but there have been many untimely releases that have not been reported. Recently, there have been a few incident reports involving erroneous releases. There were two in June and one in September. This is a positive step. It is not clear that any of these erroneous releases prompted any corrective action other than retrieving the inmate. These events should prompt an “after action” review with corrective action identified. The Jail
90

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 91 of 102
Administrator needs to issue a DSD Order requiring documentation of all untimely or erroneous releases.
104. The County must conduct bi-annual audits of release policies, procedures, and practices. As part of each audit, the County must make any necessary changes to ensure that individuals are being released in a timely manner. The audits must review all data collected regarding timely release, including any incident reports or Quality Control audits referenced in Paragraph 102 above. The County must document the audits and recommendations and must submit all documentation to the Monitor and the United States for review.
Non-Compliant There has not been an initial audit of releasing practices. There are no incident reports regarding untimely releases even though such incidents have occurred.
105. The County must ensure that policies, procedures, and practices allow for reasonable attorney visitation, which should be treated as a safeguard to prevent the unlawful detention of citizens and for helping to ensure the efficient functioning of the County’s criminal justice system. The Jail’s attorney visitation process must provide sufficient space for attorneys to meet with their clients in a confidential setting and must include scheduling procedures to ensure that defense attorneys can meet with their clients for reasonable lengths of time and without undue delay. An incident report must be completed if Jail staff are unable to transport a prisoner to meet with their attorney, or if there is a delay of more than 30 minutes for transporting a prisoner for a scheduled attorney visit.
Non-Compliant The DSD has taken no corrective action to resolve the problem that exists at the RDC. The need to move inmates out of the Pods to meet with attorneys, coupled with the lack of staffing to promptly move inmates, causes significant delays and cancellation of attorney visits. In the Third Monitoring Report it was recommended that unused video visitation space, in front of the control room officer’s station in the A, B and C Pods, should be repurposed as attorney/client visitation space. Attorneys would then have the opportunity to meet with their clients without having to wait for inmates to be brought to the front of the facility. There is no expense involved other than to remove some floor and wall mounted equipment and to place tables and chairs in the space.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
The County must develop an effective system for identifying and self-correcting systemic violations of prisoner’s constitutional rights. To that end, the County must:
91

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 92 of 102
106. Develop and maintain a database and computerized tracking system to monitor all reportable incidents, uses of force, and grievances. This tracking system will serve as the repository of information used for continuing improvement and quality assurance reports.
Partial Compliance At the time of the May site visit, County IT had created a report that pulls data by field from the incident reports which includes reportable incidents and uses of force. This is the beginning of being able to comply with this provision. Since the time of the site visit, the monitoring team has received the electronic monthly reports. The Jail Administrator reports that the spreadsheet is reviewed at command meetings and does assist in targeted improvement efforts. Although the spreadsheet is helpful in that it provides a computerized listing of incidents including use of force, it does not include much of the information listed in paragraph 107 and 108 below and that would be needed to provide the information needed to inform continuing improvement or quality assurance reports. There continues to be a concern because of the lack of reports or the small number of reports that some types of incidents are underreported including late releases, use of force, and lost money and property.
The computerized grievance system does not allow for the compilation of a useful summary grievance report. However, the data in the system can now be pulled into an Excel spreadsheet which can be used to generate reports. In addition, a system of manually recording data on grievances is being developed also in Excel. The new policy also rejects grievances that are actually inmate requests and directs inmates to use the inmate request category. This allows an accurate depiction of grievances. With the new policy, it should be possible to have a useful data base on grievance data. These reports are not yet being used to inform improvement or quality assurance efforts.
107. Compile an Incident Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Incident Summary Reports must compile and summarize incident report data in order to identify trends such as rates of incidents in general, by housing unit, by day of the week and date, by shift, and by individual prisoners or staff members. The Incident Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Brief summary of all reportable incidents, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. Description of all suicides and deaths, including the date, name of prisoner, housing
unit, and location where the prisoner died (including name of hospital if prisoner died off-site); c. The names and number of prisoners placed in emergency restraints, and segregation, and the frequency and duration of such placements; d. List and total number of incident reports received during the reporting period; e. List and Total number of incidents referred to IAD or other law enforcement agencies for investigation.
92

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 93 of 102
Partial Compliance There are two spreadsheets being generated. One has the text of the narrative of the initial incident report and some information. The other spreadsheet does not have the narrative but has some additional information. The spreadsheets now being created are a first step towards being able to generate the reports required by this paragraph. At this time, it does not include all of the information required by this paragraph including information that would be necessary to be fully informed regarding the nature of the incident. Combined, the spreadsheets would have quite a bit of the required information but the information should be accessible in one summary report. Most importantly, neither spreadsheet has an actual summary of the incident. The spreadsheet pulls in the first incident report and not the supplements. The first incident report does not necessarily have important facts. For example, in the case of the death of the inmate in December, 2018, neither the first, nor the supplemental incident reports included the fact of his death. That would be important to know and is in fact required in subsection b. Additional types of incidents that could be identified should be explored. For example, “assault” is used whether it is an inmate on inmate assault or an inmate on officer assault. Only by reading the narrative of the first report, can that be discerned. The spreadsheet also does not include the incidents or the total number of incidents referred to investigation.
108. Compile a Use of Force Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Use of Force Summary Reports must compile and summarize use of force report data in order to identify trends such as rates of use in general, by housing unit, by shift, by day of the week and date, by individual prisoners, and by staff members. The Use of Force Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Summary of all uses of force, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. List and total number of use of force reports received during the reporting period; c. List and total number of uses of force reports/incidents referred to IAD or other
law enforcement agencies for investigation.
Partial Compliance One of the new spreadsheets has some of this information with respect to Use of Force. The Use of Force incidents are now submitted on an incident report form. This is preferable to separate forms. Again, there is no summary of the use of force in the spreadsheet and there is no listing or totaling of referrals to investigation.
109. Compile a Grievance Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Grievance Summary Reports must compile and summarize grievance information in order to identify trends such as most frequently reported complaints, units generating the most grievances, and staff members receiving the most grievances about their conduct. To identify trends and potential concerns, at least quarterly, a member of the Jail’s management staff must review the Grievance
93

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 94 of 102
Summary Reports and a random sample of ten percent of all grievances filed during the review period. These grievance reviews, any recommendations, and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Partial Compliance Some progress has been made in this area but the limitations of the system and the overwhelming number of requests and grievances filed have made it difficult to track the grievances in a meaningful way. The spreadsheet generated by pulling data from the system provides some of this information. The manual spreadsheet provides other information. There is currently not a process to merge the two. Grievances can now generally be identified separate from requests but the same individuals are responsible for both so the volume remains daunting. (It should be noted that once officers are more available in the housing units, most requests can be directed and handled by them and should reduce the burden on the grievance system). Neither system can generate a report by location, shift, or persons involved. A report can be generated by the types permitted in the electronic system. There are additional limitations. Any inmate response is treated by the system as an appeal when often the inmate has just responded by saying thank you. Again, this makes tracking what is actually happening difficult unless it is done manually. At the present time, there is no review process in the grievance system. As mentioned above, the Grievance Officer is now keeping an Excel spreadsheet and manually entering information related to grievances. One option would be to expand the manual spreadsheet to include the information required by this paragraph, this should enable staff to generate a report consistent with this provision.
110. Compile a monthly summary report of IAD investigations conducted at the Facility. The IAD Summary Report must include:
a. A brief summary of all completed investigations, by type, shift, housing unit, and date;
b. A listing of investigations referred for disciplinary action or other final disposition by type and date;
c. A listing of all investigations referred to a law enforcement agency and the name of the agency, by type and date; and
d. A listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.
Partial Compliance See response to paragraph 68. The IAD Investigator continues to provide a summary sheet reflecting the status of IAD investigations since 2017; however, the level of detail included does not comply with all of the requirements of this paragraph. Part of the problem is that the IAD Investigator does not routinely receive notice of disciplinary review dispositions.
94

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 95 of 102
111. Conduct a review, at least annually, to determine whether the incident, use of force, grievance reporting, and IAD systems comply with the requirements of this Agreement and are effective at ensuring staff compliance with their constitutional obligations. The County must make any changes to the reporting systems that it determines are necessary as a result of the system reviews. These reviews and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant There has been no annual review pursuant to this paragraph.
112. Ensure that the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance systems include an Early Intervention component to alert Administrators of potential problems with staff members. The purpose of the Early Intervention System is to identify and address patterns of behavior or allegations which may indicate staff training deficiencies, persistent policy violations, misconduct, or criminal activity. As part of the Early Intervention process, incident reports, use of force reports, and prisoner grievances must be screened by designated staff members for such patterns. If misconduct, criminal activity, or behaviors indicate the need for corrective action, the screening staff must refer the incidents or allegations to Jail supervisors, administrators, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies for investigation. Additionally:
a. The Early Intervention System may be integrated with other database and computerized tracking systems required by this Agreement, provided any unified system otherwise still meets the terms of this Agreement.
b. The Early Intervention System must screen for staff members who may be using excessive force, regardless of whether use of force reviews concluded that the uses complied with Jail policies and this Agreement. This provision allows identification of staff members who may still benefit from additional training and serves as a check on any deficiencies with use of force by field supervisors.
c. The Jail Administrator, or designee of at least Captain rank, must personally review Early Intervention System data and alerts at least quarterly. The Administrator, or designee, must document when reviews were conducted as well as any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken.
d. The County must maintain a list of any staff members identified by the Early Intervention System as possibly needing additional training or discipline. A copy of this list must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
e. The County must take appropriate, documented, and corrective action when staff members have been identified as engaging in misconduct, criminal activity, or a pattern of violating Jail policies.
f. The County must review the Early Intervention System, at least bi-annually, to ensure that it is effective and used to identify staff members who may need
95

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 96 of 102
additional training or discipline. The County must document any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken as a result of these reviews. Copies of these reviews must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
Non-Compliant There is currently no Early Intervention program.
113. Develop and implement policies and procedures for Jail databases, tracking systems, and computerized records (including the Early Intervention System), that ensure both functionality and data security. The policies and procedures must address all of the following issues: data storage, data retrieval, data reporting, data analysis and pattern identification, supervisor responsibilities, standards used to determine possible violations and corrective action, documentation, legal issues, staff and prisoner privacy rights, system security, and audit mechanisms.
Non-Compliant The initial P&P Manual that was issued in April, 2017 did not include policies and procedures covering this matter. There is no draft of such a policy at this time.
114. Ensure that the Jail’s medical staff are included as part of the continuous improvement and quality assurance process. At minimum, medical and mental health staff must be included through all of the following mechanisms:
a. Medical staff must have the independent authority to promptly refer cases of suspected assault or abuse to the Jail Administrator, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies;
b. Medical staff representatives must be involved in mortality reviews and systemic reviews of serious incidents. At minimum, a physician must prepare a mortality review within 30 days of every prisoner death. An outside physician must review any mortalities associated with treatment by Jail physicians.
Partial Compliance Medical staff are not included in the review of serious incidents. This was discussed in a joint meeting between QCHC staff and command staff. It was decided that the Interdisciplinary Team meetings would be reinstituted and one task of the Team would be to review serious incidents.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
115. Hinds County will establish a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (“Coordinating Committee”) with subject matter expertise and experience that will assist in streamlining criminal justice processes and identify and develop solutions and interventions designed to lead
96

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 97 of 102
to diversion from arrest, detention, and incarceration. The Coordinating Committee will focus particularly on diversion of individuals with serious mental illness and juveniles. Using the Sequential Intercept Model, or an alternative acceptable to the Parties, the Coordinating Committee will identify strategies for diversion at each intercept point where individuals may encounter the criminal justice system and will assess the County’s current diversion efforts and unmet service needs in order to identify opportunities for successful diversion of such individuals. The Committee will recommend appropriate changes to policies and procedures and additional services necessary to increase diversion.
Partial Compliance Hinds County had contracted with Justice Management Institute (JMI) to provide consulting and assist in implementing a CJCC. Those efforts were primarily focused on getting the CJCC implemented and developing a strategic plan. Hinds County is to be commended for getting the CJCC implemented and continuing its facilitation of those meetings despite a lack of participation by some key players. This paragraph is carried as partial compliance because it also requires that Hinds County establish a CJCC that has the subject matter expertise and experience to identify and develop solutions and interventions. Although the stakeholders that do participate have expertise within their areas, the participants do not have the expertise in criminal justice system reform including diversion that would allow the CJCC to meet the requirements of this paragraph. The JMI contract has not been renewed. As both JMI and the monitoring team has recommended, in order to have a CJCC with sufficient subject matter expertise and experience to carry out the mandate of this paragraph, the County will need to provide staff support. The requirement that the Committee identify opportunities for diversion and recommend measures to accomplish this has not been achieved. At this time, the County will need to drive the process of the CJCC identifying opportunities for diversion.
The Sequential Intercept Mapping required by this paragraph has already taken place under a grant to the Hinds County Behavioral Health from the GAINS Center. A two-day meeting was held on August 16-17, 2017 with broad participation including the County and Jail. The Sequential Intercept Model provides a conceptual framework for communities to use when considering the interface between the criminal justice and mental health systems as they address concerns about the criminalization of inmates with mental health illness. The GAINS center completed the report for Hinds County Behavioral Health. It includes recommendations for creating or improving intercepts in the jail and at release. This provides a useful road map for CJCC and for achieving compliance with the diversion and discharge planning requirements of the Settlement Agreement. However, staff support will still be needed to drive this effort.
116. The Coordinating Committee will include representation from the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office and Hinds County Board of Supervisors. The County will also seek representation from
97

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 98 of 102
Hinds County Behavioral Health Services; the Jackson Police Department; Mississippi Department of Mental Health; Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services; judges from the Hinds County Circuit, Chancery, and County (Youth and Justice) Courts; Hinds County District Attorney Office; Hinds County Public Defender Office; relevant Jackson city officials; and private advocates or other interested community members.
Partial Compliance As noted above the CJCC is meeting. Not all of the identified agencies have been invited or represented at the meeting. The reported intention is to expand representation after further development. Although the County cannot control the participation of others, staff support would assist in engaging other stakeholders.
117. The Coordinating Committee will prioritize enhancing coordination with local behavioral health systems, with the goal of connecting individuals experiencing mental health crisis, including juveniles, with available services to avoid unnecessary arrest, detention, and incarceration.
Partial Compliance The CJCC has just adopted its strategic plan. Enhancing behavioral health services for justice involved individuals is included as a strategic priority. Hinds County Behavioral Health has participated in the CJCC. Further observation of the CJCC and the County’s leadership in the CJCC will be necessary to determine if behavioral health services are a priority in CJCC actions and deliberation.
118. Within 30 days of the Effective Date and in consultation with the United States, the County will select and engage an outside consultant to provide technical assistance to the County and Coordinating Committee regarding strategies for reducing the jail population and increasing diversion from criminal justice involvement, particularly for individuals with mental illness and juveniles. This technical assistance will include (a) a comprehensive review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing efforts to reduce recidivism and increase diversion; (b) identification of gaps in the current efforts, (c) recommendations of actions and strategies to achieve diversion and reduce recidivism; and (d) estimates of costs and cost savings associated with those strategies. The review will include interviews with representatives from the agencies and entities referenced in Paragraph 116 and other relevant stakeholders as necessary for a thorough evaluation and recommendation. Within 120 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the outside consultant will finalize and make public a report regarding the results of their assessment and recommendations. The Coordinating Committee will implement the recommended strategies and will continue to use the outside consultant to assist with implementation of the strategies when appropriate.
98

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 99 of 102
Partial Compliance The County did contract with an outside consultant to provide technical assistance in developing the CJCC. However, that contract does not encompass the requirements listed above regarding an assessment of and recommendations for strategies to reduce recidivism and increase diversion. The County has not renewed the contract with the consultant. The initial contract was narrower than required by this paragraph.

IMPLEMENTATION, TIMING, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

Paragraphs 119 and 120 regarding duty to implement and effective date omitted.

121. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County must distribute copies

of the Agreement to all prisoners and Jail staff, including all medical and security staff, with

appropriate explanation as to the staff members’ obligations under the Agreement. At minimum:

a. A copy of the Agreement must be posted in each unit (including booking/intake

and medical areas), and program rooms (e.g., classrooms and any library).

b.

Individual copies of the Agreement must be provided to prisoners upon request.

Partial Compliance The DSD has printed a booklet-sized version of the Settlement Agreement, which has been distributed to staff, but when questioned regarding the booklets, most staff cannot produce them and many do not have access to them. While copies were previously posted in the housing units for the benefit of the inmates, a more practical approach toward compliance has been to make the Settlement Agreement available through the inmate kiosk system. Based on inquiries from inmates, it appears that some inmates are accessing the Settlement Agreement in this manner. Each jail now has a copy of the Settlement Agreement and most recent Monitoring Report in a binder in each control room (RDC and JDC) and housing unit (WC). Assuming that this system is found to be still in place during the January 2020, site visit, it will be possible to move this paragraph from Partial Compliance to Substantial Compliance.

POLICY AND PROCEDURE REVIEW

130. The County must review all existing policies and procedures to ensure their compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. Where the Jail does not have a policy or procedure in place that complies with the terms of this Agreement, the County must draft such a policy or procedure, or revise its existing policy or procedure.

Partial Compliance

99

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 100 of 102
This provision has been changed back to partial compliance. An initial attempt to draft policies and procedures was made in early 2017. The Monitoring Team and DOJ provided comments but the policies really needed to be rewritten. The plan to hire outside consultants fell through and there was no apparent progress. Since that time, Jail staff has been working with Karen Albert of the Monitoring Team to develop policies and procedures. A number of draft policies have been provided and at this time, three policies have been adopted. It does not appear that there is a system in the policy development to incorporate requirements of the Settlement Agreement. In many respects, the draft policies reflect Settlement Agreement requirements because they both reflect best practices. However, there are some concrete requirements in the Settlement Agreement that could be addressed in the draft policies that get missed. A systematic approach to incorporating Settlement Agreement requirements in the draft policies would be valuable.
131. The County shall complete its policy and procedure review and revision within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
Non-Compliant Three policies and procedures have now been adopted and several others have been drafted and circulated. There are many outstanding policies to be written and no estimated completion date. They are seriously overdue at this time. However, a new process is being identified that would accelerate the drafting and approval process.
132. Once the County reviews and revises its policies and procedures, the County must provide a copy of its policies and procedures to the United States and the Monitor for review and comment. The County must address all comments and make any changes requested by the United States or the Monitor within thirty (30) days after receiving the comments and resubmit the policies and procedures to the United States and Monitor for review.
Partial Compliance Draft policies are being provided to DOJ and the Monitor for review. As noted above, many policies still have to be written.
133. No later than three months after the United States’ approval of each policy and procedure, the County must adopt and begin implementing the policy and procedure, while also modifying all post orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the policies and procedures.
Non-Compliant The policies and procedures are, at this point, seriously overdue. As stated above, a new process is being discussed that would accelerate the drafting and approval process. This paragraph also requires that all the steps necessary to appropriately implement the new policies be undertaken.
100

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 101 of 102
This has yet to be fully evaluated. The training process for the new policies will require extensive effort to develop training materials and provide training to all staff.
134. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, all new or revised policies and procedures must be implemented within six months of the United States’ approval of the policy or procedure.
Partial Compliance There have been three policies approved by DOJ and adopted by the Sheriff. The three policies are only partially implemented. The policies have not been incorporated into the training curriculum and some of the procedures have not yet been implemented. Most importantly, there are many policies yet to be drafted.
135. The County must annually review its policies and procedures, revising them as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures must be submitted to the United States and the Monitor for approval in accordance with paragraphs 129-131 above.
Non-Compliant This paragraph is now carried as non-compliant instead of not applicable because under the timeline established by the consent decree an annual review would now be due.
COUNTY ASSESSMENT AND COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR
Paragraphs 136 through 158 on Monitor duties omitted.
159. The County must file a self-assessment compliance report. The first compliance selfassessment report must be filed with the Court within four months of the Effective Date and at least one month before a Monitor site visit. Each self-assessment compliance report must describe in detail the actions the County has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and must make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. The report must include information supporting the County’s representations regarding its compliance with the Agreement such as quality assurance information, trends, statistical data, and remedial activities. Supporting information should be based on reports or data routinely collected as part of the audit and quality assurance activities required by this Agreement (e.g., incident, use of force, system, maintenance, and early intervention), rather than generated only to support representations made in the self-assessment.
Non-Compliant
101

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 46 Filed 11/13/19 Page 102 of 102
At the time of the October 2017 site visit, the County provided its first self-assessment. The selfassessment was not provided prior to the May 2018 site visit. A self-assessment was provided the week prior to the September 2018 site visit. The assessment was a significant step forward but did not include the level of detail required by this paragraph. A self-assessment was not provided prior to the January, May, or September, 2019 site visit. This paragraph is now carried as non-compliant based on this history. It should be noted that this requirement is not intended to be merely a bureaucratic requirement. Internal tracking of the Settlement Agreement requirements, remedial efforts, and progress towards the goals is a useful, if not essential, strategy in achieving compliance.
160. The County must designate a full-time Compliance Coordinator to coordinate compliance activities required by this Agreement. This person will serve as a primary point of contact for the Monitor. Two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties may consult with each other and the Monitor to determine whether the Compliance Coordinator’s hours may be reduced. The Parties may then stipulate to any agreed reduction in hours.
Sustained Compliance The County has designated a full-time Compliance Coordinator who is coordinating compliance activities. The Monitor will continue to track this assignment to ensure sustained compliance in this area.
EMERGENT CONDITIONS
161. The County must notify the Monitor and United States of any prisoner death, riot, escape, injury requiring hospitalization, or over-detention of a prisoner (i.e. failure to release a prisoner before 11:59 PM on the day she or he was entitled to be released), within 3 days of learning of the event.
Partial Compliance The practice of providing immediate notifications has improved. The notifications have returned to being provided by email which is helpful. In the past, by comparing the notifications to the medical transport list, it appeared that immediate notification of hospitalization was not always provided. The medical transport list is no longer provided despite being requested so it is unclear whether this continues to be the case. The County has not been providing notification of over-detention and, in fact, is not currently identifying prisoners who have been detained beyond their release date and preparing incident reports.
Paragraphs 162-167 regarding jurisdiction, construction and the PLRA omitted.
102

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 71
Court-Appointed Monitor’s Second Monitoring Report United States v. Hinds County, et al. Civ. No. 3:16cv489 WHB-JCG

David M. Parrish Corrections Operations

Elizabeth E. Simpson, J.D. Court-Appointed Monitor

Jacqueline M. Moore, RN, Ph.D. Corrections Medicine

Jim Moeser Juvenile Justice

1

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 2 of 71
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Following the first site inspection in October 2016, the Monitor prepared the Baseline Visit Report which summarized the status of the County with regard to the many provisions of the Settlement Agreement. Subsequent to the first visit, the County hired a Compliance Coordinator which has improved communication with the Monitor and appears to be facilitating steps towards compliance. There followed the second visit and the first actual monitoring visit in February, 2017. Progress had been made in a number of areas. However, there were a number of critical areas of deficiency having substantial impact on the health and safety of the prisoners. As required by the Settlement Agreement, the areas of deficiency were identified in the First Monitoring Report. Prior to the First Monitoring Report, priority recommendations were identified to allow for immediate attention to areas that could either be addressed quickly or presented the most pressing health and safety concerns.
The second site visit took place from June 13, 2017 through June 16, 2017. This Monitoring Report describes the findings from that visit. In keeping with the previously adopted process, priority recommendations have been provided subsequent to the June site visit. And, as required by the Settlement Agreement, the body of this report contains a listing of each substantive requirement of the Settlement Agreement and a description of the status of compliance as of the time of the site visit. This executive summary highlights some areas of progress and those areas of greatest concern. This report reflects conditions at the time of the site visit. Any progress since that time will be reflected in the report on the next site visit.
Corrections Operations
Lack of staff continues to be the most critical issue facing the Hinds County Jail System. The Sheriff’s Office took a positive step in December when it began to utilize some of the available space in the Work Center (WC) to accommodate prisoners that were (and are) crowding the understaffed Raymond Detention Center (RDC). However, the population of the facilities still requires significantly more staff than is currently allocated or employed. In May, the Sheriff approved a new pay plan which sets more reasonable salary levels for the various ranks and includes five step increases within each supervisory pay grade for the first time. This action should have a positive effect in the long run, but the lack of qualified applicants is of crisis proportions at this time.
As was previously noted, baseline data regarding authorized positions within the Jail System is woefully lacking. During the June site visit an updated list of authorized positions for the Detention Services Division was provided, but of the 275 positions identified, 24 actually work in other divisions of the Sheriff’s Office. That leaves 251 positions of which more than 50 are
2

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 3 of 71
vacant. The actual availability of another 50 positions is not entirely certain because the positions appear to be mischaracterized by title or job duties. The creation of an accurate workforce database must be accomplished before meaningful progress can be made toward rectifying the staff shortage problem.
In April, Hinds County completed an update to the Staffing Analysis that was done by the National Institute of Corrections in 2014. While the revised figures are based on an appropriate relief factor, a schematic rendering had not been developed for each facility. That visual record is necessary so that the County can validate and historically monitor the number of necessary personnel as conditions in, and the use of, each jail change over time. The staffing analysis conducted by the County concluded that a total of 428.4 positions were needed. The Correctional Expert of the Monitoring Team continued to work with the Detention Command Staff to finalize an accurate accounting of required positions and personnel in order to inform the budgeting process currently underway in Hinds County. The staffing analysis completed through the combined efforts of the Detention Command Staff and the Correctional Expert has determined that there is a need for 433.1 positions in the three detention facilities in order to safely operate them, very similar to the County’s independent analysis. This requires an increase of 182.1 positions. It is essential that the County and the Sheriff include funding for this number of positions in the budget in order to make any substantial progress towards compliance with the Settlement Agreement. The County should also consider achieving sufficient staffing by reducing the jail population. However, the jail population would have to be reduced to the point where a unit can be closed or facilities can be combined in order to achieve a reduction in needed staff.
Notable progress continues to be made with regard to operational procedures that do not require additional personnel. The booking area of the RDC no longer houses any inmates for more than eight hours. The WC is now a reduced custody level housing facility for pre-trial and sentenced misdemeanants and felons. While Units 3 and 4 have not been physically separated by a secure wall yet, once that is accomplished the WC will have a rated capacity of 256, with four, 64 bed units. Documented well-being checks are recorded much more routinely throughout the Jail System, though still not as specified by the Settlement Agreement. Lastly, the Policies and Procedures Manual is under revision so that a compliant version can be issued and personnel can be trained on the new policies and procedures.
Youthful Offenders
There have been some limited positive steps taken since the first monitoring visit in February of this year. This includes: (1) reinstituting some educational programming, although what has been reinstituted falls far short of the Settlement Agreement requirements (refer to report for more information); (2) identifying an architectural firm to develop concepts/designs for a
3

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 4 of 71
potential new/remodeled juvenile offender unit in which to house juvenile offenders; (3) completing some staff training on supervision of juvenile offenders; and (4) taking a more proactive approach to ensuring that youth have some access to outside recreation (the only group of Raymond inmates that are getting access to the recreation area), albeit that seems to be limited to weekdays only. However, the County remains behind schedule in making a decision about alternative housing for juvenile offenders and has not made substantive progress on other requirements in the Agreement. The development of a number of work groups focusing on the varied requirements of the full Agreement is a positive, but key staff is spread thin across those groups. The result appears to be sporadic attention to the tasks that need to be completed to make substantive progress on the specific youthful offender requirements. The actual progress on youthful offender items in the Agreement is limited in that there has been no real progress on education or behavior management and they are certainly behind schedule on identifying an alternate location, planning/design for such a location and the development of policies/procedures related to juveniles.
Medical and Mental Health
There is a shortage of health care providers both RN and LPN. Many of the new staff are not fully oriented. Due to correctional staff shortages, there are some health care responsibilities that are not consistently being performed such as medication administration. If the nurses don’t have a correctional officer, medication is not passed to those unit. These occurrences occur mostly on the evening shift. Medical staff maintain a binder of when medications are missed. Nursing sick call is not always performed in a timely manner. It generally is performed 3-5 days after the initial request.
There has been a revision of the Hinds County Detention Center’s policies. Once these policies are approved, the medical and mental health expert on the Monitoring Team will work with Quality Correctional Health Care (QCHC) to revise their policies so that they are congruent with the jail policies and the Settlement Agreement. A discharge planner has been hired and she is coordinating with Hinds County Behavioral Health for discharge and follow-up care on soon to be released inmates. AIMS (Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) testing for tardive dyskinesia is now performed during all psychiatric evaluations; however, consent forms for mental health medications have not been implemented.
There has been inconsistency in performing segregation rounds at RDC and performing mental health evaluations as required by the Settlement Agreement. Part of the issue is that medical staff is not notified when inmates are moved to segregation. There have been a number of inmates that were placed on suicide watch during the last quarter. Additional training on this topic would be useful to the correctional officers. There are no special management cells for the juveniles at RDC which would allow for an intermediate level of observation and protection on
4

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 5 of 71
the juvenile unit. As a result, a juvenile was placed on suicide watch in an adult unit. The problem was compounded by the lack of security staff to provide one on one observation, so the juvenile’s clothing was removed and he was left naked without a blanket on an adult unit for over a week.
Criminal Justice and Correctional System Issues
The County continues to express support for addressing internal and external processes for ensuring that individuals are processed through the system promptly and fairly. However, despite this motivation, significant problems and abuses continue to exist both internally and systemically. Internally, the records and releasing system is so fraught with problems and errors that there is no assurance that individuals are released as required by their case status. Almost universally, case files and computer records could not be reconciled with each other or the documentation supporting incarceration. For the most part, release dates are not tracked and depend on prisoners trying to identify release dates through grievances or inmate requests. Although it appears that prisoners are routinely held beyond their release dates, there are no incident reports identifying when prisoners are held beyond their release dates. The JMS system, like the paper system does not have accurate inputting that would identify release dates or failure to release according to release dates. This is an extremely significant deficit.
People continue to be held on invalid orders requiring full payment of fines and fees before release and showing no evidence of a determination of willfulness. The County has discontinued interpreting all fines and fees orders as requiring incarceration until payment in full but continues to hold people when the court order explicitly states to detain until payment in full despite no indication of a finding of willfulness. The Settlement Agreement sets out a process for returning these individuals to court in order to ensure the detention orders are valid.
It is essential that the County contract with a technical assistance provider on the development of a Criminal Justice Coordinating Council and begin facilitating CJCC meetings. The contracting with a consultant in this area is almost a year overdue.
Priority Recommendations
Following the February 2017 site visit, the Monitoring Team identified steps that could be taken to make interim improvements identified as Priority Recommendations. Shortly after the second site visit the Compliance Coordinator organized a number of working groups to address the priority recommendations and a number of actions were taken to address these recommendations. These include:
• Work on the update of the NIC staffing analysis which then formed the basis for the completion of the staffing analysis with the Monitoring Team’s correctional expert;
5

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 6 of 71

• Approval of salary increases for detention officers; • Return of the state prisoners housed at the Work Center, which provides needed
additional housing for inmates from RDC; • Completion and adoption of policies and procedures for the detention facilities which will
provide a basis for further development; • Hiring of a discharge planner by the medical provider, QCHC; • Audit of the JMS system for current custody status of prisoners; • Discontinuing the practice of automatically converting fines and fees to jail time even in
the absence of a court order requiring the jail to do so.

Additional progress has been made in some of the other priority recommendations. This reflects a significant amount of effort on the part of the County and Sheriff staff. Not all of the priority recommendations, however, were completed and some, such as the policies and procedures need additional work to be satisfactory. These areas are reflected in the updated and revised priority recommendations attached as Attachment 1. Other areas of improvement or lack thereof are covered in the executive summary above and the detail below.

MONITORING ACTIVITIES
The Monitoring Team conducted a site visit June 13th through June 16th, 2017. The site visit schedule was as follows:

June 13th 8:30 AM 10:00 AM
PM
June 14th 8:30 AM

Track One

Track Two

Track Three

Opening Meeting: Report on Progress from Last Site Visit; Identify Priority

Areas for Current Site Visit

Moeser meet with Moore and Parrish visit Simpson meet with Public

Synarus, Rushing JDC

Defender Office

and and Sgt Tower

and Deputy Newell

re Juvenile

Programming

Moeser visit youth Moore and Parrish visit Simpson review fines and fees

unit at RDC

RDC-including booking records with WC personnel

(observe &

interview youth);

meet with ABE

educator

Moeser and Parrish meet with design team Richard

Moore and Parrish at RDC including review of seg and seg records

Review JDC records re fines and fees and grievances with JDC personnel

6

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 7 of 71

McNeel and Johnnie

McDaniel and

Tower/Newell at HY

AM

Moeser, Parrish and Moore at RDC

the design team go

through the WC to

determine

applicability/options

for juvenile housing.

The same group then

tours Booking

Simpson meet with counsel on fines and fees
Simpson meet with Judge Green

PM

Parrish meeting with Moeser/Moore meet

Simpson meet with Justice

Rushing, Captains and Synarus on policies and procedures and post orders

with County staff and Peterkin Group re mental health services; Moeser observe juvenile unit and interview youth

Court

and staff;

Moore at RDC

PM
June 15th AM
PM PM June 16th Early AM 10:00

Moeser joins policy Moore continue RDC and procedure group work

Simpson meets with Records/Releasing of RDC and reviews charts

Moeser review education plan for young adults
Jim interview youth off unit

Parrish meeting on staffing, relief factors and training with Maj. Rushing, all Captains, Synarus Green and Claire Barker Parrish review personnel files of supervisors

Moore and Simpson review files and meet re state hospital beds with QCHC staff 10:30 Meet with Philip Gaines, Dr. Recore re state hospital beds and JBCR 1:00 Simpson and Moore meet with BH partners and QCHC Meet with compliance monitor/IT re reporting

Meeting with Sheriff, both Majors and Attorneys Exit Conference

Prior to the site visit, the County provided some documents in response to ongoing document requests. All documents received were reviewed either prior to or, because of the short time available prior to the site visit, after the site visit. The County has improved its ability to provide the requested documentation, however, it is not yet complete or in the format requested or required by the Settlement Agreement. The Monitoring Team will continue to work with the County to improve its ability to produce the required documentation and reports.
7

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 8 of 71

In the course of the site visit, the team interviewed numerous staff members, contractors, prisoners and stakeholders as mentioned below when relevant. In addition, facility and prisoner records on site were reviewed during the course of the site visit again as referenced below when relevant. A number of documents related to staffing and budget were reviewed but there remained a lack of clarity in this area. A significant amount of time during the site visit was devoted to clarifying the current staffing allocation and the needed staffing allocation. The Policies and Procedure Manual was reviewed prior to the site visit with extensive comments being provided. This was also the subject of intense review during the site visit. With respect to youthful prisoners, on-site activities included interviews with and observation of youth on the juvenile unit, interviews with educational and program staff, touring the WC and Henley-Young facilities with the architectural team, and review of roster information with records staff. With respect to medical and mental health, prisoner medical records and QCHC records were reviewed. Because there were four RN nursing vacancies for the three facilities, payroll records were obtained and a review of contractual obligations regarding staffing was performed.

COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW
The Monitoring Team will track progress towards compliance with the following chart. This chart will be added to with each Monitoring Report showing the date of the site visit and the number of Settlement Agreement requirements in full, partial or non-compliance. Requirements that have not yet been triggered such as an annual review are listed as NA (not applicable) at this time. Sustained compliance is achieved when compliance with a particular settlement agreement requirement has been sustained for 18 months or more. The count of 92 requirements is determined by the number of settlement agreement paragraphs which have substantive requirements. Introductory paragraphs and general provisions are not included. Some paragraphs may have multiple requirements which are evaluated independently in the text of the report but are included as one requirement for purposes of this chart.

Site Visit Date 2/7-10/17 6/1316/17

Sustained Compliance 0 0

Full Compliance 1 1

Partial Compliance 4 18

NA at this time
2 2

Noncompliant 85 71

Total
92 92

INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS Text of paragraphs 1-34 regarding “Parties,” “Introduction,” and “Definitions” omitted.
8

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 9 of 71
SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS
PROTECTION FROM HARM
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to provide prisoners with safety, protect prisoners from violence committed by other prisoners, and ensure that prisoners are not subjected to abuse by Jail staff. To that end, the County must:
37. Develop and implement policies and procedures to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment for prisoners and staff. Such policies and procedures must include the following:
a. Booking; b. Objective classification; c. Housing assignments; d. Prisoner supervision; e. Prisoner welfare and security checks (“rounds”); f. Posts and post orders; g. Searches; h. Use of force; i. Incident reporting; j. Internal investigations; k. Prisoner rights; l. Medical and mental health care; m. Exercise and treatment activities; n. Laundry; o. Food services; p. Hygiene; q. Emergency procedures; r. Grievance procedures; and s. Sexual abuse and misconduct.
Partial-Compliance A Policies and Procedures Manual (P&P Manual) for the Detention Services Division was issued in April, but it fails to address all of the areas of concern that are covered by the Settlement Agreement. In addition, it does not include Post Orders as individual Policies. Rather than issuing two separate manuals, the Post Orders should be re-written as Policies and included in the P&P Manual. Based on guidance provided in writing by the Monitor and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in May, as well as verbal suggestions made by various members of the Monitoring Team and the Department of Justice during the June site visit, the P&P Manual should be revised and re-issued as soon as possible. Special attention should be paid to making it consistent with
9

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 10 of 71
the Inmate Handbook so that when inmates are provided individual copies during the booking process, the information that they receive applies uniformly to each facility. As part of the revision of the policies and procedures manual, revised and, in some cases, new forms will have to be developed such as a revised incident/use of force form and an Inmate Release Tracking Form to be consistent with the new policies and procedures.
38. Ensure that the Jail is overseen by a qualified Jail Administrator and a leadership team with substantial education, training and experience in the management of a large jail, including at least five years of related management experience for their positions, and a bachelor’s degree. When the Jail Administrator is absent or if the position becomes vacant, a qualified deputy administrator with comparable education, training, and experience, must serve as acting Jail Administrator.
Partial Compliance There has been no change in the status of this section since the last Report. The Jail Administrator, while well qualified through experience, does not meet the technical education level in that she has the equivalent of an AA degree, but did not graduate with a BA/BS. The Assistant/Deputy Jail Administrator’s position is still vacant. The three Captains have AA degrees but only two of the three meet the requisite experience requirement.
39. Ensure that all Jail supervisors have the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing needed to effectively supervise both prisoners and other staff members. At minimum, Jail supervisors must have at least 3 years of field experience, including experience working in the Jail. They must also be familiar with Jail policies and procedures, the terms of this Agreement, and prisoner rights.
Partial Compliance Of the 27 Lieutenants and Sergeants, all have at least a high school diploma or GED and eight have AA degrees; however, seven had less than three years of relevant work experience at the time of their promotion. Familiarity with the P&P Manual will be determined once it is published in final form.
40. Ensure that no one works in the Jail unless they have passed a background check, including a criminal history check.
Non-Compliant This paragraph is still carried as non-compliant because there has not been sufficient time during the site visits to review all individual employee records and the County has not submitted documentation through self-reporting demonstrating compliance.
10

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 11 of 71
41. Ensure that Jail policies and procedures provide for the “direct supervision” of all Jail housing units.
Non-Compliant Once the P&P Manual is re-issued it will be reviewed to determine compliance. It should be noted, however, that implementation of the direct supervision related policies will require the employment and assignment of a sufficient number of Detention Officers to staff the housing units at the RDC. Only the WC currently operates as a direct supervision jail and has enough staff assigned to do so. The JDC cannot function as a direct supervision facility because of its linear design.
42. Ensure that the Jail has sufficient staffing to adequately supervise prisoners, fulfill the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the safe operation of the Jail. The parties recognize that the Board allocates to the Sheriff lump sum funding on a quarterly basis. The Sheriff recognizes that sufficient staffing of the Jail should be a priority for utilizing those funds. To that end, the County must at minimum:
a. Hire and retain sufficient numbers of detention officers to ensure that: i. There are at least two detention officers in each control room at all times; ii. There are at least three detention officers at all times for each housing unit, booking area, and the medical unit;
iii. There are rovers to provide backup and assistance to other posts; iv. Prisoners have access to exercise, medical treatment, mental health
treatment, and attorney visitation as scheduled; v. There are sufficient detention officers to implement this Agreement. b. Fund and obtain a formal staffing and needs assessment (“study”) that determines with particularity the minimum number of staff and facility improvements required to implement this Agreement. As an alternative to a new study, the September 2014 study by the National Institute of Corrections may be updated if the updated study includes current information for the elements listed below. The study or study update must be completed within six months of the Effective Date and must include the following elements: i. The staffing element of the study must identify all required posts and
positions, as well as the minimum number and qualifications of staff to cover each post and position. ii. The study must ensure that the total number of recommended positions includes a “relief factor” so that necessary posts remain covered regardless of staff vacancies, turnover, vacations, illness, holidays, or other temporary factors impacting day-to-day staffing.
11

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 12 of 71
iii. As part of any needs assessment, the study’s authors must estimate the number of prisoners expected to be held in the Jail and identify whether additional facilities, including housing, may be required.
c. Once completed, the County must provide the United States and the Monitor with a copy of the study and a plan for implementation of the study’s recommendations. Within one year after the Monitor’s and United States’ review of the study and plan, the County must fund and implement the staffing and facility improvements recommended by the study, as modified and approved by the United States.
d. The staffing study shall be updated at least annually and staffing adjusted accordingly to ensure continued compliance with this Agreement. The parties recognize that salaries are an important factor to recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, so the County will also annually evaluate salaries.
e. The County will also create, to the extent possible, a career ladder and system of retention bonuses for Jail staff.
Partial Compliance No progress has been made with regard to the critical issue of hiring and retaining enough officers to ensure that the facilities are properly staffed. From that perspective a finding of NonCompliant would be in order; however, the County has taken significant steps to deal with the other aspects of this section. Those efforts give rise to the Partial Compliance notation. In April the County’s Workforce Development Group studied the NIC Staffing Analysis (2014) and issued an updated report that called for a total of 428.4 Detention positions in order to adequately staff the facilities and comply with the conditions specified in the Settlement Agreement. In May the Sheriff approved a revised salary schedule for Detention Officers, Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains. It includes a five-step salary increase within each supervisory rank and a $2,500 increase for Detention Officers after eighteen months of service. Under this plan the entry level salary will increase from the current $21,816 per year to $27,500. That significant change should make the position of Hinds County Detention Officer much more competitive in the employment marketplace. During the June site visit the Monitor finally received a copy of authorized Detention positions which lists each permanent position number, title of the position, respective facility and salary amount. Of the 275 positions, fully 24 were actually assigned to other divisions of the Sheriff’s Office, many of the Detention Officer positions were carried as Correctional Officers, each of the three Captains were listed differently (S.O. Captain—Administration, Captain—Security and even Correctional Officer). Some positions were titled with job descriptions that do not exist in the Division of Detention Services. On June 27th the Monitor conducted a conference call with the Compliance Coordinator and five Sheriff’s Office staff during which each position was reviewed so that an accurate baseline list of authorized Detention positions can be established. Of the 251 positions that are now recognized as being in the division, just over 50 are currently vacant. Following this effort, the same group
12

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 13 of 71
reviewed the updated staffing analysis using the recognized relief factors of 5.1 (three shifts, seven days a week), 1.7 (one shift, seven days a week) and 1.2 (one shift, five days a week). The resultant list of Required Positions, organized by facility, was provided to the Compliance Coordinator and other command staff by the Monitor. It calls for a total of 433.1 positions, which is 182.1 more than are currently authorized.
f. Develop and implement an objective and validated classification and housing assignment procedure that is based on risk assessment rather than solely on a prisoner’s charge. Prisoners must be classified immediately after booking, and then housed based on the classification assessment. At minimum, a prisoner’s bunk, cell, unit, and facility assignments must be based on his or her objective classification assessment, and staff members may not transfer or move prisoners into a housing area if doing so would violate classification principles (e.g., placing juveniles with adults, victims with former assailants, and minimum security prisoners in a maximum security unit). Additionally, the classification and housing assignment process must include the following elements: i. The classification process must be handled by qualified staff who have additional training and experience on classification. ii. The classification system must take into account objective risk factors including a prisoner’s prior institutional history, history of violence, charges, special needs, physical size or vulnerabilities, gang affiliation, and reported enemies. iii. Prisoner housing assignments must not be changed by unit staff without proper supervisor and classification staff approval. iv. The classification system must track the location of all prisoners in the Jail, and help ensure that prisoners can be readily located by staff. The County may continue to use wrist bands to help identify prisoners, but personal identification on individual prisoners may not substitute for a staff-controlled and centralized prisoner tracking and housing assignment system. v. The classification system must be integrated with the Jail prisoner record system, so that staff have appropriate access to information necessary to provide proper supervision, including the current housing assignment of every prisoner in the Jail. vi. The designation and use of housing units as “gang pods” must be phased out under the terms of this Agreement. Placing prisoners together because of gang affiliation alone is prohibited. The County must replace current gang-based housing assignments with a more appropriate objective classification and housing process within one year after the Effective Date.
13

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 14 of 71
Partial Compliance Progress continues to be made in this area. A Classification Officer is now on duty seven days per week on the day shift. This means that individuals who are arrested during the weekend do not have to wait until Monday to be classified. Ultimately, continuous coverage needs to be in place so that all classification decisions and associated records are handled by Classification personnel. The recommendation to consolidate Classification and Records that was made in the last Monitoring Report, has even greater urgency now. There needs to be a single point of information for every inmate in the Jail System and all coordination with the courts should be handled by Records, not the individual facilities. Consolidation of Classification and Records into one unit has the potential to solve many of the record keeping and accountability problems that plague the Jail System.
Pursuant to prior recommendations, the Classification office has moved towards greater reliance in its classification system on behavior and less on current charge. Previously, classification staff used a classification instrument, but housing assignments were made primarily based on charge. The Classification Office is now relying on the results of the classification instrument and not just the current charge to identify the proper housing assignment. However, in this visit, it became apparent that this new approach was not being applied to persons charged with misdemeanors. Persons charged with misdemeanors were not being classified and they were all being sent to the WC without classification. This is inconsistent with this requirement of the Settlement Agreement and with best practice. Persons charged with misdemeanors may present significant risk in the institution. The Classification office must begin classifying misdemeanors and the Sheriff’s office must develop criteria for placement of persons charged with misdemeanors in the various facilities. In addition, specific criteria should be developed for the assignment of individuals or reassignment to the various facilities.
g. Develop and implement positive approaches for promoting safety within the Jail including: i. Providing all prisoners with at least 5 hours of outdoor recreation per week; ii. Developing rewards and incentives for good behavior such as additional commissary, activities, or privileges; iii. Creating work opportunities, including the possibility of paid employment; iv. Providing individual or group treatment for prisoners with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other behavioral or medical conditions, who would benefit from therapeutic activities; v. Providing education, including special education, for youth, as well as all programs, supports, and services required for youth by federal law;
14

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 15 of 71
vi. Screening prisoners for serious mental illness as part of the Jail’s booking and health assessment process, and then providing such prisoners with appropriate treatment and therapeutic housing;
vii. Providing reasonable opportunities for visitation. h. Ensure that policies, procedures, and practices provide for higher levels of
supervision for individual prisoners if necessary due to a prisoner’s individual circumstances. Examples of such higher level supervision include (a) constant observation (i.e., continuous, uninterrupted one-on-one monitoring) for actively suicidal prisoners (i.e., prisoners threatening or who recently engaged in suicidal behavior); (b) higher frequency security checks for prisoners locked down in maximum security units, medical observation units, and administrative segregation units; and (c) more frequent staff interaction with youth as part of their education, treatment and behavioral management programs. i. Continue to update, maintain, and expand use of video surveillance and recording cameras to improve coverage throughout the Jail, including the booking area, housing units, medical and mental health units, special management housing, facility perimeters, and in common areas.
Non-Compliant Outdoor recreation is still not provided to most inmates at the RDC, a condition that has existed for approximately five years; however, the juveniles in A-1 now have access to the outdoor recreation yard for one shift, five days per week. The WC inmates continue to have access to outdoor recreation on a daily basis. The JDC has no outdoor recreation yard. The best solution for that facility is to build a rooftop enclosed recreation yard at the fifth floor level accessed through the multi-purpose room on that floor. Rewards and incentives for good behavior have not yet been developed, nor are work opportunities available. Other than limited Adult Basic Education programming for youthful offenders, there is no routine screening of inmates that would identify youth/young adults who should be receiving special education services. The newly installed video recording system in the housing units at the RDC is a valuable resource, but it cannot be properly utilized until at least two officers are assigned to Master Control. Such equipment is not in place at the JDC and WC. Hourly well-being checks are now being documented in selected areas of the Jail System, but the practice is by no means universal. The more frequent checks required by the Settlement Agreement are not maintained in any facility.
With respect to the requirement to provide individual and group treatment, there is one to one counseling provided on Fridays with a PhD psychologist. He saw approximately 50 patients in April 2017. His hours are insufficient to cover the needs of all three jail facilities. There is no group therapy provided for either the youth or other inmates with behavioral health problems. Currently the only groups provided are those provided by the Chaplain to the youth housing unit. The groups consist of NA and AA, however the youth complained that there was too much of a
15

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 16 of 71
religious overtone in the groups. There are insufficient psychologist, psychiatrist and social worker hours to provide groups.
Inmates are screened at booking by correctional officers. Following this screening, an additional health assessment is conducted by RN nursing staff. The assessment includes a suicide screen. Inmates with mental health problems are referred to the psychologist or social worker. If the inmate is on psychotropic medication, they are referred to the psychiatrist for an order to continue the medication. Medications are verified at booking by the nurses. Intake nurses are provided 7-3 PM, 4-11PM Monday through Friday and 7pm to 7 AM three times per week. There is no intake coverage on the weekends and several graveyard shifts during the week. QCHC is requested to maintain a spreadsheet of the number of individuals booked in each shift and on the weekends. It was the Monitoring Team’s understanding that this area would be staffed 24 hours per day. The number of inmates booked per shift and per day will help to discern the staffing level needed.
Despite the fact that both officers and nurses conduct an intake screening, one offender, R.I was booked into the jail with a serious problem. His extremities were swollen; he had just been released from the hospital with pneumonia; and his vital signs were low. He was released on his own recognizance that night and retuned back to the hospital. Further review will be necessary to determine whether the screening is being done adequately and whether proper guidelines exist and are being followed.
While there is a full time social worker, many suicide threats occur after she has left for the day. The result is that a large number of inmates have been assigned to suicide watch. In the month of April there were 15 inmates placed on suicide precautions for verbalizing a suicide threat. A review of a sample of inmates that were placed on suicide precautions by officers indicated that three of the six patients reviewed were not actively suicidal, however without a mental health professional to screen the inmates, the officers place the inmates on a suicide watch. A preliminary screening form can be utilized by the nurses to call the social worker or psychiatrist for orders. In addition, it is essential that the facility be able to staff one on one observation when it is needed. One juvenile was placed on suicide watch in an adult segregation unit and because of the inability to provide one on one observation all of his clothing and blankets were removed. The juvenile (17 years old) was naked on a suicide watch for over a week. The air temperature of the unit is very cold. The youth complained that he could not sleep or eat due to the coldness. This was problematic on several levels-the placement of a juvenile on an adult unit and leaving him naked and without a blanket for a week.
Contributing to the problem in responding to suicide comments is the lack of sufficient correctional staffing at RDC to provide one to one staffing. In the future, the facility should explore crisis intervention with Hinds County Behavioral Health and admit the patient to St.
16

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 17 of 71
Luke’s Hospital. Another recommendation is to add a part time social worker that would work 20 hours per week at RDC. This position could perform a suicide assessment and screenings on inmates that verbalize self-harm or on new intakes that are booked in the facility. The individual might also be responsible for group therapy which could include life skill groups such as anger management, domestic violence, parenting etc.
43. Include outcome measures as part of the Jail’s internal data collection, management, and administrative reporting process. The occurrence of any of the following specific outcome measures creates a rebuttable presumption in this case that the Jail fails to provide reasonably safe conditions for prisoners:
a. Staff vacancy rate of more than 10% of budgeted positions; b. A voluntary staff turnover rate that results in the failure to staff critical posts (such
as the housing units, booking, and classification) or the failure to maintain experienced supervisors on all shifts; c. A major disturbance resulting in the takeover of any housing area by prisoners; d. Staffing where fewer than 90% of all detention officers have completed basic jailer training; e. Three or more use of force or prisoner-on-prisoner incidents in a fiscal year in which a prisoner suffers a serious injury, but for which staff members fail to complete all documentation required by this Agreement, including supervision recommendations and findings; f. One prisoner death within a fiscal year, where there is no documented administrative review by the Jail Administrator or no documented mortality review by a physician not directly involved in the clinical treatment of the deceased prisoner (e.g. corporate medical director or outside, contract physician, when facility medical director may have a personal conflict); g. One death within a fiscal year, where the death was a result of prisoner-onprisoner violence and there was a violation of Jail supervision, housing assignment, or classification procedures.
Non-Compliant The required outcome measures are still not routinely collected although the Jail System is starting to collect some baseline data. Although there has been an increase in the reporting of incidents and use of force, the documentation does not include all of the required information including a supervisor’s recommendation and findings. Similarly, the most recent prisoner death did not have a mortality review and, in fact, the medical file could not be located at the time of the site visit. The turnover rate for Detention was 43% in 2016—the WC was 23.5%, the JDC was 31.5% and the RDC was 58.8%. Consequently, almost every unit at the RDC is not staffed leaving the inmates in charge of 90% of the facility. The one exception is A-1, the juvenile unit, which is staffed with one officer on at least a part time basis. Pursuant to this provision of the
17

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 18 of 71
Settlement Agreement, this lack of documentation and the turnover rate that is documented creates the rebuttable presumption that the jail fails to provide reasonably safe conditions for prisoners.
44. To complement, but not replace, “direct supervision,” develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that detention officers are conducting rounds as appropriate. To that end:
a. Rounds must be conducted at least once every 30 minutes in general population housing units and at least once every 15 minutes for special management prisoners (including prisoners housed in booking cells).
b. All security rounds must be conducted at irregular intervals to reduce their predictability, and must be documented on forms or logs.
c. Officers must only be permitted to enter data on these forms or logs at the time a round is completed. Forms and logs must not include pre-printed dates or times. Officers must not be permitted to fill out forms and logs before they actually conduct their rounds.
d. The parties anticipate that “rounds” will not necessarily be conducted as otherwise described in this provision when the Jail is operated as a “direct supervision” facility. This is because a detention officer will have constant, active supervision of all prisoners in the detention officer’s charge. As detailed immediately below, however, even under a “direct supervision” model, the Jail must have a system in place to document and ensure that staff are providing adequate supervision.
e. Jail policies, procedures, and practices may utilize more than one means to document and ensure that staff are supervising prisoners as required by “direct supervision,” including the use and audit of supervisor inspection reports, visitation records, mealtime records, prisoner worker sheets, medical treatment files, sick call logs, canteen delivery records, and recreation logs. Any system adopted to ensure that detention officers are providing “direct supervision” must be sufficiently detailed and in writing to allow verification by outside reviewers, including the United States and Monitor.
Partial Compliance The WC continues to document hourly well-being checks in the unit logs for general population inmates. Thirty-minute well-being checks are being put in place for inmates who are isolated in the two, five cell sub-units. Since the February site visit the JDC has begun to document hourly well-being checks in the general population wings, but the log for inmates held in confinement/segregation is maintained in the floor control room instead of where the inmates are actually housed. At the RDC no record is maintained for inmates in booking holding cells and the general population entries in the pod control logs are not supported by actual inspections of the units. Based upon observation during the site visit, the officers do not go into the Housing
18

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 19 of 71
Units and physically check on the welfare of the inmates, yet the log entries reflect that wellbeing checks are being conducted routinely. Those inmates held in B-4’s four-cell isolation unit are being properly checked every thirty minutes. Overall, improvement has been made in the area of well-being checks, but much still needs to be done. Ultimately, compliance with this section can only be achieved at the RDC once an officer has been permanently assigned to each housing unit so that the facility can operate under the principles of direct supervision.
45. Ensure that all correctional officers receive adequate pre- and post-service training to provide for reasonably safe conditions in the Jail. To that end, the County must ensure that the Jail employs Qualified Training Officers, who must help to develop and implement a formal, written training program. The program must include the following:
a. Mandatory pre-service training. Detention officers must receive State jailer training and certification prior to start of work. Staff who have not received such training by the Effective Date of this Agreement must complete their State jailer training within twelve months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. During that twelve month period, the County must develop an in-house detention training academy.
b. Post Order training. Detention officers must receive specific training on unitspecific post orders before starting work on a unit, and every year thereafter. To document such training, officers must be required to sign an acknowledgement that they have received such training, but only after an officer is first assigned to a unit, after a Post Order is updated, and after completion of annual retraining.
c. “Direct supervision” training. Detention officers must receive specific pre- and post-service training on “direct supervision.” Such training must include instruction on how to supervise prisoners in a “direct supervision” facility, including instruction in effective communication skills and verbal de-escalation. Supervisors must receive training on how to monitor and ensure that staff are providing effective “direct supervision.”
d. Jail administrator training. High-level Jail supervisors (i.e., supervisors with facility-wide management responsibilities), including the Jail Administrator and his or her immediate deputies (wardens), must receive jail administrator training prior to the start of their employment. High-level supervisors already employed at the Jail when this Agreement is executed must complete such training within six months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Training comparable to the Jail Administration curriculum offered by the National Institute of Corrections will meet the requirements of this provision.
e. Post-service training. Detention officers must receive at least 120 hours per year of post-service training in their first year of employment and 40 hours per year after their first year. Such training must include refresher training on Jail policies. The training may be provided during roll call, staff meetings, and post-assignment
19

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 20 of 71
meetings. Post-service training should also include field and scenario-based training. f. Training for Critical Posts. Jail management must work with the training department to develop a training syllabus and minimum additional training requirements for any officer serving in a critical position. Such additional training must be provided for any officer working on a tactical team; in a special management, medical or mental health unit; in a maximum security unit; or in booking and release. g. Special management unit training. Officers assigned to special management units must receive at least eight hours of specialized training each year regarding supervision of such units and related prisoner safety, medical, mental health, and security policies. h. Training on all Jail policies and procedures including those regarding prisoner rights and the prevention of staff abuse and misconduct.
Non-Compliant The team was provided a list of training opportunities (completed and planned) that reflected progress toward meeting some of the pre-service, post-employment, and/or other skill training required. However, there are still officers who are working posts/assignments who have not yet received required pre-service training and many more who have not received either mandated in service or the post-employment 120-hour class during their first year of employment. Direct supervision training has not been put into place, nor has critical post training. The County will not be in compliance with the requirement to train on Policies and Procedures and Post Orders until those documents are revised such that they are a satisfactory source for training. The Training Captain prepares extensive lists dealing with the training status of all HCSO personnel, but in order to address the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, he needs to break out Detention Services Division personnel from the rest of the Sheriff’s Office and then organize the periodic reports so that they clearly show each individual’s status with regard to paragraph 45. As of the time of this final report, the Training Captain has retired and Captain Ric Fielder has taken over the position.
46. Develop and implement policies and procedures for adequate supervisory oversight for the Jail. To that end, the County must:
a. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the authority to make personnel decisions necessary to ensure adequate staffing, staff discipline, and staff oversight. This personnel authority must include the power to hire, transfer, and discipline staff. Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) allocated for budget purposes represent a salaried slot and are not a restriction on personnel assignment authority. While the Sheriff may retain final authority for personnel decisions, the Jail’s policies and
20

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 21 of 71
procedures must document and clearly identify who is responsible for a personnel decision, what administrative procedures apply, and the basis for personnel decisions. b. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the ability to monitor, ensure compliance with Jail policies, and take corrective action, for any staff members operating in the Jail, including any who are not already reporting to the Jail Administrator and the Jail’s chain of command. This provision covers road deputies assigned to supervise housing units and emergency response/tactical teams entering the Jail to conduct random shakedowns or to suppress prisoner disturbances. c. Ensure that supervisors conduct daily rounds on each shift in the prisoner housing units, and document the results of their rounds. d. Ensure that staff conduct daily inspections of all housing and common areas to identify damage to the physical plant, safety violations, and sanitation issues. This maintenance program must include the following elements:
i. Facility safety inspections that include identification of damaged doors, locks, cameras, and safety equipment.
ii. An inspection process. iii. A schedule for the routine inspection, repair, and replacement of the
physical plant, including security and safety equipment. iv. A requirement that any corrective action ordered be taken. v. Identification of high priority repairs to assist Jail and County officials
with allocating staff and resources. vi. To ensure prompt corrective action, a mechanism for identifying and
notifying responsible staff and supervisors when there are significant delays with repairs or a pattern of problems with equipment. Staff response to physical plant, safety, and sanitation problems must be reasonable and prompt.
Non-Compliant The P&P Manual was issued in April 2017; however, as was previously noted, it needs to be revised and re-issued so that Post Orders are included in the document as specific Policies. The guidance that was provided in writing by the Monitor and the DOJ, as well as the suggestions made by members of the Monitoring Team and the Justice Department during the June site visit need to be taken into account as this effort is undertaken. Currently, supervisors do not document the results of their rounds. In most cases, an entry by the control room officer or unit officer simply states that a supervisor entered the unit or area. Maintenance issues are not resolved in a timely fashion, nor does there appear to be a solution to the problem. A problem noted in the last Monitor Report was that the wristband system in Booking had been out of operation for at least two months. While it is now functioning, the utility of the system has to be
21

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 22 of 71
called into question. No inmates were observed wearing their wristbands in any of the three facilities, although some inmates who had removed their wristbands stored them in cells or living areas. The roll up sally port doors in Booking at the RDC are another example of the routine nature of maintenance malfunctions. At least one door has been found to be out of operation during each of the Monitoring Team’s three site visits.
47. Ensure that staff members conduct random shakedowns of cells and common areas so that prisoners do not possess or have access to dangerous contraband. Such shakedowns must be conducted in each housing unit at least once per month, on an irregular schedule to make them less predictable to prisoners and staff.
Non-Compliant Random shakedowns are not conducted by Detention Officers as they should be. Instead, law enforcement personnel are periodically called upon to perform that duty. As indicated in this Settlement Agreement requirement, shakedowns should be conducted by Detention Officers not outside law enforcement personnel. Shakedowns are not conducted as frequently as they should be. More frequent shakedowns would limit the massive accumulation of contraband and the high number of security breaches. This problem was evidenced on June 7, 2017, when approximately 116 Deputies and Mississippi Department of Corrections officers conducted a major sweep of the RDC and the WC at 0110 hours. Among other things they recovered 43 cellphones, 39 cellphone chargers, 25 “shanks”, a digital scale, miscellaneous tobacco products including marijuana, two steak knives and 38 DVD/CD’s. That impressive collection of contraband is reflective of the breakdown in control of the Jail System, particularly the RDC, which is directly attributable to the fact that officers are not assigned to the housing units due to a critical lack of personnel.
48. Install cell phone jammers or other electronic equipment to detect, suppress, and deter unauthorized communications from prisoners in the Jail. Installation must be completed within two years after the Effective Date.
Non-Compliant Because of legal barriers, cell phone jammers will not provide the solution to the problem of unauthorized communications. However, other alternatives have been suggested to the County by both DOJ and the Monitoring Team and reference material regarding potential vendors of the relevant equipment has been provided to the Jail Administrator by the Correctional Expert. No action has been taken to address this issue.
49. Develop and implement a gang program in consultation with qualified experts in the field that addresses any link between gang activity in the community and the Jail through appropriate provisions for education, family or community involvement, and violence prevention.
22

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 23 of 71
Partial Compliance A law enforcement investigative officer who specializes in gang identification and suppression is now assigned to conduct criminal investigations within the Jail System. While he has not yet developed and implemented a gang program that links the community and the Jail and provisions for education, family and community involvement have not been identified, his involvement represents a positive step toward compliance.
USE OF FORCE STANDARDS
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to prevent excessive force by staff and ensure force is used safely and only in a manner commensurate with the behavior justifying it. To that end, the County must:
50. Develop and implement policies and procedures to regulate the use of force. The policies and procedures must:
a. Prohibit the use of force as a response to verbal insults or prisoner threats where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff or visitors;
b. Prohibit the use of force as a response to prisoners’ failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff, visitors, or property;
c. Prohibit the use of force against a prisoner after the prisoner has ceased to resist and is under control;
d. Prohibit the use of force as punishment or retaliation; e. Limit the level of force used so that it is commensurate with the justification for
use of force; and f. Limit use of force in favor of less violent methods when such methods are more
appropriate, effective, or less likely to result in the escalation of an incident.
Non-Compliant The Policies and Procedures adopted in April are not sufficient to meet the requirements of this paragraph and need to be revised before compliance can be achieved. It should be noted, however, that in one reported incident where excessive or inappropriate force was used by a Detention Officer at the RDC, his actions resulted in dismissal. This incident was well documented and even supported by video recording which was used as evidence by the law enforcement officer who investigated the case. However, most use of force reports did not result in an investigative report and the use of force reports themselves are incomplete and do not reflect adequate supervisory review and corrective action. Although the number of use of force reports has increased, there continue to be fewer than would be expected given the conditions as
23

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 24 of 71
the facilities. The reports that do exist indicate that staff are not adequately trained in or are not using de-escalation techniques. In addition, there appears to be unnecessary and unauthorized use of tasers and pepper spray.
51. Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure timely notification, documentation, and communication with supervisors and medical staff (including mental health staff) prior to use of force and after any use of force. These policies and procedures must specifically include the following requirements:
a. Staff members must obtain prior supervisory approval before the use of weapons (e.g., electronic control devices or chemical sprays) and mechanical restraints unless responding to an immediate threat to a person’s safety.
b. If a prisoner has a serious medical condition or other circumstances exist that may increase the risk of death or serious injury from the use of force, the type of force that may be used on the prisoner must be restricted to comply with this provision. These restrictions include the following: i. The use of chemical sprays, physical restraints, and electronic control devices must not be used when a prisoner may be at risk of positional asphyxia. ii. Electronic control devices must not be used on prisoners when they are in a location where they may suffer serious injury after losing voluntary muscle control (e.g., prisoner is standing atop a stairwell, wall, or other elevated location). iii. Physical strikes, holds, or other uses of force or restraints may not be used if the technique is not approved for use in the Jail or the staff member has not been trained on the proper use of the technique.
c. Staff members must conduct health and welfare checks every 15 minutes while a prisoner is in restraints. At minimum, these checks must include (i) logged firstperson observations of a prisoner’s status while in restraints (e.g. check for blood flow, respiration, heart beat), and (ii) documented breaks to meet the sanitary and health needs of prisoners placed in emergency restraints (e.g., restroom breaks and breaks to prevent cramping or circulation problems).
d. The County must ensure that clinical staff conduct medical and mental health assessments immediately after a prisoner is subjected to any Level 1 use of force. Prisoners identified as requiring medical or mental health care during the assessment must receive such treatment.
e. A first-line supervisor must personally supervise all planned uses of force, such as cell extractions.
f. Security staff members must consult with medical and mental health staff before all planned uses of force on juveniles or prisoners with serious mental illness, so that medical and mental health staff may offer alternatives to or limitations on the
24

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 25 of 71
use of force, such as assisting with de-escalation or obtaining the prisoner’s voluntary cooperation. g. The Jail must have inventory and weapon controls to establish staff member responsibility for their use of weapons or other security devices in the facility. Such controls must include:
i. a sign-out process for staff members to carry any type of weapon inside the Jail,
ii. a prohibition on staff carrying any weapons except those in the Jail’s tracked inventory, and
iii. random checks to determine if weapons have been discharged without report of discharge (e.g., by checking the internal memory of electronic control devices and weighing pepper spray canisters).
h. A staff member must electronically record (both video and sound) all planned uses of force with equipment provided by the Jail.
i. All staff members using force must immediately notify their supervisor. j. All staff members using a Level 1 use of force must also immediately notify the
shift commander after such use of force, or becoming aware of an allegation of such use by another staff member.
Non-Compliant The P&P Manual is under review and will be re-issued once it has been revised. The Policies and Procedures adopted in April do not meet the requirements of this paragraph. Incident reports continue to be written in sporadic fashion on differing forms at each facility. Records reflecting 15 minute well-being checks are maintained only when inmates are under a suicide watch, generally at the RDC, though infrequently such watches occur at the JDC. Although some reports involve planned use of force, no records have been provided to date that meet the requirements of this paragraph regarding a planned use of force situation. Nor is there a record of an inventory of less lethal weapons or a record of their discharge even though the use of pepper spray and tasers appears repeatedly in the use of force reports. The restraint chair is not used by the Jail. There is no communication with the medical staff before pepper spray is used. Inmates with serious or potentially serious medical problems are not identified prior to pepper spray use. Correctional staff do not contact medical staff before force is used on juveniles with serious mental health conditions.
Inmates that have been tased are only brought to the medical clinic if the taser prong is left in the skin. The incident reports and medical records indicate that inmates that have been subject to use of force where pepper spray is used are brought to the medical unit for an evaluation. A review of the medical records disclosed that some of the nursing staff are very diligent about taking vital signs and checking the eyes after an inmate has been sprayed, other nurses did not perform all of the required checks or vital signs.
25

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 26 of 71
It is recommended that a protocol be developed and posted in the medical exam area for inmates that are tased or pepper sprayed and that it include the documentation of vital signs and the rinsing of eyes in the cases of pepper spray use. An eye wash station should be set up with disposable saline solution bottles or an attachment that fits on the sink. During the health assessment, inmates that have illnesses where their condition could be compromised if pepper sprayed, e.g. asthma, COPD, could be given an arm band. These bands are available in medical supply catalogs. A course on pepper spray was recently conducted. However, training on the use of force on seriously mentally ill inmates and inmates that may adversely be affected by pepper spray should be added to the training curriculum and roll call.
Use of force training was conducted the last time in 2015. This training should be provided annually.
The QCHC staff has been instructed to develop a use of force report and to document whenever force is utilized. QCHC has also been tasked with the development of medical policies when pepper spray is utilized and when tasers are used. These policies have not yet been developed. The use of a protocol for nurses would help ensure that all assessments on the use of force are complete and that documentation is thorough.
The QCHC policy indicates that security will consult with medical staff before and after all planned use of force on juveniles or prisoners so that medical and mental health can offer alternatives such as de-escalation techniques and voluntary cooperation with medications. The practice will be reviewed at the next site visit to determine if this practice is followed. If properly notified, the policy for QCHC is for the health care staff to respond to all use of force incidents and cell extractions. The policy indicates that security will consult with medical for allergies such as asthma, other respiratory conditions or mental health illness. Health monitoring would then be put in place and if a medical or mental health condition develops, then the physician is notified.
There were four RN nursing vacancies for the three facilities. Payroll records were obtained and a review of contractual obligations regarding staffing will be performed.
USE OF FORCE TRAINING
52. The County must develop and implement a use of force training program. Every staff member who supervises prisoners must receive at least 8 hours of pre-service use of force training and annual use of force refresher training.
26

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 27 of 71
Non-Compliant Although the Training Director is developing an on-going program for new and existing employees, compliance with this requirement has not been achieved.
53. Topics covered by use of force training must include: a. Instruction on what constitutes excessive force; b. De-escalation tactics; c. Methods of managing prisoners with mental illness to avoid the use of force; d. Defensive tactics; e. All Jail use of force policies and procedures, including those related to documentation and review of use of force.
Non-Compliant The requested training curriculum covering use of force, de-escalation tactics, and defensive tactics has not yet been received.
54. The County must randomly test at least 5 percent of Jail Staff members annually to determine whether they have a meaningful, working knowledge of all use of force policies and procedures. The County must also evaluate the results to determine if any changes to Jail policies and procedures may be necessary and take corrective action. The results and recommendations of such evaluations must be provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant This cannot be completed until the revised P&P Manual is issued, officers are trained and sufficient time has passed to conduct the random testing of at least five percent of Jail staff.
55. The County must update any use of force training within 30 days after any revision to a use of force policy or procedure.
Non-Compliant This cannot be updated until the requisite training has been completed.
USE OF FORCE REPORTING
To prevent and remedy the unconstitutional use of force, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting use of force. To that end, the County must:
56. Develop and implement use of force reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information to analyze and respond appropriately to use of force.
27

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 28 of 71
Non-Compliant This paragraph cannot be addressed until the P&P Manual is revised and issued to all personnel. The inadequacy and inconsistency of the existing use of force forms, previously noted, is still an issue. Different forms are used at each facility and the space provided for supervisory review simply calls for a signature, not approval, disapproval or recommendation for corrective or follow up action. A computer based use of force report is now being developed. The jail leadership should review the form being developed to ensure that it includes the information needed to analyze and respond. Jail leadership should ensure that supervisors provide a meaningful review of the use of force with recommendations for follow up actions.
57. Require each staff member who used or observed a use of force to complete a Use of Force Report as promptly as possible, and no later than by the end of that staff member’s shift. Staff members must accurately complete all fields on a Use of Force Report. The failure to report any use of force must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination. Similarly, supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
Non-Compliant This requirement will be analyzed once the P&P Manual is revised and issued to all personnel. While report writing is improving throughout the Jail System, it is still not possible to determine whether incident reports are submitted in a timely fashion or whether supervisors follow up as required.
58. Ensure that Jail use of force reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, use of force reports must document the following information:
a. A unique tracking number for each use of force; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. A description of the events leading to the use of force, including what precipitated
or appeared to precipitate those events; f. A description of the level of resistance, staff response, and the type and level of
force (including frequency and duration of use). For instance, use of force reports must describe the number of discharges from electronic control devices and chemical munitions canisters; the amount of discharge from chemical munitions canisters; whether the Staff Member threatened to use the device or actually discharged the device; the type of physical hold or strike used; and the length of time a prisoner was restrained, and whether the prisoner was released from restraints for any period during that time;
28

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 29 of 71
g. A description of the staff member’s attempts to de-escalate the situation without use of force;
h. A description of whether the staff member notified supervisors or other personnel, including medical or mental health staff, before or after the use of force;
i. A description of any observed injuries to staff or prisoners; j. Whether medical care was required or provided to staff or prisoners; k. Reference to any associated incident report or prisoner disciplinary report
completed by the reporting officer, which pertains to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force; l. A signature of the staff member completing the report attesting to the report’s accuracy and completeness.
Non-Compliant The Use of Force report forms vary from facility to facility. Sometimes they are not numbered and in some instances location information is incomplete. De-escalation efforts are seldom specified and inmate witnesses are infrequently identified. The revision of the Policies and Procedures Manual and the standardized incident report form will move the County towards compliance but it will be essential to train staff to provide complete and accurate information and to review and provide corrective action.
USE OF FORCE SUPERVISOR REVIEWS
59. The County must ensure that Jail supervisors review, analyze, and respond appropriately to use of force. At minimum:
a. A supervisor must review all use of force reports submitted during the supervisor’s watch by the end of the supervisor’s watch.
b. A supervisor must ensure that staff members complete their use of force reports by the end of their watch.
c. Reviewing supervisors must document their findings as to the completeness of each staff member’s use of force report, and must also document any procedural errors made by staff in completing their reports.
d. If a Use of Force report is incomplete, reviewing supervisors must require Staff Members to provide any required information on a revised use of force report, and the Jail must maintain both the original and any revised report in its records.
e. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing use of force reports must document their use of force review as described in Paragraph 62 sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted.
f. All Level 1 uses of force must be sent to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD.
29

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 30 of 71
g. A Level 2 use of force must be referred to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD if a reviewing supervisor concludes that there may have been a violation of law or policy. Level 2 uses of force may also be referred to IAD if the County requires such reporting as a matter of Jail policy and procedure, or at the discretion of any reviewing supervisor.
Non-Compliant Appropriate supervisory review cannot be determined until the P&P Manual is revised and issued. In addition, standardized incident and use of force forms must be in place. At present supervisors merely sign their names on forms. Their signature does not reflect agreement, disagreement or recommended action.
60. After any Level 1 use of force, responding supervisors will promptly go to the scene and take the following actions:
a. Ensure the safety of everyone involved in or proximate to the incident. Determine if anyone is injured and ensure that necessary medical care is or has been provided.
b. Ensure that photos are taken of all injuries sustained, or as evidence that no injuries were sustained, by prisoners and staff involved in a use of force incident. Photos must be taken no later than two hours after a use of force. Prisoners may refuse to consent to photos, in which case they should be asked to sign a waiver indicating that they have refused consent. If they refuse to sign a waiver, the shift commander must document that consent was requested and refused.
c. Ensure that staff members and witnesses are identified, separated, and advised that communications with other staff members or witnesses regarding the incident are prohibited.
d. Ensure that victim, staff, and witness statements are taken confidentially by reviewing supervisors or investigators, outside of the presence of other prisoners or involved staff.
e. Document whether the use of force was recorded. If the use of force was not recorded, the responding supervisors must review and explain why the event was not recorded. If the use of force was recorded, the responding supervisors must ensure that any record is preserved for review.
Non-Compliant Currently, supervisors do not routinely collect witness statements or take photographs. The revision of the Policies and Procedures Manual and the standardized incident report form will move the County towards compliance but it will be essential to train supervisors to complete these procedures and provide complete and accurate information. Consistent review and corrective action will be essential.
30

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 31 of 71
61. All uses of force must be reviewed by supervisors who were neither involved in nor approved the use of force by the end of the supervisor’s shift. All level 1 uses of force must also be reviewed by a supervisor of Captain rank or above who was neither involved in nor approved the use of force. The purposes of supervisor review are to determine whether the use of force violated Jail policies and procedures, whether the prisoner’s rights may have been violated, and whether further investigation or disciplinary action is required.
Non-Compliant The number of use of force reports has increased significantly since the last Monitor Report. All three facilities had submissions, but supervisors do not follow the requirements of this paragraph. Although medical care issues are documented, photographs are not taken or reference to them included in the reports. Witnesses are seldom questioned and supervisors do not make comments about recording of the incidents.
62. Reviewing supervisors must document the following: a. Names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses interviewed by the supervisor; b. Witness statements; c. Review date and time; d. The findings, recommendations, and results of the supervisor’s review; e. Corrective actions taken; f. The final disposition of the reviews (e.g., whether the Use of Force was found to comply with Jail policies and procedures, or whether disciplinary action was taken against a staff member); g. Supporting documents such as incident reports, logs, and classification records. Supervisors must also obtain and review summary medical and mental health records describing – i. The nature and extent of injuries, or lack thereof; ii. The date and time when medical care was requested and actually provided; iii. The names of medical or mental health staff conducting any medical or mental health assessments or care. h. Photos, video/digital recordings, or other evidence collected to support findings and recommendations.
31

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 32 of 71
Non-Compliant Supervisors do not follow through with the requirements of this paragraph. They simply sign the incident and use of force reports (without making a recommendation of any type) and forward them through the chain of command.
INCIDENT REPORTING AND REVIEW
To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting and reviewing incidents in the Jail that may pose a threat to the life, health, and safety of prisoners. To that end, the County must:
63. Develop and implement incident reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information in order to respond appropriately to reportable incidents.
Non-Compliant The P&P Manual must be revised and issued to all personnel before the level of compliance can be determined. In addition, standardized forms for use by all facilities must be developed and put in place.
64. Ensure that Incident Reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, Incident Reports must contain the following information:
a. Tracking number for each incident; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner, and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. Type of incident; f. Injuries to staff or prisoner; g. Medical care; h. All staff involved or present during the incident and their respective roles; i. Reviewing supervisor and supervisor findings, recommendations, and case
dispositions; j. External reviews and results; k. Corrective action taken; and l. Warden and Administrator review and final administrative actions.
Non-Compliant The comments associated with the previous paragraph apply to this one as well. Each facility still uses unique forms rather than standardized documents. By means of example, on June 9, 2017, three inmates assaulted another inmate at the WC. His injuries were so severe that he had to be sent to “CMMC” by transportation after being seen by Medical. The incident report was
32

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 33 of 71
not identified with a number. No Medical notes or records were attached and the facility Lieutenant wrote the report, not the Detention Officer who was in charge of the unit where the incident occurred. A computer based form is being developed which may address some of the deficiencies. However, training and corrective action will be essential in ensuring that complete reports are prepared.
65. Require each staff member directly involved in a reportable incident to accurately and thoroughly complete incident reports as promptly as possible, by the end of the staff member’s shift. At minimum:
a. Staff members must complete all fields on an Incident Report for which they have responsibility for completion. Staff members must not omit entering a date, time, incident location, or signature when completing an Incident Report. If no injuries are present, staff members must write that; they may not leave that section blank.
b. Failure to report any reportable incident must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination.
c. Supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will also be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
Non-Compliant At present, it is not possible to determine whether or not incident reports are being routinely submitted on all reportable incidents. While the number of untoward events that are documented appears to be increasing over time, the fact that there are no reports on file regarding late releases or lost money and property is indicative of a failure to document significant incidents. Based on a review of records during the June site visit, it is known that inmates have been held beyond their scheduled release dates, yet no incident reports are on file.
66. Ensure that Jail supervisors review and respond appropriately to incidents. At minimum: a. Shift commanders must document all reportable incidents by the end of their shift, but no later than 12 hours after a reportable incident. b. Shift commanders must report all suicides, suicide attempts, and deaths, no later than one hour after the incident, to a supervisor, IAD, and medical and mental health staff. c. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing Incident Reports must document their incident review within 24 hours of receipt of an Incident Report sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted. Such documentation must include the same categories of information required for supervisor use of force reviews such as names of individuals interviewed by the supervisor, witness statements, associated records (e.g. medical records, photos,
33

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 34 of 71
and digital recordings), review dates, findings, recommendations, and case dispositions. d. Reportable incidents must be reviewed by a supervisor not directly involved in the incident.
Partial Compliance While a more definitive determination cannot be made until the P&P Manual is revised and issued, it does appear that supervisors are reviewing incident reports in a timely fashion. Most reflect same day review based on signature dates. They do not, however, indicate any follow up or recommendation. Supervisors routinely simply sign the reports and forward them.
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
67. To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to address sexual abuse and misconduct. Such policies and procedures must include all of the following:
a. Zero tolerance policy towards any sexual abuse and sexual harassment as defined by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementing regulations;
b. Staff training on the zero-tolerance policy, including how to fulfill their duties and responsibilities to prevent, detect, report and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment under the policy;
c. Screening prisoners to identify those who may be sexually abusive or at risk of sexual victimization;
d. Multiple internal ways to allow both confidential and anonymous reporting of sexual abuse and sexual harassment and any related retaliation, including a mechanism for prisoners to directly report allegations to an outside entity;
e. Both emergency and ongoing medical and mental health care for victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment, including rape kits as appropriate and counseling;
f. A complete ban on cross-gender strip searches or cross-gender visual body cavity searches except in exigent circumstances or when performed by a medical examiner;
g. A complete ban on cross-gender pat searches of women prisoners, absent exigent circumstances;
h. Regular supervisory review to ensure compliance with the sexual abuse and sexual harassment policies; and
i. Specialized investigative procedures and training for investigators handling sexual abuse and sexual harassment allegations.
34

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 35 of 71
Non-Compliant The Policies and Procedures adopted in April do not meet the requirements of this paragraph. It should be noted that there are no notices regarding the PREA posted anywhere throughout the Jail System. At present, there is no record on file to reflect compliance with any aspect of this paragraph. There have not been any sexual assaults reported to the medical department during the last monitoring period. A new policy on PREA has been sent to jail administration for review which contains all of the elements in the Settlement Agreement. There are no rape kits on-site. The reported practice is that inmates that complain of being sexually assaulted would be sent to the emergency room under the new draft policy where a rape kit would be performed. The inmate would be housed in the medical observation unit upon his/her return from the Emergency Room.
An in-service on PREA provisions for the health staff is essential.
INVESTIGATIONS
68. The County shall ensure that it has sufficient staff to identify, investigate, and correct misconduct that has or may lead to a violation of the Constitution. At a minimum, the County shall:
a. Develop and implement comprehensive policies, procedures, and practices for the thorough and timely (within 60 days of referral) investigation of alleged staff misconduct, sexual assaults, and physical assaults of prisoners resulting in serious injury, in accordance with this Agreement, within 90 days of its Effective Date. At a minimum, an investigation will be conducted if: i. Any prisoner exhibited a serious injury; ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious accounts of the incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member).
b. Per policy, investigations shall: i. Be conducted by qualified persons, who do not have conflicts of interest that bear on the partiality of the investigation; ii. Include timely, thorough, and documented interviews of all relevant staff and prisoners who were involved in or who witnessed the incident in question, to the extent practicable; and
35

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 36 of 71
iii. Include all supporting evidence, including logs, witness and participant statements, references to policies and procedures relevant to the incident, physical evidence, and video or audio recordings.
c. Provide investigators with pre-service and annual in-service training so that investigators conduct quality investigations that meet the requirements of this Agreement;
d. Ensure that any investigative report indicating possible criminal behavior will be referred to the appropriate criminal law enforcement agency;
e. Within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, IAD must have written policies and procedures that include clear and specific criteria for determining when it will conduct an investigation. The criteria will require an investigation if: i. Any prisoner exhibited serious, visible injuries (e.g., black eye, obvious bleeding, or lost tooth); ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious accounts of the incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member).
f. Provide the Monitor and United States a periodic report of investigations conducted at the Jail every four months. The report will include the following information: i. a brief summary of all completed investigations, by type and date; ii. a listing of investigations referred for administrative investigation; iii. a listing of all investigations referred to an appropriate law enforcement agency and the name of the agency; and iv. a listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation. v. a description of any corrective actions or changes in policies, procedures, or practices made as a result of investigations over the reporting period.
g. Jail management shall review the periodic report to determine whether the investigation system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement and make recommendations regarding the investigation system or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor and United States.
36

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 37 of 71
Partial Compliance Compliance with this section cannot be achieved until the P&P Manual is revised and issued to all personnel and documentation is available to verify that actions taken are consistent with the policies/procedures developed. During the past four months criminal investigators have conducted reviews of a number of incidents. In at least one case that process resulted in the dismissal of a Detention Officer at the RDC who used excessive force in dealing with an inmate. Similarly, at the JDC a Detention Officer was disciplined and ultimately terminated for a pattern of insubordination. A monthly summary has been provided through May. The summary includes a brief summary of each investigation but the summary chart does not include all of the data points required by this paragraph.
GRIEVANCE AND PRISONER INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Because a reporting system provides early notice of potential constitutional violations and an opportunity to prevent more serious problems before they occur, the County must develop and implement a grievance system. To that end:
69. The grievance system must permit prisoners to confidentially report grievances without requiring the intervention of a detention officer.
Partial Compliance The practice with respect to grievances is still inconsistent with the process in the Inmate Handbook and still does not permit the obtaining of a grievance form or submission of it without the intervention of a Detention Officer. Efforts have been made to minimize the involvement of detention officers but it has not been eliminated. The Sheriff’s office is investigating and considering the use of an electronic system/screen that would be used for visitation from the units and could also be used for the submission of grievances. This could eliminate the need for detention officer involvement. However, it would be essential that the screens be placed in a way that provides for confidentiality and that adequate staffing be available so that the equipment is not destroyed.
Medical grievances are sent directly to the medical department. However, a detention officer still has to be requested to provide the grievance form. The health administrator responds to the grievance within 1-2 business days. There were 7 grievances filed in April 2017 and 4 filed in May 2017. In addition to a written response the health administrator interviews each inmate that filed a grievance. The nature of the grievances involved sick call requests not conducted timely, missed medicines, etc.
70. Grievance policies and procedures must be applicable and standardized across the entire Jail.
37

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 38 of 71
Non-Compliant The Monitoring Team did not have time to investigate the grievance procedures at each of the three facilities. The Work Center Inmate Handbook is consistent with the RDC Handbook. However, the procedure described in the RDC Handbook is not the one used at RDC. At this time, it is not known if the WC process is consistent with the WC Handbook, or the current RDC procedure or is different from both. The County needs to identify a consistent process across all facilities and revise the Handbook to reflect that process and adequately inform the prisoners.
71. All grievances must receive appropriate follow-up, including a timely written response by an impartial reviewer and staff tracking of whether resolutions have been implemented or still need implementation. Any response to a medical grievance or a grievance alleging threats or violence to the grievant or others that exceeds 24 hours shall be presumed untimely.
Partial Compliance The grievance system at RDC is a functional system. Grievances are tracked and are responded to. The Warden responds to all grievances. The Grievance Officer maintains an up to date spreadsheet. At last review, the spreadsheet needed to include additional data points including the officer involved, the resolution and whether the resolution was implemented in order to accurately track the relevant information related to grievances. The Grievance Officer sends medical grievances directly to the Medical Contractor. These are not logged in and the Grievance Officer does not track the response. The Grievance Officer should be logging them in and ensuring a timely response. The grievances from JDC provided to the Monitoring Team did not uniformly have a response to the grievance provided in the documentation.
Medical staff maintains a monthly log which delineates all grievances filed that month, the reason for the grievance and the resolution.
72. The grievance system must accommodate prisoners who have physical or cognitive disabilities, are illiterate, or have LEP, so that these prisoners have meaningful access to the grievance system.
Non-Compliant There is currently no identified practice to accommodate prisoners with disabilities or who might otherwise require assistance to access the grievance system. Other prisoners are permitted to assist a prisoner but there is no other identified mechanism for assistance. This does not meet the requirements of the settlement agreement.
73. The County must ensure that all current and newly admitted prisoners receive information about prison rules and procedures. The County must provide such information
38

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 39 of 71
through an inmate handbook and, at the discretion of the Jail, an orientation video, regarding the following topics: understanding the Jail’s disciplinary process and rules and regulations; reporting misconduct; reporting sexual abuse, battery, and assault; accessing medical and mental health care; emergency procedures; visitation; accessing the grievance process; and prisoner rights. The County must provide such information in appropriate languages for prisoners with LEP.
Non-Compliant As noted above, the grievance procedure described in the Inmate Handbook is not the one that is utilized and would not be consistent with paragraph 69 above. There is nothing in the Handbook describing how to report misconduct, sexual abuse, or battery and assault. The Handbook does not describe prisoner rights. It was previously reported that a translation into Spanish was being worked on but that has not been provided.
RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SEGREGATION
In order to ensure compliance with constitutional standards and to prevent unnecessary harm to prisoners, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to limit the use of segregation. To that end, this Agreement imposes the following restrictions and requirements:
74. Within 8 hours of intake, prisoners in the booking cells must be classified and housed in more appropriate long-term housing where staff will provide access to exercise, meals, and other services.
Partial Compliance Although inmates are not yet classified within eight hours of intake, they are now classified within 24 hours as a result of the implementation of daily Classification coverage on the day shift. During the June site visit no inmates were found to be detained in the Booking holding cells in excess of eight hours. Most significantly, the single cells in Booking are no longer used for long term housing of problematic inmates. They have been moved to the four cell B-4 isolation section.
75. The County must document the placement and removal of all prisoners to and from segregation.
Non-Compliant The WC has two, five cell confinement/segregation sections that are used to isolate inmates who violate housing unit standards. A plan to utilize them properly, supported by adequate documentation, is being implemented, but there is no record to support compliance at this point. The JDC utilizes a typical housing unit on a selected wing for confinement/segregation housing.
39

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 40 of 71
The documentation of who is held in that area, showing when they enter and leave, is not uniformly maintained, nor is there a record of why their status changed. At the RDC there is no designated area which qualifies as a confinement/segregation unit. Inmates are simply locked down without adequate documentation or supervision.
These prisoners are usually held in isolation for disciplinary, administrative or protective custody reasons. They are locked in their cells for 22 or 23 hours per day with only an hour or two out of cell time for showering, visitation, recreation and to have access to a telephone. Confinement housing should be sub-divided into small components of from four to sixteen cells (modules) within a 48 to 64 cell unit. None of the housing units at the RDC are properly designed to serve as confinement units because they are not sub-divided into modules. This makes the job of keeping problem prisoners separate from each other much more difficult. Because the configuration in Hinds County has 50 or more cells opening to a common day room, it is impossible to allow each inmate out of the cell individually in a 24 hour period. This type of housing is much more labor intensive to operate. Realistically, three officers are required to operate a 64-bed confinement unit. All of these issues are exacerbated at the RDC because the shortage of deputies makes it impossible to assign officers to any of the adult housing units. A separate segregation log is not maintained, rather, notations are made in the Pod Control Logs and some notations are made in Classification records. Once a designated (and properly staffed) Segregation/ Confinement Unit is operational with adequate policies, staff training, and consistent practices it should be possible to achieve compliance.
76. Qualified Mental Health Professionals must conduct mental health rounds at least once a week (in a private setting if necessary to elicit accurate information), to assess the mental health status of all prisoners in segregation and the effect of segregation on each prisoner’s mental health, in order to determine whether continued placement in segregation is appropriate. These mental health rounds must not be a substitute for treatment.
Partial Compliance Nurses at JDC make and document mental health rounds twice a day. Inmates that were interviewed confirmed that rounds do occur. Notification is provided by the Captain when an inmate is placed in segregation. Mental health rounds are made weekly by the social worker. A checklist is used to document mental health conditions.
At RDC there is no notification provided to the health staff when inmates are placed in segregation. Thus, inmates in segregation are discovered by the nurses during medication pass. Segregation rounds are not made on a daily basis by the nursing staff. Chart review and interviews indicated that rounds were made 2-3 times per week. Mental health staff visits the inmates on a monthly basis.
40

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 41 of 71
The Settlement Agreement requires that mental health staff visit inmates in segregation the day after their placement. Coordination between security and medical staff is required to notify the medical staff that an inmate has been placed in segregation. An in-service and CQI study are recommended to enhance compliance with this element of the Settlement Agreement.
77. The County must develop and implement restrictions on the segregation of prisoners with serious mental illness. These safeguards must include the following:
a. All decisions to place a prisoner with serious mental illness in segregation must include the input of a Qualified Mental Health Professional who has conducted a face-to-face evaluation of the prisoner in a confidential setting, is familiar with the details of the available clinical history, and has considered the prisoner’s mental health needs and history.
b. Segregation must be presumed contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness.
c. Within 24 hours of placement in segregation, all prisoners on the mental health caseload must be screened by a Qualified Mental Health Professional to determine whether the prisoner has serious mental illness, and whether there are any acute mental health contraindications to segregation.
d. If a Qualified Mental Health Professional finds that a prisoner has a serious mental illness or exhibits other acute mental health contraindications to segregation, that prisoner must not be placed or remain in segregation absent documented extraordinary and exceptional circumstances (i.e. for an immediate and serious danger which may arise during unusual emergency situations, such as a riot or during the booking of a severely psychotic, untreated, violent prisoner, and which should last only as long as the emergency conditions remain present).
e. Documentation of such extraordinary and exceptional circumstances must be in writing. Such documentation must include the reasons for the decision, a comprehensive interdisciplinary team review, and the names and dated signatures of all staff members approving the decision.
f. Prisoners with serious mental illness who are placed in segregation must be offered a heightened level of care that includes the following: i. If on medication, the prisoner must receive at least one daily visit from a Qualified Medical Professional. ii. The prisoner must be offered a face-to-face, therapeutic, out-of-cell session with a Qualified Mental Health Professional at least once per week. iii. If the prisoner is placed in segregation for more than 24 hours, he or she must have his or her case reviewed by a Qualified Mental Health
41

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 42 of 71
Professional, in conjunction with a Jail physician and psychiatrist, on a weekly basis. g. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, A Qualified Mental Health Professional will assess all prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation. This assessment must include a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Prisoners requiring follow-up for additional clinical assessment or care must promptly receive such assessment and care. h. If a prisoner on segregation decompensates or otherwise develops signs or symptoms of serious mental illness, where such signs or symptoms had not previously been identified, the prisoner must immediately be referred for appropriate assessment and treatment by a Qualified Mental Health Professional. Any such referral must also result in a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Signs or symptoms requiring assessment or treatment under this clause include a deterioration in cognitive, physical, or verbal function; delusions; self-harm; or behavior indicating a heightened risk of suicide (e.g., indications of depression after a sentencing hearing). i. The treatment and housing of prisoners with serious mental illness must be coordinated and overseen by the Interdisciplinary Team (or Teams), and guided by formal, written treatment plans. The Interdisciplinary Team must include both medical and security staff, but access to patient healthcare information must remain subject to legal restrictions based on patient privacy rights. The intent of this provision is to have an Interdisciplinary Team serve as a mechanism for balancing security and medical concerns, ensuring cooperation between security and medical staff, while also protecting the exercise of independent medical judgment and each prisoner’s individual rights. j. Nothing in this Agreement should be interpreted to authorize security staff, including the Jail Administrator, to make medical or mental health treatment decisions, or to overrule physician medical orders.
Non-Compliant Although the WC and JDC have made efforts to properly staff and document the use of their confinement/segregation areas, the RDC has been unable to do so due to lack of staff. The medical staff is not even notified when an individual is placed in confinement/segregation. Hence, they are not being consulted prior to placement of an inmate with SMI in confinement/segregation. Until Classification oversight is available twenty-four hours per day to
42

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 43 of 71
authorize and/or override the decisions of shift commanders regarding inmate cell assignments, it is unlikely that compliance can be achieved.
The facility should develop a multidisciplinary team that is comprised of medical, mental health and security staff that discusses inmates in segregation and their mental health needs. Treatment plans should be developed for long term mentally ill patients.
YOUTHFUL PRISONERS
As long as the County houses youthful prisoners, it must develop and implement policies and procedures for their supervision, management, education, and treatment consistent with federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482. Within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will determine where it will house youthful prisoners. During those six months, the County will consult with the United States, the monitor of the Henley Young Juvenile Detention Center Settlement Agreement, and any other individuals or entities whose input is relevant. The United States will support the County’s efforts to secure appropriate housing for youthful prisoners, including supervised release. Within 18 months after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will have completed transitioning to any new or replacement youthful prisoner housing facility.
Non-Compliant Although the County has identified several options for consideration, as of the June visit the County has not made a determination as to where it will house youthful prisoners. There has been discussion with leadership at Henley Young, the Henley Young Monitor, and others related to potential options, and the County recently identified an architectural team to assist them in developing initial concepts and plans. Options being considered include a unit attached to Henley Young, a unit attached to the WC in Raymond, remodeling a “wing” of the WC, and a stand-alone facility. During the June site visit, key leadership from Hinds County, the architectural team, and two Monitoring Team members (Jim Moeser and Dave Parrish) toured both the Henley Young and WC facilities to discuss some of the initial ideas related to design/programming that had been previously presented to the architectural team. A follow-up phone conference was held on June 23 to discuss some additional requirements of the Settlement Agreement that need to be considered in potential design concepts. The next steps in the process include: (1) completion of the initial design concepts (new construction linked with Henley Young and/or the WC, remodeling a unit of the work center, and a stand-alone facility); (2) discussions of those concepts (including adjacencies, operational and programmatic requirements, and staffing consistent with best practice and the settlement agreement) with key Hinds County leadership, ideally resulting in improving and narrowing down to the optimal concept for more detailed design and analysis; (3) completing estimates of construction,
43

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 44 of 71
furnishing, and operational costs (including staffing and other program requirements); and (4) finalizing a proposal that can be approved by the County Supervisors for the 2017-18 budget. The February Monitoring Report includes a number of considerations for the design and programming of a new/remodeled youthful prisoner facility regardless of whether it is attached to Henley Young, within/attached to the Work Center, or developed as a stand-alone facility. Those considerations continue to be relevant as more focused planning continues. The timeline for completion of these steps is exceptionally tight, and the County, including the County Supervisors, need to place a high priority on establishing a timetable for each step (including identification of a lead staff design team that will be the source of operational information to the architects, the Sheriff, and the Board as decisions are made) and ultimately completing them in time for inclusion in budget decisions in August/September. Short of developing a plan and including funding in the 2017-18 budget, it is unlikely that a new/remodeled facility would be available at all in 2018, let alone within the timeframe required by this Agreement.
The Settlement Agreement requires that the youth be transitioned to the new location by June, 2018. It seems unlikely that a new/remodeled facility will be completed in this timeframe. Therefore, the county should be thinking about potential interim steps to safely house and program for youthful offenders pending project completion as well as developing a transition plan to move youth to the new permanent location. Finally, the number of female juveniles held at the JDC is very low, often a single female isolated in a housing unit to ensure separation from adults. Given this limited number and the limited number of girls held at Henley Young, the County should set a date certain in the near future, e.g. September 1, after which any female juvenile held on adult charges would be held in the girl’s unit at Henley Young. This will allow sufficient time for Detention and Henley Young staff to modify any operational and programmatic procedures if/as needed.
For any youthful prisoners in custody, the County must:
78. Develop and implement a screening, assessment and treatment program to ensure that youth with serious mental illness and disabilities, including developmental disabilities, receive appropriate programs, supports, education, and services.
Non-Compliant In the time between the February and June visits, the number of reported incidents of self-harm, suicide attempts, suicidal verbalization, and assaultive behavior have increased. This increase may be in part the result of increased routine reporting (which has generally been a positive for the Monitoring Team’s ability to get a better understanding of what is going on). But, the incidents illustrate concerns about how the unmet mental health needs of juveniles when combined with conditions of confinement, inconsistent and insufficient staffing, inadequate
44

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 45 of 71
programming, infrequent family contact, and the unique trauma and social background these youths have experienced inevitably lead to these behaviors. An incident/situation of particular note is that at the time of the site visit a juvenile (E.W.) was being held (at the time of the visit for over a week) in a room in an adult segregation unit as a result of an incident that started on the juvenile unit in which he was assaulted by another youth. E.W. subsequently made a suicide attempt that resulted in him being placed in the suicide wedge of an adult segregation unit where he made another attempt. The youth remained fearful about returning to the juvenile unit. As a result of the most recent suicide attempt staff was told by mental health staff to remove all items from his room, including clothing.
While the County has initiated discussions with Peterkin Associates of Mississippi and has continued interaction with Hinds County Behavioral Health Services, the County is nowhere near providing the kind of behavioral and mental health interventions and consultation that are likely to reduce these incidents from occurring or meet the goals of the Settlement Agreement. Services needed continue to include: (1) routine mental health screening of all inmates admitted to the facility, but particularly youthful prisoners; (2) use of a mental health tool (e.g. MAYSI II or other valid tool) to further assess youth’s mental health needs; (3) routine counseling/interaction with juveniles by a qualified mental health professional (e.g. social worker, psychiatric nurse, etc.); (4) more consistent access to psychologist/psychiatrist consultation related to medications and treatment planning; and (5) consultation with key Detention leadership and staff in developing individualized observation and/or behavioral plans as may be needed to prevent and/or respond to juveniles experiencing mental health issues that are too often revealed through harmful behavior(s).
Implementing a more comprehensive mental health program also means integrating what is known about the mental health needs of youthful prisoners with multiple requirements of the operation including reducing the use of seclusion/restraints, increased training for staff supervising youth, and development of a behavioral management program. A good source for information about developing a comprehensive mental health program can be found in Chapter 11 of The Desktop Guide to Quality Practice for Working with Youth in Confinement (https://info.nicic.gov/dtg/).
79. Ensure that youth receive adequate free appropriate education, including special education.
Non-Compliant Although the County has secured the support of a volunteer for Adult Basic Education (ABE) services and has placed a priority on using the existing program space (one classroom) and having an officer in the classroom to support the teacher, the delivery of services remains limited both in the number of youth receiving regular instruction and the frequency they receive it. In
45

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 46 of 71
addition, as a result of outreach to Jackson schools, the County has learned that of the juveniles in custody on the date of the request a number of them (about 1/3) had been and should be receiving exceptional education services under IDEA. And, as expected, none of them are receiving those services, nor was inquiry made relative to other youthful offenders in custody, ages 18-21, that may also be eligible for such services. Although a positive step, the ABE program is dependent on the availability and interest of the volunteer, and that person is not certified to fully assess educational needs or administer GED testing (if appropriate), and staffing and facility limitations will continue to pose a problem in providing even a modest range of services. There remains no routine screening process (other than some assessment related to ABE skills) to determine whether and what educational services a juvenile or youthful offender was engaged in prior to admission that would help determine what the appropriate, and often legally required, services should be for the youth while confined. Although recognizing the need to do so, Hinds County has not fully pursued the needed review of state statutes and/or negotiations with Jackson Public Schools, or any other potentially responsible district/entity, to establish the requirements for funding and provision of educational services to all juveniles, let alone those that fall under IDEA requirements.
The key recommendations related to education continue to be: 1) Review state statutes and any other legal requirements related to education of confined
juveniles/youthful offenders, including identifying the entity/entities responsible for providing and/or funding services; and 2) Develop and implement a routine screening process for determining the educational history and/or requirements related to all juveniles and other youthful offenders admitted to the facility. This may require contracting with appropriately certified and/or licensed education professional(s) to provide technical assistance to develop the screening process as well as appropriate professionals to properly assess inmates and identify what services are required and/or needed;
Based on the above, as soon as possible contract with and/or complete negotiations with the appropriate entity/entities so as to begin providing additional and more appropriate services possible, ideally no later than October 2017. It is understood that even though statutes may require a local district/entity to provide the required services, actually implementing that can be a challenge for both the district and the facility. However, in the end Hinds County is responsible for ensuring that the services are provided, even if that means Hinds County has to fully provide the funding necessary to make it happen.
80. Ensure that youth are properly separated by sight and sound from adult prisoners.
46

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 47 of 71
Partial Compliance Youth are housed in a separate unit so that contact with adults is minimized. Since the baseline visit, a staff member has been regularly assigned to provide direct supervision in the juvenile unit, which is an improvement. Youth seem to respect the officer assigned, and she indicates a willingness and affinity to supervising youth, which is not always true for officers used to supervising adult offenders. However, that assignment covers only the day shifts five days per week. Other staff are assigned, on a rotating basis, to the juvenile unit during evening, overnight, and weekend shifts. Contrary to statements by youth at the time of the baseline visit and in February, youth interviewed during the June visit indicated that there were not instances of adults entering the juvenile unit by “popping the cage door”. The Monitoring Team will continue to inquire about the previously reported practice to determine if this is a permanent improvement.
The Policies and Procedures provided, however, fall short of emphasizing the need for this separation/proper supervision to be carried through all aspects of the operation, lacking reference to how youth might be moved throughout the facility, e.g. to medical, the classroom, or holding/transportation to court. Further revision of Policies/Procedures should also include a requirement to document (via an Incident Report) any instance in which improper contact occurs. If this can be implemented, it will assist leadership in further modifying procedures and/or staff training to ensure this condition is met in the future.
81. Ensure that the Jail’s classification and housing assignment system does not merely place all youth in the same housing unit, without adequate separation based on classification standards. Instead, the system must take into account classification factors that differ even within the youth sub-class of prisoners. These factors include differences in age, dangerousness, likelihood of victimization, and sex/gender.
Non-Compliant With only one unit in RDC, this provision cannot be met. This does, however, have implications for the design of an alternate plan for housing youth. Specifically, although a single juvenile unit may be developed as an alternative, it needs to have at least two separate housing areas that will permit implementation of a more refined and appropriate classification system.
82. Train staff members assigned to supervise youth on the Jail’s youth-specific policies and procedures, as well as on age-appropriate supervision and treatment strategies. The County must ensure that such specialized training includes training on the supervision and treatment of youth, child and adolescent development, behavioral management, crisis intervention, conflict management, child abuse, juvenile rights, the juvenile justice system, youth suicide prevention and mental health, behavioral observation and reporting, gang intervention, and de-escalation.
47

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 48 of 71
Partial Compliance The planned training for supervising youthful prisoners that was delayed prior to the February visit was initiated in June prior to the site visit. Ten staff participated in the training, although seven of the ten are staff currently assigned to the Jackson facility, leaving only three Raymond staff receiving the training. As indicated in the baseline report, the curriculum for the training is appropriate and feedback from Sgt. Tower and Captain Van Egmond suggested that the training was well-received by staff. This represents a small step toward compliance but leaves a long way to go in terms of: (1) training any/all staff working with youthful prisoners (keeping in mind that much of the training is appropriate for supervision of young adult offenders as well as youth under age 18); (2) assigning only properly trained staff to the juvenile unit; (3) training key supervisory staff so they can properly reinforce the training that was received and properly evaluate officer performance; (4) and integrating knowledge gained in the training in development of a behavioral management program and related policies/procedures. The sooner more staff are trained, the sooner these additional steps can be taken that will help meet other conditions of the Agreement.
83. Specifically prohibit the use of segregation as a disciplinary sanction for youth. Segregation may be used on a youth only when the individual’s behavior threatens imminent harm to the youth or others. This provision is in addition to, and not a substitute, for the provisions of this Agreement that apply to the use of segregation in general. In addition:
a. Prior to using segregation, staff members must utilize less restrictive techniques such as verbal de-escalation and individual counseling, by qualified mental health or other staff trained on the management of youth.
b. Prior to placing a youth in segregation, or immediately thereafter, a staff member must explain to the youth the reasons for the segregation, and the fact that the youth will be released upon regaining self-control.
c. Youth may be placed in segregation only for the amount of time necessary for the individual to regain self-control and no longer pose an immediate threat. As soon as the youth’s behavior no longer threatens imminent harm to the youth or others, the County must release the individual back to their regular detention location, school or other programming.
d. If a youth is placed in segregation, the County must immediately provide one-onone crisis intervention and observation.
f. The County must specifically document and record the use of segregation on youth as part of its incident reporting and quality assurance systems.
g. A Qualified Medical Professional, or staff member who has completed all training required for supervising youth, must directly monitor any youth in segregation at least every fifteen (15) minutes. Such observation must be documented immediately after each check.
48

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 49 of 71
h. Youth may not be held in segregation for a continuous period longer than one (1) hour during waking hours. If staff members conclude that a youth is not sufficiently calm to allow a break in segregation after one hour, they must contact a Qualified Mental Health Professional. The Qualified Mental Health Professional must assess the youth and determine whether the youth requires treatment or services not available in the Jail. If the youth requires mental health services that are not provided by the Jail, the Qualified Mental Health Provider must immediately notify the Jail Administrator and promptly arrange for hospitalization or other treatment services.
i. If a youth is held in segregation for a continuous period longer than two (2) hours, Staff Members must notify the Jail Administrator.
j. Any notifications or assessments required by this paragraph must be documented in the youth’s individual record.
Non-Compliant There remains no evidence of sufficient policies/procedures or documentation related to the use of room confinement or other forms of isolation/segregation for youth. In response to specific questions directed to youth during interviews about room confinement for disciplinary purposes/punishment, they indicated that there were generally not instances where they or other youth were placed in their cells for discipline. Rather, they were more consistent in expressing concerns about not being allowed out of their cells following the day to evening shift change, indicating that while they expected to be in their rooms from approximately three to five p.m. that it was not uncommon for the incoming shift to leave some, if not all, youth in their cells into the evening shift. This is consistent with information in the previous Monitoring Report in which this appears to be a practice related to managing the population “out” at any one time in the unit rather than disciplinary isolation/segregation.
In a discussion with Sgt. Tower who is assigned to Unit A-1 on weekday shifts, she did indicate that there were occasional times when she addressed behavioral concerns by placing youth in their cell for short periods of time, e.g. 30 minutes, to calm a situation of concern that she was observing. She indicated that her routine process was then to talk with the youth shortly after being in the cell and when the youth was calm and ready to return to the group she would let them out. Several of the youth interviewed essentially corroborated this, and it would be reasonable to expect that some use of short-term (15-60 minute) room confinement could be part of a complete behavioral management program that is not inconsistent with conditions of the Agreement.
Steps toward compliance can be made by (1) developing clear policies/procedures, consistent with the Agreement requirements, related to the use of segregation or other forms of isolation/confinement for disciplinary purposes; (2) establishing and adhering (with the
49

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 50 of 71
exception of emergency situations) to a daily schedule so that youth are not left in their cells during times when they should be out/on the unit; and (3) keeping a room confinement log that documents any period of time in which a youth is placed in segregation/room confinement for disciplinary purposes that includes the name of the youth, the time confined, the officer implementing the confinement, and a brief reason for the confinement; and (4) require the writing of an Incident Report for any such confinement that exceeds one hour.
84. Develop and implement a behavioral treatment program appropriate for youth. This program must be developed with the assistance of a qualified consultant who has at least five years of experience developing behavioral programs for institutionalized youth. The Jail’s behavioral program must include all of the following elements:
a. The behavioral program must include positive incentives for changing youth behavior, outline prohibited behaviors, and describe the consequences for prohibited behaviors.
b. An individualized program must be developed by a youth’s interdisciplinary treatment team, and properly documented in each youth’s personal file. Documentation requirements must include the collection of data required for proper assessment and treatment of youth with behavioral issues. For instance, the County must track the frequency and duration of positive incentives, segregation, and targeted behaviors.
c. The program must include safeguards and prohibitions on the inappropriate use of restraints, segregation, and corporal punishment.
Non-Compliant There has been no change related to these provisions since the baseline and February site visits. While development of a behavioral management program will take time and is complicated by facility, training, and staffing limitations, the County has not yet identified a consultant to help them take steps to develop even a rudimentary behavioral management program. Implementation of any program will need to be done in coordination with additional staff training related to supervising youthful offenders, development of policies/procedures specific to behavior management, and development of additional programs (education, life skill, and counseling). Implementing a program on a piecemeal/sporadic basis could do more harm than good, but with the help of a qualified consultant it would be possible to begin to make progress toward meeting the Settlement Agreement requirements.
LAWFUL BASIS FOR DETENTION
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners are processed through the criminal justice system in a manner that respects their liberty interests. To that end:
50

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 51 of 71
85. The County will not accept or continue to house prisoners in the Jail without appropriate, completed paperwork such as an affidavit, arrest warrant, detention hold, or judge’s written detention order. Examples of inadequate paperwork include, but are not limited to undated or unsigned court orders, warrants, and affidavits; documents memorializing oral instructions from court officers that are undated, unsigned, or otherwise fail to identify responsible individuals and the legal basis for continued detention or release; incomplete arresting police officer documents; and any other paperwork that does not establish a lawful basis for detention.
Non-Compliant Determining the lawful basis for detention including on-going detention after some court activity continues to be difficult. The Monitor reviewed records related to individuals who came in on warrants or had a hold of some kind. In a review of 11 files with RDC records staff, 10 of them were lacking documentation showing the lawful basis of detention or on-going detention. This included lack of documentation of holds, holds that appeared to be lifted but the system hadn’t been updated, holds that didn’t currently exist because the case went in as a new charge, warrants that had been withdrawn but the hold hadn’t been lifted, no explanation for detention, and in one case, no file at all. In looking at files related to people waiting for hospital beds, there was another inmate whose file could not be located and one inmate whose earlier volumes also related to the current booking were missing.
86. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees in contravention of the protections of the United States Constitution as set forth and discussed in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) and Cassibry v. State, 453 So.2d 1298 (Miss. 1984). The County must develop and implement policies consistent with the applicable federal law and the terms of this Agreement.
Non-Compliant See paragraph 87 below.
87. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees absent (a) documentation demonstrating that a meaningful analysis of that person’s ability to pay was conducted by the sentencing court prior to the imposition of any sentence, and (b) written findings by the sentencing court setting forth the basis for a finding that the failure to pay the subject fines or fees was willful. At a minimum, the County must confirm receipt from the sentencing court of a signed “Order” issued by the sentencing court setting forth in detail the basis for a finding that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful.
51

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 52 of 71
Non-Compliant In the past, many but not all of the court orders received by the detention facilities included language that the defendant was ordered to pay fines and fees and should remain in the county jail until payment thereof or more bluntly “pay or stay”. These orders present the problem addressed in this paragraph. However, the Jail was compounding this problem in two respects. Even where the court order did not include the “pay or stay” or equivalent language, the Jail was interpreting court orders as if the court orders did requiring all prisoners with an order to pay fines and fees to stay until the fines and fees were paid or worked off at a daily rate. In addition, the Jail was looking up court records to locate earlier fines and fees and adding them to the length of stay. The Jail has now discontinued both of those practices. As a result, a number of individuals have been released. There remain individuals whose orders do include “pay or stay” or similar language with no evidence of any finding that a failure to pay the fines or fess was willful or that any attempt to determine ability to pay was made. The Jail has not confirmed the receipt of an order with the requisite finding or followed the procedures set forth in the following paragraphs. These orders appear from all the local courts-Jackson Municipal Court, Hinds County Justice Court, and the other municipal courts within the county. As a result of class action litigation, there is a court order directing Municipal Court not to order defendants to pay or stay without a finding of wilfulness. Local attorneys reported that the problem may be that the Municipal court is utilizing old forms as opposed to violating the court order in the class action case One of the Monitoring Team’s priority recommendations was to work with the class action attorney to resolve the “pay or stay” orders coming out of Jackson Municipal court. If this is not resolved in this manner, the procedure set forth below will need to be followed. Hinds County Justice Court is not subject to the same class action order. In a meeting with two of the Justice Court judges, they acknowledged that the new Rules of Criminal Procedure do not allow for “pay or stay” orders without a finding of willfulness and these orders should not be seen going forward. However, there may be people in the jail now with these orders which will require bringing the existing orders to the attention of the Court as set forth below and the County is not in compliance with these requirements. It should also be noted that currently defendants are not represented in Justice Court and holding a meaningful willfulness hearing may be difficult.
88. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a person for failure to pay fines or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and any other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and must obtain a copy to justify continued detention of the prisoner. After 48 hours, that prisoner must be released promptly if the Jail staff cannot obtain the necessary documentation to verify that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful, and that person is incarcerated only for the failure to pay fines or fees.
Non-Compliant See response to number 87 above.
52

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 53 of 71
89. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a prisoner for failure to pay fines or fees, and if that person is incarcerated for other conviction(s) or charge(s), other than the failure to pay fines and/or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and to ascertain the prisoner’s length of sentence. If Jail staff cannot obtain a copy of the necessary documentation within 48 hours of the prisoner’s incarceration, Jail staff must promptly arrange for the prisoner’s transport to the sentencing court so that the court may conduct a legally sufficient hearing and provide any required documentation, including the fines or fees owed by the prisoner, and an assessment of the prisoner’s ability to pay and willfulness (or lack thereof) in failing to pay fines or fees.
Non-Compliant See response to paragraph 87 above.
90. Jail staff must maintain the records necessary to determine the amount of time a person must serve to pay off any properly ordered fines or fees. To the extent that a sentencing court does not specifically calculate the term of imprisonment to be served, the Jail must obtain the necessary information within 24 hours of a prisoner’s incarceration. Within 48 hours of incarceration, each prisoner shall be provided with documentation setting forth clearly the term of imprisonment and the calculation used to determine the term of imprisonment.
Non-Compliant A spreadsheet had been kept by the Work Center and JDC. It was reported that no one in RDC was working off old fines and fees. The Work Center spreadsheet is in the process of being incorporated into the jail JMS system. Prisoners are not provided with documentation of their term of imprisonment although they typically have received the orders from the court. Currently, there continue to be prisoners in the facility who have orders to stay incarcerated until fines and fees are paid or worked off without a finding of willfulness.
91. No pre-trial detainee or sentenced prisoner incarcerated by the County solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be required to perform physical labor. Nor shall any such detainee or prisoner receive any penalty or other adverse consequence for failing to perform such labor, including differential credit toward sentences. Any physical labor by pre-trial detainees or by prisoners incarcerated solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be performed on a voluntary basis only, and the County shall not in any way coerce such pre-trial detainees or prisoners to perform physical labor.
53

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 54 of 71
Non-Compliant The standard practice at the WC is to give half the amount of credit towards fines and fees for individuals who do not perform physical labor. This includes individuals who cannot perform physical labor because of a medical or mental health condition. Captain Chandler stated that individuals with medical conditions did get the full amount of credit without working. However, Deputy Neal stated that only in special situations would they get full credit. He would make the recommendation to the Captain based upon criteria such as how long the prisoner has been incarcerated, the nature of the charge and generally a subjective judgement. There needs to be a written policy requiring that individuals who cannot work because of a medical or mental health condition or other disability receive full credit towards fines and fees.
92. The County must ensure that the Jail timely releases from custody all individuals entitled to release. At minimum:
a. Prisoners are entitled to release if there is no legal basis for their continued detention. Such release must occur no later than 11:59 PM on the day that a prisoner is entitled to be released.
b. Prisoners must be presumed entitled to release from detention if there is a court order that specifies an applicable release date, or Jail records document no reasonable legal basis for the continued detention of a prisoner.
c. Examples of prisoners presumptively entitled to release include: i. Individuals who have completed their sentences; ii. Individuals who have been acquitted of all charges after trial; iii. Individuals whose charges have been dismissed; iv. Individuals who are ordered released by a court order; and v. Individuals detained by a law enforcement agency that then fails to promptly provide constitutionally adequate, documented justification for an individual’s continued detention.
Non-Compliant RDC continues to rely on inmate requests to identify prisoners entitled to release. RDC does not track the sentences of individuals at RDC nor does it track individuals who are entitled to release because they came in on a probation warrant and did not receive a hearing in 21 days. Relying on prisoner requests for release no doubt results in some individuals staying longer than lawful. In looking at persons brought in on a probation warrant, there appear to be 5 individuals who were held or continue to be held beyond their release time. Because of the condition of the records, it may be that something else is holding them that could not be discerned. One individual was released but 4 months late. The others remained in custody at the time without any documentation of other reasons for detention-one for over 6 months. There also appears to be a practice of not recognizing the 21 day deadline as firm. Understandably the Jail prefers a court
54

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 55 of 71
order of release to ensure that the release is proper. However, the Jail needs to be proactive in ensuring that the deadline is met or the hold is lifted within the required time frame.
93. The County must develop and implement a reliable, complete, and adequate prisoner records system to ensure that staff members can readily determine the basis for a prisoner’s detention, when a prisoner may need to be released, and whether a prisoner should remain in detention. The records system must provide Jail staff with reasonable advance notice prior to an anticipated release date so that they can contact appropriate agencies to determine whether a prisoner should be released or remain in detention.
Non-Compliant As described above, the current records system and process for tracking releasing is very deficient. There was not a single file reviewed that did not have some missing paperwork related to basis for detention, time for release, or current legal status. In some instances, the JMS system had information that was not in the paper file although in some instances the information was inconsistent with the paperwork in the file. In some instances the entire file was missing.
There should be one complete prisoner file in one location and one central office responsible for ensuring that the court information is complete and accurate. This should be the records office. However, it is essential that there be a process by which booking initiates the booking and it is passed to records and records initiates the release and it is passed to releasing. At the present time, no such process exists and there is a lack of communication between the two offices ending up with only sporadic paperwork in the files. In addition, because of the inability to rely on records or releasing, the administrative staff in each of the detention facilities contact the courts separately and may have documentation that records does not or records may have documentation that the facilities do not. As suggested above, classification should be part of the records office so the records office can operate 24/7 and records should assume primary responsibility for all paperwork related to the lawful basis of detention and entitlement to release. This will require substantial modification of current operations.
94. Jail record systems must accurately identify and track all prisoners with serious mental illness, including their housing assignment and security incident histories. Jail staff must develop and use records about prisoners with serious mental illness to more accurately and efficiently process prisoners requiring forensic evaluations or transport to mental hospitals or other treatment facilities, and to improve individual treatment, supervision, and community transition planning for prisoners with serious mental illness. Records about prisoners with serious mental illness must be incorporated into the Jail’s incident reporting, investigations, and medical quality assurance systems. The County must provide an accurate census of the Jail’s mental health population as part of its compliance reporting obligations, and the County must address this data when assessing staffing, program, or resource needs.
55

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 56 of 71
Non-Compliant The jail record system does not identify persons with serious mental illness. While there are incident reports submitted, the forms do not have a place to indicate if the individual had a mental health illness. And there is no electronic method of identifying individuals with mental illness at the time an incident is occurring. Unless a computerized program is developed between the contractor and the medical vendor, officers will not know in advance of inmates with special mental health needs. Health staff can identify the information after the fact, which may be useful.
Although jail and QCHC staff attempt to move individuals to the state hospital as needed, this continues to be a systemic problem. There are only 15 forensic beds at the State Hospital to serve the entire state for competency evaluations or restoration. There are an additional 20 beds that are for individuals for civil commitments. Of the 15 forensic beds, two are reserved for females.
The social worker at RDC maintains a list of all inmates who are waiting to go to the state hospital or require competency evaluations. This list is updated with their current status in the process. Court orders for competency are sent to Sgt. Lewis who is in charge of transportation. He provides a copy to the social worker. The list tracks when a competency hearing was held, if the patient was sent to Mississippi State Hospital and if they were returned to the Hinds County Detention Center. As of June 14, 2017 there were 41 names on the list. Eleven individuals had been or were currently at Mississippi State Hospital for competency restoration, three individuals were transferred to MDOC and five inmates were released from the jail. Other inmates were waiting for a competency evaluation or a state hospital bed for restoration or the next step in the legal process. At the time of the site visit, twelve individuals were waiting for a state hospital bed for either competency restoration or a competency evaluation. The time waiting for a state hospital bed ranged from one year to three years.
An additional list of inmates was provided on January 19, 2017. There were 34 inmates on this list. Many of them had been sent to drug and alcohol facilities. Others were on the list for mental health evaluations. The list that is generated in Word is not user friendly. Basically, in Word format, one cannot extrapolate from the data the amount of people waiting for beds, the dates of when the competency evaluation occurred or the status of the court proceedings. An excel spreadsheet would be more helpful with these categories.
Four correctional files along with the medical records were reviewed with QCHC staff available for questions. Of the charts randomly selected, the diagnoses included bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, and included some with paranoia. One in particular had especially severe illness where despite IM Haldol Deaconate, he was still hearing voices, having hallucinations, and very agitated. Several had one or more suicide attempts.
56

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 57 of 71
One had been returned from a 12 month stay at State as not restorable. He demonstrated episodes of aggression toward staff and other patients while he was hospitalized. His criminal case was remanded and he was ordered to chancery court for civil commitment but is still incarcerated at RDC. The course of these inmates/patients demonstrates the problem of long periods of incarceration at the Jail while waiting years for forensic beds. The Jail environment, particularly at Hinds County which lacks a mental health unit, results in decompensation resulting in suicide attempts and serious management problems for the staff.
An individual found to be incompetent to stand trial is then provided treatment in an effort to achieve competency. This is historically done at the state hospital and may include medication, counseling and education and because of the limited forensic beds at the state hospital has resulted in long periods of confinement at the jail waiting for the state hospital beds. The state has offered a program to provide treatment to competency services in the jail. This was initiated the week of the site visit. Counselors visit RDC twice a week to provide restoration services. It is understood that these services are minimal and are being provided in an extremely nontherapeutic environment. This program will not take the place of competency restoration at the State Hospital but may shorten the length of time inmates reside at the state hospital. Individuals are not being taken off the state hospital list. If it appears that this program is being used as a substitute for state hospital restoration, the Monitor will most likely require that the County provide the therapeutic environment that is appropriate for treatment to competency.
As discussed elsewhere, transition planning has not been provided. A transition planner has been hired by QCHC and the provision of this service will be evaluated in the future.
95. All individuals who (i) were found not guilty, were acquitted, or had charges brought against them dismissed, and (ii) are not being held on any other matter, must be released directly from the court unless the court directs otherwise. Additionally:
a. Such individuals must not be handcuffed, shackled, chained with other prisoners, transported back to the Jail, forced to submit to bodily strip searches, or returned to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
b. Notwithstanding (a), above, individuals may request to be transported back to the Jail solely for the purpose of routine processing for release. If the County decides to allow such transport, the County must ensure that Jail policies and procedures govern the process. At minimum, policies and procedures must prohibit staff from: i. Requiring the individual to submit to bodily strip searches; ii. Requiring the individual to change into Jail clothing if the individual is not already in such clothing; and
57

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 58 of 71
iii. Returning the individual to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
Non-Compliant Individuals are not being released from the Court at this time.
96. The County must develop, implement, and maintain policies and procedures to govern the release of prisoners. These policies and procedures must:
a. Describe all documents and records that must be collected and maintained in Jail files for determining the basis of a prisoner’s detention, the prisoner’s anticipated release date, and their status in the criminal justice system.
b. Specifically, detail procedures to ensure timely release of prisoners entitled to be released, and procedures to prevent accidental release.
c. Be developed in consultation with court administrators, the District Attorney’s Office, and representatives of the defense bar.
d. Include mechanisms for notifying community mental health providers, including the County’s Program of Assertive Community Treatment (“PACT”) team, when releasing a prisoner with serious mental illness so that the prisoner can transition safely back to the community. These mechanisms must include providing such prisoners with appointment information and a supply of their prescribed medications to bridge the time period from release until their appointment with the County PACT team, or other community provider.
Non-Compliant Policies and procedures have been adopted. There are two policies that may relate to this requirement-the policy on records and the policy on booking which includes some requirements related to release. These policies do not have the specificity or the breadth required by this paragraph. In addition, the policy places much of the responsibility on a court liaison officer. It is unclear whether anyone currently fulfills this role. The Monitoring Team and DOJ provide comments on these policies and a second draft should be forthcoming. Neither the DA’s office nor the defense bar has been involved in the drafting. The level of specificity required by this paragraph will require significant revision of the policy. Neither the County nor QCHC have developed sufficient mechanisms for the transition of persons with mental illness into community based services. QCHC has hired a discharge planner. She is an RN with correctional experience. Her start date was June 12, 2017, thus at the time of the audit she was still in orientation. There have been meetings with the Hinds County Mental Health and QCHC. The staff at Hinds County went to the jail and identified two inmates that were soon to be released. They would like to perform transition planning with the inmates and require about two weeks advance notice.
58

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 59 of 71
Hinds County Behavioral Health has identified how long it will take for discharging prisoners to obtain medications in their system-typically 14 days. QCHC has not yet determined the cost of providing that supply. In addition, even with the current supply (whatever is left in the blister pack), there is no process to ensure that the discharging prisoner obtains the medications at the time of release.
97. The County must develop, implement, and maintain appropriate post orders relating to the timely release of individuals. Any post orders must:
a. Contain up-to-date contact information for court liaisons, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Public Defender’s Office;
b. Describe a process for obtaining higher level supervisor assistance in the event the officer responsible for processing releases encounters administrative
difficulties in determining a prisoner’s release eligibility or needs urgent assistance in reaching officials from other agencies who have information relevant to a prisoner’s release status.
Non-Compliant The County has not yet developed post orders in this area.
98. Nothing in this Agreement precludes appropriate verification of a prisoner’s eligibility for release, including checks for detention holds by outside law enforcement agencies and procedures to confirm the authenticity of release orders. Before releasing a prisoner entitled to release, but no later than the day release is ordered, Jail staff should check the National Crime Information Center or other law enforcement databases to determine if there may be a basis for continued detention of the prisoner. The results of release verification checks must be fully documented in prisoner records.
Non-Compliant The booking staff runs an NCIC check at the time of booking but not at the time of release.
99. The County must ensure that the release process is adequately staffed by qualified detention officers and supervisors. To that end, the County must:
a. Ensure that sufficient qualified staff members, with access to prisoner records and to the Jail’s e-mail account for receiving court orders, are available to receive and effectuate court release orders twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
b. Ensure that staff members responsible for the prisoner release process and related records have the knowledge, skills, training, experience, and abilities to implement the Jail’s release policies and procedures. At minimum, the County must provide relevant staff members with specific pre-service and annual in-
59

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 60 of 71
service training related to prisoner records, the criminal justice process, legal terms, and release procedures. The training must include instruction on: i. How to process release orders for each court, and whom to contact if a
question arises; ii. What to do if the equipment for contacting other agencies, such as the
Jail’s fax machine or email service, malfunctions, or communication is otherwise disrupted; iii. Various types of court dispositions, and the language typically used therein, to ensure staff members understand the meaning of court orders; and iv. How and when to check for detainers to ensure that an individual may be released from court after she or he is found not guilty, is acquitted, or has the charges brought against her or him dismissed. c. Provide detention staff with sufficient clerical support to prevent backlogs in the filing of prisoner records.
Non-Compliant In the prior site visit, the booking area did not have the full complement of booking officers at the time and a chronic shortage of booking staff in booking was reported. At the time of the June site visit, the monitoring team observed that there was a shortage of detention officers in booking with one officer being pulled from booking to fill a shortage in another location. At the present time, there are inadequate processes for identifying prisoners who should be released and properly processing the release. As a result, there is a lack of training on what should be the appropriate processes.
100. The County must annually review its prisoner release and detention process to ensure that it complies with any changes in federal law, such as the constitutional standard for civil or pretrial detention.
Non-Compliant There has not been an initial review of this process to determine consistency with federal law.
101. The County must ensure that the Jail’s record-keeping and quality assurance policies and procedures allow both internal and external audit of the Jail’s release process, prisoner lengths of stay, and identification of prisoners who have been held for unreasonably long periods without charges or other legal process. The County must, at minimum, require:
a. A Jail log that documents (i) the date each prisoner was entitled to release; (ii) the date, time, and manner by which the Jail received any relevant court order; (iii) the date and time that prisoner was in fact released; (iv) the time that elapsed between receipt of the court order and release; (v) the date and time when
60

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 61 of 71
information was received requiring the detention or continued detention of a prisoner (e.g., immigration holds or other detainers), and (vi) the identity of the authority requesting the detention or continued detention of a prisoner. b. Completion of an incident report, and appropriate follow-up investigation and administrative review, if an individual is held in custody past 11:59 PM on the day that she or he is entitled to release. The incident report must document the reason(s) for the error. The incident report must be submitted to the Jail Administrator no later than one calendar day after the error was discovered.
Non-Compliant The record keeping process does not at this time allow for an audit other than a review of individual files. Incident reports are not prepared for errors in releasing.
102. The County must appoint a staff member to serve as a Quality Control Officer with responsibility for internal auditing and monitoring of the release process. This Quality Control Officer will be responsible for helping prevent errors with the release process, and the individual’s duties will include tracking releases to ensure that staff members are completing all required paper work and checks. If the Quality Control Officer determines that an error has been made, the individual must have the authority to take corrective action, including the authority to immediately contact the Jail Administrator or other County official with authority to order a prisoner’s release. The Quality Control Officer’s duties also include providing data and reports so that release errors are incorporated into the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance process.
Non-Compliant The County has not appointed a Quality Control Officer.
103. The County must require investigation of all incidents relating to timely or erroneous prisoner release within seven calendar days by appropriate investigators, supervisors, and the Jail Administrator. The Jail Administrator must document any deficiencies found and any corrective action taken. The Jail Administrator must then make any necessary changes to Jail policies and procedures. Such changes should be made, if appropriate, in consultation with court personnel, the District Attorney’s Office, members of the defense bar, and any other law enforcement agencies involved in untimely or erroneous prisoner releases.
Non-Compliant No documentation was provided of incident reports being created for untimely or erroneous prisoner release or any investigations of such incidents.
61

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 62 of 71
104. The County must conduct bi-annual audits of release policies, procedures, and practices. As part of each audit, the County must make any necessary changes to ensure that individuals are being released in a timely manner. The audits must review all data collected regarding timely release, including any incident reports or Quality Control audits referenced in Paragraph 102 above. The County must document the audits and recommendations, and must submit all documentation to the Monitor and the United States for review.
Non-Compliant Initial policies or procedures have been adopted but require significant revision. There has not been an initial audit of releasing practices.
105. The County must ensure that policies, procedures, and practices allow for reasonable attorney visitation, which should be treated as a safeguard to prevent the unlawful detention of citizens and for helping to ensure the efficient functioning of the County’s criminal justice system. The Jail’s attorney visitation process must provide sufficient space for attorneys to meet with their clients in a confidential setting, and must include scheduling procedures to ensure that defense attorneys can meet with their clients for reasonable lengths of time and without undue delay. An incident report must be completed if Jail staff are unable to transport a prisoner to meet with their attorney, or if there is a delay of more than 30 minutes for transporting a prisoner for a scheduled attorney visit.
Non-Compliant Currently the jail provides attorney visitation in the pods instead of the visitation area. The visitation area was not providing adequate visitation because there was insufficient staff to bring prisoners to the visitation area. Providing visitation in the pods solves that problem. However, given the shortage of staff in the pods, there are significant security concerns expressed by the defense bar and acknowledged by the Monitoring Team.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
The County must develop an effective system for identifying and self-correcting systemic violations of prisoner’s constitutional rights. To that end, the County must:
106. Develop and maintain a database and computerized tracking system to monitor all reportable incidents, uses of force, and grievances. This tracking system will serve as the repository of information used for continuing improvement and quality assurance reports.
Non-Compliant There is currently no database tracking these activities. The IT team is developing a computer based incident and use of force report in the JMS system. This should allow for computerized
62

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 63 of 71
tracking of incidents and grievances. The grievance officer maintains a spreadsheet regarding grievances.
107. Compile an Incident Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Incident Summary Reports must compile and summarize incident report data in order to identify trends such as rates of incidents in general, by housing unit, by day of the week and date, by shift, and by individual prisoners or staff members. The Incident Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Brief summary of all reportable incidents, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. Description of all suicides and deaths, including the date, name of prisoner, housing
unit, and location where the prisoner died (including name of hospital if prisoner died off-site); c. The names and number of prisoners placed in emergency restraints, and segregation, and the frequency and duration of such placements; d. List and total number of incident reports received during the reporting period; e. List and Total number of incidents referred to IAD or other law enforcement agencies for investigation.
Non-Compliant The County provided a monthly report of incidents in the three facilities. Although the information was helpful and appreciated, it did not meet the requirements of this paragraph. As mentioned above the IT department is working on a computerized report that should allow for a summary report to be generated. In meeting with the IT department, it was learned that not all the requirements of this paragraph were addressed. That should be remedied. Even then, it will be essential to determine that reports are being submitted such that an accurate summary report can be generated.
108. Compile a Use of Force Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Use of Force Summary Reports must compile and summarize use of force report data in order to identify trends such as rates of use in general, by housing unit, by shift, by day of the week and date, by individual prisoners, and by staff members. The Use of Force Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Summary of all uses of force, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. List and total number of use of force reports received during the reporting period; c. List and total number of uses of force reports/incidents referred to IAD or other
law enforcement agencies for investigation.
Non-Compliant The County provided a monthly report of use of force in the three facilities. Although the information was helpful and appreciated, it did not meet the requirements of this paragraph. As
63

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 64 of 71
mentioned above the IT department is working on a computerized report that should allow for a summary report to be generated. In meeting with the IT department, it was learned that not all the requirements of this paragraph were addressed. That should be remedied. Even then, it will be essential to determine that reports are being submitted such that an accurate summary report can be generated.
109. Compile a Grievance Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Grievance Summary Reports must compile and summarize grievance information in order to identify trends such as most frequently reported complaints, units generating the most grievances, and staff members receiving the most grievances about their conduct. To identify trends and potential concerns, at least quarterly, a member of the Jail’s management staff must review the Grievance Summary Reports and a random sample of ten percent of all grievances filed during the review period. These grievance reviews, any recommendations, and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant There is no Grievance Summary Report currently being compiled. There is a spreadsheet being maintained. It did not have all the data points required by this paragraph.
110. Compile a monthly summary report of IAD investigations conducted at the Facility. The IAD Summary Report must include:
a. A brief summary of all completed investigations, by type, shift, housing unit, and date;
b. A listing of investigations referred for disciplinary action or other final disposition by type and date;
c. A listing of all investigations referred to a law enforcement agency and the name of the agency, by type and date; and
d. A listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.
Non-Compliant There is currently no summary report of IAD investigations being compiled.
111. Conduct a review, at least annually, to determine whether the incident, use of force, grievance reporting, and IAD systems comply with the requirements of this Agreement and are effective at ensuring staff compliance with their constitutional obligations. The County must make any changes to the reporting systems that it determines are necessary as a result of the system reviews. These reviews and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
64

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 65 of 71
N/A-Annual Review would not yet be due.
112. Ensure that the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance systems include an Early Intervention component to alert Administrators of potential problems with staff members. The purpose of the Early Intervention System is to identify and address patterns of behavior or allegations which may indicate staff training deficiencies, persistent policy violations, misconduct, or criminal activity. As part of the Early Intervention process, incident reports, use of force reports, and prisoner grievances must be screened by designated staff members for such patterns. If misconduct, criminal activity, or behaviors indicate the need for corrective action, the screening staff must refer the incidents or allegations to Jail supervisors, administrators, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies for investigation. Additionally:
a. The Early Intervention System may be integrated with other database and computerized tracking systems required by this Agreement, provided any unified system otherwise still meets the terms of this Agreement.
b. The Early Intervention System must screen for staff members who may be using excessive force, regardless of whether use of force reviews concluded that the uses complied with Jail policies and this Agreement. This provision allows identification of staff members who may still benefit from additional training and serves as a check on any deficiencies with use of force by field supervisors.
c. The Jail Administrator, or designee of at least Captain rank, must personally review Early Intervention System data and alerts at least quarterly. The Administrator, or designee, must document when reviews were conducted as well as any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken.
d. The County must maintain a list of any staff members identified by the Early Intervention System as possibly needing additional training or discipline. A copy of this list must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
e. The County must take appropriate, documented, and corrective action when staff members have been identified as engaging in misconduct, criminal activity, or a pattern of violating Jail policies.
f. The County must review the Early Intervention System, at least bi-annually, to ensure that it is effective and used to identify staff members who may need additional training or discipline. The County must document any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken as a result of these reviews. Copies of these reviews must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
Non-Compliant There is currently no Early Intervention program.
65

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 66 of 71
113. Develop and implement policies and procedures for Jail databases, tracking systems, and computerized records (including the Early Intervention System), that ensure both functionality and data security. The policies and procedures must address all of the following issues: data storage, data retrieval, data reporting, data analysis and pattern identification, supervisor responsibilities, standards used to determine possible violations and corrective action, documentation, legal issues, staff and prisoner privacy rights, system security, and audit mechanisms.
Non-Compliant The recently adopted policies and procedures do not include policies and procedures covering this matter.
114. Ensure that the Jail’s medical staff are included as part of the continuous improvement and quality assurance process. At minimum, medical and mental health staff must be included through all of the following mechanisms:
a. Medical staff must have the independent authority to promptly refer cases of suspected assault or abuse to the Jail Administrator, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies;
b. Medical staff representatives must be involved in mortality reviews and systemic reviews of serious incidents. At minimum, a physician must prepare a mortality review within 30 days of every prisoner death. An outside physician must review any mortalities associated with treatment by Jail physicians.
Non-Compliant Currently there is no policy on mortality review by QCHC. In order to conduct adequate mortality reviews, the review must be completed by an outside physician not contracted or employed by the jail and should include an administrative component regarding an assessment of correctional officer and health care staff emergency response actions, an assessment of the clinical care the prisoner received and the circumstances leading up to his death, and a psychological autopsy which has an emphasis on factors in the individual’s life with an emphasis on factors that led up to or contributed to the death. The recent death of a prisoner did not have a mortality review and, in fact, his medical file could not be located by QCHC staff at the time of the site visit.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
115. Hinds County will establish a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (“Coordinating Committee”) with subject matter expertise and experience that will assist in streamlining criminal justice processes, and identify and develop solutions and interventions designed to lead to diversion from arrest, detention, and incarceration. The Coordinating Committee will focus
66

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 67 of 71
particularly on diversion of individuals with serious mental illness and juveniles. Using the Sequential Intercept Model, or an alternative acceptable to the Parties, the Coordinating Committee will identify strategies for diversion at each intercept point where individuals may encounter the criminal justice system, and will assess the County’s current diversion efforts and unmet service needs in order to identify opportunities for successful diversion of such individuals. The Committee will recommend appropriate changes to policies and procedures and additional services necessary to increase diversion.
Non-Compliant The County is laying the groundwork for a CJCC but has not yet established one.
116. The Coordinating Committee will include representation from the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office and Hinds County Board of Supervisors. The County will also seek representation from Hinds County Behavioral Health Services; the Jackson Police Department; Mississippi Department of Mental Health; Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services; judges from the Hinds County Circuit, Chancery, and County (Youth and Justice) Courts; Hinds County District Attorney Office; Hinds County Public Defender Office; relevant Jackson city officials; and private advocates or other interested community members.
Non-Compliant See 115 above.
117. The Coordinating Committee will prioritize enhancing coordination with local behavioral health systems, with the goal of connecting individuals experiencing mental health crisis, including juveniles, with available services to avoid unnecessary arrest, detention, and incarceration.
Non-Compliant See 115 above.
118. Within 30 days of the Effective Date and in consultation with the United States, the County will select and engage an outside consultant to provide technical assistance to the County and Coordinating Committee regarding strategies for reducing the jail population and increasing diversion from criminal justice involvement, particularly for individuals with mental illness and juveniles. This technical assistance will include (a) a comprehensive review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing efforts to reduce recidivism and increase diversion; (b) identification of gaps in the current efforts, (c) recommendations of actions and strategies to achieve diversion and reduce recidivism; and (d) estimates of costs and cost savings associated with those strategies. The review will include interviews with representatives from the agencies and entities referenced in Paragraph 116 and other relevant stakeholders as necessary for a
67

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 68 of 71
thorough evaluation and recommendation. Within 120 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the outside consultant will finalize and make public a report regarding the results of their assessment and recommendations. The Coordinating Committee will implement the recommended strategies and will continue to use the outside consultant to assist with implementation of the strategies when appropriate.
Non-Compliant At the time of the site visit, the County had identified a consultant in this area but had not completed a contract with the organization.
IMPLEMENTATION, TIMING, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
Paragraphs 119 and 120 regarding duty to implement and effective date omitted.
121. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County must distribute copies of the Agreement to all prisoners and Jail staff, including all medical and security staff, with appropriate explanation as to the staff members’ obligations under the Agreement. At minimum:
a. A copy of the Agreement must be posted in each unit (including booking/intake and medical areas), and program rooms (e.g., classrooms and any library).
b. Individual copies of the Agreement must be provided to prisoners upon request.
Partial Compliance During the June site visit copies of the Settlement Agreement were found to be posted in most housing and support areas of the Jail System. This had been accomplished by driving a rivet through the upper left corner of the multi-page document into the concrete walls of the facilities. While this meets the technical requirement of paragraph 121of the Agreement copies will be shredded and defaced in short order leaving behind unsightly rivets or holes. It is not reasonable to expect someone to stand for an extended period of time to review a document which is literally bolted to the wall. In the juvenile unit, the copy was posted high up on the wall and was inaccessible. A more practical, long term, solution needs to be found. Copies should be made that approximate the size and shape of the Inmate Handbook so that they can be given out to inmates upon request. Direct supervision unit officers can keep a supply available at their posts. Copies can be periodically placed in housing units that do not currently operate in a direct supervision mode.
Paragraphs 122-129 regarding third party beneficiaries, costs, severability, etc. omitted.
68

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 69 of 71
POLICY AND PROCEDURE REVIEW
130. The County must review all existing policies and procedures to ensure their compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. Where the Jail does not have a policy or procedure in place that complies with the terms of this Agreement, the County must draft such a policy or procedure, or revise its existing policy or procedure.
Partial Compliance At the time of the site visit, the County/Sheriff had adopted an initial set of policies and procedures. These have been reviewed and been found to not be fully compliant with the terms of the agreement. The Monitoring Team and DOJ provided comments and a second round of drafting should be underway.
131. The County shall complete its policy and procedure review and revision within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
Partial Compliance Six months expired on January 19, 2017. The policy and procedure review and drafting was completed after that time. Those policies are not sufficiently in compliance so this requirement is listed as partially compliant.
132. Once the County reviews and revises its policies and procedures, the County must provide a copy of its policies and procedures to the United States and the Monitor for review and comment. The County must address all comments and make any changes requested by the United States or the Monitor within thirty (30) days after receiving the comments and resubmit the policies and procedures to the United States and Monitor for review.
Non-Compliant The policies and procedures were completed and submitted to the United States and the Monitor in April for review and comment. The comments were provided on June 1, 2017. Changes have not been made in the 30-day time frame.
133. No later than three months after the United States’ approval of each policy and procedure, the County must adopt and begin implementing the policy and procedure, while also modifying all post orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the policies and procedures.
Non-Compliant The policies and procedures are in need of revision. They should be revised before training and other ensuing operations.
69

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 70 of 71
134. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, all new or revised policies and procedures must be implemented within six months of the United States’ approval of the policy or procedure.
Non-Compliant There have not yet been policies and procedures approved by the United States.
135. The County must annually review its policies and procedures, revising them as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures must be submitted to the United States and the Monitor for approval in accordance with paragraphs 129-131 above.
NA at this time
Paragraphs 136-158 regarding appointment and duties of the Monitor omitted.
COUNTY ASSESSMENT AND COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR
159. The County must file a self-assessment compliance report. The first compliance selfassessment report must be filed with the Court within four months of the Effective Date and at least one month before a Monitor site visit. Each self-assessment compliance report must describe in detail the actions the County has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and must make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. The report must include information supporting the County’s representations regarding its compliance with the Agreement such as quality assurance information, trends, statistical data, and remedial activities. Supporting information should be based on reports or data routinely collected as part of the audit and quality assurance activities required by this Agreement (e.g., incident, use of force, system, maintenance, and early intervention), rather than generated only to support representations made in the self-assessment.
Non-Compliant At the time of the site visit, the County had not yet completed its first self-assessment as required by this paragraph and therefore a self-assessment is long overdue.
160. The County must designate a full-time Compliance Coordinator to coordinate compliance activities required by this Agreement. This person will serve as a primary point of contact for the Monitor. Two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties may consult with each other and the Monitor to determine whether the Compliance Coordinator’s hours may be reduced. The Parties may then stipulate to any agreed reduction in hours.
70

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 16 Filed 08/23/17 Page 71 of 71
Compliant The County has designated a full-time Compliance Coordinator who is coordinating compliance activities. The Monitor will continue to track this assignment to ensure sustained compliance in this area. EMERGENT CONDITIONS 161. The County must notify the Monitor and United States of any prisoner death, riot, escape, injury requiring hospitalization, or over-detention of a prisoner (i.e. failure to release a prisoner before 11:59 PM on the day she or he was entitled to be released), within 3 days of learning of the event. Partial Compliance Immediate notifications have been provided. However, the county has not been providing notification of over-detention and, in fact, is not currently identifying prisoners who have been detained beyond their release date. After the site visit, the Monitor provided a list of prisoners who appeared to have been detained beyond their legal release date and requested confirmation of the over-detention or an explanation as to why the records did not reflect the ongoing detention. No explanation was received. This was also the subject of a priority recommendation. The records office needs to be reorganized to implement business practices that accurately identify release dates and process releases. In the interim, the County needs to develop internal audit procedures to identify individuals entitled to release and prepare incident reports for persons who were detained beyond their legal release date. Paragraphs 162-167 regarding jurisdiction, construction and the PLRA omitted.
71

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 1 of 101
Court-Appointed Monitor’s Sixth Monitoring Report United States v. Hinds County, et al. Civ. No. 3:16cv489 WHB-JCG

Elizabeth E. Simpson Court-Appointed Monitor

David M. Parrish

Jacqueline M. Moore Jim Moeser Dr. Richard Dudley

Corrections Operations Corrections Medicine Juvenile Justice Corrections Mental Health

1

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 2 of 101
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Corrections Operations
During the past year staffing levels in the Detention Services Division (DSD) dropped from 251 out of 275 authorized positions (271 funded) in October 2017, to only 231 by June 2018. Although that trend has recently been reversed, the total number of filled positions is only back to 251, precisely where it was a year ago. To date no action has been taken to fund the four unfunded positions. As a follow up to the salary increase that was previously approved, the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) has submitted a step increase plan to the Board of Supervisors; however, the status of that proposal has not been reported to the monitoring team.
An approved Policies and Procedures Manual must be in place if the HCSO/DSD is ever to comply with the most basic conditions of the Settlement Agreement. Two years have passed since the monitoring process began, and there has been no appreciable progress made toward achieving this basic goal, so it is understandable why most of the paragraphs of the Agreement are carried as “Non-Compliant”. Although no final policies have yet been submitted for approval, subsequent to the September site visit, several draft policies that are under development were submitted to the DOJ and Monitor for review.
Inoperative and malfunctioning security doors throughout the Jail System continue to make compliance with the most basic of security measures problematic. The specifics of these longstanding problems are spelled out in paragraph 46 of the Monitoring Report. As is reported there, until direct supervision is reinstituted at the Raymond Detention Center (RDC), and an officer is permanently assigned inside each housing unit, it is unlikely that the systemic vandalism of that facility that has occurred for many years, will be brought under control. One positive step toward addressing this issue is the adoption of a maintenance tracking system by the Facilities Maintenance Director. If it is used by the commanders of each facility, the timely correction of maintenance problems may be possible.
Subsequent to the May 2018 site visit several demotions occurred including the demotion of the Assistant Jail Administrator. The demotions were completed contrary to the procedural requirements of the Sheriff’s personnel policies which require notice and an opportunity to respond prior to demotion. In addition, the individual who was selected to fill the position does not meet the minimum qualifications for the position required by the Settlement Agreement. As has been noted, personnel hired prior to the effective date of the Settlement Agreement have
2

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 3 of 101
understandably been retained even when not meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. However, hiring and promotions after the effective date of the Settlement Agreement should be in compliance with the Agreement.
Changes in personnel have also resulted in some confusion related to classification. An objective classification tool had been adopted but at the time of the site visit the system had moved back to a charge-based system. After the tool is scored and if the charge category is higher than the resulting score, the score is routinely overridden to match the charge level effectively returning to a charge-based system. In addition, persons charged with misdemeanors are routinely sent to the Work Center (WC) without being classified. This is also a charge-based system instead of a behavior/objective system. However, other changes in staffing assignment have allowed the facility to get closer to the 8 hour time requirement for classification in the Settlement Agreement.
Monitoring Reports have previously noted instances where law enforcement officers and Mississippi Department of Corrections staff were brought in to conduct unauthorized shakedowns of DSD facilities. After this violation of sound correctional practice was brought to the attention of the HCSO command staff, it appeared that the problem had been resolved. However, when it occurred again in June, 2018, the recommendation was made for the Sheriff to issue an order prohibiting such action in the future. Since it does not appear that the order has been issued, that same recommendation is made again.
In an effort to reinstitute a direct supervision operational philosophy in the DSD facilities, “Train the Trainers” orientation was previously requested through the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). It is anticipated that it will finally be provided to DSD staff in November 2018, through a Cooperative Agreement Program.
Being informed that the County is not going to proceed with a major overhaul of the Booking area at RDC in order to make it compatible with the Open Booking concept, it now makes sense to move forward with the minimal change in that area that was previously recommended, specifically the replacement of the doors and frames of all the multiple occupancy holding cells and at least two single cells. This repair is necessary so that the Booking detention officers can see what is going on inside each holding cell without having to open the door(s). It is also recommended that the minor renovations recommended by the policy committee be completed to improve the booking process and move to open booking.
Report writing and review is a critical part of jail operations. Through training and the report review process, officers should be instructed to write reports that contain the elements required by the Settlement Agreement. Some of those elements may be in the Jail Management System (JMS) but not the generated paper report. It is important that the JMS be modified so that the
3

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 4 of 101
same capabilities available to law enforcement officers are available to detention officers. Until then, officers should be instructed to include the information in the narrative and supervisors should sign off on the paper report. At present it is not possible for the monitoring staff to determine whether or not detention officers and supervisors are making the comments and recommendations required by the Settlement Agreement. Without that capability, compliance cannot be determined.
Fire safety is encompassed by the safety inspections and corrective action requirements of paragraph 46. It is a critical component of any jail’s operation. Greater emphasis must be placed upon reactivating the fire safety measures that were previously available at the RDC.
Medical and Mental Health
Since the May 2018 site visit, there has continued to be significant and quite meaningful advances with regard to the provision of core mental health services and the documentation of the fact that such core services are being provided. More specifically, virtually all prisoners on the mental health case load now have documented mental health evaluations and treatment plans; there are progress notes for mental health treatment sessions; and at least a significant percentage of those prisoners on medication have psychiatric evaluations and there are psychiatric notes that document medication review. In addition, the suicide prevention program has been significantly improved, and there are weekly mental health rounds for prisoners who are being held in segregation. Furthermore, there is now a ‘mental health tracking log’ that summarizes important information on the 130 prisoners who are currently on the mental health caseload, which greatly facilitates the monitoring of compliance with mental health policies and procedures, and mechanisms for the monitoring and assessment of the quality of core mental health services is currently being explored.
There are, however, critical issues that still need to be addressed: (1) The hours of service provided by the psychiatrist are woefully inadequate to respond to all of the mental health provisions of this agreement, and so therefore this mental health staffing issue needs to be addressed. (2) Virtually all of the security policies and procedures that include tasks that must be performed by mental health staff – policies and procedures for classification, disciplinary review, segregation review, and the use of force – have yet to be developed, and therefore the involvement of mental health in these functions has yet to be clearly defined in a manner consistent with the provisions of the agreement, and so at present, there is no mental health involvement in these functions. (3) The roles and responsibilities of security staff and medical staff in the management of mentally ill prisoners under certain special circumstances (such as prisoners on suicide watch or mentally ill prisoners placed in segregation) continue to be unclear and therefore need to be more clearly defined. (4) The rate of successful referrals for follow-up, outpatient mental health treatment upon the release of prisoners from the facility is extremely
4

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 5 of 101
low, and so therefore strategies for increasing the rate of successful referrals need to be developed and implemented.
Youthful Offenders
This vast majority of time for the juvenile expert during this visit was again spent at the Henley Young facility, providing an opportunity to interview more youth, engage in constructive conversations with facility leadership and other key staff, and review selected records related to incidents and the use of confinement for disciplinary purposes. At the time of the visit there were sixteen Juveniles Charged as Adults (JCAs) at Henley Young, including three girls. Three JCA youth were being housed at the Raymond Detention Center (RDC). Two of those youth will “age out” of the youth unit at RDC by the end of 2018, but the third youth is a juvenile previously convicted as an adult who will not “age out” until February 2019. Earlier in September, a youth at Henley Young was convicted as an adult and placed at the RDC pending commitment to the state correctional system. The Settlement Agreement does not differentiate between juveniles charged as adults and juveniles convicted as adults, so compliance with the provision to remove youthful prisoners completely from the adult facility will not be met at any time in which the county holds youth convicted as adults at RDC.
There have been no substantive changes at RDC related to youthful prisoners. An incident in late August in which a youth was allegedly assaulted by an officer for failure to comply with handing over contraband represents a serious lack of adequate supervision and training, at least as it relates to the particular officer, and it raises concerns about the commitment to safely, consistently, and properly supervise the few remaining youth at RDC.
There has been notable progress in moving toward compliance at Henley Young including bringing on board a part-time psychologist making positive changes to the behavior management level system, implementing more psychoeducational programming, developing a process for a more problem-solving approach to youth incidents/misbehaviors, and reducing (albeit not eliminating) the use of isolation as a disciplinary measure. Much of this work is still in a formative stage, but it does provide evidence that leadership is interested and willing to move forward to implement more appropriate programming for the long-term youthful offenders in custody. Further assessment of the effectiveness of these changes can be made at the time of the next site visit.
Significant concerns remain relative to the physical plant (e.g. limited classroom and program spaces, poor acoustics, and unnecessary institutional fixtures), limited educational programming, and lengthy case processing delays. These shortcomings continue to pose unnecessary challenges to accomplishing compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Previous
5

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 6 of 101
recommendations related to developing a plan and timetable for addressing these issues are reaffirmed for this report.
Criminal Justice and System Issues
The County and its CJCC consultant are making the effort to develop a functioning Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC). Unfortunately, participation by many of the stakeholders has been minimal. A strategic plan has been adopted and hopefully that will encourage greater participation.
Unlike in the last several site visits, there were a number of people incarcerated on unlawful orders regarding fines and fees. This should have triggered the procedure outlined in the Settlement Agreement for returning the individuals to court in order to obtain a lawful order. Those procedures were not followed. This underlines the importance of adopting policies and procedures to ensure that the required process is followed. These policies have been initiated and a draft which addresses this issue was provided by the Sheriff’s office to the monitoring team and DOJ after the site visit.
The full time Quality Control Officer continues to gain experience and is identifying people who should be or can be released. This continues to be primarily a reactive process responding to inmate grievances and requests. However, at the time of the site visit, the Quality Control Officer had just completed a random proactive review of several inmate files in the jail data base to determine if there was a lawful basis for detention. This proactive review is a good first step towards a routine self-auditing process.
The records system is much improved. Unlike prior visits, no examples were found of people being listed as currently in the facility who were not. It is still not possible to run accurate reports out of the data system because of inconsistent in-putting practices and a lack of consistent updating after court activity. Several individuals were identified who should have been released earlier as detailed below. However, there were not as many as found in previous visits. In addition to the three people already working on identifying people that should be released, an additional person is reviewing unindicted individuals. This attention to the lawful basis for detention is yielding results.
The kiosk grievance system continues to present problems. The Sheriff’s Office had a scheduled meeting with the vendor after the site visit which will hopefully resolve some of the problems. At the time of the site visit, the WC grievance officer could not run a report to locate grievances that did not have a response and with a change in personnel at the Jackson Detention Center (JDC), the staff did not know how to run such a report. There is no procedure to oversee the actual implementation of grievance responses. The system is also either dysfunctional or not
6

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 7 of 101

understood in its ability to generate reports. The staff does not know how to generate reports, if it is possible, to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement or be useful to them.

Monitoring Activities
The Monitoring Team conducted a Site Visit September 18th through September 21st. Dr. Dudley completed his site visit earlier in the month because of a scheduling conflict with the team visit. The site visit schedule was as follows:

September 18th through September 21st Site Visit Schedule

Date Tuesday a.m.
Tuesday p.m.
Wednesday a.m.

Lisa Simpson Meeting with Major Rushing, Williams Tour RDC
Meet with Jones on grievances and review grievances
Meet with Ken Lewis Meet with Sgt. Tillman Review records

Dave Parrish Meeting with Major Rushing, Williams Tour RDC
Meet with Fire Safety officer Meet with Mr. Bell
Meet with Funchess Meet with Miller and Williams

Jim Moeser Meet with Burnside and Dorsey

Dr. Jackie Moore Meet with HSA and DON

Review individual files for all JCA youth Met with mental health team-Dr, Payne, Case Managers, Clinician Review individual mental health records for all JCA youth Review psychoeducation program schedule Reviewed room confinement log/tracking Review Incident Reports in which confinement was used Meet with Training coordinator Meet with one of the Case Managers re: mental health records and programming

Tour RDC-observe medication pass
Observe sick call at RDC Meet with discharge planner

7

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 8 of 101

Wednesday p.m.

Meet with Moore re PREA
2:00-3:00 Meet with 1st and 2nd shift supervisors re reports

RDC
Meet with 1st and 2nd shift supervisors

Review repairs Review repairs

and locks

and locks

Review updated Strength Based Assessment Review current mental health intake assessment Meet w. medical (Nurse LeFlore), review medical records, including use of psychotropic medications Meet with GED teacher re: status of GED progress and testing Observe class instruction re: nutrition

Tour WC Review Records

Thursday a.m.
Thursday p.m. Friday a.m.

Meet with Carmen Davis, Synarus pretrial Meet with Policy committee
Meet with Lt. George WC-grievances Exit meeting

Meet with Marlo Brinnon Meet with Policy committee
Meet with Carmen Davis, Captain Dalton re JDC repurposing Exit meeting

Meet with SPLC RDC: Review files of youth, including crossreferencing RDC booking times with HY booking times Interview three JCA youth Review youth observation logs for JCA unit Brief update discussion with Officer Tower on JCA unit Review Incident report re: youth S.P. & discussed incident with the three JCA youth Interviewed six JCA youth Exit discussion with Mr. Burnside and Mr. Dorsey Exit meeting

RDC-chronic care
Tour JDC Meet with Dr. Martin Exit meeting

8

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 9 of 101

JDC re grievances

Meet with Ms. Coleman
Tour JDC Tour RDC

Dr. Richard Dudley Site Visit Schedule September 5-7, 2018

A.M. P.M.

Wednesday Meet with MH
Coordinator Meet with PREA
coordinator Meet with Dr. Payne at
Henley Young

Thursday Meet with combined security and MH staff re
policies
Meet with Discharge Planner
Chart Review

Friday Medication Pass Segregation Rounds
Segregation Review Exit Meeting

COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW
The Monitoring Team will track progress towards compliance with the following chart. This chart will be added to with each Monitoring Report showing the date of the site visit and the number of Settlement Agreement requirements in full, partial or non-compliance. Sustained compliance is achieved when compliance with a particular Settlement Agreement requirement has been sustained for 18 months or more. The count of 92 requirements is determined by the number of Settlement Agreement paragraphs which have substantive requirements. Introductory paragraphs and general provisions are not included. Some paragraphs may have multiple requirements which are evaluated independently in the text of the report but are included as one requirement for purposes of this chart. The provisions on Youthful Offenders were evaluated in the text below for compliance at Henley Young and Raymond Detention Center but only the results for Raymond Detention Center are included in the totals in this chart.

Site Visit
Date
2/7-10/17
6/1316/17 10/1620/17 1/262/2/18 5/2225/18

Sustained Compliance 0 0
0
0
0

Substantial Compliance 1 1
1
1
1

Partial Compliance 4 18
26
29
30
9

NA at this time
2 2

NonCompliant 85 71

1

64

0

62

0

61

Total
92 92 92 92 92

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 10 of 101

9/18-

1

0

37

0

54

92

21/18

INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS

Text of paragraphs 1-34 regarding “Parties,” “Introduction,” and “Definitions” omitted.

SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS

PROTECTION FROM HARM

Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to provide prisoners with safety, protect prisoners from violence committed by other prisoners, and ensure that prisoners are not subjected to abuse by Jail staff. To that end, the County must:

37. Develop and implement policies and procedures to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment for prisoners and staff. Such policies and procedures must include the following:
a. Booking; b. Objective classification; c. Housing assignments; d. Prisoner supervision; e. Prisoner welfare and security checks (“rounds”); f. Posts and post orders; g. Searches; h. Use of force; i. Incident reporting; j. Internal investigations; k. Prisoner rights; l. Medical and mental health care; m. Exercise and treatment activities; n. Laundry; o. Food services; p. Hygiene; q. Emergency procedures; r. Grievance procedures; and s. Sexual abuse and misconduct.

Non-Compliant In the Fifth Monitoring Report this provision was changed from Partial Compliance to NonCompliant because there had been little appreciable progress made toward the creation of a viable Policies and Procedures Manual. Without that in place the County and Sheriff’s Office
10

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 11 of 101
are unable to move forward in almost every significant area of concern addressed by the Settlement Agreement. After the first attempt to prepare policies and procedures resulted in an unsatisfactory document, the HCSO has investigated several options for contracting for assistance in developing the policies and procedures. An expert on the Monitoring Team has been assisting with the development of some policies. Drafts of these policies were provided to DOJ and the Monitoring team after the site visit. Reportedly, the HCSO is looking at contracting with her to continue development of the policies and procedures. This is positive news but to date there is no contract, only a few draft policies, and no final policies and procedures.
Policies related to specific Settlement Agreement provisions are addressed below. Policies not addressed below but essential for a reasonably safe and secure environment are addressed here. Policies and procedures with respect to medical as required by Paragraph 37 (l) should be developed or modified to address or clarify several issues. Sick call is provided within 24-48 hours of the inmate’s request at all three facilities. There was a question regarding the copayment fee of the County and many inmates during interviews indicated that they were not requesting sick call due to the co-payment charge. Policies should address the co-payment requirement and accommodation for indigent inmates. Additionally, many nurses interviewed indicated that the inmate had to have presented with the same condition for three times before a referral to a provider was made. Combined with the co-payment requirement, this places a significant financial burden on the ability to see a provider. Upon review of the QCHC policy this was not the policy and should be clarified with the nursing staff at the next in-service/staff meeting. If multiple nurse visits are required, there should be an ability for a nurse to triage directly to a provider when appropriate.
The kiosk system adds a level of inefficiency to the sick call system. The kiosk options for sick call requests provide limited categories and no way to add additional information. Many of the inmates check all of the boxes in the kiosk in hope that they will be seen. Thus, the nursing staff are not prepared for a specific complaint or the seriousness of the request. The medical expert spoke to them in detail regarding going back to a paper system which staff resisted. With the kiosk system they know a request was submitted. It is advised that the current kiosk system be revised to include more categories of sick call complaints.
There continue to be concerns about the medication administration particularly at RDC that need to be addressed by adoption and implementation of policies and procedures as described in the last monitoring report. Neither nurses nor officers routinely checked the inmate’s mouth for hoarding their medication. Charting is not performed in real time.
QCHC mental health policies and procedures have continued to be refined, and at this point they are in pretty good shape. With respect to those policies the final question that needs to be addressed is a commitment with regard to the timeliness and the frequency of examinations and
11

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 12 of 101
follow-up visits under various different clinical circumstances, consistent with prevailing standards of practice, especially with regard to the psychiatrist.
Now that mental health policies and procedures have been well developed and put into place, both the internal assessment focus (i.e., by QCHC and other appropriate participants within the facility) and the external assessment focus (i.e., by the monitoring team) shift to measuring compliance with these policies and procedures. An example of this type of compliance monitoring and assessment was brought to the attention of the monitoring team in the form of a letter from an inmate to the Civil Rights Section of the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging that he had been inappropriately physically forced to take psychotropic medication against his will.
The mental health policy that is applicable to the above noted inmate complaint is the policy regarding ‘emergency psychotropic medication’, which details the situations where medication can be given against a patient’s will, and the procedures that must be followed and documented. The records indicate that he was given an intramuscular injection of Haldol in response to an emergency order for the medication. However, there is nothing in the medical record that indicated that that specific injection was given against his will or that there was even an indication for doing so (i.e., either as a psychiatric note or as part of the nurse’s medication administration note), and there was no use of force report in the records kept by security. QCHC was asked to investigate this matter further, in the context of their responsibility for internal assessment of compliance with mental health policies and procedures.
Two additional cases involving orders for involuntary medication were reviewed. Available records indicate that in both cases the inmate was evidencing psychotic symptoms; the inmate had a history of refusing psychoactive medication; and an emergency intramuscular injection of Haldol was ordered. As reported by staff, both inmates refused the ordered medication; in both cases, the psychiatrist ordered the nurses to give the injection against the inmate’s will; and in both cases, the nurses refused to give the medication against the inmate’s will, based on their belief that doing so would be inconsistent with the applicable policy. Available records indicate that in both cases, there was no psychiatric documentation in the record regarding the reason for/need to force medication. Therefore, QCHC was asked to investigate these two matters as well. Such investigations should become part of a process to assess staff compliance with the policies and procedures.
Impacting the ability to implement the policies through the development of procedures is the issue of mental health staffing levels. The acute concern with regard to mental health staffing levels and the ability to provide appropriate treatment is the fact that there is inadequate psychiatric time to fully comply with the policies and procedures as written and meet the provisions of the Agreement.
12

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 13 of 101
The second issue related to the development of mental health related policies and procedures, noted in prior reports, is that there are multiple mental health related provisions that cannot be addressed by mental health staff alone. These include, for example, the participation of mental health in the disciplinary review process, the participation of mental health in the segregation review process, incidences where there is an anticipated/planned use of force and incidences where there has already been a use of force, and the roles and responsibilities of mental health with regard to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). During this site visit the mental health consultant met with senior security staff for a more detailed discussion of disciplinary review, segregation review and use of force, including the roles/responsibilities of mental health with regard to these security functions, and also had a joint meeting with mental health and the PREA coordinator. Please see the relevant sections of this report for a more detailed discussion of findings as they relate to each of these areas. There should be continued discussions with security staff and facility administration about the issues that require an understanding and working relationship between mental health staff and security staff, and develop required policies and procedures
Findings with regard to other specific mental health provisions are noted in applicable sections.
38. Ensure that the Jail is overseen by a qualified Jail Administrator and a leadership team with substantial education, training and experience in the management of a large jail, including at least five years of related management experience for their positions, and a bachelor’s degree. When the Jail Administrator is absent or if the position becomes vacant, a qualified deputy administrator with comparable education, training, and experience, must serve as acting Jail Administrator.
Non-Compliant This paragraph was previously carried as being in Partial Compliance because the Jail Administrator, although otherwise well qualified, does not have a BA degree. The Assistant Jail Administrator appointed in June, 2018 does not meet the educational or experience requirements of the Assistant Jail Administrator’s position. While he has been employed by the HCSO for a total of 17 years, almost all of that time has been spent on the law enforcement side of the Office. He has served only two years in the Detention Services Division. In addition, he does not have a bachelor’s degree. As has been noted, personnel hired prior to the effective date of the Settlement Agreement have understandably been retained even when not meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. However, hiring and promotions after the effective date of the Settlement Agreement and inconsistent with its requirements have to result in a fining of non-compliance.
39. Ensure that all Jail supervisors have the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing needed to effectively supervise both prisoners and other staff members. At minimum,
13

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 14 of 101
Jail supervisors must have at least 3 years of field experience, including experience working in the Jail. They must also be familiar with Jail policies and procedures, the terms of this Agreement, and prisoner rights.
Partial Compliance Until there are approved policies and procedures in place, the supervisors will not be able to be familiar with them. A number of individuals have been promoted since the May site visit. They include the following (Because confidential personnel information is referenced, the individuals are referenced by an assigned letter. A key is available):
A.—was employed by the HCSO on 4-19-16 and was terminated on 6-7-17 as a result of a use of force incident involving several officers and a sergeant. He was reinstated on 8-7-17 subsequent to a Disciplinary Review Board finding that the sergeant had failed to supervise the involved officers. A has a record of three arrests for domestic violence, but no convictions. He has a high school education (GED) and was promoted to sergeant on 7-5-18.
B.—was employed on 7-8-16. He served for two years with Youth Services prior to joining the HCSO. He has a high school diploma and completed some college hours. He was promoted to sergeant on 7-1-18.
C.—was employed on 12-11-95 as a law enforcement officer. He became a school resource officer in 2001. On 10-4-02 he was suspended for the improper use of a firearm and was transferred to the RDC as a detention officer. On 3-3-03 he was transferred to Supreme Court Security, then to the RDC on 9-26-05. On 5-23-08 he was relieved of duty with pay pending the results of an Internal Affairs investigation, but was returned to duty later the same day. On 3-1412 he resigned and went to work for the Mississippi Department of Corrections. On 8-21-17 he was re-employed by the HCSO. He has a high school diploma. On 2-1-18 he was promoted to sergeant. On 7-1-18 he was promoted to lieutenant.
D.—was employed on 6-15-11. On 5-6-15 D received a letter of reprimand for failure to follow the chain of command. D has a high school diploma. D was promoted to sergeant on 11-1-17. On 7-1-18 D was promoted to lieutenant.
E.—was employed on 9-17-01. He has a high school diploma. On 2-1-04 he was promoted to corporal. He was promoted to sergeant on10-1-06. He was promoted to lieutenant on 5-1-12. On 9-29-09 he received a five-day suspension for insubordination. On 6-14-13 he received a counseling for failing to review and submit an incident report. On 7-3-13 he was terminated for an undocumented incident. On 10-9-17 he was re-employed. He was promoted to sergeant on 21-18. On 7-1-18 he was promoted to lieutenant.
14

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 15 of 101
F.—was employed on 7-10-14. He has a high school diploma and a Culinary Arts Certificate. On 5-26-15 he received a written reprimand for tardiness. He was promoted to sergeant on 4-1116. On 7-1-18 he was promoted to lieutenant.
As the above records indicate, most of the newly promoted individuals have the requisite education and experience; however, two were promoted to sergeant within approximately two years of being employed, one was promoted twice in the same year and several have significant disciplinary histories.
40. Ensure that no one works in the Jail unless they have passed a background check, including a criminal history check.
Partial Compliance According to the HCSO Director of Human Resources, a background check, including a criminal history check, is conducted on all applicants prior to their employment. To further support this, she conducted a review of 150 Detention Services Division (DSD) personnel files. In a written statement on October 2, 2018, she reported that each file contained documentation reflecting that a background and criminal history check had been conducted prior to the respective individual’s employment. A smaller sample of DSD personnel files, conducted by a member of the monitoring team, supported the Human Resource Director’s findings. Although this review indicates that a background check was completed, the personnel history listed in response to paragraph 39 above indicates that individuals that have what should be disqualifying backgrounds are nevertheless hired and/or promoted.
41. Ensure that Jail policies and procedures provide for the “direct supervision” of all Jail housing units.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph. The Policies and Procedures Manual has yet to be published. It was reported that some training on direct supervision for some employees was provided at the WC. The monitoring team has requested documentation on this training but none has been provided. This would not be sufficient to meet the requirements of this paragraph. Although staff members have not yet been trained with regard to the principles and dynamics of direct supervision, progress is being made, in cooperation with the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to provide “Train the Trainers” support through that agency. As was previously reported, the HCSO is entering into a Cooperative Agreement arrangement with NIC to host direct supervision training on site at the WC and RDC. It is anticipated that the training will be accomplished before the next site visit.
15

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 16 of 101
42. Ensure that the Jail has sufficient staffing to adequately supervise prisoners, fulfill the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the safe operation of the Jail. The parties recognize that the Board allocates to the Sheriff lump sum funding on a quarterly basis. The Sheriff recognizes that sufficient staffing of the Jail should be a priority for utilizing those funds. To that end, the County must at minimum:
a. Hire and retain sufficient numbers of detention officers to ensure that: i. There are at least two detention officers in each control room at all times; ii. There are at least three detention officers at all times for each housing unit, booking area, and the medical unit;
iii. There are rovers to provide backup and assistance to other posts; iv. Prisoners have access to exercise, medical treatment, mental health
treatment, and attorney visitation as scheduled; v. There are sufficient detention officers to implement this Agreement. b. Fund and obtain a formal staffing and needs assessment (“study”) that determines with particularity the minimum number of staff and facility improvements required to implement this Agreement. As an alternative to a new study, the September 2014 study by the National Institute of Corrections may be updated if the updated study includes current information for the elements listed below. The study or study update must be completed within six months of the Effective Date and must include the following elements: i. The staffing element of the study must identify all required posts and
positions, as well as the minimum number and qualifications of staff to cover each post and position. ii. The study must ensure that the total number of recommended positions includes a “relief factor” so that necessary posts remain covered regardless of staff vacancies, turnover, vacations, illness, holidays, or other temporary factors impacting day-to-day staffing. iii. As part of any needs assessment, the study’s authors must estimate the number of prisoners expected to be held in the Jail and identify whether additional facilities, including housing, may be required. c. Once completed, the County must provide the United States and the Monitor with a copy of the study and a plan for implementation of the study’s recommendations. Within one year after the Monitor’s and United States’ review of the study and plan, the County must fund and implement the staffing and facility improvements recommended by the study, as modified and approved by the United States. d. The staffing study shall be updated at least annually and staffing adjusted accordingly to ensure continued compliance with this Agreement. The parties recognize that salaries are an important factor to recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, so the County will also annually evaluate salaries.
16

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 17 of 101
e. The County will also create, to the extent possible, a career ladder and system of retention bonuses for Jail staff.
Non-Compliant This paragraph was changed from Partial Compliance to Non-Compliant in the Fifth Monitoring Report because of the lack of progress in filling existing positions. In fact, there was a net loss of 20 personnel over a period of eight months. While that downward trend was reversed during the past four months, the Detention Services Division is now only where it was exactly a year ago with 251 positions filled out of 275 authorized (four of which are unfunded).
At the JDC required posts are filled but staff are able to get by primarily because the count averages just over half of the facility’s rated capacity. At the WC Housing Unit 4 is still unoccupied. Although the heating and air conditioning problems associated with creating Units 3 and 4 have been resolved, the reason now given for not opening Unit 4 is a lack of staff. Currently, the facility holds approximately 150 inmates, which is well below its rated capacity of 256. At the RDC lack of staff is still a critical issue. None of the general housing units have an officer assigned inside so as to permit direct supervision operation. In fact, specialized ISO units, that had been previously staffed twenty-four hours per day, were found to be unattended either during the September site visit or by reviewing incident reports and video associated with incidents that occurred prior to the visit. These included the Juvenile Unit (A-1 ISO), the Suicide Watch Unit (C-4 ISO) and the Special Management Unit (B-4 ISO). A review of incident reports reflects an unacceptable level of assaults, many of which result in serious injury; and, as was previously reported, most of these occur when there are no officers present. In fact, most incidents are discovered after the fact or when inmates call for assistance.
The HCSO has submitted a recommended salary step system whereby employees would receive periodic increases based on longevity; however, the County has yet to take any action on the proposal.
The current staffing is inadequate to safely operate the Jail. From June 1, 2018 to August 31, 2018 there were 39 reported incidents of inmate assaults. From 6/1/18-9/15/18 there were 24 inmates sent to the emergency room due to stab wounds, fractures, dislocations, eye injuries and casting of broken bones. Two inmates were hospitalized with chest wounds relating to a pneumothorax due to stabbing from other inmates. One night during the site visit there were eight inmates sent to the emergency room as a result of a disturbance.
f. Develop and implement an objective and validated classification and housing assignment procedure that is based on risk assessment rather than solely on a prisoner’s charge. Prisoners must be classified immediately after booking, and then housed based on the classification assessment. At minimum, a prisoner’s
17

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 18 of 101
bunk, cell, unit, and facility assignments must be based on his or her objective classification assessment, and staff members may not transfer or move prisoners into a housing area if doing so would violate classification principles (e.g., placing juveniles with adults, victims with former assailants, and minimum security prisoners in a maximum security unit). Additionally, the classification and housing assignment process must include the following elements:
i. The classification process must be handled by qualified staff who have additional training and experience on classification.
ii. The classification system must take into account objective risk factors including a prisoner’s prior institutional history, history of violence, charges, special needs, physical size or vulnerabilities, gang affiliation, and reported enemies.
iii. Prisoner housing assignments must not be changed by unit staff without proper supervisor and classification staff approval.
iv. The classification system must track the location of all prisoners in the Jail and help ensure that prisoners can be readily located by staff. The County may continue to use wrist bands to help identify prisoners, but personal identification on individual prisoners may not substitute for a staffcontrolled and centralized prisoner tracking and housing assignment system.
v. The classification system must be integrated with the Jail prisoner record system, so that staff have appropriate access to information necessary to provide proper supervision, including the current housing assignment of every prisoner in the Jail.
vi. The designation and use of housing units as “gang pods” must be phased out under the terms of this Agreement. Placing prisoners together because of gang affiliation alone is prohibited. The County must replace current gang-based housing assignments with a more appropriate objective classification and housing process within one year after the Effective Date.
Non-Compliant As part of the work with Karen Albert of the monitoring team, an objective classification tool had been adopted and was being used. However, with the change in personnel, the system has moved back to a charge-based system. After the tool is scored and if the charge category is higher than the resulting score, the score is routinely overridden to match the charge level effectively returning to a charge-based system. This was observed in 4 charts. It was not possible to determine whether there were charts in which the score was not overridden for a higher charge category because the charges are not included on the form. The monitor has suggested that this be added to the form so that this practice can be monitored. In addition, persons charged with misdemeanors are routinely sent to the WC without being classified. They are then classified at
18

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 19 of 101
the WC and only returned if the individual misbehaves. This is also a charge-based system instead of a behavior/objective system. The monitoring team expert will work with new personnel to continue moving towards an objective classification system.
With the staffing changes, the classification team is close to being able to classify at the time of booking at RDC. However, there is no coverage at RDC from 7:00 a.m. Saturday morning to 7:00 a.m. Monday morning. Also, because persons charged with misdemeanors are sent to the WC before classification and the classification officer at the WC works 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday, there are individuals who are not getting classified in a timely manner. The monitors have suggested that these individuals should be classified at RDC before being transferred to the WC. Similarly, because of staffing limitations at JDC, females who are transferred to JDC before classification are not always classified at the time of booking.
Some incident reports indicate that an inmate being moved is taken to Unit B-1 for reclassification. However, other incident reports indicate that an inmate is moved to another unit without notification to Classification or placement in the classification unit. This issue will be monitored more closely during the next site visit.
g. Develop and implement positive approaches for promoting safety within the Jail including: i. Providing all prisoners with at least 5 hours of outdoor recreation per week; ii. Developing rewards and incentives for good behavior such as additional commissary, activities, or privileges; iii. Creating work opportunities, including the possibility of paid employment; iv. Providing individual or group treatment for prisoners with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other behavioral or medical conditions, who would benefit from therapeutic activities; v. Providing education, including special education, for youth, as well as all programs, supports, and services required for youth by federal law; vi. Screening prisoners for serious mental illness as part of the Jail’s booking and health assessment process, and then providing such prisoners with appropriate treatment and therapeutic housing; vii. Providing reasonable opportunities for visitation.
h. Ensure that policies, procedures, and practices provide for higher levels of supervision for individual prisoners if necessary due to a prisoner’s individual circumstances. Examples of such higher level supervision include (a) constant observation (i.e., continuous, uninterrupted one-on-one monitoring) for actively suicidal prisoners (i.e., prisoners threatening or who recently engaged in suicidal
19

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 20 of 101
behavior); (b) higher frequency security checks for prisoners locked down in maximum security units, medical observation units, and administrative segregation units; and (c) more frequent staff interaction with youth as part of their education, treatment and behavioral management programs. i. Continue to update, maintain, and expand use of video surveillance and recording cameras to improve coverage throughout the Jail, including the booking area, housing units, medical and mental health units, special management housing, facility perimeters, and in common areas.
Partial Compliance Regarding 42 (g)(i), five hours of outdoor recreation per week is still not provided to all inmates in the Hinds County Jail System. At the JDC there has never been an outdoor recreation yard, however, inmates there have historically been allowed time in the fifth-floor multi-purpose room. As was previously reported, the indoor car wash area is now used for inmates to play basketball, but no records were provided to reflect how many hours per week inmates have access to these facilities. At the WC each recreation yard is shared by two housing units. Since there is no log maintained that reflects inmate access to recreation, that information can only be obtained by reviewing the Unit Logs. A synopsis was requested for inclusion in this report, but it was not available at the time of submission. At the RDC, recreation has not been available for most inmates for over five years, going back to the riot of 2012; the only exception was for juveniles. During the May site visit there were reports of sporadic recreational opportunities for inmates, but they could not be supported by documentation in the Unit Logs. A review of Unit Logs during the September site visit revealed that at least some units have access to recreation in the outdoor facilities. While the Juvenile Unit previously had a record of recreation on almost a daily basis, that data was not available for this report. In Housing Unit A-1 there were two recorded hours of recreation between 8-19-18 and 10-1-18. On four dates there was a record of the recreation yard being opened, but no record of it being closed. This unit is currently closed for repairs. In Housing Unit A-3 there were a total of 12.5 recorded hours of recreation between 6-23-18 and 8-24-18. On two dates there was a record of the recreation yard being opened, but no record of it being closed. In Housing Unit B-1 there was a record of seven hours of recreation between 9-1-18 and 9-30-18. On nine dates there was a record of the recreation yard being opened, but none of it being closed. In Housing Unit C-1 there was no record of the recreation yard being opened and closed on the same date, but there were three days where it was noted as being opened without any record of it being closed. There was no record of recreation being provided to Housing Units A-2, A-4, B-2, B-3, B-4, C-2 and C-4. Housing Unit C-3 is closed for repairs.
As the above statistics indicate, recreation in all of the facilities is not adequately documented and at the RDC it is not made available at nearly the rate required by the Settlement Agreement.
20

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 21 of 101
It should be noted, however, that the RDC is finally offering at least some outdoor recreation for the first time since the inception of the Settlement Agreement.
Regarding 42 (g)(iv) At the time of the January 2018 site visit, the absence of mental health evaluations, treatment plans, and treatment notes made it impossible to assess whether or not prisoners with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other behavioral or medical conditions were receiving and benefiting from appropriate therapeutic interventions. Since then, in essentially eight months, these deficiencies have been almost totally addressed. More specifically, there are currently about 130 inmates on the mental health case load; almost all of the inmates on the mental health case load now have documented mental health evaluations and treatment plans (a handful of inmates have refused to participate in the treatment planning process); there are notes documenting every mental health visit, including visits with the psychiatrist; and the psychiatrist has at least begun to document psychiatric assessments and the psychopharmacologic component of treatment plans.
By the time of the May 2018 site visit, a full-time mental health coordinator had been added to the mental health staff; the part-time psychologist was still in place; and the arrival of a new social worker (to replace the social worker that had left the facility) was anticipated. By the time of this September 2018 site visit, the new social worker was in place; however, she was about to leave the facility for another job; but the process was underway to find another social worker to fill that position. As described in more detail in other sections of this report, the mental health coordinator and the other social worker have been extremely busy putting new procedures into place; they have done an incredible job; and although they have almost completed that task, it is reasonable to anticipate that there will be some delay in fully completing that task given that the other social worker position will be vacant for at least some period of time. Once the other social worker position is filled again and all new procedures are fully in place, the mental health coordinator, social worker, and part-time psychologist can focus on any expansion of mental health programming that might be indicated, participation in the security functions described below (as those policies and procedures are developed and implemented), and the identification of any staffing implications related to any such expansion of programming or assumption of additional responsibilities related to security functions.
The acute concern with regard to mental health staffing levels and the ability to provide appropriate treatment is the fact that there is inadequate psychiatric time to meet the provisions of the agreement. The contract with QCHC provides for 8 hours of psychiatrist time for the three adult facilities including two hours for Henley Young. (This would be .2 FTE. The QCHC staff vacancy spreadsheet indicates that the psychiatrist time is .15 FTE.) In order to adequately meet the provisions of the agreement, there is a list of responsibilities that must be assumed by psychiatrists or other mental health professions who are licensed to assume some of the responsibilities. These responsibilities include performing and documenting the performance of
21

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 22 of 101
psychiatric evaluations for inmates who might require psychotropic medication; prescribing medication when indicated; and monitoring and documenting the monitoring of the efficacy and safety of the medication prescribed on a regular basis, and making adjustments in the medication regimen when indicated; performing and documenting the performance of psychiatric evaluations for inmates who might require a psychiatric evaluation for accurate diagnosis; participating in the treatment planning process (which should include a discharge plan when eventual discharge is anticipated) for all inmates on the mental health case load and signing off on treatment plans; performing and documenting the performance of psychiatric evaluations for inmates for whom concern about suicide has been raised, and determining the need for suicide watch (if it should be initiated and when it should be terminated); performing and documenting the performance of psychiatric evaluations for inmates who might require special mental health observation (due to the severity of their acute mental illness); and supervising and consulting with mental health staff providing non-pharmacologic therapeutic interventions, especially psychoeducational groups, medication compliance groups, and discharge planning groups; and participating in regularly scheduled mental health team meetings, and being available to consult on any mental health issues that arise that require psychiatric consultation. Given that at present there are about 100 inmates on the mental health case load who are receiving medication, there are not even enough psychiatric hours available to adequately monitor those inmates in a timely manner (consistent with the current standards of practice), even if it is assumed that none of them will ever need further assessment and adjustments in their medication regimen (which is an unreasonable assumption if only for the fact that some of them have been newly placed on medication). Therefore, there are clearly not enough psychiatric hours to assume all of the above described responsibilities, and at least at present, there are no other mental health staff persons who are licensed to assume any of those responsibilities. It is a top priority to develop a plan for increasing the hours of service provided by a psychiatrist(s) and/or shifting some of the responsibilities of the psychiatrist to other mental health professionals who are licensed to assume such responsibilities and skilled enough to do so.
Although at present, the psychiatric component of the treatment plan is not integrated with the rest of the treatment plan, when the issue of the extremely limited availability of the psychiatrist has been addressed, an effort should be made to better integrate and coordinate the overall treatment planning process, which will require mental health team meetings for the purpose of treatment planning. As has been previously noted, such mental health team meetings would also need to occur in order to regularly review existing treatment plans. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that such team meetings focused on treatment planning will also be a setting where gaps in the mental health services provided can be identified, and options for how to fill those gaps can be explored.
Steps have already been made to begin to identify and develop any needed mental health services that had not previously existed. For example, a weekend on call schedule for mental health has
22

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 23 of 101
been developed and implemented. The mental health coordinator, the other social worker, and the part-time psychologist are all on the on-call schedule; when on call, they call into the facility to see what is going on; and then if they are needed, they will actually come into the facility. The development of mental health therapy groups to address specific issues is also underway. Again, interdisciplinary mental health team meetings would be an ideal place to identify gaps in the mental health services currently being provided and the best ways to fill those gaps.
The mental health coordinator has also developed a ‘mental health tracking log’. The log lists all inmates on the mental health case load; each inmate’s intake date, the date of the initial nursing assessment, the date of the initial mental health assessment and where applicable, the date of the initial psychiatric assessment; the source of referral to mental health; diagnosis; the date the treatment plan was completed; whether or not the inmate is on medication, and if so, the dates of the most recent and next scheduled visit with the psychiatrist; and where the inmate will be referred for services upon release. The availability of this ‘mental health tracking log’ allows for a clear look at the mental health case load in a way that was never available before; it tracks and logs the information required to determine if certain policies are being followed and if certain procedures are being performed in a timely manner consistent with policy; and it provides a base of information that will be enormously helpful with regard to internal quality assessment.
There still exists the issue of how to define/describe individuals who should be on the mental health case load/receiving mental health services. More specifically, the question is should the case load only include inmates with ‘serious mental illness’, or should it also include inmates with a significant trauma history and trauma-related psychiatric difficulties, inmates with intellectual or other cognitive difficulties, and/or even inmates with extremely limited skills required for daily living/functioning in the outside world. Although it is clear that the impaired functioning of inmates who suffer from this broader range of mental health difficulties has a negative impact on facility safety and security issues, how best to identify such inmates and what mental health services can be reasonably provided for them requires further exploration.
With regard to internal quality assessment, consideration should be given to also attempting to capture (on the mental health tracking log) the frequency of mental health visits with staff other than the psychiatrist. In addition, there should be effort to capture whether or not inmates either self-refer or are referred by security for mental health services in between scheduled visits, which would allow for an assessment of whether or not inmates on the mental health case load are being seen frequently enough and also help inform the regular treatment plan review process with regard to the efficacy of the prescribed treatment. While the treatment plan review process and the other above noted mechanisms are first steps towards internal review of the quality of the mental health services provided, it is time to start thinking about what additional quality assurance programming should be developed.
23

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 24 of 101
The mental health screening is completed as part of the initial screen by the booking officer and the health assessment by nursing staff. The form used by the booking officers contains questions regarding past medical history, infectious disease and suicidal ideation. At the time of the site visit, the booking officers had an additional form, the MHSF III, which they believed they were supposed to start using to screen for behavioral health issues. This was part of the project with Jackson State University for the BJA grant. The compliance coordinator stated, however, that it will be implemented by the mental health staff. This would be preferable as the form is designed to be completed by a mental health specialist and the booking officers have not had appropriate training for administering the screen. The current screening questionnaire completed by the booking staff is more extensive than necessary and is redundant with the health assessment completed shortly after booking by the nursing staff. This is being addressed as part of the development of booking policies and procedures.
On the medical side, within four hours of booking, an RN on the nursing staff completes a health history and physical assessment. Vital signs, a review of symptoms, mental health screening and a TB test is performed. A CQI study of the compliance on the reading and documentation of the PPD test indicated 100 % compliance for the month of September 2018.
Inmates sign a consent for treatment during this exam. The Health Assessment form has been revised to include adequate space for abnormalities discovered during the exam. At the current time, all inmates are brought to the medical department for the medical intake. Because this serves as the medical screen by medical personnel, this should take place in the booking area. This has not been done because adequate space in the booking area has not been identified and there is no internet access to complete the record entry. Plans are in process for the IT department to work with the medical department to provide internet access. The policy committee is recommending minor renovations which would provide appropriate space.
The forms used by both the intake nurses and booking officers contain many duplicate questions. If the medical staff conduct the assessment promptly, the questions asked by the booking officers can be reduced significantly.
QCHC responded appropriately to an occurrence of scabies, a communicable condition. The Center for Disease Control was contacted and material was on-site to guide the staff in the treatment of this disease. The individuals were separated from the general population. Laundry was washed separately. Other inmates and CO staff were examined using a black light. Permethrin was used to treat the infected inmates.
Regarding 42(g)(vi) after the mental health consultant’s site visit a new mental health screening form was provided to the monitoring team. It is as yet unclear who is conducting this screen and for what purpose. The mental health consultant will need to reassess the mental health sections of the intake/booking process and the initial health assessment process, with an eye towards
24

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 25 of 101
balancing the importance of identifying new admissions with mental health difficulties with a realistic view of what booking officers and intake nurses who do not specialize in mental health can be expected to do.
As has been noted in prior reports, tracking inmates who were not identified as having mental health difficulties at booking or during their initial health assessment, but who were then later self-referred or were otherwise referred to mental health is another mechanism to assess the efficacy of the booking and health assessment processes as they relate to mental health. Of course, as each such case is reviewed, it will be important to attempt to differentiate between cases where mental health difficulties were missed at booking and during the initial health assessment, and cases where something happened during the course of confinement that prompted the development of new mental health difficulties. To this end, QCHC staff should consider the development of a ‘mental health sick call log’ that would track referrals and the source of referrals for mental health services and indicate whether or not each inmate was or was not previously known to mental health. For inmates referred to mental health who were not previously known to mental health, staff should determine whether such inmates were inadequately assessed at intake and/or during their initial health assessment, or whether the inmate withheld information at the time the inmate was admitted, or whether something happened since the inmate was detained that prompted the development of new mental health difficulties.
See section 74 and section 77 i regarding housing decisions and the availability of appropriate housing for prisoners with serious mental illness. See section 42 g iv with regard to the availability of appropriate treatment.
Regarding 42 (g)(vii), visitation records reflect that there is continued improvement in access to visitation at the JDC but that an inmate at the RDC and WC is far less likely to have a visit than his counterpart at the JDC. A review of records covering September 1-30 at the JDC revealed that 159 visits were scheduled and that 142 were completed during that time frame. The most common reasons for non-completion were “no show” and “non-payment”. At the WC and RDC, whose records are combined, a total of 81 visits were scheduled between August 16 and September 17, but only 66 were completed. The single reason for non-completion was listed as “no show”. Based on an average daily census at the JDC of approximately 100 and a combined average daily census at the WC and RDC of approximately 500, the typical inmate at the JDC is able to visit 1.42 times per month while the typical inmate at the WC and RDC is able to visit only 0.13 times per month; thus an inmate at the JDC is able to visit with family and friends almost eleven times (10.92) more frequently than an inmate at the WC and RDC. This huge disparity needs to be rectified so that all inmates are treated equally and have greater access to visitation.
25

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 26 of 101
Regarding 42 (h) The mental health assessment of inmates suspected of being suicidal is now being performed on an emergency basis, and with the new weekend on call schedule, this is even happening on weekends. Although the QMHPs who perform such assessments consult with the psychiatrist over the telephone, it does not appear that the psychiatrist actually has a face-to-face assessment of these inmates in a timely manner, if at all, even if they are placed on a suicide watch. It also remains unclear to what extent the QMHPs follow a structured format for the assessment of suicide potential. QCHC staff should consider the use of a standardized tool as part of the assessment process. In addition, due to the lack of documentation, it also remains unclear as to whether or not inmates who are suspected of being suicidal are kept under constant observation by security staff until the mental health assessment is performed.
Once the mental health assessment of suicide potential is performed, if the inmate is placed on a suicide watch it appears that the inmate does receive a higher level of supervision by mental health and by security; but the level of supervision by security staff should be better documented; and what is expected of the nursing staff with regard to a higher level of supervision needs to be clarified. The decision to terminate a suicide watch may be made upon telephone consultation with the psychiatrist as opposed to a face-to-face assessment of the inmate by the psychiatrist.
For inmates who have undergone a mental health assessment of suicide potential and found not to be acutely suicidal, there is now a ‘safety plan’ being developed by a QMHP and the inmate that is signed by both. Although it is unclear exactly how the involved QMHP follows up with the inmate with regard to adherence to the ‘safety plan’, the incorporation of such a plan into the facilities’ suicide prevention program is a very positive development.
It should be noted that the number of inmates being placed on suicide watch has dropped dramatically over the last several months. It appears that this is due, at least in part, to the increased efforts of the mental health team to better manage various behavioral issues so that inmates don’t have to go so far as to report feeling suicidal to gain attention to their difficulties. However, what appears to be a trend towards fewer incidences of suspected suicidality should be followed, and if such a trend continues, the reason for this should be further explored.
Special mental health observation, for acutely mentally ill prisoners, is also described in the ‘suicide prevention’ policy, with a level of monitoring that is to be prescribed by mental health. Therefore, in the implementation of this policy it remains important for mental health staff to make it clear that an inmate could be on ‘suicide watch’ and/or ‘special mental health observation’, and if an inmate is on both types of watch, each watch may have different requirements for monitoring and different end points.
Regarding 42 (i), video surveillance capabilities at the various facilities have not changed since the last site visit. Supervisory staff at the RDC have the ability to utilize that facility’s video
26

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 27 of 101
records to review escapes and other significant incidents in order to determine what actually occurred. Video related to those events is examined on occasion, but not routinely as it should be. There is no video capability at the JDC. At the WC, while there are cameras that monitor the housing units, they have no recording capability. According to command staff and the Facilities Maintenance Director for the County, there is an effort being made to upgrade the video system at the WC to include a recording capability, but there is no time set for such action to be completed.
43. Include outcome measures as part of the Jail’s internal data collection, management, and administrative reporting process. The occurrence of any of the following specific outcome measures creates a rebuttable presumption in this case that the Jail fails to provide reasonably safe conditions for prisoners:
a. Staff vacancy rate of more than 10% of budgeted positions; b. A voluntary staff turnover rate that results in the failure to staff critical posts (such
as the housing units, booking, and classification) or the failure to maintain experienced supervisors on all shifts; c. A major disturbance resulting in the takeover of any housing area by prisoners; d. Staffing where fewer than 90% of all detention officers have completed basic jailer training; e. Three or more use of force or prisoner-on-prisoner incidents in a fiscal year in which a prisoner suffers a serious injury, but for which staff members fail to complete all documentation required by this Agreement, including supervision recommendations and findings; f. One prisoner death within a fiscal year, where there is no documented administrative review by the Jail Administrator or no documented mortality review by a physician not directly involved in the clinical treatment of the deceased prisoner (e.g. corporate medical director or outside, contract physician, when facility medical director may have a personal conflict); g. One death within a fiscal year, where the death was a result of prisoner-onprisoner violence and there was a violation of Jail supervision, housing assignment, or classification procedures.
Non-Compliant Jail administration still does not create a report covering each of these areas although data is received in response to requests for specific information. At the time of the September site visit a total of 251 positions out of 275 authorized positions (four unfunded) were filled. That is precisely the number that were filled a year ago, but it does represent an increase of 20 filled positions over the figure that was reported during the May site visit. However, the staffing analysis determined that 433 positions were needed. That results in a vacancy rate of 43%. Considering these numbers, it is anticipated that the turnover rate for the entire DSD will
27

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 28 of 101
continue to remain excessive and not in compliance with this paragraph’s standard by the end of the calendar year. There continue to be multiple incidents of prisoner on prisoner violence, particularly at the RDC, resulting in serious injury and hospitalization. As stated in paragraph 42, in about a three-month period there were 24 visits to the emergency room as a result of inmate assaults, most of which had incident reports that do not meet the requirements of paragraph 64 of the Settlement Agreement and some of which had no incident report. As was noted previously, there continues to be a lack of adequate documentation in incident reports. Supervisors do not make specific recommendations and witness statements are seldom taken. In addition, available video recordings of incidents are seldom reviewed. Reference to video recordings is most frequently found in IAD investigative reports. Incident Report (IR) 18-1324 at the RDC involved an inmate who was stabbed several times and taken to the hospital. IR 181818 at the RDC involved an inmate who was assaulted by others with plastic trays. He was treated by Medical in house. IR 18-1679 at the RDC involved an inmate who was injured (unidentified injury) by other inmates. He was transported to the hospital for treatment. These three incident reports are typical of the incomplete and inaccurate information that is found in DSD reports. In one case an inmate was “injured” but there was no explanation as to what constituted an “injury”, even though the inmate was transported to the hospital. In none of the reports was there any explanation as to how inmates had access to weapons, whether or not they were recovered or whether inmate witnesses were interviewed. Finally, there was no reference to a review of video coverage of the incidents. The reports were all generated in August 2018, yet the report numbers varied from 1324 to 1818, far outside the range of expected reports for one month.
44. To complement, but not replace, “direct supervision,” develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that detention officers are conducting rounds as appropriate. To that end:
a. Rounds must be conducted at least once every 30 minutes in general population housing units and at least once every 15 minutes for special management prisoners (including prisoners housed in booking cells).
b. All security rounds must be conducted at irregular intervals to reduce their predictability and must be documented on forms or logs.
c. Officers must only be permitted to enter data on these forms or logs at the time a round is completed. Forms and logs must not include pre-printed dates or times. Officers must not be permitted to fill out forms and logs before they actually conduct their rounds.
d. The parties anticipate that “rounds” will not necessarily be conducted as otherwise described in this provision when the Jail is operated as a “direct supervision” facility. This is because a detention officer will have constant, active supervision of all prisoners in the detention officer’s charge. As detailed immediately below, however, even under a “direct supervision” model, the Jail
28

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 29 of 101
must have a system in place to document and ensure that staff are providing adequate supervision. e. Jail policies, procedures, and practices may utilize more than one means to document and ensure that staff are supervising prisoners as required by “direct supervision,” including the use and audit of supervisor inspection reports, visitation records, mealtime records, inmate worker sheets, medical treatment files, sick call logs, canteen delivery records, and recreation logs. Any system adopted to ensure that detention officers are providing “direct supervision” must be sufficiently detailed and in writing to allow verification by outside reviewers, including the United States and Monitor.
Partial Compliance There has been no progress made with regard to the provisions of this paragraph since the last Monitoring Report. None of the facilities meet the requirement that well-being checks must be conducted every 30 minutes in general population and every 15 minutes in segregation (confinement). Well-being checks at the JDC were found to be almost routinely recorded hourly for general population inmates and every 30 minutes for those in segregation, although there were significant gaps noted in some logs. At the WC and RDC well-being check records reflect greater discrepancies. At those facilities, unit log entries show that hourly inspections are conducted roughly 50% of the time for general population inmates. At the WC, 30-minute checks for inmates in segregation/confinement cells were documented appropriately on individual forms posted next to each cell. The same cannot be said for the RDC where individual logs are not posted next to each cell when inmates are confined to lock down status (B-4, B-4 ISO and C-4 ISO). There, the well-being checks are entered in the Unit Logs which sometimes record data for more than one unit. Such is the case for B-4 and B-4 ISO where log entries are combined. In Booking, where well-being checks are supposed to be every 15 minutes, the officer on duty during the September site visit was making entries hourly on a form that was designed for another area of the Jail System. This level of regression from previously settled practice is indicative of a lack of supervision.
See paragraph 76 with regard to mental health rounds for prisoners in segregation. See paragraph 42 (h) with regard to prisoners who require special management due to acute mental health difficulties.
45. Ensure that all correctional officers receive adequate pre- and post-service training to provide for reasonably safe conditions in the Jail. To that end, the County must ensure that the Jail employs Qualified Training Officers, who must help to develop and implement a formal, written training program. The program must include the following:
a. Mandatory pre-service training. Detention officers must receive State jailer training and certification prior to start of work. Staff who have not received such
29

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 30 of 101
training by the Effective Date of this Agreement must complete their State jailer training within twelve months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. During that twelve month period, the County must develop an in-house detention training academy. b. Post Order training. Detention officers must receive specific training on unitspecific post orders before starting work on a unit, and every year thereafter. To document such training, officers must be required to sign an acknowledgement that they have received such training, but only after an officer is first assigned to a unit, after a Post Order is updated, and after completion of annual retraining. c. “Direct supervision” training. Detention officers must receive specific pre- and post service training on “direct supervision.” Such training must include instruction on how to supervise prisoners in a “direct supervision” facility, including instruction in effective communication skills and verbal de-escalation. Supervisors must receive training on how to monitor and ensure that staff are providing effective “direct supervision.” d. Jail administrator training. High-level Jail supervisors (i.e., supervisors with facility-wide management responsibilities), including the Jail Administrator and his or her immediate deputies (wardens), must receive jail administrator training prior to the start of their employment. High-level supervisors already employed at the Jail when this Agreement is executed must complete such training within six months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Training comparable to the Jail Administration curriculum offered by the National Institute of Corrections will meet the requirements of this provision. e. Post-service training. Detention officers must receive at least 120 hours per year of post-service training in their first year of employment and 40 hours per year after their first year. Such training must include refresher training on Jail policies. The training may be provided during roll call, staff meetings, and post-assignment meetings. Post-service training should also include field and scenario-based training. f. Training for Critical Posts. Jail management must work with the training department to develop a training syllabus and minimum additional training requirements for any officer serving in a critical position. Such additional training must be provided for any officer working on a tactical team; in a special management, medical or mental health unit; in a maximum security unit; or in booking and release. g. Special management unit training. Officers assigned to special management units must receive at least eight hours of specialized training each year regarding supervision of such units and related prisoner safety, medical, mental health, and security policies.
30

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 31 of 101
h. Training on all Jail policies and procedures including those regarding prisoner rights and the prevention of staff abuse and misconduct.
Non-Compliant The HCSO has still not made any progress with regard to the employment of a qualified individual with extensive detention training experience (including direct supervision training) at the rank of lieutenant. The need for such a person has been addressed with Training and DSD staff during the past two site visits. It now appears that the Training Director is going to advertise nationally through the American Jail Association (AJA) and the American Correctional Association (ACA). If that effort fails to attract a qualified candidate it may be necessary to select an interested in-house candidate and send him/her to the requisite training through the National Institute of Corrections, AJA and ACA.
In an effort to update training records on all personnel, the Training Director has created a database that contains the training status for each employee. Once that has been cross referenced by required category of training, as specified in this paragraph, it will be possible to provide a statistical analysis of compliance. At the present time, however, that information is still unavailable to the monitoring team in spite of requests that date back to the commencement of the monitoring process two years ago.
As has been previously reported, security staff persons receive at least some training at the academy with regard to ‘special needs’ prisoners, which includes prisoners who suffer from mental illness. There is also an in-service training program for security staff, entitled ‘Mental Health First Aid’, which provides some additional training in mental health. The mental health expert is unaware of any effort to assess the mental health knowledge base or skills that security staff persons have developed as a result of these trainings.
Although at present, there is no actual special management/mental health unit (i.e., a unit where there is a program consisting of therapeutic interventions for prisoners who are suffering from mental illness or intellectual disabilities), one of the RDC’s units has been designated as a unit where prisoners suffering from serious mental illness are placed, and several other prisoners with serious mental illness are placed in ‘protective custody’/segregation. Of course, the other post where security staff persons come into regular contact with prisoners who are suffering from mental illness or intellectual disabilities is the mental health section of the medical department. There is no evidence of any extra or special training offered to security staff who may be placed on any of these posts where there is an increased likelihood of having to work with mentally ill and/or intellectually disabled prisoners.
QCHC staff should work together with security staff to develop a plan for assessing the mental health knowledge base and skills of security staff persons who have completed the training on ‘special needs prisoners’ offered in the academy and the in-service training program entitled
31

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 32 of 101
‘Mental Health First Aid.’ Following the assessment, mental health and security staff should jointly determine what additional training might be indicated for all security staff persons, and what additional special training might be indicated for security staff persons assigned to the above noted critical posts.
46. Develop and implement policies and procedures for adequate supervisory oversight for the Jail. To that end, the County must:
a. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the authority to make personnel decisions necessary to ensure adequate staffing, staff discipline, and staff oversight. This personnel authority must include the power to hire, transfer, and discipline staff. Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) allocated for budget purposes represent a salaried slot and are not a restriction on personnel assignment authority. While the Sheriff may retain final authority for personnel decisions, the Jail’s policies and procedures must document and clearly identify who is responsible for a personnel decision, what administrative procedures apply, and the basis for personnel decisions.
b. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the ability to monitor, ensure compliance with Jail policies, and take corrective action, for any staff members operating in the Jail, including any who are not already reporting to the Jail Administrator and the Jail’s chain of command. This provision covers road deputies assigned to supervise housing units and emergency response/tactical teams entering the Jail to conduct random shakedowns or to suppress prisoner disturbances.
c. Ensure that supervisors conduct daily rounds on each shift in the prisoner housing units, and document the results of their rounds.
d. Ensure that staff conduct daily inspections of all housing and common areas to identify damage to the physical plant, safety violations, and sanitation issues. This maintenance program must include the following elements: i. Facility safety inspections that include identification of damaged doors, locks, cameras, and safety equipment. ii. An inspection process. iii. A schedule for the routine inspection, repair, and replacement of the physical plant, including security and safety equipment. iv. A requirement that any corrective action ordered be taken. v. Identification of high priority repairs to assist Jail and County officials with allocating staff and resources. vi. To ensure prompt corrective action, a mechanism for identifying and notifying responsible staff and supervisors when there are significant delays with repairs or a pattern of problems with equipment. Staff
32

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 33 of 101
response to physical plant, safety, and sanitation problems must be reasonable and prompt.
Non-Compliant Without an approved Policies and Procedures Manual the HCSO is unable to comply with this provision of the Settlement Agreement. In practice, the Jail Administrator has not been provided the authority over personnel decisions within the Jail. During her medical leave in the summer, her Assistant Jail Administrator was demoted and removed from the Detention Services Division (DSD) and another individual was put in the position without consulting her. The new Assistant Jail Administrator than demoted two individuals she had promoted and replaced them with other individuals. The Jail Administrator has been informed since her return that she cannot reverse these decisions. This lack of authority of the Jail Administrator over personnel decisions within the Jail is contrary to the requirements of this Settlement Agreement provision. Over the past two years, law enforcement officers and staff from the Mississippi Department of Corrections have periodically entered the RDC and conducted unauthorized (by the Jail Administrator) shakedowns of the facility; sometimes they have even used shotguns to fire blanks in order to get the attention of inmates. As was noted in the Fifth Monitoring Report, the “…Sheriff needs to issue an order permanently curtailing the use of law enforcement and outside agency officers to conduct such shakedowns.” To date that has not been done. While there was no instance of outside agencies and law enforcement officers interjecting themselves into the operation of the Jail System since the last site visit, the recommended order should be issued so that there is not a reoccurrence of this problem.
The duties and responsibilities of supervisors should be clearly laid out in the Policies and Procedures Manual. Lacking such direction, supervisors do not follow any standard practice to document their inspections rounds. Unit logs show that supervisors were on scene, but beyond that there is no information. Well-being logs for inmates in segregation never reflect any comments by supervisors beyond their signatures.
A spreadsheet is now being used that shows when problems were reported, what was proposed to correct them and the current status of that action. If it is maintained appropriately, this management tool should help to resolve maintenance issues more expeditiously than in the past. The Jail Administrator plans to provide each Captain with a copy of the spreadsheet so that they can track the status of requested maintenance projects.
Major breaches of security are still evident in all three facilities because primary doors are inoperable. These mechanical and electrical problems should have the highest priority. They should not carry over from one site visit to the next and beyond. Some of the most egregious problems are specified in the Appendix to this report. Maintenance problems are so pervasive that DSD staff do not follow rudimentary security procedures for doors that do function.
33

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 34 of 101
At the RDC the ongoing maintenance problems are primarily due to the fact that the housing units are not staffed. Without an officer present to supervise them, the inmates are free to vandalize the facility and they have done so continuously for years. The consequences are dangerous for inmates and officers alike. Fire safety equipment (hoses and extinguishers) is no longer readily at hand, having been removed from the units and, in some cases, even from the corridor around the control room. Because electrical outlets have been destroyed inside the units, staff have resorted to running unapproved extension cords from inside the control rooms, across the corridor and into the housing units to operate fans. Staff have become so used to these conditions that they no longer even notice when basic fire safety standards are not followed. During the most recent site visit the fire extinguisher box mounted on the wall inside the B Pod Control Room was found to be full of cleaning supplies. Further, the control room officers throughout the facility were unfamiliar with what should be done with the spare fire hoses kept in their respective control rooms, in the event of a fire. In the Booking office, the fire hose case was blocked by a metal filing cabinet and a heavy trash can even though this same discrepancy was pointed out during the previous site visit.
Sub-paragraph d(vi) also requires attention to sanitation. Due to poor practices in sanitation of the facility, spider bites have increased since August of 2018. The medical chart review indicated that six inmates were treated with Bactrim, Rocephin and Doxicycline for spider bites in August and September. One inmate had a culture that indicated MRSA. The housing units for the inmates were B3, A2, and B4. During an interview with Dr. Martin, the responsible physician, he indicated that during the weeks that he is on-call that he receives at least one call per night because of spider bites. There is no tracking of the spider bites or the housing units associated with this malady. Spider bites and the housing units should be tracked.
47. Ensure that staff members conduct random shakedowns of cells and common areas so that prisoners do not possess or have access to dangerous contraband. Such shakedowns must be conducted in each housing unit at least once per month, on an irregular schedule to make them less predictable to prisoners and staff.
Non-Compliant There is no documentation of shakedowns having occurred on at least a monthly basis during the last four months.
48. Install cell phone jammers or other electronic equipment to detect, suppress, and deter unauthorized communications from prisoners in the Jail. Installation must be completed within two years after the Effective Date.
Non-Compliant
34

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 35 of 101
There has been no action to deal with this issue since the last site visit.
49. Develop and implement a gang program in consultation with qualified experts in the field that addresses any link between gang activity in the community and the Jail through appropriate provisions for education, family or community involvement, and violence prevention.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the last site visit. An officer was assigned to work on this issue over a year ago but there is no documentation of a program that meets the requirements of this paragraph. Incident reports of assaults reflect the fact that gang violence is still a problem. IR 18-1731, dated 8-11-18 at the RDC dealt with an inmate who was stabbed four times as a result of a conflict between “gangster disciples” and “vice lords”.
USE OF FORCE STANDARDS
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to prevent excessive force by staff and ensure force is used safely and only in a manner commensurate with the behavior justifying it. To that end, the County must:
50. Develop and implement policies and procedures to regulate the use of force. The policies and procedures must:
a. Prohibit the use of force as a response to verbal insults or prisoner threats where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff or visitors;
b. Prohibit the use of force as a response to prisoners’ failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff, visitors, or property;
c. Prohibit the use of force against a prisoner after the prisoner has ceased to resist and is under control;
d. Prohibit the use of force as punishment or retaliation; e. Limit the level of force used so that it is commensurate with the justification for
use of force; and f. Limit use of force in favor of less violent methods when such methods are more
appropriate, effective, or less likely to result in the escalation of an incident.
Non-Compliant Since the Policies and Procedures Manual has not been revised, reissued and approved, compliance with this paragraph cannot be achieved. Use of force reports (UOF) continue to reflect examples of excessive UOF on the part of staff. Incident Report 181411 summarized an event that occurred in the Juvenile Housing Unit (A-1 ISO) where an officer was alleged to have
35

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 36 of 101
hit an inmate repeatedly in order to get him to provide the password to a contraband telephone that was found in the unit. This incident resulted in an IAD investigation which revealed that unnecessary and excessive force was used, the unit was not staffed even though an officer is supposed to be present inside the unit 24 hours per day, and that the officer involved had a prior history of excessive use of force. The officer was terminated as a result of the incident.
51. Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure timely notification, documentation, and communication with supervisors and medical staff (including mental health staff) prior to use of force and after any use of force. These policies and procedures must specifically include the following requirements:
a. Staff members must obtain prior supervisory approval before the use of weapons (e.g., electronic control devices or chemical sprays) and mechanical restraints unless responding to an immediate threat to a person’s safety.
b. If a prisoner has a serious medical condition or other circumstances exist that may increase the risk of death or serious injury from the use of force, the type of force that may be used on the prisoner must be restricted to comply with this provision. These restrictions include the following: i. The use of chemical sprays, physical restraints, and electronic control devices must not be used when a prisoner may be at risk of positional asphyxia. ii. Electronic control devices must not be used on prisoners when they are in a location where they may suffer serious injury after losing voluntary muscle control (e.g., prisoner is standing atop a stairwell, wall, or other elevated location). iii. Physical strikes, holds, or other uses of force or restraints may not be used if the technique is not approved for use in the Jail or the staff member has not been trained on the proper use of the technique.
c. Staff members must conduct health and welfare checks every 15 minutes while a prisoner is in restraints. At minimum, these checks must include (i) logged firstperson observations of a prisoner’s status while in restraints (e.g. check for blood flow, respiration, heart beat), and (ii) documented breaks to meet the sanitary and health needs of prisoners placed in emergency restraints (e.g., restroom breaks and breaks to prevent cramping or circulation problems).
d. The County must ensure that clinical staff conduct medical and mental health assessments immediately after a prisoner is subjected to any Level 1 use of force. Prisoners identified as requiring medical or mental health care during the assessment must receive such treatment.
e. A first-line supervisor must personally supervise all planned uses of force, such as cell extractions.
36

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 37 of 101
f. Security staff members must consult with medical and mental health staff before all planned uses of force on juveniles or prisoners with serious mental illness, so that medical and mental health staff may offer alternatives to or limitations on the use of force, such as assisting with de-escalation or obtaining the prisoner’s voluntary cooperation.
g. The Jail must have inventory and weapon controls to establish staff member responsibility for their use of weapons or other security devices in the facility. Such controls must include: i. a sign-out process for staff members to carry any type of weapon inside the Jail, ii. a prohibition on staff carrying any weapons except those in the Jail’s tracked inventory, and iii. random checks to determine if weapons have been discharged without report of discharge (e.g., by checking the internal memory of electronic control devices and weighing pepper spray canisters).
h. A staff member must electronically record (both video and sound) all planned uses of force with equipment provided by the Jail.
i. All staff members using force must immediately notify their supervisor. j. All staff members using a Level 1 use of force must also immediately notify the
shift commander after such use of force, or becoming aware of an allegation of such use by another staff member.
Non-Compliant The Policies and Procedures Manual is still a work in progress. A draft Use of Force policy was provided after the site visit and is under review. There were no reported cases of inmates being placed in restraints during the last four months except for when inmates are transported between facilities.
To date there are no recorded instances of staff members obtaining supervisory approval prior to using weapons and mechanical restraints. The same can be said for the use of chemical sprays, physical restraints and electronic control devices being used when a prisoner may be at risk of appositional asphyxia.
Although prisoners injured in a use of force incident are routinely sent to medical, there is no evidence that mental health staff assess prisoners who have been subjected to level 1 use of force. This issue was raised when the mental health consultant met with senior security staff during his most recent site visit to discuss security policies and procedures that are now being developed. A mechanism for meeting this provision should be incorporated in the security policies and procedures that are now being developed.
37

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 38 of 101
A review of use of force reports for the previous four months did not reflect any that were planned. Prior incidents indicate that staff might not understand that forced medication administration is a planned use of force. This should be addressed in the policies and procedures. There is no evidence that mental health staff is being consulted prior to a planned use of force on prisoners with serious mental health issues. This issue was raised again when this consultant met with senior security staff during this most recent site visit to discuss security policies and procedures that are now being developed. This should be addressed in the security policies and procedures that are now being developed.
USE OF FORCE TRAINING
52. The County must develop and implement a use of force training program. Every staff member who supervises prisoners must receive at least 8 hours of pre-service use of force training and annual use of force refresher training.
Non-Compliant Until the requested record of training by category is created and provided for all personnel, it is not possible to determine whether or not the HCSO is complying with the provisions of this paragraph.
53. Topics covered by use of force training must include: a. Instruction on what constitutes excessive force; b. De-escalation tactics; c. Methods of managing prisoners with mental illness to avoid the use of force; d. Defensive tactics; e. All Jail use of force policies and procedures, including those related to documentation and review of use of force.
Non-Compliant Training records have not been provided to reflect use of force training for all personnel, either in the academy or through annual in-service training. The inability to determine whether or not the HCSO is providing such training results in the finding of Non-Compliant.
54. The County must randomly test at least 5 percent of Jail Staff members annually to determine whether they have a meaningful, working knowledge of all use of force policies and procedures. The County must also evaluate the results to determine if any changes to Jail policies and procedures may be necessary and take corrective action. The results and recommendations of such evaluations must be provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant
38

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 39 of 101
As was previously reported, these topics cannot be addressed until the Policies and Procedures Manual is revised and published.
55. The County must update any use of force training within 30 days after any revision to a use of force policy or procedure.
Non-Compliant This cannot be updated until the policies and procedures on the use of force have been updated, approved and published.
USE OF FORCE REPORTING
To prevent and remedy the unconstitutional use of force, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting use of force. To that end, the County must:
56. Develop and implement use of force reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information to analyze and respond appropriately to use of force.
Non-Compliant There has been no change with regard to this paragraph. It cannot be addressed until the P&P Manual is revised and issued to all personnel. The reports provided to the Monitor do not contain sufficient information for supervisors to analyze use of force. There may be more in the JMS system but the monitor team cannot assess that. To date the shortcomings of the reports electronically generated by the Jail Management System (JMS) have not been corrected. As was previously reported, if the HCSO cannot correct the shortcomings of the JMS, it should be replaced by a jail version of what is provided to the law enforcement side of the Sheriff’s Office. Even with improvements to the electronically generated reports, as described below, the narratives typically lack the details needed for adequate supervisory review.
57. Require each staff member who used or observed a use of force to complete a Use of Force Report as promptly as possible, and no later than by the end of that staff member’s shift. Staff members must accurately complete all fields on a Use of Force Report. The failure to report any use of force must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination. Similarly, supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
Non-Compliant
39

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 40 of 101
It is not possible for the monitoring team to know when a report was written. The officer can enter any date in the date field. This would result in the report number being out of sequence. However, the report numbers do not always track sequentially. (As noted in paragraph 43, the report numbers in August varied from 1324 to 1818). And, in the format that the reports are received, this would be difficult to discern. When the monitor made an interim site visit at the time of the August status conference, the JCA’s at that time complained of being hit by an officer who was trying to get them to provide the password to a cell phone the officer had confiscated. This had happened the day before the site visit. The monitor requested a copy of the incident reports. At that time, an incident report could not be located. When located the following day, it was dated the day of the incident. It is not possible to know from the system whether it was prepared after it was brought to staff’s attention or if it could just not be located in the system, either of which is a problem. It may be that it was difficult to locate because the type of incident was listed as contraband as opposed to use of force. It may also have been listed under a different inmate than the one injured. This should be investigated as well as the underlying incident.
58. Ensure that Jail use of force reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, use of force reports must document the following information:
a. A unique tracking number for each use of force; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. A description of the events leading to the use of force, including what precipitated
or appeared to precipitate those events. f. A description of the level of resistance, staff response, and the type and level of
force (including frequency and duration of use). For instance, use of force reports must describe the number of discharges from electronic control devices and chemical munitions canisters; the amount of discharge from chemical munitions canisters; whether the Staff Member threatened to use the device or actually discharged the device; the type of physical hold or strike used; and the length of time a prisoner was restrained, and whether the prisoner was released from restraints for any period during that time; g. A description of the staff member’s attempts to de-escalate the situation without use of force; h. A description of whether the staff member notified supervisors or other personnel, including medical or mental health staff, before or after the use of force; i. A description of any observed injuries to staff or prisoners; j. Whether medical care was required or provided to staff or prisoners; k. Reference to any associated incident report or prisoner disciplinary report completed by the reporting officer, which pertains to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force;
40

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 41 of 101
l. A signature of the staff member completing the report attesting to the report’s accuracy and completeness.
Partial Compliance The incident reports involving use of force are inconsistent in their level of detail but generally are missing most of the detail required by this provision. The foundation of the report should indicate where the incident occurred which is not a field that appears in the report. It may or may not be mentioned in the narrative. It is not possible to tell from the incident report form when it was prepared. There is only one date field which appears to be for the date of the incident. Inmate witnesses are rarely identified. The nature of the injuries is often omitted. There is seldom any reference to related disciplinary reports or proceedings.
As an example, Incident Report # 1800882, dated 5-17-18, dealt with an inmate who refused to comply with an officer’s order, lunged at him and was taken to the ground by the officer. This IR apparently occurred at the RDC although there is no indication in the report to reflect that other than to state that it occurred in Medical. There was no follow up to the initial report except that the inmate was taken to the hospital and returned. He was seen by a nurse and sent back to his pod and cell. When an inmate is brought to medical after a use of force, health staff are utilizing a body chart to show where injuries occurred. This is not included in the incident report but often is included in an investigation report. There is no record of supervisory review, nor is there any indication that other inmates were interviewed or that video was reviewed.
As has been mentioned, there may be more information in the JMS that does not appear in the reports provided to the monitor. It has been recommended that the electronically generated report be modified to include this additional information.
USE OF FORCE SUPERVISOR REVIEWS
59. The County must ensure that Jail supervisors review, analyze, and respond appropriately to use of force. At minimum:
a. A supervisor must review all use of force reports submitted during the supervisor’s watch by the end of the supervisor’s watch.
b. A supervisor must ensure that staff members complete their use of force reports by the end of their watch.
c. Reviewing supervisors must document their findings as to the completeness of each staff member’s use of force report, and must also document any procedural errors made by staff in completing their reports.
d. If a Use of Force report is incomplete, reviewing supervisors must require Staff Members to provide any required information on a revised use of force report, and the Jail must maintain both the original and any revised report in its records.
41

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 42 of 101
e. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing use of force reports must document their use of force review as described in Paragraph 62 sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted.
f. All Level 1 uses of force must be sent to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD.
g. A Level 2 use of force must be referred to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD if a reviewing supervisor concludes that there may have been a violation of law or policy. Level 2 uses of force may also be referred to IAD if the County requires such reporting as a matter of Jail policy and procedure, or at the discretion of any reviewing supervisor.
Non-Compliant No final determination can be made until the Policies and Procedures Manual is revised and reissued. The monitoring team is still not able to view the entries of supervisors on incident or use of force reports. Consequently, it is not possible to see whether or not they are approving/disapproving and/or making recommendations rather than simply signing and sending reports up through the chain of command. Even within the JMS system, as explained to the monitoring team, the supervisor only checks that the report has been reviewed not whether they are approving/disapproving and/or making recommendations. Incident Report # 1800882 mentioned above is typical of all use of force reports in that there is no indication of supervisory review.
60. After any Level 1 use of force, responding supervisors will promptly go to the scene and take the following actions:
a. Ensure the safety of everyone involved in or proximate to the incident. Determine if anyone is injured and ensure that necessary medical care is or has been provided.
b. Ensure that photos are taken of all injuries sustained, or as evidence that no injuries were sustained, by prisoners and staff involved in a use of force incident. Photos must be taken no later than two hours after a use of force. Prisoners may refuse to consent to photos, in which case they should be asked to sign a waiver indicating that they have refused consent. If they refuse to sign a waiver, the shift commander must document that consent was requested and refused.
c. Ensure that staff members and witnesses are identified, separated, and advised that communications with other staff members or witnesses regarding the incident are prohibited.
d. Ensure that victim, staff, and witness statements are taken confidentially by reviewing supervisors or investigators, outside of the presence of other prisoners or involved staff.
42

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 43 of 101
e. Document whether the use of force was recorded. If the use of force was not recorded, the responding supervisors must review and explain why the event was not recorded. If the use of force was recorded, the responding supervisors must ensure that any record is preserved for review.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the last two site visits. The specified actions are not routinely followed by supervisors. A review of use of force reports revealed that photographs are seldom taken and that waivers related to the refusal to be photographed are never included. Witness statements are virtually non-existent and although use of force incidents may be recorded at the RDC, they cannot be recorded at the JDC or WC. On some occasions a supplemental report indicates that there was a review of video recording at the RDC, but that is rare.
61. All uses of force must be reviewed by supervisors who were neither involved in nor approved the use of force by the end of the supervisor’s shift. All level 1 uses of force must also be reviewed by a supervisor of Captain rank or above who was neither involved in nor approved the use of force. The purposes of supervisor review are to determine whether the use of force violated Jail policies and procedures, whether the prisoner’s rights may have been violated, and whether further investigation or disciplinary action is required.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the last monitoring report. It is not possible to determine whether or not supervisors are performing their required duties because the monitoring team does not have access to the supplemental information that may be included in the JMS reports and it appears that the ability to reflect such actions is not possible in the JMS. The limited documentation available through Drop Box does not reflect supervisory action regarding approval, disapproval and recommended action on individual reports.
62. Reviewing supervisors must document the following: a. Names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses interviewed by the supervisor; b. Witness statements; c. Review date and time; d. The findings, recommendations, and results of the supervisor’s review; e. Corrective actions taken; f. The final disposition of the reviews (e.g., whether the Use of Force was found to comply with Jail policies and procedures, or whether disciplinary action was taken against a staff member);
43

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 44 of 101
g. Supporting documents such as incident reports, logs, and classification records. Supervisors must also obtain and review summary medical and mental health records describing – i. The nature and extent of injuries, or lack thereof; ii. The date and time when medical care was requested and actually provided; iii. The names of medical or mental health staff conducting any medical or mental health assessments or care.
h. Photos, video/digital recordings, or other evidence collected to support findings and recommendations.
Non-Compliant Until it is possible to access the supervisory review portion of use of force reports, it is not possible to determine whether or not supervisors are taking required actions and appropriately documenting them.
INCIDENT REPORTING AND REVIEW
To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting and reviewing incidents in the Jail that may pose a threat to the life, health, and safety of prisoners. To that end, the County must:
63. Develop and implement incident reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information in order to respond appropriately to reportable incidents.
Non-Compliant The Policies and Procedures Manual must be revised and issued to all personnel before the level of compliance can be determined. See paragraphs 56 to 62 above. The current incident reports should provide sufficient information for supervisors to make an appropriate review, but the reports are routinely deficient. The monitoring team’s inability to see everything that is entered into the automated reporting system further hampers its ability to analyze the shortcomings.
64. Ensure that Incident Reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, Incident Reports must contain the following information:
a. Tracking number for each incident; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner, and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. Type of incident; f. Injuries to staff or prisoner;
44

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 45 of 101
g. Medical care; h. All staff involved or present during the incident and their respective roles; i. Reviewing supervisor and supervisor findings, recommendations, and case
dispositions; j. External reviews and results; k. Corrective action taken; and l. Warden and Administrator review and final administrative actions.
Partial Compliance There has been no change with regard to the status of this paragraph since the last two site visits. Compliance is dependent upon the publication and issuance of the Policies and Procedures Manual. Incident report documentation currently provides for some of the information specified in this paragraph. Reports routinely have a tracking number and list all staff involved. Inmate witnesses and even perpetrators are often omitted. Inmate witness statements are infrequently noted. The nature of the injuries is often omitted. However, in recent months there have been photographs taken of the injuries in some of the incidents and provided with the incident reports in the monthly reporting. Many reports still do not specify in which facility the incident occurred.
Examples mentioned earlier include Incident Report (IR) 18-1324 at the RDC involving an inmate who was stabbed several times and taken to the hospital; IR 18-1818 at the RDC involving an inmate who was assaulted by others with plastic trays; and IR 18-1679 at the RDC involving an inmate who was injured (unidentified injury) by other inmates. These three incident reports are typical of the incomplete and inaccurate information that is found in DSD reports. The reports were all generated in August 2018, yet the numbers varied from 1324 to 1818, far outside the range of expected reports for one month. In one case an inmate was “injured” but there was no explanation as to what constituted an “injury”, even though the inmate was transported to the hospital. In none of the reports was there any explanation as to how inmates had access to weapons, whether or not they were recovered or whether inmate witnesses were interviewed. Finally, there was no reference to a review of video coverage of the incidents.
IR 18-1731, dated 8-11-18 at the RDC dealt with an inmate who was stabbed four times as a result of a conflict between “gangster disciples” and “vice lords”. The report does not explain whether or not the inmate was transported to the hospital, only that he was “unresponsive”. Witness statements were not taken, nor was there any reference to a review of available video recordings.
IR# 181116, dated 6-24-18, summarized the statement of an officer who said that on camera he saw an unknown inmate being dragged into a cell (#5547). When officers responded, they found
45

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 46 of 101
an inmate unresponsive in the cell. He was transported to the hospital. Beyond that the report does not provide any meaningful information.
65. Require each staff member directly involved in a reportable incident to accurately and thoroughly complete incident reports as promptly as possible, by the end of the staff member’s shift. At minimum:
a. Staff members must complete all fields on an Incident Report for which they have responsibility for completion. Staff members must not omit entering a date, time, incident location, or signature when completing an Incident Report. If no injuries are present, staff members must write that; they may not leave that section blank.
b. Failure to report any reportable incident must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination.
c. Supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will also be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the last site visit or the one before that. While documentation of incidents continues to improve, the fact that there are still no reports on record of lost money and property or late releases and overstays, is indicative of a failure to document. During the September site visit the monitoring team met with supervisors to review report writing. Emphasis was placed on clarity, completeness, and basic information that should be included in each incident report. In addition, the need to document any unusual activity in the Jail System was stressed, not just use of force, inmate assault and medical cases.
66. Ensure that Jail supervisors review and respond appropriately to incidents. At minimum: a. Shift commanders must document all reportable incidents by the end of their shift, but no later than 12 hours after a reportable incident. b. Shift commanders must report all suicides, suicide attempts, and deaths, no later than one hour after the incident, to a supervisor, IAD, and medical and mental health staff. c. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing Incident Reports must document their incident review within 24 hours of receipt of an Incident Report sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted. Such documentation must include the same categories of information required for supervisor use of force reviews such as names of individuals interviewed by the supervisor, witness statements, associated records (e.g. medical records, photos, and digital recordings), review dates, findings, recommendations, and case dispositions.
46

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 47 of 101
d. Reportable incidents must be reviewed by a supervisor not directly involved in the incident.
Partial Compliance There has been no change in the status of this paragraph. As was previously reported, compliance has actually been hampered by the transition to an electronic report writing system in that the monitoring team cannot track the actions of supervisors after the initial report has been submitted. Although they may be reviewing the report in a timely fashion, there is currently no way to determine whether or not that is happening. Even within the JMS it is reported that the supervisor only checks off that the report has been reviewed. There is no place for approval, disapproval or corrective action.
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
67. To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to address sexual abuse and misconduct. Such policies and procedures must include all of the following:
a. Zero tolerance policy towards any sexual abuse and sexual harassment as defined by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementing regulations;
b. Staff training on the zero tolerance policy, including how to fulfill their duties and responsibilities to prevent, detect, report and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment under the policy;
c. Screening prisoners to identify those who may be sexually abusive or at risk of sexual victimization;
d. Multiple internal ways to allow both confidential and anonymous reporting of sexual abuse and sexual harassment and any related retaliation, including a mechanism for prisoners to directly report allegations to an outside entity;
e. Both emergency and ongoing medical and mental health care for victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment, including rape kits as appropriate and counseling;
f. A complete ban on cross-gender strip searches or cross-gender visual body cavity searches except in exigent circumstances or when performed by a medical examiner;
g. A complete ban on cross-gender pat searches of women prisoners, absent exigent circumstances;
h. Regular supervisory review to ensure compliance with the sexual abuse and sexual harassment policies; and
i. Specialized investigative procedures and training for investigators handling sexual abuse and sexual harassment allegations.
47

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 48 of 101
Partial Compliance The PREA officer continues to work on the PREA policies and procedures. A draft had been completed but was not based on the operations of the local facilities. She is now working on a draft that is specific to the procedures of the HCDC. There has been progress in the implementation of PREA requirements. All of the units visited had PREA posters posted. The posters have reporting instructions, however, the PREA officer did not have a cell phone to forward the calls to and there was some debate about having the calls go through dispatch so the reporting mechanisms had not been fully worked out. The PREA officer has done some orientation to incoming prisoners, however, this is not universal and the Inmate Handbook does not have current information on PREA. Discussions continue to be underway with Catholic Charities to determine whether that agency can provide counseling to any victims of sexual assault or harassment. Although this is very good progress in this area, there are still a number of areas of non-compliance and some of the stated practices do not appear to be fully operationalized. Areas of concern include lack of training for all officers on PREA, lack of ongoing notice to inmates at booking or comprehensive education following, lack of required information in the Inmate Handbook, unresolved mechanisms for reporting, no volunteer or contractor training, and investigation officers do not have PREA training. It was reported that supervisory staff do not get the investigation reports once completed. This prevents any opportunity to use that information to determine whether discipline is appropriate or remedial measures should be implemented. Although the classification process includes a screening for PREA issues, the housing decisions do not appear to reflect attention to those issues. There were two incident reports since the last site visit that raised PREA concerns. Neither incident was brought to the attention of QCHC. The PREA officer indicated that these had been investigated and determined to be unfounded. However, there was no paperwork documenting that any interviews or investigation of these incidents had occurred.
During the course of the joint meeting with the mental health expert, the mental health coordinator and the PREA coordinator it was discovered that a prisoner who had not been identified during the screening process came directly to mental health because he feared that he would be sexually victimized; mental health contacted classification and was thereby able to obtain a different housing placement for him; mental health also followed him until he was released; but neither mental health nor classification notified the PREA coordinator of any of this.
Also, during the joint meeting with the mental health coordinator and the PREA coordinator it was discovered that a prisoner who had not been identified during the PREA intake screening process had been self-referred (filed a sick call slip) to health and mental health after he had been sexually assaulted, and mental health met with him regularly until he was released. Although it appeared that the PREA coordinator was aware of this case, the extent of the coordination between mental health and the PREA coordinator, geared towards addressing his needs, was unclear. More specifically, it does not appear that this prisoner had access to rape counselors
48

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 49 of 101
from outside of the facility or any of the other PREA-related services that should have been made available to him.
QCHC mental health should notify the PREA coordinator of all PREA-related cases that come to the attention of mental health that were not identified during the PREA intake screening process. Those PREA-related cases that come to the attention of mental health that were not identified during the PREA intake screen should be discussed with the PREA coordinator in an attempt to better coordinate mental health functions and other PREA-related functions, and in an attempt to help determine whether or not any adjustments in the PREA screening process might be indicated. QCHC mental health should continue to provide counseling services to victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment. Such mental health services should be provided in coordination with other services that should have been put into place by the PREA coordinator.
INVESTIGATIONS
68. The County shall ensure that it has sufficient staff to identify, investigate, and correct misconduct that has or may lead to a violation of the Constitution. At a minimum, the County shall:
a. Develop and implement comprehensive policies, procedures, and practices for the thorough and timely (within 60 days of referral) investigation of alleged staff misconduct, sexual assaults, and physical assaults of prisoners resulting in serious injury, in accordance with this Agreement, within 90 days of its Effective Date. At a minimum, an investigation will be conducted if: i. Any prisoner exhibited a serious injury; ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious accounts of the incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member).
b. Per policy, investigations shall: i. Be conducted by qualified persons, who do not have conflicts of interest that bear on the partiality of the investigation; ii. Include timely, thorough, and documented interviews of all relevant staff and prisoners who were involved in or who witnessed the incident in question, to the extent practicable; and iii. Include all supporting evidence, including logs, witness and participant statements, references to policies and procedures relevant to the incident, physical evidence, and video or audio recordings.
49

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 50 of 101
c. Provide investigators with pre-service and annual in-service training so that investigators conduct quality investigations that meet the requirements of this Agreement;
d. Ensure that any investigative report indicating possible criminal behavior will be referred to the appropriate criminal law enforcement agency;
e. Within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, IAD must have written policies and procedures that include clear and specific criteria for determining when it will conduct an investigation. The criteria will require an investigation if: i. Any prisoner exhibited serious, visible injuries (e.g., black eye, obvious bleeding, or lost tooth); ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious accounts of the incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member).
f. Provide the Monitor and United States a periodic report of investigations conducted at the Jail every four months. The report will include the following information: i. a brief summary of all completed investigations, by type and date; ii. a listing of investigations referred for administrative investigation; iii. a listing of all investigations referred to an appropriate law enforcement agency and the name of the agency; and iv. a listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation. v. a description of any corrective actions or changes in policies, procedures, or practices made as a result of investigations over the reporting period.
g. Jail management shall review the periodic report to determine whether the investigation system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement and make recommendations regarding the investigation system or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor and United States.
Partial Compliance During the September site visit, the corrections operations member of the monitoring team met with the IAD investigator to review the investigative process and the tracking system that he has put in place. His efforts are hampered by the fact that there is still no policy/procedure in place to provide direction and authority. Currently, he investigates cases involving officers to
50

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 51 of 101
determine whether or not their actions were justified. His work is dependent upon the generation of an initial incident report. In cases that result in the potential for criminal charges (generally on inmates), his work is transferred to a Criminal Investigative Division (CID) investigator. A meeting with that individual will be scheduled during the January 2019, site visit so that practices, procedures and tracking systems can be standardized between the two investigative specialists (IAD and CID). In the interim the IAD investigator will examine all use of force cases to determine whether or not he needs to conduct a full IAD investigation.
Criminal investigations are initiated when a deputy/investigator is dispatched to a facility to investigate an incident that was generated by a detention officer. While these investigations should ultimately lead to criminal charges or at least some action beyond what is done within the facility, a review of CID investigative reports does not currently provide that information. Offense report 18 00001679, dated 8-6-18, is typical of this situation. On that date a deputy went to the RDC in response to an inmate assault. Once there he determined that an inmate had been assaulted by several other inmates in Housing Unit B-3. When the inmate was unable to identify his assailants the report was closed and no further action was taken. Video recordings were not accessed and no other inmates were interviewed. Offense report 18 00000396, dated 2-21-18 involved an inmate who was stabbed multiple times in B-3 at the RDC. He identified several inmates as the perpetrators and said that that he wanted to file charges on them; however, the investigative report does not reflect whether or not action was taken.
GRIEVANCE AND PRISONER INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Because a reporting system provides early notice of potential constitutional violations and an opportunity to prevent more serious problems before they occur, the County must develop and implement a grievance system. To that end:
69. The grievance system must permit prisoners to confidentially report grievances without requiring the intervention of a detention officer.
Partial Compliance The use of the new kiosk system in theory allows the prisoners to report grievances without the intervention of detention officers. However, the system is still not working as it should. A meeting/training with the vendor was planned for the week after the site visit where issues of staff training and system problems could be addressed.
Although the kiosk system does not require the intervention of a detention officer, the physical set up does not allow for privacy. This could potentially result in an officer observing the grievance being filed. It was reported that inmates can observe another’s PIN number and then use it to purchase commissary on the other inmate’s account. There has also been a problem
51

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 52 of 101
with inmates communicating with each other through the kiosk system. These issues will need to be addressed.
70. Grievance policies and procedures must be applicable and standardized across the entire Jail.
Non-Compliant Policies and procedures have yet to be finalized. A draft policy on grievances does not describe the current process of using the kiosk. The kiosk system works the same across facilities but there is no unified process in how the staff responds to grievances and monitors the system. Lt. Jones has been identified as the system wide grievance officer, however, her duties for system wide oversight have not been identified. She does not assign grievances for the other facilities and does not provide any oversight of the grievance process or response in the other facilities.
71. All grievances must receive appropriate follow-up, including a timely written response by an impartial reviewer and staff tracking of whether resolutions have been implemented or still need implementation. Any response to a medical grievance or a grievance alleging threats or violence to the grievant or others that exceeds 24 hours shall be presumed untimely.
Partial Compliance The system itself presents several challenges in this regard. Notably, if a grievance is not responded to in seven days, it drops off the dashboard. The only way to find the grievance is to run a report for a longer time frame and search for grievances in different status categories. The grievance officer at the WC did not appear to have access that would allow her to run such reports. The grievance officer at JDC is on extended medical leave. The persons filling in for her did not know how to run such a report. When a report was run with assistance a number of grievances were found that had not been responded to in 21 days or more. At RDC when a report was run going back to October, 2017 there were 160 grievances waiting assignment. This included the time period when the system was just installed and not well understood. However, going back to January, 2018, there were 21 waiting assignment over 21 days. When looking at these individual grievances, some of them had been responded to but the status had not been changed; some had not been responded to. There was also a period in July when appeals went unassigned. There is no structured system to ensure that all grievances are actually answered; no oversight to review whether responses are adequate; and no oversight to determine that promised actions are actually completed (As an exception to this, the officers overseeing inmate supplies have the inmate sign when a promised item has been delivered). Lt. Jones has been identified as the overall grievance officer, however, facility wide duties that would include this oversight have not been identified. Without this oversight, there is also no assurance that there is a review by an impartial reviewer. Grievances are assigned to the department involved in the grievance which is the department most knowledgeable but not necessarily impartial. There is no known way in the system to mark a grievance as urgent.
52

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 53 of 101
Medical grievances are submitted through the kiosk system. At RDC eight grievances were reviewed by the medical expert. They were not all answered within the 24 hours required by this paragraph but were all answered within 48 hours. Three of the grievances were for medication requested by the inmate such as Flexaril which was not a formulary medication. One was for dental pain. The inmate complained that he had requested dental service for several months and was told that he had to request this service three times, be seen by the nurse practitioner and then would be put on the dental list. A review of the QCHC policy J-E06 Oral Screening and J-E-07 Non-Emergency Health Care Requests did not authorize this practice. There was no indication during the medical review that an oral screening was provided by the nurses triaging the sick call request.
The other three grievances involved missed medication, a wrong treatment ordered for a rash, (nurse ordered calamine lotion for a skin rash), and a missed asthma medication. The last patient gave an alias during booking; thus, the nurses were unable to locate his prescription from the pharmacy.
At the Jackson Detention Center, there were eleven medical grievances reviewed that were filed during the month of September 2018. Eight of the grievances were filed by the same inmate and were for a variety of issues such as dental pain, numbness of right foot, requests for a low sodium diet, and requests for an additional mat. Each time the inmate had a sick call request, she was seen by the nurse practitioner. Other grievances reviewed were for missed medications and one was for dental pain. Most responses were within one to four days; however, one response was not until six days. This paragraph requires responses to medical grievances within 24 hours. The QCHC policy allows for responses to grievances to be provided in up to seven days. QCHC administration should be made aware of this discrepancy and QCHC policy should be revised to be consistent with Settlement Agreement requirements. The kiosk system has no means known to staff for marking a grievance as an emergency or otherwise identifying emergent grievances.
At the WC two medical grievances were reviewed. One inmate claimed he was not seen after an altercation, however, chart review indicated that he initially denied injuries when he saw the nurse practitioner. Medical record review indicated that later, he was sent to the emergency room. The second grievance was because the corporate medical director denied an expensive medication for prostate cancer. The nurse manager and the University Hospital were able to obtain this medication and continue his medical regimen. Policies with respect to non-formulary medications should be evaluated to ensure that inmates are not denied critically needed medications.
It remains to be determined whether all grievances that should be directed towards mental health, in whole or in part, actually get to the mental health team. In order to determine this, a review of
53

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 54 of 101
all grievances would be required, with an eye towards assessing whether or not there were any mental health-related issues, and then, whether or not the recipient of the grievance was able to determine that there were mental health-related issues and thereby refer the grievance, in whole or in part, to the mental health team. Once it is determined that the mental health team is actually receiving grievances, the timeliness and the appropriateness of the team’s response can be assessed.
72. The grievance system must accommodate prisoners who have physical or cognitive disabilities, are illiterate, or have LEP, so that these prisoners have meaningful access to the grievance system.
Non-Compliant Prisoners are assisting one another but that carries the risk of them accessing and using another prisoner’s PIN number in addition to the potential of having to disclose private information. This may inhibit the use of the grievance system and also allows access to the prisoner’s funds. There does not appear to be any language choices in the system or voice recognition features.
Although prisoners who are unable to use that unit due to their mental illness or intellectual disability have not been identified, all identified mentally ill and/or intellectually disabled prisoners have not been surveyed. Of particular concern are those seriously mentally ill prisoners who are in ‘protective custody’/segregation. In developing policies and procedures on grievances, a procedure should be developed for identifying whether persons with mental illness or intellectual disabilities have a grievance including those in protective custody/segregation. In addition, the policies should identify a mechanism for filing a grievance on their behalf.
It was not reported that medical staff was ever called to assist an inmate to submit a grievance. Currently, the staff assumes that other prisoners will assist with prisoners who cannot access the current system. This does not meet the requirements of this paragraph.
73. The County must ensure that all current and newly admitted prisoners receive information about prison rules and procedures. The County must provide such information through an inmate handbook and, at the discretion of the Jail, an orientation video, regarding the following topics: understanding the Jail’s disciplinary process and rules and regulations; reporting misconduct; reporting sexual abuse, battery, and assault; accessing medical and mental health care; emergency procedures; visitation; accessing the grievance process; and prisoner rights. The County must provide such information in appropriate languages for prisoners with LEP.
Non-Compliant
54

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 55 of 101
The Inmate Handbook has outdated information about most of these issues and will need to be updated. It is not available in Spanish or any other language.
RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SEGREGATION
In order to ensure compliance with constitutional standards and to prevent unnecessary harm to prisoners, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to limit the use of segregation. To that end, this Agreement imposes the following restrictions and requirements:
74. Within 8 hours of intake, prisoners in the booking cells must be classified and housed in more appropriate long-term housing where staff will provide access to exercise, meals, and other services.
Partial Compliance There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the last site visit. Classification continues to be accomplished within 24 hours of entry to the RDC, but not within the eight hours of intake that this paragraph requires. See response to paragraph 42 above. Detainees are processed through the Booking area within eight hours. None were found to be in holding cells in excess of eight hours.
However, after classification, there are limited options to appropriately house individuals based on their risks and needs. There is a concern about the limited availability of housing options (other than segregation) for prisoners who need to be protected from themselves or others as a result of a mental illness, intellectual disability or other special needs or who need a therapeutic setting. The facility should explore options for developing an actual mental health unit with a program of therapeutic interventions for person who are suffering from mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities. Additionally, the facility should explore options for housing prisoners who need to be protected from themselves or others as a result of a mental illness or intellectual disability other than segregation.
75. The County must document the placement and removal of all prisoners to and from segregation.
Partial Compliance The monthly summary reports submitted by each facility include a listing of inmates who have been in segregation. The format utilized by the JDC does more than simply list inmates; rather, it reflects when they went into segregation and when they were removed as required by this paragraph. It includes additional information that would be valuable to command staff in evaluating the use of segregation. The reports provided from RDC and the WC list everyone who has been in segregation during the month but not when they went in or were removed. The JDC
55

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 56 of 101
system of reporting should be adopted by the WC and RDC so that the information required by this paragraph is available for all three facilities.
76. Qualified Mental Health Professionals must conduct mental health rounds at least once a week (in a private setting if necessary to elicit accurate information), to assess the mental health status of all prisoners in segregation and the effect of segregation on each prisoner’s mental health, in order to determine whether continued placement in segregation is appropriate. These mental health rounds must not be a substitute for treatment.
Partial Compliance As noted in the report of the May 2018 site visit, weekly mental health rounds on prisoners in segregation are now being conducted by the mental health coordinator, and a record of those rounds is being maintained.
During this site visit, the mental health expert accompanied the mental health coordinator on the mental health segregation rounds and found the quality of those rounds to be excellent. There were a total of 23 prisoners in segregation of one type or another; one actually requested mental health treatment; but several others exhibited behaviors that indicated their need for treatment that they had not yet agreed to receive. It should be noted that observation was complicated in a couple segregation cells where prisoners reported that their light didn’t work.
QCHC should develop policies and procedures for continuing to urge prisoners who refuse needed mental health treatment to accept and participate in treatment. As security continues to develop its policies and procedures with regard to segregation, mechanisms should be identified whereby findings obtained during the course of these mental health rounds in segregation impact on decisions to continue or discontinue placement in segregation.
77. The County must develop and implement restrictions on the segregation of prisoners with serious mental illness. These safeguards must include the following:
a. All decisions to place a prisoner with serious mental illness in segregation must include the input of a Qualified Mental Health Professional who has conducted a face-to-face evaluation of the prisoner in a confidential setting, is familiar with the details of the available clinical history, and has considered the prisoner’s mental health needs and history.
b. Segregation must be presumed contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness.
c. Within 24 hours of placement in segregation, all prisoners on the mental health caseload must be screened by a Qualified Mental Health Professional to determine whether the prisoner has serious mental illness, and whether there are any acute mental health contraindications to segregation.
56

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 57 of 101
d. If a Qualified Mental Health Professional finds that a prisoner has a serious mental illness or exhibits other acute mental health contraindications to segregation, that prisoner must not be placed or remain in segregation absent documented extraordinary and exceptional circumstances (i.e. for an immediate and serious danger which may arise during unusual emergency situations, such as a riot or during the booking of a severely psychotic, untreated, violent prisoner, and which should last only as long as the emergency conditions remain present).
e. Documentation of such extraordinary and exceptional circumstances must be in writing. Such documentation must include the reasons for the decision, a comprehensive interdisciplinary team review, and the names and dated signatures of all staff members approving the decision.
f. Prisoners with serious mental illness who are placed in segregation must be offered a heightened level of care that includes the following: i. If on medication, the prisoner must receive at least one daily visit from a Qualified Medical Professional. ii. The prisoner must be offered a face-to-face, therapeutic, out-of-cell session with a Qualified Mental Health Professional at least once per week. iii. If the prisoner is placed in segregation for more than 24 hours, he or she must have his or her case reviewed by a Qualified Mental Health Professional, in conjunction with a Jail physician and psychiatrist, on a weekly basis.
g. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, A Qualified Mental Health Professional will assess all prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation. This assessment must include a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Prisoners requiring follow-up for additional clinical assessment or care must promptly receive such assessment and care.
h. If a prisoner on segregation decompensates or otherwise develops signs or symptoms of serious mental illness, where such signs or symptoms had not previously been identified, the prisoner must immediately be referred for appropriate assessment and treatment by a Qualified Mental Health Professional. Any such referral must also result in a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Signs or symptoms requiring assessment or treatment under this clause include a deterioration in cognitive, physical, or verbal function; delusions; self-harm; or behavior indicating a heightened risk of suicide (e.g., indications of depression after a sentencing hearing).
57

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 58 of 101
i. The treatment and housing of prisoners with serious mental illness must be coordinated and overseen by the Interdisciplinary Team (or Teams), and guided by formal, written treatment plans. The Interdisciplinary Team must include both medical and security staff, but access to patient healthcare information must remain subject to legal restrictions based on patient privacy rights. The intent of this provision is to have an Interdisciplinary Team serve as a mechanism for balancing security and medical concerns, ensuring cooperation between security and medical staff, while also protecting the exercise of independent medical judgment and each prisoner’s individual rights.
j. Nothing in this Agreement should be interpreted to authorize security staff, including the Jail Administrator, to make medical or mental health treatment decisions, or to overrule physician medical orders.
Non-Compliant During this most recent site visit, the mental health expert met with senior security staff members to discuss security policies and procedures that are now being developed. Although security staff members indicated that they attempt to consider a prisoner’s mental health status when deciding whether or not to place the prisoner in segregation, it was unclear exactly how that was done, and it was quite clear that there was no procedure like that described in this provision for considering mental health issues when making such a decision. Furthermore, as noted in prior reports, mental health staff persons discover that a prisoner on the mental health caseload has been placed in segregation at the time of his/her next visit or during the weekly, mental health segregation rounds, which lends further support to the finding that mental health staff persons have no input into decisions to place mentally ill prisoners in segregation.
It does not appear that segregation is presumed contraindicated for persons with serious mental illness as required by subsection b. More specifically, during this site visit, when the mental health expert accompanied the mental health coordinator on mental health segregation rounds, there were a total of 23 prisoners in segregation. Of these 23 prisoners, 6 of them were in ‘protective custody’/segregation (to protect them from themselves or others), and all 6 are on the mental health case load; 8 more of the 23 are also on the mental health caseload; and so, a total of 14 of the 23 prisoners in segregation (about 60%) were known to have serious mental illness and were on the mental health caseload. Although the mental health expert was unable to review the records of all 9 of the prisoners in segregation who were not on the mental health case load, the records of 2 of those prisoners who appeared to be particularly distressed revealed major trauma histories that had never been addressed and that likely caused their distress and the behavioral difficulties that landed them in segregation.
Even if there was a presumption that segregation is contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness, there are multiple other issues that contribute to the facility’s failure to meet this
58

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 59 of 101
provision. More specifically, there is a lack of appropriate housing for prisoners with serious mental illness, especially those who must be protected from themselves and from others (see sections 74 & 77). There is not yet a policy and procedure for urging mentally ill prisoners who refuse treatment to accept and participate in treatment, and it does not appear as if other interventions are employed when all efforts to encourage treatment fail (see section 76). Increased efforts to identify prisoners with significant trauma histories with associated traumarelated mental health difficulties, and the development of mental health interventions to help such prisoners are only just beginning (see section 42). In addition, a formal disciplinary review process and a formal segregation review process, both with mental health input, have yet to be developed and initiated (see sections 76 & 77).
There is no evidence that individuals with mental illness placed in segregation are seen by a QMHP within 24 hours. It does not appear that security staff even knows which prisoners are on the mental health caseload.
There is no evidence that use of segregation for persons with serious mental illness is limited to cases where there is documented extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. There are two issues here – one is the performance of the mental health evaluations that would generate the required information, and two is a mechanism whereby the information obtained during the course of such evaluations is shared with security staff members who are making decisions about the use of segregation.
Although there are multiple provisions that speak to the performance of mental health evaluations at various points during the disciplinary review process and the segregation review process, at present, the only related mental health evaluation that is being performed is the weekly, mental health segregation rounds. Therefore, as security staff develops security policies and procedures, such policies and procedures must include all of the other points where mental health evaluations must be performed.
At present, there is no mechanism whereby mental health staff can have input into decisions made about placing a prisoner with mental illness in segregation and/or keeping such a prisoner in segregation. Therefore, such mechanisms must also be included in the security policies and procedures that are currently being developed.
Of course, once all of this is put into place, the mental health team must be willing and able to assume the responsibilities outlined for mental health.
In addition, policies and procedures that specifically address this provision must include a clear description of the ‘extraordinary and exceptional circumstances’ that trump the mental health concerns. In so doing, a distinction should be made between current circumstances (for example,
59

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 60 of 101
the lack of alternative, appropriate housing for seriously mentally ill prisoners), and the circumstances that will continue to exist after other provisions of this agreement have been met.
Prisoners with serious mental illness who are on medication and in segregation typically have two daily visits with a nurse Monday through Friday during medication pass. During the site visit the mental health expert accompanied the nurses on a medication pass, and did not observe any difference between the nurses’ interactions with prisoners in segregation and prisoners who were not in segregation. Since prisoners in segregation do not see a QMHP on a daily basis, it should be made clear (in policy and procedure) to what extent the level of care provided by the nurses during medication pass includes some type of assessment of the prisoner’s mental status.
Prisoners in segregation who are on the mental health caseload are receiving mental health services. However, it is not yet clear whether or not they are receiving mental health services on a weekly basis, and it does not appear that the services received are always out-of-cell sessions. As has been previously noted, it will be important to remember, as noted in Section 76, that the weekly mental health rounds for prisoners in segregation must not be a substitute for these therapeutic sessions.
Although the mental health coordinator is performing weekly mental health segregation rounds, the requirement of sub paragraph (f)(iii) is not being met. In order to address this provision, the mental health coordinator, in conjunction with a physician and the psychiatrist, must also perform a weekly review of the status of the prisoners in segregation who are also on, or should be added to the mental health caseload.
Essentially all prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation have had an updated mental health evaluation (i.e., with the exception of those who refused to be evaluated). Although those prisoners also have an updated treatment plan, the treatment plans do not yet include recommendations regarding more appropriate housing. However, as otherwise noted in this report (see sections 42, 74 & 77), at present, there really isn’t more appropriate housing, which, of course, complicates the making of such a recommendation.
At present, there is no formal, monthly segregation review process whereby the status of all prisoners who have been held in segregation for more than 30 days is reviewed, with mental health input, in order to determine whether or not they should remain in or be removed from segregation. As has been previously noted, the development of such a monthly, interdisciplinary, segregation review process is integral to addressing this provision and should be included in the security policies and procedures that are being developed.
The segregation review team should be interdisciplinary and include a representative from mental health (along with security, classification, and the staff persons responsible for disciplinary proceedings). The representative on the team from mental health should report on
60

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 61 of 101
each prisoner’s mental status; and when the prisoner is experiencing clinically significant mental health difficulties (that existed prior to the prisoner’s placement in segregation or that have developed since the prisoner was placed in segregation). The mental health representative should also offer recommendations for an alternative placement (other than segregation) and any followup mental health evaluations or treatment that might be indicated. The information gathered on each prisoner during each monthly segregation review meeting should be documented; the decisions made about placement and prisoner’s need for further evaluation and treatment should also be documented; and each member of the review team should sign each prisoner’s monthly segregation review form (a form that will have to be developed). Of course, at any time that the mental health team finds that a prisoner being held in segregation is suffering as a result of mental illness, the mental health team should immediately discuss the findings with security staff (without waiting for the monthly segregation review team meeting); the mental health team and security staff should jointly develop an appropriate intervention; and this discussion, along with the agreed upon intervention, should be documented.
In addition, there is the matter of (1) the extent to which non-mental health staff persons (i.e., security staff and medical staff) are assessing whether or not prisoners held in segregation are decompensating or otherwise developing signs or symptoms of serious mental illness, where such signs and symptoms had not previously been identified, and also (2) if non-mental health staff are identifying such prisoners, are they immediately referring them to mental health. These are important considerations, especially given that security staff and medical staff (at least the nurses) see the prisoners in segregation more frequently than the mental health staff, and so these considerations need to be further explored.
There is no interdisciplinary team as required by sub-paragraph (i) that attempts to balance security concerns and medical/mental health concerns when decisions are being made about the housing of prisoners with serious mental illness. Although mental health treatment plans have been developed, those treatment plans do not include recommendations for housing, in large part due to the fact that there is no special housing that is specifically designed to meet the needs of prisoners who are suffering from mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities. Therefore, in order to address this provision of the agreement, such an interdisciplinary team has to be established, and more appropriate housing options for prisoners with mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities have to be developed.
YOUTHFUL PRISONERS
As long as the County houses youthful prisoners, it must develop and implement policies and procedures for their supervision, management, education, and treatment consistent with federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482. Within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will determine where it will house youthful prisoners. During those six months, the County will consult with the United
61

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 62 of 101

States, the monitor of the Henley Young Juvenile Detention Center Settlement Agreement, and any other individuals or entities whose input is relevant. The United States will support the County’s efforts to secure appropriate housing for youthful prisoners, including supervised release. Within 18 months after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will have completed transitioning to any new or replacement youthful prisoner housing facility.

Partial Compliance

Juveniles Charged as Adults (JCAs) continue to be placed at Henley Young after being booked at the Raymond facility. When they turn 18 they are transferred to the Raymond Detention Center (RDC) pending further court action. This was the first opportunity to observe the youth placed at Raymond in the smaller A-I Isolation unit, which has four cells. As of this visit:
• There were sixteen JCAs at Henley Young (including three girls; during the week of the visit one youth was released and one new youth admitted) and three youth housed at RDC, for a total of 19 youthful prisoners. This number is consistent with the overall average number of youthful prisoners in Hinds County custody over the past two years but does represent a gradual increase in the average daily population of these youth at Henley Young since last fall (see chart below). Given the ages (see bullet below) of current youth in custody, it is likely this number will continue to increase unless case processing timelines are shortened;

JCA Average Daily Population @ Henley Young

15

10

5

8.81 9.13 12.32 10.74 9.77 12.32 12.27 13.19 6.93 5

5

0

• There were three youth at RDC, including two juveniles charged as adults and one youthful prisoner, a youth who had already been convicted as an adult on a prior charge and was arrested on new charges (see subsequent note relating to juveniles convicted as adults).
• Both of the juveniles charged as adults turn 18 as this report is being filed/reviewed (S.P. on 10/4/18; C.W. on 11/12/18) and the juvenile convicted as an adult will turn 18 in February although should be in MDOC by then if not at the time of this report;
• Shortly before the site visit, there had been another juvenile charged as an adult (who had previously been placed at RDC for an extended period of time, then transferred to
62

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 63 of 101
Henley Young in the spring of 2018) that went to court and was convicted. He was then transferred back to RDC pending placement with the state Department of Corrections which occurred within approximately one week (state statutes permit an up to 30 day stay at a local jail until placement); • Not including the youth admitted during the site visit, the length of youth’s placement at Henley Young ranged from a high of 378 days to a low of 31 days; • Two of the current 17-year-olds at Henley Young will turn 18 before the end of 2018; • As of the time of the site visit, there were four youth age 14 held at Henley Young, three were 15, four were 16, and five were 17; • Only three of the youth at Henley Young had been indicted, and the youth held longest without being indicted had been there for 321 days.
Up until this most recent visit, the use of the term Juveniles Charged as Adults (JCAs) was an apt description of the Youthful Prisoners held in Hinds County. However, two situations make it clear that those terms are not interchangeable, specifically there was:
• One youth at Henley Young who was convicted as an adult and then transferred to RDC pending placement with the state; and
• One youth (M.C., DOB 2/13/01) who had previously been convicted as an adult, was “out” on probation, and was arrested for new, serious charges.
While the pace of the court process (absent significant changes in the current system) makes it likely that more youth will “age out” of Henley Young than be convicted while at Henley Young, there will inevitably be some situations in which youth will be convicted while at Henley Young (e.g. note that seven youth currently at Henley Young are age 15 and under). Similarly, one could expect more cases in which a youth convicted as adult is rearrested for a new offense and secure placement will be needed. The rationale for deciding to place youth convicted as an adult at RDC ranged from “that’s what our Henley Young monitor said to do” to thinking there is some state law that prohibits youth convicted as adults from being held in a juvenile facility.
This agreement uses the term Youthful Prisoners to encompass all youth under 18, not differentiating between youth charged as adults and those convicted as adults. Therefore, to be in full compliance with this agreement in the future, the county will need to change the current practice related to youth convicted as adults and either continue/place them at Henley Young and/or expedite placement to another facility (e.g. state facility) rather than house them at RDC.
Concerns about the limited programming and lack of proper supervision for youth at RDC were reinforced by a notable incident on August 26 in which one of the youthful prisoners was assaulted by a staff member for failure to provide the cell phone password to a cellphone that had been confiscated. Based on incident reports, an internal investigation report, and interviews with youth it appears that the officer in question entered the youthful offender unit after control staff observed youth tampering with the unit camera. The officer entered the unit and confronted one
63

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 64 of 101
of the youths (S.P.) about possession of a cell phone; the interaction resulted in the staff member physically assaulting the youth. Statements by other youth in the unit and other officers (noted in the Internal Investigation report) are consistent with allegations that Officer C.L. used excessive force and acted contrary to proper policies and procedures. The Internal Affairs Investigation report also confirms that the Incident Report filed by Officer C.L. was not consistent with information obtained from other staff or the youth on the unit.
Additionally, this incident revealed that the commitment to ensure the youthful prisoner unit is under constant direct supervision was not adhered to. There was no staff member present in the unit as youth tampered with the security camera, and it can only be assumed that with direct supervision at all other times the youth would not have been able to possess contraband (in this case a cellphone, pocket knife, and cigarettes). In reviewing observation logs in youth’s files, there were numerous shifts and/or days (e.g. could not find observation logs for 19 shifts and/or days in June and July alone) during which there is no verification that staff were on the unit as required.
While the actions of Officer C.L. in this case clearly resulted in harm to juvenile S.P., the frequent lack of direct supervision on the juvenile unit at RDC also creates an unsafe and unstable environment for youthful prisoners.
In addition to taking severe disciplinary action related to Officer C.L. and pending complete removal of all youth from RDC, the county needs to reaffirm its commitment to maintaining constant supervision of youthful prisoners by staff that have been appropriately trained to do so.
On a positive note, during this visit it was possible to compare booking times at RDC with those at Henley Young to evaluate the efficiency of the transfer process for new youth, ensuring that youthful offenders are not lingering inappropriately in the booking area at RDC prior to transfer to Henley Young. Comparing times revealed that the transfers of youth from RDC to Henley Young occurred within a reasonable amount of time (i.e. less than three hours in all cases, shorter in many), indicating a consistent commitment by RDC staff/leadership to making this process work efficiently.
Finally, a number of recommendations were made in prior reports related to changes at Henley Young that would support a successful transition (i.e. physical plant changes, security improvements, increased programming, speeding up case processing, improving the overall behavior management system, etc.). While some progress has been made related to programming and the behavior management system, concerns remain that the lack of progress on others (particularly physical plant changes and case processing) will make it more difficult to achieve compliance with the agreement, particularly in terms of educational programming,
64

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 65 of 101
implementing individual case management plans, and limiting the use of isolation as a disciplinary tool.
At a minimum, the County should proceed to add at least some temporary classroom/program spaces that can be used for multiple activities (education, group counseling, skill development programs, etc.) and make changes on the housing units to create a calmer, more flexible, and more normative living environment. Youthful offenders respond to their surroundings, and the current facilities features add to, rather than reduce, the emotional arousal of youth.
Reporting compliance on the remaining conditions will reference one or both locations (Henley Young and RDC) as appropriate.
For any youthful prisoners in custody, the County must:
78. Develop and implement a screening, assessment and treatment program to ensure that youth with serious mental illness and disabilities, including developmental disabilities, receive appropriate programs, supports, education, and services.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young As noted in the prior report, youthful offenders are booked at RDC and then taken to Henley Young. A routine part of the admission process at Henley Young is administration of the MAYSI-II, an appropriate mental health screening tool for use with adolescents. A Case Manager is assigned to each youth and is in daily contact with their assigned youth, providing information and support to maintain appropriate family contact(s), interact with court staff, help link youth with external resources, and intervene to prevent behavioral problems. The counseling staff provides more on-going therapy and support and can help coordinate services with Hinds County Behavioral Health or other resources.
The two mental health clinicians follow up the initial assessment by conducting a more complete mental health assessment that covers a wide range of potential issues and utilizing a strengthbased assessment to help youth identify skills they already have that they can build on to be more successful in the future. Along with interviews, these assessments help the clinicians identify some individual areas/skills that youth can work on while in placement and form a foundation for a basic case plan. Mental health records include regular documentation of contact between the clinicians and youth and how they are doing relative to the goals they have developed as part of this case plan.
During the September 2018 site visit, the mental health expert also visited and toured HenleyYoung Juvenile Justice Center; met with Dr. Payne; reviewed the mental health policies and procedures Dr. Payne has developed and her new mental health program initiatives; and met with
65

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 66 of 101
several of the juveniles who were being detained there. This was done as a first step towards gaining an increased understanding of the nature and quality of the mental health services being provided to the juvenile population that fall under this agreement, all of whom are now being housed at Henley-Young.
During the visit it quickly became apparent that although Dr. Payne had been hired as a part-time psychologist to “run some therapy groups and perform some testing”, once she started at HenleyYoung and reviewed the consent decree, she realized that a lot of work had to be done to bring the mental health services program into compliance with the consent decree. She also realized that virtually all of the juvenile population that fall under this agreement, a population that has doubled in size since she has been at Henley-Young (while the remaining population at HenleyYoung who are there for only a couple weeks has decreased in size), suffer from some type of mental health difficulties (most often trauma-related mental health difficulties, with or without self-medication with street drugs) and are severely stressed by their situation (i.e., their current incarceration and the uncertainty about the outcome of their cases). Therefore, she undertook the task of updating mental health policies and procedures; refining the mental health section of the intake assessment process; adding more structure to the follow-up mental health assessment; working with the two existing QMHPs to clarify their roles and responsibilities, and provide a clearer theoretical underpinning for their work; fine tuning the suicide prevention program; developing additional therapeutic interventions that are specifically designed to meet the mental health needs of the population being served; and training and consulting with direct care staff and education staff so as to increase their understanding of mental health issues and develop a more comprehensive and cohesive response to the juveniles being served. She has also focused her attention on developing a more thoughtful and therapeutically appropriate way to deal with juveniles who are aging out of the facility; she has gotten the QMHPs involved in the juvenile due process hearings, which has resulted in a change of outcomes for those hearings and a resultant significant decrease in the placement of juveniles in segregation; and she has been exploring the possibility of making Henley-Young a placement option for doctoral level interns, which could allow for a further expansion of the mental health services provided at the facility. During this visit to Henley-Young, all of Dr. Payne’s above noted initiatives were reviewed by the mental health expert in some detail. In summary, the work that Dr. Payne has done in the short period of time she has been at Henley-Young (since about April 2018) has significantly improved the mental health program at the facility, making it the type of trauma-informed mental health services that attempts to build on the strengths of the juveniles placed there instead of only focusing on their weaknesses.
When asked about the feasibility of continuing to take on such a leadership role with regard to mental health services at Henley-Young given that she is only a part-time employee, Dr. Payne acknowledged that she can’t continue to do this. As noted above, she has however raised this with the county, and reportedly the county is considering whether or not she can be promoted to
66

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 67 of 101
something like a director of behavioral health at the facility on a full-time basis. When asked about psychiatric services at the facility, Dr. Payne noted that unlike her and the QMHPs, the psychiatrist is hired by and presumably reports to QCHC and not the county; he is at the facility for a very limited period of time, and so she hasn’t had much contact with him; and so integrating him into what she has been trying to do has not been possible.
The juveniles at the facility who were interviewed were all quite positive about Dr. Payne and how she has been working with them, and they were all quite positive about the two QMHPs. The juveniles were very much like Dr. Payne described them, in that they were struggling to cope with past traumas that they had endured, having difficulty regulating their mood, and stressed by their current situation. In summary, the information gleaned from those interviews indicates that Dr. Payne is moving the mental health services program at Henley-Young in the right direction. Through coordination by Dr. Payne, the Case Managers and mental health clinicians have begun developing and leading more psychoeducational programming, focusing on topics such as cognitive distortion, anger management, teamwork, emotional competence, setting goals, motivation, communication styles, and family dynamics. Credit should be given to the Case Managers and clinicians for their efforts to develop this programming, as all of these are appropriate topics to include in the overall treatment/programming for youth and represent positive movement toward meeting this provision of the agreement. If Dr. Payne had more time, she could provide more direction to ensure that these programs are delivered consistently, utilizing well-researched curriculum, and are integrated into other aspects of the mental health and behavior management system(s).
Concerns remain about the limited psychiatric time allotted to youth at Henley Young. The once-a-week short visit by Dr. Kumar is sufficient for at most a cursory review of medication issues but little else in the way of treatment and/or coordination with Dr. Payne.
In order to meet this provision of the agreement, it is recommended that (1) the psychologist time be increased to at least 1.0 FTE, and (2) greater attention be given by the mental health team as a whole to utilizing evidence-based curriculum where feasible to deliver the psychoeducational programming that has begun, and (3) additional psychiatric consultation time be allotted to Henley Young.
Non-Compliant at RDC The facility wide improvement in mental health screening, assessment, and treatment planning would apply to the youth in the facility as well. However, their charts were not reviewed by the mental health expert on this site visit. Medical review of the charts indicated that they were screened with 2-4 hours of their booking and seen in a timely manner for sick call. Other than improvements in identifying the mental health needs, there continues to be a lack of sufficient appropriate programs, supports, education, and services.
67

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 68 of 101
79. Ensure that youth receive adequate free appropriate education, including special education.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young Youthful offenders age 15 and under are assessed and integrated into the on-site education program provided by the Jackson Public Schools. While improvements have been made in that program in terms of meeting class time requirements, there is limited evidence of individualized programming. Youth are assessed using a Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) tool that identifies where youth are related to basic skills in core categories including reading, math, social studies, and other language skills. There is no evidence of identifying youth that already have been assessed for special education needs or have an existing Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) in the Jackson or other school system. Since it is likely that a portion of youth housed at Henley Young are in need of special education services, it will not be possible to meet this provision unless additional testing and coordination is done regarding special education needs.
At the time of the May visit the County had concluded that services and resources provided solely by the Jackson Public School system were not going to be sufficient to meet this requirement and they would be pursuing the option of developing an independent/charter program with assistance from the Center for Excellence in Education. As of the September visit there had been little discernible progress on this, and there was an initial concern expressed that the cost of developing the model recommended would be prohibitive.
As noted in the prior report, the new General Equivalency Degree (GED) program was just beginning. Youth 16 and 17 participate in that programming for two hours each afternoon. The attitude and interest shown on the part of the newly hired GED teacher is commendable, and she indicated that two or three of the youth had made sufficient progress in terms of skill development to be able to take the actual GED test in the near future. This is something that several youths stated as a goal, but it will require additional outreach to secure the services of a certified GED test administrator. Leadership at Henley Young is aware of this and indicates they are in the process of trying to find that appropriate service so that the youth who are ready to take their GED tests can do so before “aging out” of the facility. Unfortunately for these youth, while implementing the GED program is a good step forward, there is little other educational programming during the day.
The County should (1) continue to pursue the development of an alternative, independent/charter school program sited at Henley Young to better serve the educational needs of all youth, including youthful prisoners: (2) contract with a resource to provide certified GED testing services so youth who are ready/able to take the test(s) can do so; and (3) begin outreach to Hinds Community College or other resources to determine whether there are post-GED programs
68

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 69 of 101
that can be provided for the older youth at Henley Young (and coincidentally could be provided at RDC as well).
Non-Compliant at the Raymond Detention Center The program at RDC remains essentially the same as prior reports, with youth benefiting, albeit on a very limited basis, from the continued and generous support of a volunteer for Adult Basic Education (ABE) services. Youth have daily access to individualized instruction for relatively brief periods of time (e.g. 1-2 hours), but there remains no routine screening process (other than assessment related to ABE skills) to determine whether and what educational services a juvenile or youthful offender was engaged in prior to admission that would help determine what the appropriate, and often legally required, services should be for the youth while confined. While this is less of an issue given that “new” youth are not placed at RDC, there undoubtedly remain young adults (age 18-21) who need similar assessment and are perhaps legally eligible for specialized educational services.
80. Ensure that youth are properly separated by sight and sound from adult prisoners.
Full Compliance at Henley Young Since there are no adult prisoners placed at Henley Young, this provision is met. As JCA youth in placement at Henley Young turn 18, they will be transferred to RDC (although more recent interpretations of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act may permit those youth to remain at a juvenile facility pending conviction/sentencing).
Partial Compliance at the Raymond Detention Center As noted earlier, youthful prisoners have been moved to a smaller isolation unit in the A pod. This unit includes four cells, a dayroom, television, and tables. A staff member can sit on a chair in the doorway to the unit and provide direct supervision. Youth indicate they still do get outside for recreation on a regular basis and did not indicate they had any inadvertent/unsupervised contact with adult inmates (e.g. when taken to medical they were escorted and under constant supervision). Full compliance may be achieved once final policies/procedures are in place that clearly spells out procedures related to housing and movement of youthful prisoners.
81. Ensure that the Jail’s classification and housing assignment system does not merely place all youth in the same housing unit, without adequate separation based on classification standards. Instead, the system must take into account classification factors that differ even within the youth sub-class of prisoners. These factors include differences in age, dangerousness, likelihood of victimization, and sex/gender.
Partial Compliance at the Raymond Detention Center and Henley Young
69

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 70 of 101
In discussing housing decisions with staff it is apparent that they do take into consideration the factors indicated above, although formal documentation of that process is somewhat limited. They do have the benefit of having had prior experience with many of the youth, and it is a positive that they consider a youth’s vulnerability to others as an important factor to ensure a youth is safely placed. The bottom line is that while age and offense are factors, the key factor in which housing unit youth are placed is their behavior and vulnerability.
Note that as of the September visit, there were three girls in custody who were being tried as adults. These girls are placed on the general girls’ unit, which makes sense especially given the relatively small number of girls in custody in the juvenile system at a given time (most often none).
82. Train staff members assigned to supervise youth on the Jail’s youth-specific policies and procedures, as well as on age-appropriate supervision and treatment strategies. The County must ensure that such specialized training includes training on the supervision and treatment of youth, child and adolescent development, behavioral management, crisis intervention, conflict management, child abuse, juvenile rights, the juvenile justice system, youth suicide prevention and mental health, behavioral observation and reporting, gang intervention, and de-escalation.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young Progress continues related to training staff at Henley Young. Between the last site visit (May) and this visit, training sessions included: (1) updating certification for Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI) training that focuses on deescalating conflict and preventing injury to others; (2) refresher training related to suicide prevention and intervention; (3) refresher training on use of/administering the MAYSI screen; (4) initial detention officer certification training for new staff; and (5) training related to implementation of a modified behavioral management approach. A refresher course related to implementing PREA requirements is scheduled for October. The training officer appears to be committed and well-organized in terms of ensuring that staff is getting on-going training in these areas on a regular basis. However, note that many of these are considered “refreshers”, and it will be helpful going forward to expand the scope of training to include more training related to the impact of trauma on youth behavior, mental health issues facing youth, and effective observation of youth to prevent problems from occurring.
Non-Compliant at the Raymond Detention Center There has been no change at RDC related to staff training, again likely the result of viewing this as unnecessary as the number of JCA youth held declines. Other than again seeing Officer Tower working on the youthful prisoner unit, there appears to be no discernible effort to have particular staff appropriately trained and assigned to that unit. The incident of August 26 in which a youthful prisoner was assaulted by a staff member for failure to promptly turn over contraband
70

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 71 of 101
items is a stark example of how important it is to both continuously supervise that unit as well as have staff doing it that are properly trained for working with youth.
83. Specifically prohibit the use of segregation as a disciplinary sanction for youth. Segregation may be used on a youth only when the individual’s behavior threatens imminent harm to the youth or others. This provision is in addition to, and not a substitute, for the provisions of this Agreement that apply to the use of segregation in general. In addition:
a. Prior to using segregation, staff members must utilize less restrictive techniques such as verbal de-escalation and individual counseling, by qualified mental health or other staff trained on the management of youth.
b. Prior to placing a youth in segregation, or immediately thereafter, a staff member must explain to the youth the reasons for the segregation, and the fact that the youth will be released upon regaining self-control.
c. Youth may be placed in segregation only for the amount of time necessary for the individual to regain self-control and no longer pose an immediate threat. As soon as the youth’s behavior no longer threatens imminent harm to the youth or others, the County must release the individual back to their regular detention location, school or other programming.
d. If a youth is placed in segregation, the County must immediately provide one-on-one crisis intervention and observation.
e. The County must specifically document and record the use of segregation on youth as part of its incident reporting and quality assurance systems.
f. A Qualified Medical Professional, or staff member who has completed all training required for supervising youth, must directly monitor any youth in segregation at least every fifteen (15) minutes. Such observation must be documented immediately after each check.
g. Youth may not be held in segregation for a continuous period longer than one (1) hour during waking hours. If staff members conclude that a youth is not sufficiently calm to allow a break in segregation after one hour, they must contact a Qualified Mental Health Professional. The Qualified Mental Health Professional must assess the youth and determine whether the youth requires treatment or services not available in the Jail. If the youth requires mental health services that are not provided by the Jail, the Qualified Mental Health Provider must immediately notify the Jail Administrator and promptly arrange for hospitalization or other treatment services.
h. If a youth is held in segregation for a continuous period longer than two (2) hours, Staff Members must notify the Jail Administrator.
i. Any notifications or assessments required by this paragraph must be documented in the youth’s individual record.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young
71

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 72 of 101
The growing use of segregation as a disciplinary measure was noted as a strong concern in the last report filed for this agreement. Discussions at the time with Henley Young leadership included an emphasis on this particular component, and since that time steps have been taken to reduce, albeit not eliminate, the use of segregation.
Recall that policy and practice at Henley Young provides for three different types of isolation: (1) Behavior Management Isolation (BMI) for short periods of time as a “cooling off” or shortterm consequence1; (2) Administrative Isolation in which there is a supervisory decision to keep a youth in their cell pending a due process hearing; and (3) Due Process Isolation2 that permits the use of segregation as discipline for up to 72 hours following a Disciplinary/Due Process hearing3. The use of Due Process or Administrative Isolation for an extended period of time is in contradiction to the DOJ Settlement Agreement that defines segregation as: “24. …….involuntary confinement in a locked room or cell with two or fewer prisoners, for at least the majority of waking hours per day…..”4 and is not consistent with the Henley Young/Southern Poverty Law Center Settlement Agreement (note that Provision 6.2 limits the use of isolation for discipline to not more than 24 hours).
Along with changes in the behavior management system, greater involvement in problemsolving behavior problems by members of the mental health team, and an increase in programming Henley Young has taken additional steps to reduce the use of extended room confinement as discipline, including: (1) implementing a “step” process to engage case managers and other team members to help problem-solve behavioral issues rather than revert to extended room confinement; (2) shorten the maximum length of room confinement time following a due process hearing (to 24 hour maximum); (3) and allow youth on disciplinary isolation to participate, if they choose to do so, in school/GED and other psychoeducational programming.
The results of the latter two of these changes may be evidenced by a decline in the use (duration and frequency) of room confinement following a due process hearing. According to records provided, in June there were 15 instances of due process isolation of at least 24 hours, with many of them being 48 or 72 hours. In July that number was reduced to 8 occurrences, although again many up to 72 hours. In August, the number was further reduced to 7 instances with one being 20 hours and six being 24 hours. This progress has not been made without some concerns being expressed by leadership as to whether and how this will work in the long run in terms of being able to safely manage the facility, as it is difficult to “take away” what has been perceived as a behavioral tool without replacing it with something more effective. In this case, as the new
1 Henley Young Policies and Procedures, 3.C.8. 2 Henley Young Policies and Procedures, 3.C.7. 3 Henley Young Policies and Procedures, 3.C.2. 4 Settlement Agreement, Page 8.
72

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 73 of 101
behavior management system and intervention process take hold, credit goes to Mr. Burnside, Mr. Dorsey, Dr. Payne, and others for trying to make this challenging transition. The next site visit will provide an opportunity to evaluate progress toward full compliance with this provision of the agreement.
That said, limitations of the physical space, the limited psychologist time, the lack of appropriate educational programming, and other things that have been raised as concerns in this and prior reports will continue to pose a barrier to success.
Related to documentation, improvements can be made in tracking observation of youth during confinement and providing ready documentation of contact by clinicians and case managers with youth while confined. Unfortunately, the only place that clinician contact with youth while in confinement is documented is in the clinicians’ records, and both clinicians were out of the facility during the site visit. The clinicians should make a note of the time they observe/check on the youth on the same observation form that the staff use to document the time they check on the youth. That form then is filed in the youths’ record.
A simple recommendation to help ensure compliance is to have clinicians and case managers document contact with youth in isolation on the same observation form that is used by line staff. Supervisors should ensure that staff observation logs are completed appropriately and accurately by having supervisors more closely review the logs when they are filed. There are still too many instances in which the period checks are listed in exact 15 minute increments, and that simply challenges the credibility of their accuracy. Supervisors should also ensure that all use of isolation that exceeds one hour (a previous report recommended one hour) should be documented on a centralized isolation log that includes the type of isolation, the duration, the staff member(s) directing the segregation, and provides information to link it to a related incident report. If need be, support from county IT staff may be needed to set up a system to track this that is efficient yet provides a level of quality assurance oversight to help move toward compliance.
Non-Compliant at the Raymond Detention Center There has been no change at RDC related to this requirement. As noted in an earlier report: “…There remains no evidence of sufficient policies/procedures or documentation related to the use of room confinement or other forms of isolation/segregation for youth...”. On observation logs (again, note concerns that the youth unit has not been under constant supervision) it is not uncommon for a youth to be listed as “sleeping in room” or “in room” for substantial periods of time during what would be considered “waking hours”, and the staff explanation is that the youth
73

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 74 of 101
is voluntarily in their room. Youth do not report being confined for long periods of time but there is no way to realistically confirm compliance with the segregation requirements at RDC.
84. Develop and implement a behavioral treatment program appropriate for youth. This program must be developed with the assistance of a qualified consultant who has at least five years of experience developing behavioral programs for institutionalized youth. The Jail’s behavioral program must include all of the following elements:
a. The behavioral program must include positive incentives for changing youth behavior, outline prohibited behaviors, and describe the consequences for prohibited behaviors.
b. An individualized program must be developed by a youth’s interdisciplinary treatment team, and properly documented in each youth’s personal file. Documentation requirements must include the collection of data required for proper assessment and treatment of youth with behavioral issues. For instance, the County must track the frequency and duration of positive incentives, segregation, and targeted behaviors.
c. The program must include safeguards and prohibitions on the inappropriate use of restraints, segregation, and corporal punishment.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young At the time of this site visit, Henley Young was in the first week of implementing an updated/revised behavior management point system and had developed a more proactive graduated response to behavior problems. Both of these represent steps forward in improving the overall behavior management system and appear to have benefitted from some technical assistance by Leonard Dixon, the Henley Young monitor associated with the SPLC/County consent decree.
In particular, the prior point system was modified to work on a weekly basis (vs. daily) and clarified expectations related to school and/or recreation participation. Additionally, a broader “menu” of privileges/incentives was developed so the nature of incentives is more clear and provide for youth making a choice related to what would be reinforcing to them. Certain things like opportunities for visitation or family contact should be viewed more as “rights” than privileges to be earned and should only be restricted if/when there are problems with that specific issue. Nonetheless, the change is a step forward and will provide an opportunity to assess the value of changes at the time of the next visit in January 2019.
As the new point system evolves, there are several improvements that can be phased in: (1) add an individual weekly goal identified by the youth and case manager – something that is unique to the case plan for that youth and focuses on a particular pro-social skill or behavior and includes a specific incentive/reward that can be implemented for that youth; (2) work with youth to identify
74

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 75 of 101
additional incentives that they would like to see included as rewards for achievement; and (3) implement an additional “coupon” or token reward program in which staff can reward “kids doing good”, focusing particularly on new and/improved behaviors that contribute to the overall welfare and safety of the group. Each of these are no-cost/low-cost steps that can engage members of the mental health and staff teams in collaborating with youth to identify and reinforce skill development, allow for some individualization of the system, and create more opportunities for positive staff-youth interaction(s).
Related to dealing with behavioral problems, a positive step forward is the development of a response protocol that reduces the likelihood of extended room confinement as a disciplinary measure by engaging case managers and other mental health staff on a routine basis to “problem solve” issues as they occur. This process also was in its formative stages at the time of the site visit, but essentially it “slows down” and breaks up what had been an unproductive cycle of responses to misbehavior and emphasizes short-time (e.g. 2 hours, 4 hours) confinement as a response when possible.
While using an appropriate incentive tool (as referenced above) is an important component of the behavior management program, it is the combination of good staff training and supervision, keeping youth actively engaged throughout most of the waking hours in constructive and prosocial activities, utilizing the expertise of mental health staff to address youth’s mental health needs, and developing preventive and proactive responses to youth’s misbehavior that help teach and allow youth to practice new and improved behaviors. Equally important, creating an integrated approach to behavior management built upon positive staff-youth relationships helps ensure a safe environment for youth and staff.
The Agreement requires the County to obtain the services of a qualified consultant to help them to develop a more effective and comprehensive behavior management system. It appears that to some degree they have utilized Mr. Dixon on an interim basis for some positive suggestions, but long-term success will still likely require more substantive technical assistance and support. To their credit, Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Burnside recognize the challenges they are facing and seem committed to making continued progress. However, given the temporary absence of Mr. McDaniels in the Executive Director role, they find themselves again juggling additional duties with limited time to deal with some of these issues. Providing added support through a consultant and exposing them to programs that have been successful in developing successful behavior management programs will be beneficial. For purposes of this report, however, it is arguably appropriate to defer taking that step until progress with the new changes can be evaluated.
Note that this provision requires extensive documentation related to behavior, incentives, and segregation. There is a system in place to track the use of room confinement/isolation as a
75

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 76 of 101
disciplinary tool, but there will be a need to further assess whether other components in this requirement are routinely captured. It can be fairly cumbersome to try to track all the details required, so additional assessment and support can be provided at the time of the next site visit.
Non-Compliant at the Raymond Detention Center As with other components of the agreement, there has been no movement toward the development of a behavior management program at RDC. There remains no evidence of a consistent set of expectations, incentives to meet those expectations, and/or consistency in how staff view expected behaviors. As the number of youth declines at RDC, it actually could become easier to implement a rudimentary behavior/incentive system, but there is no indication leadership is considering doing so. As with other aspects of this agreement, the best way to meet this requirement will be to close the youthful prisoner unit at RDC and house all youthful offenders at Henley Young.
LAWFUL BASIS FOR DETENTION
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners are processed through the criminal justice system in a manner that respects their liberty interests. To that end:
85. The County will not accept or continue to house prisoners in the Jail without appropriate, completed paperwork such as an affidavit, arrest warrant, detention hold, or judge’s written detention order. Examples of inadequate paperwork include but are not limited to undated or unsigned court orders, warrants, and affidavits; documents memorializing oral instructions from court officers that are undated, unsigned, or otherwise fail to identify responsible individuals and the legal basis for continued detention or release; incomplete arresting police officer documents; and any other paperwork that does not establish a lawful basis for detention.
Partial Compliance There are still no adopted policies and procedures in this area although it is reported that a draft is close to completion. From reviewing the paper files, JMS entries and the court data base that can be accessed, there appears to be improvement in this area. There are four staff members who review various types of cases to track and investigate the basis for detention. This has resulted in significant improvement in the accuracy of the records. There continue to be some files that don’t support continued detention and, as a result, individuals who are detained longer than they should be. In some cases, this is because of poor record keeping. However, these are now more likely to be a result of confusing court orders, unclear legal issues, and systemic failures. It is incumbent on staff to seek guidance when there are unclear court orders and legal issues and develop systems to identify individuals lost in the system. Jail staff is working with Karen Albert, a consultant with the monitoring team, to standardize and improve practices in this area
76

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 77 of 101
and develop policies and procedures reflecting the new practices. There are several situations that occur fairly commonly. Some individuals continue to be held beyond 21 days waiting for a probation violation determination. There is no way to run this report out of the JMS system because the term probation is used for several different situations so it has to be manually tracked. There were two individuals identified who had stayed beyond the 21 days. One legal issue to be resolved is whether the individual is to be released if the hearing is not held within the 21 days even if a hearing is scheduled not long after the 21 days has run. There also appears to be a communication issue with the court for getting probation related orders in a timely fashion. There continues to be an issue with holds. The records office does not always get notice of holds if they come in after booking. They also have individuals detained on holds after the probation time has passed without determining whether the other agency wants the individual. Another recurring situation is that there is not a way to identify people in the Jail who are waiting for a preliminary hearing. Individuals who do not have an attorney have no one to request a preliminary hearing. These individuals currently get lost in the system and some stay long periods of time in the jail. There continue to be individuals detained beyond 90 days without indictment. As noted above only three of the 16 youth at HY have been indicted and one of the youths being tried as an adult has been confined 321 days without indictment. Staff is working with the courts and the District Attorney to try to resolve this issue. It appears that staff is maintaining an accurate list of unindicted individuals. This also cannot be run accurately out of the JMS system. Several new orders appeared during this site visit remanding charges but ordering the defendant to continue to be detained until a chancery court hearing and transfer to the state hospital. The legality of these orders needs to be determined.
86. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees in contravention of the protections of the United States Constitution as set forth and discussed in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) and Cassibry v. State, 453 So.2d 1298 (Miss. 1984). The County must develop and implement policies consistent with the applicable federal law and the terms of this Agreement.
Partial Compliance At the time of the site visit there were four individuals who were or had recently been held for failure to pay fines and fees without a legal court order. The absence of policies and procedures on this issue contributes to the risk of this continuing to arise after it appeared to be resolved. Although the orders in these cases do not appear ambiguous, a procedure that includes contacting the Sheriff’s attorney would ensure that the staff has an avenue for getting a legal interpretation of the court orders when they are unsure whether they meet the legal requirements or not.
87. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees absent (a) documentation demonstrating that a meaningful analysis of that person’s ability to pay was conducted by the sentencing court prior to the imposition of any sentence, and (b) written
77

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 78 of 101
findings by the sentencing court setting forth the basis for a finding that the failure to pay the subject fines or fees was willful. At a minimum, the County must confirm receipt from the sentencing court of a signed “Order” issued by the sentencing court setting forth in detail the basis for a finding that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful.
Partial Compliance The County has been pro-active in ensuring that valid court orders are utilized. The County sponsored a training session on the new rules as related to orders on fines and fees. This is to be commended. This requirement is carried as partial compliance in that policies and procedures do not exist that implement a process to address non-compliant orders.
88. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a person for failure to pay fines or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and any other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and must obtain a copy to justify continued detention of the prisoner. After 48 hours, that prisoner must be released promptly if the Jail staff cannot obtain the necessary documentation to verify that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful, and that person is incarcerated only for the failure to pay fines or fees.
Partial Compliance See response to number 87 above.
89. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a prisoner for failure to pay fines or fees, and if that person is incarcerated for other conviction(s) or charge(s), other than the failure to pay fines and/or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and to ascertain the prisoner’s length of sentence. If Jail staff cannot obtain a copy of the necessary documentation within 48 hours of the prisoner’s incarceration, Jail staff must promptly arrange for the prisoner’s transport to the sentencing court so that the court may conduct a legally sufficient hearing and provide any required documentation, including the fines or fees owed by the prisoner, and an assessment of the prisoner’s ability to pay and willfulness (or lack thereof) in failing to pay fines or fees.
Partial Compliance See response to number 87 above.
90. Jail staff must maintain the records necessary to determine the amount of time a person must serve to pay off any properly ordered fines or fees. To the extent that a sentencing court does not specifically calculate the term of imprisonment to be served, the Jail must obtain the necessary information within 24 hours of a prisoner’s incarceration. Within 48 hours of incarceration, each
78

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 79 of 101
prisoner shall be provided with documentation setting forth clearly the term of imprisonment and the calculation used to determine the term of imprisonment.
Partial Compliance The WC continues to maintain a spreadsheet. There are some individuals who have a sentence of confinement. Some of these individuals show fines and fees but with the notation of a payment plan in effect. This signifies that they will be released after the sentence of confinement. The Monitor will continue to track these entries to ensure that individuals are released after the confinement period. There was no documentation that prisoners were provided with documentation of their release date although they do typically have the orders from the court. The new non-compliant orders do not use the same daily amount for working off fines and fees. If the Jail at some point receives a valid court order on fines and fees in that the ability to pay has been adjudicated, the jail should work with the courts to utilize a uniform daily rate.
91. No pre-trial detainee or sentenced prisoner incarcerated by the County solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be required to perform physical labor. Nor shall any such detainee or prisoner receive any penalty or other adverse consequence for failing to perform such labor, including differential credit toward sentences. Any physical labor by pre-trial detainees or by prisoners incarcerated solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be performed on a voluntary basis only, and the County shall not in any way coerce such pre-trial detainees or prisoners to perform physical labor.
Non-Compliant This has become a limited issue now that virtually no individuals are working off fines and fees. As reported recently, the recent standard practice at the WC is to give half the amount of credit towards fines and fees for individuals who do not perform physical labor. This includes individuals who cannot perform physical labor because of a medical or mental health condition. The most recent stated practice was to determine the amount of credit on a case by case basis. There needs to be a written policy requiring that individuals who cannot work because of a medical or mental health condition or other disability receive full credit towards fines and fees.
92. The County must ensure that the Jail timely releases from custody all individuals entitled to release. At minimum:
a. Prisoners are entitled to release if there is no legal basis for their continued detention. Such release must occur no later than 11:59 PM on the day that a prisoner is entitled to be released.
b. Prisoners must be presumed entitled to release from detention if there is a court order that specifies an applicable release date, or Jail records document no reasonable legal basis for the continued detention of a prisoner.
c. Examples of prisoners presumptively entitled to release include:
79

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 80 of 101
i. Individuals who have completed their sentences; ii. Individuals who have been acquitted of all charges after trial; iii. Individuals whose charges have been dismissed; iv. Individuals who are ordered released by a court order; and v. Individuals detained by a law enforcement agency that then fails to
promptly provide constitutionally adequate, documented justification for an individual’s continued detention.
Partial Compliance See response to number 85.
93. The County must develop and implement a reliable, complete, and adequate prisoner records system to ensure that staff members can readily determine the basis for a prisoner’s detention, when a prisoner may need to be released, and whether a prisoner should remain in detention. The records system must provide Jail staff with reasonable advance notice prior to an anticipated release date so that they can contact appropriate agencies to determine whether a prisoner should be released or remain in detention.
Partial Compliance There is still no known process to electronically check for adequate documentation for detention and identify those that should be released. The Jail still relies on inmate requests and grievances to identify people who are being over detained. In addition to Booking staff, there are four individuals tracking the lawful basis of detention. They are all four using separate spreadsheets and lists which as noted above do not match reports run from the JMS system. There continues to be a lack of specified procedures to check all law enforcement and court documents. Jail staff do not have access to the county court data base or the updated circuit court data base which would allow them to improve the accuracy of their records.
94. Jail record systems must accurately identify and track all prisoners with serious mental illness, including their housing assignment and security incident histories. Jail staff must develop and use records about prisoners with serious mental illness to more accurately and efficiently process prisoners requiring forensic evaluations or transport to mental hospitals or other treatment facilities, and to improve individual treatment, supervision, and community transition planning for prisoners with serious mental illness. Records about prisoners with serious mental illness must be incorporated into the Jail’s incident reporting, investigations, and medical quality assurance systems. The County must provide an accurate census of the Jail’s mental health population as part of its compliance reporting obligations, and the County must address this data when assessing staffing, program, or resource needs.
80

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 81 of 101
Non-Compliant There has been enormous progress with regard to QCHC’s tracking of individuals with mental illness. As noted in Section 42, prisoners on the mental health case load now have complete medical records that document their mental health evaluation, their treatment plan, and their therapeutic sessions and any indicated follow-up evaluations. There is also a ‘mental health tracking log’ that tracks all prisoners on the mental health caseload. Therefore, the collection of data and the development of an information base for quality assessment has begun to fall into place, at least with regard to mental health evaluation and treatment services.
The mental health team is now in a position to begin to develop a quality assessment program. Initially, the data now being collected can be used to assess compliance with mental health policies and procedures. Once treatment plan reviews are initiated, that will be a first step towards the assessment of the actual quality of the services provided. However, additional approaches to the assessment of the actual quality of the services provided will need to be developed.
There are other mental health functions that overlap with those of other staff, such as disciplinary review, segregation review, classification and PREA; policies and procedures for these overlapping mental health functions are currently being developed; and so for the most part, mental health staff members have not even begun to perform these functions. However, once these policies and procedures are developed and mental health staff members begin to assume these responsibilities, it will be important to rigorously collect data on these functions as well. Here too, data collection and analysis will initially focus on compliance with policy and procedures. However ultimately, there should be an assessment of the quality of the work. Therefore, data collection should not only include the findings of mental health evaluations, the timeliness of the evaluations, and the recommendations made to security or other staff, but also include data such as the extent to which recommendations were accepted or rejected, and reasonable measures of outcome (both short and long-term consequences of accepting or rejecting recommendations).
Although QCHC’s progress in this area is significant, at present, there is no specific plan for incorporating records about prisoners with serious mental illness into the jail’s record system or incident reporting and investigations, and this part of this provision requires further exploration. The involvement of mental health with regard to the use of force is described in section 51.
95. All individuals who (i) were found not guilty, were acquitted, or had charges brought against them dismissed, and (ii) are not being held on any other matter, must be released directly from the court unless the court directs otherwise. Additionally:
a. Such individuals must not be handcuffed, shackled, chained with other prisoners, transported back to the Jail, forced to submit to bodily strip searches, or returned to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
81

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 82 of 101
b. Notwithstanding (a), above, individuals may request to be transported back to the Jail solely for the purpose of routine processing for release. If the County decides to allow such transport, the County must ensure that Jail policies and procedures govern the process. At minimum, policies and procedures must prohibit staff from: i. Requiring the individual to submit to bodily strip searches; ii. Requiring the individual to change into Jail clothing if the individual is not already in such clothing; and iii. Returning the individual to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
Non-Compliant Individuals are not being released from the Court at this time.
96. The County must develop, implement, and maintain policies and procedures to govern the release of prisoners. These policies and procedures must:
a. Describe all documents and records that must be collected and maintained in Jail files for determining the basis of a prisoner’s detention, the prisoner’s anticipated release date, and their status in the criminal justice system.
b. Specifically detail procedures to ensure timely release of prisoners entitled to be released, and procedures to prevent accidental release.
c. Be developed in consultation with court administrators, the District Attorney’s Office, and representatives of the defense bar.
d. Include mechanisms for notifying community mental health providers, including the County’s Program of Assertive Community Treatment (“PACT”) team, when releasing a prisoner with serious mental illness so that the prisoner can transition safely back to the community. These mechanisms must include providing such prisoners with appointment information and a supply of their prescribed medications to bridge the time period from release until their appointment with the County PACT team, or other community provider.
Non-Compliant In the initial Policies and Procedures that were adopted there are two policies that may relate to this requirement-the policy on records and the policy on booking which includes some requirements related to release. These policies do not have the specificity or the breadth required by this paragraph. These policies as with the others have been stalled. The current practices, as described above, do not meet the requirements of this paragraph. Although improved, there still are inmate files which do not include documentation establishing the basis for detention. Neither the DA’s office nor the defense bar has been involved in the drafting. The level of specificity required by this paragraph will require significant revision of the policy. The policies and
82

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 83 of 101
procedures now being drafted with Karen Albert should enable compliance with a and b of this paragraph.
A primary focus of subsection (d) is the successful referral of prisoners with mental health difficulties to community mental health services upon their release from the facility. As was noted in the report of the May 2018 site visit, there are a range of community-based services provided by Hinds County Behavioral Health that could be made available to prisoners upon their release from the facility (see section 96 of the May 2018 site visit report).
A discharge planner has been in place for the last two visits. Soon after the intake process is completed, Nurse Meyer sees the new inmates. She obtains a current address and telephone number which she shares with Hinds County Behavioral Health. She provides the inmates with information and services that are available to them upon their release. After their release, she sends a post card and calls them on three separate occasions to pick up their medication. This process started in July 2018. The post card informs the inmate that the medication will be held at RDC for seven days post release. Since the new process was initiated in July 2018, out of 25 inmates contacted, only three inmates have returned to obtain their medication. Some inmates were previously receiving services in Region 8. However, even after appointments were made for them, none of the inmates were compliant with their appointments.
The discharge planner has also coordinated with Mercy House, which is a substance abuse center. However, only 3-4 inmates have been accepted due to their convictions. She has also referred inmates to Jackson Hinds Comprehensive Clinic which is a clinic for low income individuals, the Health Department, and Dental services.
Because of the poor record of follow-up with community-based services, the mental health expert scheduled a joint meeting with the mental health coordinator, senior staff of QCHC, the facility’s discharge planner, and senior staff of Hinds Behavioral Health. There were three objectives for the meeting, which were (1) generally facilitate a closer working relationship between the facility and Hinds Behavioral Health, (2) assure that staff at the facility were well aware of wide range of services that Hinds Behavioral Health offered, and (3) explore ways for significantly increasing the rate of successful referrals to Hinds Behavioral Health (i.e., referrals that actually result in the released prisoner obtaining community-based, outpatient treatment). All three of these objectives were met.
Of particular interest was the joint discussion of what might be done to increase the rate of successful referrals. A broad range of approaches were discussed including, for example, focusing interventions during the period of incarceration on stabilizing the prisoner and preparing the prisoner for follow-up outpatient treatment through the increased use of psychoeducation and discharge planning groups; better informing prisoners about the availability
83

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 84 of 101
of walk-in assessment services at Hinds Behavioral Health, which would be particularly helpful for prisoners who were unexpectantly released right from court; and bringing staff from Hinds Behavioral Health into the facility in order for prisoners who might be released to meet those staff persons, with the hope that that would increase the likelihood that prisoners would feel comfortable about going to Hinds Behavioral Health upon release from the facility. The feasibility of various options was also discussed. Then in addition, and most importantly, plans were made to continue discussions, further explore options, and develop actual plans for implementation.
There are issues that have complicated discharge planning and the successful referral of prisoners for community-based outpatient services. These issues include, for example, the uncertainty of a release date, and the fact that prisoners might be released directly from court without returning to the facility. Complications such as these were also discussed during this most recent joint meeting, and options for addressing such complications were also explored. This discussion made it all the more clear that in order to increase the rate of successful referrals for follow-up, outpatient treatment, and eliminate gaps in services (including the elimination of any period of time when a prisoner was without medication) discharge planning efforts have to be initiated virtually from the time that a prisoner enters the facility and discharge plans may have to include what happens under various different release scenarios.
97. The County must develop, implement, and maintain appropriate post orders relating to the timely release of individuals. Any post orders must:
a. Contain up-to-date contact information for court liaisons, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Public Defender’s Office;
b. Describe a process for obtaining higher level supervisor assistance in the event the officer responsible for processing releases encounters administrative difficulties in determining a prisoner’s release eligibility or needs urgent assistance in reaching officials from other agencies who have information relevant to a prisoner’s release status.
Non-Compliant The County has not yet developed post orders in this area.
98. Nothing in this Agreement precludes appropriate verification of a prisoner’s eligibility for release, including checks for detention holds by outside law enforcement agencies and procedures to confirm the authenticity of release orders. Before releasing a prisoner entitled to release, but no later than the day release is ordered, Jail staff should check the National Crime Information Center or other law enforcement databases to determine if there may be a basis for continued detention of the prisoner. The results of release verification checks must be fully documented in prisoner records.
84

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 85 of 101
Partial Compliance The Booking staff reportedly now runs an NCIC check at the time of booking and again at release. NCIC reports run at the time of booking are in the inmate files. Documentation of NCIC reports at the time of release will be reviewed at the next site visit.
99. The County must ensure that the release process is adequately staffed by qualified detention officers and supervisors. To that end, the County must:
a. Ensure that sufficient qualified staff members, with access to prisoner records and to the Jail’s e-mail account for receiving court orders, are available to receive and effectuate court release orders twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
b. Ensure that staff members responsible for the prisoner release process and related records have the knowledge, skills, training, experience, and abilities to implement the Jail’s release policies and procedures. At minimum, the County must provide relevant staff members with specific pre-service and annual inservice training related to prisoner records, the criminal justice process, legal terms, and release procedures. The training must include instruction on: i. How to process release orders for each court, and whom to contact if a question arises; ii. What to do if the equipment for contacting other agencies, such as the Jail’s fax machine or email service, malfunctions, or communication is otherwise disrupted; iii. Various types of court dispositions, and the language typically used therein, to ensure staff members understand the meaning of court orders; and iv. How and when to check for detainers to ensure that an individual may be released from court after she or he is found not guilty, is acquitted, or has the charges brought against her or him dismissed.
c. Provide detention staff with sufficient clerical support to prevent backlogs in the filing of prisoner records.
Non-Compliant Staffing in the Booking area continues to be unbalanced. While there is routinely only one officer in the holding cell area (where two should be on duty at all times), there are two, three or more Booking Clerks on duty in the office area. Considering the fact that only 14 people are booked on a typical day, this misallocation of manpower should be addressed. When an average of just over one person is booked every two hours, it seems apparent that the number of personnel assigned to the office environment is excessive.
85

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 86 of 101
100. The County must annually review its prisoner release and detention process to ensure that it complies with any changes in federal law, such as the constitutional standard for civil or pretrial detention.
Non-Compliant At the time of the site visit, there had not been an initial review of this process to determine consistency with federal law.
101. The County must ensure that the Jail’s record-keeping and quality assurance policies and procedures allow both internal and external audit of the Jail’s release process, prisoner lengths of stay, and identification of prisoners who have been held for unreasonably long periods without charges or other legal process. The County must, at minimum, require:
a. A Jail log that documents (i) the date each prisoner was entitled to release; (ii) the date, time, and manner by which the Jail received any relevant court order; (iii) the date and time that prisoner was in fact released; (iv) the time that elapsed between receipt of the court order and release; (v) the date and time when information was received requiring the detention or continued detention of a prisoner (e.g., immigration holds or other detainers), and (vi) the identity of the authority requesting the detention or continued detention of a prisoner.
b. Completion of an incident report, and appropriate follow-up investigation and administrative review, if an individual is held in custody past 11:59 PM on the day that she or he is entitled to release. The incident report must document the reason(s) for the error. The incident report must be submitted to the Jail Administrator no later than one calendar day after the error was discovered.
Non-Compliant The record keeping process does not at this time allow for an audit other than a review of individual files. The County has provided their list of releases but the list does not include the information required by subparagraph a. Incident reports are not prepared for errors in releasing.
102. The County must appoint a staff member to serve as a Quality Control Officer with responsibility for internal auditing and monitoring of the release process. This Quality Control Officer will be responsible for helping prevent errors with the release process, and the individual’s duties will include tracking releases to ensure that staff members are completing all required paper work and checks. If the Quality Control Officer determines that an error has been made, the individual must have the authority to take corrective action, including the authority to immediately contact the Jail Administrator or other County official with authority to order a prisoner’s release. The Quality Control Officer’s duties also include providing data and reports so that release errors are incorporated into the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance process.
86

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 87 of 101
Partial Compliance The Jail now has an individual whose title is Qualify Control Officer. At the present time, his work is primarily reactive. When an individual is brought to his attention, he researches the situation and takes corrective action. He does not track releases or prevent errors in the releasing process. He maintains a spreadsheet that includes release errors that he has addressed, but he does not at the present time collect and report on releasing errors. His work is not incorporated into a continuous improvement and quality assurance process. At the time of the site visit, the Quality Control Officer had completed a limited proactive review of several records and identified individuals whose JMS record did not adequately identify the basis for detention. Incorporating this practice into a standard procedure would help to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
Another individual serves as a court liaison with the lower courts. She also attempts to identify individuals entitled to release. Like the Quality Control Officer, she operates independently of the booking and release process and maintains her own spreadsheets. There still is no systemic approach to ensuring proper detention and release processes are being developed. This is being addressed by the monitoring team consultant in this area.
103. The County must require investigation of all incidents relating to timely or erroneous prisoner release within seven calendar days by appropriate investigators, supervisors, and the Jail Administrator. The Jail Administrator must document any deficiencies found and any corrective action taken. The Jail Administrator must then make any necessary changes to Jail policies and procedures. Such changes should be made, if appropriate, in consultation with court personnel, the District Attorney’s Office, members of the defense bar, and any other law enforcement agencies involved in untimely or erroneous prisoner releases.
Non-Compliant Incident reports are not routinely created for untimely or erroneous prisoner release or any investigations of such incidents. The Quality Control Officer did investigate and report on an allegedly erroneous release at the time of the last site visit. There have been untimely releases and at least one additional alleged erroneous release that have not been investigated and reported.
104. The County must conduct bi-annual audits of release policies, procedures, and practices. As part of each audit, the County must make any necessary changes to ensure that individuals are being released in a timely manner. The audits must review all data collected regarding timely release, including any incident reports or Quality Control audits referenced in Paragraph 102 above. The County must document the audits and recommendations and must submit all documentation to the Monitor and the United States for review.
87

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 88 of 101
Non-Compliant There has not been an initial audit of releasing practices. There are no incident reports regarding untimely releases even though such incidents have occurred.
105. The County must ensure that policies, procedures, and practices allow for reasonable attorney visitation, which should be treated as a safeguard to prevent the unlawful detention of citizens and for helping to ensure the efficient functioning of the County’s criminal justice system. The Jail’s attorney visitation process must provide sufficient space for attorneys to meet with their clients in a confidential setting and must include scheduling procedures to ensure that defense attorneys can meet with their clients for reasonable lengths of time and without undue delay. An incident report must be completed if Jail staff are unable to transport a prisoner to meet with their attorney, or if there is a delay of more than 30 minutes for transporting a prisoner for a scheduled attorney visit.
Non-Compliant At the JDC and the WC it appears that there is adequate space, and enough staff available, to support timely attorney/client visits. At the RDC the designated space for these visits is near the front of the jail, which means that inmates must be escorted by staff nearly the full length of the facility. Considering the critical shortage of officers, it is difficult to deliver inmates in a timely fashion. The original design of the jail called for attorneys to go to visitation rooms in the A, B and C Pods, but that practice halted years ago because those rooms are isolated and difficult to supervise. As has been suggested in the Third, Fourth and Fifth Monitoring Reports, the DSD should take advantage of unused video visitation space in front of the control room officer’s station in the A, B and C Pods and repurpose it as attorney/client visitation rooms. With very little effort, and almost no expense, they can be easily transformed into secure rooms that meet the needs of the facility.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
The County must develop an effective system for identifying and self-correcting systemic violations of prisoner’s constitutional rights. To that end, the County must:
106. Develop and maintain a database and computerized tracking system to monitor all reportable incidents, uses of force, and grievances. This tracking system will serve as the repository of information used for continuing improvement and quality assurance reports.
Non-Compliant The County is making progress towards computerized incident and other reports as well as the development of manually created summary reports. However, at the present time there is no computerized tracking system. As a result, reports can’t be aggregated by location, type, persons
88

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 89 of 101
involved, etc. It is reported that the Sheriff’s office is working with the JMS vendor to see if this can be accomplished. There continues to be a concern because of the lack of reports or the small number of reports that some incidents, uses of force and grievances are underreported including late releases, lost money and property, and medical grievances. At least one incident involving use of force was reported by inmates but as of the next day the report could not be located in the system. The medical transport list also indicates visits to the ER for assault injuries where incident reports were not provided to the monitoring team. When provided, at least one of those incidents involving an inmate assault had a report for the medical transport but not the underlying incident. The manually created summary report for inmate assaults at RDC has not been consistent with a review of the actual incident reports, investigation reports and medical transport logs. For example, in July, the summary report said there were 5 inmate assaults when it appears from the underlying records that there were 14.
The new computerized grievance system does not allow for the compilation of a useful summary grievance report. Currently, this is not possible for several reasons. The reporting functions of the system are either problematic or not adequately conveyed to staff. Staff reported that they could not generate reports with identified parameters. If the prisoner replies via the kiosk in any fashion to the grievance response, that is then automatically converted to an appeal which inaccurately reflects the number of appeals. The system needs to be able to generate accurate reports.
107. Compile an Incident Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Incident Summary Reports must compile and summarize incident report data in order to identify trends such as rates of incidents in general, by housing unit, by day of the week and date, by shift, and by individual prisoners or staff members. The Incident Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Brief summary of all reportable incidents, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. Description of all suicides and deaths, including the date, name of prisoner, housing
unit, and location where the prisoner died (including name of hospital if prisoner died off-site); c. The names and number of prisoners placed in emergency restraints, and segregation, and the frequency and duration of such placements; d. List and total number of incident reports received during the reporting period; e. List and Total number of incidents referred to IAD or other law enforcement agencies for investigation.
Non-Compliant The County provided a monthly report of incidents in the three facilities. Although the information was helpful, it did not meet the requirements of this paragraph. Also, in reviewing the incident reports provided as compared to the summary reports, the summary reports for RDC
89

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 90 of 101
did not account for all of the inmate assault incidents that appear in the incident and investigation reports. At the present time, the manual report for RDC does not appear to be accurate. As mentioned above the IT department is working on a computerized report that should allow for a summary report to be generated electronically. This should improve the accuracy of the summary report and better facilitate identifying problem areas. Because they are manually compiled, it is difficult to identify trends over time. Even then, it will be essential to determine that reports are being submitted when they should be such that an accurate summary report can be generated.
108. Compile a Use of Force Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Use of Force Summary Reports must compile and summarize use of force report data in order to identify trends such as rates of use in general, by housing unit, by shift, by day of the week and date, by individual prisoners, and by staff members. The Use of Force Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Summary of all uses of force, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. List and total number of use of force reports received during the reporting period; c. List and total number of uses of force reports/incidents referred to IAD or other
law enforcement agencies for investigation.
Non-Compliant The County provided a monthly report of use of force in the three facilities. Although the information was helpful, it did not meet the requirements of this paragraph in that the reports are manually prepared each month and do not allow for identifying trends over time. As mentioned above, the IT department is working on a computerized report that should allow for a summary report to be generated. Even then, it will be essential to determine that reports are being submitted such that an accurate summary report can be generated. As mentioned above, at least one use of force incident may have been unreported until it was brought to the supervisor’s attention.
109. Compile a Grievance Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Grievance Summary Reports must compile and summarize grievance information in order to identify trends such as most frequently reported complaints, units generating the most grievances, and staff members receiving the most grievances about their conduct. To identify trends and potential concerns, at least quarterly, a member of the Jail’s management staff must review the Grievance Summary Reports and a random sample of ten percent of all grievances filed during the review period. These grievance reviews, any recommendations, and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant As noted in the introduction to the Grievance section of the Settlement Agreement at paragraph 69, one function of a grievance system is to identify potential constitutional problems and to
90

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 91 of 101
prevent more serious problems from developing. The defects in the system prevent its use for meaningful tracking of potential problems. Probably the most problematic is that of the grievances reviewed, most were actually inmate requests, not grievances. Staff cannot recategorize these as inmate requests so any compilation will not accurately identify actual grievances. Within inmate requests, there is no way to identify subject matter so as to compile a report by the area of inmate requests. Even if there were, however, most notably, the system cannot generate a report by subject. Any inmate response is treated by the system as an appeal when often the inmate has just responded by saying thank you. Again, this makes tracking what is actually happening difficult unless it is done manually. At the present time, there is no review process in the grievance system.
110. Compile a monthly summary report of IAD investigations conducted at the Facility. The IAD Summary Report must include:
a. A brief summary of all completed investigations, by type, shift, housing unit, and date;
b. A listing of investigations referred for disciplinary action or other final disposition by type and date;
c. A listing of all investigations referred to a law enforcement agency and the name of the agency, by type and date; and
d. A listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.
Partial Compliance See response to paragraph 68. Subsequent to the last site visit, the IAD investigator provided a summary sheet reflecting the status of IAD investigations since 2017; however, the level of detail included does not comply with all of the requirements of this paragraph.
111. Conduct a review, at least annually, to determine whether the incident, use of force, grievance reporting, and IAD systems comply with the requirements of this Agreement and are effective at ensuring staff compliance with their constitutional obligations. The County must make any changes to the reporting systems that it determines are necessary as a result of the system reviews. These reviews and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant There has been no annual review pursuant to this paragraph.
112. Ensure that the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance systems include an Early Intervention component to alert Administrators of potential problems with staff members.
91

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 92 of 101
The purpose of the Early Intervention System is to identify and address patterns of behavior or allegations which may indicate staff training deficiencies, persistent policy violations, misconduct, or criminal activity. As part of the Early Intervention process, incident reports, use of force reports, and prisoner grievances must be screened by designated staff members for such patterns. If misconduct, criminal activity, or behaviors indicate the need for corrective action, the screening staff must refer the incidents or allegations to Jail supervisors, administrators, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies for investigation. Additionally:
a. The Early Intervention System may be integrated with other database and computerized tracking systems required by this Agreement, provided any unified system otherwise still meets the terms of this Agreement.
b. The Early Intervention System must screen for staff members who may be using excessive force, regardless of whether use of force reviews concluded that the uses complied with Jail policies and this Agreement. This provision allows identification of staff members who may still benefit from additional training and serves as a check on any deficiencies with use of force by field supervisors.
c. The Jail Administrator, or designee of at least Captain rank, must personally review Early Intervention System data and alerts at least quarterly. The Administrator, or designee, must document when reviews were conducted as well as any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken.
d. The County must maintain a list of any staff members identified by the Early Intervention System as possibly needing additional training or discipline. A copy of this list must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
e. The County must take appropriate, documented, and corrective action when staff members have been identified as engaging in misconduct, criminal activity, or a pattern of violating Jail policies.
f. The County must review the Early Intervention System, at least bi-annually, to ensure that it is effective and used to identify staff members who may need additional training or discipline. The County must document any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken as a result of these reviews. Copies of these reviews must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
Non-Compliant There is currently no Early Intervention program.
113. Develop and implement policies and procedures for Jail databases, tracking systems, and computerized records (including the Early Intervention System), that ensure both functionality and data security. The policies and procedures must address all of the following issues: data storage, data retrieval, data reporting, data analysis and pattern identification, supervisor responsibilities, standards used to determine possible violations and corrective action,
92

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 93 of 101
documentation, legal issues, staff and prisoner privacy rights, system security, and audit mechanisms.
Non-Compliant The initial P&P Manual that was issued in April, 2017 did not include policies and procedures covering this matter.
114. Ensure that the Jail’s medical staff are included as part of the continuous improvement and quality assurance process. At minimum, medical and mental health staff must be included through all of the following mechanisms:
a. Medical staff must have the independent authority to promptly refer cases of suspected assault or abuse to the Jail Administrator, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies;
b. Medical staff representatives must be involved in mortality reviews and systemic reviews of serious incidents. At minimum, a physician must prepare a mortality review within 30 days of every prisoner death. An outside physician must review any mortalities associated with treatment by Jail physicians.
Partial Compliance Medical Administration (MAC) meetings were held in February and May 2018. The Deputy Jail Administrator is conducting the meetings while the Jail Administrator has been out on sick leave.
Quarterly Continuous Quality Improvement meetings are conducted. Topics have included discharge planning, TB skin tests, medication administration. At the JDC, CQI studies included discharge planning, medication administration and compliance in conducting the suicide screen during the intake process
There were no critical incidents of deaths since the last site visit. During the May site visit a chart of RW who expired on 5/4/17 was located. A request for medical records was made to the hospital on 5/18/17 but has not been received by the jail. A mortality review was not conducted.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
115. Hinds County will establish a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (“Coordinating Committee”) with subject matter expertise and experience that will assist in streamlining criminal justice processes and identify and develop solutions and interventions designed to lead to diversion from arrest, detention, and incarceration. The Coordinating Committee will focus particularly on diversion of individuals with serious mental illness and juveniles. Using the
93

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 94 of 101
Sequential Intercept Model, or an alternative acceptable to the Parties, the Coordinating Committee will identify strategies for diversion at each intercept point where individuals may encounter the criminal justice system and will assess the County’s current diversion efforts and unmet service needs in order to identify opportunities for successful diversion of such individuals. The Committee will recommend appropriate changes to policies and procedures and additional services necessary to increase diversion.
Partial Compliance Hinds County has contracted with Justice Management Institute (JMI) to provide consulting and assist in implementing a CJCC. The CJCC has been meeting regularly. In order to have a CJCC with sufficient subject matter expertise and experience to carry out the mandate of this paragraph, the County will need to provide staff support. At this time, the County will need to drive the process of the CJCC identifying opportunities for diversion.
The Sequential Intercept Mapping required by this paragraph has already taken place under a grant to the Hinds County Behavioral Health from the GAINS Center. A two-day meeting was held on August 16-17, 2017 with broad participation including the County and Jail. The Sequential Intercept Model provides a conceptual framework for communities to use when considering the interface between the criminal justice and mental health systems as they address concerns about the criminalization of inmates with mental health illness. The GAINS center completed the report for Hinds County Behavioral Health. It includes recommendations for creating or improving intercepts in the jail and at release. This provides a useful road map for compliance with the diversion and discharge planning requirements of the consent decree.
116. The Coordinating Committee will include representation from the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office and Hinds County Board of Supervisors. The County will also seek representation from Hinds County Behavioral Health Services; the Jackson Police Department; Mississippi Department of Mental Health; Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services; judges from the Hinds County Circuit, Chancery, and County (Youth and Justice) Courts; Hinds County District Attorney Office; Hinds County Public Defender Office; relevant Jackson city officials; and private advocates or other interested community members.
Partial Compliance As noted above the CJCC is meeting regularly. Not all of the identified agencies have been represented at the meeting. The reported intention is to expand representation after further development. Although the County cannot control the participation of others, staff support would assist in engaging other stakeholders.
117. The Coordinating Committee will prioritize enhancing coordination with local behavioral health systems, with the goal of connecting individuals experiencing mental health crisis,
94

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 95 of 101
including juveniles, with available services to avoid unnecessary arrest, detention, and incarceration.
Partial Compliance The CJCC has just adopted its strategic plan. Enhancing behavioral health services for justice involved individuals is included as a strategic priority. Further observation of the CJCC and the County’s participation in the CJCC will be necessary to determine if behavioral health services are a priority in CJCC actions and deliberation.
118. Within 30 days of the Effective Date and in consultation with the United States, the County will select and engage an outside consultant to provide technical assistance to the County and Coordinating Committee regarding strategies for reducing the jail population and increasing diversion from criminal justice involvement, particularly for individuals with mental illness and juveniles. This technical assistance will include (a) a comprehensive review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing efforts to reduce recidivism and increase diversion; (b) identification of gaps in the current efforts, (c) recommendations of actions and strategies to achieve diversion and reduce recidivism; and (d) estimates of costs and cost savings associated with those strategies. The review will include interviews with representatives from the agencies and entities referenced in Paragraph 116 and other relevant stakeholders as necessary for a thorough evaluation and recommendation. Within 120 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the outside consultant will finalize and make public a report regarding the results of their assessment and recommendations. The Coordinating Committee will implement the recommended strategies and will continue to use the outside consultant to assist with implementation of the strategies when appropriate.
Partial Compliance The County did contract with an outside consultant to provide technical assistance in developing the CJCC. However, that contract does not encompass the requirements listed above regarding an assessment of and recommendations for strategies to reduce recidivism and increase diversion. If the listed tasks are achieved without being in the consulting contract, this requirement could be changed to compliant.
IMPLEMENTATION, TIMING, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
Paragraphs 119 and 120 regarding duty to implement and effective date omitted.
121. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County must distribute copies of the Agreement to all prisoners and Jail staff, including all medical and security staff, with appropriate explanation as to the staff members’ obligations under the Agreement. At minimum:
95

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 96 of 101
a. A copy of the Agreement must be posted in each unit (including booking/intake and medical areas), and program rooms (e.g., classrooms and any library).
b. Individual copies of the Agreement must be provided to prisoners upon request.
Partial Compliance The HCSO has still not implemented this relatively simple solution. Staff and inmates are not familiar with the details of the Settlement Agreement, which would not be the case if handbook sized copies of it were made available to all personnel (staff and inmates).
POLICY AND PROCEDURE REVIEW
130. The County must review all existing policies and procedures to ensure their compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. Where the Jail does not have a policy or procedure in place that complies with the terms of this Agreement, the County must draft such a policy or procedure, or revise its existing policy or procedure.
Partial Compliance This provision has been changed back to partial compliance. An initial attempt to draft policies and procedures was made in early 2017. The Monitoring Team and DOJ provided comments but the policies really needed to be rewritten. At the time of the last site visit, the plan to hire outside consultants for this had fallen through and there was no apparent progress. Since that time, jail staff has been working with Karen Albert of the Monitoring Team to develop policies and procedures and after the September site visit, several draft policies have been provided.
131. The County shall complete its policy and procedure review and revision within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
Non-Compliant See response to 130.
132. Once the County reviews and revises its policies and procedures, the County must provide a copy of its policies and procedures to the United States and the Monitor for review and comment. The County must address all comments and make any changes requested by the United States or the Monitor within thirty (30) days after receiving the comments and resubmit the policies and procedures to the United States and Monitor for review.
Partial Compliance See response to 130.
96

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 97 of 101
133. No later than three months after the United States’ approval of each policy and procedure, the County must adopt and begin implementing the policy and procedure, while also modifying all post orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the policies and procedures.
Non-Compliant See response to 130.
134. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, all new or revised policies and procedures must be implemented within six months of the United States’ approval of the policy or procedure.
Non-Compliant There have not yet been policies and procedures approved by the United States. This cannot happen until policies and procedures are provided to DOJ for approval.
135. The County must annually review its policies and procedures, revising them as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures must be submitted to the United States and the Monitor for approval in accordance with paragraphs 129-131 above.
Non-Compliant This paragraph is now carried as non-compliant instead of not applicable because under the timeline established by the consent decree an annual review would now be due.
COUNTY ASSESSMENT AND COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR
Paragraphs 136 through 158 on Monitor duties omitted.
159. The County must file a self-assessment compliance report. The first compliance selfassessment report must be filed with the Court within four months of the Effective Date and at least one month before a Monitor site visit. Each self-assessment compliance report must describe in detail the actions the County has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and must make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. The report must include information supporting the County’s representations regarding its compliance with the Agreement such as quality assurance information, trends, statistical data, and remedial activities. Supporting information should be based on reports or data routinely collected as part of the audit and quality assurance activities required by this Agreement (e.g., incident, use of force, system, maintenance, and early intervention), rather than generated only to support representations made in the self-assessment.
97

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 98 of 101
Partial Compliance At the time of the October 2017 site visit, the County provided its first self-assessment. The selfassessment was not provided prior to the May site visit. A self-assessment was provided the week prior to the September site visit. The assessment is a significant step forward but does not include the level of detail required by this paragraph.
160. The County must designate a full-time Compliance Coordinator to coordinate compliance activities required by this Agreement. This person will serve as a primary point of contact for the Monitor. Two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties may consult with each other and the Monitor to determine whether the Compliance Coordinator’s hours may be reduced. The Parties may then stipulate to any agreed reduction in hours.
Compliant The County has designated a full-time Compliance Coordinator who is coordinating compliance activities. The Monitor will continue to track this assignment to ensure sustained compliance in this area.
EMERGENT CONDITIONS
161. The County must notify the Monitor and United States of any prisoner death, riot, escape, injury requiring hospitalization, or over-detention of a prisoner (i.e. failure to release a prisoner before 11:59 PM on the day she or he was entitled to be released), within 3 days of learning of the event.
Partial Compliance Immediate notifications have been provided. Comparing the notifications to the medical transport list, it appears that immediate notification of hospitalization is not always provided. The County has not been providing notification of over-detention and, in fact, is not currently identifying prisoners who have been detained beyond their release date and preparing incident reports Paragraphs 162-167 regarding jurisdiction, construction and the PLRA omitted.
98

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 99 of 101

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 15, 2018, I electronically filed the Court-Appointed Monitor’s Sixth Monitoring Report with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following:

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

ERIC S. DREIBAND Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

D. MICHAEL HURST, JR.. U.S. Attorney Southern District of Mississippi

STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section steven.rosenbaum@usdoj.gov

LAURA COWALL Special Counsel U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20530 laura.cowall@usdoj.gov

CHRISTOPHER N. CHENG Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-8892 (202) 514-6273 (fax) christopher.cheng@usdoj.gov

CANDACE G. MAYBERRY Assistant United States Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Mississippi 501 E. Court Street – Suite 4.430 Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 973-2838 (601) 965-4409 (fax) Candace.Mayberry@usdoj.gov

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 100 of 101
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS – HINDS COUNTY; MEMBERS OF THE HINDS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; THE SHERIFF OF HINDS COUNTY IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY:
PIETER TEEUWISSEN Board Attorney P.O. Box 686 Jackson, MS 39205-0686 (601) 968-6797 (601) 968-6794 (fax) pteeuwissen@co.hinds.ms.us
CLAIRE BARKER Counsel to the Sheriff 407 East Pascagoula Street Jackson, MS 39205 (601) 974-2967 (Fax) cbarker@co.hinds.ms.us

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 24 Filed 11/15/18 Page 101 of 101
COUNSEL FOR INTERESTED PARTY, DISABILITY RIGHTS MISSISSIPPI:
ELISSA JOHNSON JODY E. OWENS PALOMA WU Southern Poverty Law Center 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 948-8882 (601) 948-8885 (Fax) elissa.johnson@splcenter.org
/s Christopher N. Cheng CHRISTOPHER N. CHENG (PA Bar# 69066) Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-8892 (202) 514-4883 (fax) christopher.cheng@usdoj.gov

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 1 of 122
Court-Appointed Monitor’s Tenth Monitoring Report United States v. Hinds County, et al. Civ. No. 3:16cv489 -JCG

David M. Parrish Corrections Operations

Elizabeth E. Simpson Court-Appointed Monitor

Jim Moeser Juvenile Justice

Dr. Richard Dudley Corrections Mental Health

1

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 2 of 122
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Update on Corona Virus Preparations
Since the circulation of the draft of this report, the seriousness of the Corona Virus has become apparent including its risk to the incarcerated population which frequently includes individuals in poor health. The County reported that it has been in frequent communication with the Mississippi Department of Health. Counsel for the Department of Justice provided recommendations and links to the recommendations of the American Corrections Association and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care and the Center for Disease Control. The Monitoring Team provided sample directives on measures to address the virus. The Sheriff’s Office has issued some of these directives. The directives provide guidance on measures to be taken in this crisis. However, the directive related to new arrests and bookings does not appear to be fully tailored to Hinds County. For example, it does not address how females will be handled who are housed in the Jackson Detention Center where there is no negative pressure cell and refers to equipment that Hinds County does not have. This policy should be reviewed to determine how it can be operationalized in Hinds County. The provided Emergency Response Plan Checklist does not appear to be a complete and final Emergency Response Plan at this time. The Plan does not appear to anticipate the possible magnitude of the spread of the virus within the jail. The Monitoring Team has recommended that the jail identify units that would be used for quarantine in the event a large number of inmates become infected. The Monitoring Team has also suggested that a point person be assigned to the COVID-19 response. This would assist in finalizing and implementing these measures.
Also of concern is the ability to implement these directives effectively particularly given the lack of staffing which has impacted the ability to operate the jail generally. In addition, the national problem of scarce test kits and protective equipment will similarly be a problem within the jail. The District Attorney has taken steps to identify cases where bail might be reduced so that individuals can be released from the jail. This appears to have resulted in some reduction of the population which is now 419 in the adult facilities. The Monitoring Team recommends that additional efforts be made to release the elderly, the vulnerable and non-violent individuals. Judge McDaniels has been working to reduce the population at Henley Young. At the time of the site visit there were 32 youth at the facility. There are now 17 youth at the facility with the reduction being primarily in the youth being processed in the juvenile system.
Corrections Operations
With the change of elected officials in January, there have been a number of changes in personnel. The new Sheriff, Lee Vance, has a new command team; the prior Jail Administrator has resigned and an Interim Jail Administrator is in place. There is also a new County
2

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 3 of 122
Administrator. With these changes there has been encouraging activity at the jail. The new administration has authorized work to begin on correcting the basic security issues facing the Hinds County Jail System, particularly at the Raymond Detention Center (RDC). The lack of staff is still the most critical problem facing Hinds County Detention Services (HCDS). The number of filled positions dropped to a new low. Only 204 of the authorized 275 positions are filled. This is the lowest number recorded during the past two years. When one considers the fact that the staffing study that was conducted in 2017, called for over 400 personnel, these figures are particularly disturbing. Even with C Pod at the RDC closed for renovation, based on the posts needed for the remaining pods and the other facilities, 399 positions are needed systemwide and 246 positions at RDC. However, RDC is operating with only 103 filled positions, 143 less than needed.
Although the lack of adequate staff makes direct supervision an impossibility, since the last site visit a new procedure has been implemented at the RDC which allows staff to spend more time actually inspecting the housing units instead of sitting in the pod control rooms filling out logs. This practice provides for more accurate, verifiable record keeping and increases the presence of the officers in the housing units. Once direct supervision is implemented in the renovated housing units (starting with C Pod) the use of individual housing unit logs will be reinstituted.
Policy and Procedure development is underway as specified in the Stipulated Order of January 16, 2020. Ten have been approved and fourteen are in the review process.
Maintenance issues are still one of the most significant problems facing the HCDS. Doors that cannot be closed and secured at the RDC make the operation of that facility problematic. Not only are individual cell doors inoperable, but housing unit safety vestibule doors can be manually opened by kicking on them or by accessing the control mechanism above the door panels. This means that the entire inmate population can gain access to the pod control rooms and (in some cases) to the Great Hall, if they so desire. There continue to be incidents in which inmates let themselves out of “locked” cells, let others out of their cells, and exit the housing units. Once again, in January there were 12 incidents related to inmates being able to freely open locked cell doors. This dangerous situation affects the safety of both inmates and staff. It certainly contributes to the inability of the HCSO to hire and retain officers to work in that facility.
During the December Contempt Hearing, the HCSO and County agreed to expedite the repair of control room doors, housing unit safety vestibule doors and individual cell doors by employing a qualified corrections maintenance company. In January, the Board of Supervisors approved a contract with CML Security Services; the authorization to proceed was issued on February 17, 2020. It is troubling that this comes six months after this authorization was represented to have occurred but it does appear to be movement in the right direction now.
3

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 4 of 122
Fire safety issues have not been adequately addressed since the beginning of the monitoring process. Nothing has been done to correct discrepancies since the last monitoring report; however, on January 10, 2020, the HCSO submitted a Work Order to the Board of Supervisors to have fire hoses reinstalled in the renovated housing units. In addition, back up fire extinguishers have been ordered. The State Fire Marshal’s Office has still not made a representative available during a site visit to explain why that agency has allowed sub-standard conditions to exist within the RDC without remedial action or a plan to rectify the situation.
Direct supervision training has commenced for new and existing staff on a continuing basis. Although the block of instruction is of very short duration, only sixteen hours, it does represent a step in the right direction. Each incoming recruit class will contain a direct supervision component which groups of currently employed personnel will attend.
Medical and Mental Health
The Mental Health Coordinator’s position has remained vacant since shortly after the September 2019 site visit. The remaining mental staff include a full-time QMHP, a part-time psychologist, and a part-time psychiatric nurse clinician. Therefore, this small, existing mental health staff is stretched to the limit with developing treatment plans for and providing mental health services to a case load of 139 prisoners housed at three different facilities (because of the staff shortage, the caseload has been reduced by only providing mental health services to the seriously mentally ill prisoners), performing assessments of new prisoners referred to them, responding to/managing mental health emergencies including suicidal prisoners, performing PREA assessments and providing treatment when indicated, performing weekly rounds in segregation, and maintaining medical records and logs. Once security policies and procedures for disciplinary review, segregation review, and use of force are completed, the mental health staff will have additional responsibilities related to these activities. In addition, in anticipation of the opening of the mental health unit, the mental health staff should be engaged in planning to expand existing mental health programming into the type of mental health program that would be appropriate for that unit, and engaged in actually beginning to implement some of the new programs even before the unit is opened. Therefore, while doing all of this, QCHC (the contract provider of mental health services) needs to perform a mental health staffing analysis, outlining the number and types of mental health staff that will be required to fulfill all of these responsibilities. The need for some additional staff has already been identified. As has been previously reported, in January 2019, QCHC requested permission to hire two additional mental health staff, but the County has still not responded to that request.
The last Monitoring Report noted the change in the method of completing medication pass at RDC such that inmates were escorted from the housing unit into the “horseshoe” to obtain their medications. The corrections expert identified the security risks of this method and the mental health expert observed that medication refusals had skyrocketed with this change. The medical
4

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 5 of 122
provider additionally expressed concern that this method did not give the medical staff the opportunity to observe the condition of inmates refusing their medication. RDC was still utilizing this method of med pass at the time of the January 2020 site visit. However, command staff agreed to return to completing med pass in the housing units which would address the noted concerns. Command staff will need to ensure that housing unit officers are properly trained and supervised regarding their duties during med pass; the failure to properly execute their duties in this regard is what led to the initial change in med pass implementation.
Youthful Offenders
As of the January site visit, there were seventeen JCA’s (Juveniles Charged/Convicted as Adults) (16 males, one female) at Henley Young. It is worth noting that there were 15 non-JCA’s at Henley Young, resulting in a total of 32 youth in care on January 22. That number is the maximum number permitted under the Consent Decree in J.H. v. Hinds County, 3:11-cv-327DPJ-FKB, the litigation brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center regarding conditions at Henley Young. As a result, continued management of the non-JCA youth will be important. Overall, Henley Young continues to operate as a generally safe and secure environment for youthful offenders, but other than significant personnel changes there was no notable change in the program since the fall 2019 visit. As has been stated, the addition of JCA’s to Henley Young, while an appropriate solution to the housing of these children in an appropriate environment, meant that Henley Young and the Settlement Agreement with the SPLC had to adjust to individuals who would be residing there for much longer periods of time than individuals in the juvenile system. For that reason, it is essential that the litigation in the present case ensure that the juveniles being prosecuted in the adult system receive appropriate services given that much longer period of time of incarceration.
The program and progress toward substantial compliance in most of the areas of the Agreement is best described as being “on hold”. Three key positions were vacant at the time of this visit: (1) Mr. Frazier who had begun in May 2019 as Executive Director was dismissed from that position in early January; (2) the Psychologist position has remained vacant since June 2019 with the departure of Dr. Payne; and (3) the Recreation Coordinator position was vacated more recently. Mr. Burnside, the Operations Manager, and Mr. Dorsey, the Quality Assurance Manager, continue to provide stable leadership for the program, and Judge Johnnie McDaniels was designated as the Interim Executive Director following the dismissal of Mr. Frazier. The Board of Supervisors has apparently restored oversight of Henley Young to the Youth Court Judge, Judge McDaniels, with an expressed intent to recruit and hire an Executive Director as soon as possible to assume that role. Fortunately Judge McDaniels has had prior experience leading Henley Young, so working with Mr. Burnside and Mr. Dorsey on an interim basis is workable. Of greater concern is the continued vacancy for the Psychologist position, a key position to both provide direct assessment and therapeutic services to youth as well as provide leadership for
5

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 6 of 122
other mental health team members. Although the position was posted in early January, it was not posted as a Treatment Coordinator, a role that Dr. Payne was in actuality performing and was enormously beneficial.
Other programmatic components/activities remain relatively unchanged, and there have been no physical plant improvements related to creating additional program space or improving the condition of the housing units. The lack of program space has continually been cited as the reason for the lack of adequate programming as required by both this Settlement Agreement and the SPLC agreement. The lack of adequate outdoor recreation space was of concern given heavy rains the week before the site visit and cool temperatures during the visit, both of which resulted in youth not getting access to large muscle activity for nearly two weeks. The Youth Support Specialists and Clinicians continue to provide a variety of discussion group activities, but they remain relatively uncoordinated and minimal in terms of time allotted.
The length of time youth are in custody remains excessive, although implementing the Minors Diversion Docket has resulted in two youth being released prior to the January visit, with several more youth in the “pipeline” for hearings, one or more of which may be released prior to submission of this report. This process also should reduce the length of time youth are confined without being indicted, and the overall impact will continue to be monitored going forward.
Related to the January Stipulated Order, the County should keep the Monitor apprised of progress in meeting the specifics of that order, including: (1) Posting of a locally competitive salary for a full time clinical social worker or psychologist to serve as a treatment director or coordinator (due February 16); (2) Making an offer to a qualified person within 3 months of posting the treatment director position, or if no qualified person is hired consulting with the Monitor and US DOJ to discuss options (due May 16); and (3) Developing and implementing a daily program, including weekends and holidays, to provide structured educational, rehabilitative, and/or recreational programs for youth during all hours that youth shall be permitted out of their cells. (Refer to V. B. and C. of the Order; due April 16). Although not specified in the Stipulated Order, prior to the next site visit Henley Young should provide a copy of current Policies/Procedures to the Monitor so they can be reviewed as to whether they are fully consistent with specifics of the overall Agreement
Criminal Justice and System Issues
There continues to be significant improvement in the accuracy of the records. The new Records Policy requires the audit of the files and the creation of a summary. This process should improve the accuracy of the records and allow for an efficient auditing process. However, there are many files that remain to be reviewed and have the summary created. The files that do have a summary have more of a chronological listing of events as opposed to a summary which details the basis
6

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 7 of 122
for detention. A review of several files disclosed one error in the summary that could have resulted in over detention and one error in the underlying paperwork that could have resulted in an erroneous release. As this auditing process continues, the files should continue to improve.
There appeared for the first time a new practice that is questionable. In two separate files, the arrest form submitted by a Sheriff’s Deputy stated “Hold for Investigation.” In one instance, the individual was charged only with misdemeanors and appears would not have been booked except for the indicated hold. That individual was released the next morning. Another troubling development is the resurgence of orders on fines and fees that do not meet the legal requirements. The Jail was not holding anyone on fines and fees alone. However, there were two individuals who had orders on fines and fees in their files that did not have a finding of willfulness as required by law. The Jail has not sent the orders back to the court for correction as required by the Settlement Agreement but has not held the individuals if there is no other basis for detention. The creation of the Booking Manual which is in development will assist in addressing these issues.
At the time of the last report, many individuals were not getting their first appearance on felony arrests because of the unavailability of the judge. This appears to have been rectified. In addition, the bail schedule that was heavily utilized during this period has been eliminated. Instead, the Jail has been successful in contacting the court and being authorized to enter a Release on Own Recognizance (ROR) for individuals delayed in getting before the judge.
There appears to be increased assistance for Detention Services from the IT personnel. They have developed some ability to pull reports from the JMS system. This is an improvement but the reports do not yet meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement in terms of containing the required information. The information required by the Settlement Agreement is for the purpose of providing command staff in summary form the data that would inform system improvement. In addition to improving the summary reports, there needs to be continued focus on improving the JMS system so that it can be relied upon to identify individuals appropriate for release. At least three individuals spend a significant amount of time creating manual spreadsheets to identify people for release. This is not only an IT problem but also an issue with the consistency of how information is entered into the system. One individual who provided some protection from over detention was the Court Liaison. He performed some, although not all, of the duties required under the Settlement Agreement to be performed by a Quality Control Officer. He was recently terminated. It would be an opportune time to define the position consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The grievance system continues to improve, however, again, only with the labor-intensive creation of manual tracking systems as opposed to a functional electronic system. There was once again a decrease in the number of grievances that had not received a timely response.
7

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 8 of 122
Although more grievances are now receiving a timely response, there is still no system to review whether responses are adequate; and no oversight to determine that promised actions are actually completed. The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) has not had consistent participation by a number of stakeholders. This has limited its effectiveness. Reducing the Jail population is one method for addressing the severe staffing shortage. However, an effective CJCC or some collaborative body will be needed to implement most jail population reduction strategies. Recent events give cause for hope of a more effective CJCC. The County has stated that it has authorized contracting with Justice Management Institute to assist with the creation of a pretrial program. This will greatly assist the CJCC in collaborating on the development of such a program. In addition, the County has also stated that it has approved the hiring of a person to serve as a CJCC coordinator or support staff. This is essential in the development of an effective CJCC and is to be commended. This will be monitored, of course, to track whether these steps are actually taken.
STIPULATED ORDER UPDATE On January 16, 2020, the Court entered a Stipulated Order resolving the pending Motion for Contempt. This triggered the deadlines in the Stipulated Order for remedial measures to move towards compliance with the Settlement Agreement. All of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement remain in effect. The following table tracks compliance with the Stipulated Order.
8

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 9 of 122

STIPULATED ORDER UPDATE

Compliance Due Dates 02-16-20
03-16-20

Stipulations
II. B. 1. Within 30 days, the County shall retain an appropriately credentialed corrections recruitment and retention consultant, with input from the Monitor. III. C. 1. Within 30 days, the Jail shall ensure that handheld video recorders are available and planned uses of force are video recorded. V. A. Within 30 days, the County will post at a locally competitive salary for a full time clinical social worker or psychologist to serve as a treatment director or coordinator. I. A. The County shall use a qualified security contractor, with the assistance and oversight of an architect with corrections experience to accomplish the safety and security measures at RDC. The architect shall conduct periodic inspections.
II. C. 1. Within 60 days, the County shall adjust the Jail Administrator job description as needed to adhere to the minimum qualifications and post the position at a locally competitive salary. III. A.1. Within 60 days, the County shall provide a Table of Contents listing the policies and procedures to be developed,

Full compliance by due date? (Yes/No/N/A) Yes Partial
Partial In Progress
Yes

When was full compliance
achieved? (Date) 10/19 3/20
2/6/20

Status Update
Consultant is retained through the monitoring team
Purchase Order submitted on 1/22/20; cameras were on back order; they have now arrived
Posted 1/8/20 but not posted as a treatment coordinator
The County is negotiating with Benchmark Construction (Project Manager and Contractor) and Cooke, Douglas, Farr & Lemons Architects & Engineers (CDFL, PA) but a contract has not yet been finalized. Job description revised and posted on 2/6/20

9

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 10 of 122

anticipated deadlines for completion of

each draft policy, and deadlines for

submission of each draft policy to the

Monitor and DOJ. The Table of Contents

deadlines shall prioritize policies that are

necessary for safety and security.

Yes

3-30-20 III. A. 3. Within 14 days of receiving the

Table of Contents, DOJ will identify

policies that may be disseminated to staff

on an interim basis before the Settlement-

required policy review and approval

process is completed.

04-16-20 II. A. Within 3 months, the County shall

create a staffing plan to increase the

supervision of inmates at RDC. The plan

shall include the following:

II.A. 1. A plan to provide direct supervision

for Pod C when it reopens.

II.A. 2. A staffing plan which optimizes the

use of available staff to provide supervision

at all three facilities including, among other

strategies, rotation of staff from JDC and

the WC to RDC to increase the staff

coverage of RDC.

II.A. 3. An increase in the time that officers

are in the housing units at RDC by having

the control officers fill out the housing unit

logs based on radio communication from

the housing unit officers and utilize welfare

check sheets at the cell doors of those

inmates held in segregation.

Yes

3/16/20
Directive issued on 9/27/19 by Major Rushing and radios assigned

10

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 11 of 122

II. A. 4. At the Work Center, installation of an alarm system on the housing unit fire exit doors. The County will add a camera that covers each of the four fire exit doors. This will allow only one officer to manage each housing unit and will result in an opportunity to assign 20.4 positions to other areas or facilities. This work will be completed within 3 months. III. B. 1. Within 3 months of the United States’ and Monitor’s approval of each policy or procedure, the County shall develop the curriculum and materials for training on the new policy or procedure. III. B. 2. Within 3 months of the United States’ and Monitor’s approval of each policy or procedure, the County shall develop the training plan for training new and current detention officers and staff on the new policy or procedure, with dates for completion of each set of training. V. B. Within 3 months, Henley-Young shall administer a daily program, including weekends and holidays, to provide structured educational, rehabilitative, and/or recreational programs for youth during all hours that youth shall be permitted out of their cells. Programming shall include: 1. Activities which are varied and appropriate to the ages of the youth; 2. Structured and supervised activities which are intended to alleviate idleness and
11

Work Order submitted to County on 8/14/19; Purchase Order submitted; No installation yet

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 12 of 122

05-16-20

develop concepts of cooperation and sportsmanship; 3. Supervised small group leisure activities, such as a wide variety of card and table games, arts and crafts, or book club discussions; and 4. Hinds County, by and through its County Administrator and/or Executive Director at Henley-Young, shall maintain exclusive control and maintenance of any facilities or technology that promotes compliance with this provision. V. C. The programming described in Paragraph B shall include group and individual psychosocial skill building programs designed to address criminogenic needs and promote positive youth development such as: 1. cognitive behavioral programming; 2. independent living skill training; 3. relationship and positive communication skills; 4. anger management; 5. peer refusal skills; 6. trauma informed programming; and 7. pre-vocational skill building. I. A. 1. In any occupied pod, the County will convert all control room doors, housing unit entry doors, recreation yard doors (that open into the “horseshoe”), isolation doors and “cage doors” to electronically controlled swing doors to the control panel

12

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 13 of 122

so they can be electronically operated with a CML type locking mechanism. I. A. 2. Within 4 months, the County shall reinforce all C Pod cell doors with a strip of steel to reduce the risk of tampering as part of the ongoing renovation of this Pod. I. A. 3. In B Pod, the County shall modify the control room doors, housing unit doors, and recreation doors to swinging doors. The County also shall install a new electronic control panel so that all doors can be electronically controlled. The “cage” doors have a keyway on only one side. The County also shall upgrade the “cage” doors so that there is a keyway on each side (as is currently the case in C Pod). The County shall repair the primary security door that controls access between the main corridor (Great Hall) and B Pod as a part of the B Pod modifications so that it can be controlled electronically from master control. I. A. 4. The County will reinstall the fire hoses in secured cabinets as part of the renovation process of each pod. I. B. 1. Retain a consultant with experience in master planning to facilitate the process of long-term planning The County will retain the consultant within 4 months. I. B. 4. Form a committee to develop and implement the Master Plan, which will include the County Administrator, the Sheriff, the Jail Administrator, the facility
13

Work Order for equipment needed in the three pods submitted to County
County has reported that the committee was formed; Monitor has requested but not received documentation

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 14 of 122

captains, and the Board of Supervisors President. Other members may be included at the discretion of the County and the Sheriff. II. B. 2. Within 4 months, the County shall hire or designate a full-time Recruitment Officer within the Detention Division specifically for recruitment of detention officers. II. B. 3. Within 4 months, with the assistance of the recruitment and corrections consultant, the County shall develop a Recruitment and Retention Plan to implement the substantive requirements of the Settlement. IV. A. The County shall develop a Pretrial Services program to provide for long-term population management which will maximize the options in facility use. The program shall include the following: 1. Within 4 months, the County shall retain a consultant experienced in the area of implementation of pretrial services programs. IV. A. 2. Within 4 months, the County shall hire a full time individual qualified to oversee the development and implementation of a pretrial services program. This individual shall have or within 12 months shall obtain certification by the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA).

In progress

14

A job description was prepared and has been posted.

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 15 of 122

5-16-20 (1 month to post and 3 months to make an
offer)
06-16-20

IV. A. 3. The County shall engage stakeholders in the implementation of a pretrial services program either through the CJCC or a specially formed committee. IV. A. 4. The County shall provide the technical support for implementation of a risk assessment instrument for purposes of pretrial release decision-making. V. A. If there is a qualified candidate(s) for HY treatment director or coordinator, the County will make an offer within 3 months of posting the position. If there is not a qualified candidate, the County will consult with the Monitor and United States to determine appropriate adjustments to the recruiting process and will report regularly, and at each status conference, regarding its efforts. If a clinical social worker is hired for the position, the County will contract with a psychologist to provide any assessment, therapeutic or consultation services needed in addition to the services of the clinical social worker. The County will consult with the Monitor to set the appropriate number of contract hours. III. C. 2. Within 5 months, an individual experienced in corrections shall train deputies on a Settlement-compliant use of force policy, including Settlement requirements for reporting of use of force. III. C. 3. Within 5 months, supervisors shall be trained on use of force reviews so that they include collection and preservation of

15

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 16 of 122

07-16-20

videos, witness statements, and medical records. This training shall emphasize supervisors’ responsibility for ensuring complete use of force reports and for referring staff for training and investigation, as required by the Settlement. I. A. 5. The County shall convert the cell doors in B Pod Units 3 and 4 to swinging doors with the CML type locking mechanism that is in place in the sample cell in C Pod. The County shall also reinforce the cell doors in Units 1 and 2 with a strip of steel as is being used in C Pod. These renovations will be completed within 6 months. I. A. 6. If A Pod is not utilized for housing, renovation of A Pod recreation yard and cage doors and the control panel may be postponed until such time as it is used for housing. If A pod is used even on an occasional basis, these doors will be converted to secure swinging doors and tied to a new control panel. I. A. 7. The County shall replace all holding cell doors in the booking area with modern full transparent panel (both top and bottom) security doors to facilitate deputies conducting a documented fifteen-minute well-being check on each multi-person cell and occupied single cell. The County will discontinue the use of the holding cells that are not directly visible from the booking station. This will be completed 6 months.

16

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 17 of 122

7-16-20 (2 months to post and 4
months after that to
offer)
8-16-20 (2 months to
post, 4 months to offer, and 1
month evaluate structure 10-16-2020
11-16-2020

II. B. 4. Within 6 months, the County shall develop and implement a process that provides criteria for merit-based promotion and establishes a career ladder. II. C. 2. If there is a qualified candidate(s) for Jail Administrator, the County shall make an offer to hire an individual to fill the position within 4 months of posting the position. If there is not a qualified candidate, the County, Monitor and United States will confer to determine next steps and will report to the Court regarding the same. II. C. 3. Within 30 days of hiring the Settlement-compliant Jail Administrator, this individual shall evaluate the organizational structure of the three-facility jail system and develop a plan to reassign staff consistent with any change in the organizational structure.
IV. A. 5. The County shall authorize the free attendance at NIC training for pretrial executives for individuals involved in the development of the pretrial program within 9 months. II. B. 5. Within 10 months, the County shall implement a plan for retention pay based on merit, time in service, or a combination.

17

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 18 of 122

4/16/21 Ongoing

II. B. The County shall improve recruitment and retention initiatives to ensure adequate levels of competent staffing to provide reasonably safe living conditions in the Jail.
I. B. Within 10 months, the County shall complete a Master Plan to determine the long-term use of each of the three facilities and evaluate the option of building a new facility or further renovating existing facilities. I. B. 2. The master plan will include deadlines for other necessary safety and security repairs and renovations at all three facilities, as long as they remain open, including deadlines for installing necessary fire suppression/prevention systems, all of which will be conducted by a qualified security contractor. Work with the monitoring team to gather the information that is needed for the longterm planning process. IV. A. 4. The risk assessment tool shall be implemented within one year after retaining the pretrial services consultant. I. B. 3. [The County shall. . .] [w]ork with the monitoring team to gather the information that is needed for the long-term planning process. III. A. 2. The County’s policy committee will provide draft policies to the monitoring team and DOJ consistent with the timeline identified in the Table of Contents, will notify the Monitor and DOJ of any

18

The policy development and review process has been proceeding at an accelerated pace with 10 policies now approved.

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 19 of 122
anticipated delays to meeting projected submission dates and will implement an identified plan to correct the delays. The monitoring team and DOJ will make a good faith effort to return comments and suggestions about the draft policies within a two-week time frame. The policy committee will make a good faith effort to incorporate those suggestions and consider those comments.
19

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 20 of 122

Monitoring Activities

The Monitoring Team conducted a Site Visit January 21, through 24, 2020. The site visit schedule was as follows:
Site Visit Schedule January 21-24, 2020

Date and Time Monday Monday evening: 6:00 Lobby of Hotel Tuesday A.M.
Tuesday P.M.
Wednesday A.M.

Lisa Simpson Team Meeting

Dave Parrish
Tour RDC and WC Team Meeting

Jim Moeser Team Meeting

Dr. Richard Dudley
Team Meeting

Meet with Captain Dalton
Meet with Lt. Petty
Meet with Ms. Winters
Meet with County Attorney and Board of Supervisors Meet with Sheriff Vance, Allen White, Eric Walls and Claire Barker
Meet with Marlo Brinnon, Jeremy Nelson and Captain Jones
Meet with DA Jodie Owens Meet with RDC command staff
Tour Pod C

Meet with Captain Dalton
Meet with Lt. Petty
Tour JDC
Meet with County Attorney and Board of Supervisors Meet with Sheriff Vance, Allen White, Eric Walls and Claire Barker
Meet with Marlo Brinnon, Jeremy Nelson and Captain Jones
Meet with Rholon Tucker (or current Fire Officer) and request State Fire Marshall to attend
Meet with RDC command staff
Tour Pod C

HY-Meet with command staff Burnside and Dorsey
Meet with County Attorney and Board of Supervisors
Visit Unit Bdiscussions with youth
Meet w School PrincipalMr.Devine
Attend teacher mtg re Individual Academic Plans
Meet with SPLC
Discussion with Mr. Butler, YSS

JDC review records meet with medical staff
Meet with County Attorney and Board of Supervisors
RDC
Meet with Nurse Minor re discharge planning and group therapy
Meet with Nurse Sims re staffing and mental health unit
Hinds County Behavioral Health and QCHC staff re

20

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 21 of 122

Meet with Mr. Ingram, Bell, Rushing, Fielder and County Attorneys re repairs

Meet with Mr. Ingram, Bell, Rushing, Fielder and County Attorneys re repairs

Visit Units A and B, discussions with youth
Meet with Y. Coleman, YSS

discharge planning
Meet with Synarus re competency

Wednesday P.M. Thursday A.M. Thursday P.M.

Meet with Lt. George, Sgt Hubbard, and Sgt. Tilman re org structure

Meet with Lt. George, Sgt Hubbard, and Sgt. Tilman re org structure

Attend Treatment mtg re five youth
Meet with Judge McDaniels

Review Classification records
Meet with Kenisha Jones Meet with Captain Butler/Hightower, Miller and Knox
Meet with Sgt. Tillman

Meet with Coleman Meet with Funchess
Meet with Captain Butler/Hightower, Miller and Lt. Knox
RDC

Meet with F. Galloway re programming
Review training with Ms. Young

Review records
Meet with mental health staff and RDC command staff re med pass WC

Meet with mental health staff and RDC command staff re med pass
WC

Meeting with Ms. Frelix, QMHP re programming, youth behaviors Observe due process disciplinary
Review ½ individual youth master files

RDC Review incidents and medical records
Meet with Dr. Brown
RDC
Meet with QMHP and Nurse Minor
Meet with psychiatric nurse clinician
Meet with Sims Meet with mental health staff and RDC command staff re med pass
RDC

Review incident reports

Friday 9:00 A.M.

Status Conference

Status Conference

Exit discussion with leadership (McDaniels, Burnside, Dorsey) Status Conference

Status Conference

21

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 22 of 122

COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW
The Monitoring Team will track progress towards compliance with the following chart. This chart will be added to with each Monitoring Report showing the date of the site visit and the number of Settlement Agreement requirements in full, partial or non-compliance. Sustained compliance is achieved when compliance with a particular Settlement Agreement requirement has been sustained for 24 months or more. (This was changed from 18 months in order to align with paragraph 164 which requires 2 years of substantial compliance for termination of the Agreement). The count of 92 requirements is determined by the number of Settlement Agreement paragraphs which have substantive requirements. Introductory paragraphs and general provisions are not included. Some paragraphs may have multiple requirements which are evaluated independently in the text of the report but are included as one requirement for purposes of this chart. The provisions on Youthful Offenders are now only evaluated for compliance at Henley Young. The reason for this is that there are no more juveniles at RDC.

Site Visit
Date
2/7-10/17
6/1316/17 10/1620/17 1/262/2/18 5/2225/18 9/1821/18 1/1518/19 5/7-10/19 9/2429/19 1/2124/20

Sustained Compliance 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

Substantial Compliance 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 6 6 6

Partial Compliance 4 18 26 29 30 37 44 42 47 49

NA at this time
2 2

NonCompliant 85 71

1

64

0

62

0

61

0

54

0

46

0

43

0

38

0

36

Total
92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92

INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS

Text of paragraphs 1-34 regarding “Parties,” “Introduction,” and “Definitions” omitted.

22

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 23 of 122
SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS
PROTECTION FROM HARM
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to provide prisoners with safety, protect prisoners from violence committed by other prisoners, and ensure that prisoners are not subjected to abuse by Jail staff. To that end, the County must:
37. Develop and implement policies and procedures to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment for prisoners and staff. Such policies and procedures must include the following:
a. Booking; b. Objective classification; c. Housing assignments; d. Prisoner supervision; e. Prisoner welfare and security checks (“rounds”); f. Posts and post orders; g. Searches; h. Use of force; i. Incident reporting; j. Internal investigations; k. Prisoner rights; l. Medical and mental health care; m. Exercise and treatment activities; n. Laundry; o. Food services; p. Hygiene; q. Emergency procedures; r. Grievance procedures; and s. Sexual abuse and misconduct.
Non-Compliant The County/HCSO has developed a Table of Contents for existing and proposed policies. This was provided to DOJ and the monitor on March 16, 2020. To date twenty-four policies have been entered into the review process, of which ten have been approved. The Table of Contents lists a total of 91 policies. While it is encouraging that progress is being made and is accelerating, the adoption of policies and procedures is long overdue. Creation of the policies and procedures is essential for compliance with most aspects of the Settlement Agreement. Until Hinds County develops a comprehensive Policies and Procedures Manual, along with Post Orders, the staff of the Hinds County Jail System cannot be expected to comply with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement.
23

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 24 of 122
Of the policies listed above, policies on a. Booking (with related policies on Pre-Booking and Records), h. Use of Force and k. Prisoners’ Rights (titled Conditions of Confinement) have been approved. Under review are policies on b. Classification, g. Searches, i. Incident Reporting, j. Investigations, l. Mental Health Care, p. Hygiene, r. Grievances, and s. Sexual Safety. With respect to e. Prisoner Welfare and Security Checks, the Interim Jail Administrator has issue a directive so that well-being checks will be made consistently and uniformly. This will eventually be incorporated into an approved policy.
As noted in prior reports there are multiple health and mental health related provisions that cannot be addressed by health and mental health staff alone. These have included, for example, the participation of mental health in the disciplinary review process, the use of suicide watch, the participation of health and mental health in the segregation review process, incidences where there is an anticipated/planned use of force and incidences where there has already been a use of force, and the roles and responsibilities of health and mental health with regard to PREA. Security policies and procedures that would address these issues have still not been developed, approved, and implemented. The medical and mental health staff should be involved in the development of these policies and procedures when that occurs.
Significantly, two recent policies developed and in the review process address mental health services and mental health housing. These were developed with the participation of the mental health staff and the mental health expert of the monitoring team. As with many detention facilities, Hinds County has a large percentage of people with mental illness in the Jail and these inmates often present the greatest challenges in management. The development of these policies and the formation of a mental health unit as addressed in one of these policies reflects a significant step towards meeting the needs of this population and progressing towards compliance with the Settlement Agreement. However, as is noted elsewhere in this report, the current number of mental health staff will not actually be able to implement all of the requirements of these policies or the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
38. Ensure that the Jail is overseen by a qualified Jail Administrator and a leadership team with substantial education, training and experience in the management of a large jail, including at least five years of related management experience for their positions, and a bachelor’s degree. When the Jail Administrator is absent or if the position becomes vacant, a qualified deputy administrator with comparable education, training, and experience, must serve as acting Jail Administrator.
Partial Compliance Shortly after the January site visit, the Jail Administrator resigned and retired. On February 6, 2020, the Sheriff appointed the Assistant Jail Administrator as the Interim Jail Administrator. He has the requisite education.
24

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 25 of 122
On the same date, the Captain in charge of the RDC was designated as the Interim Assistant Jail Administrator. While the actual order states “Interim Facility Commander at the Raymond Detention Center”, according to the HCSO In-House Counsel, in her letter of February 14, 2020, the temporary transfer is to the position of Interim Assistant Jail Administrator. He has twenty years of corrections and law enforcement experience at the Mississippi Department of Corrections, Mississippi State Hospital, Pelahatchie Police Department, and private enterprise. From 2014 to 2016 he was employed by the HCSO as a Detention Officer. He was promoted to Captain of the RDC in April 2016 and resigned in December after being returned to his former rank. He has a high school diploma. He does not have five years of supervisory experience (other than as a K-9 supervisor at the MDOC and eight months as the RDC Captain) and he does not have the four-year college degree specified for the position of Assistant Jail Administrator in the Settlement Agreement.
39. Ensure that all Jail supervisors have the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing needed to effectively supervise both prisoners and other staff members. At minimum, Jail supervisors must have at least 3 years of field experience, including experience working in the Jail. They must also be familiar with Jail policies and procedures, the terms of this Agreement, and prisoner rights.
Partial Compliance Full compliance with the provisions of this paragraph cannot be achieved until policies and procedures are in place and training has been completed.
A number of personnel changes have occurred since the beginning of January 2020. The Captain who served as the Director of Maintenance, Security and Sanitation, was transferred to the law enforcement side of the HCSO. His replacement came on board shortly thereafter at the level of a Sergeant. This position was intended to track and coordinate all maintenance efforts with the County, a much-needed task. However, shortly before finalizing this report, it was learned that he has resigned.
On the same date that the RDC Captain was transferred to the Interim Assistant Jail Administrator’s position, a Lieutenant was temporarily appointed to take his place as the Interim Facility Captain at the RDC. The Interim Facility Captain has been employed by the HCSO since July 2014, initially as a Detention Officer. He was promoted to Sergeant in 2014 and to Lieutenant in 2018. He has a high school diploma.
During the past four months, three supervisors have been promoted from within the ranks from Detention Officer to Sergeant.
25

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 26 of 122
• Detention Officer “A” was employed on 8-8-16 and was promoted to Detention Sergeant on 11-1-19. She was previously employed in Booking, left the HCSO, then returned. She has a high school diploma and an AA degree.
• Detention Officer “B” was employed on 4-23-18 and was promoted to Detention Sergeant on 11-1-19. She previously worked at the HCSO. She has a high school diploma and an AAS degree in Arts and Science.
• Detention Officer “C” was employed on 11-4-13. He was promoted to Detention Sergeant on 11-1-19. He has a high school diploma.
All three officers have at least 3 years experience as required by the Settlement Agreement. The monitoring team has been informed that supervisory positions have recently been posted and interviews are underway. This is a more deliberate process than has been used in the past and should ensure that supervisors have the requisite education and experience required by this paragraph.
40. Ensure that no one works in the Jail unless they have passed a background check, including a criminal history check.
Substantial Compliance The HCSO continues to comply with the requirement that all applicants have passed a background check, including a criminal history check. This was confirmed by the Recruitment and Screening Investigator and the Director of Human Resources as well as by a review of selected personnel files.
41. Ensure that Jail policies and procedures provide for the “direct supervision” of all Jail housing units.
Non-Compliant As has been previously noted, compliance with the terms of this paragraph cannot be achieved because there is no policy in place which addresses the issue of “direct supervision”. Further, it does not appear that pending policies, whether under review or under development, specifically deal with the direct supervision of housing units. In addition, while the RDC and Work Center (WC) were both designed to be direct supervision facilities, the Jackson Detention Center (JDC) is a first generation, linear intermittent surveillance jail that cannot be modified without a very expensive renovation.
At the RDC and WC steps are being taken to make direct supervision operation a reality. Cameras and an alarm system for the fire exit doors at the WC have been ordered. Once in place it will be possible to eliminate the second post that is assigned to each of the four housing units. The principles of direct supervision call for one officer to be responsible for a housing unit. At
26

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 27 of 122
the RDC, an order was issued on October 8, 2019, which limits access to the pod control rooms and calls for well-being checks to be reported by radio to the control room officer. Individual unit logs are no longer maintained. All information is recorded in the control room log. When housing units are staffed continuously and returned to direct supervision operation, unit logs will be reactivated. This change in procedure has resulted in a noticeable improvement. Officers now have more time inside the housing units supervising inmates instead of inside the control rooms filling out logs.
The first direct supervision orientation class was held in December 2019. Thirty-two officers (20 current staff and 12 recruits) completed the sixteen-hour block of instruction. Each subsequent academy will include a direct supervision component which is comprised of classroom training as well as time inside housing units at the WC and RDC. While more time working with a direct supervision housing unit officer would be beneficial, this first step toward training all staff is a good beginning.
C Pod at the RDC has been closed for approximately six months while undergoing renovation. The project has proven to be much more complex and time consuming than was originally estimated. In addition, there was an unexplained failure to authorize the renovation of the security doors for over six months. Consequently, there is still no firm reopening date. When it is placed on-line, the plan is to staff each housing unit continuously so that direct supervision can be reinstated. However, at current staffing levels, it is unclear how this will be achieved. The Stipulated Order entered on January 16, 2020 to resolve a contempt motion requires the County to develop a plan for providing direct supervision in Pod C when it reopens. This is essential to avoid the destruction of the pod as was done the last time it was renovated and left minimally staffed.
42. Ensure that the Jail has sufficient staffing to adequately supervise prisoners, fulfill the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the safe operation of the Jail. The parties recognize that the Board allocates to the Sheriff lump sum funding on a quarterly basis. The Sheriff recognizes that sufficient staffing of the Jail should be a priority for utilizing those funds. To that end, the County must at minimum:
a. Hire and retain sufficient numbers of detention officers to ensure that: i. There are at least two detention officers in each control room at all times; ii. There are at least three detention officers at all times for each housing unit, booking area, and the medical unit;
iii. There are rovers to provide backup and assistance to other posts; iv. Prisoners have access to exercise, medical treatment, mental health
treatment, and attorney visitation as scheduled; v. There are sufficient detention officers to implement this Agreement.
27

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 28 of 122
b. Fund and obtain a formal staffing and needs assessment (“study”) that determines with particularity the minimum number of staff and facility improvements required to implement this Agreement. As an alternative to a new study, the September 2014 study by the National Institute of Corrections may be updated if the updated study includes current information for the elements listed below. The study or study update must be completed within six months of the Effective Date and must include the following elements: i. The staffing element of the study must identify all required posts and positions, as well as the minimum number and qualifications of staff to cover each post and position. ii. The study must ensure that the total number of recommended positions includes a “relief factor” so that necessary posts remain covered regardless of staff vacancies, turnover, vacations, illness, holidays, or other temporary factors impacting day-to-day staffing. iii. As part of any needs assessment, the study’s authors must estimate the number of prisoners expected to be held in the Jail and identify whether additional facilities, including housing, may be required.
c. Once completed, the County must provide the United States and the Monitor with a copy of the study and a plan for implementation of the study’s recommendations. Within one year after the Monitor’s and United States’ review of the study and plan, the County must fund and implement the staffing and facility improvements recommended by the study, as modified and approved by the United States.
d. The staffing study shall be updated at least annually and staffing adjusted accordingly to ensure continued compliance with this Agreement. The parties recognize that salaries are an important factor to recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, so the County will also annually evaluate salaries.
e. The County will also create, to the extent possible, a career ladder and system of retention bonuses for Jail staff.
Non-Compliant The staffing problem has become more critical over time. As of the January site visit the total number of personnel was reported at only 204 which is the lowest level since the monitoring process began over three years ago. The highest number recorded during that time was 256. With 275 authorized positions in the Jail System, only 74% are filled. That figure is misleading in that the (2017) staffing study called for over 400 positions. The study needs to be updated for two reasons: (1) sub-paragraph d., above calls for that to be done at least annually; and (2) the inmate population has dropped significantly over time which is what has made it possible to close C Pod for the past six months. In spite of that, the existing facilities, particularly the RDC are severely understaffed. The WC has approximately 60% of the required staff, the JDC only
28

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 29 of 122
53% and the RDC just 41% even taking into account that one third of its capacity (C Pod) is closed.
At the RDC there are not enough officers available to operate the facility effectively, even with remote supervision for outside the housing units, in spite of the fact that one third of the jail is shut down for repairs (C Pod has been closed for several months; only A and B Pods are open). There are certainly not enough officers to implement direct supervision (where an officer is assigned permanently inside each housing unit) as C Pod is repaired and put back on line. The lack of staff, coupled with locks and doors that do not function properly or cannot be secured, continue to create a volatile situation.
Because the housing units at the RDC have not been staffed since 2012, the inmates have control of the living spaces, while staff manage only the control rooms and corridors. Consequently, inmate assaults are routinely discovered after the fact rather than being prevented by the presence of officers. Incident Report #20000090 is a case in point. Two inmates in Pod A, HU-3 asked to be moved from that unit. The officer immediately noticed that they were injured and subsequently determined that they had been assaulted. After they were escorted to Medical, one was treated on site, but the other had to be transported to a local hospital. However, there appears to be a decrease in the severity of inmate assaults from prior months and there is reportedly a decrease in contraband found in the facility. This may be due to the change in procedure described above that allows housing unit officers to spend more time in the housing units and measures that appear to have reduced access to contraband serving as weapons.
The only reason that the HCDS is able to function is that the number of detainees arrested has dropped to a new low of just 4,617 in 2019. That equates to a little over one booking every two hours. In addition, the count on January 22, 2020, was just 441, the lowest figure since the monitoring process began.
The County has not addressed the plan for a career ladder or a retention bonus system for Jail staff that were submitted by the HCSO. The County did approve a $100 per month pay increase for all detention officers (excluding supervisors) effective January 1, 2020. However, the new Board rescinded that decision. As noted in the last report, the County has hired additional detention officers; however, it has lost an even greater number of officers.
Several recent developments will hopefully lead to some improvement in this area. The corrections recruitment and retention consultant has now been added to the monitoring team and made available to the County for consultation. The County has been working with him and will hopefully begin to see improved recruitment and retention. The County is reportedly beginning the process to hire a Recruitment Officer specifically for Detention Services as is required by the Stipulated Order. The utilization of the hiring process for promotion to supervisors contributes to
29

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 30 of 122
the creation of a career ladder encouraging retention. In addition, two measures create better availability of staff where needed. The monitoring team has been informed that the Sheriff is utilizing the Reserve Unit to guard inmates in the hospital and a purchase order has been submitted for the equipment needed at the WC to free up an additional 20 officers.
f. Develop and implement an objective and validated classification and housing assignment procedure that is based on risk assessment rather than solely on a prisoner’s charge. Prisoners must be classified immediately after booking, and then housed based on the classification assessment. At minimum, a prisoner’s bunk, cell, unit, and facility assignments must be based on his or her objective classification assessment, and staff members may not transfer or move prisoners into a housing area if doing so would violate classification principles (e.g., placing juveniles with adults, victims with former assailants, and minimum security prisoners in a maximum security unit). Additionally, the classification and housing assignment process must include the following elements: i. The classification process must be handled by qualified staff who have additional training and experience on classification. ii. The classification system must take into account objective risk factors including a prisoner’s prior institutional history, history of violence, charges, special needs, physical size or vulnerabilities, gang affiliation, and reported enemies. iii. Prisoner housing assignments must not be changed by unit staff without proper supervisor and classification staff approval. iv. The classification system must track the location of all prisoners in the Jail and help ensure that prisoners can be readily located by staff. The County may continue to use wrist bands to help identify prisoners, but personal identification on individual prisoners may not substitute for a staffcontrolled and centralized prisoner tracking and housing assignment system. v. The classification system must be integrated with the Jail prisoner record system, so that staff have appropriate access to information necessary to provide proper supervision, including the current housing assignment of every prisoner in the Jail. vi. The designation and use of housing units as “gang pods” must be phased out under the terms of this Agreement. Placing prisoners together because of gang affiliation alone is prohibited. The County must replace current gang-based housing assignments with a more appropriate objective classification and housing process within one year after the Effective Date.
Partial Compliance
30

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 31 of 122
As previously reported the classification scoring reflects a return to “behavior based” as the foundation for classification decisions. The Sergeant now overseeing classification has reviewed most of the files of active inmates and all files are reviewed at 90-day intervals which will result in a review of all files. A review of five files found that none of them had the previously routine override based on current charge which had resulted in the system not being “behavior based.” However, there continue to be some errors and systemic concerns described below some of which keep the classification system from being behavior based in reality.
Accurately scoring the risk assessment is an important step, however, it is also essential that the scores then be used to house inmates appropriately. Despite requests, there has never been a clear articulation of how inmates are assigned to the three facilities. During this visit, it was reported that the Captains of the facilities can reject placement of an inmate in their facility by Classification staff. Although this can be for legitimate reasons such as a “keep away” inmate, it was reported that it was sometimes based on unwritten criteria not consistent with the classification scoring. In addition, the lack of criteria for placement in the facilities raises the concern that the scoring is not driving the housing decision. The WC being a dormitory style facility would be expected to serve mostly minimum level inmates. The custody level as reflected on a report during the site visit shows that there were 15 maximum security inmates. At the time of the site visit there were a number of inmates from JDC temporarily moved to WC because of problems with mold and this could account for some of the maximum-security inmates. This is an issue that should be addressed in the developing policies and procedures. The closure of C Pod for renovation has also impacted the ability to house inmates by classification level.
Even when the initial decision is by Classification, subsequent movement can, once again, undermine the use of an objective classification tool. While cell assignments and inmate transfers are supposed to be cleared through Classification, there is no policy in place that requires that action, consequently, supervisors sometimes make such transfers on their own. This practice was previously reported as infrequent but during this site visit the practice was reported as a more frequent occurrence. Also, impacting the use of the classification tool, was the practice of classifying new arrivals at RDC but not sending the paperwork with the inmate to JDC. This was occurring when a supervisor was not on site at RDC to sign off on the paperwork. When the inmate arrived, JDC staff did not have the classification paperwork to make an appropriate cell assignment. It appears that this will be addressed following the site visit.
It is also essential that the scoring be done accurately in order to have an objective, behavior based system. One such systemic concern contributing to problems in this area is that the Classification Officer does not have access to the NCIC report on prior arrests (the “rap sheet”) in preparing the risk assessment. Booking runs the NCIC report that is limited to outstanding warrants and puts that in the file. The only source for prior arrests that Classification has is the
31

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 32 of 122
JMS system which includes only bookings in Hinds County. It was reported that IT is working on getting access to the NCIC for Classification. Also, involving the JMS system, updates to charges made by Records or Booking does not automatically get conveyed to Classification. This can have a significant impact on scoring. Although the files have improved markedly from the beginning of the monitoring, there continue to be a number of errors. Of the five files reviewed, four of them had at least one error.
Finally, while the decision to end housing solely according to gang affiliation was made early on by the Jail Administrator, the lack of supervision within the housing units at the RDC makes it impossible to stop physical conflict from developing between competing groups of gang members even when gang affiliation is considered in the classification process.
The Classification Unit has gone through a series of changes since the monitoring process began. Gang affiliation was ended as the primary criteria for housing unit assignment. Then the development of a behavior based, objective classification system followed. Most recently, it became apparent that some previously undocumented issues tended to undercut the authority and effectiveness of the classification system as described above. Classification decisions should be made by the Classification Unit, not by individual housing supervisors. In addition, facility commanders should not set arbitrary criteria for assignment to a specific jail. Classification decisions need to be managed through a central point.
g. Develop and implement positive approaches for promoting safety within the Jail including: i. Providing all prisoners with at least 5 hours of outdoor recreation per week; ii. Developing rewards and incentives for good behavior such as additional commissary, activities, or privileges; iii. Creating work opportunities, including the possibility of paid employment; iv. Providing individual or group treatment for prisoners with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other behavioral or medical conditions, who would benefit from therapeutic activities; v. Providing education, including special education, for youth, as well as all programs, supports, and services required for youth by federal law; vi. Screening prisoners for serious mental illness as part of the Jail’s booking and health assessment process, and then providing such prisoners with appropriate treatment and therapeutic housing; vii. Providing reasonable opportunities for visitation.
h. Ensure that policies, procedures, and practices provide for higher levels of supervision for individual prisoners if necessary due to a prisoner’s individual
32

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 33 of 122
circumstances. Examples of such higher level supervision include (a) constant observation (i.e., continuous, uninterrupted one-on-one monitoring) for actively suicidal prisoners (i.e., prisoners threatening or who recently engaged in suicidal behavior); (b) higher frequency security checks for prisoners locked down in maximum security units, medical observation units, and administrative segregation units; and (c) more frequent staff interaction with youth as part of their education, treatment and behavioral management programs. i. Continue to update, maintain, and expand use of video surveillance and recording cameras to improve coverage throughout the Jail, including the booking area, housing units, medical and mental health units, special management housing, facility perimeters, and in common areas.
Partial Compliance Regarding 42 (g) (i), five hours of outdoor recreation per week is still not provided to all inmates in the Jail System. The WC is the only facility that is in compliance. There a weekly Recreation Log is maintained for each housing unit. It reflects that more than five hours of outdoor recreation are provided to all inmates each week. At the RDC a similar log was to be maintained, but it has not been made available to the monitoring team to date. At the JDC compliance is not possible because that facility does not have an outdoor recreation yard. To the credit of the facility commander, she has implemented a number of innovative measures that give inmates out of cell recreation opportunities; however, they do not meet the criteria spelled out in this paragraph.
Regarding 42 (g) (ii) and (iii), there is no incentive program. There are work opportunities at the WC but not paid employment, and the only opportunities at the JDC and RDC are working as trusties.
Regarding 42 (g)(iv), providing individual and group treatment as needed covers a broad range of needs and activities. Providing medication is one necessary part of treatment that has been challenged as a result of a change in security procedures. At the time of the May 2019 site visit, the nursing staff reported multiple incidences of harassment by prisoners during medication pass and stated that, therefore, they did not feel that all security staff assigned to supervise medication pass were consistently protecting them. It was expected that supervisors would make it clear to security staff that when assigned to supervise medication pass they had three responsibilities – gather all inmates who were on medication, assure that each inmate actually consumed the medication or signed the form indicating a refusal to take the medication, and protect the nurses who were doing the medication pass. However instead, the location of the medication pass was changed; the nurses had to pass medication through a window removed from the housing unit; and therefore, during medication pass, the nurses were unable to see what was happening on each unit. This change was particularly of concern when it comes to prisoners who reportedly
33

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 34 of 122
refuse medication. Such prisoners were not appearing at the window to sign a medication refusal form. As a result, even if a signed refusal form was brought to the nurse, the nurse could not confirm that it was actually signed by the prisoner. Most importantly, since the nurse couldn’t see the prisoner, the nurse could not observe whether or not the prisoner was deteriorating due to the fact that he/she was not taking prescribed medication. The impact of this change in the medication pass procedure was all the more alarming when one reviewed the data kept by the medical department on medication refusals. In the months prior to this change in how/where medications were passed, refusal numbers ranged from 3/month to a high of 10/month, but during the month of September, after the change was made, the refusal number was 146. Therefore, during the September 2019 site visit, reconsideration of the change in location and procedure for medication pass was recommended.
At the time of this site visit, the location and procedure for medication pass had remained the same; the nurses were still unable to fulfill all of their responsibilities associated with medication pass; and the medication refusal rate was still unacceptably high. Therefore, the monitors scheduled a joint meeting between security and medical to discuss this issue. In that meeting, it was decided to return to the old location and procedure for medication pass, and security administration agreed to assure that security staff assigned to medication pass would assume all responsibilities (noted above) associated with such an assignment.
Following the September site visit, it was noted that there was no overnight medical coverage at the WC (as there is at RDC and JDC). Therefore, if there is a medical emergency there at night, it must await the transport of the nurse from RDC to the WC; she must bring an emergency kit with her because the medical office at the WC is all locked up for the night; and then she will likely have to transport the prisoner back to RDC. All of this can be a waste of time in a medical emergency where time is of the essence, which was evidenced in a recent situation where a prisoner at the WC had a stroke in the early morning hours. This continues to present the potential for untimely medical care in an emergent situation.
At the time of this site visit, the full-time QMHP/Mental Health Coordinator position had been vacant since about two weeks after the last site visit. Therefore, during the period covered by this site visit, the mental health staff consisted of one full-time QMHP, a part-time psychologist, and a part-time Psychiatric Nurse Clinician (supported by a psychiatrist). As noted previously, QCHC had already determined that an additional two QMHP’s were needed to provide needed treatment and perform the duties required by the Settlement Agreement.
Because of what is now an extraordinary shortage of mental health staff, at the time of this site visit, the total number of prisoners on the mental health caseload had been decreased from 183 at the time of the last site visit to 139, all of whom are seriously mentally ill. The prisoners dropped from the caseload are those who are not seriously mentally ill but were previously being seen for more supportive mental health treatment are no longer being seen. All but 12 of the 139
34

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 35 of 122
prisoners remaining on the caseload are on psychotropic medication. Medication is indicated for 6 of the 12, but those 6 have refused to take medication. Medication is managed by the part-time Psychiatric Nurse Clinician, with some additional assistance provided by the General Practice Nurse Clinician. Except for two prisoners who have to date refused any type of treatment, prisoners on the mental health caseload are receiving individual treatment sessions, albeit not always as frequently as might be clinically indicated. The full-time QMHP provides individual sessions for the 83 prisoners at RDC; and the part-time psychologist provides individual sessions for the remaining prisoners housed at JDC and the WC.
In addition to providing individual treatment sessions for the 139 prisoners on the mental health case load, housed at three different facilities, the full-time QMHP and part-time psychologist perform mental health assessments of new prisoners referred to mental health; develop treatment plans for all prisoners on the mental health caseload and discharge plans when appropriate; perform assessments, manage mental health emergencies (assessing suicidal prisoners/suicide watch, crisis management, etc.); provide any assessments and treatment required for PREAinvolved prisoners; perform weekly rounds for all prisoners held in segregation; and maintain all records and logs.
As all of the security policies and procedures required to comply with all provisions of the agreement are developed and implemented, mental health staff will have additional responsibilities related to the disciplinary process, segregation review, and security uses of force. In addition, a review of incident reports indicates that mental health should be more engaged in the incident-reporting and review process. Furthermore, once the mental health unit is opened, a more enhanced treatment program will need to be put in place, which will include a range of treatment groups and other structured therapeutic activities, and a range of therapeutic interventions for acutely ill but non-compliant prisoners (now being held in segregation) will also have to be put in place (See 42(g)(6)).
Obviously, even when the currently vacant mental health position is filled, there will still not be enough mental health staff to adequately assume all of the above noted responsibilities, and so clearly, an analysis of mental health staff needs is indicated. In conjunction with the plan to open the mental health unit, the program for that unit should be designed as soon as possible so that staffing requirements for the unit can be assessed. In addition, as security policies and procedures are finalized, mental health staffing requirements to fulfill the responsibilities outlined in those policies and procedures can be assessed. All of these staffing needs can then be added to staffing requirements.
Once this analysis of mental health staff needs is completed, QCHC (the contract provider for health and mental health services) will have to submit a proposal to the County for an expansion of their contract in order to hire needed mental health staff. Given discussions with Hinds
35

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 36 of 122
County Behavior Health regarding the much needed enhancement of the discharge planning process and the process for the referral of released prisoners to community based, outpatient mental health services, there will likely be an additional proposal to the County to fund these efforts. The mental health expert strongly encourages the county to seriously consider these requests for additional funding for mental health services because it is anticipated that such improved mental health services will not only decrease the suffering of mentally ill prisoners, but also improve safety and security within the Jail and significantly decrease the high rate of recidivism for mentally ill prisoners.
There is an immediate need, however, to fill the vacant Mental Health Coordinator position. While discussing this position with the QCHC Health & Mental Health Director for the facility, Ms. Simms, RN MSN MHA, it was discovered that her efforts had been to fill the position with another QMHP who would not be designated as the Mental Health Coordinator and the duties of the prior Mental Health Coordinator would be shared among the mental health staff. However, there should be a Mental Health Coordinator who represents the mental health program in meetings with security staff, the PREA Coordinator and outside agencies such as Hinds Behavioral Health. A Mental Health Coordinator should also share the responsibility with the Director to assign mental health staff to their various responsibilities and schedule them for coverage of the mental health program. A Mental Health Coordinator should also assume duties that had not yet been assumed by the prior Coordinator, such as scheduling and running regular mental health team meetings, treatment planning meetings and treatment plan review meetings. Once security policies and procedures have been completed, the Mental Health Coordinator would also represent the mental health program at disciplinary hearings and the monthly segregation review meetings. And, once the mental health unit is opened, the Mental Health Coordinator would be responsible for running that unit, which will include integrating security staff into the unit’s treatment plan for each person housed there.
Regarding 42 (g)(v), time did not permit a visit with programming staff during the current site visit. As previously reported, however, there has been significant expansion of educational and life skills programming. The programming includes GED instruction, anger management, computer skills, reading, recovery groups, mental health groups, finance class, job skills, and fatherhood groups. There is some 1 on 1 support for individuals needing a remedial level of critical thinking training. They have close to 20 volunteers. The January program report indicates that 37 inmates participated in 4 different programs including GED. There were barriers specific to the month of January including the closure of downtown programming because of the transfer of inmates to other facilities while the mold problem was addressed. There are several systemic barriers to the program which continue including the lack of a classroom at JDC where they can only use the visitation room one day a week and evenings. Currently, the program cannot do the GED testing so individuals cannot actually get their GED even though they may be ready.
36

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 37 of 122
Regarding 42 (g)(vi), during the Jail’s booking process, new admissions complete a mental health history form; this is forwarded to the medical department; and this form helps to flag new admissions who might be in need of mental health services. During the initial nurses’ health assessment process, the nurses also screen for mental health difficulties, and the majority of prisoners on the mental health caseload were first identified and referred to mental health during that initial screening process. It should be noted however that over a third of the prisoners on the mental health caseload were not identified during the booking process or the initial health assessment process, but were later identified by the mental health team, and several prisoners who were not previously identified self-referred for mental health services. Referral of prisoners to mental health by security staff continues to be unexpectedly rare (see section 45(f), and the sections on Incident Reporting, Disciplinary Review, Segregation Review and Use of Force). Therefore, there continues to be a concern about the ability of medical and security staff to identify prisoners who are in need of mental health services.
With regard to initial mental health assessments (performed by the mental health team when a prisoner is referred to mental health), over the last year there has been considerable improvement with regard to the timeliness of these assessments. Despite staff shortages, mental health staff continue to strive to see/assess all prisoners referred to them within 3 days. It was discovered during this site visit that although the attempt to assess new referrals within 3 days was confirmed by a review of medical records, this was not clearly evident by reviewing the mental health log, because there was no place to log attempts to assess that were refused, thereby delaying the assessment process. So now the log has been revised to include such refusals so as to better reflect the efforts that staff persons are actually making to perform assessments in a timely manner. Other than inmates who were offered and refused assessment within the 3 days there was only one inmate who was not assessed within 3 days and he was assessed on the 4th day.
Once the mental health unit is open, rapid assessment of newly admitted, mentally ill prisoners will be even more important, because it will determine whether they are placed on the mental health unit or in general population. Since some of the more acutely mentally ill new admissions, who would be most in need of placement on the mental health unit, will include that population who tends to initially refuse a mental health assessment, planning for the mental health unit should include a plan for where to hold/house apparently ill, new admissions who refuse an initial mental health assessment until an assessment can be done.
Steps have been taken towards opening a special needs/mental health unit. More specifically, County and Detention staff have identified the physical space in C Pod for a mental health unit and have identified the needed renovation of the space. It will be important to monitor whether the identified renovations for a mental health unit are made. The renovated pod will include a housing unit for seriously mentally ill prisoners, with an adjacent ISO-unit for even more
37

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 38 of 122
seriously mentally ill prisoners (those at risk of harming themselves or others, either because they have to date refused treatment or they are receiving treatment but have not yet stabilized); an ISO unit for suicide watch and special mental health observation; space for group therapy and other expanded mental health programming; and office space for mental health staff. The unit will also be designed so that security staff can employ a direct supervision approach to security management. In addition, a draft policy and procedure for the unit has been drafted and is in the review process.
Command staff, however, indicated an unwillingness to commit to the use of one unit in C Pod as a Mental Health Unit immediately upon its reopening, indicating that with one pod closed, there was insufficient room to commit one unit for Mental Health. However, as was discussed, the inmates with mental illness are all currently taking up bed space in the facility and could be congregated on a Mental Health Unit without reducing space for other inmates. As the provision of therapeutic housing is required by the Settlement Agreement and the current renovation work provides the opportunity to create such a unit, this is an opportune time to move towards compliance with this Settlement Agreement requirement.
With regard to the mental health program for the unit, a menu of therapeutic interventions needs to be developed and implemented in order to address the needs of the various types of seriously mentally ill prisoners that will be housed on the unit. Then, following a mental health assessment of each prisoner, a treatment plan would be developed that describes the prisoner’s mental health difficulties; the goals of treatment; the specific selections from the menu that will be employed to reach each goal of treatment; which staff person will be responsible for each therapeutic intervention that will be employed; and an estimate of how long it will take to reach each treatment goal. Treatment plans will be developed and signed off on by the treatment team, and will be reviewed by the treatment team on a regular basis and revised when indicated.
With regard to the population who will be appropriate for placement on the mental health unit, there will be seriously mentally ill prisoners who are expected to be able to stabilize (get their symptoms under control) and then undergo psychoeducation (i.e., learn about their illness, their need for treatment, and how best to participate in their treatment), so that they can continue with treatment upon their release from jail and thereby hopefully avoid rearrests; there will be a similar set of prisoners who are likely to be convicted and imprisoned for some period of time, but stabilization and psychoeducation will be focused on helping them function better in prison; and while detained in the facility, some sub-set of both groups of prisoners will likely stabilize to the point where they can be housed on a general population unit. These prisoners will require aggressive medication management, individual therapy, and group therapy that includes various psychoeducation groups, life skills groups and discharge planning groups.
38

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 39 of 122
There will be other seriously mentally ill prisoners who remain so impaired despite compliance with treatment that they will have to remain on the mental health unit while detained in the facility. These prisoners will require aggressive medication management, supportive individual therapy, and group therapy including various support groups and groups focused on how they might transition to a setting that has adequate supports once they are released.
Then there will be the even more seriously mentally ill prisoners (so acutely ill that they are a danger to themselves or others), who are being treated but have not yet stabilized or who have refused treatment. Those in treatment who have not yet stabilized may be in the ISO-section of the unit, or on suicide watch, or on special mental health observation. Those who have refused treatment will be in the ISO-section of the unit. Those prisoners who have accepted treatment need an even more aggressive approach to medication management, coupled with individual therapy focused on helping them stabilize. Those prisoners who have refused treatment will require repeated individual visits, focused on helping them come to understand their need for treatment, coupled with monitoring of their mental status to determine whether or not some emergency mental health intervention is indicated.
In addition, some individuals within the above noted groups of seriously mentally ill prisoners will also be suffering from substance abuse difficulties; so they should also have access to individual and group therapy focused on addressing those difficulties; and with regard to the treatment of these dually-diagnosed individuals, it will be important to remember that it has been well established that the integration of the treatment of their substance abuse difficulties and other mental health difficulties is required in order to successfully treat them. Furthermore, some individuals are also suffering from intellectual or other cognitive difficulties, and so special programming for those individuals will also be required.
As noted above, it is expected that medical, mental health and security staff will work together as an interdisciplinary team in order to provide a safe environment for mentally ill inmates and staff, while providing mentally ill inmates with the level of mental health services that they require. It should be noted that security staff who are assigned to the mental health unit will largely focus on each prisoner’s behavior and, in consultation with the mental health staff, the best way of managing/responding to each prisoner’s behavior in a way that is also consistent with the goals, objectives and therapeutic interventions outlined in the prisoner’s treatment plan. In fact, there will be many cases where the treatment plan might include specific interventions that will be made by security staff. Therefore, since communication and cooperation between security staff and mental health staff will be critical to the success of a mental health unit, what information will be shared and how information will be shared needs to be determined and clearly articulated so that both mental health staff and security staff can fulfill their responsibilities while protecting prisoner’s privacy rights.
39

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 40 of 122
Finally, there are several other issues, discussed in other sections of this report, that will need to be resolved before the mental health unit opens. These include issues regarding specialized training for security staff (see 45(f)), classification and housing (see section 74); issues regarding mental health involvement in disciplinary review (see section 77); an interdisciplinary approach to treatment (see section 77(l)) and the range of issues related to avoiding the placement of those prisoners with serious mental illness in segregation and removing such prisoners from segregation.
Regarding 42 (g) (vii), visitation records for each facility covering one month reflected that at the JDC an average of 80 visits were scheduled with family and friends. Of those, 68 were completed. At the RDC and WC (whose records are combined) only 44 visits were scheduled. Of those, 32 were completed. Most of the visits that were not completed were due to “Cancelled by Admin” followed by “Missed by Caller/Inmate”. Based on the number of inmates assigned to each facility, that means that at the JDC an inmate had a 6.8 in ten chance of having a completed visit each month whereas at the RDC and WC an inmate had only a 0.8 in ten chance of having a completed visit each month. This extreme disparity is still unexplained. Jail administration needs to look into why the numbers are so disparate.
Regarding 42 (h), suicide watch procedures are not consistent at each facility. At the RDC, inmates placed on suicide watch are assigned to a specific ISO Unit which has an officer assigned full time to the ISO Unit for the duration of the watch. Log entries are made every fifteen minutes but observation is constant. At the WC suicide risk inmates are sent to the RDC. At the JDC, male inmates who require a suicide watch are sent to the RDC. Female inmates placed on a suicide watch are put in a designated unit, but the observation is every 15 minutes, not constant.
As has been previously noted, various staff are responsible for the higher levels of supervision required for prisoners who are on suicide watch and other special medical or mental health observation. In past Monitoring Reports periodic discrepancies were noted with regard to staff failure to properly follow suicide watch procedures at the RDC; specifically, leaving the post unattended or taking on extraneous duties in other areas of the pod which made it impossible to maintain a continuous suicide watch. During the January site visit there were no active suicide watches underway during the times of inspection, but a review of the most recent suicide watch record revealed no discrepancies.
Prisoners on suicide watch are seen daily by both mental health staff and medical staff, including on weekends. Mental health staff have assumed the additional responsibility of taking weekend call on a rotating basis, which has included coming into the facility to see prisoners on suicide watch and assessing any new mental health emergencies. Security staff are responsible for the more constant observation and supervision of prisoners on suicide watch, and the level of suicide watch ordered by mental health defines the extent of that supervision.
40

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 41 of 122
It should be noted, with regard to describing the need for mental health staff, that although the management of suicidal prisoners is just one of their activities, it consumes a significant amount of staff time. More specifically, there are 2-3 prisoners placed on suicide watch each week; a handful of those prisoners declare the next day that they were not suicidal and only said they were to get away from some type of problem on the unit; but the overwhelming majority of those placed on suicide watch are on watch for 2-3 days. For each prisoner placed on suicide watch a QMHP must perform an initial assessment, which includes an assessment for suicide potential, and then reassess the prisoner each day he/she is on suicide watch. In addition, the psychiatric nurse practitioner must see the prisoner while he/she is on suicide watch. Then once a prisoner is released from suicide watch, he/she begins a program of gradually reducing, frequent follow-up individual sessions with a QMHP, in order to monitor the prisoner and address any issues that might have contributed to the suicidal ideation that prompted placement on suicide watch. In other words, on any given week, between assessing and treating prisoners on suicide watch and monitoring and providing treatment for those who had been on suicide watch in the prior weeks could consume 1/3 to1/2 of a QMHP’s time. It is important that individuals who claim to be suicidal are treated as such and placed on suicide watch. However, there appears to be a population of people who assert that they are suicidal and then quickly admit (after being placed on suicide watch) that they are trying to escape 'something' on their unit. Given the amount of limited mental health staff time this consumes, security staff and mental health staff should work together to better understand what is happening with this population and what can be done to manage them differently.
Prisoners on special medical observation are seen daily by medical staff. At present, there is no special mental health observation for acutely ill prisoners; most acutely mentally ill prisoners are being held in segregation. When the mental health unit is opened, a part of the function of that unit will be to provide a higher level of supervision by mental health, medical and security staff, as well as more appropriate therapeutic intervention for such acutely mentally ill prisoners (see 42(g)(vi)).
One of the issues that arose while drafting the policies and procedures for the mental health unit was the medical, mental health and security supervision of prisoners who are withdrawing from alcohol and/or other drugs. At present, such prisoners are placed on a unit with enhanced medical, mental health and security supervision, unless it is suspected that they are withdrawing from a substance that requires more constant medical supervision, in which case they are placed in the infirmary. Whether or not there will be adequate staff on the mental health unit to manage those prisoners who currently undergo withdrawal in the infirmary must be carefully considered.
Regarding 42 (i), video surveillance capabilities have not changed since the first site visit. At the RDC cameras in the corridors and housing units are recorded, so incidents can be reviewed after
41

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 42 of 122
the fact. At the WC live action cameras allow visual coverage of the hallways and housing units, but they are not recorded, so there is no way that incidents can be reviewed after the fact. At the JDC, there are cameras that cover and record the hallways and the drive through sally port/transfer waiting area, but there is no coverage inside the housing units. In every previous Monitoring Report, it has been suggested that action be taken to provide full recording capability for all housing and operational areas of each facility. Once again, that suggestion is made. This is definitely an item that should be addressed by the Master Plan Committee.
While the IAD and CID investigators now have access to the video recording system so that they can quickly view incidents, they still cannot obtain copies of them without having to go through a request process with IT. It is recommended, again, that these investigators be granted immediate access to both view and record copies of previously recorded incidents.
43. Include outcome measures as part of the Jail’s internal data collection, management, and administrative reporting process. The occurrence of any of the following specific outcome measures creates a rebuttable presumption in this case that the Jail fails to provide reasonably safe conditions for prisoners:
a. Staff vacancy rate of more than 10% of budgeted positions; b. A voluntary staff turnover rate that results in the failure to staff critical posts (such
as the housing units, booking, and classification) or the failure to maintain experienced supervisors on all shifts; c. A major disturbance resulting in the takeover of any housing area by prisoners; d. Staffing where fewer than 90% of all detention officers have completed basic jailer training; e. Three or more use of force or prisoner-on-prisoner incidents in a fiscal year in which a prisoner suffers a serious injury, but for which staff members fail to complete all documentation required by this Agreement, including supervision recommendations and findings; f. One prisoner death within a fiscal year, where there is no documented administrative review by the Jail Administrator or no documented mortality review by a physician not directly involved in the clinical treatment of the deceased prisoner (e.g. corporate medical director or outside, contract physician, when facility medical director may have a personal conflict); g. One death within a fiscal year, where the death was a result of prisoner-onprisoner violence and there was a violation of Jail supervision, housing assignment, or classification procedures.
Non-Compliant The HCSO still does not create a report covering these areas. A review of specific data reveals that non-compliance is the status quo with regard to almost every aspect of this paragraph. With
42

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 43 of 122
only 204 of the 271 funded positions filled, the vacancy rate is 24.9%, more than double the 10% threshold for non-compliance. This means that required posts are routinely left vacant. And, again, this is the vacancy rate of the funded positions, the vacancy rate of the needed positions is over 50%.
As described in past monitoring reports, there have been at least 3 incidents in the past year in which the inmates took over a housing unit.
There have been uses of force resulting in serious injury to inmates. See, e.g. 191883, 191336, and 191294. There was inadequate reporting of these incidents as well as all uses of force as is described below. Specifically required by this paragraph and consistently noted as missing are the supervisors’ recommendations and findings. Similarly, there continue to be inmate on inmate assaults resulting in serious injury. There were at least two in January with transport to the hospital. As with the Use of Force Reports the Incident Reports routinely lack a supervisor’s findings and recommendations. Incident Report #20000090 described above in paragraph 42, page 22, is a case in point.
Follow up on assaults and serious incidents is inadequate. As was noted in previous Monitoring Reports, the beating death of an inmate in December 2018, has yet to be properly addressed. Although some inmates have been criminally charged, there has been no Administrative Review or Mortality Review conducted to date, nor has the matter been referred to IAD for investigation.
44. To complement, but not replace, “direct supervision,” develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that detention officers are conducting rounds as appropriate. To that end:
a. Rounds must be conducted at least once every 30 minutes in general population housing units and at least once every 15 minutes for special management prisoners (including prisoners housed in booking cells).
b. All security rounds must be conducted at irregular intervals to reduce their predictability and must be documented on forms or logs.
c. Officers must only be permitted to enter data on these forms or logs at the time a round is completed. Forms and logs must not include pre-printed dates or times. Officers must not be permitted to fill out forms and logs before they actually conduct their rounds.
d. The parties anticipate that “rounds” will not necessarily be conducted as otherwise described in this provision when the Jail is operated as a “direct supervision” facility. This is because a detention officer will have constant, active supervision of all prisoners in the detention officer’s charge. As detailed immediately below, however, even under a “direct supervision” model, the Jail must have a system in place to document and ensure that staff are providing adequate supervision.
43

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 44 of 122
e. Jail policies, procedures, and practices may utilize more than one means to document and ensure that staff are supervising prisoners as required by “direct supervision,” including the use and audit of supervisor inspection reports, visitation records, mealtime records, inmate worker sheets, medical treatment files, sick call logs, canteen delivery records, and recreation logs. Any system adopted to ensure that detention officers are providing “direct supervision” must be sufficiently detailed and in writing to allow verification by outside reviewers, including the United States and Monitor.
Partial Compliance As has been reported previously, none of the facilities meet the requirement that well-being checks be conducted every 30 minutes on general population inmates, 15 minutes on restrictive housing inmates and 15 minutes on detainees held in Booking holding cells. While the corrections operations member of the monitoring team has spent a great deal of time attempting to set up procedures in each facility that at least meet the American Correctional Association standard of 60 minutes for general population inmates, 30 minutes for restrictive housing inmates and 15 minutes for holding cell (Booking) inmates, it has not been possible to implement even those practices consistently at each facility. In order to address this problem, the Monitor is creating a stopgap order that the Interim Jail Administrator can issue to all personnel regarding expected procedures at each facility. Later, this direction can be incorporated into a permanent policy. Once direct supervision is reinstituted at each facility (except the JDC) the hourly wellbeing check for general population can be entered in the unit log when inmates are in their cells/on their bunks at night. During the day, that entry will not be necessary.
Indicative of the above referenced discrepancies, during the January site visit most 15-minute well-being checks in Booking were found to be current and properly entered on individual log sheets attached to the wall next to each single cell, but there were no such log sheets maintained for inmates located in the multiple occupancy cells. Neither the assigned officer, nor the Booking Sergeant could explain why well-being checks for those inmates were ignored. After three plus years of monitoring inspections, such a situation is inexcusable; hence the need for a stopgap order from the Interim Jail Administrator.
45. Ensure that all correctional officers receive adequate pre- and post-service training to provide for reasonably safe conditions in the Jail. To that end, the County must ensure that the Jail employs Qualified Training Officers, who must help to develop and implement a formal, written training program. The program must include the following:
a. Mandatory pre-service training. Detention officers must receive State jailer training and certification prior to start of work. Staff who have not received such training by the Effective Date of this Agreement must complete their State jailer training within twelve months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. During
44

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 45 of 122
that twelve month period, the County must develop an in-house detention training academy. b. Post Order training. Detention officers must receive specific training on unitspecific post orders before starting work on a unit, and every year thereafter. To document such training, officers must be required to sign an acknowledgement that they have received such training, but only after an officer is first assigned to a unit, after a Post Order is updated, and after completion of annual retraining. c. “Direct supervision” training. Detention officers must receive specific pre- and post service training on “direct supervision.” Such training must include instruction on how to supervise prisoners in a “direct supervision” facility, including instruction in effective communication skills and verbal de-escalation. Supervisors must receive training on how to monitor and ensure that staff are providing effective “direct supervision.” d. Jail administrator training. High-level Jail supervisors (i.e., supervisors with facility-wide management responsibilities), including the Jail Administrator and his or her immediate deputies (wardens), must receive jail administrator training prior to the start of their employment. High-level supervisors already employed at the Jail when this Agreement is executed must complete such training within six months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Training comparable to the Jail Administration curriculum offered by the National Institute of Corrections will meet the requirements of this provision. e. Post-service training. Detention officers must receive at least 120 hours per year of post-service training in their first year of employment and 40 hours per year after their first year. Such training must include refresher training on Jail policies. The training may be provided during roll call, staff meetings, and post-assignment meetings. Post-service training should also include field and scenario-based training. f. Training for Critical Posts. Jail management must work with the training department to develop a training syllabus and minimum additional training requirements for any officer serving in a critical position. Such additional training must be provided for any officer working on a tactical team; in a special management, medical or mental health unit; in a maximum security unit; or in booking and release. g. Special management unit training. Officers assigned to special management units must receive at least eight hours of specialized training each year regarding supervision of such units and related prisoner safety, medical, mental health, and security policies. h. Training on all Jail policies and procedures including those regarding prisoner rights and the prevention of staff abuse and misconduct.
45

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 46 of 122
Partial Compliance Because of personnel changes resulting from the change of administration, current training records are not available for review. During the January site visit, the Monitor and corrections operations member of the Monitoring Team had an excellent meeting with the new Training Director (Captain) who is replacing his (retiring) predecessor. It was expected that he would forward the training status report shortly thereafter, but it has not yet been received. Hopefully, the status report on training will be available in May.
Presently, although there are security staff assigned to the medical/mental health section of the facility, there are no medical or mental health units, and so prisoners with special medical needs and/or mental health difficulties are housed throughout the facility. Furthermore, even when the mental health unit is opened, it will not be big enough to house all of the prisoners on the mental health caseload, and so there will still be prisoners who are suffering from mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities housed in general population. Therefore, with regard to this provision of the agreement, it is important to consider the mental health training provided to all security staff, as well as the need for additional training that might be provided to security staff assigned to the special needs/mental health unit once it is opened.
Although the corrections training for all detention officers on ‘special needs inmates’ is generally quite good, as has been previously noted, there are several concerns that merit review. The first concern is with regard to the identification of prisoners with special needs, especially those who are suffering from mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities. There is considerable discussion in the training program about the various levels of assessment performed at the facility as if the findings of those assessments will help security staff identify mentally ill prisoners; but security staff doesn’t have access to medical records which would provide the findings of those assessments; and so security staff must rely more heavily on their capacity to recognize the signs and symptoms of illness. Therefore, although signs and symptoms of mental illness are listed in the training materials, this area of the training should be expanded in order to help staff actually visualize those signs and symptoms by employing videos, simulated cases, etc.
A second area of concern is with regard to some of the recommendations made (or not made) for security staff intervention. For example, in the section on suicide prevention there is a section on making a ‘non-suicide agreement’ with a prisoner who might be having suicidal thoughts. There is some concern about the capacity of all security officers to do this, and the appropriateness of security officers doing this, especially in the absence of assistance from mental health. For example, the section on suicide prevention also includes a list of risk factors for prisoners who are at especially high risk of becoming suicidal, but there is no clear instruction about what a security officer should do when faced with such a prisoner. Therefore, specific recommendations made in the training program should be reviewed.
46

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 47 of 122
The third area of concern is with regard to whether or not the information contained in the training will be consistent with the security policies and procedures that are currently being developed. In this regard, there are obvious areas of concern such as the part of the training that deals with administrative segregation, but there are also less obvious areas of concern such as the part of the training that deals with alcohol and other drug withdrawal. Therefore, as new policies and procedures are finalized, the training program will have to be adjusted to conform to the new policies and procedures.
Before the special needs/mental health unit is established, security staff who will be assigned to that unit will require additional training. This is because they will be dealing with the most seriously ill prisoners; their interaction with such prisoners will be more ongoing and more intense, especially given that security staff will be employing the direct supervision model; and it is anticipated that they will be working in a more coordinated/collaborative way with mental health staff (see section on Housing). In essence, this additional training should include much more about the signs and symptoms of mental illness and intellectual disability; the impact of the various mental illnesses and intellectual disability on an individual’s ability to function; and approaches to the management of prisoners with mental illness and/or intellectual disability that can dovetail with the therapeutic services being provided, thereby creating an overall and consistently run therapeutic environment.
It should be noted here that security staff persons who will be assigned to the mental health unit should be carefully selected based on their interest in working on such a unit, their experience and innate capacity to work with such prisoners, and their willingness to undergo additional specialized training. It might also be helpful to obtain recommendations from supervisors, as well as mental health and medical staff, since it is clear that they have gotten to know specific security staff persons who appear to work well with mentally ill prisoners.
46. Develop and implement policies and procedures for adequate supervisory oversight for the Jail. To that end, the County must:
a. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the authority to make personnel decisions necessary to ensure adequate staffing, staff discipline, and staff oversight. This personnel authority must include the power to hire, transfer, and discipline staff. Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) allocated for budget purposes represent a salaried slot and are not a restriction on personnel assignment authority. While the Sheriff may retain final authority for personnel decisions, the Jail’s policies and procedures must document and clearly identify who is responsible for a personnel decision, what administrative procedures apply, and the basis for personnel decisions.
47

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 48 of 122
b. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the ability to monitor, ensure compliance with Jail policies, and take corrective action, for any staff members operating in the Jail, including any who are not already reporting to the Jail Administrator and the Jail’s chain of command. This provision covers road deputies assigned to supervise housing units and emergency response/tactical teams entering the Jail to conduct random shakedowns or to suppress prisoner disturbances.
c. Ensure that supervisors conduct daily rounds on each shift in the prisoner housing units, and document the results of their rounds.
d. Ensure that staff conduct daily inspections of all housing and common areas to identify damage to the physical plant, safety violations, and sanitation issues. This maintenance program must include the following elements: i. Facility safety inspections that include identification of damaged doors, locks, cameras, and safety equipment. ii. An inspection process. iii. A schedule for the routine inspection, repair, and replacement of the physical plant, including security and safety equipment. iv. A requirement that any corrective action ordered be taken. v. Identification of high priority repairs to assist Jail and County officials with allocating staff and resources. vi. To ensure prompt corrective action, a mechanism for identifying and notifying responsible staff and supervisors when there are significant delays with repairs or a pattern of problems with equipment. Staff response to physical plant, safety, and sanitation problems must be reasonable and prompt.
Non-Compliant With the change of administration, hopefully, the Interim Jail Administrator will be given the authority to manage the Jail System as is specified by this paragraph of the Settlement Agreement. The new Sheriff had only recently assumed office at the time of the site visit. This will be an area that the monitoring team will watch closely prior to and at the time of the next site visit. It is important that someone with experience in jail operations and management be given the opportunity to move the HCDS in the right direction.
Lack of supervisory responsibility and accountability continues to be a significant problem at the RDC. While each jail operates with inadequate and unapproved (by DOJ and the Monitor) policies and procedures as well as post orders, the inconsistency of operation is greater at the RDC than at the JDC and WC. When procedures at the RDC are set in place, actual practice tends to deviate over time because supervisors do not ensure consistent compliance or because they allow modification for undetermined reasons.
48

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 49 of 122
Responsibility for maintenance issues falls on the shoulders of detention supervisors, but there is little incentive for them to report and document issues if the problems are not addressed in a timely manner. The lack of communication between the HCSO and the County with regard to maintenance issues is un-paralleled. Long standing issues have gone unaddressed for years with each agency (County and HCSO) blaming the other for the problem. The new Maintenance Chief for the HCSO needs to develop a sound working relationship with his counterparts in County government. One of the long-standing problems was the unavailability to both detention staff and the monitoring team of the spread sheet maintained by the County used to track repairs and renovations. The inability to obtain that spreadsheet even when requested let alone on a routine basis was discussed in the last monitoring report. This does not necessarily have to be the form of communication and tracking but under the new administrations, hopefully, this or some other form of routine tracking and communication will be established.
The problem with the security doors has been well documented in prior monitoring reports. As previously noted, this includes cell doors, “cage” doors, housing unit doors, control room doors, doors to the rec year, and doors to the grand hallway. This has allowed group disturbances and individual assaults. The January incident reports indicate that the inmates’ ability to open supposedly locked doors was at issue in at least 12 incidents at RDC This is now addressed in the stipulated order with deadlines for compliance. This is another area that will be watched closely as progress in this area has been overstated in the past. Based upon a tour of C Pod during the site visit, the renovation is not nearly completed and the renovation of the Pod and the doors in particular was promised months ago. The change in administration has, no doubt, caused some delay. Even so, the company doing the critical door repairs was not authorized to proceed until February 17 2020.
The Master Plan Committee, required by the Stipulated Order, is a critical component of the County’s effort to make repairs and renovations in a deliberate manner. For three years there has been no consistent action, rather the County has moved in one direction, then retreated and moved in a different direction. It is time for the County to settle on a plan of action and to move forward to make a concerted effort to comply with the conditions of the Settlement Agreement. Developing a Master Plan is critical to this process and must be facilitated by someone experienced in this area.
Fire safety continues to be a serious issue, particularly at the RDC where the sprinkler system was removed after the 2012 riot. Fire extinguishers and fire hoses were also removed from the housing units at that time. The State Fire Marshal has been unresponsive to continued requests to meet with members of the monitoring team regarding fire safety issues. A case in point is the extension cord that runs from the control room, across the corridor (horseshoe) into B-2 so that the television in that unit has power. This fire code violation has been noted since the First
49

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 50 of 122
Monitoring Report over three years ago, but the problem has not been rectified. A January incident report, IR# 200000064 reports that a fire in one of the housing units was put out by using the water cooler. What is not mentioned in the incident report is that the responding officer initially took the fire extinguisher from B Pod control room but it did not work. A week later, the fire extinguisher had still not been replaced. There are reportedly no back up fire extinguishers and when a fire extinguisher is used, it is recharged only after making a request to the County. This results in significant gaps in availability.
47. Ensure that staff members conduct random shakedowns of cells and common areas so that prisoners do not possess or have access to dangerous contraband. Such shakedowns must be conducted in each housing unit at least once per month, on an irregular schedule to make them less predictable to prisoners and staff.
Non-Compliant While a record of shakedowns at each facility is now apparently consolidated and maintained by month, it has not previously been available to the monitoring team. A copy of the November 2019, synopsis was obtained subsequent to the January site visit. It shows that shakedowns were conducted on ten days during the month. Eight were conducted at the RDC, three at the JDC and one at the WC. The shakedown list is cross referenced to incident report numbers and whether or not force was used, but not as to whether or not contraband was found. Current incident reports make it appear that inmates have less access to such items than in the past. There has certainly been a reduction in the number of reports of inmates escaping from the RDC solely for the purpose of retrieving drugs, telephones and other contraband. Similar incidents are not noted at the JDC or WC.
48. Install cell phone jammers or other electronic equipment to detect, suppress, and deter unauthorized communications from prisoners in the Jail. Installation must be completed within two years after the Effective Date.
Non-Compliant There has been no action taken to deal with this issue since the beginning of the monitoring process.
49. Develop and implement a gang program in consultation with qualified experts in the field that addresses any link between gang activity in the community and the Jail through appropriate provisions for education, family or community involvement, and violence prevention.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph for more than a year and a half. An officer was assigned to work on this issue, but there is no documentation of a program that meets
50

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 51 of 122
the requirement of this paragraph. Gang activities cannot be monitored or managed at the RDC because the housing units are not staffed.
USE OF FORCE STANDARDS
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to prevent excessive force by staff and ensure force is used safely and only in a manner commensurate with the behavior justifying it. To that end, the County must:
50. Develop and implement policies and procedures to regulate the use of force. The policies and procedures must:
a. Prohibit the use of force as a response to verbal insults or prisoner threats where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff or visitors;
b. Prohibit the use of force as a response to prisoners’ failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff, visitors, or property;
c. Prohibit the use of force against a prisoner after the prisoner has ceased to resist and is under control;
d. Prohibit the use of force as punishment or retaliation; e. Limit the level of force used so that it is commensurate with the justification for
use of force; and f. Limit use of force in favor of less violent methods when such methods are more
appropriate, effective, or less likely to result in the escalation of an incident.
Partial Compliance The Use of Force Policy was recently approved for implementation. Once training of staff is complete this paragraph may be moved to Partial Compliance. This paragraph includes implementation. As such, after training, it will be necessary to ensure that officers follow the new policy.
Inappropriate use of force continues to be a problem. As was described in the last monitoring report, there was an egregious use of force in August when an inmate was seriously injured after being beaten and kicked. Eventually, several of the officers involved were terminated and several received re-training. However, two of the officers who were retrained were subsequently involved in a later use of force, IR # 191883, in which they beat the inmate with a flashlight and kicked him. These officers were then terminated.
Incident Report #200000008, titled Assault or Attempted Assault, involved a confrontation between an officer and an inmate in HU B-4 at the RDC. When the inmate pushed the officer,
51

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 52 of 122
he responded with “…an open hand strike…” to the inmate’s face and neck area. According to a sergeant and another officer who responded to the scene, they pulled the officer away from the inmate. Both the type of physical response to being pushed, and the fact that the officer was pulled away from the inmate by responding staff, indicate that this incident should be referred to IAD for further investigation. While the inmate was examined by medical staff, there is no record of supervisory review by a supervisor not involved in the incident. Further, the initiating officer’s report states that the (then) Major and a lieutenant also responded to the scene and assisted in pulling him and the inmate apart. It should be noted that there were no supplemental reports attached to the original from the Major and lieutenant despite the requirement of the Settlement Agreement that all officers involved complete a use of force report. Nor did the sergeant and other responding officer make mention of them in their supplemental reports.
Incident Report #20000034, titled Assault or Attempted Assault, involved an officer who attempted to remove an inmate from his cell (HU B-4 ISO at the RDC) in order to take him to med pass. When the inmate spit on him and refused to exit his cell, the officer obtained the assistance of two additional officers. In essence the situation escalated to a cell extraction, which should have been authorized by a supervisor before any action was taken. Ultimately, the officers used OC foam spray to subdue and handcuff the inmate. He was taken to Medical and decontaminated. There is no record of supervisory review. This incident also warrants further review by IAD.
It will continue to take consistent training, supervisory review, and disciplinary action to implement the new policy on use of force.
51. Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure timely notification, documentation, and communication with supervisors and medical staff (including mental health staff) prior to use of force and after any use of force. These policies and procedures must specifically include the following requirements:
a. Staff members must obtain prior supervisory approval before the use of weapons (e.g., electronic control devices or chemical sprays) and mechanical restraints unless responding to an immediate threat to a person’s safety.
b. If a prisoner has a serious medical condition or other circumstances exist that may increase the risk of death or serious injury from the use of force, the type of force that may be used on the prisoner must be restricted to comply with this provision. These restrictions include the following: i. The use of chemical sprays, physical restraints, and electronic control devices must not be used when a prisoner may be at risk of positional asphyxia. ii. Electronic control devices must not be used on prisoners when they are in a location where they may suffer serious injury after losing voluntary
52

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 53 of 122
muscle control (e.g., prisoner is standing atop a stairwell, wall, or other elevated location). iii. Physical strikes, holds, or other uses of force or restraints may not be used if the technique is not approved for use in the Jail or the staff member has not been trained on the proper use of the technique. c. Staff members must conduct health and welfare checks every 15 minutes while a prisoner is in restraints. At minimum, these checks must include (i) logged firstperson observations of a prisoner’s status while in restraints (e.g. check for blood flow, respiration, heart beat), and (ii) documented breaks to meet the sanitary and health needs of prisoners placed in emergency restraints (e.g., restroom breaks and breaks to prevent cramping or circulation problems). d. The County must ensure that clinical staff conduct medical and mental health assessments immediately after a prisoner is subjected to any Level 1 use of force. Prisoners identified as requiring medical or mental health care during the assessment must receive such treatment. e. A first-line supervisor must personally supervise all planned uses of force, such as cell extractions. f. Security staff members must consult with medical and mental health staff before all planned uses of force on juveniles or prisoners with serious mental illness, so that medical and mental health staff may offer alternatives to or limitations on the use of force, such as assisting with de-escalation or obtaining the prisoner’s voluntary cooperation. g. The Jail must have inventory and weapon controls to establish staff member responsibility for their use of weapons or other security devices in the facility. Such controls must include: i. a sign-out process for staff members to carry any type of weapon inside the Jail, ii. a prohibition on staff carrying any weapons except those in the Jail’s tracked inventory, and iii. random checks to determine if weapons have been discharged without report of discharge (e.g., by checking the internal memory of electronic control devices and weighing pepper spray canisters). h. A staff member must electronically record (both video and sound) all planned uses of force with equipment provided by the Jail. i. All staff members using force must immediately notify their supervisor. j. All staff members using a Level 1 use of force must also immediately notify the shift commander after such use of force, or becoming aware of an allegation of such use by another staff member.
Non-Compliant
53

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 54 of 122
Although a Use of Force Policy has been approved, it has yet to be implemented through required training; therefore, previous comments regarding this paragraph still stand. Once training has been accomplished it will be possible to move the finding to Partial Compliance. The lack of documented supervisory review is still a significant problem; however, it is routine for supervisors to be notified whenever there is a UOF noted.
Regarding 51(d), The security policies and procedures that would address this provision have still not been adopted and implemented. Since at present, medical and mental health staff have no way of knowing that a prisoner has been the subject of a Level 1 use of force, medical and mental health staff would only get to assess such a prisoner if there were physical injuries that caused security staff to bring them to medical, or the prisoner self-referred to medical or mental health, or the prisoner reported this to medical or mental health staff during a subsequent visit. A review of incident reports, however, indicate that security staff do take inmates to medical after a use of force.
Although there were no planned uses of force documented during the last four months, this situation may change once the UOF Policy is implemented through training. In the interim, cases occur which should be classified as a planned use of force. If there is time to go to the armory to retrieve less than lethal shotguns and to call for back up personnel, that qualifies as a planned use of force. Incident Report #2000079, which occurred at the RDC, Pod B, HU-4 on 118-20, meets all of those criteria. During this incident a lieutenant took command of the situation. He used a shotgun to hit an inmate in the lower left side of his torso with a bean bag. Another inmate was sprayed with OC. The inmates were treated in Medical and then housed in Booking holding cells “…until further notice.” IR # 200000135 represents another planned use of force that would require the supervision by a supervisor and recording by video equipment.
Of special note is the fact that hand-held video cameras have been ordered. A Purchase Requisition from the HCSO was submitted to the Board of Supervisors on January 8, 2020, and the Board submitted a Purchase Order on January 22, 2020. The cameras were on back order but were delivered in March.
USE OF FORCE TRAINING
52. The County must develop and implement a use of force training program. Every staff member who supervises prisoners must receive at least 8 hours of pre-service use of force training and annual use of force refresher training.
Partial Compliance According to the new Director of Training, UOF training was scheduled for all personnel during a two week block in February (17-20 and 24-27). This did not happen and is rescheduled for April. This should help to reduce and prevent the excessive use of force by staff as was noted in
54

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 55 of 122
Incident Report 191883 at the RDC. In that case an officer used his flashlight to strike an inmate; in addition, he was kicked.
53. Topics covered by use of force training must include: a. Instruction on what constitutes excessive force; b. De-escalation tactics; c. Methods of managing prisoners with mental illness to avoid the use of force; d. Defensive tactics; e. All Jail use of force policies and procedures, including those related to documentation and review of use of force.
Partial Compliance The UOF training includes a continuum of appropriate force responses to escalation situations, de-escalation tactics and defensive tactics, but it does not yet include specific measures for managing inmates with mental illness.
54. The County must randomly test at least 5 percent of Jail Staff members annually to determine whether they have a meaningful, working knowledge of all use of force policies and procedures. The County must also evaluate the results to determine if any changes to Jail policies and procedures may be necessary and take corrective action. The results and recommendations of such evaluations must be provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant This paragraph cannot be addressed until staff have been trained on the new Use of Force Policy.
55. The County must update any use of force training within 30 days after any revision to a use of force policy or procedure.
Non-Compliant Since the new policy on Use of Force has just been approved, there have been no revisions to it which would justify updated training.
USE OF FORCE REPORTING
To prevent and remedy the unconstitutional use of force, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting use of force. To that end, the County must:
56. Develop and implement use of force reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information to analyze and respond appropriately to use of force.
55

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 56 of 122
Partial Compliance The Use of Force Policy has been approved; however, training on associated report writing and review requirements has not yet been conducted. In the interim the HCSO has implemented a Rapid Notification System that was designed to expedite the reporting process on high priority incidents. It has boxes that require filling in the facility, the location within the facility, the time, and staff members involved; information that was sometimes missed in the standard incident report. It is still essential that the incident report itself contain all of this information and that the narrative be complete which has not always been the case. In addition, it does not, however, reflect a very important component of UOF reporting; specifically, supervisory review. That information will only become available when the UOF Policy has been fully implemented through training and documented via IT upgrades. The UOF Policy outlines the duties and responsibilities of supervisors as outlined in this and the following paragraphs. While supervisors do not currently meet those standards, as has been noted in each previous Monitoring Report, the hope is that they will be able to do so after receiving training.
57. Require each staff member who used or observed a use of force to complete a Use of Force Report as promptly as possible, and no later than by the end of that staff member’s shift. Staff members must accurately complete all fields on a Use of Force Report. The failure to report any use of force must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination. Similarly, supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
Non-Compliant The comments in Paragraph 56 above, apply here as well. It is still not possible for the monitoring team to know when a report was written because the reports include only the date/time of the incident, not when the report was generated. The same shortcoming applies to the date/time of supervisory review. The inadequacies of the JMS system are being addressed, but they have not resulted in a resolution of this problem. Virtually any incident report reflects these shortcomings. The time of the incident is recorded but there is no way to tell when the report was generated, nor is there any way to tell when a supervisor reviewed or noted anything about the incident. A hand written signature shows on the incident report copies that are forwarded to the monitoring team. A date/time of review is not included and there is no record of the supervisor’s determination (approval/disapproval or recommendation). Although the new UOF Policy calls for the required information, it is not yet available.
As has been noted in various paragraphs above, not all staff members using or observing a use of force are writing incident reports. IR #20000015 is a case in point (this report appears as #20000016 in the spreadsheet of monthly incident reports). The type of incident is identified as Disorderly Conduct, but it is really another example of UOF where OC was deployed, this time in Booking. Two sergeants and three officers were involved in subduing an uncooperative inmate
56

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 57 of 122
who had previously flooded his single cell. When his cell door was opened in order to pass food to him, the inmate tried to push his way out. During the ensuing struggle, he was sprayed with OC twice in order to break his hold on an officer. He was subsequently taken to Medical, decontaminated and returned to Booking where he was placed in a different (multiple occupancy) cell. The (then) Major dispatched a Patrol Deputy to respond to Booking. There is no indication as to why or what he did when he arrived approximately an hour after the incident. Although there were five officers involved in this incident, only one sergeant generated a report. There were no supplements attached.
58. Ensure that Jail use of force reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, use of force reports must document the following information:
a. A unique tracking number for each use of force; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. A description of the events leading to the use of force, including what precipitated
or appeared to precipitate those events. f. A description of the level of resistance, staff response, and the type and level of
force (including frequency and duration of use). For instance, use of force reports must describe the number of discharges from electronic control devices and chemical munitions canisters; the amount of discharge from chemical munitions canisters; whether the Staff Member threatened to use the device or actually discharged the device; the type of physical hold or strike used; and the length of time a prisoner was restrained, and whether the prisoner was released from restraints for any period during that time; g. A description of the staff member’s attempts to de-escalate the situation without use of force; h. A description of whether the staff member notified supervisors or other personnel, including medical or mental health staff, before or after the use of force; i. A description of any observed injuries to staff or prisoners; j. Whether medical care was required or provided to staff or prisoners; k. Reference to any associated incident report or prisoner disciplinary report completed by the reporting officer, which pertains to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force; l. A signature of the staff member completing the report attesting to the report’s accuracy and completeness.
Partial Compliance There has been no change with regard to use of force reports since the last site visit although changes to the reporting system are being programed by IT. The JMS incident report/use of
57

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 58 of 122
force format does not directly follow the sub-sections of this paragraph; therefore, incident reports do not reflect all of the information that is specified. While there is a unique tracking number, and the names of staff members, and sometimes those of involved inmates, are included, witnesses are seldom listed. A cell location is almost always noted (although the facility is not), but not its classification. Generally, the narrative includes the steps taken by an officer to manage the situation prior to the use of force, what methods were used to apply force and whether or not medical attention was required and provided; however, many reports do not provide all of the specified information. A copy of the reporting officer’s signature is now noted on the report, but there is no indication of approval, disapproval or recommended action on the part of the supervisor.
The comments in paragraph 56 apply here as well. Once training is done it is expected that the information required by the Settlement Agreement will be incorporated into incident reports/UOF reports. It is then incumbent upon staff and supervisors to ensure that comprehensive information is reflected in reports consistent with that training.
USE OF FORCE SUPERVISOR REVIEWS
59. The County must ensure that Jail supervisors review, analyze, and respond appropriately to use of force. At minimum:
a. A supervisor must review all use of force reports submitted during the supervisor’s watch by the end of the supervisor’s watch.
b. A supervisor must ensure that staff members complete their use of force reports by the end of their watch.
c. Reviewing supervisors must document their findings as to the completeness of each staff member’s use of force report, and must also document any procedural errors made by staff in completing their reports.
d. If a Use of Force report is incomplete, reviewing supervisors must require Staff Members to provide any required information on a revised use of force report, and the Jail must maintain both the original and any revised report in its records.
e. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing use of force reports must document their use of force review as described in Paragraph 62 sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted.
f. All Level 1 uses of force must be sent to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD.
g. A Level 2 use of force must be referred to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD if a reviewing supervisor concludes that there may have been a violation of law or policy. Level 2 uses of force may also be referred to IAD if the County requires such reporting as a matter of Jail policy and procedure, or at the discretion of any reviewing supervisor.
58

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 59 of 122
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph since the Eighth Monitoring Report. Once all supervisors have had required training on the approved UOF Policy, they should be capable of meeting the reporting and review requirements of this paragraph. However, based on the current JMS system, there is no way to determine whether or not supervisors review use of force reports by the end of their watch; nor is it possible to determine whether or not they comply with the other sub-sections of this paragraph. Supervisors do not indicate whether or not they approve or disapprove of the actions taken by officers; they also do not make recommendations for corrective action. Problems with JMS system compatibility will have to be resolved. Use of force reports are forwarded to the CID Investigator for follow up. Duplicate copies are provided to the IAD Investigator.
60. After any Level 1 use of force, responding supervisors will promptly go to the scene and take the following actions:
a. Ensure the safety of everyone involved in or proximate to the incident. Determine if anyone is injured and ensure that necessary medical care is or has been provided.
b. Ensure that photos are taken of all injuries sustained, or as evidence that no injuries were sustained, by prisoners and staff involved in a use of force incident. Photos must be taken no later than two hours after a use of force. Prisoners may refuse to consent to photos, in which case they should be asked to sign a waiver indicating that they have refused consent. If they refuse to sign a waiver, the shift commander must document that consent was requested and refused.
c. Ensure that staff members and witnesses are identified, separated, and advised that communications with other staff members or witnesses regarding the incident are prohibited.
d. Ensure that victim, staff, and witness statements are taken confidentially by reviewing supervisors or investigators, outside of the presence of other prisoners or involved staff.
e. Document whether the use of force was recorded. If the use of force was not recorded, the responding supervisors must review and explain why the event was not recorded. If the use of force was recorded, the responding supervisors must ensure that any record is preserved for review.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph for the past five site visits. The specified actions are not routinely followed by supervisors. A review of use of force reports revealed that photographs are seldom taken. Waivers related to the refusal to be photographed are not included. Witness statements are infrequent at best, and although use of force incidents
59

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 60 of 122
may be recorded at the RDC, because it has a digital recording system, that is not possible at the JDC (recording is limited to hallways in the housing areas) and the WC (which has no recording capability).
While supervisors do not currently comply with the provisions of this paragraph, the fact that the UOF Policy has been approved is a step in the right direction. Once training has been completed it will be necessary for supervisors to confirm compliance by documentation of expected practice in reports before this paragraph can be moved to Partial Compliance.
61. All uses of force must be reviewed by supervisors who were neither involved in nor approved the use of force by the end of the supervisor’s shift. All level 1 uses of force must also be reviewed by a supervisor of Captain rank or above who was neither involved in nor approved the use of force. The purposes of supervisor review are to determine whether the use of force violated Jail policies and procedures, whether the prisoner’s rights may have been violated, and whether further investigation or disciplinary action is required.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status since the last Monitoring Report. As has been consistently noted, there is apparently a check box in the JMS system for a supervisor to check after review. Even if the monitoring team was able to routinely see this check box, this is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. There is no documentation in the JMS system of approval or disapproval or any recommendations following review. Currently, the documentation provided to the monitoring team does not reflect supervisory action regarding approval, disapproval and recommended action on individual reports.
While supervisors do not currently comply with the provisions of this paragraph, the fact that the UOF Policy has been approved is a step in the right direction. Once training has been completed it will be necessary for supervisors to confirm compliance by documentation of expected practice in reports before this paragraph can be moved to Partial Compliance.
62. Reviewing supervisors must document the following: a. Names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses interviewed by the supervisor; b. Witness statements; c. Review date and time; d. The findings, recommendations, and results of the supervisor’s review; e. Corrective actions taken; f. The final disposition of the reviews (e.g., whether the Use of Force was found to comply with Jail policies and procedures, or whether disciplinary action was taken against a staff member);
60

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 61 of 122
g. Supporting documents such as incident reports, logs, and classification records. Supervisors must also obtain and review summary medical and mental health records describing – i. The nature and extent of injuries, or lack thereof; ii. The date and time when medical care was requested and actually provided; iii. The names of medical or mental health staff conducting any medical or mental health assessments or care.
h. Photos, video/digital recordings, or other evidence collected to support findings and recommendations.
Non-Compliant Currently, the supervisory portion of JMS is limited to a check box with no ability to indicate recommended action or discrepancies noted regarding the items for which this paragraph requires review. Even the check box does not appear in the generated report. As a result, the supervisors have been signing the reports to indicate a review but this alone this does not meet the requirements of this paragraph. The documentation that exists, therefore, does not disclose whether the supervisors are making an appropriate review and they are definitely not documenting it if they are.
The comments regarding the preceding paragraph (#60), apply here as well.
INCIDENT REPORTING AND REVIEW
To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting and reviewing incidents in the Jail that may pose a threat to the life, health, and safety of prisoners. To that end, the County must:
63. Develop and implement incident reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information in order to respond appropriately to reportable incidents.
Non-Compliant While the approved UOF Policy is in place, there is, as yet, no approved counterpart for incidents in general. Once one has been adopted and requisite training is accomplished, it will be up to supervisors to ensure that documented incidents comply with policy.
Supervisors are supposed to ensure that detention officers follow policy by properly documenting incidents, yet sometimes the supervisors themselves are guilty of failure to document, either by not initiating an incident report or by not adding a supplement. Incident Report #2000086 documented a use of force at the RDC. The report concludes with the
61

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 62 of 122
statement that a lieutenant and sergeant were present during the incident, but neither supervisor included a supplement to the original report. The purpose of the incident report is to provide sufficient information so that supervisors and command staff have an understanding of what occurred and can ensure that a proper response was made and systemic improvements are made. The requirements of this paragraph are to ensure that information is provided but the bottom line is that when reading an incident report, it should be fairly clear what transpired and why and have sufficient information to track trends in incidents that might call for proactive response. All reports could be found to be deficient in not including a supervisory review and recommendation. Numerous reports could be found to be deficient in not providing specific information as to location or extent of injuries. See, e.g. IR # 200000005. However, more importantly, some reports are completely uninformative as to what was happening. See, e.g. IR ## 200000006, 20000007, 200000018, 200000088, and 200000089.
64. Ensure that Incident Reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, Incident Reports must contain the following information:
a. Tracking number for each incident; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner, and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. Type of incident; f. Injuries to staff or prisoner; g. Medical care; h. All staff involved or present during the incident and their respective roles; i. Reviewing supervisor and supervisor findings, recommendations, and case
dispositions; j. External reviews and results; k. Corrective action taken; and l. Warden and Administrator review and final administrative actions.
Partial Compliance While the UOF Policy has been approved, a basic policy regarding incident reports has not. Reports provide some but not all the information that is required by the Settlement Agreement.
There has been no change with regard to the status of this paragraph for the last five site visits. Compliance is dependent upon the approval and publication of the Policies and Procedures Manual. Incident report documentation currently provides only some of the information specified in this paragraph. Reports routinely have a tracking number and list all staff involved. Inmate witnesses are almost never noted, nor are witness statements. The nature of inmate injuries is noted sporadically. More photographs accompany the reports than in the past, but almost all reports do not specify the facility in which the incident occurred. That can only be
62

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 63 of 122
determined by having knowledge of the housing unit configurations of each jail, and thereby recognizing the facility by how the unit, pod or cell is identified.
65. Require each staff member directly involved in a reportable incident to accurately and thoroughly complete incident reports as promptly as possible, by the end of the staff member’s shift. At minimum:
a. Staff members must complete all fields on an Incident Report for which they have responsibility for completion. Staff members must not omit entering a date, time, incident location, or signature when completing an Incident Report. If no injuries are present, staff members must write that; they may not leave that section blank.
b. Failure to report any reportable incident must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination.
c. Supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will also be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
Non-Compliant Since there is no approved policy regarding Incident Report documentation, this paragraph is still carried as Non-Compliant. Incident Reports continue to reflect a lack of basic information including facility and location. There is still no standard in place that requires a written report (Incident Report) whenever lost money or property, or a bad/late release is noted. Consequently, there is no way to know how many such incidents have occurred.
Based on the current status of the JMS system, it is not possible to determine whether or not incident reports are written in a timely fashion (by end of shift or within 12 hours of the incident) and whether or not supervisors do likewise as required (within 24 hours of receipt of an incident report). The only thing that can be determined is the reported time of the incident as it appears in the written document.
As noted in paragraph 64, incident reports frequently lack important information.
66. Ensure that Jail supervisors review and respond appropriately to incidents. At minimum: a. Shift commanders must document all reportable incidents by the end of their shift, but no later than 12 hours after a reportable incident. b. Shift commanders must report all suicides, suicide attempts, and deaths, no later than one hour after the incident, to a supervisor, IAD, and medical and mental health staff. c. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing Incident Reports must document their incident review within 24 hours of receipt of an Incident Report sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted. Such
63

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 64 of 122
documentation must include the same categories of information required for supervisor use of force reviews such as names of individuals interviewed by the supervisor, witness statements, associated records (e.g. medical records, photos, and digital recordings), review dates, findings, recommendations, and case dispositions. d. Reportable incidents must be reviewed by a supervisor not directly involved in the incident.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph. There are no approved policies in place that specify what supervisors and shift commanders are to do. The monitoring team cannot determine whether or not supervisors even review incident reports (other than to sign on a printed copy) because of the previously mentioned shortcomings of the JMS system. There is no documentation that reflects, approval, disapproval or recommended actions.
The new, approved UOF Policy is a step in the right direction in that it describes the duties of a supervisor with regard to a UOF incident. However, it does not deal with all incident reports. The duties of supervisors in non-UOF cases are not clearly outlined in existing Policies. Once they have been approved this paragraph can be carried as being in Partial Compliance.
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
67. To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to address sexual abuse and misconduct. Such policies and procedures must include all of the following:
a. Zero tolerance policy towards any sexual abuse and sexual harassment as defined by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementing regulations;
b. Staff training on the zero tolerance policy, including how to fulfill their duties and responsibilities to prevent, detect, report and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment under the policy;
c. Screening prisoners to identify those who may be sexually abusive or at risk of sexual victimization;
d. Multiple internal ways to allow both confidential and anonymous reporting of sexual abuse and sexual harassment and any related retaliation, including a mechanism for prisoners to directly report allegations to an outside entity;
e. Both emergency and ongoing medical and mental health care for victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment, including rape kits as appropriate and counseling;
64

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 65 of 122
f. A complete ban on cross-gender strip searches or cross-gender visual body cavity searches except in exigent circumstances or when performed by a medical examiner;
g. A complete ban on cross-gender pat searches of women prisoners, absent exigent circumstances;
h. Regular supervisory review to ensure compliance with the sexual abuse and sexual harassment policies; and
i. Specialized investigative procedures and training for investigators handling sexual abuse and sexual harassment allegations.
Partial Compliance Time did not permit a meeting with the PREA officer during this site visit. However, the monitors continue to review PREA reports that are provided as part of the document production. There is a draft Sexual Safety (PREA) policy that has been circulated for review, but it has not yet been finalized or approved.
At the time of the last report, the PREA officer was providing a four-hour program as part of the new officer training orientation. Additional in-service training is planned to inform officers of the need to make appropriate referrals to the PREA officer.
Nursing staff continue to be involved in the screening of newly admitted prisoners to identify those who may be sexually abusive or at risk of sexual victimization as part of the initial intake screening process. New admissions so identified are referred to the PREA officer. Mental health staff perform a mental health assessment of all such new admissions forwarded to them by the PREA officer, and if mental health treatment is indicated, such is provided. In addition, if medical or mental health staff identify a PREA eligible prisoner who was not identified as such at the point of admission to the facility, that prisoner is also referred to the PREA officer.
If a prisoner is a victim of sexual assault and/or sexual harassment, both the medical and mental health staff are prepared to provide any emergency and ongoing care that might be indicated. The social worker employed by QCHC who was providing this support has resigned and a new social worker had not yet been identified at the time of the site visit. Prompt replacement will be necessary to fill this critical role. At the time of the last report, the Sheriff’s Office was negotiating an agreement with the Mississippi Coalition Against Sexual Assault to provide inmates access to MSCASA for reporting and counseling services. Counsel for the Sheriff has stated that this has been approved by the Board. However, no executed contract has been provided at this time. It provides for counseling services once it is executed.
65

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 66 of 122
There are multiple internal ways to report sexual abuse and harassment including filing a grievance and reporting through the kiosk system. The PREA officer now has a cell phone to which kiosk calls are forwarded. However, the PREA number on the kiosk system had to be changed from 999 to 888. When this happened, inmates were charged a fee for reporting a PREA violation. This was reportedly being remedied and follow up is needed to determine if that has occurred. There is not a system for reporting to an outside entity other than through paid phone calls and there is no guidance on appropriate entities to call. The MOU with MS Coalition Against Sexual Assault will provide this service when executed.
In order to be effective, inmates must be fully informed of what constitutes sexual abuse and harassment and how to report it. As previously reported, all of the units visited had PREA posters posted. The posters have reporting instructions. The Inmate Handbook does not have current information on the PREA process but a separate form is now provided at booking that explains the process. However, the PREA officer no longer does orientation or education of inmates. It was reported that the PREA officer had requested IT staff to determine whether the PREA orientation could be done via the kiosk system. This would not be sufficient because it does not allow for inmates to ask questions or seek further clarification.
It is reported that all cross-gender searches have been banned. No documentation of this was provided as of yet as the draft procedure is currently being revised to reflect the new policy. The draft policy on PREA/Sexual Safety provides HCDS does not conduct cross-gender pat searches by males of females or cross-gender visual body searches unless under exigent circumstances, and then only with the approval of the Shift Supervisor. The draft Search policy is now consistent with the PREA policy.
The PREA Officer keeps a file on each referral, has a report form, and keeps numbered reports. She has completed an on-line training on investigating PREA incidents. Incidents involving alleged staff misconduct or criminal activity are referred to other investigators who have not received PREA training. The reports of these other investigators are typically not in the PREA Officer’s file and her file does not reflect the results of the investigation. However, a group of reports recently provided included two reports from the Internal Affairs Investigator. There were no reports from the Criminal Investigator. Recently, the PREA officer has relied upon security staff who have not received PREA training to interview the complainant. The PREA Officer does not get the medical records when there has been a referral to Medical. There is no regular supervisory oversight of the PREA officer’s work or reports.
After an initial focus on developing materials and process for compliance with the PREA provisions there appears to be waning commitment to PREA compliance. The education component at booking and later orientation was dropped, the PREA officer referred almost all aspects of the investigation to the Investigation Unit with no follow-up, no PREA investigations
66

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 67 of 122
have been provided by the Investigation Unit except for two, the investigation officers have had no training on PREA investigations, the PREA officer has only had an on-line module on PREA investigations, and there is no indication of any higher level oversight of PREA compliance. Given the lack of staff and cell doors that don’t lock, the potential for sexual assault is high. The paucity of reports made would suggest that the system is not designed to support full reporting.
INVESTIGATIONS
68. The County shall ensure that it has sufficient staff to identify, investigate, and correct misconduct that has or may lead to a violation of the Constitution. At a minimum, the County shall:
a. Develop and implement comprehensive policies, procedures, and practices for the thorough and timely (within 60 days of referral) investigation of alleged staff misconduct, sexual assaults, and physical assaults of prisoners resulting in serious injury, in accordance with this Agreement, within 90 days of its Effective Date. At a minimum, an investigation will be conducted if: i. Any prisoner exhibited a serious injury; ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious accounts of the incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member).
b. Per policy, investigations shall: i. Be conducted by qualified persons, who do not have conflicts of interest that bear on the partiality of the investigation; ii. Include timely, thorough, and documented interviews of all relevant staff and prisoners who were involved in or who witnessed the incident in question, to the extent practicable; and iii. Include all supporting evidence, including logs, witness and participant statements, references to policies and procedures relevant to the incident, physical evidence, and video or audio recordings.
c. Provide investigators with pre-service and annual in-service training so that investigators conduct quality investigations that meet the requirements of this Agreement;
d. Ensure that any investigative report indicating possible criminal behavior will be referred to the appropriate criminal law enforcement agency;
e. Within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, IAD must have written policies and procedures that include clear and specific criteria for determining when it will conduct an investigation. The criteria will require an investigation if:
67

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 68 of 122
i. Any prisoner exhibited serious, visible injuries (e.g., black eye, obvious bleeding, or lost tooth);
ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious
accounts of the incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy,
or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member). f. Provide the Monitor and United States a periodic report of investigations conducted at the Jail every four months. The report will include the following information: i. a brief summary of all completed investigations, by type and date; ii. a listing of investigations referred for administrative investigation; iii. a listing of all investigations referred to an appropriate law enforcement agency and the name of the agency; and iv. a listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation. v. a description of any corrective actions or changes in policies, procedures, or practices made as a result of investigations over the reporting period. g. Jail management shall review the periodic report to determine whether the investigation system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement and make recommendations regarding the investigation system or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor and United States.
Partial Compliance Although a policy dealing with investigations has not yet been approved, Policy # 1-600, titled Review and Investigations, is under review. In the interim the monitoring team has worked with the designated IAD and CID investigators to help them implement consistent practices. During the January site visit another group meeting was held to follow up on previous recommendations. This meeting included the Captain in charge of investigative services, his assistant, the CID and IAD investigators, HCSO In-House Counsel, Compliance Coordinator and DOJ attorney.
The following areas of concern were addressed-• The CID investigator needs to be physically located at the RDC because that is where most of his work originates. • The CID and IAD investigators now have immediate access to view recorded video where that capability is available (the RDC, the hallways and receiving area of the JDC,
68

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 69 of 122
whereas the WC video system is live view only) but they need to be able to obtain a copy of recordings without having to go through a request process through IT. • The CID and IAD investigators need to review all incident reports, not just those that are referred to them. By doing so they can ensure that all relevant issues/incidents are properly investigated. • The investigative spreadsheets that the IAD and CID investigators develop will be standardized to incorporate the information required by paragraph 68 of the Settlement Agreement. • The IAD and CID investigators need to be provided timely disposition information regarding their investigations so that it can be included in the spreadsheets. • Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) investigation training needs to be made available to the IAD and CID investigators. The monitoring team will coordinate with the HCSO In-House Counsel to identify potential training sites and dates. • The death investigation following the incident at the RDC in December 2018, has resulted in the prosecution of approximately five inmates, but to date the matter has not been referred to IAD to determine whether or not staff action or inaction requires review; nor has an administrative and/or mortality review been conducted.
It should be noted that the ability of the monitors to track Investigation activity is hampered by the lack of reporting in this area. The last criminal investigations provided by the Jail was in August, 2019. Despite repeated requests, there has been no additional reports provided or any explanation for the lack of reporting.
GRIEVANCE AND PRISONER INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Because a reporting system provides early notice of potential constitutional violations and an opportunity to prevent more serious problems before they occur, the County must develop and implement a grievance system. To that end:
69. The grievance system must permit prisoners to confidentially report grievances without requiring the intervention of a detention officer.
Partial Compliance There is no change in the condition of the grievance system. The use of the new kiosk system in theory allows the prisoners to report grievances without the intervention of detention officers. Although the kiosk system does not require the intervention of a detention officer, the physical set up does not allow for privacy. This could potentially result in an officer or other inmates observing the grievance being filed. Non-English speaking persons and persons with disabilities still require the intervention of another inmate or officer.
69

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 70 of 122
70. Grievance policies and procedures must be applicable and standardized across the entire Jail.
Partial Compliance Policies and procedures have yet to be finalized. A draft policy has now been written and is being circulated for comment. The policy would standardize the grievance system. At present, the kiosk system works the same across facilities but a unified process is still in the process of being developed with the development of the policy. Even with the policy in place, there will need to be training on how to properly respond to grievances in order to achieve consistency. There continues to be significant progress in developing an actual grievance process including identifying the duties of the system wide grievance officer, clarifying the roles of the system wide grievance officer and the facility grievance officers, developing a tracking system, creating a tiered appeal process, and addressing the process for requests vs. grievances.
71. All grievances must receive appropriate follow-up, including a timely written response by an impartial reviewer and staff tracking of whether resolutions have been implemented or still need implementation. Any response to a medical grievance or a grievance alleging threats or violence to the grievant or others that exceeds 24 hours shall be presumed untimely.
Partial Compliance As previously reported, the system itself presents several challenges in this regard. Notably, if a grievance is not responded to in seven days, it drops off the dashboard. The only way to find the grievance is to run a report for a longer time frame and search for grievances in different status categories. The Grievance Officer reports that she runs back reports and clears old grievances. There continues to be improvement in ensuring that grievances receive a timely response. A report run for calendar year 2019 during this site visit showed 57 that had been assigned but not responded to after 21 days at JDC, 12 at RDC, and 0 at WC. This is a significant improvement over prior site visits. Even with these, it is possible that the assigned individual responded to the grievance but didn’t change the status in the system. The Grievance Officer appears to have a tracking system that identifies overdue grievances. She sends reminder emails to those individuals who have not responded to the grievances in a timely manner. This, no doubt, has contributed to the improvement in reducing the number of grievances that have not received a timely response. Progress in this area is notable.
Although the new system should ensure responses, there needs to be some training on what constitutes a grievance as opposed to a request, what is an adequate response, oversight to determine that promised actions are taken and then some quality assurance to check the adequacy of responses. The Grievance Officer has prepared some routine responses, for example, informing the inmate that the grievance is a request and how to submit a request. This has improved the responses in a large number of cases. There are still some where the adequacy of the response need improvement. Some responses promise some future action but there is no
70

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 71 of 122
process to ensure that promised actions are actually taken. The Grievance Officer at JDC described her process of responding to the grievance. She prints out the grievance, takes it to the inmate, tells them what is being done and then has the inmate sign it. This personal response is to be commended. However, the written response to the grievance is often “It will be taken care of.” In order to be able to adequately oversee the system, the written response should contain the actual steps taken. In addition, there continue to be grievances that are responded to with the notation denied. There should be an explanation of why a grievance is denied.
A review of medical grievances and responses indicated that although there were only a very small number of such grievances, the medical grievances that were submitted were responded to virtually immediately upon receipt by medical. However, the it is not apparent that the response is always adequate. As in the past, in the overwhelming majority of instances, the response to medical grievances was an attempt to clarify the procedure the prisoner must follow to get what the prisoner was asking for. But there was no attempt by medical to determine if the prisoner required an emergency medical assessment and therefore didn’t have the time to try to go back and seek medical attention in a more appropriate manner, and there was no attempt by medical to determine whether or not the prisoner was able to comprehend medical’s response/explanation of the procedure that the prisoner must follow to get what the prisoner was asking for. Therefore, in that sense, ‘staff tracking’ of whether resolution had been implemented or still needed to be implemented was lacking. In the one instance where it appeared that medical might have failed to adequately address a prisoner’s medical needs, in response to the grievance medical immediately met with and evaluated the prisoner.
72. The grievance system must accommodate prisoners who have physical or cognitive disabilities, are illiterate, or have LEP, so that these prisoners have meaningful access to the grievance system.
Non-Compliant Prisoners are assisting one another but that carries the risk of them accessing and using another prisoner’s PIN number in addition to the potential of having to disclose private information. This may inhibit the use of the grievance system and also allows access to the prisoner’s funds. There does not appear to be any language choices in the system or voice recognition features.
There continues to be a concern about whether there were prisoners who were unable to use the grievance reporting system due to mental illness and/or intellectual disability. There needs to be an assessment of the ability to use the system by those significantly impaired, and a process developed for those who are unable to work the kiosk system. This appears to be an issue when during monitoring, several of the more impaired prisoners will complain about their conditions of confinement in ways that might constitute a grievance, but do not appear to have submitted grievances.
71

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 72 of 122
73. The County must ensure that all current and newly admitted prisoners receive information about prison rules and procedures. The County must provide such information through an inmate handbook and, at the discretion of the Jail, an orientation video, regarding the following topics: understanding the Jail’s disciplinary process and rules and regulations; reporting misconduct; reporting sexual abuse, battery, and assault; accessing medical and mental health care; emergency procedures; visitation; accessing the grievance process; and prisoner rights. The County must provide such information in appropriate languages for prisoners with LEP.
Non-Compliant The Inmate Handbook has outdated information about most of these issues and will need to be updated. It is not available in Spanish or any other language.
RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SEGREGATION
In order to ensure compliance with constitutional standards and to prevent unnecessary harm to prisoners, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to limit the use of segregation. To that end, this Agreement imposes the following restrictions and requirements:
74. Within 8 hours of intake, prisoners in the booking cells must be classified and housed in more appropriate long-term housing where staff will provide access to exercise, meals, and other services.
Partial Compliance The misuse of holding cells in Booking is a problem that was initially resolved shortly after the first site visit. The holding cells are inappropriate for long term (beyond eight hours) housing. They have no access to natural light, space for visitation or recreation, or even associated day room space. The metal screens on the small door windows provide virtually no visibility in or out of the cells. Unfortunately, once corrected, the problem has resurfaced periodically (see the Ninth Monitoring Report). The excuse that is offered to justify these violations of procedure is that the locks and closing mechanisms on the Booking holding cells still work, which is not the case with the housing unit cell and entry (safety vestibule) doors at the RDC. While understandable, that explanation is unacceptable. The problem of malfunctioning locks should have been addressed by hiring CML, or some other qualified corrections security firm, shortly after CML repaired sample control room and housing unit vestibule doors in A Pod and a cell door in C Pod. Instead, more than a year has passed. Only now, as a result of the Stipulated Order, does it appear that this critical repair work will begin. Furthermore, a review of incident reports indicates that the booking cells are not just being used for those extraordinary inmates that have a record such that they cannot be housed elsewhere but are being used on a more routine basis for inmates as a disciplinary measure. See, e.g. IR #200000131, IR# 2000000076,
72

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 73 of 122
2000000105. At least one inmate appears to have become suicidal in the booking cell which can happen elsewhere but certainly the inhumane conditions of being housed in a booking cell can contribute to this problem. See, e.g. IR # 200000036.
At the beginning of the January site visit, four single holding cells and one multiple occupancy cell, in Booking were found to contain inmates who were “housed” there. The multiple occupancy cell was vacated almost immediately, but the four single cells were still occupied by the last day of the site visit. Three of the inmates had been held there for from eight to sixteen days, but the fourth had been housed there for over a month.
Well-being checks were generally conducted within the required time (15 minutes) for inmates in the single cells, although one inmate was not monitored for more than an hour. The inmates in the multiple occupancy cells were not monitored at all. The officer on duty did not even post a log sheet by each cell. When he was questioned as to why the multiple occupancy cells were not monitored the same as the single cells, he had no explanation. When the Booking Sergeant was questioned as to the same issue, she had no explanation. The inadequacy of supervision in Booking has been noted in previous Monitoring Reports. That condition continues.
With the anticipated opening of a special housing/mental health unit, the implementation of this provision with regard to appropriately classifying and placing prisoners on that unit will need to be addressed. In that regard there are multiple issues.
First of all, as the program plan for the unit is developed, the plan must include a clear definition/description of the sub-set of prisoners on the mental health case load who would be appropriate for placement on the unit. Then, mental health assessments would need to be performed within 8 hours of intake, which is possible given that there are mental health staff on call on weekends. Cooperation between classification and mental health will also be required, based on yet to be established policy and procedures regarding how prisoners will be classified and housed on the unit, which would include a clear description of how such a decision will be made/who will have the authority to make the decision.
It is anticipated that the special needs/mental health unit will be designed to house two different populations – those prisoners who are so acutely mentally ill that they are at risk of harming themselves or others (currently on suicide watch, or on special mental health observation, or held in the infirmary, or held in segregation), and those prisoners who can’t be safely held on a general population unit due to their mental health status and/or intellectual disabilities (currently held together on a unit that does not provide any expanded mental health programming). Therefore, another issue that will need to be resolved is what to do when there is a new prisoner who is appropriate for placement on the unit when there is no room on the unit.
73

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 74 of 122
75. The County must document the placement and removal of all prisoners to and from segregation.
Partial Compliance The form that is utilized by the JDC to track inmates placed in segregation (restrictive housing) is designed for use by all three facilities, however, if the RDC and WC are using it, the information has not filtered through to the monitoring team. Each facility commander will be contacted directly to obtain their documentation and to ensure that future records are consistent.
76. Qualified Mental Health Professionals must conduct mental health rounds at least once a week (in a private setting if necessary, to elicit accurate information), to assess the mental health status of all prisoners in segregation and the effect of segregation on each prisoner’s mental health, in order to determine whether continued placement in segregation is appropriate. These mental health rounds must not be a substitute for treatment.
Partial Compliance Mental health staff continue to perform weekly rounds for prisoners who are being held in segregation; when indicated, they offer mental health services to a prisoner that is not already on the mental health caseload; or when indicated, they might make adjustments in the treatment that is being provided to a prisoner who is already on the mental health caseload. However, to date, no mechanism has been established whereby any findings from those rounds can be shared with security staff and possibly have any impact on any decisions made by security staff regarding the continuation or termination of a prisoner’s placement in segregation.
77. The County must develop and implement restrictions on the segregation of prisoners with serious mental illness. These safeguards must include the following:
a. All decisions to place a prisoner with serious mental illness in segregation must include the input of a Qualified Mental Health Professional who has conducted a face-to-face evaluation of the prisoner in a confidential setting, is familiar with the details of the available clinical history, and has considered the prisoner’s mental health needs and history.
b. Segregation must be presumed contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness.
c. Within 24 hours of placement in segregation, all prisoners on the mental health caseload must be screened by a Qualified Mental Health Professional to determine whether the prisoner has serious mental illness, and whether there are any acute mental health contraindications to segregation.
d. If a Qualified Mental Health Professional finds that a prisoner has a serious mental illness or exhibits other acute mental health contraindications to segregation, that prisoner must not be placed or remain in segregation absent documented extraordinary and exceptional circumstances (i.e. for an
74

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 75 of 122
immediate and serious danger which may arise during unusual emergency situations, such as a riot or during the booking of a severely psychotic, untreated, violent prisoner, and which should last only as long as the emergency conditions remain present). e. Documentation of such extraordinary and exceptional circumstances must be in writing. Such documentation must include the reasons for the decision, a comprehensive interdisciplinary team review, and the names and dated signatures of all staff members approving the decision. f. Prisoners with serious mental illness who are placed in segregation must be offered a heightened level of care that includes the following: i. If on medication, the prisoner must receive at least one daily visit from a
Qualified Medical Professional. ii. The prisoner must be offered a face-to-face, therapeutic, out-of-cell
session with a Qualified Mental Health Professional at least once per week. iii. If the prisoner is placed in segregation for more than 24 hours, he or she must have his or her case reviewed by a Qualified Mental Health Professional, in conjunction with a Jail physician and psychiatrist, on a weekly basis. g. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, A Qualified Mental Health Professional will assess all prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation. This assessment must include a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Prisoners requiring follow-up for additional clinical assessment or care must promptly receive such assessment and care. h. If a prisoner on segregation decompensates or otherwise develops signs or symptoms of serious mental illness, where such signs or symptoms had not previously been identified, the prisoner must immediately be referred for appropriate assessment and treatment by a Qualified Mental Health Professional. Any such referral must also result in a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Signs or symptoms requiring assessment or treatment under this clause include a deterioration in cognitive, physical, or verbal function; delusions; self-harm; or behavior indicating a heightened risk of suicide (e.g., indications of depression after a sentencing hearing). i. The treatment and housing of prisoners with serious mental illness must be coordinated and overseen by the Interdisciplinary Team (or Teams), and guided by formal, written treatment plans. The Interdisciplinary Team must include both medical and security staff, but access to patient healthcare
75

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 76 of 122
information must remain subject to legal restrictions based on patient privacy rights. The intent of this provision is to have an Interdisciplinary Team serve as a mechanism for balancing security and medical concerns, ensuring cooperation between security and medical staff, while also protecting the exercise of independent medical judgment and each prisoner’s individual rights. j. Nothing in this Agreement should be interpreted to authorize security staff, including the Jail Administrator, to make medical or mental health treatment decisions, or to overrule physician medical orders.
Non-Compliant Regarding 77(a): There is still no mechanism for input from a QMHP in the decision to place someone in segregation. The security policy and procedures that would speak to this provision have not yet been adopted and implemented. Such a policy would require security to seek and then consider mental health input in the disciplinary review process that leads to the placement of a prisoner in segregation, and would outline the roles and responsibilities of mental health in that process. It should be noted that if a prisoner is on the mental health caseload or otherwise suspected to be suffering from a mental illness or intellectual disability, and security places that prisoner in segregation for a short period of time without formal disciplinary charges, such a placement in segregation should also prompt a mental health assessment. This policy would apply to all prisoners on the mental health caseload, and should also apply to any prisoner who, at the time of an infraction, appears to be evidencing signs and symptoms of mental illness, regardless of whether or not the prisoner is already on the mental health caseload. Medical receives a list of inmates in segregation and assesses them after placement. However, a QMHP is not involved in decisions to place the inmate in segregation.
Regarding 77(b): Presently, there does not appear to be a presumption that segregation is contraindicated for persons with SMI. As has been noted in each prior report, there are prisoners with serious mental illness housed on the segregation unit and held in segregation in the isolation section of other units. Over the last several site visits, the number of such prisoners has averaged about 24.
During the September 2019 visit, the mental health expert reviewed the cases of the then 22 prisoners with serious mental illness who were being held in segregation, and found that all 22 prisoners would be appropriate for transfer to the mental health unit (once it is opened) if the unit is appropriately designed both physically and programmatically (see section on Housing). Therefore, once the special needs/mental health unit is opened, there will be an appropriate alternative option for housing prisoners with serious mental illness, and at least in that sense, placing such prisoners in segregation could then be presumed to be contraindicated.
76

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 77 of 122
It is important to note here that some of these prisoners who will be transferred to the mental health unit will be isolated in the isolation section of the mental health unit because they are so seriously mentally ill that there is a risk of harm to themselves and/or others. However, it is anticipated that the mental health programming for the isolation section of the mental health unit and the associated amount of engagement with the prisoners placed there will be such that it is clearly differentiated from simply housing such prisoners in segregation.
Regarding 77(c): Prisoners on the mental health caseload are not screened by a QMHP for SMI. In fact, mental health staff are not even notified when a prisoner is placed in segregation.
Regarding 77(d) and (e), As noted in section 77(a), the mental health staff are not being offered the opportunity to assess any prisoners prior to their placement in segregation. The security policy and procedures that would address this provision have not been developed and implemented.
It should be noted that security staff are aware of the fact that there are some seriously mentally ill prisoners being held in segregation. There does not appear to be any specific documentation regarding the ‘extraordinary and exceptional circumstances’ that have required their placement in segregation. Furthermore, the placement of these prisoners in segregation has not been short term, and there do not appear to be any individualized plans (developed by security staff and/or mental health staff) to get these prisoners out of segregation as quickly as possible. Although the opening of the mental health unit will provide a housing option for seriously mentally ill prisoners currently held in segregation, individualized plans will still be required.
Regarding 77(f): For prisoners who are compliant with the medication that has been prescribed for them, this is being done by the nurses during medication pass. Now that it has been decided to return to the old procedure for medication pass (see discussion on medication pass), the nurses should be able to have their daily visit even if the prisoner refuses medication on that day. More specifically, prisoners who refuse medication on any given day are required to sign a medication refusal slip; this is supposed to be done in front of the nurse who is passing the medication; and with the return to the old procedure for medication pass, the nurse who is passing the medication will again have full view of the unit and the prisoners housed there, and the nurse is therefore much more able to have access to and observe such non-compliant prisoners.
Prisoners on the mental health caseload who are being held in segregation do have therapeutic sessions with a QMHP. However, due to the shortage of mental health staff, this does not consistently occur on a weekly basis. Furthermore, due to the shortage of security staff, the individual sessions that do occur are not consistently out-of-cell sessions.
77

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 78 of 122
As noted above, a QMHP makes weekly rounds for all prisoners placed in segregation, during which each prisoner’s mental health status and need for mental health services is assessed. However, this assessment/review is not performed in conjunction with a jail physician and a psychiatrist, or in conjunction with anyone else. Furthermore, given that the services that would be provided by a jail physician and a psychiatrist are provided by a medical nurse clinician and a psychiatric nurse clinician, compliance with this provision as currently written is unlikely to occur. Therefore, there should be a review of this provision to determine whether weekly review by a QMHP in conjunction with the two nurse clinicians is acceptable, and if so, the two nurse clinicians should begin to participate in such a weekly review. If this is not acceptable, the staffing pattern outlined in the QCHC contract will have to be reviewed.
All prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation have been assessed by a QMHP, but to date, there has been no appropriate housing for such prisoners that could be recommended based on those assessments (see section 77-b and the section on Housing). However, as discussed in the report of the September 2019 monitoring visit and in section 77-b of this report, based on this monitor’s review of the prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation, once the special needs/ mental health unit is opened there will be an appropriate alternative housing placement for all of these seriously mentally ill prisoners.
At present, all prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation who have agreed to accept mental health treatment are receiving treatment, albeit less than they require. At present, although prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation who have refused treatment are seen during weekly mental health segregation rounds, this is not treatment, and there is no mental health program/intervention specifically designed to encourage their eventual participation in treatment, while monitoring their mental health status with a view towards whether or not emergency interventions are required. However, it is anticipated that the expanded mental health programming that will be available on the anticipated special needs/mental health unit will address these shortcomings.
Regarding 77(h): There is no evidence of any incidences, or at least any recent incidences, where security staff referred a prisoner to mental health due to the prisoner’s decompensation while being held in segregation. However, mental health staff, during the course of making weekly rounds in segregation and/or while providing mental health services to prisoners held in segregation, have identified at least four prisoners who have decompensated while being held in segregation, one of which was not previously on the mental health caseload and was identified as evidencing decompensation during mental health rounds in segregation.
As has been noted in prior reports, although mental health staff carefully considers what additional mental health services can be provided to such prisoners, currently there is no formal mechanism whereby mental health staff can share these findings with security staff and thereby possibly impact on security staff’s decision to continue or discontinue placement in segregation.
78

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 79 of 122
In other words, there is still no policy and procedure for interdisciplinary segregation review. Such a policy would require regularly scheduled interdisciplinary review of all prisoners being held in segregation; both medical and mental health would have an opportunity to provide input into the decision to continue or discontinue placement in segregation; and it is recommended that each prisoner also participate in his/her regularly scheduled review.
It should also be noted that there is no mutually accepted informal mechanism to deal with this issue. Mental health staff report that when they have attempted to raise concerns about a prisoner with security staff, security staff has been unresponsive.
Finally, as was noted in section 77(b), the provision of more integrated and therapeutic housing for the prisoners on the mental health caseload who are being held in segregation awaits the opening of the special needs/mental health unit.
Regarding 77(i): When the mental health unit is opened, it is expected that medical, mental health and security staff would work together as an interdisciplinary team to provide a safe environment for mentally ill inmates and staff, while providing mentally ill inmates with the level of mental health services that they require. While this will be important for the management and treatment of all prisoners who will be housed on that unit, it will be particularly important for the management and treatment of the most acutely ill prisoners, most of whom are currently being held in segregation. Therefore, a mental health program plan for the unit needs to be developed, and steps must be taken to assure that there is an adequate complement of mental health staff to implement that program. In addition, security staff who will be assigned to the unit need to be selected and trained (see section 45(f)).
It should be noted that security staff who are assigned to the mental health unit will largely focus on each prisoner’s behavior and, in consultation with the mental health staff, the best way of managing/responding to each prisoner’s behavior in a way that is also consistent with the goals, objectives and therapeutic interventions outlined in the prisoner’s treatment plan. In fact, there will be many cases where the treatment plan might include specific interventions that will be made by security staff. Therefore, since communication and cooperation between security staff and mental health staff will be critical to the success of a mental health unit, what information will be shared and how information will be shared needs to be determined and clearly articulated so that both mental health staff and security staff can fulfill their responsibilities while protecting prisoner’s privacy rights.
YOUTHFUL PRISONERS
As long as the County houses youthful prisoners, it must develop and implement policies and procedures for their supervision, management, education, and treatment consistent with federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482. Within
79

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 80 of 122
six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will determine where it will house youthful prisoners. During those six months, the County will consult with the United States, the monitor of the Henley Young Juvenile Detention Center Settlement Agreement, and any other individuals or entities whose input is relevant. The United States will support the County’s efforts to secure appropriate housing for youthful prisoners, including supervised release. Within 18 months after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will have completed transitioning to any new or replacement youthful prisoner housing facility.
Substantial Compliance As of the drafting of this report, early February 2020 is the one-year mark since the last youth under 18 was released from the Raymond Detention Center (RDC). This was the completion of the transition that began in September 2017 when the decision was made to place new juveniles charged/convicted as adults (JCAs) at the Henley Young (HY) facility and gradually transition the remaining youth out of RDC. It is understood by the monitoring team that no more youth under age 18 will be housed at any of the adult facilities, including Juveniles Convicted as Adults (either waiting to be placed at the Mississippi Department of Corrections [MDOC] or previously convicted and arrested for a new offense or probation violation). Presuming this continues thru February 2021, sustained compliance will be achieved.
As of this visit there were 17 JCA youth at Henley Young. Of the JCAs: • 16 of the JCAs were male, and one female was admitted to the facility on January 21; interestingly, there were no female JCAs in custody between October 1 and January 20 • Only 7 of the JCAs had been indicted, including 4 youth that had been in placement over 129 days • Five of the JCAs had been in placement for less than 10 days • The ages of JCA youth in custody were: 14 (2), 15 (3), 16 (6), and 17 (6) • As of January 22, four youth had been in placement longer than 270 days (869, 610, 311, and 288) • During the period from October through the time of this site visit, there were 12 JCAs admitted to Henley Young and overall 9 youth were released, including 3 youth that had been in placement prior to October (specifically one youth who was admitted in April 2018, one who had been admitted in September 2019, and one admitted in July 2019;
The practice that began in September 2017 of booking JCAs at the Raymond Detention Center (RDC) prior to placement at Henley Young has continued. If they remain in placement when they turn 18, they are transferred to JDC pending further court action (vs. returning to RDC). Compliance with this requirement will be monitored to ensure sustained compliance.
In addition to the JCA youth, there were 15 (11 males, 4 female) other youth in placement at Henley Young facility. These are short-term placements of youth alleged to be delinquent held
80

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 81 of 122

pending further court proceedings. Thus, the total number of youth in custody as of January 22 was 32. Refer to the chart below for the average daily population for the period October 1 through December 31, 2019. During this period there were nine days in which the population was 30 or more youth. Under the SPLC Consent Decree, the maximum number of youth to be held at HY is 32, so continued vigilance in limiting the number of non-JCA youth held is important to meet the conditions of that agreement as well as maintaining effective functioning of the facility and programs.
Average Daily Population Henley Young
October 1 - December 31, 2019

30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0 Non-JCA female Non-JCA male JCA Female JCA male

4.3
6.9 0.0
15
OCT 4.3 6.9 0.0 15.0

1.5 8.1 0.0
15.7
NOV 1.5 8.1 0.0 15.7

1.7 7.8 0.0
14.16
DEC 1.7 7.8 0.0 14.2

The length of stay for JCAs and the length of time it takes for youth to go through the court system remains a concern in terms of how effectively Henley Young can program for youth over very extended periods of time. There is simply a difference between programming for youth over a 6-12-month period compared to trying to do so over much longer periods of time, let alone also providing appropriate services for the smaller number of short-term youth in placement. As has been referenced in a prior report, Henley Young continues to evolve from a short-term program that houses some longer-term youth to a long-term placement that houses some short-term youth. The challenges related to that transition cross all aspects of the program, from staffing to programming to treatment. To their credit, key leadership and staff at Henley Young have done a good job working through this transition, albeit additional work remains.
81

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 82 of 122
As noted in the prior report, beginning in October the county and court implemented a new process, a Minors Diversion Docket, in which Youth Court Judge McDaniels has held several expedited hearings to ensure timely review of status of the charge(s) and any bond requirement. A component of this plan also includes securing a psychological assessment of youth that can be done in a timely manner and assist the court in making a well-informed decision relative to potential changes in court assignment (i.e. keep case in adult court or remand to youth court) or other conditions. Since implementation in a couple of cases youth were returned to the Youth Court or released from Henley Young with a lower bond requirement. As of the time of this site visit, there were two youth scheduled for hearings on January 24 and an additional youth scheduled for January 31. Per Judge McDaniels, other positive changes have occurred in working with the newly elected District Attorney, including assignment of a specific prosecutor for the JCA youth cases and a similar action taken by the State Public Defender, and along with these parties the plan is to continue to refine/improve the process to reduce the length of time youth are in placement without being indicted and/or implement alternative plans to shorten the overall length of stay at Henley Young. Continued assessment of the impact of this Minors Diversion Docket Progress can be done at the time of the next site visit.
If the length of stay for JCAs can be reduced and the number of youth being admitted remains at a relatively constant level, the number of JCAs in placement at Henley Young could decline. As noted, as of this January visit, that has not yet occurred, and while keeping the number of JCA’s low is important for the continued stability and functioning of Henley Young, it is even more important for the youth to be held no longer than necessary.
Significant Leadership Changes
Pursuant to changes in the make-up of the Board of Supervisors, several significant personnel changes have occurred in Hinds County. Those changes have an impact on operations of all the confinement facilities covered under this agreement, and as it relates to Henley Young and JCAs the specific change was the discharge of the prior Executive Director, Mr. Fernandez Frazier, who had begun his work at Henley Young in May 2019. That means that in less than nine months there had been another leadership change at Henley Young, a change that is one of multiple changes over the past decade. Much of the actual leadership of Henley Young over this time has been provided by Mr. Eddie Burnside, Operations Manager and Mr. Eric Dorsey, Quality Assurance Manager. The stability of their leadership over this period has played an important role in the relative success of the transition through the SPLC agreement and more recently progress in addressing the issues of this agreement.
In discussions during this site visit it was represented that the Board of Supervisors also has or will soon endorse returning oversight responsibility of the Henley Young facility to the Youth
82

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 83 of 122
Court Judge, Judge McDaniels. Judge McDaniels indicated it was his intent to serve effectively as an Interim Executive Director and then work with the Board of Supervisors to develop a process to recruit and select a new Executive Director. A recruitment process for selection of the Executive Director is underway, and a copy of the job announcement is available on the Hinds County employment website. Prior to his election to the court, Judge McDaniels had served for over two years as the Executive Director for Henley Young, and by all appearances the partnership with Mr. Burnside and Mr. Dorsey was an effective one.
While having the operation of the youth detention facility under the oversight of the court is relatively unusual, it is not unheard of and is purportedly consistent with Mississippi statutes. Since most elected judges have little to no experience operating confinement facilities, with Judge McDaniels being an exception, this does place the ultimate operation of the facility subject to the willingness of the Youth Court Judge to select and support an Executive Director with substantive professional experience working with youthful offenders. Henley Young is in a relatively unique position, housing JCA youth under the jurisdiction of the adult court, youth held based on a booking in the adult jail overseen by the Sheriff, and still working with/responsible to the general county administration/Board as it relates to budgeting, maintenance, personnel recruitment, and other functions.
Mr. Burnside and Mr. Dorsey have demonstrated the willingness to take on additional tasks and responsibilities throughout the many leadership transitions at Henley Young, but to expect that Henley Young can successfully operate and continue to move forward without adding a qualified Executive Director to the leadership team is unrealistic. In the long run, Judge McDaniels can provide an appropriate oversight role, but it should not fall on Judge McDaniels or the other team members to continue “making it work”. There is clearly additional work that could be done by Mr. Burnside and Mr. Dorsey if they can be relieved of some of the administrative work that has fallen on their shoulders as a result of the absence of a qualified Executive Director.
The Recreation Coordinator position is also currently vacant and posted for applications on the Hinds County website. Historically that position has focused on providing support for physical and other “recreational” activities (e.g. video games, movies, etc.) and played a role in implementing the behavior management tool/point system. Expanding the role of that position to more of a “Program Coordinator” to support other components of the overall program will be helpful in achieving the program requirements of the Settlement Agreement and providing valuable services to the youth, e.g. coordinating visitation, outreach to recruit community volunteers to provide a range of supports for youth, outreach to the faith community for services for youth, and expanding the number and nature of behavioral rewards that youth can earn for positive behaviors.
83

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 84 of 122
Henley Young should consider a leadership structure that includes an Executive Director (to be hired), the current Operations Manager and Quality Assurance Manager, a Treatment Director/Coordinator (refer to the recent Stipulated Order, Item V. A.), and a Program Coordinator (with responsibilities for the “non-mental health” aspects of the program).
Physical Plant Changes
There have been no discernible physical plant changes that have been recommended in prior reports, including: (1) no additional classroom/programming space has been developed to support both educational, mental health, and/or other youth development programming; and (2) no changes in the housing units that have been recommended, changes that would “normalize” the environment and contribute the more effective management of youth behavior.
As noted in prior reports, the classroom area remains cramped and difficult to create some challenges in managing behaviors for youth, and the lack of appropriate space for group discussions, counseling, and other youth development programming makes development of a more complete program difficult at best. That said, the Youth Support Specialists did not cite any instances in which they could not find a space for their programming, just that it was often loud and challenging (particularly if they had to hold the group discussions on the housing unit).
Additionally, during this site visit it was noted that other improvements in the physical plant would make the units more appropriate for long-term confinement, including the limited water pressure (apparently a chronic infrastructure problem), and a number of the youth’s sleeping mattresses have been worn down to the point they provide very little support for sleeping. In addition to prior recommendations to replace the steel tables with detention-grade moveable furniture and add some sound-dampening acoustic panels (or comparable acoustical improvements), it would make sense to repaint the housing units and replace some of the sleeping mattresses for youth.
The lack of adequate recreation space for large muscle activity was of concern during this visit, as due to rainy weather the week before and cold weather through almost all the days of this visit, youth did not go outside for recreation. Youth noted it was not unusual overall during the winter to not go outside, limiting physical activity to the multi-purpose room that simply does not provide youth any large muscle activity. “Recreation” is the term loosely used to describe a range of activities that youth may do in the multi-purpose space, e.g. watching TV, a movie, video games, etc., hardly a sufficient replacement for large muscle activity. There are plans in discussion to “cover” a portion of the outdoor courtyard and perhaps add portable classrooms. Whether those plans are implemented can be confirmed during the May visit and/or communicated to the Monitor in the interim.
84

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 85 of 122
For any youthful prisoners in custody, the County must:
78. Develop and implement a screening, assessment and treatment program to ensure that youth with serious mental illness and disabilities, including developmental disabilities, receive appropriate programs, supports, education, and services.
Partial Compliance Prior reports have outlined the basic screening and mental health services provided for youth at Henley Young, including the use of initial screening tools (MAYSI-II, a strength based assessment, and interviews conducted by qualified mental health clinicians), the provision and documentation of one-on-one counseling and therapeutic services performed by the two mental health clinicians, and the group work and counseling provided by the three Youth Support Specialists (YSS).
There are concerns noted in the SPLC agreement that the MAYSI-II may not always be administered in a timely manner and/or individual treatment plans are not fully developed. However, during prior visits it did appear that youth were being screened for mental health concerns. The absence, again, of a psychologist or alternatively a Treatment Coordinator in conjunction with added psychological services is a concern, and further auditing of assessments and treatment plans can be done during the May visit.
In addition, members of that mental health group continue to form a treatment team for each youth that establishes treatment goals and meets regularly to review the youth’s behavior and progress on those goals. The Youth Support Specialists (YSS) continue to serve as contact points for parent(s) of youth in placement, and the clinicians and Youth Support Specialists participate in addressing behavioral issues/incidents that arise during placement. We (Jim Moeser and Aaron Fleisher, DOJ) were able to sit in on a team meeting during which five youth’s plans were reviewed, and in general it seemed to be a positive process, engaging the Youth Support Specialist, clinicians, school personnel, and in one case a parent participated.
Protocols related to suicide concerns are in place and are reflected in documentation in Incident Reports, intake assessment(s), monitoring of youth exhibiting suicide/self-harm concerns, and documentation of review by mental health staff and “release” from suicide watch status. Henley Young has implemented an appropriate supervision protocol for youth on suicide watch status, and there is documentation of required observation checks, albeit some of the documentation raises questions about its accuracy (see section related to observations conducted during disciplinary isolation periods).
With the departure of Dr. Payne in June of 2019, the mental health/treatment program has taken a step backward, and that position has yet to be filled. County staff previously indicated that
85

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 86 of 122
despite posting the position for a 1.0 FTE position prior to Dr. Payne’s departure, they have been unable to find a replacement. Some hope was expressed that under new leadership it may be possible to reengage with Dr. Payne and reach an agreement that could make that position fulltime and properly reflect the important coordinator/leadership role she could play for the overall delivery of mental health and treatment services.
However, as of the drafting of this report, that position remains unfilled and is posted as a Licensed Clinical Psychologist (the same posting from May 2019) rather than the Treatment Coordinator concept proposed in the recent Stipulated Order. Other staff have been working to “fill in the gaps”, but that is not a long-term substitute for designating a full-time Treatment Coordinator to lead the mental health program. The bottom line is that the County will not be able to reach full compliance with this aspect of the agreement unless/until they can obtain the services of a qualified person to provide leadership for the program. Even once someone is hired, it will take some time for that person to further shape the quality of programming and delivery of mental health supports. The Stipulated Order requires the posting of a position within 30 days of the order (the order was entered January 16, 2020) and offering the position to a qualified person within 3 months of the posting. That Stipulated Order was intended to provide some flexibility for the County to focus on hiring someone with an appropriate skill set to meet the needs of the program without limiting it to a specific licensing requirement. The County should be updating the Monitor as to progress in posting the position and/or finding the appropriate person to fill this need.
Staff continue to be positive about the provision of psychiatric services/consultation from Dr. Bell. Staff indicate that Dr. Bell comes regularly to the facility, responds as needed, and most importantly does a good job working directly with the youth. Verification of that contact can be done during the May visit.
Related to appropriate programs, the mental health Clinicians and the Youth Support Specialists continue to provide various group sessions for youth. In addition to groups conducted and referenced in the prior report (e.g. Avoiding Trouble, Managing Anger, Social Supports, Character Traits, etc.) one of the YSS staff has begun using the Power Source curriculum, a wellresearched curriculum that includes activities and support materials related to things such as techniques and strategies for impulse control, anger management, stress reduction, and conflict resolution; high-risk behaviors, such as substance abuse, criminal activity, and gang involvement; and childhood abuse and neglect and the resulting feelings of shame, grief, anger, and loss. This is the kind of evidence-based curriculum that could form the basis of a more integrated treatment program, i.e. used by other YSS staff and direct supervision (Youth Care Professionals) staff to better reinforce youth’s behavior on the living units. Documentation of group attendance has improved, making it easier to see what youth attended specific programs. Additionally, the clinicians and YSS staff have ordered additional curriculum/materials from the
86

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 87 of 122
Change Company that appear to be evidence based and appropriate for youthful offenders, utilizing cognitive-behavioral and journaling approaches. Most of those materials had not yet arrived but can be reviewed during the May visit. Note that the Stipulated Order lists examples of the types of curriculum and topics that have proven to be most effective with youthful offenders.
Both youth and staff noted that it was common that individual youth participated in three to four of these programs each week, but each session is scheduled for only 30 minutes, shortened from the initial plan of 45-60 minutes. Assuming there is some “down time” in getting the group started, that means that each youth is receiving at most two hours of this programming per week, far below what could be considered adequate to meet the requirements of the agreement.
Discussions with staff reaffirmed the prior assessment that much more needs to be done to create a coordinated and effective program, including: (1) strengthening the cohesion in how the various groups and programs “fit together” to work toward an underlying and consistent approach (e.g. as referenced above related to Power Source, which is just one example of a curriculum that could be used); (2) increasing the amount of structured program time; and (3) the Youth Support Specialists cite that it is not uncommon that lack of a suitable space for their program and/or a shortage of staff available to get youth to and then supervise the program limits their ability to provide the programming that is scheduled; more appropriate space should be developed.
Additionally, one YSS indicated that she was developing activities on an “as needed” basis each day/week by looking for ideas on the internet. Another YSS noted that in the past she had prepared a monthly lesson plan that laid out the activities, a positive model, but that model was not adopted by other YSS staff, so she discontinued doing so. Whereas most evidence-based curriculum addressing the requirements of the Stipulated Order utilize sequenced activities (e.g. 12 sessions focusing on increasing skills in a particular area/skill), most of the programs provided by YSS staff were not set up in that model. With proper materials, supervision, and support the YSS staff could work together to develop monthly or even quarterly plans for the specific programs provided and could reinforce each other’s work to be more effective with youth. To meet the requirements of the Stipulated Order, the team should develop a coordinated monthly plan (e.g. for May 2020) listing the planned group discussions and materials to be used. As the team meets, they can “roll” that plan forward on a monthly basis.
As it relates to meeting the conditions of the January Stipulated Order, the County needs to: • Hire a Psychologist/Treatment Director to provide direction for the mental health and behavioral health components of the program. Whether Dr. Payne is reengaged or not, the job description for that position should be updated to clearly reflect the skills and tasks for a Treatment Director/Coordinator. That current posting should be updated
87

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 88 of 122
and/or reposted by the time this report is filed, and the Monitor should be kept informed of progress (or lack thereof) in offering someone the position no later than May 15. (Refer to V.A. of the Stipulated Order). • The mental health team, ideally under the leadership of a Treatment Director/Coordinator and in consultation with other leadership, should put together a coordinated treatment program plan outlining the specific group discussions/activities (including the schedule, reference to the materials/curriculum to be used, and who is responsible for conducting/developing the activity) to be conducted in the coming month(s). That may take the form of a monthly schedule and should include a substantial increase in the amount of structured time youth are engaged in recreation and other youth treatment/development programming. This should be in place by May 1. (Refer to V. B., and C. of the Stipulated Order).
79. Ensure that youth receive adequate free appropriate education, including special education.
Partial Compliance The education program appears to be relatively unchanged from prior visits, with only minor improvements related to the use of credit recovery and other educational software. Some basic observations include:
• There remains one vacancy in the Special Ed. Teacher position, so all the special education work is currently being performed by Ms. Finley, and her passion and commitment to ensuring youth are receiving adequate services is evident. There appears to be a wellplanned and consistent process in place to promptly get a youth’s previous education records when a youth comes to Henley Young, including obtaining any Individual Education Plans for youth receiving exceptional education services. Those IEPs are reviewed initially, updated as needed, and then reviewed periodically as required. That review includes engaging with parent(s) and obtaining needed authorizations and approval(s).
• School is scheduled from 8:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. including a one hour lunch period. Attendance of youth is tracked and reported to the Jackson Public School information management system.
• The space previously used for providing some Special Ed. programming (essentially a converted closet) is now used for testing purposes only – an improvement, albeit that space is still not particularly conducive for any educational purpose.
• Additional software for credit recovery and providing greater individualized programming has been implemented, albeit on a limited basis.
That said, the operative word in this particular compliance condition is “adequate”, and there are some concerns about whether and when to consider Henley Young to be in full compliance,
88

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 89 of 122
including: (1) The overall educational program space is confined; the classrooms are adequate at best, although certainly not ideal, and there is not sufficient space or staffing to fully individualize programming at an optimum level; (2) Youth in facilities like Henley Young vary considerable in age, ability, and learning styles, and although each youth is given an initial assessment, it is not clear that programming is individualized in a way to meet those varied needs. . These problems are exacerbated by the very lengthy stays that some youth are experiencing; and (3) the bottom line for any educational program is to what extent youth are learning versus just attending.
The program may meet minimum Mississippi Department of Education requirements, but what has to be seen as at best a “temporary” education program and facility is not well-equipped to properly educate the variety of JCA youth for the extended period of time they are in placement. The JCA youth come into the Henley Young well-behind where they should be related to education (often the result of poor attendance and failure in their prior academic program) and accelerating their learning with a more robust program would be more appropriate. It would be helpful for an education expert to again review the program, as was done by Carol CramerBrooks in 2018 through the SPLC agreement. At that time, she concluded that “The space is definitely inadequate, made workable only because of the small numbers of residents attending school. If the numbers ever consistently approach the 32- resident capacity this will be an issue that needs to be revisited.” As mentioned above, there 32 residents at the time of the site visit.
As it relates to reviewing and documenting academic progress, an audit of the program (as part of the audit of Jackson Public Schools) by the Mississippi Department of Education found that documentation of Individual Academic Plans (IAP) was not sufficient, so the program has implemented a Corrective Action Plan to better ensure that academic progress is reviewed routinely and documentation related to that review is completed approximately every 10 school days. Further review of those IAPs can be done during the May visit, but staff indicate they did alter the procedure beginning with this academic year to meet the MDE requirement.
Limited Classroom Attendance During the Site Visit
Of concern during this site visit was that for safety concerns in response to a recent incident between two youth in different housing units only one-half of the youth were in class at a time. This was the case for at least the Tuesday thru Thursday of the visit. One housing unit attended in the morning, and the other unit attended during the afternoon. When not in class, the youth remained on their housing unit and were supposedly provided “homework” to do while on the unit. When visiting with youth on the unit it did appear that youth had been provided some worksheets to read and answer some questions, but on one occasion no youth seemed to be working on anything and on another visit only one youth seemed to be even looking at the worksheets. Other than for one or two Exceptional Education Need (EEN) students, there
89

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 90 of 122
appeared to be little or no staff support to do the work. This clearly cannot be portrayed as appropriate, yet youth on the unit were recorded as attending regardless of whether they were doing the work.
Given some of the limitations of the classroom space and ability to manage that area safely with “conflicting youth”, leadership staff took the position that this extended separation for “groups” of youth was necessary for safety purposes. While it is correct that the rather confined classroom area adds to behavior management concerns, there appeared to be little sense of urgency about resolving the underlying conflict and/or getting youth back into the full program quickly. Imposing the separation for a brief time for the school program as well as imposing some sort of disciplinary response for the specific youth involved in an altercation may be necessary, but it should be brief and followed up with some sort of reconciliation effort.
To move toward substantial compliance it is recommended to: (1) Provide additional classroom space that could also be used for additional educational, treatment, and behavioral programming; (2) Conduct a review of any measures of academic progress to assess what youth are actually learning, what skills they are improving in, and to what extent individual learning plans are implemented; and (3) Review and address recommendations for improving the school program previously provided by Carol Cramer-Brooks and any upcoming recommendations made by Dr. Domenici. It is positive to note that Judge McDaniels has expressed an interest in reviewing those recommendations and looking at additional ways to improve the school program going into the next academic year, if not sooner.
It should also be noted that (unless additional information is provided by the county and verified by the monitoring team) young adults held in the Jackson or Raymond Detention Center(s) who are legally eligible for continued special education services are not receiving that support.
80. Ensure that youth are properly separated by sight and sound from adult prisoners.
Substantial Compliance Since all youth under 18 have “aged out” of RDC and there are no adult prisoners at Henley Young, this provision is met. As JCA youth in placement at Henley Young turn 18, they will be transferred to RDC or the Jackson Detention Center (JDC). Two youth (J.N., C.W.) currently in placement will turn 18 by the end of May, and unless their case is otherwise resolved by the court they will be transferred to JDC. As referenced earlier, February 2020 will mark one year since any youth under 18 was housed at RDC, so there is every reason to suggest that sustained compliance can be achieved by February 2021.
81. Ensure that the Jail’s classification and housing assignment system does not merely place all youth in the same housing unit, without adequate separation based on classification standards.
90

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 91 of 122
Instead, the system must take into account classification factors that differ even within the youth sub-class of prisoners. These factors include differences in age, dangerousness, likelihood of victimization, and sex/gender.
Partial Compliance There has been no change related to compliance with this requirement although staff purport that Policies/Procedures have been updated and documentation of classification is occurring. However, staff have not yet provided the final version of the policy or a copy of the form for review nor were admission files inspected during this visit to confirm compliance with the policy. To reach Substantial Compliance Henley Young will need to provide the updated policy and related documentation it is being followed. Additionally, admission files can be reviewed during the May visit.
82. Train staff members assigned to supervise youth on the Jail’s youth-specific policies and procedures, as well as on age-appropriate supervision and treatment strategies. The County must ensure that such specialized training includes training on the supervision and treatment of youth, child and adolescent development, behavioral management, crisis intervention, conflict management, child abuse, juvenile rights, the juvenile justice system, youth suicide prevention and mental health, behavioral observation and reporting, gang intervention, and de-escalation.
Partial Compliance Henley Young continues to provide training on an on-going basis for some requirements of this provision, including new employee orientation for new staff, updates on policies and procedures as they are adopted, use of force refresher training, CPR training, fingerprint training (for intake purposes), and use of radio/communication equipment. As in past reports, this reflects that the bulk of training conducted for Youth Support Specialists (YSS -the “line” staff position) is on basic operational skills and falls short of the intent of providing more advanced training on issues such as the impact of trauma on youth behaviors, trauma-informed practice, adolescent development, and mental health.
Copies of training records were provided by Ms. Young who has continued to serve as the training coordinator for Henley Young, and, as has been the case in prior reports, developing a more complete training program is hampered by consistent turnover of Youth Care Professional staff. Ms. Young indicated that she had trained 22 staff, many new, over the past four months, a substantial percentage of the overall staffing for Henley Young. If/as staff retention continues to be a problem, at any point in time no matter how good the training program is there will be a notable portion of staff on duty that have not had more advanced youth supervision training.
Although not specifically itemized in this Agreement it seems clear that absent substantive changes in the salary structure for new and more experienced Youth Care Professional staff, this
91

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 92 of 122
turnover will continue and it will be an “uphill struggle” to develop a fully effective program at Henley Young. We understand that the Board of Supervisors has authorized some form of compensation study for adult jail and Henley Young staff, and hopefully additional resources will be provided to make those salaries more competitive in the Hinds County area. Additionally, the Board has apparently waived the residency requirement for those positions, and that is a positive step in increasing the potential pool of applicants.
83. Specifically prohibit the use of segregation as a disciplinary sanction for youth. Segregation may be used on a youth only when the individual’s behavior threatens imminent harm to the youth or others. This provision is in addition to, and not a substitute, for the provisions of this Agreement that apply to the use of segregation in general. In addition:
a. Prior to using segregation, staff members must utilize less restrictive techniques such as verbal de-escalation and individual counseling, by qualified mental health or other staff trained on the management of youth.
b. Prior to placing a youth in segregation, or immediately thereafter, a staff member must explain to the youth the reasons for the segregation, and the fact that the youth will be released upon regaining self-control.
c. Youth may be placed in segregation only for the amount of time necessary for the individual to regain self-control and no longer pose an immediate threat. As soon as the youth’s behavior no longer threatens imminent harm to the youth or others, the County must release the individual back to their regular detention location, school or other programming.
d. If a youth is placed in segregation, the County must immediately provide one-on-one crisis intervention and observation.
e. The County must specifically document and record the use of segregation on youth as part of its incident reporting and quality assurance systems.
f. A Qualified Medical Professional, or staff member who has completed all training required for supervising youth, must directly monitor any youth in segregation at least every fifteen (15) minutes. Such observation must be documented immediately after each check.
g. Youth may not be held in segregation for a continuous period longer than one (1) hour during waking hours. If staff members conclude that a youth is not sufficiently calm to allow a break in segregation after one hour, they must contact a Qualified Mental Health Professional. The Qualified Mental Health Professional must assess the youth and determine whether the youth requires treatment or services not available in the Jail. If the youth requires mental health services that are not provided by the Jail, the Qualified Mental Health Provider must immediately notify the Jail Administrator and promptly arrange for hospitalization or other treatment services.
h. If a youth is held in segregation for a continuous period longer than two (2) hours, Staff Members must notify the Jail Administrator.
92

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 93 of 122
i. Any notifications or assessments required by this paragraph must be documented in the youth’s individual record.
Partial Compliance This continues to be one of the more challenging provisions of the agreement, both in terms of implementing all the requirements and in monitoring proper implementation. HY tracks both Behavior Management Isolation (BMI) (short-term, implemented by YSS staff) and Due Process Confinements (DPC) (longer-term confinement following a disciplinary review by leadership). Per those records:
• In October 2019 there were 5 instances of BMIs and 3 instances of Due Process Confinements. The BMIs ranged from 15 to 25 minutes and the three DPCs were all for a period of 24 hours.
• In November there were 10 BMIs and 5 DPCs. Five of the BMIs were for approximately 2.5 hours (four of them relating to one incident of fighting). Four of the five DPCs were for 24 hours and one was for six hours.
• In December there were 9 BMIs and 8 DPCs. Only one of the 9 BMIs exceeded one hour; six of the nine DPCs were for 24 hours and three were for 6 hours.
This does represent a modest decrease (compared to the last site visit period covered) in the use of Behavior Management Confinements, and most of them were for short periods of time. But there has been an increase in the number of Due Process Confinements compared to the prior period. Fortunately, leadership staff report that there had not been an incident similar to the staff assault that occurred just prior to the last site visit in September, so that is a positive compared to the concern about the increasing number of Due Process Confinements.
Since the Agreement limits room confinement to a maximum of one hour unless the youth poses an imminent safety risk to staff or other youth, all of the sixteen Due Process Confinements arguably do not meet that expectation. Staff purport that during this 24-hour period youth can come out of their rooms for structured activities (school, recreation, group programming), but in reviewing five of the observation records for DPI confined youth, only one included
93

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 94 of 122
documentation that the youth was “out of their room” for school during that 24-hour period (a “code” was added to use to document “other” activity, including if the youth came out for school or other programming), but several indicated youth came out for recreation. If other youth were allowed out of their room, it was not documented. Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Burnside indicated that youth are given the option to come out of their room for structured programs but there is no way to tell from the documentation whether or not youth were offered that opportunity and/or refused to take it. There was, however, more frequent documentation of a visit/check by one of the mental health team members, either the QMHC or the Youth Support Specialist during the confinement period.
For purposes of tracking whether/how often youth come out of their room during any confinement period and/or refuse that opportunity it would be useful for YSS staff to more clearly document what happens, e.g. if the youth is offered and declines the opportunity to come out of their room that should be noted.
The juvenile justice expert and DOJ were able to observe one of the Due Process hearings for a youth involved in an incident (fighting with another youth), and although it technically provided a chance for the youth to explain what had happened it was a pretty perfunctory process that did little to address any of the underlying issues involved. Not knowing the youth involved, it is difficult to critique the hearing process, but when asked if there would be any follow up with the youth involved to bring them together to resolve any conflict and/or discuss what could be done differently, Mr. Dorsey indicated that would not be done. The actual disciplinary decision often refers to “24-hour room confinement with counseling”, and the YSS assigned to the youth may discuss it further with the youth (though it was unclear what would happen in this regard). It is important to keep in mind that discipline comes from the Latin word “disciplina” that means “instruction and training”, so simply holding a hearing to impose a consequence and assuming that will be “corrective” is short-sighted and does not provide an opportunity for youth to learn new behaviors going forward.
Ultimately the use of room confinement can be further reduced by continuing to improve the environment in the living units, retaining and expanding training of Youth Care Professional staff, continuing to expand social skill training, adding additional program opportunities, and ensuring a full complement of mental health support staff (i.e. a full-time psychologist).
Finally, the last Henley Young Policy/Procedure related to Due Process Confinement provided to the Juvenile Justice expert is from September 2017 and does not match verbal representations by staff about current procedures. Henley Young staff need to provide the team with current/recently adopted Policies/Procedures so they can be reviewed to determine if they are consistent with requirements of the Agreement.
94

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 95 of 122
84. Develop and implement a behavioral treatment program appropriate for youth. This program must be developed with the assistance of a qualified consultant who has at least five years of experience developing behavioral programs for institutionalized youth. The Jail’s behavioral program must include all of the following elements:
a. The behavioral program must include positive incentives for changing youth behavior, outline prohibited behaviors, and describe the consequences for prohibited behaviors.
b. An individualized program must be developed by a youth’s interdisciplinary treatment team, and properly documented in each youth’s personal file. Documentation requirements must include the collection of data required for proper assessment and treatment of youth with behavioral issues. For instance, the County must track the frequency and duration of positive incentives, segregation, and targeted behaviors.
c. The program must include safeguards and prohibitions on the inappropriate use of restraints, segregation, and corporal punishment.
Partial Compliance The point/level system tool used to track and document youth behaviors has remained essentially the same as it was adopted just prior to the visit in September. It does provide more discrete time frames in which to document/track behaviors, and the person performing the role of Recreation Coordinator is responsible for documenting what incentive youth choose based on what they earn. While the tool can be functional, several recommendations related to its use remain, including: (1) staff need to document in more detail why they “rate” a youth the way they do, both positively and negatively; simply providing a “number score” does little to reinforce and/or shape youth’s behavior going forward; (2) individual goals need to be added to the tool based on consultation with the YSS assigned to the youth so that discrete areas for improvement can be identified and reinforced; (3) more work needs to be done to expand options for incentives; and (4) Youth Care Professional staff need to be more overt in using the system as a “tool” for discussing with youth what they are doing well and how they can do better. Making this last recommendation effective is complicated by the frequent staff turnover and need to focus on basic training rather than more advanced behavior change/management skills.
The YSS and QMHC staff do identify some individual goals for youth in care and part of the Treatment Team review process includes some discussion of those goals, although at least for the five youth observed during the treatment team meeting during the visit, the goals seemed pretty much the same. That may be appropriate, but requires further assessment of the details and documentation of progress. Henley Young continues to receive technical assistance/support through Anne Nelson, monitor for the SPLC agreement and Leonard Dixon providing periodic support/technical assistance.
95

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 96 of 122
LAWFUL BASIS FOR DETENTION
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners are processed through the criminal justice system in a manner that respects their liberty interests. To that end:
85. The County will not accept or continue to house prisoners in the Jail without appropriate, completed paperwork such as an affidavit, arrest warrant, detention hold, or judge’s written detention order. Examples of inadequate paperwork include but are not limited to undated or unsigned court orders, warrants, and affidavits; documents memorializing oral instructions from court officers that are undated, unsigned, or otherwise fail to identify responsible individuals and the legal basis for continued detention or release; incomplete arresting police officer documents; and any other paperwork that does not establish a lawful basis for detention.
Partial Compliance The policies on pre-booking, booking and records have now been in place for almost a year. A Booking Manual is being developed and an initial review of the uncompleted manual indicates that it will be a useful document. There continue to be improved systems in place to track individuals and release them timely. The new Records Policy requires uniform organization of the files and requires a summary sheet that tracks the individual’s detention status. Updates are immediately reviewed by a peer and the Supervisor is to conduct an audit of 10 files a week and do a semi-annual review of all files. The files provided for review all had the log of activity required by the Records Policy. However, this was not necessarily a random selection so the percentage of files that have been updated with this log is not currently known. The files did not have the summary sheet required by the Records Policy to clearly summarize the current basis of confinement as there appeared to be some misunderstanding of how that differed from the chronological entries. The summary of detention status should identify every matter that is causing the individual to be detained and identify the supporting documentation. This would allow for a quick and accurate assessment of when court action warrants release. It would also allow for efficient auditing of the files. Currently, determining the status of the inmate requires a review of most of the paperwork in the file which can be voluminous.
A review of the files and the summary indicated some discrepancies. One individual had an out of state hold withdrawn but this did not appear in the log. Another individual had a warrant for parole with no documentation that the warrant had been withdrawn. The individual had been released. The NCIC report in the file was only a driver’s history as opposed to the criminal history which reportedly resulted in the warrant not showing up at the time of release.
At the present time, there continue to be some instances of people being booked without proper paperwork or being detained longer than they should be. A new issue was observed in this site
96

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 97 of 122
visit. Two individuals had arrest forms that had handwritten notations to “Hold for Investigation.” This is not a valid hold. The second individual should not have been booked under current policy as he was only charged with non-qualifying misdemeanors. He was, however, booked on the hold. A supervisor ensured his release the next day. These were both bookings from the HCSO and should be addressed. It was also reported that one of the judges does not have an administrative assistant and as a result there is a delay in receiving release orders. This often results in a 2 or 3 day delay although the Jail is releasing the inmates once they receive the paperwork.
The tracking of individuals held on probation violations appears to be accurate. However, there have been individuals who have overstayed the 21 days allowed for a hearing when a hearing has been set but has not occurred. One individual was held an additional week beyond the 21 days. Another individual was held over a month after the 21 days had run. This issue was previously addressed by the Sheriff’s attorney but needs to be revisited.
Improper releases continue to be a potential problem as a result of the Warrants Division using a different data base than the rest of the Sheriff’s Office. The Warrants Division of HCSO uses an old data base and so does not enter warrants into the JMS system. If a warrant is entered after 5:00 or on the weekend, the Records Office won’t know about it until the next business day.
There are several system issues that result in over-detention. One recurring situation previously identified is that there is not a way to identify people in the Jail who are waiting for a preliminary hearing. Although it is the court’s responsibility to provide timely settings, the Jail currently has no way of tracking these individuals to alert the court. There continue to be individuals detained beyond 90 days without indictment. However, it appears that the new District Attorney is committed to remedying this. It should be noted, however, that this does not mean these individuals will be released. As cases are reviewed, some will no doubt be dismissed but some will result in indictments.
The problem with individuals waiting for their first appearance in County Court appears to be resolved. In addition to seeing the judge more promptly, the bail bond schedule has been eliminated. For those individuals who will not see a judge in 48 hours, the staff are usually able to get phone approval for an ROR.
86. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees in contravention of the protections of the United States Constitution as set forth and discussed in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) and Cassibry v. State, 453 So.2d 1298 (Miss. 1984). The County must develop and implement policies consistent with the applicable federal law and the terms of this Agreement.
97

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 98 of 122
Substantial Compliance As reported at the time of the last site visit, policies on Pre-Booking, Booking, and Records have been completed and adopted. The Pre-booking policy provides that no person can be committed at the jail absent documentation that a meaningful analysis of the person’s ability to pay was conducted and written findings that any failure to pay was willful. At the time of the last two site visits and this site visit there have been no individuals in the facility on a fines and fees order. This will continue to be monitored closely as the policies are new and sentencing orders are sometimes ambiguous, but this provision is now listed as in substantial compliance.
87. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees absent (a) documentation demonstrating that a meaningful analysis of that person’s ability to pay was conducted by the sentencing court prior to the imposition of any sentence, and (b) written findings by the sentencing court setting forth the basis for a finding that the failure to pay the subject fines or fees was willful. At a minimum, the County must confirm receipt from the sentencing court of a signed “Order” issued by the sentencing court setting forth in detail the basis for a finding that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful.
Substantial Compliance The County has been pro-active in ensuring that valid court orders are utilized. The policy on pre-booking is consistent with this paragraph and at the time of this and the prior site visit there was no one in the facility for failure to pay fines and fees. However, at the time of this site visit, a review of inmate files disclosed two individuals who had illegal orders to stay in jail until payment of fines and fees. It was reported that these individuals are not held on these orders. If in custody on another matter, the individual is considered to have time served on the fines and fees order. It was reported that the illegal fines and fees orders are typically not entered into the JMS system. While it is the case that this process results in no one being held on fines and fees, a better process would be to ensure that the orders are corrected as set out in this Settlement Agreement. These requirements will continue to be carried as in compliance as no one is being held on fines and fees.
88. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a person for failure to pay fines or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and any other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and must obtain a copy to justify continued detention of the prisoner. After 48 hours, that prisoner must be released promptly if the Jail staff cannot obtain the necessary documentation to verify that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful, and that person is incarcerated only for the failure to pay fines or fees.
Substantial Compliance See paragraph 87.
98

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 99 of 122
89. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a prisoner for failure to pay fines or fees, and if that person is incarcerated for other conviction(s) or charge(s), other than the failure to pay fines and/or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and to ascertain the prisoner’s length of sentence. If Jail staff cannot obtain a copy of the necessary documentation within 48 hours of the prisoner’s incarceration, Jail staff must promptly arrange for the prisoner’s transport to the sentencing court so that the court may conduct a legally sufficient hearing and provide any required documentation, including the fines or fees owed by the prisoner, and an assessment of the prisoner’s ability to pay and willfulness (or lack thereof) in failing to pay fines or fees.
Substantial Compliance See paragraph 87.
90. Jail staff must maintain the records necessary to determine the amount of time a person must serve to pay off any properly ordered fines or fees. To the extent that a sentencing court does not specifically calculate the term of imprisonment to be served, the Jail must obtain the necessary information within 24 hours of a prisoner’s incarceration. Within 48 hours of incarceration, each prisoner shall be provided with documentation setting forth clearly the term of imprisonment and the calculation used to determine the term of imprisonment.
Partial Compliance The WC continues to maintain a spreadsheet. There are no individuals currently incarcerated with an order to pay fines and fees. There was no documentation that prisoners were provided with documentation of their release date although they do typically have the orders from the court.
91. No pre-trial detainee or sentenced prisoner incarcerated by the County solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be required to perform physical labor. Nor shall any such detainee or prisoner receive any penalty or other adverse consequence for failing to perform such labor, including differential credit toward sentences. Any physical labor by pre-trial detainees or by prisoners incarcerated solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be performed on a voluntary basis only, and the County shall not in any way coerce such pre-trial detainees or prisoners to perform physical labor.
Partial Compliance This has become a limited issue now that there are no individuals working off fines and fees. At the time of the September and the last site visit, the stated policy was that if Medical determined that the individual could not perform physical labor the individual got full credit. The spread
99

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 100 of 122
sheet appears to be consistent with this stated policy. This is carried as partial compliance because there needs to be a written policy requiring that individuals who cannot work because of a medical or mental health condition or other disability receive full credit towards fines and fees.
92. The County must ensure that the Jail timely releases from custody all individuals entitled to release. At minimum:
a. Prisoners are entitled to release if there is no legal basis for their continued detention. Such release must occur no later than 11:59 PM on the day that a prisoner is entitled to be released.
b. Prisoners must be presumed entitled to release from detention if there is a court order that specifies an applicable release date, or Jail records document no reasonable legal basis for the continued detention of a prisoner.
c. Examples of prisoners presumptively entitled to release include: i. Individuals who have completed their sentences; ii. Individuals who have been acquitted of all charges after trial; iii. Individuals whose charges have been dismissed; iv. Individuals who are ordered released by a court order; and v. Individuals detained by a law enforcement agency that then fails to promptly provide constitutionally adequate, documented justification for an individual’s continued detention.
Partial Compliance See response to number 85.
93. The County must develop and implement a reliable, complete, and adequate prisoner records system to ensure that staff members can readily determine the basis for a prisoner’s detention, when a prisoner may need to be released, and whether a prisoner should remain in detention. The records system must provide Jail staff with reasonable advance notice prior to an anticipated release date so that they can contact appropriate agencies to determine whether a prisoner should be released or remain in detention.
Partial Compliance As described in paragraph 85, the new Records policy establishes a system that should greatly improve the reliability of the prisoner record system. However, a complete updating and review of the records has not been completed and the system of auditing files has not been implemented. The summary required by the Records policy has not been fully understood and so has not been created as opposed to a chronological log of events. Similarly, when the Booking Manual is completed, there should be improvement in the initial entries into the JMS system. Additional problems described in paragraph 85 continue to exist. At present, the Jail is still partially reliant on inmate requests and grievances to identify people who are being over detained. In addition to
100

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 101 of 122
Booking staff, there are three individuals tracking the lawful basis of detention. They are all three using separate spreadsheets and lists which as noted above do not match reports run from the JMS system. Jail staff do not have access to the county court data base or the updated circuit court data base which would allow them to improve the accuracy of their records.
94. Jail record systems must accurately identify and track all prisoners with serious mental illness, including their housing assignment and security incident histories. Jail staff must develop and use records about prisoners with serious mental illness to more accurately and efficiently process prisoners requiring forensic evaluations or transport to mental hospitals or other treatment facilities, and to improve individual treatment, supervision, and community transition planning for prisoners with serious mental illness. Records about prisoners with serious mental illness must be incorporated into the Jail’s incident reporting, investigations, and medical quality assurance systems. The County must provide an accurate census of the Jail’s mental health population as part of its compliance reporting obligations, and the County must address this data when assessing staffing, program, or resource needs.
Non-Compliant Medical and mental health use an electronic medical records system, which keeps a full record of all medical and mental health assessments, treatment plans, and treatments. Only medical and mental health staff have access to these records. Mental health staff also maintain a log for all prisoners on the mental health caseload. The log tracks the location of each prisoner, booking date, the date of the initial nursing intake assessment, the date the prisoner was referred to mental health and the source of the referral, the date of the initial mental health assessment (see section 42(g)(vi), the date of the initial psychiatric assessment, the prisoner’s diagnosis, the date the treatment plan was developed, whether or not the prisoner is on psychotropic medication, whether or not there is a discharge plan, and the prisoner’s length of stay. There is a separate log/tracking system for prisoners placed on suicide watch, which tracks the number of prisoners placed on suicide watch each week and their average length of stay on suicide watch.
The above noted medical records and logs document the work that is being done and are constantly referred to when continuing to plan for and provide treatment. In this regard, treatment plans should be periodically reviewed and updated when indicated; but this process of formal treatment plan review has not yet been initiated; however, it is anticipated that such a formal process of treatment plan review will be initiated once additional mental health staff have been brought on board.
At present, the above noted records and logs are kept confidential due to concerns about prisoner/patient privacy rights. However, HIPAA includes a specific exception to its privacy provisions in recognition of the fact that in a corrections setting communication and cooperation between security staff and mental health staff will be critical to the success of the mental health
101

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 102 of 122
unit. Training of both medical and security staff on what information can be shared and how information can be shared should be completed so that both mental health staff and security staff can fulfill their responsibilities while protecting prisoner’s privacy rights. In addition, as is noted in various sections of this report, security staff assigned to general population units are also managing prisoners who are seriously mentally ill and will continue to do so even when the mental health unit is opened; therefore, they need to know which prisoners are suffering from serious mental illness and how illness impacts on their ability to function; and so developing a mechanism whereby they will know who is on the mental health caseload, coupled with adequate training (see section 45), is important.
Based on the logs maintained by the mental health staff, the mental health staff is able to provide an accurate census of the population on the mental health caseload. This census count, along with consideration for the other current and anticipated responsibilities of the mental health staff (see paragraph 42), can be used to assess mental health staffing needs. As noted elsewhere in this report, it is anticipated that once all security policies and procedures have been completed, especially with regard to disciplinary review, segregation review, and use of force, it will be possible to calculate the mental health staff hours required for mental health to fulfill its responsibilities with regard to these activities. In addition, once the mental health program plan for the mental health unit has been developed, it will be possible to calculate the mental health staffing needs for that unit. So, although clearly there is a need for additional mental health staff, the development of a more detailed staffing plan awaits the completion of these developments.
Mental health staff are not involved with the transfer of prisoners to the state hospital for competency evaluations and/or the restoration of competency. In fact, mental health staff is unaware of which prisoners are awaiting such transfer, and staff have no idea who is responsible for making sure that such prisoners are transferred in a timely manner.
Presently, mental health staff are also not involved in the incident reporting and review process. At the time of the September 2019 visit, the mental health expert on the monitoring team reviewed 15 incident reports were there was important, relevant information that could have been obtained from mental health that was not obtained from mental health. Four of those reports were related to potentially suicidal prisoners, and indicated that security staff could benefit from additional training on suicide prevention. Nine of the reports were related to some type of misconduct; after reviewing the available mental health information, it became clear that the incidences were the product of serious mental illness; and indicated that security staff could benefit from additional training on mental illness and the management of seriously mentally ill prisoners. However, there was one incident where security staff clearly recognized that the prisoner’s mental health status had declined and took the prisoner to mental health. In the one other incident, a prisoner was exhibiting adverse effects to an illicit drug that he had taken, but
102

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 103 of 122
security staff mistakenly thought he was having some type of medical difficulty and took him to medical.
During this site visit, 9 incident reports were identified where there was important, relevant information that could have been obtained from mental health that was not obtained from mental health. Two of these reports were related to potentially suicidal prisoners, and once again raised the question of whether or not security staff could benefit from additional training on suicide prevention. Seven of the reports were related to some type of misconduct; after reviewing the available mental health information, it became clear that the incidences were the product of serious mental illness; and again raised the question of whether or not security staff could benefit from additional training on mental illness and the management of seriously mentally ill prisoners.
In addition to raising the above noted training issues, these reviews of incident reports raise several other issues or questions as well. More specifically, for incidences such as these, can there ever be an adequate review of the incident without obtaining available, related health and mental health information. Therefore, should medical and mental health be asked to add to incident reports and/or review incident reports when there is any reason to suspect that there is a medical and/or mental health issue (assuming that security staff, or at least security reviewers of incident reports, have enough training in mental health to suspect that there might be a mental health issue). Since incidents can become the basis for disciplinary charges, these reviews confirm the need for a disciplinary review process that includes mental health (described in the section on Segregation). In addition, since security review of incident reports might result in a review of and possible changes in policies and procedures, mental health input on incidences such as these might be extremely helpful.
95. All individuals who (i) were found not guilty, were acquitted, or had charges brought against them dismissed, and (ii) are not being held on any other matter, must be released directly from the court unless the court directs otherwise. Additionally:
a. Such individuals must not be handcuffed, shackled, chained with other prisoners, transported back to the Jail, forced to submit to bodily strip searches, or returned to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
b. Notwithstanding (a), above, individuals may request to be transported back to the Jail solely for the purpose of routine processing for release. If the County decides to allow such transport, the County must ensure that Jail policies and procedures govern the process. At minimum, policies and procedures must prohibit staff from: i. Requiring the individual to submit to bodily strip searches; ii. Requiring the individual to change into Jail clothing if the individual is not already in such clothing; and
103

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 104 of 122
iii. Returning the individual to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
Non-Compliant Individuals are not being released from the Court at this time. In connection with the drafting of policies and procedures, Jail staff are working on a process of releasing individuals from the downtown facility, JDC.
96. The County must develop, implement, and maintain policies and procedures to govern the release of prisoners. These policies and procedures must:
a. Describe all documents and records that must be collected and maintained in Jail files for determining the basis of a prisoner’s detention, the prisoner’s anticipated release date, and their status in the criminal justice system.
b. Specifically, detail procedures to ensure timely release of prisoners entitled to be released, and procedures to prevent accidental release.
c. Be developed in consultation with court administrators, the District Attorney’s Office, and representatives of the defense bar.
d. Include mechanisms for notifying community mental health providers, including the County’s Program of Assertive Community Treatment (“PACT”) team, when releasing a prisoner with serious mental illness so that the prisoner can transition safely back to the community. These mechanisms must include providing such prisoners with appointment information and a supply of their prescribed medications to bridge the time period from release until their appointment with the County PACT team, or other community provider.
Non-Compliant The Jail does not yet have an adopted policy on Releasing. A draft policy has been circulated for review. The draft currently addresses some but not all of these requirements. The draft policy primarily addresses procedures that would ensure the accurate release of inmates completing a sentence. This is a small percentage of the releases. Inmates are released in a variety of circumstances including pretrial release on bond, ROR or electronic monitoring, releases of holds, pick ups on holds, expiration of time limits on detention, and others. The policy should address these other forms of release.
As has been previously noted, the requirements for discharge planning actually involve several different activities. The first is the development of a written discharge plan for each prisoner who is likely to be eventually released; the plan would include the type of treatment needed, where the prisoner will obtain that treatment, and any other wrap-around services that might be indicated (housing assistance, vocational assistance, case management, etc.); and ultimately, the plan should be developed and shared with the prisoner, with the goal of obtaining the prisoner’s
104

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 105 of 122
commitment to the plan. Currently, staff provide referrals to discharging inmates but there is no written discharge plan. Once the prisoner is relatively stable within the facility, the second activity is to prepare the prisoner for release; this is done via psychoeducation and medication management groups, discharge planning groups, etc.; and where indicated, it may also involve other individual and group therapeutic interventions that maximize the prisoner’s ability to function outside of the facility. Although mental health staff have initiated two groups both of these have since been dropped. This was an initial effort to provide the type of programming that is needed. The third activity is the development of working relationships with community-based providers of mental health services and other important wrap-around services; this effort is to assure that such community-based providers will accept referrals; and this effort should also be focused on the mechanics of referral and how to maximize the possibility of having a successful/completed referral. The mental health staff has developed a very good working relationship with the intake staff at Hinds County Behavioral Health. There is a need to locate and build such a relationship with an agency that provides residential services. The fourth activity is finding ways to bridge the gap between release time and the prisoner’s first meeting with a community-based provider; this includes giving the prisoner medication upon their release from the facility to hold them over until they see the community-based provider, but it might also include making sure that the prisoner knows how to access any emergency services that the prisoner might require prior to the time the prisoner meets with the community-based provider; and ways to do this must be developed even for prisoners who are released directly from court or otherwise fail to go through the medical clearance process upon their release from the facility. This was partly addressed in the medication management group that was initiated but since that is not longer functioning, this is an area that needs to be addressed.
All of the above described activities related to mental health discharge planning must be included in the mental health program plan that needs to be developed for the anticipated mental health unit. Although some of these activities will be totally under the control of the mental health staff, other activities will require a close working relationship with other units within the facility (such as classification and booking) or a close working relationship with community-based providers of mental health services and other important wraparound services.
One of the nurses had designed and began a psychoeducation group focused on medication; the group started out well; but most of the prisoners stopped attending once the problems with their medication had been addressed. As part of an effort to push the program planning for the mental health unit, a meeting was held by the mental health expert with the medical staff to discuss the difficulties experienced with starting that medication group, how such difficulties could be addressed, and how that experience informs the program planning effort for the mental health unit.
105

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 106 of 122
During this last site visit, the mental health expert on the monitoring team and mental health staff also met again with the director and staff of Hinds Behavioral Health. The nurse/discharge planner is in regular contact with the intake person at Hinds Behavioral Health; they reported that about 25% of the jail’s mental health caseload have been clients of Hinds Behavioral Health in the past; and they reported that only about 30% of the prisoners who are referred to Hinds Behavioral Health upon their release from jail actually show up for their scheduled appointment. This and other information shared at the meeting confirmed the need for the type of more rigorous discharge planning effort that is envisioned once the mental health unit is opened and adequately staffed. This and other information shared at the meeting also again pointed to the potential benefit of having staff from Hinds Behavioral Health actually do intakes at the jail prior to a prisoner’s release (thereby beginning to develop a relationship with the prisoner prior to release); this also pointed to the potential benefit of staff from Hinds Behavioral Health participating in the discharge planning groups, etc. that will be held at the Jail; but since Hinds Behavioral Health isn’t funded to do these things, they were asked to figure out how much funding would be required to do these things. It should be noted here that this type of involvement at a jail by community-based providers of mental health services has been demonstrated to increase the rate of successful referrals for community based mental health services post-release. It should also be noted that a representative from medical was also at this meeting with Hinds Behavioral Health, because Hinds Behavioral Health now has an integrated care program which provides a range of medical services on site to clients of the agency. Therefore, prisoners who are successfully referred there could receive both their mental health and medical services at the same facility, in an integrated way.
Another issue that came up at the meeting with Hinds Behavioral Health is the high number of individuals with serious mental illness who are only held at the Jail for a day or two, estimated to be about 20-25 individuals/month. These individuals are not at the Jail long enough to receive any mental health services, including discharge planning services; upon their release, they don’t receive community-based mental health services; and most of them are back for another short stay at the jail very quickly. It was noted that although the Jail has contact information for these prisoners, it is not always accurate; there was a discussion about the feasibility of sharing this information with Hinds Behavioral Health so that case managers there could actively search for and follow-up with these rapidly released prisoners. During the meeting with Hinds Behavioral Health, all present agreed to work collaboratively to continue to explore the feasibility of such an effort, with an eye towards the extent it might help decrease recidivism among this specific population.
Finally, there continues to be a considerable number of prisoners who are released without medical clearance and therefore fail to get a supply of medication that is waiting for them in medical; so there still needs to be improvement there; and it is still anticipated that once medication groups, discharge planning groups, etc. are in place, prisoners can learn about
106

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 107 of 122
available ways to get emergency medication if they do leave the facility without a supply of medication.
97. The County must develop, implement, and maintain appropriate post orders relating to the timely release of individuals. Any post orders must:
a. Contain up-to-date contact information for court liaisons, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Public Defender’s Office;
b. Describe a process for obtaining higher level supervisor assistance in the event the officer responsible for processing releases encounters administrative difficulties in determining a prisoner’s release eligibility or needs urgent assistance in reaching officials from other agencies who have information relevant to a prisoner’s release status.
Non-Compliant The County has not yet developed post orders in this area. The Records Supervisor and her assistant and the individual working with County Court appear to have developed working relationships with individuals in the court systems.
98. Nothing in this Agreement precludes appropriate verification of a prisoner’s eligibility for release, including checks for detention holds by outside law enforcement agencies and procedures to confirm the authenticity of release orders. Before releasing a prisoner entitled to release, but no later than the day release is ordered, Jail staff should check the National Crime Information Center or other law enforcement databases to determine if there may be a basis for continued detention of the prisoner. The results of release verification checks must be fully documented in prisoner records.
Partial Compliance The Booking staff reportedly now runs an NCIC check at the time of booking and again at release. NCIC reports run at the time of booking are in the inmate files. The files reviewed did include a copy of the NCIC report at the time of release although, as noted above, one file had only an NCIC driver’s report instead of the criminal history report which was possibly the cause of a parole warrant being missed. Once the policy on Release is revised and adopted, and the files continue to contain the required documentation, the county can be considered compliant.
99. The County must ensure that the release process is adequately staffed by qualified detention officers and supervisors. To that end, the County must:
a. Ensure that sufficient qualified staff members, with access to prisoner records and to the Jail’s e-mail account for receiving court orders, are available to receive and effectuate court release orders twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
b. Ensure that staff members responsible for the prisoner release process and related records have the knowledge, skills, training, experience, and abilities to
107

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 108 of 122
implement the Jail’s release policies and procedures. At minimum, the County must provide relevant staff members with specific pre-service and annual inservice training related to prisoner records, the criminal justice process, legal terms, and release procedures. The training must include instruction on: i. How to process release orders for each court, and whom to contact if a
question arises; ii. What to do if the equipment for contacting other agencies, such as the
Jail’s fax machine or email service, malfunctions, or communication is otherwise disrupted; iii. Various types of court dispositions, and the language typically used therein, to ensure staff members understand the meaning of court orders; and iv. How and when to check for detainers to ensure that an individual may be released from court after she or he is found not guilty, is acquitted, or has the charges brought against her or him dismissed. c. Provide detention staff with sufficient clerical support to prevent backlogs in the filing of prisoner records.
Partial Compliance There are now policies and procedures on Booking, Pre-Booking, and Records. A policy on Releasing has been circulated and returned with comments. These policies will assist in coming into compliance in this area. As stated in paragraph 85 above, there is a problem in checking for detainers because the Warrants Division does not enter warrants in the JMS system and the Records Supervisor does not have access to their system after hours.
The imbalance of staffing in Booking (reported in the Sixth through the Ninth Monitoring Reports) was not as noticeable during the January site visit. While there was still only one (male) officer assigned to handle the reception of arrestees and to conduct well-being checks on inmates in the holding cells, there were only two Detention Officers acting as Booking Clerks which represents a reduction from previous site visits. There is some confusion as to their duties. When the corrections operations member of the monitoring team questioned how a female arrestee is processed, he was told that one of the Booking Clerks (females) left the Booking Office and assisted. When the Monitor’s expert on Policies and Procedures asked the same question, she was told that the Booking Clerks never left the office environment. This is a matter that needs to be addressed and clarified in writing by the Interim Jail Administrator.
100. The County must annually review its prisoner release and detention process to ensure that it complies with any changes in federal law, such as the constitutional standard for civil or pretrial detention.
108

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 109 of 122
Non-Compliant At the time of the site visit, there had not been an initial review of this process to determine consistency with federal law.
101. The County must ensure that the Jail’s record-keeping and quality assurance policies and procedures allow both internal and external audit of the Jail’s release process, prisoner lengths of stay, and identification of prisoners who have been held for unreasonably long periods without charges or other legal process. The County must, at minimum, require:
a. A Jail log that documents (i) the date each prisoner was entitled to release; (ii) the date, time, and manner by which the Jail received any relevant court order; (iii) the date and time that prisoner was in fact released; (iv) the time that elapsed between receipt of the court order and release; (v) the date and time when information was received requiring the detention or continued detention of a prisoner (e.g., immigration holds or other detainers), and (vi) the identity of the authority requesting the detention or continued detention of a prisoner.
b. Completion of an incident report, and appropriate follow-up investigation and administrative review, if an individual is held in custody past 11:59 PM on the day that she or he is entitled to release. The incident report must document the reason(s) for the error. The incident report must be submitted to the Jail Administrator no later than one calendar day after the error was discovered.
Non-Compliant The record keeping process does not at this time allow for an audit other than a review of individual files. The log and summary that is now supposed to be in each individual file would provide this information. A technological solution should be considered to pull this information into a system wide log that would meet the requirements of subparagraph a. The County has provided their list of releases but the list does not include the information required by subparagraph a. Incident reports are not routinely prepared for over detention.
102. The County must appoint a staff member to serve as a Quality Control Officer with responsibility for internal auditing and monitoring of the release process. This Quality Control Officer will be responsible for helping prevent errors with the release process, and the individual’s duties will include tracking releases to ensure that staff members are completing all required paper work and checks. If the Quality Control Officer determines that an error has been made, the individual must have the authority to take corrective action, including the authority to immediately contact the Jail Administrator or other County official with authority to order a prisoner’s release. The Quality Control Officer’s duties also include providing data and reports so that release errors are incorporated into the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance process.
109

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 110 of 122
Non-Compliant The Jail had an individual whose title was Quality Control Officer or sometimes was referred to as the Court Liaison. He did not fulfill all of the duties required by this paragraph but did fulfill some so this paragraph was listed as in Partial Compliance. He was terminated at the beginning of the year. When the position is filled, the County should consider structuring the positions so that all of the duties required by this paragraph are completed. This would include a proactive approach in tracking releases and preventing errors in the releasing process. The person in this position should also collect and report on releasing errors and incorporate the data into a continuous improvement and quality assurance process.
Another individual serves as a court liaison with the lower courts. She also attempts to identify individuals entitled to release. Like the previous Quality Control Officer, she operates independently of the booking and release process and maintains her own spreadsheets but she does not perform all the duties listed in this paragraph.
103. The County must require investigation of all incidents relating to timely or erroneous prisoner release within seven calendar days by appropriate investigators, supervisors, and the Jail Administrator. The Jail Administrator must document any deficiencies found and any corrective action taken. The Jail Administrator must then make any necessary changes to Jail policies and procedures. Such changes should be made, if appropriate, in consultation with court personnel, the District Attorney’s Office, members of the defense bar, and any other law enforcement agencies involved in untimely or erroneous prisoner releases.
Non-Compliant As was noted in the Ninth Monitoring Report, the documentation of untimely/erroneous releases is not required by an approved policy. As was previously noted, there have now been a few incident reports on erroneous releases. There have still not been any reports on untimely releases. There should be clarification as to who has the responsibility for completing the report. It was recommended that the Jail Administrator issue an HCDS Order requiring documentation of all such mistaken or untimely releases. Since she has since resigned, it is now up to the Interim Jail Administrator to do so.
104. The County must conduct bi-annual audits of release policies, procedures, and practices. As part of each audit, the County must make any necessary changes to ensure that individuals are being released in a timely manner. The audits must review all data collected regarding timely release, including any incident reports or Quality Control audits referenced in Paragraph 102 above. The County must document the audits and recommendations and must submit all documentation to the Monitor and the United States for review.
Non-Compliant
110

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 111 of 122
There has not been an initial audit of releasing practices. There are no incident reports regarding untimely releases even though such incidents have occurred.
105. The County must ensure that policies, procedures, and practices allow for reasonable attorney visitation, which should be treated as a safeguard to prevent the unlawful detention of citizens and for helping to ensure the efficient functioning of the County’s criminal justice system. The Jail’s attorney visitation process must provide sufficient space for attorneys to meet with their clients in a confidential setting and must include scheduling procedures to ensure that defense attorneys can meet with their clients for reasonable lengths of time and without undue delay. An incident report must be completed if Jail staff are unable to transport a prisoner to meet with their attorney, or if there is a delay of more than 30 minutes for transporting a prisoner for a scheduled attorney visit.
Non-Compliant The corrective measure that was previously recommended to resolve the problem of attorney/client access at the RDC, has never been addressed by the HCDS administration. It now appears that in C Pod, the old video visitation space (previously recommended as an attorney/client visitation area) may be utilized for mental health office space. Recognizing that, it is recommended that a vacant area near the control room in each pod be designated for attorney/client visits. The removal of old floor mounted, stainless steel chair/table combinations, and the installation of free-standing tables and chairs, is the only expense involved.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
The County must develop an effective system for identifying and self-correcting systemic violations of prisoner’s constitutional rights. To that end, the County must:
106. Develop and maintain a database and computerized tracking system to monitor all reportable incidents, uses of force, and grievances. This tracking system will serve as the repository of information used for continuing improvement and quality assurance reports.
Partial Compliance At the time of the May site visit, County IT had created a report that pulls data by field from the incident reports which includes reportable incidents and uses of force. This is the beginning of being able to comply with this provision. Since the time of the site visit, the monitoring team has received the electronic monthly reports. Although the spreadsheet is helpful in that it provides a computerized listing of incidents including use of force, it does not include much of the information listed in paragraph 107 and 108 below and that would be needed to provide the information needed to inform continuing improvement or quality assurance reports. There continues to be a concern because of the lack of reports or the small number of reports that some
111

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 112 of 122
types of incidents are underreported including late releases, use of force, and lost money and property.
The computerized grievance system does not allow for the compilation of a useful summary grievance report. However, the data in the system can now be pulled into an Excel spreadsheet which can be used to generate reports. The spreadsheet generated by Securis does not include some critical fields that are in the system but can’t be pulled into the spreadsheet. The Grievance Officer manually creates a separate spreadsheet and enters for each grievance the information in the Securis spreadsheet and adds the type of grievance, the date of response and the date of the response to an appeal. The new policy also is to reject grievances that are actually inmate requests and directs inmates to use the inmate request category. A review of some of these indicate that the rejection is not always appropriate and indicates some training on this would be valuable. However, this policy allows a more accurate depiction of grievances. With the new policy, it should be possible to have a useful data base on grievance data. These reports are not yet being used to inform improvement or quality assurance efforts.
107. Compile an Incident Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Incident Summary Reports must compile and summarize incident report data in order to identify trends such as rates of incidents in general, by housing unit, by day of the week and date, by shift, and by individual prisoners or staff members. The Incident Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Brief summary of all reportable incidents, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. Description of all suicides and deaths, including the date, name of prisoner, housing
unit, and location where the prisoner died (including name of hospital if prisoner died off-site); c. The names and number of prisoners placed in emergency restraints, and segregation, and the frequency and duration of such placements; d. List and total number of incident reports received during the reporting period; e. List and Total number of incidents referred to IAD or other law enforcement agencies for investigation.
Partial Compliance There are two spreadsheets being generated. One has the text of the narrative of the initial incident report and some information. The other spreadsheet does not have the narrative but has some additional information. The spreadsheets now being created are a first step towards being able to generate the reports required by this paragraph. At this time, it does not include all of the information required by this paragraph including information that would be necessary to be fully informed regarding the nature of the incident. Combined, the spreadsheets would have quite a bit of the required information but the information should be accessible in one summary report. Most importantly, neither spreadsheet has an actual summary of the incident. The spreadsheet
112

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 113 of 122
pulls in the first incident report and not the supplements. The first incident report does not necessarily have important facts. For example, in the case of the death of the inmate in December, 2018, neither the first, nor the supplemental incident reports included the fact of his death. That would be important to know and is in fact required in subsection b. Additional types of incidents that could be identified should be explored. For example, “assault” is used whether it is an inmate on inmate assault or an inmate on officer assault. Only by reading the narrative of the first report, can that be discerned. The spreadsheet also does not include the incidents or the total number of incidents referred to investigation.
108. Compile a Use of Force Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Use of Force Summary Reports must compile and summarize use of force report data in order to identify trends such as rates of use in general, by housing unit, by shift, by day of the week and date, by individual prisoners, and by staff members. The Use of Force Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Summary of all uses of force, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. List and total number of use of force reports received during the reporting period; c. List and total number of uses of force reports/incidents referred to IAD or other
law enforcement agencies for investigation.
Partial Compliance One of the new spreadsheets has some of this information with respect to Use of Force. The Use of Force incidents are now submitted on an incident report form. This is preferable to separate forms. Again, there is no summary of the use of force in the spreadsheet and there is no listing or totaling of referrals to investigation.
109. Compile a Grievance Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Grievance Summary Reports must compile and summarize grievance information in order to identify trends such as most frequently reported complaints, units generating the most grievances, and staff members receiving the most grievances about their conduct. To identify trends and potential concerns, at least quarterly, a member of the Jail’s management staff must review the Grievance Summary Reports and a random sample of ten percent of all grievances filed during the review period. These grievance reviews, any recommendations, and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Partial Compliance As mentioned above, the limitations of the reporting from the Securis system has led the Grievance Officer to manually create a spreadsheet. Neither system can generate a report by location, shift, or persons involved. There are additional limitations. Any inmate response is treated by the system as an appeal when often the inmate has just responded by saying thank you. Again, this makes tracking what is actually happening difficult unless it is done manually. At the
113

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 114 of 122
present time, there is no management review process in the grievance system. As mentioned above, the Grievance Officer is now keeping an Excel spreadsheet and manually entering information related to grievances. One option would be to expand the manual spreadsheet to include the information required by this paragraph, this should enable staff to generate a report consistent with this provision. However, even though the volume of grievances has been reduced maintaining an expanded manual spreadsheet would be a very time intensive process.
110. Compile a monthly summary report of IAD investigations conducted at the Facility. The IAD Summary Report must include:
a. A brief summary of all completed investigations, by type, shift, housing unit, and date;
b. A listing of investigations referred for disciplinary action or other final disposition by type and date;
c. A listing of all investigations referred to a law enforcement agency and the name of the agency, by type and date; and
d. A listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.
Partial Compliance See paragraph 68, above. The IAD investigator provides a summary sheet reflecting the status of each IAD investigation since 2017. Hopefully, implementation of the recommendations noted in paragraph 68 will provide the required information.
111. Conduct a review, at least annually, to determine whether the incident, use of force, grievance reporting, and IAD systems comply with the requirements of this Agreement and are effective at ensuring staff compliance with their constitutional obligations. The County must make any changes to the reporting systems that it determines are necessary as a result of the system reviews. These reviews and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant There has been no annual review pursuant to this paragraph.
112. Ensure that the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance systems include an Early Intervention component to alert Administrators of potential problems with staff members. The purpose of the Early Intervention System is to identify and address patterns of behavior or allegations which may indicate staff training deficiencies, persistent policy violations, misconduct, or criminal activity. As part of the Early Intervention process, incident reports, use of force reports, and prisoner grievances must be screened by designated staff members for such
114

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 115 of 122
patterns. If misconduct, criminal activity, or behaviors indicate the need for corrective action, the screening staff must refer the incidents or allegations to Jail supervisors, administrators, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies for investigation. Additionally:
a. The Early Intervention System may be integrated with other database and computerized tracking systems required by this Agreement, provided any unified system otherwise still meets the terms of this Agreement.
b. The Early Intervention System must screen for staff members who may be using excessive force, regardless of whether use of force reviews concluded that the uses complied with Jail policies and this Agreement. This provision allows identification of staff members who may still benefit from additional training and serves as a check on any deficiencies with use of force by field supervisors.
c. The Jail Administrator, or designee of at least Captain rank, must personally review Early Intervention System data and alerts at least quarterly. The Administrator, or designee, must document when reviews were conducted as well as any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken.
d. The County must maintain a list of any staff members identified by the Early Intervention System as possibly needing additional training or discipline. A copy of this list must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
e. The County must take appropriate, documented, and corrective action when staff members have been identified as engaging in misconduct, criminal activity, or a pattern of violating Jail policies.
f. The County must review the Early Intervention System, at least bi-annually, to ensure that it is effective and used to identify staff members who may need additional training or discipline. The County must document any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken as a result of these reviews. Copies of these reviews must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
Non-Compliant There is currently no Early Intervention program.
113. Develop and implement policies and procedures for Jail databases, tracking systems, and computerized records (including the Early Intervention System), that ensure both functionality and data security. The policies and procedures must address all of the following issues: data storage, data retrieval, data reporting, data analysis and pattern identification, supervisor responsibilities, standards used to determine possible violations and corrective action, documentation, legal issues, staff and prisoner privacy rights, system security, and audit mechanisms.
Non-Compliant
115

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 116 of 122
The initial P&P Manual that was issued in April, 2017 did not include policies and procedures covering this matter. There is no draft of such a policy at this time.
114. Ensure that the Jail’s medical staff are included as part of the continuous improvement and quality assurance process. At minimum, medical and mental health staff must be included through all of the following mechanisms:
a. Medical staff must have the independent authority to promptly refer cases of suspected assault or abuse to the Jail Administrator, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies;
b. Medical staff representatives must be involved in mortality reviews and systemic reviews of serious incidents. At minimum, a physician must prepare a mortality review within 30 days of every prisoner death. An outside physician must review any mortalities associated with treatment by Jail physicians.
Partial Compliance Medical staff are not included in the review of serious incidents. This was discussed in a joint meeting between QCHC staff and command staff during the September site visit. It was decided that the Interdisciplinary Team meetings would be reinstituted and one task of the Team would be to review serious incidents. There is no indication that this has occurred. Medical staff do have independent authority to refer cases of assault or abuse.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
115. Hinds County will establish a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (“Coordinating Committee”) with subject matter expertise and experience that will assist in streamlining criminal justice processes and identify and develop solutions and interventions designed to lead to diversion from arrest, detention, and incarceration. The Coordinating Committee will focus particularly on diversion of individuals with serious mental illness and juveniles. Using the Sequential Intercept Model, or an alternative acceptable to the Parties, the Coordinating Committee will identify strategies for diversion at each intercept point where individuals may encounter the criminal justice system and will assess the County’s current diversion efforts and unmet service needs in order to identify opportunities for successful diversion of such individuals. The Committee will recommend appropriate changes to policies and procedures and additional services necessary to increase diversion.
Partial Compliance Hinds County had contracted with Justice Management Institute (JMI) to provide consulting and assist in implementing a CJCC. Those efforts were primarily focused on getting the CJCC implemented and developing a strategic plan. Hinds County is to be commended for getting the CJCC implemented and continuing its facilitation of those meetings despite a lack of
116

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 117 of 122
participation by some key players. This paragraph is carried as partial compliance because it also requires that Hinds County establish a CJCC that has the subject matter expertise and experience to identify and develop solutions and interventions. Although the stakeholders that do participate have expertise within their areas, the participants do not have the expertise in criminal justice system reform including diversion that would allow the CJCC to meet the requirements of this paragraph. As both JMI and the monitoring team has recommended, in order to have a CJCC with sufficient subject matter expertise and experience to carry out the mandate of this paragraph, the County will need to provide staff support. Since the time of the site visit, the County has informed the Monitor that it intends to hire a staff position for the CJCC. This is separate from the pretrial services director required by the Stipulated Order. This will be a significant step forward in meeting the requirements of this paragraph. The requirement that the Committee identify opportunities for diversion and recommend measures to accomplish this has not been achieved. At this time, the County will need to drive the process of the CJCC identifying opportunities for diversion.
The Sequential Intercept Mapping required by this paragraph has already taken place under a grant to the Hinds County Behavioral Health from the GAINS Center. A two-day meeting was held on August 16-17, 2017 with broad participation including the County and Jail. The Sequential Intercept Model provides a conceptual framework for communities to use when considering the interface between the criminal justice and mental health systems as they address concerns about the criminalization of inmates with mental health illness. The GAINS center completed the report for Hinds County Behavioral Health. It includes recommendations for creating or improving intercepts in the jail and at release. This provides a useful road map for CJCC and for achieving compliance with the diversion and discharge planning requirements of the Settlement Agreement. However, staff support will still be needed to drive this effort. An update of the Sequential Intercept Map should be considered as the initial mapping will soon be two years old. This would be a useful activity for the CJCC.
116. The Coordinating Committee will include representation from the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office and Hinds County Board of Supervisors. The County will also seek representation from Hinds County Behavioral Health Services; the Jackson Police Department; Mississippi Department of Mental Health; Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services; judges from the Hinds County Circuit, Chancery, and County (Youth and Justice) Courts; Hinds County District Attorney Office; Hinds County Public Defender Office; relevant Jackson city officials; and private advocates or other interested community members.
Partial Compliance As noted above the CJCC is meeting. Not all of the identified agencies have been invited or represented at the meeting. The reported intention is to expand representation after further
117

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 118 of 122
development. Although the County cannot control the participation of others, staff support would assist in engaging other stakeholders.
117. The Coordinating Committee will prioritize enhancing coordination with local behavioral health systems, with the goal of connecting individuals experiencing mental health crisis, including juveniles, with available services to avoid unnecessary arrest, detention, and incarceration.
Partial Compliance The CJCC adopted its strategic plan. Enhancing behavioral health services for justice involved individuals is included as a strategic priority. Hinds County Behavioral Health has participated in the CJCC. Further observation of the CJCC and the County’s leadership in the CJCC will be necessary to determine if behavioral health services are a priority in CJCC actions and deliberation.
118. Within 30 days of the Effective Date and in consultation with the United States, the County will select and engage an outside consultant to provide technical assistance to the County and Coordinating Committee regarding strategies for reducing the jail population and increasing diversion from criminal justice involvement, particularly for individuals with mental illness and juveniles. This technical assistance will include (a) a comprehensive review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing efforts to reduce recidivism and increase diversion; (b) identification of gaps in the current efforts, (c) recommendations of actions and strategies to achieve diversion and reduce recidivism; and (d) estimates of costs and cost savings associated with those strategies. The review will include interviews with representatives from the agencies and entities referenced in Paragraph 116 and other relevant stakeholders as necessary for a thorough evaluation and recommendation. Within 120 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the outside consultant will finalize and make public a report regarding the results of their assessment and recommendations. The Coordinating Committee will implement the recommended strategies and will continue to use the outside consultant to assist with implementation of the strategies when appropriate.
Partial Compliance The County did contract with an outside consultant to provide technical assistance in developing the CJCC. However, that contract does not encompass the requirements listed above regarding an assessment of and recommendations for strategies to reduce recidivism and increase diversion. The County has not renewed the contract with the consultant. The initial contract was narrower than required by this paragraph.
118

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 119 of 122
IMPLEMENTATION, TIMING, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
Paragraphs 119 and 120 regarding duty to implement and effective date omitted.
121. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County must distribute copies of the Agreement to all prisoners and Jail staff, including all medical and security staff, with appropriate explanation as to the staff members’ obligations under the Agreement. At minimum:
a. A copy of the Agreement must be posted in each unit (including booking/intake and medical areas), and program rooms (e.g., classrooms and any library).
b. Individual copies of the Agreement must be provided to prisoners upon request.
Partial Compliance The HCDS has printed a booklet-sized version of the Settlement Agreement, which has been distributed to staff. In order to improve familiarity with it, the Director of Training should include a segment of the annual in-service program on the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Inmates now have access to the Settlement Agreement via the kiosk system. However, the medical staff did not have copies of the Settlement Agreement and did not appear to know of the provisions that applied to them. Similarly, although there is a segment in the orientation training related to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, it does not appear that the officers when questioned are familiar with the requirements. Future monitoring will evaluate the training more closely to determine if it is sufficient to meet the terms of this paragraph.
POLICY AND PROCEDURE REVIEW
130. The County must review all existing policies and procedures to ensure their compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. Where the Jail does not have a policy or procedure in place that complies with the terms of this Agreement, the County must draft such a policy or procedure, or revise its existing policy or procedure.
Partial Compliance This provision has been changed back to partial compliance. An initial attempt to draft policies and procedures was made in early 2017. The Monitoring Team and DOJ provided comments but the policies really needed to be rewritten. The plan to hire outside consultants fell through and there was no apparent progress. Since that time, Jail staff has been working with Karen Albert of the monitoring team to develop policies and procedures. A number of draft policies have been provided and at this time, ten policies have been adopted. It does not appear that there is a system in the policy development to incorporate requirements of the Settlement Agreement. There are some concrete requirements in the Settlement Agreement that could be addressed in the draft policies that get missed. A systematic approach to incorporating Settlement Agreement requirements in the draft policies would be valuable.
119

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 120 of 122
131. The County shall complete its policy and procedure review and revision within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
Non-Compliant Five policies and procedures have now been adopted and several others have been drafted and circulated. There are many outstanding policies to be written and no estimated completion date. They are seriously overdue at this time.
132. Once the County reviews and revises its policies and procedures, the County must provide a copy of its policies and procedures to the United States and the Monitor for review and comment. The County must address all comments and make any changes requested by the United States or the Monitor within thirty (30) days after receiving the comments and resubmit the policies and procedures to the United States and Monitor for review.
Partial Compliance Draft policies are being provided to DOJ and the Monitor for review. As noted above, many policies still have to be written.
133. No later than three months after the United States’ approval of each policy and procedure, the County must adopt and begin implementing the policy and procedure, while also modifying all post orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the policies and procedures.
Non-Compliant The policies and procedures are, at this point, seriously overdue. This paragraph also requires that all the steps necessary to appropriately implement the new policies be undertaken. This has yet to be fully evaluated. The training process for the new policies will require extensive effort to develop training materials and provide training to all staff.
134. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, all new or revised policies and procedures must be implemented within six months of the United States’ approval of the policy or procedure.
Partial Compliance There have been five policies approved by DOJ and adopted by the Sheriff. The five policies are only partially implemented. The policies have not been incorporated into the training curriculum and some of the procedures have not yet been implemented. Most importantly, there are many policies yet to be drafted.
120

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 121 of 122
135. The County must annually review its policies and procedures, revising them as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures must be submitted to the United States and the Monitor for approval in accordance with paragraphs 129-131 above.
Non-Compliant This paragraph is now carried as non-compliant instead of not applicable because under the timeline established by the consent decree an annual review would now be due.
COUNTY ASSESSMENT AND COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR
Paragraphs 136 through 158 on Monitor duties omitted.
159. The County must file a self-assessment compliance report. The first compliance selfassessment report must be filed with the Court within four months of the Effective Date and at least one month before a Monitor site visit. Each self-assessment compliance report must describe in detail the actions the County has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and must make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. The report must include information supporting the County’s representations regarding its compliance with the Agreement such as quality assurance information, trends, statistical data, and remedial activities. Supporting information should be based on reports or data routinely collected as part of the audit and quality assurance activities required by this Agreement (e.g., incident, use of force, system, maintenance, and early intervention), rather than generated only to support representations made in the self-assessment.
Non-Compliant At the time of the October 2017 site visit, the County provided its first self-assessment. The selfassessment was not provided prior to the May 2018 site visit. A self-assessment was provided the week prior to the September 2018 site visit. The assessment was a significant step forward but did not include the level of detail required by this paragraph. A self-assessment was not provided prior to the January, May, or September, 2019 or the January, 2020 site visit. This paragraph is now carried as non-compliant based on this history. It should be noted that this requirement is not intended to be merely a bureaucratic requirement. Internal tracking of the Settlement Agreement requirements, remedial efforts, and progress towards the goals is a useful, if not essential, strategy in achieving compliance. The County has provided a self-assessment of the requirements of the Stipulated Order. However, this provision of the Settlement Agreement requires a self-assessment of compliance with the requirements of the entire Settlement Agreement.
160. The County must designate a full-time Compliance Coordinator to coordinate compliance activities required by this Agreement. This person will serve as a primary point of contact for
121

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 67 Filed 03/26/20 Page 122 of 122
the Monitor. Two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties may consult with each other and the Monitor to determine whether the Compliance Coordinator’s hours may be reduced. The Parties may then stipulate to any agreed reduction in hours.
Sustained Compliance The County has designated a full-time Compliance Coordinator who is coordinating compliance activities. With the change in administration there was some cause for concern about continued compliance in this area. The position was advertised and there was some discussion of adding the duties of a terminated individual to the Compliance Coordinator positions. At this time, however, the position appears to be continuing as a full-time position and continues to be filled. The Monitor will continue to track this assignment to ensure sustained compliance in this area.
EMERGENT CONDITIONS
161. The County must notify the Monitor and United States of any prisoner death, riot, escape, injury requiring hospitalization, or over-detention of a prisoner (i.e. failure to release a prisoner before 11:59 PM on the day she or he was entitled to be released), within 3 days of learning of the event.
Partial Compliance The practice of providing immediate notifications has improved. A new form for Rapid Notifications is being used in house and externally. While this form requires certain information to be filled in, the narrative is sometime much less informative than the incident reports which were previously provided. (See, e.g. Rapid Notification on 1/21/20 associated with IR # 2000097) The notifications have returned to being provided by email which is helpful. The County has not been providing notification of over-detention and, in fact, is not currently identifying prisoners who have been detained beyond their release date and preparing incident reports. Paragraphs 162-167 regarding jurisdiction, construction and the PLRA omitted.
122

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 83
Court-Appointed Monitor’s Third Monitoring Report United States v. Hinds County, et al. Civ. No. 3:16cv489 WHB-JCG

David M. Parrish Corrections Operations

Elizabeth E. Simpson, J.D. Court-Appointed Monitor

Jacqueline M. Moore, RN, Ph.D. Corrections Medicine

Jim Moeser Juvenile Justice

1

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 2 of 83
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Monitoring Team has now completed a year at the Hinds County Detention Center. The first site inspection was completed in October 2016 as a baseline visit. Subsequent to the first visit, there have now been three additional site visits completed as monitoring visits. Although compliance activities started slowly and a number of early deadlines in the Settlement Agreement were missed, there has nonetheless been progress made in a number of areas. However, there continue to be some critical areas of deficiency having substantial impact on the health and safety of the prisoners. As required by the Settlement Agreement, the areas of deficiency are identified in the Monitoring Reports. In addition to the Monitoring Reports, priority recommendations have been identified after each visit to allow for immediate attention to areas that could either be addressed quickly or presented the most pressing health and safety concerns.
The third site visit took place from October 16, 2017 through October 20, 2017. This Monitoring Report describes the findings from that visit. In keeping with the previously adopted process, priority recommendations were provided subsequent to the October site visit. And, as required by the Settlement Agreement, the body of this report contains a listing of each substantive requirement of the Settlement Agreement and a description of the status of compliance as of the time of the site visit. This executive summary highlights some areas of progress and those areas of greatest concern. This report reflects conditions at the time of the site visit. Any progress since that time will be reflected in the report on the next site visit.
Corrections Operations
After an extensive review and reconciliation of Sheriff’s Office and County records, the number of authorized positions in the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office has been determined to be 410. Of those, 140 are assigned to Operations and 270 are assigned to Detention Services. Within the Detention Division 5 positions are allocated to Detention Administration, 154 to the Raymond Detention Center (“RDC”), 49 to the Jackson Detention Center (“JDC”) and 62 to the Work Center (“WC”). Currently, 250 of those positions are filled. The goal for the fiscal year (October 2017 through September 2018) is to have and fill 275 positions in Detention. The five unfunded positions will have to be funded either by transferring them from the Operations side of the Sheriff’s Office or by identifying the necessary funding somewhere in the Operations budget and using that money to create and fund five new positions in Detention.
The salary increase, previously reported as applying to all ranks within the Detention Services Division, with a five-step merit increase system, was not implemented as planned; however, a significant increase for Detention Officers and Sergeants did go into effect on October 1st. A
2

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 3 of 83
merit step plan will be put in place once a procedure for step achievement has been developed by the Sheriff’s Office and adopted by the County.
Construction of the wall separating Units 3 and 4 at the Work Center is almost complete. The units currently each have 100 beds. Thirty-six beds need to be removed from each unit as soon as possible because the units are not capable of accommodating 100 inmates each based on their size and configuration. In short order, all four, 64-bed units should then be available for housing of pre-trial and sentenced felons and misdemeanants in any combination, based on appropriate behavior. Priority needs to be given to adding secondary security fencing for each recreation yard, as they are not adequately protected at this time.
Building maintenance is still a major issue, particularly at the RDC. The roll up, drive through, sally-port doors have been reported as “out of order” during each site visit for the past year. Currently, two out of three pod security doors leading to the central corridor cannot be closed. Numerous showerheads and even entire plumbing boxes are missing in shower stalls throughout the facility. This situation has obviously existed for a period of time prior to the Monitoring Team’s initial Baseline Visit.
Basic security measures throughout the Jail System continue to be ignored. During the most recent site visit the door to master control at the RDC was found standing open. It was also noted that the interlocking vestibule doors were routinely overridden throughout the facility. In addition, the entry door to the main corridor at the WC was observed standing ajar, held open with a wooden wedge. Law enforcement officers were seen walking throughout the administrative areas of the RDC while armed, in contravention of the standard practice that requires firearms to be secured in the gun locker by the entrance to the facility. Convenience of operations must not take precedence over security.
Renovation of the transfer waiting area at the JDC and the booking component of the RDC needs to proceed apace. The holding cells at the JDC cannot be upgraded to meet basic standards. The only solution is to demolish them and add their space to the processing area to create a usable place for transfer waiting. The facility commander has already taken steps to clean and paint the area and to install a television to keep inmates occupied while they await their court appearances. At the RDC, the County is actively examining the practicality of opening up all of Booking to make it operate as a true “open booking” area.
Suicide watches, and the cells in which they are maintained at the RDC, do not comply with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. The assigned Detention Officer sits at a desk outside a door to a vestibule area which leads to another set of doors for the two cells that house suicidal inmates. There is virtually no visibility into the cells even through the door windows because they have been so heavily modified and damaged over the years. During the most recent site
3

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 4 of 83
visit, one assigned officer was found to have a total of three days of experience on duty subsequent to his 40 hours of pre-service training. This critical post requires a seasoned officer who is familiar with jail operations. It is essential that the suicide watch procedure be revised and that suicide watches be maintained in a different setting. Utilization of a four-cell isolation unit may be the most practical answer, with three cells closed and one left open for the inmates to access toilet and water facilities. This will require an officer to be assigned inside the unit as if he/she were working in a mini-direct supervision unit.
Food service at the three facilities is provided by a private contractor. While general sanitation and operational practices appear to be in place, inmates at the RDC and JDC receive a hot meal for breakfast and lunch and a cold meal for dinner. At the WC the cold meal is at noontime, while hot meals are served for breakfast and supper. As a matter of uniformity, the vendor should be required to serve according to the same schedule at each facility—a hot breakfast, cold lunch and hot supper. The food service contractor should also be required to provide a new rotating menu every three months, approved by a certified dietician. The current menu was last revised in March 2014. This discrepancy was pointed out during the June site visit, but no corrective action was taken other than to update the signature line on the 2014 menu.
A more integrated response on the part of the Sheriff’s Office to the Settlement Agreement was noted during this site visit. Personnel from all areas of the agency as well as from various levels, not just command staff, participated in a series of productive meetings regarding Information Technology issues, Training and Report Writing.
Youthful Offenders
Significant progress has been made as a result of the county’s decision to transition juvenile offenders to the Henley Young (HY) Juvenile Detention facility. Beginning on/about September 1, 2017 Hinds County began placing any “new” juvenile offenders (referred to as JCAs – Juveniles Charged as Adults) at HY, and as of the end of this site visit there were five JCA youth in placement at Henley Young and nine JCAs remaining at the RDC. Many of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement for this case are consistent with and/or complementary to the provisions of the Hinds County/Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Consent Decree, and significant progress has been reported in meeting the requirements of that Decree. Movement towards substantial compliance with the components of this agreement related to JCAs should be much easier, assuming this transition continues.
The decision poses a potential conflict with the Hinds County/SPLC Decree as it relates to the 21-day placement limit for youth under that decree and potentially the limit on the total number of youth (maximum 32) in placement at Henley Young. Steps to reconcile the discrepancy between the two cases need to be taken as soon as possible, and a number of additional steps to
4

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 5 of 83
ensure a safe and successful transition for all JCAs need to occur prior to complete transition. It is possible that the transition of all JCAs to Henley Young may be completed by the time of the next site visit at which time more detailed work can be done to confirm whether the requirements in this case are being met at Henley Young.
The status of the JCAs at RDC remains relatively unchanged, albeit benefiting somewhat from the reduced number of juveniles in placement. There is little evidence of further movement toward the compliance requirements for those youth. Concerns about the limited educational programming, mental health services, training of supervising staff, and case processing in adult court remain.
Medical and Mental Health
There continues to be a shortage of nurses and health care staff in the Hinds County Jail System. There are three full time vacancies and one part time vacancy. (1 RN, 2 LPNs and a PT RN at Henley Young). The current contract is budgeted for 7 RN’s and 10 LPN’s for all three facilities and Henley Young. The discharge planner left after three months and the file clerk position is vacant. The dental assistant performs some part time filing.
Medical records are in disarray at all facilities. There is no organization of the medical record which makes auditing a difficult process. Quality Correctional Health Care (“QCHC”) has developed an Electronic Medical Record (“EMR”) system but does not have internet reception. Follow up with IT is necessary to resolve this problem.
There was some progress and some regression in the efforts to divert individuals with mental illness out of the jail and into community services. Hinds County Behavioral Health held a Sequential Intercept meeting on August 16-17, 2017. There were 45 participants from the mental health community and law enforcement officials. Dr. Crockett, the Executive Director of Hinds County Behavioral Health, reported that the meeting was very successful. The Gaines center is putting together a report. Mental health first aid training is planned for November 2017 for both the correctional staff and the health care staff.
The discharge planner that had been hired since the last site visit resigned shortly before this site visit. There were reported problems regarding the effectiveness of the work that was done. It was reported that the discharge planner made 60 referrals but only one appointment was kept. The discharge planner did not follow through with efforts to provide more in-reach into the facility that might improve this outcome. A two-week supply of discharge medicine is available when an inmate is released from the jail but release procedures do not ensure that the releasing inmate obtains the medications from medical before being discharged.
5

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 6 of 83
Chronic care consisting of diabetics, hypertension, AIDS, COPD is in place at JDC and WC, but not at RDC. Food services were unable to indicate that there was a special diet menu reviewed by a certified dietician. During the site visit, there was one inmate requesting a Kosher diet. Security insisted that special diet requests must come from medical and medical stated that it only prescribes diets for medical not religious reasons. There needs to be a means identified in the Policies and Procedures and the Inmate Handbook to provide religious diets.
As noted above, suicide watches are not being performed adequately. During the visit there were nine inmates on suicide watch. The inmates were housed in two cells which were not able to accommodate four grown men. As a result, there were three altercations which occurred in the suicide units during our visit. Logs of suicidal inmates are not maintained well. National standards and paragraph 44a of the Settlement Agreement require that watches are maintained every 15 minutes at irregular times unless constant observation is necessary (paragraph 42h of the Settlement Agreement). Logs sheets had times and watches recorded that had not occurred.
There were a number of altercations that occurred between the inmates. Two of the charts reviewed recorded that inmates had been stabbed multiple times. Interviews with inmates indicated that they did not feel safe in the jail.
Criminal Justice and Correctional System Issues
The County has made significant progress in eliminating the incidence of people being held on unlawful orders regarding fines and fees. This was largely due to the new Supreme Court Rules on Criminal Procedure and a class action against the City of Jackson. However, the County had previously made progress by eliminating the practice of researching old fines and fees and converting those into jail days. And the County assisted in educating the stakeholders regarding the constitutional and new local law requirements in this area.
Jail staff is working to track inmates being booked into the facility in order to identify their release dates. However, this continues to be a fractured process with numerous systemic pitfalls. It continues to be difficult to track individuals in the records system. As recommended after the last site visit, there needs to be a centralized, cohesive system for receiving, updating, and maintaining records related to detention and release. Currently, there are three individualstwo in records and another not in records-who are tracking individuals and maintaining separate spreadsheets outside the case management system. In addition, there continues to be an unclear line of authority between records and booking for overseeing the documentation. Several systemic problems were reported. Records does not routinely get the “no bill” list which identifies people who the grand jury did not indict. The three individuals do not have access to the new circuit court system providing court event information on cases after 2014. Cases initiated in Byram and Clinton often get lost in the system. There also appears to be a lack of
6

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 7 of 83
knowledge on the part of both detention and medical staff regarding competency proceedings and the status of defendants who are involved in those proceedings. Consultation with the National Institute of Corrections when their budget is eventually approved should continue to be sought to provide the overhaul that this system needs. Staff should continue to audit the records and track individuals.
The paper grievance system was replaced by a computerized system. This may be an improvement in the long run but the system is currently fairly dysfunctional for the submission of grievances. The system is also either dysfunctional or not understood in its ability to generate reports. Many prisoners are not recognized by the system and therefore unable to submit grievances. The Work Center has found the system completely unusable in this respect. The staff does not know how to generate reports, if it is possible, to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement and be useful to them.
The County and the Jail specifically, participated in the Sequential Intercept Mapping exercise hosted by the Hinds County Behavioral Health agency. This is a good first step towards developing more diversion opportunities. The County has contracted with a consultant to assist in the development of a Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (“CJCC”). It is now necessary for the County to move forward with that work with the assistance of the consultant. A number of systemic problems impacting the jail including the incarceration of many individuals with mental illness can only be solved with the collaboration of other stakeholders.
Priority Recommendations
Following the June 2017 site visit, the Monitoring Team identified steps that could be taken to make interim improvements identified as Priority Recommendations. An action plan was created to identify the action steps required to achieve the Priority Recommendations and also identifying the responsible individuals and a target date for each action item. This has proven useful in organizing the compliance efforts and a number of priority items have been achieved. These include:
• An acceptable staffing analysis has been completed; • Salary increases for detention officers have been implemented; • A unit at the Work Center has been divided by a wall which allows for housing of
different classifications in the unit; • Operational changes have been made at JDC to relieve congestion in the booking area; • A contract with a consultant for the development of a CJCC has been completed; • A decision has been made on the housing of juveniles charged as adults; and • The routine detention of any prisoners on any unlawful fines and fees orders has been
eliminated.
7

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 8 of 83

Additional progress has been made in some of the other priority recommendations. This reflects a significant amount of effort on the part of the County and Sheriff staff. Not all of the priority recommendations, however, were completed and some, such as the policies and procedures need additional work to be satisfactory. These areas are reflected in the updated and revised priority recommendations attached as Attachment 1. Other areas of improvement or lack thereof are covered in the executive summary above and the detail below.

MONITORING ACTIVITIES
The Monitoring Team conducted a site visit October 16th through October 19th, 2017. The site visit schedule was as follows:

HINDS COUNTY SITE VISIT SCHEDULE OCTOBER 16-19, 2017

Monday 8:30
Monday 9:00 Monday 11:00 Monday P.M.
Monday 5:15 Tuesday 8:30 Tuesday A.M.

Simpson Simpson and Parrish meet with Major Rushing and Synarus
Simpson and Parrish at RDC Booking and Release Simpson and Parrish meet with Board of Supervisors Simpson meet with Kanesha Jones re court orders and grievances
Simpson and team meet with JMI
Intro Meeting Simpson, Parrish, and Moore at RDC Mental health/seg housing

Parrish Simpson and Parrish meet with Major Rushing and Synarus Simpson and Parrish at RDC Booking and Release Simpson and Parrish meet with Board of Supervisors Parrish reviews staffing efforts; Meet with Major Rushing, Doris Coleman and Synarus Simpson and team meet with JMI Intro Meeting Simpson, Parrish, and Moore at RDC Mental

Moore
Simpson and team meet with JMI Intro Meeting Simpson, Parrish, and Moore at RDC Mental health/seg housing

Moeser
Simpson and team meet with JMI Intro Meeting Moeser met with staff at Southern Poverty Law Center re:

8

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 9 of 83

health/seg housing

Tuesday P.M.

Simpson and Moore meet with QCHC re mental health Simpson meet with Tanika Moore re court orders

Parrish tour RDC

Tuesday P.M.4:30

Team Meeting on Team Meeting Mental Health on Mental
Health

Wednesday A.M.

8:00 Simpson meet with Sheriff Simpson and Parrish meet with RDC architect Parrish and Simpson meet with classification Simpson meet with Records

Simpson and Parrish meet with RDC architect Parrish and Simpson meet with classification Parrish at RDC

Interviews with selected inmates. Chart reviews Simpson and Moore meet with QCHC re mental health Moore review medical records
Team Meeting on Mental Health
Moore at RDC, medical record review and staff interviews Observation of psychiatric sick call. Review of mental health records and inmates on suicide watch

coordination with HY Consent Decree Moeser at HY; Met with leadership team at Henley Young, including Judge Priester; Continued discussions with SPLC staff re: status of transition and future plans; meeting(s) with HY Executive Director ; met with staff responsible for behavior management programming at HY Team Meeting on Mental Health Moeser at RDC; review juvenile records (incidents, grievances, etc.); review youth medical records;

9

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 10 of 83

Wednesday P.M.

2:00 Simpson meet with Dr. Crockett at Hinds County Behavioral Health Simpson meet with District Attorney Simpson meet with JDC re grievances

Parrish at RDC

Moore at JDC Review of medical records, review of juvenile medical records, observation of medication pass evening shift

Continue juvenile record review; met with program officer re programming; Briefly observed ABE class and met with ABE instructor;

Thursday A.M. Thursday P.M.

Simpson and Parrish meet with training and top staff re reporting Simpson meet with Deputy Neal and Ms. Shuler at Work Center

Simpson and Parrish meet with training and top staff re reporting Parrish at RDC

Simpson at federal court hearing

Parrish meet with IT and captains re reporting

Moore at RDC chart reviews and interviews with staff
Moore at Work Center and RDC Chart reviews, interviews with nurses that were on-staff

Moeser at HY; Met with Henley Young school Principal, three Case Managers; interviewed three of the five Juveniles Charged as Adults (JCAs) re: their transition, experience @ HY, behavior management system, incentives, etc. Moeser continue @ HY with above; Interview youth at RDC; meet w. programming officer; review

10

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 11 of 83

Friday

Exit Meeting

Exit Meeting Exit Meeting Parrish at JDC

juvenile unit daily log; interview Sgt. Tower; Join meeting re: IT at RDC Exit Meeting

Prior to the site visit, the County provided documents on an ongoing basis in response to standing document requests. The Monitoring Team members reviewed the documents relevant to their areas of expertise. The County has improved its ability to provide the requested documentation, however, it is not yet complete or in the format requested or required by the Settlement Agreement. The Monitoring Team will continue to work with the County to improve its ability to produce the required documentation and reports.

In the course of the site visit, the team interviewed numerous staff members, contractors, prisoners and stakeholders as mentioned below when relevant. In addition, facility and prisoner records on site were reviewed during the course of the site visit again as referenced below when relevant. Of particular note was the review of the training modules provided prior to the site visit and the review of architectural drawings during the site visit. With respect to youthful prisoners, on-site activities included activities at both Henley Young and RDC as there are youth charged as adults at both facilities at this time. With respect to medical and mental health, prisoner medical records and QCHC records were reviewed.

COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW

The Monitoring Team will track progress towards compliance with the following chart. This chart will be added to with each Monitoring Report showing the date of the site visit and the number of Settlement Agreement requirements in full, partial or non-compliance. Requirements that have not yet been triggered such as an annual review are listed as NA (not applicable) at this time. Sustained compliance is achieved when compliance with a particular settlement agreement requirement has been sustained for 18 months or more. The count of 92 requirements is determined by the number of Settlement Agreement paragraphs which have substantive requirements. Introductory paragraphs and general provisions are not included. Some paragraphs may have multiple requirements which are evaluated independently in the text of the report but are included as one requirement for purposes of this chart. The provisions on Youthful Offenders were evaluated in the text below for compliance at Henley Young and Raymond Detention Center but only the results for Raymond Detention Center are included in the totals in this chart.

Site Visit Sustained Full

Partial

NA at Non-

Total

Date

Compliance Compliance Compliance this time compliant

11

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 12 of 83

2/7-10/17 0

1

4

2

85

92

6/13-

0

1

18

2

71

92

16/17

10/16-

0

1

26

1

64

92

20/17

INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS
Text of paragraphs 1-34 regarding “Parties,” “Introduction,” and “Definitions” omitted.
SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS
PROTECTION FROM HARM
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to provide prisoners with safety, protect prisoners from violence committed by other prisoners, and ensure that prisoners are not subjected to abuse by Jail staff. To that end, the County must:
37. Develop and implement policies and procedures to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment for prisoners and staff. Such policies and procedures must include the following:
a. Booking; b. Objective classification; c. Housing assignments; d. Prisoner supervision; e. Prisoner welfare and security checks (“rounds”); f. Posts and post orders; g. Searches; h. Use of force; i. Incident reporting; j. Internal investigations; k. Prisoner rights; l. Medical and mental health care; m. Exercise and treatment activities; n. Laundry; o. Food services; p. Hygiene; q. Emergency procedures; r. Grievance procedures; and s. Sexual abuse and misconduct.

12

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 13 of 83
Partial Compliance Prior to and during the June site visit, the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office’s (HCSO) first effort to issue a Policies and Procedures Manual (P&P Manual) was critiqued by the Monitoring Team and Justice Department representatives. Because it did not adequately address the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, the decision was made to solicit technical assistance from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) or a private corrections consultant. That effort resulted in an unacceptably lengthy schedule. The private vendor indicated that the estimated completion date would be at least a year off. Consequently, the HCSO has arranged with Jackson State University to provide the re-writing service. Although no specific date is on record, it is anticipated that the job can be completed in a more timely fashion because the University is a local institution. It is essential that the concerns and recommendations outlined in the Second Monitoring Report be addressed. Until this project is accomplished, the Detention Services Division will continue to operate without adequate written directives and compliance with many aspects of the Settlement Agreement cannot be achieved.
As reported in the executive summary, many inmates at RDC reported they were concerned for their safety. Two charts were reviewed and two inmates were interviewed that had alleged to have been attacked. Patient 1 indicated that he had been attacked by 12 inmates in C 3. He had been sent to the ER with contusions on his head. A CAT scan was performed. RDC took pictures of his injuries. The second inmate complained that he was jumped and stalked by multiple inmates on 10/11/17. He was now housed in the observation unit. His chart revealed that he had lacerations of his left brow and shoulder and that the hospital initially thought that he might have kidney failure from the injuries. This has not been the case but he does not want to return to general population. The lack of a safe environment is reflected throughout this report including the insufficient staffing, the lack of adherence to security requirements, the presence of contraband, the high number of people on suicide watch-some reportedly because they do not feel safe in the units, and the fights occurring in the suicide cells. Those issues are addressed under the related specific Agreement requirement.
38. Ensure that the Jail is overseen by a qualified Jail Administrator and a leadership team with substantial education, training and experience in the management of a large jail, including at least five years of related management experience for their positions, and a bachelor’s degree. When the Jail Administrator is absent or if the position becomes vacant, a qualified deputy administrator with comparable education, training, and experience, must serve as acting Jail Administrator.
Partial Compliance At the time of the site visit there had been no change in the status of this paragraph since the last Report; in fact, there had been no change since the Baseline Visit a year ago. Subsequent to the site visit, the Acting Training Director was appointed to be the Deputy Jail Administrator. The
13

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 14 of 83
monitoring team will assess whether the appointment provides the appropriate level of expertise at the time of the next site visit. However, of immediate concern is that the Deputy Administrator was the Acting Training Director and had made progress in the area or orientation and training. The newly appointed Training Director is not experienced in corrections and does not have the necessary background to provide training in this area.
39. Ensure that all Jail supervisors have the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing needed to effectively supervise both prisoners and other staff members. At minimum, Jail supervisors must have at least 3 years of field experience, including experience working in the Jail. They must also be familiar with Jail policies and procedures, the terms of this Agreement, and prisoner rights.
Partial Compliance With three additional supervisors added since the last site visit, there are now 30 Lieutenants and Sergeants. All have at least a high school diploma or GED and eight have AA degrees; however, seven had less than three years of relevant work experience at the time of their promotion. Familiarity with the P&P Manual will be determined once it is published in final form.
40. Ensure that no one works in the Jail unless they have passed a background check, including a criminal history check.
Non-Compliant This paragraph is still carried as non-compliant because there has not been sufficient time during the site visits to review all individual employee records and the HCSO has not submitted documentation that supports compliance. As a preliminary step, such documentation, attesting to compliance, should be submitted to the Monitor.
41. Ensure that Jail policies and procedures provide for the “direct supervision” of all Jail housing units.
Non-Compliant There has been no change with regard to this issue since the last site visit. Once the P&P Manual is re-issued it will be reviewed to determine compliance. It should be noted, however, that implementation of the direct supervision related policies will require that an officer be assigned inside each housing unit at the RDC. Only the WC currently operates as a direct supervision jail and has enough staff assigned to do so. The JDC cannot function as a direct supervision facility because of its linear design.
42. Ensure that the Jail has sufficient staffing to adequately supervise prisoners, fulfill the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the safe operation of the Jail. The parties recognize that the
14

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 15 of 83
Board allocates to the Sheriff lump sum funding on a quarterly basis. The Sheriff recognizes that sufficient staffing of the Jail should be a priority for utilizing those funds. To that end, the County must at minimum:
a. Hire and retain sufficient numbers of detention officers to ensure that: i. There are at least two detention officers in each control room at all times; ii. There are at least three detention officers at all times for each housing unit, booking area, and the medical unit;
iii. There are rovers to provide backup and assistance to other posts; iv. Prisoners have access to exercise, medical treatment, mental health
treatment, and attorney visitation as scheduled; v. There are sufficient detention officers to implement this Agreement. b. Fund and obtain a formal staffing and needs assessment (“study”) that determines with particularity the minimum number of staff and facility improvements required to implement this Agreement. As an alternative to a new study, the September 2014 study by the National Institute of Corrections may be updated if the updated study includes current information for the elements listed below. The study or study update must be completed within six months of the Effective Date and must include the following elements: i. The staffing element of the study must identify all required posts and
positions, as well as the minimum number and qualifications of staff to cover each post and position. ii. The study must ensure that the total number of recommended positions includes a “relief factor” so that necessary posts remain covered regardless of staff vacancies, turnover, vacations, illness, holidays, or other temporary factors impacting day-to-day staffing. iii. As part of any needs assessment, the study’s authors must estimate the number of prisoners expected to be held in the Jail and identify whether additional facilities, including housing, may be required. c. Once completed, the County must provide the United States and the Monitor with a copy of the study and a plan for implementation of the study’s recommendations. Within one year after the Monitor’s and United States’ review of the study and plan, the County must fund and implement the staffing and facility improvements recommended by the study, as modified and approved by the United States. d. The staffing study shall be updated at least annually and staffing adjusted accordingly to ensure continued compliance with this Agreement. The parties recognize that salaries are an important factor to recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, so the County will also annually evaluate salaries. e. The County will also create, to the extent possible, a career ladder and system of retention bonuses for Jail staff.
15

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 16 of 83
Partial Compliance Since the Second Monitoring Report was submitted, the County and the HCSO have moved forward to identify and set actual and necessary staffing levels within the Detention Services Division. As a result of the combined efforts of the County’s Workforce Development Group and members of the Monitoring Team, the NIC Staffing Analysis (2014) has been updated. A total of 433.1 positions are required in order to fill all posts throughout the Jail System. This figure takes into account appropriate relief factors. They are allocated as follows:
Administration-------------------5.0 Jackson Detention Center-----83.6 Work Center---------------------64.1 Raymond Detention Center--280.4 Total-----------------------------433.1
Recognizing that the County cannot afford to increase staffing to that level immediately, a goal of 275 positions was set for FY 2017-18. Currently, there are 250 authorized Detention positions with 20 more authorized and funded for the fiscal year. That leaves a total of five positions that must either be funded and added to the total or be permanently reassigned from within other areas of the Sheriff’s Office. Significant progress has been made to fill vacancies. While there were only 199 Detention positions occupied by employees in June, by October that number had risen to 238. The number of currently authorized positions in Detention Administration and at each facility follows:
Administration--------------------5 (4 are filled) Jackson Detention Center------49 (all are filled) Work Center----------------------62 (52 are filled) Raymond Detention Center---154 (132 are filled) Total------------------------------270 (238 are filled) The goal for FY 2017-18 is---275
The issue of future bed space and facility needs has not been addressed to date. The proposed salary schedule, previously reported, was originally supposed to include a significant increase for all ranks within Detention from Officer to Captain, with a five-step merit salary increase for each supervisory rank. Although the merit increase system was not approved and funded, a salary increase was approved for Detention Officers and Detention Sergeants. Effective October 1, 2017, they received 26.05% and 6.9% raises respectively. Detention Officers now start work at $27,500 per year while Sergeants earn approximately $32,500. This realignment for the most critically undercompensated officers has made the position of Detention Officer much more competitive in the local marketplace and is reflected in the remarkable employment statistics that
16

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 17 of 83
have been posted recently. If the HCSO and County are successful in creating a validated, merit based career ladder within the various Detention ranks, it will go a long way toward reducing the excessive turnover rate that has plagued the Jail System.
f. Develop and implement an objective and validated classification and housing assignment procedure that is based on risk assessment rather than solely on a prisoner’s charge. Prisoners must be classified immediately after booking, and then housed based on the classification assessment. At minimum, a prisoner’s bunk, cell, unit, and facility assignments must be based on his or her objective classification assessment, and staff members may not transfer or move prisoners into a housing area if doing so would violate classification principles (e.g., placing juveniles with adults, victims with former assailants, and minimum security prisoners in a maximum security unit). Additionally, the classification and housing assignment process must include the following elements: i. The classification process must be handled by qualified staff who have additional training and experience on classification. ii. The classification system must take into account objective risk factors including a prisoner’s prior institutional history, history of violence, charges, special needs, physical size or vulnerabilities, gang affiliation, and reported enemies. iii. Prisoner housing assignments must not be changed by unit staff without proper supervisor and classification staff approval. iv. The classification system must track the location of all prisoners in the Jail, and help ensure that prisoners can be readily located by staff. The County may continue to use wrist bands to help identify prisoners, but personal identification on individual prisoners may not substitute for a staff-controlled and centralized prisoner tracking and housing assignment system. v. The classification system must be integrated with the Jail prisoner record system, so that staff have appropriate access to information necessary to provide proper supervision, including the current housing assignment of every prisoner in the Jail. vi. The designation and use of housing units as “gang pods” must be phased out under the terms of this Agreement. Placing prisoners together because of gang affiliation alone is prohibited. The County must replace current gang-based housing assignments with a more appropriate objective classification and housing process within one year after the Effective Date.
Partial Compliance
17

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 18 of 83
Improvement in the area of Classification continues to be noted with each site visit. As was reported previously, a Classification Officer is now on duty seven days per week on day shift which was made possible by the assignment of a Sergeant and six Detention Officers to the Section. They are responsible for the placement of all inmates during an extended day shift and follow up on all movements that occur during their absence on the evening and night shifts. This is accomplished by requiring the shift commanders to submit a written move report to Classification whenever a change of cell/location is made. An override by Classification can then be ordered if required. The need to have a single point of information for every inmate in the Jail System was highlighted in the Second Monitoring Report. The consolidation of Classification and Records into a single Unit/Section was recommended. To date no concrete action has been taken with regard to this matter other than to coordinate with NIC in order to obtain technical assistance. Follow up on that effort should be given priority. In addition, the Classification Sergeant should submit recommended policies regarding Classification for inclusion in the P&P Manual. There are currently no written directives or Post Orders in place governing Classification operations other than memoranda generated by the Sergeant. It appears that Classification procedures are adapting with the changing conditions within the Jail System. Both pre-trial and sentenced felons and misdemeanants are now held at the WC since it has evolved from a facility dedicated to sentenced low risk inmates into a full service, general population jail.
g. Develop and implement positive approaches for promoting safety within the Jail including: i. Providing all prisoners with at least 5 hours of outdoor recreation per week; ii. Developing rewards and incentives for good behavior such as additional commissary, activities, or privileges; iii. Creating work opportunities, including the possibility of paid employment; iv. Providing individual or group treatment for prisoners with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other behavioral or medical conditions, who would benefit from therapeutic activities; v. Providing education, including special education, for youth, as well as all programs, supports, and services required for youth by federal law; vi. Screening prisoners for serious mental illness as part of the Jail’s booking and health assessment process, and then providing such prisoners with appropriate treatment and therapeutic housing; vii. Providing reasonable opportunities for visitation.
h. Ensure that policies, procedures, and practices provide for higher levels of supervision for individual prisoners if necessary due to a prisoner’s individual circumstances. Examples of such higher level supervision include (a) constant
18

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 19 of 83
observation (i.e., continuous, uninterrupted one-on-one monitoring) for actively suicidal prisoners (i.e., prisoners threatening or who recently engaged in suicidal behavior); (b) higher frequency security checks for prisoners locked down in maximum security units, medical observation units, and administrative segregation units; and (c) more frequent staff interaction with youth as part of their education, treatment and behavioral management programs. i. Continue to update, maintain, and expand use of video surveillance and recording cameras to improve coverage throughout the Jail, including the booking area, housing units, medical and mental health units, special management housing, facility perimeters, and in common areas.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in conditions within the facilities regarding outside recreation. It is still not available at JDC or the RDC other than for juveniles being tried as adults. As was previously noted, this has been the case for at least five years at the RDC and apparently since the 1970’s at the JDC since there is no outside recreation area at that facility. Only the WC meets the standard as outlined in the Settlement Agreement. Documentation of hourly, thirty minute and fifteen minute well-being checks has not improved since the last site visit, but an orientation and training session with all supervisory personnel (lieutenant and above) held during the October site visit should help to standardize the completion of these required documents. Video recording capabilities have not changed since the last site visit; however, hand held recording devices are reportedly on order.
With respect to the requirement to provide individual and group treatment, there is one-to-one counseling provided on Mondays and Fridays with a Ph.D. psychologist. He saw approximately 101 patients in August 2017. His hours are insufficient to cover the needs of all three jail facilities. There is no group therapy provided for either the youth or other inmates with behavioral health problems. Currently the only groups provided are those provided by a Chaplain to the youth housing unit. The groups consist of NA and AA, however the youth complained that there is too much of a religious overtone in the groups.
The treatment that is provided does not substantially comply with the requirement for individual therapy. Most medication renewals should take approximately 15 minutes. New intake evaluations should generally take 45 minutes or longer depending upon the inmate’s past history and current problems. Care at RDC is very rushed allowing only 5 minutes per patient.
Psychiatric sick call and mental health charts were reviewed. Five charts were reviewed and eight interactions with the psychiatrist were observed. The psychiatrist spent about five minutes with each patient. The patients were scheduled for a re-ordering of medications and one was a new patient A chart review indicated insufficient follow up on reported mental health symptoms
19

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 20 of 83

and a lack of therapeutic intervention. The ongoing behavior issues of the patient in one of the isolation units and his isolation as a result of that behavior without any change in medication or other therapeutic interventions is a prime example of the lack of appropriate therapeutic services.

The facility is now tracking the number of inmates that are receiving Haldol Deaconate. As of 9/27/2017, there were 8 inmates at RDC receiving the medication and 1 inmate at Jackson. This number has decreased significantly from the first monitoring report. Unfortunately, none of the inmates had mental health consents on their chart other than the initial consent signed at intake.

Inmates are screened at booking by Detention Officers. The nurses hired to do intake screening resigned. Following this screening, an additional health assessment is conducted by RN nursing staff during the booking process. Due to a lack of space in the booking area for this medical assessment, inmates are now brought to the medical unit for their secondary assessment. The second assessment includes a suicide screen. Inmates with mental health problems are referred to the psychologist or social worker. If the inmate is on psychotropic medication, they are referred to the psychiatrist for an order to continue the medication. Medications are verified at booking by the nurses. Intake nurses are supposed to be provided 7-3 PM, 4-11PM Monday through Friday and 7 pm to 7 am three times per week. County staff stated that the booking area will be revamped and a secure space will exist for medical intake screenings and that the area will be staffed 24 hours per day.

Although inmates are screened for mental health issues, there is not appropriate therapeutic housing as required by paragraph 42(g)(vi). One unit is identified as the mental health unit but it is simply a segregation unit where they place individuals with mental health issues. It is not appropriately designed or staffed as a mental health unit and there is no therapeutic programming.

The physical portion of the health assessment form is inadequate. The only areas for inclusion are a checkmark for normal and abnormal findings without adequate space to identify what the findings are. Revision of the form is necessary in order to require and allow for the recording of more detail such as abnormal findings.

A review of five medical records was performed with the objective to see how soon a mental health professional saw an inmate after he was booked into the jail. The charts were randomly selected from inmates that had been booked into RDC in the last three weeks.

Date arrested
7/15/17 7/14/17 5/22/17

Date referred
7/26/17 7/15/17 5/23/17
20

Referral completed by mental health 8/21/17 7/26/17 6/7/17

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 21 of 83

5/27/17 7/14/17

Request of SGT 7/26/17

8/28/17 8/21/17

The mental health referral was identified as the first mental health evaluation. It could have been by a bachelor’s level social worker, psychologist or psychiatrist. The sample size is too small to derive definite conclusions but it does appear that nursing referrals are not made in a timely manner to mental health staff and that it takes the inmates 2-3 weeks to enter the mental health caseload. This study will be repeated during the next audit with a larger sample size. Additional criteria will be added which looks at the time of the arrest and the time the inmate is seen by nursing staff.

As a result of the chart review, it appears that many inmates that need mental health treatment go untreated for weeks before they enter the system. Even when identified, mentally ill prisoners receive inadequate care. Individual sessions with the psychiatrist were cancelled on a weekly basis due to time constraints. Dr. Kumar generally provides psychiatric care on Wednesdays and starts at JDC and then provides care at the other facilities. The care is very rushed which cannot be considered as therapeutic care. Statistical reports show that Dr. Kumar sees a range of 100 to 150 inmates per month during his visits.

Suicide watch conditions are not adequate to deal with the inmates who require close supervision. The two cells located in the Medical Unit are unsuitable for such use. It is impossible to observe what is going on in them because the tiny windows are literally obscured with retrofitted metal and screening that makes them almost opaque. In addition, the assigned officer sits outside a second door leading to the general cell area, which makes direct supervision impractical. The Detention Services Division should consider utilizing a four cell isolation unit associated with one of the housing units at the RDC as an alternative area for supervising suicidal inmates. One cell could be left open so that inmates have access to toilet and water facilities. The other three cells should remain locked. Four or more inmates could be supervised in such a setting with an officer physically located inside the isolation unit, equipped with a work station/desk, phone, radio and emergency alarm. In this way the officer would serve as assigned officer in a “mini-direct supervision unit”.

While there is a full time social worker who could evaluate whether an inmate needs to be on suicide watch, she does not perform this function and many suicide threats occur after she has left for the day. The result is that a large number of inmates have been assigned to suicide watch without being first screened by a mental health professional. In August and September there were 22 inmates each month placed on suicide precautions for verbalizing a suicide threat.

Inmates on suicide watch are placed in a suicide cell designed for two persons. There is limited visibility into the cell. On the days of the audit, one cell contained four adult inmates and the other cell five adult inmates. As a result, there were three altercations of inmates in these cells
21

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 22 of 83
due to overcrowding of the cells. An additional issue is that inmates placed in lockdown complain of suicidal ideation in order to be transferred to the suicide cells. The suicide cells have also been used by inmates to escape gang activities or to carry out gang-related activities. The last altercation in the suicide cell during the site visit was gang related. An inmate from lockdown unit entered the suicide unit and immediately started a fight with another inmate that was in the suicide cell. Suicide units are for inmates suffering from acute mental health problems such as acute psychosis or other conditions causing an acute risk of self-harm and who have not been stabilized through other interventions. Suicide units are intended to stabilize the patient as quickly as possible so that the patient can return to a less restricted housing unit. Unfortunately, inmates placed in the current suicide cells receive no additional mental health therapy. When they are released they are returned to general population or lockdown cells.
Contributing to the problem in responding to suicide comments is the lack of sufficient correctional staffing at RDC to provide one to one staffing. In the future, the facility should explore crisis intervention with Hinds County Behavioral Health and admit the patient to St. Luke’s Hospital. Another recommendation is to add a part time social worker that would work 20 hours per week at RDC and/or mental health technicians that would be on-call for one to one suicide watches. This position could perform a suicide assessment and screenings on inmates that verbalize self-harm or on new intakes that are booked in the facility. The individual might also be responsible for group therapy which could include life skill groups such as anger management, domestic violence, parenting etc.
Based on a review of visitation records covering a two week period (October 2-16, 2017), it appears that only at the JDC are some of the inmates able to visit with family and friends. Of 82 scheduled video visitation connections, 50 were actually completed at that facility. This means that about 20% of the inmates were able to have a visit each week. At the RDC and WC, which share video visitation equipment, only 12 inmates were able to have a visit although 53 visits were scheduled. Thus only 1.2% of the inmates at those facilities were able to have a visit each week. While the Inmate Handbook requires inmates to schedule visitation seven days in advance between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, in reality visitation is apparently not a viable privilege for most of the inmates in the Jail System.
43. Include outcome measures as part of the Jail’s internal data collection, management, and administrative reporting process. The occurrence of any of the following specific outcome measures creates a rebuttable presumption in this case that the Jail fails to provide reasonably safe conditions for prisoners:
a. Staff vacancy rate of more than 10% of budgeted positions; b. A voluntary staff turnover rate that results in the failure to staff critical posts (such
as the housing units, booking, and classification) or the failure to maintain experienced supervisors on all shifts;
22

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 23 of 83
c. A major disturbance resulting in the takeover of any housing area by prisoners; d. Staffing where fewer than 90% of all detention officers have completed basic
jailer training; e. Three or more use of force or prisoner-on-prisoner incidents in a fiscal year in
which a prisoner suffers a serious injury, but for which staff members fail to complete all documentation required by this Agreement, including supervision recommendations and findings; f. One prisoner death within a fiscal year, where there is no documented administrative review by the Jail Administrator or no documented mortality review by a physician not directly involved in the clinical treatment of the deceased prisoner (e.g. corporate medical director or outside, contract physician, when facility medical director may have a personal conflict); g. One death within a fiscal year, where the death was a result of prisoner-onprisoner violence and there was a violation of Jail supervision, housing assignment, or classification procedures.
Non-Compliant The last reported turnover rate for Detention was 43% in 2016. Although recruiting efforts have paid off with 58 Detention Officers hired since January 2017, the number of vacancies still stands at 32, which equates to an 11.85 vacancy rate. Required posts at the WC and JDC appear to be more frequently filled than at the RDC. This is partly due to the fact that approximately 25% of rated capacity at those two facilities is either closed for renovation (HU-4 at the WC) or not occupied because of the low daily census (one wing at the JDC). Consequently, even though there are 10 vacancies at the WC and the number of authorized positions at the JDC is inadequate, both facilities are able to cope well with current conditions. The staffing situation at the RDC is better than was observed during previous site visits, but it is still inadequate to meet inmate supervision requirements. Based on inspection and a review of daily duty rosters, it appears that approximately half of the housing units are now being staffed with an officer. Unfortunately, he/she is placed in the safety vestibule leading to the housing unit instead of physically inside it. While it is not possible to supervise inmates from that position, until all staff have been trained on the principles and dynamics of direct supervision, the command decision that led to this situation is understandable. While training records are more comprehensive than any time to date, it is still not possible to determine exactly how many officers have not completed the basic 40 hour orientation class before being assigned to a post. It should be noted, however, that every new officer questioned during the most recent inspection of the facilities had completed the orientation class prior to assignment.
44. To complement, but not replace, “direct supervision,” develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that detention officers are conducting rounds as appropriate. To that end:
23

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 24 of 83
a. Rounds must be conducted at least once every 30 minutes in general population housing units and at least once every 15 minutes for special management prisoners (including prisoners housed in booking cells).
b. All security rounds must be conducted at irregular intervals to reduce their predictability, and must be documented on forms or logs.
c. Officers must only be permitted to enter data on these forms or logs at the time a round is completed. Forms and logs must not include pre-printed dates or times. Officers must not be permitted to fill out forms and logs before they actually conduct their rounds.
d. The parties anticipate that “rounds” will not necessarily be conducted as otherwise described in this provision when the Jail is operated as a “direct supervision” facility. This is because a detention officer will have constant, active supervision of all prisoners in the detention officer’s charge. As detailed immediately below, however, even under a “direct supervision” model, the Jail must have a system in place to document and ensure that staff are providing adequate supervision.
e. Jail policies, procedures, and practices may utilize more than one means to document and ensure that staff are supervising prisoners as required by “direct supervision,” including the use and audit of supervisor inspection reports, visitation records, mealtime records, prisoner worker sheets, medical treatment files, sick call logs, canteen delivery records, and recreation logs. Any system adopted to ensure that detention officers are providing “direct supervision” must be sufficiently detailed and in writing to allow verification by outside reviewers, including the United States and Monitor.
Partial Compliance There have been a few positive changes regarding the completion of rounds and documentation of well-being checks, but the system-wide response to this requirement is inconsistent at best. At the WC officers document hourly well-being checks in the unit logs for general population inmates; however, command staff and supervisors should set and enforce standard entries since it is not clear what some officers mean or what they did based on the jail slang and abbreviations that are used. This recommended action should be institutionalized throughout the entire Jail System. Thirty minute well-being checks were found to be properly documented on an inmate who was housed in a segregation cell. At the JDC hourly logs for general population and 30 minute logs for those in confinement/segregation were maintained as required. The previously reported recommendation, to place the segregation log adjacent to the inmates rather than in the control room, has been implemented. At the RDC there has been little change since the last site visit. One notable difference is that the unit logs are now frequently maintained at the entrance to the respective units rather than in the control room. While this is a step in the right direction, no amount of documentation can take the place of assigning an officer inside each unit so that
24

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 25 of 83
they can operate under the principles of direct supervision. In Booking a log calling for 30 minute well-being checks was located inside the staff office area, not by the individual cells as had previously been recommended. In addition, because of the nature of the inmates being temporarily held in this area, and the lack of knowledge about their backgrounds during the booking process, well-being checks need to be conducted every 15 minutes.
45. Ensure that all correctional officers receive adequate pre- and post-service training to provide for reasonably safe conditions in the Jail. To that end, the County must ensure that the Jail employs Qualified Training Officers, who must help to develop and implement a formal, written training program. The program must include the following:
a. Mandatory pre-service training. Detention officers must receive State jailer training and certification prior to start of work. Staff who have not received such training by the Effective Date of this Agreement must complete their State jailer training within twelve months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. During that twelve month period, the County must develop an in-house detention training academy.
b. Post Order training. Detention officers must receive specific training on unitspecific post orders before starting work on a unit, and every year thereafter. To document such training, officers must be required to sign an acknowledgement that they have received such training, but only after an officer is first assigned to a unit, after a Post Order is updated, and after completion of annual retraining.
c. “Direct supervision” training. Detention officers must receive specific pre- and post-service training on “direct supervision.” Such training must include instruction on how to supervise prisoners in a “direct supervision” facility, including instruction in effective communication skills and verbal de-escalation. Supervisors must receive training on how to monitor and ensure that staff are providing effective “direct supervision.”
d. Jail administrator training. High-level Jail supervisors (i.e., supervisors with facility-wide management responsibilities), including the Jail Administrator and his or her immediate deputies (wardens), must receive jail administrator training prior to the start of their employment. High-level supervisors already employed at the Jail when this Agreement is executed must complete such training within six months after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Training comparable to the Jail Administration curriculum offered by the National Institute of Corrections will meet the requirements of this provision.
e. Post-service training. Detention officers must receive at least 120 hours per year of post-service training in their first year of employment and 40 hours per year after their first year. Such training must include refresher training on Jail policies. The training may be provided during roll call, staff meetings, and post-assignment
25

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 26 of 83
meetings. Post-service training should also include field and scenario-based training. f. Training for Critical Posts. Jail management must work with the training department to develop a training syllabus and minimum additional training requirements for any officer serving in a critical position. Such additional training must be provided for any officer working on a tactical team; in a special management, medical or mental health unit; in a maximum security unit; or in booking and release. g. Special management unit training. Officers assigned to special management units must receive at least eight hours of specialized training each year regarding supervision of such units and related prisoner safety, medical, mental health, and security policies. h. Training on all Jail policies and procedures including those regarding prisoner rights and the prevention of staff abuse and misconduct.
Partial Compliance With the change of Training Directors previously noted, efforts to enhance training have escalated. A 40-hour orientation block of instruction is now provided to all new hires. While that insures that Detention Officers receive at least a modicum of training and relevant job information before being assigned to a post, it does not prepare them to work independently. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is now given to each employee for orientation and reference purposes. It has been reproduced in a compact booklet form similar in size to the Inmate Handbook. The 120-hour block of instruction (basic academy) that is required during the first year of employment is also now being provided; however, according to Training records there are more than 30 officers who have still not completed this training. Records are not available to determine whether or not officers receive 40 hours of in service training annually after their first year of employment. Information regarding Post Order training, Critical Post training, Special Management Unit training and Direct Supervision training has as yet not been provided.
46. Develop and implement policies and procedures for adequate supervisory oversight for the Jail. To that end, the County must:
a. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the authority to make personnel decisions necessary to ensure adequate staffing, staff discipline, and staff oversight. This personnel authority must include the power to hire, transfer, and discipline staff. Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) allocated for budget purposes represent a salaried slot and are not a restriction on personnel assignment authority. While the Sheriff may retain final authority for personnel decisions, the Jail’s policies and procedures must document and clearly identify who is responsible for a personnel
26

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 27 of 83
decision, what administrative procedures apply, and the basis for personnel decisions. b. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the ability to monitor, ensure compliance with Jail policies, and take corrective action, for any staff members operating in the Jail, including any who are not already reporting to the Jail Administrator and the Jail’s chain of command. This provision covers road deputies assigned to supervise housing units and emergency response/tactical teams entering the Jail to conduct random shakedowns or to suppress prisoner disturbances. c. Ensure that supervisors conduct daily rounds on each shift in the prisoner housing units, and document the results of their rounds. d. Ensure that staff conduct daily inspections of all housing and common areas to identify damage to the physical plant, safety violations, and sanitation issues. This maintenance program must include the following elements:
i. Facility safety inspections that include identification of damaged doors, locks, cameras, and safety equipment.
ii. An inspection process. iii. A schedule for the routine inspection, repair, and replacement of the
physical plant, including security and safety equipment. iv. A requirement that any corrective action ordered be taken. v. Identification of high priority repairs to assist Jail and County officials
with allocating staff and resources. vi. To ensure prompt corrective action, a mechanism for identifying and
notifying responsible staff and supervisors when there are significant delays with repairs or a pattern of problems with equipment. Staff response to physical plant, safety, and sanitation problems must be reasonable and prompt.
Non-Compliant Until the P&P Manual is revised and re-issued, compliance with this paragraph cannot be achieved. The revision work is underway in concert with Jackson State University, but as yet there is no estimated date of completion. As was previously reported, supervisors still do not document the results of their rounds. Maintenance issues are not resolved in a timely fashion, particularly at the RDC. Conditions at the JDC and WC are better, primarily because staffing levels are better at those facilities than at the RDC. Once the housing units there are properly staffed and function under the principles of direct supervision, it should be possible to achieve higher maintenance standards.
47. Ensure that staff members conduct random shakedowns of cells and common areas so that prisoners do not possess or have access to dangerous contraband. Such shakedowns must be
27

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 28 of 83
conducted in each housing unit at least once per month, on an irregular schedule to make them less predictable to prisoners and staff.
Non-Compliant Random shakedowns are still not conducted by Detention Officers as they should be; however, in a significant policy change, law enforcement officers no longer go into the facilities to conduct shakedowns independently as last occurred on June 7, 2017. That practice was counterproductive in that it undercut the authority of the Detention Officers and, worse yet, was done outside the scope of the Detention chain of command. A recent shakedown of Pod C, Unit 3 at the RDC was conducted appropriately utilizing law enforcement officers in support of, not in place of, Detention staff. Further it was conducted under the command of the Detention Services Division Administrator. Unfortunately, the results of the shakedown revealed that the prevalence of contraband in the Jail System continues to be completely unacceptable. Items found included 12 cellphones, 15 phone chargers, one cellphone battery, five bags of marijuana, 33 bags of tobacco, one razor, two sets of ear buds, eight cigarette lighters, one knife, one Allen wrench, a flat piece of metal, four large screws, an unspecified number of containers filled with bleach and various prescription medications. All of this contraband was found in one general population unit that routinely houses fewer than 66 inmates.
48. Install cell phone jammers or other electronic equipment to detect, suppress, and deter unauthorized communications from prisoners in the Jail. Installation must be completed within two years after the Effective Date.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph. Because of legal barriers, cell phone jammers cannot resolve the problem of unauthorized communications. Other alternatives have been suggested to the County by both the DOJ and Monitoring Team and the Correctional Expert has suggested potential vendors who can supply appropriate equipment. No action has been taken to address this issue to date.
49. Develop and implement a gang program in consultation with qualified experts in the field that addresses any link between gang activity in the community and the Jail through appropriate provisions for education, family or community involvement, and violence prevention.
Partial Compliance There is no change in the status of this paragraph. Updated information was not provided on the actions of the law enforcement investigative officer who is now assigned to conduct investigations within the Jail System.
USE OF FORCE STANDARDS
28

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 29 of 83
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to prevent excessive force by staff and ensure force is used safely and only in a manner commensurate with the behavior justifying it. To that end, the County must:
50. Develop and implement policies and procedures to regulate the use of force. The policies and procedures must:
a. Prohibit the use of force as a response to verbal insults or prisoner threats where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff or visitors;
b. Prohibit the use of force as a response to prisoners’ failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff, visitors, or property;
c. Prohibit the use of force against a prisoner after the prisoner has ceased to resist and is under control;
d. Prohibit the use of force as punishment or retaliation; e. Limit the level of force used so that it is commensurate with the justification for
use of force; and f. Limit use of force in favor of less violent methods when such methods are more
appropriate, effective, or less likely to result in the escalation of an incident.
Non-Compliant Until the P&P Manual is revised, re-issued and approved, compliance with this paragraph cannot be achieved. While use of force documentation is improving, according to the monthly summary, there were still only eight such reports for the entire Jail System for the month of October. Of those, seven were described as “muscling”, a term that needs to be clarified. In a separate report for the RDC, nine use of force cases were generated in October. The inconsistency in documentation brings into doubt the accuracy of reporting.
51. Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure timely notification, documentation, and communication with supervisors and medical staff (including mental health staff) prior to use of force and after any use of force. These policies and procedures must specifically include the following requirements:
a. Staff members must obtain prior supervisory approval before the use of weapons (e.g., electronic control devices or chemical sprays) and mechanical restraints unless responding to an immediate threat to a person’s safety.
b. If a prisoner has a serious medical condition or other circumstances exist that may increase the risk of death or serious injury from the use of force, the type of force that may be used on the prisoner must be restricted to comply with this provision. These restrictions include the following:
29

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 30 of 83
i. The use of chemical sprays, physical restraints, and electronic control devices must not be used when a prisoner may be at risk of positional asphyxia.
ii. Electronic control devices must not be used on prisoners when they are in a location where they may suffer serious injury after losing voluntary muscle control (e.g., prisoner is standing atop a stairwell, wall, or other elevated location).
iii. Physical strikes, holds, or other uses of force or restraints may not be used if the technique is not approved for use in the Jail or the staff member has not been trained on the proper use of the technique.
c. Staff members must conduct health and welfare checks every 15 minutes while a prisoner is in restraints. At minimum, these checks must include (i) logged firstperson observations of a prisoner’s status while in restraints (e.g. check for blood flow, respiration, heart beat), and (ii) documented breaks to meet the sanitary and health needs of prisoners placed in emergency restraints (e.g., restroom breaks and breaks to prevent cramping or circulation problems).
d. The County must ensure that clinical staff conduct medical and mental health assessments immediately after a prisoner is subjected to any Level 1 use of force. Prisoners identified as requiring medical or mental health care during the assessment must receive such treatment.
e. A first-line supervisor must personally supervise all planned uses of force, such as cell extractions.
f. Security staff members must consult with medical and mental health staff before all planned uses of force on juveniles or prisoners with serious mental illness, so that medical and mental health staff may offer alternatives to or limitations on the use of force, such as assisting with de-escalation or obtaining the prisoner’s voluntary cooperation.
g. The Jail must have inventory and weapon controls to establish staff member responsibility for their use of weapons or other security devices in the facility. Such controls must include: i. a sign-out process for staff members to carry any type of weapon inside the Jail, ii. a prohibition on staff carrying any weapons except those in the Jail’s tracked inventory, and iii. random checks to determine if weapons have been discharged without report of discharge (e.g., by checking the internal memory of electronic control devices and weighing pepper spray canisters).
h. A staff member must electronically record (both video and sound) all planned uses of force with equipment provided by the Jail.
i. All staff members using force must immediately notify their supervisor.
30

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 31 of 83
j. All staff members using a Level 1 use of force must also immediately notify the shift commander after such use of force, or becoming aware of an allegation of such use by another staff member.
Non-Compliant There are no recorded instances of staff members obtaining supervisory approval prior to using weapons and mechanical restraints; nor is there any record of chemical sprays, physical restraints and electronic control devices being used when a prisoner may be at risk of positional asphyxia. At this point it is not possible to determine whether or not Detention staff are following prescribed procedure. There are no records noted to date that reflect whether or not an inmate was placed on a 15 minute watch while in restraints. Restraints are not utilized at any of the facilities except for transport.
The P&P Manual is still under review and will be re-issued once it has been revised. Until then, compliance with this paragraph is not possible. Currently, 15 minute well-being checks are maintained only for inmates under suicide watch although it is expected that detainees in Booking holding cells will be similarly monitored henceforth. To date no documentation has been submitted reflecting a planned use of force which would necessitate video recording, supervisory authorization or communication/coordination with medical staff. Inmates with serious or potentially serious medical problems are not identified prior to pepper spray use, nor do correctional staff contact medical staff before force is used on juveniles with serious mental health conditions. A recent innovation at the RDC allows OC spray canisters to be weighed so that it can be determined whether or not they have been used.
A review of the uses of force reports for September 2017 reported that there were 28 uses of force reports written. Four inmates were escorted to medical for evaluation. Tasers were used but pepper spray was not utilized. If the inmate required hospitalization, he was immediately sent to the ER. As previously stated, inmates sustaining serious injuries from the use of force are sent to the hospital. On the reports sent in the drop box there was no resolution written by medical staff. It could be in the chart; however, time did not permit a review of charts.
As previously recommended, a protocol should be developed and posted in the medical exam area for inmates that are tased or pepper sprayed and that it include the documentation of vital signs and the rinsing of eyes in the cases of pepper spray use. An eye wash station should be set up with disposable saline solution bottles or an attachment that fits on the sink. Training on the use of force on seriously mentally ill inmates and inmates that may adversely be affected by pepper spray should be added to the training curriculum and roll call.
QCHC has been tasked with the development of medical policies following the use of pepper spray or tasers. These policies have not yet been developed.
31

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 32 of 83
USE OF FORCE TRAINING
52. The County must develop and implement a use of force training program. Every staff member who supervises prisoners must receive at least 8 hours of pre-service use of force training and annual use of force refresher training.
Non-Compliant The Training Director has accessed on line training modules offered by the Mississippi Department of Standards and Training which address at least some components of the Settlement Agreement. While it is not totally compliant, it represents a step in the right direction. The requirement for every member who supervises prisoners to receive at least eight hours of preservice training and annual use of force refresher training has not been met.
53. Topics covered by use of force training must include: a. Instruction on what constitutes excessive force; b. De-escalation tactics; c. Methods of managing prisoners with mental illness to avoid the use of force; d. Defensive tactics; e. All Jail use of force policies and procedures, including those related to documentation and review of use of force.
Non-Compliant These topics cannot be addressed until the P & P Manual is revised and published.
54. The County must randomly test at least 5 percent of Jail Staff members annually to determine whether they have a meaningful, working knowledge of all use of force policies and procedures. The County must also evaluate the results to determine if any changes to Jail policies and procedures may be necessary and take corrective action. The results and recommendations of such evaluations must be provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant This cannot be completed until the revised P&P Manual is issued, officers are trained and sufficient time has passed to conduct the random testing of at least five percent of Jail staff.
55. The County must update any use of force training within 30 days after any revision to a use of force policy or procedure.
Non-Compliant This cannot be updated until the requisite training has been completed.
32

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 33 of 83
USE OF FORCE REPORTING
To prevent and remedy the unconstitutional use of force, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting use of force. To that end, the County must:
56. Develop and implement use of force reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information to analyze and respond appropriately to use of force.
Non-Compliant There has been no change with regard to this paragraph. It cannot be addressed until the P&P Manual is revised and issued to all personnel. The inadequacy and inconsistency of the existing use of force forms is still an issue. While a standard, computer based form is being developed, supervisory review is still inadequate. It must include a recommendation for approval, disapproval and/or corrective action.
57. Require each staff member who used or observed a use of force to complete a Use of Force Report as promptly as possible, and no later than by the end of that staff member’s shift. Staff members must accurately complete all fields on a Use of Force Report. The failure to report any use of force must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination. Similarly, supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
Non-Compliant There has been no change with regard to this paragraph. The requirement cannot be analyzed until the P&P Manual is revised and issued to all personnel. While report writing is improving throughout the Jail System, it is still not possible to determine whether incident reports are submitted in a timely fashion or whether supervisors follow up as required. Use of Force and Incident Report documentation, while better, is still inadequate. Some reports include no supervisory review. In those cases where supervisory review is documented it does not indicate approval, disapproval or recommended follow up action. While reports sometimes indicate that the involved inmate was referred to Medical for treatment/evaluation, the results of the treatment/evaluation are seldom included as a supplement to the original incident report. A training session with Detention, Operations and Information Technology personnel representing various supervisory ranks, that was held during the October site visit, should help to standardize and improve the quality of documentation.
58. Ensure that Jail use of force reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, use of force reports must document the following information:
a. A unique tracking number for each use of force;
33

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 34 of 83
b. The names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. A description of the events leading to the use of force, including what precipitated
or appeared to precipitate those events; f. A description of the level of resistance, staff response, and the type and level of
force (including frequency and duration of use). For instance, use of force reports must describe the number of discharges from electronic control devices and chemical munitions canisters; the amount of discharge from chemical munitions canisters; whether the Staff Member threatened to use the device or actually discharged the device; the type of physical hold or strike used; and the length of time a prisoner was restrained, and whether the prisoner was released from restraints for any period during that time; g. A description of the staff member’s attempts to de-escalate the situation without use of force; h. A description of whether the staff member notified supervisors or other personnel, including medical or mental health staff, before or after the use of force; i. A description of any observed injuries to staff or prisoners; j. Whether medical care was required or provided to staff or prisoners; k. Reference to any associated incident report or prisoner disciplinary report completed by the reporting officer, which pertains to the events or prisoner activity that prompted the use of force; l. A signature of the staff member completing the report attesting to the report’s accuracy and completeness.
Non-Compliant Although this paragraph must still be carried as “Non-Compliant”, it is anticipated that it will move toward “Partial Compliance” by the time of the January 2018, site visit. The Use of Force report forms are now being generated through the Jail Management System (JMS). Although staff have not been adequately trained to date, once they are familiar with the computer created forms and how they link electronically with the original Incident Report associated with each event, there should be a major improvement in the quality of documentation. A training and orientation session was held during the October site visit involving Information Technology, Training, Operations, Detention, Justice Department and Monitoring Team staff. Many areas of inconsistency and concern were addressed.
USE OF FORCE SUPERVISOR REVIEWS
59. The County must ensure that Jail supervisors review, analyze, and respond appropriately to use of force. At minimum:
34

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 35 of 83
a. A supervisor must review all use of force reports submitted during the supervisor’s watch by the end of the supervisor’s watch.
b. A supervisor must ensure that staff members complete their use of force reports by the end of their watch.
c. Reviewing supervisors must document their findings as to the completeness of each staff member’s use of force report, and must also document any procedural errors made by staff in completing their reports.
d. If a Use of Force report is incomplete, reviewing supervisors must require Staff Members to provide any required information on a revised use of force report, and the Jail must maintain both the original and any revised report in its records.
e. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing use of force reports must document their use of force review as described in Paragraph 62 sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted.
f. All Level 1 uses of force must be sent to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD.
g. A Level 2 use of force must be referred to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD if a reviewing supervisor concludes that there may have been a violation of law or policy. Level 2 uses of force may also be referred to IAD if the County requires such reporting as a matter of Jail policy and procedure, or at the discretion of any reviewing supervisor.
Non-Compliant The status of this paragraph is unchanged. Appropriate supervisory review cannot be determined until the P&P Manual is revised and issued. In addition, the standardized, computer generated incident and use of force forms must actually be used by all personnel. At present supervisors merely sign their names on forms or review them electronically. Their signature does not reflect agreement, disagreement or recommended action.
60. After any Level 1 use of force, responding supervisors will promptly go to the scene and take the following actions:
a. Ensure the safety of everyone involved in or proximate to the incident. Determine if anyone is injured and ensure that necessary medical care is or has been provided.
b. Ensure that photos are taken of all injuries sustained, or as evidence that no injuries were sustained, by prisoners and staff involved in a use of force incident. Photos must be taken no later than two hours after a use of force. Prisoners may refuse to consent to photos, in which case they should be asked to sign a waiver indicating that they have refused consent. If they refuse to sign a waiver, the shift commander must document that consent was requested and refused.
35

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 36 of 83
c. Ensure that staff members and witnesses are identified, separated, and advised that communications with other staff members or witnesses regarding the incident are prohibited.
d. Ensure that victim, staff, and witness statements are taken confidentially by reviewing supervisors or investigators, outside of the presence of other prisoners or involved staff.
e. Document whether the use of force was recorded. If the use of force was not recorded, the responding supervisors must review and explain why the event was not recorded. If the use of force was recorded, the responding supervisors must ensure that any record is preserved for review.
Non-Compliant There has been no change with regard to compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. Currently, supervisors do not routinely collect witness statements or take photographs. The revision of the P&P Manual and the standardized incident report and use of force report forms will move the County towards compliance, but it will be essential for supervisors to be trained to follow through and to provide complete and accurate information. Consistent review and follow up corrective action will be essential.
61. All uses of force must be reviewed by supervisors who were neither involved in nor approved the use of force by the end of the supervisor’s shift. All level 1 uses of force must also be reviewed by a supervisor of Captain rank or above who was neither involved in nor approved the use of force. The purposes of supervisor review are to determine whether the use of force violated Jail policies and procedures, whether the prisoner’s rights may have been violated, and whether further investigation or disciplinary action is required.
Non-Compliant Although the number of use of force reports continues to increase, it is not necessarily an indication of more violence, rather it may represent improved reporting on the part of staff. All three facilities had submissions. Supervisors still do not follow through with the requirements of this paragraph. Although medical care issues are documented, photographs are not taken, nor is reference to them made in the reports. Witnesses are seldom questioned and supervisors do not make comments about recording of the incidents. While using the paper report forms supervisors have historically not made any recommendations or indicated whether or not they concurred with the action taken. While using the new computer-generated forms supervisors seldom followed through with any recommendation or action because it was not automatically required of them.
62. Reviewing supervisors must document the following:
36

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 37 of 83
a. Names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses interviewed by the supervisor;
b. Witness statements; c. Review date and time; d. The findings, recommendations, and results of the supervisor’s review; e. Corrective actions taken; f. The final disposition of the reviews (e.g., whether the Use of Force was found to
comply with Jail policies and procedures, or whether disciplinary action was taken against a staff member); g. Supporting documents such as incident reports, logs, and classification records. Supervisors must also obtain and review summary medical and mental health records describing – i. The nature and extent of injuries, or lack thereof; ii. The date and time when medical care was requested and actually
provided; iii. The names of medical or mental health staff conducting any medical or
mental health assessments or care. h. Photos, video/digital recordings, or other evidence collected to support findings
and recommendations.
Non-Compliant Supervisors do not follow through with the requirements of this paragraph. They simply sign the incident and use of force reports (without making a recommendation of any type) on the older paper forms; on the new computer-generated forms they often take no action because, to date, the system did not require them to do so.
INCIDENT REPORTING AND REVIEW
To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting and reviewing incidents in the Jail that may pose a threat to the life, health, and safety of prisoners. To that end, the County must:
63. Develop and implement incident reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information in order to respond appropriately to reportable incidents.
Non-Compliant The P&P Manual must be revised and issued to all personnel before the level of compliance can be determined. Computer generated, standardized forms are being developed for use by all personnel.
37

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 38 of 83
64. Ensure that Incident Reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At minimum, Incident Reports must contain the following information:
a. Tracking number for each incident; b. The names of all staff members, prisoner, and other participants or witnesses; c. Housing classification and location; d. Date and time; e. Type of incident; f. Injuries to staff or prisoner; g. Medical care; h. All staff involved or present during the incident and their respective roles; i. Reviewing supervisor and supervisor findings, recommendations, and case
dispositions; j. External reviews and results; k. Corrective action taken; and l. Warden and Administrator review and final administrative actions.
Non-Compliant The comments associated with the previous paragraph apply to this one as well. Hopefully, the computer-generated forms being developed for use by all personnel will address the previously noted deficiencies.
65. Require each staff member directly involved in a reportable incident to accurately and thoroughly complete incident reports as promptly as possible, by the end of the staff member’s shift. At minimum:
a. Staff members must complete all fields on an Incident Report for which they have responsibility for completion. Staff members must not omit entering a date, time, incident location, or signature when completing an Incident Report. If no injuries are present, staff members must write that; they may not leave that section blank.
b. Failure to report any reportable incident must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination.
c. Supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will also be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
Non-Compliant There has been no change in the status of this paragraph. At present, it is not possible to determine whether or not incident reports are being routinely submitted on all reportable incidents. While the number of untoward events that are documented appears to be increasing over time, the fact that there are no reports on file regarding late releases or lost money and property is indicative of a failure to document significant incidents. Based on a review of
38

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 39 of 83
records and through conversation with staff, it is known that inmates have been held beyond their scheduled release dates, yet no incident reports are on file.
66. Ensure that Jail supervisors review and respond appropriately to incidents. At minimum: a. Shift commanders must document all reportable incidents by the end of their shift, but no later than 12 hours after a reportable incident. b. Shift commanders must report all suicides, suicide attempts, and deaths, no later than one hour after the incident, to a supervisor, IAD, and medical and mental health staff. c. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing Incident Reports must document their incident review within 24 hours of receipt of an Incident Report sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted. Such documentation must include the same categories of information required for supervisor use of force reviews such as names of individuals interviewed by the supervisor, witness statements, associated records (e.g. medical records, photos, and digital recordings), review dates, findings, recommendations, and case dispositions. d. Reportable incidents must be reviewed by a supervisor not directly involved in the incident.
Partial Compliance While a more definitive determination cannot be made until the P&P Manual is revised and issued, it does appear, from a review of paper generated reports, that supervisors are reviewing incident reports in a timely fashion. Most reflect same day review based on signature dates. That determination cannot be made at this time with regard to the new computer-generated forms.
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
67. To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to address sexual abuse and misconduct. Such policies and procedures must include all of the following:
a. Zero tolerance policy towards any sexual abuse and sexual harassment as defined by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., and its implementing regulations;
b. Staff training on the zero-tolerance policy, including how to fulfill their duties and responsibilities to prevent, detect, report and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment under the policy;
c. Screening prisoners to identify those who may be sexually abusive or at risk of sexual victimization;
39

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 40 of 83
d. Multiple internal ways to allow both confidential and anonymous reporting of sexual abuse and sexual harassment and any related retaliation, including a mechanism for prisoners to directly report allegations to an outside entity;
e. Both emergency and ongoing medical and mental health care for victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment, including rape kits as appropriate and counseling;
f. A complete ban on cross-gender strip searches or cross-gender visual body cavity searches except in exigent circumstances or when performed by a medical examiner;
g. A complete ban on cross-gender pat searches of women prisoners, absent exigent circumstances;
h. Regular supervisory review to ensure compliance with the sexual abuse and sexual harassment policies; and
i. Specialized investigative procedures and training for investigators handling sexual abuse and sexual harassment allegations.
Non-Compliant There does not appear to be any change in the status of this paragraph. The P&P Manual, as originally submitted in April, does not meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. It should be noted that there are no notices regarding the PREA posted throughout the Jail System although the Inmate Handbook does contain a brief reference to it. At present, there is no record on file to reflect compliance. The health administrator reported that there were no cases of sexual misconduct this visit. If an inmate complains of a sexual assault, they are sent to the hospital and a rape kit is performed.
An in-service on PREA provisions for the health staff is essential.
INVESTIGATIONS
68. The County shall ensure that it has sufficient staff to identify, investigate, and correct misconduct that has or may lead to a violation of the Constitution. At a minimum, the County shall:
a. Develop and implement comprehensive policies, procedures, and practices for the thorough and timely (within 60 days of referral) investigation of alleged staff misconduct, sexual assaults, and physical assaults of prisoners resulting in serious injury, in accordance with this Agreement, within 90 days of its Effective Date. At a minimum, an investigation will be conducted if: i. Any prisoner exhibited a serious injury; ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious accounts of the incident; or
40

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 41 of 83
iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member).
b. Per policy, investigations shall: i. Be conducted by qualified persons, who do not have conflicts of interest that bear on the partiality of the investigation; ii. Include timely, thorough, and documented interviews of all relevant staff and prisoners who were involved in or who witnessed the incident in question, to the extent practicable; and iii. Include all supporting evidence, including logs, witness and participant statements, references to policies and procedures relevant to the incident, physical evidence, and video or audio recordings.
c. Provide investigators with pre-service and annual in-service training so that investigators conduct quality investigations that meet the requirements of this Agreement;
d. Ensure that any investigative report indicating possible criminal behavior will be referred to the appropriate criminal law enforcement agency;
e. Within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, IAD must have written policies and procedures that include clear and specific criteria for determining when it will conduct an investigation. The criteria will require an investigation if: i. Any prisoner exhibited serious, visible injuries (e.g., black eye, obvious bleeding, or lost tooth); ii. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; iii. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious accounts of the incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member).
f. Provide the Monitor and United States a periodic report of investigations conducted at the Jail every four months. The report will include the following information: i. a brief summary of all completed investigations, by type and date; ii. a listing of investigations referred for administrative investigation; iii. a listing of all investigations referred to an appropriate law enforcement agency and the name of the agency; and iv. a listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.
41

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 42 of 83
v. a description of any corrective actions or changes in policies, procedures, or practices made as a result of investigations over the reporting period.
g. Jail management shall review the periodic report to determine whether the investigation system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement and make recommendations regarding the investigation system or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations will be documented and provided to the Monitor and United States.
Partial Compliance There has been no substantive change with regard to this paragraph since the Second Monitoring Report. Compliance with this paragraph cannot be achieved until the P&P Manual is revised and issued to all personnel and documentation is available to verify that actions taken are consistent with those policies and procedures. The number of IAD investigative reports submitted through Dropbox actually reflects a decrease during the current reporting period. In one case, a Detention Officer was found to be guilty of making a false statement, refusal or non-compliance with a direct lawful order and making improper use of his official position to include introduction of contraband to the facility. Although appropriate action may have been taken by the HCSO, there is no documentation of the disposition of the investigation that has been provided to the Monitor to date even though the IAD investigation is dated August 14, 2017.
GRIEVANCE AND PRISONER INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Because a reporting system provides early notice of potential constitutional violations and an opportunity to prevent more serious problems before they occur, the County must develop and implement a grievance system. To that end:
69. The grievance system must permit prisoners to confidentially report grievances without requiring the intervention of a detention officer.
Partial Compliance The use of the new kiosk system will eventually allow the prisoners to report grievances without the intervention of detention officers. However, the system is newly implemented and is not working as it should. A number of prisoners reported that when they try to submit a grievance the system will not accept their pin and they are kicked out of the system. Corrections officers confirmed that this is true. Staff have not identified an alternative method for submitting grievances for those prisoners. The system at the Work Center was completely non-functioning at the time of the site visit and the facility had reverted to paper grievances. Improvements to the system should be addressed promptly. In the interim, prisoners that cannot access the kiosk system should be able to submit paper grievances. The Inmate Handbook will need to be updated and will need to provide more detail to assist prisoners in using the system. The grievance
42

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 43 of 83
protocol in the current Handbook does not even reflect the process that was in place prior to the kiosks being implemented. Medical grievances are unusually low for the size of the population. This should be evaluated to ensure that prisoners understand that the grievance process can be used for medical grievances.
70. Grievance policies and procedures must be applicable and standardized across the entire Jail.
Non-Compliant It was reported that there is now one Inmate Handbook that applies to all facilities. However, that Inmate Handbook, as noted above, describes a grievance procedure that has not existed in any of the facilities since the time monitoring began. Also, as noted above, because of problems with the kiosk system, the Work Center is not using the kiosk system. There should be training of staff on the kiosk system so that they can assist prisoners as needed.
71. All grievances must receive appropriate follow-up, including a timely written response by an impartial reviewer and staff tracking of whether resolutions have been implemented or still need implementation. Any response to a medical grievance or a grievance alleging threats or violence to the grievant or others that exceeds 24 hours shall be presumed untimely.
Partial Compliance The new system creates a spreadsheet to track grievances and responses. The Grievance Officer can track who has been assigned to respond to a grievance on the spreadsheet. There are currently several problems with the process that prevent compliance. The person assigned to respond to a grievance is assigned based on housing and subject matter. However, this results in some situations in the responding individual not being impartial. The assignments need to be evaluated both generally and in the specific case to ensure that an impartial person is reviewing the grievance. At least one grievance was marked as resolved because it was referred to an individual to resolve. Referral alone does not constitute a resolution. At RDC, there is no one routinely checking to ensure that all grievances have been responded to and no one ensuring whether resolutions have been implemented. The new system has no means known to staff for marking a grievance as an emergency or otherwise identifying emergent grievances.
The number of grievances reported to medical for RDC seems very low. There was one grievance in June, 2 in July, 9 in August, and 15 grievances in September. The grievances were for a variety of issues with delayed care being the most frequent followed by missed medication. One inmate that was a diabetic requested his diabetic shoes from his property. The response was that it was not a medical issue. The need for diabetic shoes is a medical issue in that a diabetic inmate may develop ulcers due to poor fitting shoes. The physician should examine this patient. QCHC must coordinate with security when there are grievances that might involve security
43

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 44 of 83
rather than deny those grievances as non-medical. A similar impasse was reached with an inmate requesting a Kosher diet. QCHC would not order the diet because it was not a medical issue. The Jail would not allow the diet without an order from medical. The failure to provide the diet, however, resulted in the inmate refusing to eat and having increased mental health symptoms. All grievances were answered within 5 days. Medical grievances go directly to the medical department.
72. The grievance system must accommodate prisoners who have physical or cognitive disabilities, are illiterate, or have LEP, so that these prisoners have meaningful access to the grievance system.
Non-Compliant The staff is currently not well-trained on the capabilities of the system. They will need to be trained so that they can assist prisoners with accessing the system once it is functional. Staff did not know whether a different language could be selected and utilized with the system. Neither did staff know whether it had a voice recognition feature. These questions should be addressed to the vendor. Currently, the staff assumes that other prisoners will assist with prisoners who cannot access the current system. This does not meet the requirements of this paragraph.
73. The County must ensure that all current and newly admitted prisoners receive information about prison rules and procedures. The County must provide such information through an inmate handbook and, at the discretion of the Jail, an orientation video, regarding the following topics: understanding the Jail’s disciplinary process and rules and regulations; reporting misconduct; reporting sexual abuse, battery, and assault; accessing medical and mental health care; emergency procedures; visitation; accessing the grievance process; and prisoner rights. The County must provide such information in appropriate languages for prisoners with LEP.
Non-Compliant As noted above, the grievance procedure described in the Inmate Handbook is not the one that is utilized and would not be consistent with paragraph 69 above. There is nothing in the Handbook describing how to report misconduct, sexual abuse, or battery and assault. The procedure for a medical or other inmate request is now outdated. The Handbook does not describe prisoner rights. Punishment is being assigned in excess of that listed for rules infractions. It was previously reported that a translation into Spanish was being worked on but that has not been provided.
RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SEGREGATION
44

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 45 of 83
In order to ensure compliance with constitutional standards and to prevent unnecessary harm to prisoners, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to limit the use of segregation. To that end, this Agreement imposes the following restrictions and requirements:
74. Within 8 hours of intake, prisoners in the booking cells must be classified and housed in more appropriate long-term housing where staff will provide access to exercise, meals, and other services.
Partial Compliance During the October site visit, discussions with Classification staff set in place procedures which should make it possible for all detainees to be classified and assigned to appropriate housing within 24 hours of entry to the RDC. While this still does not comply with the requirement that classification take place within eight hours of intake, it represents another step toward compliance with that standard. Although it was previously reported that the single cells in Booking were no longer used for long term housing, during the October site visit it was discovered that an inmate with medical issues was, once again, housed there in a negative pressure cell. The situation was immediately rectified and the inmate was placed in a negative pressure cell in the Medical Unit.
At the RDC none of the housing units are properly designed to serve as a confinement/segregation unit. The recommendations that were made in the Second Monitoring Report need to be implemented. Confinement housing should be sub-divided into small components of from four to sixteen cells (modules) within a 48 to 64 cell unit. Without this design feature the job of keeping problem prisoners separate from each other is extremely difficult. Because the configuration at the RDC has 50 or more cells opening to a common day room, it is impossible to allow each inmate out of the cell individually in a 24 hour period. Segregation housing is very labor intensive to operate. Realistically, three officers are required to operate a 64 bed confinement unit. All of these issues are exacerbated at the RDC because the shortage of officers makes it impossible to assign one to many of the adult housing units.
The monitoring team as a group interviewed several patients that were in lockdown. The conditions in the segregation unit reflected significant problems. Inmates reported being in fear of their lives, unable to file grievances, denied a religious diet, and having insufficient light with the lights in the cells being non-functional. Time did not permit the monitoring team to verify all of the information provided by the inmates. It was verified that one inmate had been in altercations with other inmates and the lighting in the cells was poor with most of the cell ceiling lights being non-functional. It was also verified that a Kosher diet was not being provided. The inmates were shouting and throwing food and other items out of their cells.
45

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 46 of 83
75. The County must document the placement and removal of all prisoners to and from segregation.
Non-Compliant There has been little change in the status of this paragraph. Documentation of inmates housed in the two, five bed confinement/segregation modules at the WC were found to be current although well-being checks were conducted at 30 minute, rather than 15 minute intervals. The same conditions were found at the JDC. During an inspection of HU B-3, which is currently designated as a segregation housing area, the well-being logs taped to the front of each cell were all signed by the officer at precisely the same time in exact 30 minute increments—a physical impossibility. On the following day, the well-being logs were no longer taped to the cell fronts; instead, they were located in the officer’s Unit Log.
76. Qualified Mental Health Professionals must conduct mental health rounds at least once a week (in a private setting if necessary to elicit accurate information), to assess the mental health status of all prisoners in segregation and the effect of segregation on each prisoner’s mental health, in order to determine whether continued placement in segregation is appropriate. These mental health rounds must not be a substitute for treatment.
Non-Compliant Segregation rounds are conducted by nursing staff on a daily basis at all three facilities. Nurses see each patient that is housed in segregation. Units that are utilized include B-3 and B-3 Isolation. The social worker conducts segregation rounds on all inmates placed in segregation twice a week. There is no notification by correctional staff prior to placement of an inmate on disciplinary sanctions or suicide precautions.
77. The County must develop and implement restrictions on the segregation of prisoners with serious mental illness. These safeguards must include the following:
a. All decisions to place a prisoner with serious mental illness in segregation must include the input of a Qualified Mental Health Professional who has conducted a face-to-face evaluation of the prisoner in a confidential setting, is familiar with the details of the available clinical history, and has considered the prisoner’s mental health needs and history.
b. Segregation must be presumed contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness.
c. Within 24 hours of placement in segregation, all prisoners on the mental health caseload must be screened by a Qualified Mental Health Professional to
46

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 47 of 83
determine whether the prisoner has serious mental illness, and whether there are any acute mental health contraindications to segregation. d. If a Qualified Mental Health Professional finds that a prisoner has a serious mental illness or exhibits other acute mental health contraindications to segregation, that prisoner must not be placed or remain in segregation absent documented extraordinary and exceptional circumstances (i.e. for an immediate and serious danger which may arise during unusual emergency situations, such as a riot or during the booking of a severely psychotic, untreated, violent prisoner, and which should last only as long as the emergency conditions remain present). e. Documentation of such extraordinary and exceptional circumstances must be in writing. Such documentation must include the reasons for the decision, a comprehensive interdisciplinary team review, and the names and dated signatures of all staff members approving the decision. f. Prisoners with serious mental illness who are placed in segregation must be offered a heightened level of care that includes the following: i. If on medication, the prisoner must receive at least one daily visit from a
Qualified Medical Professional. ii. The prisoner must be offered a face-to-face, therapeutic, out-of-cell
session with a Qualified Mental Health Professional at least once per week. iii. If the prisoner is placed in segregation for more than 24 hours, he or she must have his or her case reviewed by a Qualified Mental Health Professional, in conjunction with a Jail physician and psychiatrist, on a weekly basis. g. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, A Qualified Mental Health Professional will assess all prisoners with serious mental illness housed in long-term segregation. This assessment must include a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Prisoners requiring follow-up for additional clinical assessment or care must promptly receive such assessment and care. h. If a prisoner on segregation decompensates or otherwise develops signs or symptoms of serious mental illness, where such signs or symptoms had not previously been identified, the prisoner must immediately be referred for appropriate assessment and treatment by a Qualified Mental Health Professional. Any such referral must also result in a documented evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Signs or symptoms requiring assessment or treatment under this clause include a deterioration in cognitive, physical, or
47

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 48 of 83
verbal function; delusions; self-harm; or behavior indicating a heightened risk of suicide (e.g., indications of depression after a sentencing hearing). i. The treatment and housing of prisoners with serious mental illness must be coordinated and overseen by the Interdisciplinary Team (or Teams), and guided by formal, written treatment plans. The Interdisciplinary Team must include both medical and security staff, but access to patient healthcare information must remain subject to legal restrictions based on patient privacy rights. The intent of this provision is to have an Interdisciplinary Team serve as a mechanism for balancing security and medical concerns, ensuring cooperation between security and medical staff, while also protecting the exercise of independent medical judgment and each prisoner’s individual rights. j. Nothing in this Agreement should be interpreted to authorize security staff, including the Jail Administrator, to make medical or mental health treatment decisions, or to overrule physician medical orders.
Non-Compliant Some RDC segregation practices can be thought to inflict further harm on inmates suffering from inadequate medical care. Inmates in these cells receive less contact with and less monitoring by providers than the acuity of their condition demands. When they are released to the general population inmates receive little follow-up care. Due to the effects of isolation, placement in segregation endangers mentally ill inmates and the risk of harm increases with the length of isolation and severity of their mental illness. Despite these dangers RDC does not have a meaningful mechanism that allows mental health staff to review an inmate’s chart prior to placement. Moreover, many mental health patients end up in segregation as a result of symptoms of mental illness and as described under suicide prevention, many inmates try to commit suicide in segregation cells.
There are no interdisciplinary team meetings. Mental health staff should meet with the Major, Classification officer, Captain on a weekly basis to discuss housing, treatment goals and medications for seriously mental ill offenders. The meetings should last no longer than 30-45 minutes and two or three of the most mentally ill inmates should be discussed. When the unit designated as a mental health unit is actually operated as a therapeutic mental health unit as required by paragraph 42(g)(vi), the interdisciplinary team meeting should take place with the staff of that unit.
YOUTHFUL PRISONERS
As long as the County houses youthful prisoners, it must develop and implement policies and procedures for their supervision, management, education, and treatment consistent with federal
48

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 49 of 83
law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482. Within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will determine where it will house youthful prisoners. During those six months, the County will consult with the United States, the monitor of the Henley Young Juvenile Detention Center Settlement Agreement, and any other individuals or entities whose input is relevant. The United States will support the County’s efforts to secure appropriate housing for youthful prisoners, including supervised release. Within 18 months after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will have completed transitioning to any new or replacement youthful prisoner housing facility.
Partial Compliance The County has taken a significant step toward compliance with this requirement. Specifically, beginning September 1, the transition of Youthful Prisoners (Juveniles Charged as Adults – JCAs) began by placing “new” JCAs at the Henley Young Juvenile Justice Center (hereinafter referred to as Henley Young). In this case, “new” refers to JCAs that had not already been in placement at the RDC other than for a short time, i.e. a few days following booking up to one youth indicating he had been at RDC about three weeks. As of this site visit, five JCAs were housed at Henley Young. Consequently, the number of JCAs remaining at the RDC is diminishing, with eleven JCAs in placement as of the start of the site visit. During the week of the site visit, two of those youth turned age 18 and were transferred to an adult unit at RDC, leaving nine JCAs at RDC at the end of the site visit. The current plan is to continue this transition. In order to meet the requirement of the Agreement, all JCAs would have to be transitioned out of RDC by January 19, 2018 (note previous report erroneously referenced this date as June 2018). None of the youth remaining at RDC will turn 18 prior to that date so absent changes in their court case that results in placement elsewhere these youths will need to be moved. These remaining JCAs present greater challenges in transitioning to Henley Young, at least in part resulting from their long-term confinement at the RDC and the resulting “adultification” they have experienced by being housed in a setting that has offered little programming, minimal mental health services, often inadequate supervision, and generally poor living conditions. The concerns related to transitioning remaining JCAs is echoed in the September 25, 2017 Henley Young Monitoring report filed by Mr. Leonard Dixon, the courtappointed monitor for the Hinds County/Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Consent Decree related to the Henley Young facility.
Pertinent sections of that report include:
“During my visit to the County Jail, the young adult unit was in extreme poor condition, no programs were available, the young adults were constantly on lockdown and there were inadequate supervision for them. Transitioning from a jail environment which is run by sworn officers to Henley-Young which is staffed with unsworn staff may lead to an increase in violence toward both staff and residents. This will have to be addressed and managed properly.
49

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 50 of 83
If this transition is to occur I would recommend a slow transfer of these young adults into Henley-Young to mitigate the negative impacts from integrating these young adults into a relatively structured facility. An initial carefully planned selective transitional program should be developed to slowly move these young adults a few at a time into Henley-Young on a weekly or biweekly basis. This transition process is critical if the facility is to maintain its compliance with the consent decree. There also needs to be additional security for these adult inmates. The physical plant needs greater security hardware (i.e. fencing for outdoors, outdoors ground security, outdoor windows security etc.) and new stringent staffing security protocols in place before this transition takes place…. and
I am concerned that the integration of young adults into Henley-Young may possibly jeopardize and potentially undermine all the hard work and effort put in place by the County if the above- mentioned recommendations are not carefully considered or adhered to”.1
The decision to utilize Henley Young for JCAs does create an immediate conflict with the Hinds County/SPLC Consent Decree related to the maximum length of stay (21 days) that will need to be resolved. It is our understanding that the parties for both cases are aware of this conflict, and some resolution of that conflict will need to occur. The court should be advised of any progress on this issue.
Finally, as noted in the initial Baseline Report and as referenced in other reports, making this transition successful (safe for all youth and staff as well as meeting both Agreement requirements), additional steps will need to be taken, including but not limited to: 1. Continue to house “new” JCAs (male and female) at Henley Young after booking at RDC; 2. Additional physical plant modifications related to perimeter and living unit security; 3. Constructing of additional classroom, multi-purpose, and recreational programming space(s)
that will permit proper programming, classification, and supervision for all youth at Henley Young; 4. Reviewing staffing alignment and positions to ensure additional staffing and supports as additional JCAs are transferred from RDC. While the Henley Young agreement calls for a direct supervision staff/youth ratio of 1/8, a 1/6 ratio for the JCA youth that remain at RDC is recommended; 5. Addressing case processing concerns in the adult system that has resulted in very lengthy periods of confinement for JCAs at RDC and, absent changes will result in similar lengths of stay at Henley Young. This not only delays resolution of the youth’s case but also increases the likelihood that the population of JCAs at Henley Young will grow and create additional challenges for operation of the facility as a whole. Note that the Dixon Monitoring Report
1 Dixon, Leonard. Henley Young Compliance Monitoring Report. J.H., ET AL, Vs. Hinds County Mississippi. Filed September 25, 2017. pp. 11-12.
50

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 51 of 83
provides some specific recommendations in this regard that would provide more timely and appropriate outcomes for JCAs; 6. Making structural improvements to the living units that will support more effective supervision and programming for youth including:
a. Installing soundproofing materials (e.g. acoustic ceiling tiles, acoustic wall panels, carpeting in portions of the floor) to reduce the noise level created by normal adolescent behavior(s); noise that makes it not only difficult to properly interact with/supervise youth but also adds to the overall noise level that unnecessarily elevates the emotional level of youth;
b. Removing the steel tables and replace them with movable, security grade tables and chairs that are more comfortable, flexible, and permit rearrangement for purposes of programming in small groups, separation of youth within a unit, and/or even individual program purposes; and
7. Continuing to implement practices and policies that limit the number of non-JCA youth confined at Henley Young. In recent months, the average daily population of non-JCA youth has declined considerably, making it possible to “free up” at least one, and possibly two, housing units for JCA youth. This has been accomplished in large part by implementing a detention screening tool that helps limit youth being admitted, authorizing the release of youth that can be supervised in the community, reducing the use of Henley Young for probation violations, and ensuring timely processing of cases in the youth court. Use of Henley Young for non-JCA youth should be limited to those youth that pose a danger to the community or circumstances in which it is necessary to secure a youth’s appearance in court; and for those youth only as long as those conditions remain a concern. Continued administrative and judicial leadership to support alternatives to confinement will be critical to making it possible to utilize Henley Young safely and effectively for all youth.
All of these steps will become increasingly important as the number of JCAs at Henley Young grows, so proper planning (including needed funding) for/implementation of these changes should be done as soon as possible.
REPORTING COMPLIANCE ON THE REMAINING CONDITIONS WILL REFERENCE ONE/BOTH LOCATIONS AS APPROPRIATE.
For any youthful prisoners in custody, the County must:
78. Develop and implement a screening, assessment and treatment program to ensure that youth with serious mental illness and disabilities, including developmental disabilities, receive appropriate programs, supports, education, and services.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young
51

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 52 of 83
Moving to Partial Compliance on this component is solely the result of transitioning some youth to the Henley Young facility. Any JCAs booked at RDC and then housed at Henley Young are screened for mental health concerns using the MAYSI-II, a common screening tool that is appropriate for use with adolescents. Additionally, the County has hired three additional case managers to help support individualized planning and services and has been in the process of hiring an on-site psychologist. However, the case manager positions are relatively new and the nature of their role and responsibilities is still being developed; and, the psychologist position remains unfilled, as a previous offer was made to a potential employee but that offer was ultimately rejected. Based on interviews with staff at Henley Young, comments included in Mr. Dixon’s recent report are appropriate. Work on roles and policies are in the early stages but the progress is promising.
As noted in the prior Compliance Report, implementing a more comprehensive mental health program also means integrating what is known about the mental health needs of youthful prisoners with multiple requirements of the operation including reducing the use of seclusion/restraints, increased training for staff supervising youth, and development of a behavioral management program. Significant progress toward this goal has been made at Henley Young, including developing a contractual relationship for various services with the Hinds County Behavioral Health unit, and will be evaluated further in subsequent visits.
Finally, further information related to this requirement may be available upon receipt of a report by Dr. Boesky, the consultant hired to assess mental health services for the Henley Young Consent Decree.
Non-Compliant at RDC There is no evidence of any change in how JCAs confined at RDC are screened and/or served in relation to the various components required in this provision. Mental health services remain limited to dealing with crisis situations (i.e. suicide concerns) and issues related to psychotropic medications (i.e. adjustments in medications). Thus, there is no evidence of any substantive programming/services to deal with issues related to developmental disabilities or integration of any such services into a behavioral health approach to addressing the needs of youth at RDC.
In the last Compliance Report, it was noted that there were increasing concerns about the number and nature of incidents for JCAs of suicide ideation/expression, but in reviewing the RDC youth’s files and other information provided by the County, that concern has subsided in recent months; perhaps consistent with the reduction in the number of youth at RDC.
52

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 53 of 83
On a positive note, Deputy Newell has been given the task of developing some additional supportive life skill programming for adults, including young adults, at RDC. He has recruited fifteen volunteers to offer a variety of group programs that inmates can participate in, for example decision-making, AODA support, money management, anger management, parenthood, etc. Those programs are being planned to be implemented in later October/early November, and review of progress in this regard can be done during the next site visit.
Recommendations: 1. Assuming the transition of JCAs to Henley Young continues, the case manager recently
employed to work with the JCA youth at Henley Young should begin outreach to the remaining JCAs at RDC to begin a more complete assessment process and assist in the transition of those youth to Henley Young; and 2. The County should continue efforts to secure a psychologist for Henley Young consistent with the terms of that Consent Decree or, at a minimum, on a contractual basis.
79. Ensure that youth receive adequate free appropriate education, including special education.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young Education services at Henley Young are provided by the Jackson Public School (JPS) system. As youth transition to Henley Young they are assessed by JPS staff related to their education status including whether they have been receiving special education services. This is a first step in meeting the condition of this requirement, but at this point the determination has been made that only youth 15 and under will be integrated into the regular JPS program at Henley Young. The current plan calls for the 16 & 17 year old JCAs placed at Henley Young to be placed in a developing GED instruction/testing program. For some youth that will be an appropriate placement, while for others it will not likely be consistent with what is appropriate and/or legally required (particularly for youth that are eligible for special education services). Unfortunately, the majority of youth already at Henley Young as well as those remaining to be transferred from RDC fall in the 16-17 year old category.
Further concerns related to the education program at Henley Young include (1) whether or not the amount of instructional time provided for youth is consistent with state requirements, and (2) whether youth at Henley Young are provided services in a way that will permit them to keep up with where they were at academically prior to admission and/or whether they are able to receive credit (time and/or actual course credit) that will support successful reentry back into the community and a school program at the time of release.
These concerns are even more relevant for JCA youth for longer periods of time, periods that will likely span multiple academic semesters. In some ways, having youth for longer periods of
53

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 54 of 83
time should enable JPS to provide a more complete education program, e.g. assess needs and gather appropriate educational records, provide individualized programming, provide remedial support as needed to allow youth to “catch up”, and ultimately provide credits that can be applied to subsequent programming.
In addition to meeting the needs of youth while placed at Henley Young, it will be increasingly important that there is adequate programming at RDC for those youth who “age out” of Henley Young and return to RDC and/or that there is sufficient transition planning done to ensure that youth receive required/appropriate services no matter where they ultimately are released to/placed at.
Finally, the state of compliance with this requirement will be further informed by a pending report being submitted to Mr. Dixon by Carol Kramer-Brooks, a well-respected expert on educating youth in confinement. Conclusions and recommendations in that report will be reviewed and assist in planning the next site visit.
Non-Compliant at the Raymond Detention Center The JCAs at RDC have continued to benefit, albeit on a very limited basis, from the continued support of a volunteer for Adult Basic Education (ABE) services. With a reduced number of youth to serve, the volunteer has been focusing more on providing individualized instruction, but that remains limited to two-three times/week for relatively brief periods of time (e.g. 1-2 hours). As noted in the prior report, the ABE program is dependent on the availability and interest of the volunteer, and that person is not certified to fully assess educational needs or administer GED testing (if appropriate). Leadership reported that they are in the process of recruiting a certified GED instructor that will enable increased services for young adults, but it is not clear to what extent that individual will serve JCAs if/when that position is secured.
There remains no routine screening process (other than assessment related to ABE skills) to determine whether and what educational services a juvenile or youthful offender was engaged in prior to admission that would help determine what the appropriate, and often legally required, services should be for the youth while confined. As well as providing some increased GED programming for adults, as JCAs are transitioned out of RDC there will still be a need to assess young adults placed at RDC that may be eligible for special education services.
80. Ensure that youth are properly separated by sight and sound from adult prisoners.
Substantial Compliance at Henley Young Since there are no adult prisoners placed at Henley Young, this provision is met, and as JCA youth in placement turn 18, they will be transferred to RDC.
54

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 55 of 83
Partial Compliance at the Raymond Detention Center Youth are housed in a separate unit so that the potential for contact with adults is minimized. The initial Policies and Procedures provided, however, fall short of emphasizing the need for this separation/proper supervision to be carried through all aspects of the operation, lacking reference to how youth might be moved throughout the facility, e.g. to medical, the classroom, or holding/transportation to court. Further revision of Policies/Procedures has apparently been contracted out to Jackson State University and the timeline for completion is uncertain but not imminent.. Any revision (as well as related training) should clearly include a requirement to document (via an Incident Report) any instance in which improper contact occurs.
As noted in prior reports, there is no evidence of signage or consistent policies that indicate appropriate attention to the requirements of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) related to youthful offenders, including separation and supervision.
81. Ensure that the Jail’s classification and housing assignment system does not merely place all youth in the same housing unit, without adequate separation based on classification standards. Instead, the system must take into account classification factors that differ even within the youth sub-class of prisoners. These factors include differences in age, dangerousness, likelihood of victimization, and sex/gender.
Partial Compliance at the Raymond Detention Center and Henley Young With only one unit in RDC, this provision cannot be fully met. Separation of some JCAs has been achieved simply through the process of placing new JCAs at Henley Young. The number of youth remaining at RDC has declined as noted, and the youth remaining tend to be older and have alleged to have committed very serious offenses.
At this point in time, the JCA youth at Henley Young are assigned to one housing unit. As the transition continues it may be possible to utilize two of the Henley Young housing units in a way that permits appropriate classification, but that will be dependent on a number of factors, including: (1) maintaining the number of non-JCA youth as low as possible; (2) reconciling any conflicts between this Settlement Agreement and the SPLC/Hinds County Consent Decree; and (3) the creation of additional program space(s).
The criteria and process for classification will need to be finalized and evaluated as additional youth are transferred from RDC.
82. Train staff members assigned to supervise youth on the Jail’s youth-specific policies and procedures, as well as on age-appropriate supervision and treatment strategies. The County must ensure that such specialized training includes training on the supervision and treatment of youth, child and adolescent development, behavioral management, crisis intervention, conflict
55

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 56 of 83
management, child abuse, juvenile rights, the juvenile justice system, youth suicide prevention and mental health, behavioral observation and reporting, gang intervention, and de-escalation.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young Supervising staff at Henley Young receive basic detention officer certification through the state. In reviewing that standard curriculum and notes from Mr. Dixon’s most recent report, I agree that the focus of that training provides some baseline knowledge that is useful, but it lacks the kind of focus on working with youthful offenders that is needed be effective with juveniles and young adults. In addition to this state training and the facility orientation training, all staff apparently receives Non-Violent Crisis Intervention training (and refresher training) certified by the Crisis Prevention Institute. This is a curriculum that is commonly used in juvenile detention settings and places an emphasis on verbal de-escalation skills and, if necessary, restraint and protection skills that are safe and more appropriate when used with juveniles.
Time did not permit a full review of training records, but Mr. Dixon’s report indicates that there is good documentation related to staff training. Henley Young is making notable progress toward substantial compliance, and continuing to develop specific training programs related to adolescent development, professional communications, mental health, gang recognition skills, behavior management, and dealing with suicide/self-harm behaviors will further advance the safety and effectiveness of the facility for all youth, not just the JCAs. Further review of all training records and curriculum at Henley Young should be a priority for the next site visit.
Non-Compliant at the Raymond Detention Center The last specialized training for supervising youthful prisoners was held in June prior to the site visit. Ten staff participated in the training, although seven of the ten are staff currently assigned to the JDC, leaving only three RDC staff receiving the training. And, it appears that no effort has been made to then clearly assign those trained staff to the juvenile unit (A-1) with the exception of Sgt. Tower. While the general course of training for new detention officers does include some basic elements that are appropriate for juveniles, the lack of additional training and lack of focus on assigning specific staff to the juvenile unit is of significant concern. Overall this is a step backward from the prior plan to train more officers and assign them to the juvenile unit.
That concern was perhaps best illustrated by an incident on August 27 when a juvenile, D.C., ended up with a broken jaw resulting from a fight with another juvenile on the unit. In reviewing the Incident Report, speaking with Warden Rushing and Mr. Bennis (Internal Affairs), and viewing the video recording of the lead-up to the incident, it was clear that there were three to four points in the minutes before the fight occurred in which a more experienced and welltrained officer could have and likely would have intervened to prevent the fight from occurring. So, while there was an officer providing direct supervision on the unit (recall prior concerns that there were periods of time when a staff was not on the unit), the officer did not respond at all to
56

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 57 of 83
the precursors of the fight and in fact did not respond after either. It was not until some other youth helped D.C. down the stairs and brought him to attention of the next staff member on the unit that medical support was called. Per the report(s) D.C had significant injuries that required the use of oxygen, transport to the hospital, and eventually having his jaw wired shut. D.C. was then placed in isolation in a medical monitoring unit and was still on that unit at the time of this site visit. Of additional concern is that the Internal Affairs follow up report of the incident had not been completed at the time of the site visit, and the conclusion that the officer essentially did nothing overtly wrong is confusing at best. Clearly, negligence on the part of the officer in failing to intervene was a contributing factor in the resulting incident.
Recommendations included in the prior report remain largely appropriate as long as juveniles remain at RDC, including: (1) training any/all staff working with youthful prisoners (keeping in mind that much of the training is appropriate for supervising young adult offenders as well as youth under age 18); (2) assigning only properly trained staff to the juvenile unit; (3) training key supervisory staff so they can properly reinforce the training that was received and properly evaluate officer performance; (4) and integrating knowledge gained in the training in development of a behavioral management program and related policies/procedures.
83. Specifically prohibit the use of segregation as a disciplinary sanction for youth. Segregation may be used on a youth only when the individual’s behavior threatens imminent harm to the youth or others. This provision is in addition to, and not a substitute, for the provisions of this Agreement that apply to the use of segregation in general. In addition:
a. Prior to using segregation, staff members must utilize less restrictive techniques such as verbal de-escalation and individual counseling, by qualified mental health or other staff trained on the management of youth.
b. Prior to placing a youth in segregation, or immediately thereafter, a staff member must explain to the youth the reasons for the segregation, and the fact that the youth will be released upon regaining self-control.
c. Youth may be placed in segregation only for the amount of time necessary for the individual to regain self-control and no longer pose an immediate threat. As soon as the youth’s behavior no longer threatens imminent harm to the youth or others, the County must release the individual back to their regular detention location, school or other programming.
d. If a youth is placed in segregation, the County must immediately provide one-on-one crisis intervention and observation.
e. The County must specifically document and record the use of segregation on youth as part of its incident reporting and quality assurance systems.
f. A Qualified Medical Professional, or staff member who has completed all training required for supervising youth, must directly monitor any youth in segregation at least
57

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 58 of 83
every fifteen (15) minutes. Such observation must be documented immediately after each check. g. Youth may not be held in segregation for a continuous period longer than one (1) hour during waking hours. If staff members conclude that a youth is not sufficiently calm to allow a break in segregation after one hour, they must contact a Qualified Mental Health Professional. The Qualified Mental Health Professional must assess the youth and determine whether the youth requires treatment or services not available in the Jail. If the youth requires mental health services that are not provided by the Jail, the Qualified Mental Health Provider must immediately notify the Jail Administrator and promptly arrange for hospitalization or other treatment services. h. If a youth is held in segregation for a continuous period longer than two (2) hours, Staff Members must notify the Jail Administrator. i. Any notifications or assessments required by this paragraph must be documented in the youth’s individual record.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young Based on conversations with staff and youth, segregation as defined in this agreement is uncommon in that there are short periods of time when youth may be confined to a cell for disciplinary reasons but not for a majority of waking hours. This is consistent with the general operation of a reasonable behavior management system in which most of the behavior is managed by adhering to a full daily routine of constructive pro-social activities, promoting sound direct supervision practices, and shaping behaviors through use of a well-designed incentive system.
However, it is apparent that policies do permit the use of cell confinement/segregation for up to three days for non-JCA youth and up to five days for JCA youth. Further review of the policies, practices, and documentation related to the use of cell confinement will need to be completed during the next site visit.
While there are some differences in the language of the Henley Young Consent Decree and this Agreement, Mr. Dixon’s most recent report does reference those requirements and includes the following:
During this visit and my review of documentation, I found that the facility was not abusing isolation practices. However, I would recommend the administration closely review incidents reports to ensure that staff is accurate when placing residents in confinement (i.e. Resident M.C. on 2/9/2017 was escorted back to B Pod however there is no mention of the resident going to his room; Resident J.P. on 2/15/2017 was escorted back to his pod again there was no mention of the resident placed in his room after flooding his room; Resident J.P. on 2/9/2017 he was escorted to his room B101 but there is no indication that he was placed on BMI for 15 minutes to cool down and Resident L.M. on 6/13/2017 was escorted to his room for acting out however there is no indication that he was placed in his room even though the
58

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 59 of 83
incident report shows that he was placed in his room). These are areas that must be persistently monitored.2
Note that his specific concerns relate to documentation (rather than evidence of the overuse of cell confinement), which is critical for ensuring staff accountability and overall compliance with proper policies. Overall, implementing a comprehensive behavior management system that includes the strategic use of various forms of “time outs” or short term room confinement (e.g. up to one hour) for disciplinary purposes only when necessary is a fairly complex task. Mr. Dixon’s recommendations that this continue to be a focus of policy development and staff training is appropriate.
Non-Compliant at the Raymond Detention Center There remains no evidence of sufficient policies/procedures or documentation related to the use of room confinement or other forms of isolation/segregation for youth, although youth report that use of extended room confinement is not occurring. In a discussion with Sgt. Tower she continues to report that there were occasional times when she addressed behavioral concerns by placing youth in their cell for short periods of time, e.g. 30 minutes, to calm a situation of concern that she was observing. However, as noted earlier, the youth that had his jaw broken in the incident of August 27 was placed in a medical isolation cell since the incident and complained of being able to be out of his cell on rare occasion and not having hot water for a shower. While concerns about his health and the potential of risk of further harm if returned to the juvenile unit were legitimate, something other than extended isolation in this manner should be developed for such cases. Per Warden Rushing, the plan was for the youth to return to the juvenile unit the week following the October site visit.
Recommendation: Steps toward compliance can be made by (1) developing clear policies/procedures, consistent with the Agreement requirements, related to the use of segregation or other forms of isolation/confinement for disciplinary purposes; and (2) keeping a room confinement log that documents any period of time in which a youth is placed in segregation/room confinement for disciplinary purposes that includes the name of the youth, the time confined, the officer implementing the confinement, brief reason for the confinement, and any involvement of medical/mental health staff to review confinement if it is extended; and (3) require the writing of an Incident Report for any such confinement that exceeds one hour.
84. Develop and implement a behavioral treatment program appropriate for youth. This program must be developed with the assistance of a qualified consultant who has at least five years of experience developing behavioral programs for institutionalized youth. The Jail’s behavioral program must include all of the following elements:
2 Dixon, Leonard. Henley Young Compliance Monitoring Report. J.H., ET AL, Vs. Hinds County Mississippi. Filed September 25, 2017. p.14.
59

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 60 of 83
a. The behavioral program must include positive incentives for changing youth behavior, outline prohibited behaviors, and describe the consequences for prohibited behaviors.
b. An individualized program must be developed by a youth’s interdisciplinary treatment team, and properly documented in each youth’s personal file. Documentation requirements must include the collection of data required for proper assessment and treatment of youth with behavioral issues. For instance, the County must track the frequency and duration of positive incentives, segregation, and targeted behaviors.
c. The program must include safeguards and prohibitions on the inappropriate use of restraints, segregation, and corporal punishment.
Partial Compliance at Henley Young In moving toward compliance with the County/SPLC Consent Decree, many steps have been taken to develop staffing and programming to meet the requirements of this paragraph. For example: 1. Three case managers have been hired to work with youth in placement to provide some
individualized counseling, provide some group programming, serve as a link to other needed resources to address behavioral and mental health needs, and keep youth informed of their court status. As this role is further developed, the case manager can be a facilitator for the kind of treatment team approach envisioned in this requirement; 2. The County continues searching for a psychologist on an employee or contractual basis to provide support for on-going treatment of all youth, including the JCA youth; 3. A rudimentary point/level system is in place that links expectations for youth to various privileges/rewards they can earn, and the JCAs interviewed all referenced some activities and privileges they had received. This system remains a work in progress, as there are a number of improvements that can be made as it is used for all youth; but, particularly it should be enhanced with additional requirements/incentives for JCA youth (e.g. provide for individualized goal-setting, compliance with additional programming expectations, use of peer support, etc.); 4. Based on brief conversations with staff and youth and consistent with the information included in Mr. Dixon’s most recent report, there is a daily schedule of programming that keeps youth relatively active and engaged in a variety of constructive activities. Keeping youth active in “normalized” activities is an important component of managing the behavior of youth in the facility as well as promoting more effective reentry when they are released; and 5. Use of isolation, extensive cell confinement, use of restraints, and corporal punishment are not permitted according to facility policies/procedures. Disciplinary procedures do provide for periods of cell confinement for up to three days (non-JCA youth) or five days (JCAs), but actual use for any/all youth appears to be for short periods of time, e.g. hours to several
60

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 61 of 83
hours. However, further review of policies/procedures and the documentation of the use of cell confinement for disciplinary or safety purposes will need to be done on future visits.
While there remains room for improvement on these requirements, certainly Henley Young is much further along in meeting them than anything that has developed at RDC. Additional information related to this requirement is available in Mr. Dixon’s most recent report, but further review of policies/procedures should take place on the next site visit.
Recommendation: While the fact that a point//level system exists is a big step toward compliance, the system should be improved in various ways, including: (1) further integration of that system along with increasing the variety of programming (e.g. cognitive-behavioral programs, life skills programming, etc.); (2) further refining the level system to better define expectations for youth for the “recreation” aspect of the system (recreation is a general term apparently used for all types of activities including school, physical recreation, various groups, etc.); (3) especially for JCA youth beginning to incorporate other longer-term requirements and incentives, focusing particularly on education and other pro-social skill development; and (4) increasing communication between staff and youth related to behavioral expectations and how youth are “scored” on the system. Further technical assistance would be helpful in making these and other improvements to the current system.
Non-Compliant at the Raymond Detention Center There has been no substantive change related to these provisions. The County has not identified a consultant to help them take steps to develop even a rudimentary behavioral management program. A small step forward in a potential foundation for such a program is the development of a “daily schedule” for programming, but absent any other incentives (group or individual) there remains no behavioral program to speak of. Some “rewards” for group behavior(s) have been provided but those have been on an ad hoc, incidental basis rather than built into any kind of systemic approach. Finally, as previously noted, there is no real assessment (other than for the Adult Basic Education programming), no treatment team, no individualized goal setting, or other components of a complete behavioral management program.
LAWFUL BASIS FOR DETENTION
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners are processed through the criminal justice system in a manner that respects their liberty interests. To that end:
85. The County will not accept or continue to house prisoners in the Jail without appropriate, completed paperwork such as an affidavit, arrest warrant, detention hold, or judge’s written detention order. Examples of inadequate paperwork include, but are not limited to undated or
61

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 62 of 83
unsigned court orders, warrants, and affidavits; documents memorializing oral instructions from court officers that are undated, unsigned, or otherwise fail to identify responsible individuals and the legal basis for continued detention or release; incomplete arresting police officer documents; and any other paperwork that does not establish a lawful basis for detention.
Non-Compliant Determining the lawful basis for detention including on-going detention after some court activity continues to be difficult. In addition to booking staff, there are three individuals-two in records and the court liaison-tracking the lawful basis of detention. They are all three using separate spreadsheets and lists. There continues to be a lack of business process to check all law enforcement and court documents. The Monitor did not conduct an extensive review of files during this site visit. There was at least one individual who continued in custody without valid paperwork from the court although paperwork was subsequently provided by the public defender. Another individual remained in custody as a result of an order that was confusing and efforts to clarify it had proved unsuccessful. The indicted and non-indicted lists were substantially improved but still included people on one list that should have been on the other and some individuals were charged with a felony but were not on either list. There is significant confusion regarding the status of individuals who are in the competency process. At least one individual appeared to have been found incompetent and non-restorable. The records did not reflect the legal basis for his continued detention in the detention facility.
86. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees in contravention of the protections of the United States Constitution as set forth and discussed in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) and Cassibry v. State, 453 So.2d 1298 (Miss. 1984). The County must develop and implement policies consistent with the applicable federal law and the terms of this Agreement.
Non-Compliant At the time of the site visit there was no one in the facility on an unlawful order for failure to pay fines and fees compared to a 100 inmates detained on unlawful fines and fees orders at the time of the February visit. With the municipal class action and the adoption of Supreme Court rules for criminal procedure, the jail has not been receiving unlawful orders. This requirement is listed as non-compliant because the jail has not developed or implemented policies as specified in paragraphs 87 through 89 below. As the Supreme Court rules are very new, it would be advisable to have polices to address orders that are not compliant with the new rules.
87. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees absent (a) documentation demonstrating that a meaningful analysis of that person’s ability to pay was conducted by the sentencing court prior to the imposition of any sentence, and (b) written findings by the sentencing court setting forth the basis for a finding that the failure to pay the
62

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 63 of 83
subject fines or fees was willful. At a minimum, the County must confirm receipt from the sentencing court of a signed “Order” issued by the sentencing court setting forth in detail the basis for a finding that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful.
Partial Compliance The County has been pro-active in ensuring that valid court orders are utilized. The County sponsored a training session on the new rules as related to orders on fines and fees. This is to be commended. This requirement is carried as partial compliance in that a process was not adopted to address non-compliant orders. If this becomes moot because of the rule change, the parties could explore dropping this requirement.
88. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a person for failure to pay fines or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and any other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and must obtain a copy to justify continued detention of the prisoner. After 48 hours, that prisoner must be released promptly if the Jail staff cannot obtain the necessary documentation to verify that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful, and that person is incarcerated only for the failure to pay fines or fees.
Partial Compliance See response to number 87 above.
89. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a prisoner for failure to pay fines or fees, and if that person is incarcerated for other conviction(s) or charge(s), other than the failure to pay fines and/or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and to ascertain the prisoner’s length of sentence. If Jail staff cannot obtain a copy of the necessary documentation within 48 hours of the prisoner’s incarceration, Jail staff must promptly arrange for the prisoner’s transport to the sentencing court so that the court may conduct a legally sufficient hearing and provide any required documentation, including the fines or fees owed by the prisoner, and an assessment of the prisoner’s ability to pay and willfulness (or lack thereof) in failing to pay fines or fees.
Partial Compliance See response to number 87 above.
90. Jail staff must maintain the records necessary to determine the amount of time a person must serve to pay off any properly ordered fines or fees. To the extent that a sentencing court does not specifically calculate the term of imprisonment to be served, the Jail must obtain the necessary information within 24 hours of a prisoner’s incarceration. Within 48 hours of incarceration, each
63

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 64 of 83
prisoner shall be provided with documentation setting forth clearly the term of imprisonment and the calculation used to determine the term of imprisonment.
Partial Compliance The WC continues to maintain a spreadsheet. There are some individuals who have a sentence of confinement. Some of these individuals show fines and fees but with the notation of a payment plan in effect. This signifies that they will be released after the sentence of confinement. The Monitor will continue to track these entries to ensure that individuals are released after the confinement period. There was no documentation that prisoners were provided with documentation of their release date although they do typically have the orders from the court.
91. No pre-trial detainee or sentenced prisoner incarcerated by the County solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be required to perform physical labor. Nor shall any such detainee or prisoner receive any penalty or other adverse consequence for failing to perform such labor, including differential credit toward sentences. Any physical labor by pre-trial detainees or by prisoners incarcerated solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be performed on a voluntary basis only, and the County shall not in any way coerce such pre-trial detainees or prisoners to perform physical labor.
Non-Compliant This has become a limited issue now that virtually no individuals are working off fines and fees. The recent standard practice at the WC is to give half the amount of credit towards fines and fees for individuals who do not perform physical labor. This includes individuals who cannot perform physical labor because of a medical or mental health condition. Captain Chandler stated that individuals with medical conditions did get the full amount of credit without working. However, Deputy Neal stated that only in special situations would they get full credit. He would make the recommendation to the Captain based upon criteria such as how long the prisoner has been incarcerated, the nature of the charge and generally a subjective judgement. There needs to be a written policy requiring that individuals who cannot work because of a medical or mental health condition or other disability receive full credit towards fines and fees.
92. The County must ensure that the Jail timely releases from custody all individuals entitled to release. At minimum:
a. Prisoners are entitled to release if there is no legal basis for their continued detention. Such release must occur no later than 11:59 PM on the day that a prisoner is entitled to be released.
b. Prisoners must be presumed entitled to release from detention if there is a court order that specifies an applicable release date, or Jail records document no reasonable legal basis for the continued detention of a prisoner.
c. Examples of prisoners presumptively entitled to release include:
64

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 65 of 83
i. Individuals who have completed their sentences; ii. Individuals who have been acquitted of all charges after trial; iii. Individuals whose charges have been dismissed; iv. Individuals who are ordered released by a court order; and v. Individuals detained by a law enforcement agency that then fails to
promptly provide constitutionally adequate, documented justification for an individual’s continued detention.
Non-Compliant The Monitor did not do a thorough review of files for release at this site visit. At last review RDC continued to rely on inmate requests to identify prisoners entitled to release. RDC did not track the sentences of individuals at RDC. During this site visit, by report and random check, it appeared that individuals who are entitled to release because they came in on a probation warrant and did not receive a hearing in 21 days was more routine and accurate. There was still not an accurate method for accessing court records to verify information regarding court events and, in some instances, there was a lack of understanding of court events. There were seven cases in which the current status of the defendant was incorrect or uncertain. At the time of the site visit, it could not be determined with certainty whether any of the seven were entitled to release.
93. The County must develop and implement a reliable, complete, and adequate prisoner records system to ensure that staff members can readily determine the basis for a prisoner’s detention, when a prisoner may need to be released, and whether a prisoner should remain in detention. The records system must provide Jail staff with reasonable advance notice prior to an anticipated release date so that they can contact appropriate agencies to determine whether a prisoner should be released or remain in detention.
Non-Compliant It continues to be difficult to track individuals in the records system. As recommended after the last site visit, there needs to be a centralized, cohesive system for receiving, updating, and maintaining records related to detention and release. Currently, there are three individuals-two in records and another not in records-who are tracking individuals and maintaining separate spreadsheets outside the case management system. In addition, there continues to be an unclear line of authority between records and booking for overseeing the documentation. Several systemic problems were reported. Records does not routinely get the “no bill” list which identifies people who the grand jury did not indict. These individuals would be entitled to release if no other case is holding them. The three individuals do not have access to the new circuit court system providing court event information on cases after 2014. They were unaware that they could access the circuit court docket on earlier cases. Ongoing difficulties tracking cases initiated in Byram and Clinton were reported. It was said that these cases often get lost in the system. This was identified as arising from the lack of communication that resulted from that community
65

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 66 of 83
conducting its own preliminary hearings with its own public defender office. There also appears to be a lack of knowledge on the part of both detention and medical staff regarding competency proceedings and the status of defendants who are involved in those proceedings. One individual was believed to be waiting for a hospital bed when, in fact, he was waiting for a trial date. Another individual had been found incompetent and non-restorable. He appeared to be on the list waiting for a civil commitment bed but no one could explain the jail’s continuing authority to detain the individual. The two individuals did not appear on the indicted or unindicted list. Another 5 individuals, as reported above, had case status that was unclear. In one instance, the lack of clarity resulted in efforts to get a hearing set in the wrong court which left the case stagnant.
Priority recommendations have been made in this area. Consultation with the National Institute of Corrections or an alternative should continue to be sought to provide the overhaul that this system needs. Staff should continue to audit the records and track individuals. A knowledgeable attorney should provide a training on the competency process and how the jail and the medical staff should be tracking these individuals.
94. Jail record systems must accurately identify and track all prisoners with serious mental illness, including their housing assignment and security incident histories. Jail staff must develop and use records about prisoners with serious mental illness to more accurately and efficiently process prisoners requiring forensic evaluations or transport to mental hospitals or other treatment facilities, and to improve individual treatment, supervision, and community transition planning for prisoners with serious mental illness. Records about prisoners with serious mental illness must be incorporated into the Jail’s incident reporting, investigations, and medical quality assurance systems. The County must provide an accurate census of the Jail’s mental health population as part of its compliance reporting obligations, and the County must address this data when assessing staffing, program, or resource needs.
Non-Compliant The Jail record system does not identify persons with serious mental illness. While there are incident reports submitted, the forms do not have a place to indicate if the individual had a mental health illness. And there is no electronic method of identifying individuals with mental illness at the time an incident is occurring. Unless a computerized program is developed between the contractor and the medical vendor, officers will not know in advance of inmates with special mental health needs. Health staff can identify the information after the fact, which may be useful but does not allow security staff to adjust its response to a developing incident based on possible mental health issues.
The QCHC staff could not identify the number of individuals on the mental health caseload. They provided a list of 60 individuals all of whom were listed with an SMI diagnosis. The staff
66

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 67 of 83
could not say whether this list was what was understood to be the mental health case load. QCHC also provided the number of encounters with the psychiatrist and the psychologist. This was not broken down by how many individual patients were seen or whether they were assessments or for ongoing care. Based on this information, it would appear that the Jail is significantly under identifying persons with mental illness.
Although Jail and QCHC staff attempt to move individuals to the state hospital as needed, this continues to be a systemic problem. There are only 15 forensic beds at the State Hospital to serve the entire state for competency evaluations or restoration. There are an additional 20 beds that are for individuals for civil commitments. Of the 15 forensic beds, two are reserved for females.
The social worker at RDC maintains a list of all inmates who are waiting to go to the state hospital or require competency evaluations. This list is updated with their current status in the process. Court orders for competency are sent to Sgt. Lewis who is in charge of transportation. He provides a copy to the social worker. The list tracks when a competency hearing was held, if the patient was sent to Mississippi State Hospital and if they were returned to the Hinds County Jail System. At the time of the site visit there were 23 names on the list. However, the state hospital has only 8 people on their list for people waiting for a state hospital bed. A similar discrepancy was noted last time. As mentioned above, there appears to be a lack of knowledge on the part of both detention and medical staff as to competency proceedings and the status of individuals in those proceedings. QCHC and legal staff should review the list with the state hospital to ensure the correct status of those individuals.
The jail based restoration to competency program reported its progress since its inception in June, 2017. The program reports that three individuals were restored to competency in the program and are no longer waiting for a state hospital bed. It is understood that the services are minimal and are being provided in an extremely non-therapeutic environment. This program is a pilot program and should be evaluated. As a substitute for state hospital restoration, an appropriate therapeutic environment that does not currently exist in the jail will need to be created. However, the twice-weekly sessions with mental health workers does provide some therapeutic interaction that does not otherwise exist in the facility.
Medical Records are still in paper copy. The EMR was unsuccessful due to problems with connectivity. Until this issue is resolved, it is recommended that a four folder chart is utilized with tabs that describe the various services. Old records can be separated from new admissions by utilizing colored paper.
A medical quality assurance program is in its beginning stages. A case study was performed on an inmate that missed his 4 AM medications on 21 days between January 2017 and March 2017. The psychiatrist was contacted and medication times were adjusted. Nurses were required to
67

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 68 of 83
obtain refusals of medication and to bring inmates in for counseling after three refusals. The study was a good start at a CQI program but it did not list the participants or the date and time of the study.
The second study focused on daily booking statistics. Daily booking statistics were examined during the month of May 2017. Daily booking statistics were compared to the QCHC intake log. The study was a bit confusing but the result was that daily booking statistics were not being cross checked with the intake log. Policy changes were made to correct this problem. This study also lacked attendees present, date and time of study
As discussed below, transition planning has not been provided. A transition planner was hired by QCHC but then resigned.
95. All individuals who (i) were found not guilty, were acquitted, or had charges brought against them dismissed, and (ii) are not being held on any other matter, must be released directly from the court unless the court directs otherwise. Additionally:
a. Such individuals must not be handcuffed, shackled, chained with other prisoners, transported back to the Jail, forced to submit to bodily strip searches, or returned to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
b. Notwithstanding (a), above, individuals may request to be transported back to the Jail solely for the purpose of routine processing for release. If the County decides to allow such transport, the County must ensure that Jail policies and procedures govern the process. At minimum, policies and procedures must prohibit staff from: i. Requiring the individual to submit to bodily strip searches; ii. Requiring the individual to change into Jail clothing if the individual is not already in such clothing; and iii. Returning the individual to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
Non-Compliant Individuals are not being released from the Court at this time.
96. The County must develop, implement, and maintain policies and procedures to govern the release of prisoners. These policies and procedures must:
a. Describe all documents and records that must be collected and maintained in Jail files for determining the basis of a prisoner’s detention, the prisoner’s anticipated release date, and their status in the criminal justice system.
b. Specifically, detail procedures to ensure timely release of prisoners entitled to be released, and procedures to prevent accidental release.
68

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 69 of 83
c. Be developed in consultation with court administrators, the District Attorney’s Office, and representatives of the defense bar.
d. Include mechanisms for notifying community mental health providers, including the County’s Program of Assertive Community Treatment (“PACT”) team, when releasing a prisoner with serious mental illness so that the prisoner can transition safely back to the community. These mechanisms must include providing such prisoners with appointment information and a supply of their prescribed medications to bridge the time period from release until their appointment with the County PACT team, or other community provider.
Non-Compliant Policies and procedures have been adopted. There are two policies that may relate to this requirement-the policy on records and the policy on booking which includes some requirements related to release. These policies do not have the specificity or the breadth required by this paragraph. The Monitoring Team and DOJ provided comments on these policies and a second draft should be forthcoming. Neither the DA’s office nor the defense bar has been involved in the drafting. The level of specificity required by this paragraph will require significant revision of the policy.
Neither the County nor QCHC have developed sufficient mechanisms for the transition of persons with mental illness into community based services. As stated earlier the discharge planner was an RN from another County who was unfamiliar with the resources at Hinds County. The discharge planner met with Hinds County Behavioral Health (HCBC) on three occasions. Each time they requested that she send them information which she never followed through on. One of the problems with referrals to HCBC was that the address of the inmate at booking was not updated by the officers. Thus, HCBC staff was unable to track the inmates for their upcoming appointments. Other items that were not provided to HCBC was a release of information and the current medicine that the inmate was taking. The mental health specialist from HCBC indicated that during the month of July there were only 7 referrals made. HCBC attempted to schedule a weekly time when they would regularly go to the jail and connect with clients. The discharge planner did not follow through with this plan. When this position is filled again, it is recommended that the health administrator and the Behavioral Specialist from HCBC are involved in the interview and orientation process.
Nursing states that inmates are provided with two weeks of discharge medications if they know that the patient is released from the jail. However, the nurses do not know when an inmate is released and ensuring that medications are provided has not been made part of the releasing process. This is an issue that should be addressed by both custody and medical.
69

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 70 of 83
Hinds County Behavioral Health received a grant from the GAINS Center to conduct a two day meeting on Sequential Intercept Mapping as an approach to decriminalize individuals with serious mental illness. A two day meeting was held on August 16-17, 2017. There were 45 participants involved. Participants were from all disciplines such as judges, warden, police chief, QCHC staff, crisis team members, day outreach center members, psychiatrist from the State Hospital, and staff from Merritt Hospital and St. Dominic’s Hospital.
The Sequential Intercept Model provides a conceptual framework for communities to use when considering the interface between the criminal justice and mental health systems as they address concerns about the criminalization of inmates with mental health illness. Using the model, a community can develop targeted strategies that evolve over time to increase the diversion of individuals from entering the criminal justice system. The GAINS center will develop a report for Hinds County Behavioral Health.
97. The County must develop, implement, and maintain appropriate post orders relating to the timely release of individuals. Any post orders must:
a. Contain up-to-date contact information for court liaisons, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Public Defender’s Office;
b. Describe a process for obtaining higher level supervisor assistance in the event the officer responsible for processing releases encounters administrative
difficulties in determining a prisoner’s release eligibility or needs urgent assistance in reaching officials from other agencies who have information relevant to a prisoner’s release status.
Non-Compliant The County has not yet developed post orders in this area.
98. Nothing in this Agreement precludes appropriate verification of a prisoner’s eligibility for release, including checks for detention holds by outside law enforcement agencies and procedures to confirm the authenticity of release orders. Before releasing a prisoner entitled to release, but no later than the day release is ordered, Jail staff should check the National Crime Information Center or other law enforcement databases to determine if there may be a basis for continued detention of the prisoner. The results of release verification checks must be fully documented in prisoner records.
Partial Compliance The booking staff reportedly now runs an NCIC check at the time of booking and again at release. This will be verified at the next site visit. The business processes of booking and release need to be evaluated and revised in conjunction with the NIC consultation.
70

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 71 of 83
99. The County must ensure that the release process is adequately staffed by qualified detention officers and supervisors. To that end, the County must:
a. Ensure that sufficient qualified staff members, with access to prisoner records and to the Jail’s e-mail account for receiving court orders, are available to receive and effectuate court release orders twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
b. Ensure that staff members responsible for the prisoner release process and related records have the knowledge, skills, training, experience, and abilities to implement the Jail’s release policies and procedures. At minimum, the County must provide relevant staff members with specific pre-service and annual inservice training related to prisoner records, the criminal justice process, legal terms, and release procedures. The training must include instruction on: i. How to process release orders for each court, and whom to contact if a question arises; ii. What to do if the equipment for contacting other agencies, such as the Jail’s fax machine or email service, malfunctions, or communication is otherwise disrupted; iii. Various types of court dispositions, and the language typically used therein, to ensure staff members understand the meaning of court orders; and iv. How and when to check for detainers to ensure that an individual may be released from court after she or he is found not guilty, is acquitted, or has the charges brought against her or him dismissed.
c. Provide detention staff with sufficient clerical support to prevent backlogs in the filing of prisoner records.
Non-Compliant Staffing levels in Booking are still inadequate. There is routinely only one officer and one booking clerk assigned (in addition to an ID officer, although sometimes even that post is not covered). They should routinely have at least two officers assigned in order to be able to receive arrestees and monitor those who are held in the cells, and there should be at least two booking clerks on duty.
100. The County must annually review its prisoner release and detention process to ensure that it complies with any changes in federal law, such as the constitutional standard for civil or pretrial detention.
Non-Compliant There has not been an initial review of this process to determine consistency with federal law.
71

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 72 of 83
101. The County must ensure that the Jail’s record-keeping and quality assurance policies and procedures allow both internal and external audit of the Jail’s release process, prisoner lengths of stay, and identification of prisoners who have been held for unreasonably long periods without charges or other legal process. The County must, at minimum, require:
a. A Jail log that documents (i) the date each prisoner was entitled to release; (ii) the date, time, and manner by which the Jail received any relevant court order; (iii) the date and time that prisoner was in fact released; (iv) the time that elapsed between receipt of the court order and release; (v) the date and time when information was received requiring the detention or continued detention of a prisoner (e.g., immigration holds or other detainers), and (vi) the identity of the authority requesting the detention or continued detention of a prisoner.
b. Completion of an incident report, and appropriate follow-up investigation and administrative review, if an individual is held in custody past 11:59 PM on the day that she or he is entitled to release. The incident report must document the reason(s) for the error. The incident report must be submitted to the Jail Administrator no later than one calendar day after the error was discovered.
Non-Compliant The record keeping process does not at this time allow for an audit other than a review of individual files. Incident reports are not prepared for errors in releasing.
102. The County must appoint a staff member to serve as a Quality Control Officer with responsibility for internal auditing and monitoring of the release process. This Quality Control Officer will be responsible for helping prevent errors with the release process, and the individual’s duties will include tracking releases to ensure that staff members are completing all required paper work and checks. If the Quality Control Officer determines that an error has been made, the individual must have the authority to take corrective action, including the authority to immediately contact the Jail Administrator or other County official with authority to order a prisoner’s release. The Quality Control Officer’s duties also include providing data and reports so that release errors are incorporated into the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance process.
Partial Compliance The Jail has two individuals who are tracking inmates booked into the facility. One is tracking the circuit court cases and the other is tracking lower court cases. These individuals attempt to identify individuals entitled to release. These individuals operate independently of the booking and release process and maintain their own spreadsheets. This is a valuable task; however, this should eventually loop back to the booking and release process so that a systemic approach to ensuring proper detention and release is developed. The NIC consultation should address this issue.
72

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 73 of 83
103. The County must require investigation of all incidents relating to timely or erroneous prisoner release within seven calendar days by appropriate investigators, supervisors, and the Jail Administrator. The Jail Administrator must document any deficiencies found and any corrective action taken. The Jail Administrator must then make any necessary changes to Jail policies and procedures. Such changes should be made, if appropriate, in consultation with court personnel, the District Attorney’s Office, members of the defense bar, and any other law enforcement agencies involved in untimely or erroneous prisoner releases.
Non-Compliant No documentation was provided of incident reports being created for untimely or erroneous prisoner release or any investigations of such incidents.
104. The County must conduct bi-annual audits of release policies, procedures, and practices. As part of each audit, the County must make any necessary changes to ensure that individuals are being released in a timely manner. The audits must review all data collected regarding timely release, including any incident reports or Quality Control audits referenced in Paragraph 102 above. The County must document the audits and recommendations, and must submit all documentation to the Monitor and the United States for review.
Non-Compliant Initial policies or procedures have been adopted but require significant revision. There has not been an initial audit of releasing practices.
105. The County must ensure that policies, procedures, and practices allow for reasonable attorney visitation, which should be treated as a safeguard to prevent the unlawful detention of citizens and for helping to ensure the efficient functioning of the County’s criminal justice system. The Jail’s attorney visitation process must provide sufficient space for attorneys to meet with their clients in a confidential setting, and must include scheduling procedures to ensure that defense attorneys can meet with their clients for reasonable lengths of time and without undue delay. An incident report must be completed if Jail staff are unable to transport a prisoner to meet with their attorney, or if there is a delay of more than 30 minutes for transporting a prisoner for a scheduled attorney visit.
Non-Compliant The current attorney/client visitation spaces in the pods at the RDC do not allow officers to readily monitor them for safety and security. The situation is exacerbated by the shortage of staff; however, a reasonable solution to the problem is readily at hand as a result of the recent change of video visitation vendors. The new equipment is located inside each housing unit, which makes the old video visitation space, adjacent to the three pod control rooms, available for
73

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 74 of 83
repurposing. Once the old equipment and floor mounted stainless-steel stools are removed, the addition of typical office type tables and chairs will create three private, yet easily observed attorney/client visitation rooms.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
The County must develop an effective system for identifying and self-correcting systemic violations of prisoner’s constitutional rights. To that end, the County must:
106. Develop and maintain a database and computerized tracking system to monitor all reportable incidents, uses of force, and grievances. This tracking system will serve as the repository of information used for continuing improvement and quality assurance reports.
Non-Compliant The data base is getting better, but is not yet a reliable source of information. They are transitioning over from paper incident and use of force forms to an automated system that ties all records on an incident to the original report number. This will hopefully address a current problem by requiring approval/disapproval/action required blocks for supervisors. There continues to be a concern that some incidents and grievances are underreported including late releases, lost money and property, medical grievances and some use of force incidents.
The new computerized grievance system should allow for the compilation of a summary grievance report. Currently, this is not possible for several reasons. As noted above, the system is not functioning properly at this time and many prisoners are unable to submit grievances. The reporting functions of the system are either problematic or not adequately conveyed to staff. Staff reported that they could not generate reports with identified parameters. Another problem is that the prisoner identifies the type of grievance. Most are clicking on “general” rather than the specific type. Staff are unable to correct this so a report by type of grievance would not prove useful. Similarly, there is a separate category for inmate request. This is seldom used and again results in an inability to accurately aggregate the data. If the prisoner replies via the kiosk in any fashion to the grievance response, that is then automatically converted to an appeal. The system needs to be able to generate accurate reports.
107. Compile an Incident Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Incident Summary Reports must compile and summarize incident report data in order to identify trends such as rates of incidents in general, by housing unit, by day of the week and date, by shift, and by individual prisoners or staff members. The Incident Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Brief summary of all reportable incidents, by type, shift, housing unit, and date;
74

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 75 of 83
b. Description of all suicides and deaths, including the date, name of prisoner, housing unit, and location where the prisoner died (including name of hospital if prisoner died off-site);
c. The names and number of prisoners placed in emergency restraints, and segregation, and the frequency and duration of such placements;
d. List and total number of incident reports received during the reporting period; e. List and Total number of incidents referred to IAD or other law enforcement agencies
for investigation.
Non-Compliant The County provided a monthly report of incidents in the three facilities. Although the information was helpful and appreciated, it did not meet the requirements of this paragraph. As mentioned above the IT department is working on a computerized report that should allow for a summary report to be generated. At the present time, the summary reports, particularly from RDC and the WC are difficult to follow and incomplete. Because they are manually compiled, it is difficult to identify trends over time. The computerized summary report should remedy this. Even then, it will be essential to determine that reports are being submitted such that an accurate summary report can be generated.
108. Compile a Use of Force Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Use of Force Summary Reports must compile and summarize use of force report data in order to identify trends such as rates of use in general, by housing unit, by shift, by day of the week and date, by individual prisoners, and by staff members. The Use of Force Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:
a. Summary of all uses of force, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b. List and total number of use of force reports received during the reporting period; c. List and total number of uses of force reports/incidents referred to IAD or other
law enforcement agencies for investigation.
Non-Compliant The County provided a monthly report of use of force in the three facilities. Although the information was helpful and appreciated, it did not meet the requirements of this paragraph in that the reports are manually prepared each month and do not allow for identifying trends over time. As mentioned above the IT department is working on a computerized report that should allow for a summary report to be generated. In meeting with the IT department, it was learned that not all the requirements of this paragraph were addressed. That should be remedied. Even then, it will be essential to determine that reports are being submitted such that an accurate summary report can be generated.
75

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 76 of 83
109. Compile a Grievance Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Grievance Summary Reports must compile and summarize grievance information in order to identify trends such as most frequently reported complaints, units generating the most grievances, and staff members receiving the most grievances about their conduct. To identify trends and potential concerns, at least quarterly, a member of the Jail’s management staff must review the Grievance Summary Reports and a random sample of ten percent of all grievances filed during the review period. These grievance reviews, any recommendations, and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant See response to 106 above.
110. Compile a monthly summary report of IAD investigations conducted at the Facility. The IAD Summary Report must include:
a. A brief summary of all completed investigations, by type, shift, housing unit, and date;
b. A listing of investigations referred for disciplinary action or other final disposition by type and date;
c. A listing of all investigations referred to a law enforcement agency and the name of the agency, by type and date; and
d. A listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation.
Non-Compliant There is currently no summary report of IAD investigations being compiled.
111. Conduct a review, at least annually, to determine whether the incident, use of force, grievance reporting, and IAD systems comply with the requirements of this Agreement and are effective at ensuring staff compliance with their constitutional obligations. The County must make any changes to the reporting systems that it determines are necessary as a result of the system reviews. These reviews and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
Non-Compliant An annual review has not been conducted.
112. Ensure that the Jail’s continuous improvement and quality assurance systems include an Early Intervention component to alert Administrators of potential problems with staff members. The purpose of the Early Intervention System is to identify and address patterns of behavior or
76

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 77 of 83
allegations which may indicate staff training deficiencies, persistent policy violations, misconduct, or criminal activity. As part of the Early Intervention process, incident reports, use of force reports, and prisoner grievances must be screened by designated staff members for such patterns. If misconduct, criminal activity, or behaviors indicate the need for corrective action, the screening staff must refer the incidents or allegations to Jail supervisors, administrators, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies for investigation. Additionally:
a. The Early Intervention System may be integrated with other database and computerized tracking systems required by this Agreement, provided any unified system otherwise still meets the terms of this Agreement.
b. The Early Intervention System must screen for staff members who may be using excessive force, regardless of whether use of force reviews concluded that the uses complied with Jail policies and this Agreement. This provision allows identification of staff members who may still benefit from additional training and serves as a check on any deficiencies with use of force by field supervisors.
c. The Jail Administrator, or designee of at least Captain rank, must personally review Early Intervention System data and alerts at least quarterly. The Administrator, or designee, must document when reviews were conducted as well as any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken.
d. The County must maintain a list of any staff members identified by the Early Intervention System as possibly needing additional training or discipline. A copy of this list must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
e. The County must take appropriate, documented, and corrective action when staff members have been identified as engaging in misconduct, criminal activity, or a pattern of violating Jail policies.
f. The County must review the Early Intervention System, at least bi-annually, to ensure that it is effective and used to identify staff members who may need additional training or discipline. The County must document any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken as a result of these reviews. Copies of these reviews must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
Non-Compliant There is currently no Early Intervention program.
113. Develop and implement policies and procedures for Jail databases, tracking systems, and computerized records (including the Early Intervention System), that ensure both functionality and data security. The policies and procedures must address all of the following issues: data storage, data retrieval, data reporting, data analysis and pattern identification, supervisor responsibilities, standards used to determine possible violations and corrective action, documentation, legal issues, staff and prisoner privacy rights, system security, and audit mechanisms.
77

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 78 of 83
Non-Compliant The initial P&P Manual that was issued in April, 2017 did not include policies and procedures covering this matter.
114. Ensure that the Jail’s medical staff are included as part of the continuous improvement and quality assurance process. At minimum, medical and mental health staff must be included through all of the following mechanisms:
a. Medical staff must have the independent authority to promptly refer cases of suspected assault or abuse to the Jail Administrator, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies;
b. Medical staff representatives must be involved in mortality reviews and systemic reviews of serious incidents. At minimum, a physician must prepare a mortality review within 30 days of every prisoner death. An outside physician must review any mortalities associated with treatment by Jail physicians.
Non-Compliant As reported above, a medical quality assurance program is in its beginning stages. A case study was performed on an inmate that missed his 4 AM medications on 21 days between January 2017 and March 2017. The psychiatrist was contacted and medication times were adjusted. Nurses were required to obtain refusals of medication and to bring inmates in for counseling after three refusals. The study was a good start at a CQI program but it did not list the participants or the date and time of the study.
The second study focused on daily booking statistics. Daily booking statistics were examined during the month of May 2017. Daily booking statistics were compared to the QCHC intake log. The study was a bit confusing but the result was that daily booking statistics were not being cross checked with the intake log. Policy changes were made to correct this problem. This study also lacked attendees present, date and time of study.
A mortality review was completed after the last monitoring report noted this deficiency. The mortality review was incomplete. It does not contain the time the inmate was booked, the time medical was called, and the time the ambulance arrived. Dr. Bates in his mortality review indicated that the patient died of positional asphyxia; however, an autopsy report to support this diagnosis was not attached to the mortality review.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
115. Hinds County will establish a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (“Coordinating Committee”) with subject matter expertise and experience that will assist in streamlining
78

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 79 of 83
criminal justice processes, and identify and develop solutions and interventions designed to lead to diversion from arrest, detention, and incarceration. The Coordinating Committee will focus particularly on diversion of individuals with serious mental illness and juveniles. Using the Sequential Intercept Model, or an alternative acceptable to the Parties, the Coordinating Committee will identify strategies for diversion at each intercept point where individuals may encounter the criminal justice system, and will assess the County’s current diversion efforts and unmet service needs in order to identify opportunities for successful diversion of such individuals. The Committee will recommend appropriate changes to policies and procedures and additional services necessary to increase diversion.
Non-Compliant The County is laying the groundwork for a CJCC but has not yet established one.
116. The Coordinating Committee will include representation from the Hinds County Sheriff’s Office and Hinds County Board of Supervisors. The County will also seek representation from Hinds County Behavioral Health Services; the Jackson Police Department; Mississippi Department of Mental Health; Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services; judges from the Hinds County Circuit, Chancery, and County (Youth and Justice) Courts; Hinds County District Attorney Office; Hinds County Public Defender Office; relevant Jackson city officials; and private advocates or other interested community members.
Non-Compliant See 115 above.
117. The Coordinating Committee will prioritize enhancing coordination with local behavioral health systems, with the goal of connecting individuals experiencing mental health crisis, including juveniles, with available services to avoid unnecessary arrest, detention, and incarceration.
Non-Compliant See 115 above.
118. Within 30 days of the Effective Date and in consultation with the United States, the County will select and engage an outside consultant to provide technical assistance to the County and Coordinating Committee regarding strategies for reducing the jail population and increasing diversion from criminal justice involvement, particularly for individuals with mental illness and juveniles. This technical assistance will include (a) a comprehensive review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing efforts to reduce recidivism and increase diversion; (b) identification of gaps in the current efforts, (c) recommendations of actions and strategies to
79

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 80 of 83
achieve diversion and reduce recidivism; and (d) estimates of costs and cost savings associated with those strategies. The review will include interviews with representatives from the agencies and entities referenced in Paragraph 116 and other relevant stakeholders as necessary for a thorough evaluation and recommendation. Within 120 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the outside consultant will finalize and make public a report regarding the results of their assessment and recommendations. The Coordinating Committee will implement the recommended strategies and will continue to use the outside consultant to assist with implementation of the strategies when appropriate.
Partial Compliance At the time of the site visit, a consultant had been identified, a contract completed, and the initial visit was underway. The County now must use the technical assistance to develop the CJCC and identify the strategies in this paragraph.
IMPLEMENTATION, TIMING, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
Paragraphs 119 and 120 regarding duty to implement and effective date omitted.
121. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County must distribute copies of the Agreement to all prisoners and Jail staff, including all medical and security staff, with appropriate explanation as to the staff members’ obligations under the Agreement. At minimum:
a. A copy of the Agreement must be posted in each unit (including booking/intake and medical areas), and program rooms (e.g., classrooms and any library).
b. Individual copies of the Agreement must be provided to prisoners upon request.
Partial Compliance Copies of the Settlement Agreement that were found riveted to the wall in common areas and housing units during the February site visit are no longer there. As expected they have all been pulled apart and destroyed. The Monitor’s recommended solution, creation of an Inmate Handbook sized copy that could be given to each employee and inmate, has proven to be a successful solution. While they have not been distributed to the inmate population at this time, and not all staff have copies, it is expected that by the next site visit most staff and inmates should have copies readily available.
Paragraphs 122-129 regarding third party beneficiaries, costs, severability, etc. omitted.
POLICY AND PROCEDURE REVIEW
130. The County must review all existing policies and procedures to ensure their compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. Where the Jail does not have a policy or procedure
80

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 81 of 83
in place that complies with the terms of this Agreement, the County must draft such a policy or procedure, or revise its existing policy or procedure.
Partial Compliance At the time of the site visit, the County/Sheriff had adopted an initial set of policies and procedures. These have been reviewed and been found to not be fully compliant with the terms of the agreement. The Monitoring Team and DOJ provided comments and a second round of drafting should be underway. As recommended, the County/Sheriff is identifying key policies to develop first and circulate for review This will help guide the process in the remaining areas.
131. The County shall complete its policy and procedure review and revision within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
Partial Compliance Six months expired on January 19, 2017. The policy and procedure review and drafting was completed after that time. Those policies are not sufficiently in compliance so this requirement is listed as partially compliant.
132. Once the County reviews and revises its policies and procedures, the County must provide a copy of its policies and procedures to the United States and the Monitor for review and comment. The County must address all comments and make any changes requested by the United States or the Monitor within thirty (30) days after receiving the comments and resubmit the policies and procedures to the United States and Monitor for review.
Non-Compliant The policies and procedures were completed and submitted to the United States and the Monitor in April for review and comment. The comments were provided on June 1, 2017. Changes have not been made in the 30-day time frame.
133. No later than three months after the United States’ approval of each policy and procedure, the County must adopt and begin implementing the policy and procedure, while also modifying all post orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the policies and procedures.
Non-Compliant The policies and procedures are in need of revision. They should be revised before training and other ensuing operations.
81

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 82 of 83
134. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, all new or revised policies and procedures must be implemented within six months of the United States’ approval of the policy or procedure.
Non-Compliant There have not yet been policies and procedures approved by the United States.
135. The County must annually review its policies and procedures, revising them as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures must be submitted to the United States and the Monitor for approval in accordance with paragraphs 129-131 above.
NA at this time
Paragraphs 136-158 regarding appointment and duties of the Monitor omitted.
COUNTY ASSESSMENT AND COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR
159. The County must file a self-assessment compliance report. The first compliance selfassessment report must be filed with the Court within four months of the Effective Date and at least one month before a Monitor site visit. Each self-assessment compliance report must describe in detail the actions the County has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and must make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. The report must include information supporting the County’s representations regarding its compliance with the Agreement such as quality assurance information, trends, statistical data, and remedial activities. Supporting information should be based on reports or data routinely collected as part of the audit and quality assurance activities required by this Agreement (e.g., incident, use of force, system, maintenance, and early intervention), rather than generated only to support representations made in the self-assessment.
Partial Compliance At the time of the site visit, the County provided its first self-assessment. The assessment is a good first step towards compliance with this paragraph but needs to have the level of detail required by this paragraph.
160. The County must designate a full-time Compliance Coordinator to coordinate compliance activities required by this Agreement. This person will serve as a primary point of contact for the Monitor. Two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties may consult with each other and the Monitor to determine whether the Compliance Coordinator’s hours may be reduced. The Parties may then stipulate to any agreed reduction in hours.
82

Case 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG Document 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 83 of 83
Compliant The County has designated a full-time Compliance Coordinator who is coordinating compliance activities. The Monitor will continue to track this assignment to ensure sustained compliance in this area. EMERGENT CONDITIONS 161. The County must notify the Monitor and United States of any prisoner death, riot, escape, injury requiring hospitalization, or over-detention of a prisoner (i.e. failure to release a prisoner before 11:59 PM on the day she or he was entitled to be released), within 3 days of learning of the event. Partial Compliance Immediate notifications have been provided. However, the County has not been providing notification of over-detention and, in fact, is not currently identifying prisoners who have been detained beyond their release date. The records office needs to be reorganized to implement business practices that accurately identify release dates and process releases. In the interim, the County needs to continue and improve its internal audit procedures to identify individuals entitled to release and prepare incident reports for persons who were detained beyond their legal release date. Paragraphs 162-167 regarding jurisdiction, construction and the PLRA omitted.
83

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 1 of 64

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

PLAINTIFF,

)

)

V.

)

)

HINDS COUNTY; THE HINDS COUNTY

)

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; VICTOR MASON, )

HIND COUNTY SHERIFF, IN HIS OFFICIAL )

CAPACITY,

)

)

DEFENDANTS.

)

- -------------~

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
REGARDING THE JilNDS COUNTY JAIL

I

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 2 of 64

I.

PARTIES ................................................................................................................ .4

Tl. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 4

III. DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................ 5

IV. SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS ........................................................................... 10

A. PROTECTION FROM HARM ...................................................................... 10 ll. USE OF FORCE STANDARDS ................................................................... 20 C. USE OF FORCE TRAINING ........................................................................ 23 D. USE OF FORCE REPORTING ..................................................................... 23 E. USE OF FORCE SUPERVISOR REVIEWS ................................................ 25 F. INCIDENT REPORTING AND REVIEW ...................................................27 G. SEX1JALMISCONDUCT ............................................................................. 29 H. INVESTIGATIONS ....................................................................................... 30 I. GRIEVANCE AND PRISONER INFORMATION SYSTEMS ................... 32 J. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SEGREGATION................................. 33 K. YOUTHFUi. PRISONERS ............................................................................36
L. LAWFUL BASIS FOR DETENTION...........................................................39
M. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE ........ ..46 N. CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE ...........................50

V. IMPLEMENTATION. TIMING, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS .................... 52 VI. POLICY AND PROCEDURE REVIEW .............................................................. 53 VII. MONITORING ..................................................................................................... 54

A. SELECTION AND AUTONOMY OF THE MONITOR.............................. 54 B. MONITOR'S AND UNITED STATES' ACCESS .......................................55 C. MONITOR REPORTING .............................................................................. 56 D. LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................. 58

VIII. COUNTY SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT AND COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR .......................................................................................................................... 59
IX. EMERGENT CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 60
X JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ............................................................ 60

2

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 3 of 64 XI. CONSTRUCTTON AND TERMINATION .......................................................... 61 XII. STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM
ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 3626 ................................................................................................................. 61
3

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 4 of 64

I.

PARTIES

1. This Consent Judgment C'Agreement") is between the United States of Amedca ("United States" or "Plaintiff'), acting through the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), and Hinds County, Mississippi ("County" or "Defendants"), acting through the Hinds County Sheriff ("Sheriff'') and llinds County Board of Supervisors ("Board") (collectively, the "Parties"). The Sheriff has entered into this Agreement in his official capacity only.

II.

INTRODUCTION

2. The Parties enter this Agreement to provide County prisoners with reasonable safety, protection from harm, and conditions of confinement that conform to the requirements of the United States Constitution and federal law. The County recognizes that it must provide prisoners with adequate supervision and housing in order to prevent violence between prisoners and the use of excessive force by detention staff, The County also acknowledges that government detention is a serious infringement on the rights of citizens and other individuals, and is thus subject to constitutional limits. Detention is permitted only when justified by law, may last no longer than permitted by law, and should be administered in a manner that balances the community's interest in safety with individuals' right to liberty. The Parties agree that achieving the goals of this Agreement will require increased detention staffing and supervision; enhanced policies, procedures, training and staff accountability measures; modification of detention facilities; and the development and implementation of a release system that protects detainees' constitutional rights.

3. The County has agreed to enter into this Agreement in order to address constitutional violations alleged by the United States, including specifically violations described in the findings letter issued by the United States on May 21, 2015.

4. The Hinds County Adult Detention Center ("HCDC") and Work Center C'Farm") in Raymond, Mississippi, and the Jackson Detention Center ("JDC") in Jackson, Mississippi, are collectively referred to as the "Jail.'' The Jail is an integral part of the public safety and criminal justice system in Hinds County. Through the provisions of this Agreement, the
4

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 5 of 64

Parties seek to ensure that the conditions in the Jail comply with the United States

I

Constitution.

5. The County is responsible for funding, operating, and maintaining the Jail. The County acknowledges that it must fund, operate, and maintain the Jail in a manner that complies with the United States Constitution. This obligation specifically includes a duty to provide sufficient staffing, training, and supervision to protect incarcerated persons from violence, to prevent the excessive use of force, and to ensure that individuals are detained only to the extent permitted under the Constitution. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to alter the legal duties, authorities, or responsibilities of the Defendants as defined by state or federal law.

6. The County also recognizes that compliance could be fmthcrcd through voluntary efforts that seek to reduce the population of the County detention centers and work fmm, particularly special needs populations such as individuals with serious mental illness and juveniles, The Parties will work toward the goal of population reduction in a manner that preserves public safety, prioritizes diversion for UJIDecessary criminal justice involvement, and reduces recidivism.

7. Conditions in CoWlty detention facilities have been a subject of private litigation, Other cases alleging overcrowding or other systemic issues involving County prisoners include Wilson v. City of Jackson, el al, No. 3:80-cv-00008-DCB-AGN (S.D. Miss.); Bell v. City of Jackson, et al, No. 3:!5-cv-732-TSL-RHW (S.D. Miss.); and J.H. v. Hinds County, Miss. et al, No. 3:11-cv-327-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss.).

III.

DEt'JNITIONS

8, "Days" are measured in calendar days; Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays are included.

9. "Direct supervision" is a term of art used by corrections professionals and refers to a model for safely operating and supervising a correctional facility. The direct supervision method for supervising a correctional facility requires placing detention officers inside housing units, where such officers have continuous direct contact with prisoners and are not routinely separated from prisoners by physical barriers. Officers are required to provide
5

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 6 of 64
active supervision of housing areas, which includes routinely interacting with, and checking on, prisoners in their charge. Video surveillance, separate control rooms, and other techniques or design features used to maintain security and safety, are penniUed as complements to, but not replacements for, direct supervision by housing unit o_fficers. A direct supervision facility requires integration of design, staffing, training, and procedures so that all operations are consistent with the model.
10. "Effective Date" means the date the Court approves this Agreement as an order of the Cow1.
11. "Early Intervention System" (or 1'EIS") is a system to collect and analyze data regarding uses of force and is used to identify the need for corrective action, including changes to training protocols and policy, as well as retraining or disciplining individual officers or groups of officicrs.
12. A "health assessment" refers to a medical evaluation by a Qualified Medical Professional
or Qualified Mental Health Professional. A health assessment specifically identifies a
patient's individual health needs, utilizing generally accepted forms, screening tools, assessment instruments, physical exams, and other scientifically reliable and valid lechniques. A health assessment must be sufficient to collect and document information necessary to provide a basis for the patient's treatment. A suicide assessment is a health assessment that must also specifically evaluate and estimate the individual's risk for suicide and self-harming behavior.
13. "Implement" or "implementation" means putting a policy, procedure, or remedial measure into effect, including informing, instrncting, or training impacted staff and ensuring that staff in fact follow the policy, procedure, or remedial measure.
14. "Include/' "includes," or "including'' means "include, but not be limited to," "includes, but is not limited to," or "including, but not limited to."
15. "Interdisciplinary team" refers to a team consisting of treatment staff from various disciplines, including, at minimum, a physician, nurse, Qualified Mental Health Professional, and one or more members from security.
6

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 7 of 64
16. "Jail" refers to HCDC, JDC, and the Work Center ("Farm"). For purposes of interpreting and enforcing this Agreement, the term also refers to any facilities used to expand, supplement, or replace HCDC and JCDC. The te11n also includes any new construction, contracted facilities, leased facilities, renovated facilities, or other replacement facilities used to house County prisoners.
17. "Monitor" means an individual and his or her team of professionals, if any, who arc approved by the Court pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement to oversee and facilitate implementation of the Agreement
18. "Planned force" or "planned use of force" means a use of force in response to a prisoner's actions, where the prisoner's behavior docs not pose an imminent threat lo the prisoner's own
safety or another individual's safety. Examples include cell extractions to remove a recalcitrant prisoner, force used to rcstrnin a prisoner in order to prevent continuing property
damage, and medically-ordered restraints on a prisoner exhibiting escalating signs of mental illness.
19. ""Prisoners" or "prisoner" is construed broadly to refer to one or more individuals detained at, housed in, held in, in the custody of, or confined at the Jail for any reason,
including as a result of arrest, criminal charges, detainers, civil contempt charges, involuntary
civil commib.nent, or convictions.
20. ''Qualified Medical Professional" means an individual who possesses the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing required to provide the medical services for which he or she has responsibility for providing.
2l. "Qualified Mental Health Professional" means an individual who possesses the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing required to provide the mental health services for which he or she has responsibility for providing. A Qualified Mental Health Professional must be either a doctorate-level psychologist, psychiatrist, psychiatric nurse, or a master's level licensed clinical (or psychiatric) social worker.
22. "Qualified Tralning Officer" means a state certified deputy with the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing required to serve as a Jail instructor. A
7

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Pages of 64
Qualified Training Officer must have at least three years of field experience an<l demonstrated familiarity with professional standards and Jail policies.
23. "Reportable incident" refers to any incident that involves a prisoner death or serious injury, suicide attempt, seff.hanning behavior, rape, sexual threat or abuse, use of force or restraint, use of segregation, medical emergency, escape or escape attempt, criminal activity, or fire. Reportable use of force or restraint incident reporting is governed by the Use of Force section of this Agreement.
24. "Segrcgation1' means involuntary confinement in a locked room or cell with two or fewer prisoners, for at least the majority of waking hours per day. "Long~term segregation" means a period of segregation intended to last, or that does last, more than fourteen (14) consecutive days.
25. "Self~harm" includes head-banging, cutting, intentional medication overdoses, and other self-directed, injurious or potentially injurious behavior.
26. "Serious injury" means any injury that is extensive, serious, visible, or likely to become visible. "Serious injury" includes black eyes, lacerations, injuries to the mouth or head, multiple bruises, injuries to organs> and injuries causing unconsciousness or death.
27, A prisoner with a "serious mental illness" (or "SMI") is a person with a mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder of mood, thought, or anxiety that is diagnosable currently or wit11in the last year; that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, and the ability to cope with the demands oflife in the general population facilities of the Jail.
28. "Special management" means prisoners who are in administrative or disciplinary segregation, in protective custody, on suicide precautions, require treatment or monitoring for a medical or mental health condition (including physical, developmental, and cognitive disabilities), or who are age 17 or younger. Special management can also refer to units housing this category of prisoners.
8

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page g of 64

29. "Staff mcmbersn includes all county employees, contractors, volunteers, or agent,;, including detention officers and medical personnel, who work in the Jail.

30. "Suicide attempt" means any non-fatal, self-directed, potentially injurious behavior, where there was an intent to die as a result of the behavior, or any non-fatal, self-directed,
self-harming behavior that results or could have resulted in a serious injury. Even if stopped
before actual injury, a suicide attempt is reportable under this Agreement if the attempted act could have resulted in serious injury.

31. "Suicide precautions" mean any measures to prevent suicide or sclf-hann, including observation of a prisoner.

32. "Train" means to instruct in skills to a level that the trainee has demonstrated proficiency by testing to implement those skills as and when called for. "Trained" means proficient in the skills.

33. "Use of force" means the application of physical, chemical, or mechanical measures on a prisoner. "Use of force" includes all force to compel compliance except un-resisted handcuffing and utHcsisted shackling of prisoners for movement purposes.

a. "Level 1 uses of force" include:

1.

all serious uses of force, meaning the use of force leads to injuries that

are extensive, serious, visible, or become visible, including black

eyes, lacerations) injuries to the mouth or head, multiple hrulses,

injuries to organs, and injuries causing unconsciousness or death;

11. force applied in violation of Jail policies and procedures (e.g,,

unauthorized, retaliatory use of force);

m. use of tasern;

1v. use of chemical munitions, including pepper spray; and

v. occasions when staff member accounts of!Cr inconsistent, conflicting,

or otherwise suspicious reports about a use of force.

b. "Level 2 uses of force" will include all uses of force not covered by the

9

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 10 of 64

definition of Level l force (e.g., a control hold).

34. "Youth" and "youthful prisoner" means any person in County custody who is under the
age of 18.

35. Throughout this Agreement, the following terms are used when discussing compliance: substantial compliance, partial compliance, and nonMcompliance. "Substantial Compliance" indicates that the County has achieved compliance with the material components and has met
the goals of the relevant provision of the Agreement. ''Partial Compliance" indicates that the
County achieved compliance with some of the components of the relevant provision of the Agreement, but significant work remains. "NonMcompliancc" indicates that the County has not met most or ail of the components of the relevant provision of the Agreement.

IV.

SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS

A. PROTECTION FROM HARM

Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to provide prisoners with safety, protect prisoners from violence committed by other prisoners, and ensure that prisoners are not subjected to abuse by Jail staff. To that end, the County must:

37. Develop and implement policies and procedures to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment for pdsoners and staff. Such policies and procedures must include the following:

a. Booking;

b. Objective classification;

c.

Housing assignments;

d. Prisoner supervision;

e. Prisoner welfare and security checks ("rounds");

f.

Posts and post ordcts;

g. Searches;

h. Use of force;

1.

Incident reporting;

.i.

Internal investigation:c-:;

10

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 11 of 64

k. Prisoner rights;

I.

Medical and mental health care;

m. Exercise and treatment activities;

n. Laundry;

0. Food services;

p. Hygiene;

q, Emergency procedures;

r.

Grievance procedures; and

s. Sexual abuse and misconduct.

38. Ensure that the Jail is overseen by a qualified Jail Administrator and a leadership team with substantial education, training and experience in the management of a large jail,

I

including at least five years of related management experience for their positions, and a

bachelor's degree, When the Jail Administrator is absent or if the position becomes vacant, a

qualified deputy administrator with comparable education, training, and experience, must

serve as acting Jail Administrator.

39, Ensure that all Jail supervisors have the education, experience, training, credentialing, and licensing needed to effectively supervise both prisoners and other staff members. At minimum, Jail supervisors must have at ieast 3 years of field experience, including experience working in the Jail. They must also be familiar with Jail policies and procedures, the tenns of this Agreement, and prisoner rights,

40. Ensure that no one works in the Jail unless they have passed a background check, including a criminal history check.

41. Ensure that Jail policies and procedures provide for the "direct supervision" of all Jail housing units.

42. Ensure that the Jail has sufficient staffing to adequately supervise prisoners, fulfill the terms of this Agreement, and allow for the safe operation of the Jail. The parties recognize that the Board allocates to the Sheriff lump sum funding on a quarterly basis. The Sheriff

11

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 12 of 64

recognizes that suflicicnt staffing of the Jail should be a priority for utilizing those funds. To that end, the County must at minimum:

a. Hire and retain sufficient numbers of detention officers to ensure that:

1.

There are at least two detention officers in each control room at all

times;
ii. There arc at least three detention officers at all times for each housing

unit, booking area, and the medical unit;

u1, There are rovers to provide backup and assistance to other posts;

1v. Prisoners have access to exercise, medical treatment, menta1 health

treatment, and attorney visitation as scheduled;

v. There are sufficient detention officers to implement this Agreement.

b. Fund and obtain a formal staffing and needs assessment ("study") that determines wilh particularity the minimum numher of staff and facility improvements required to implement this Agreement. As an alternative to a new study, the September 2014 study by the National Institute of Corrections may be updated if the updated study includes current information for the elements listed below. The study or study update must he completed within six months of the Effective Date and must include the following elements:

1.

The staffing element of the study must identify all required posts and

positions, as well as the minimum number and qualifications of staff to

cover each post and position.

tl. The study must ensure that the total number of recommended positions

includes a "relief factor" so that necessary posts remain covered

regardless of staff vacancies, turnover, vacations, illness, holidays, or

other temporary factors impacting day-tu-day staffing.

111. As part of any needs assessment, the study's authors must estimate the

number of prisoners expected to he held in the Jail and identify

whether additional facilities, including housing, may he required.

12

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 13 of 64

c. Once completed, the County must provide the United States and the Monitor

with a copy of the study and a plan for implementation of the study's

recommendations, Within one year after the Monitor's and United States'

review of the study and plan, the County must fund and implement the

staffing and facility improvements recommended by the study, as modified

and approved by the United States.

d, The staffing study shall be updated at least annually and staffing adjusted

accordingly to ensure continued compliance with this Agreement. The parties recognize that salaries are an important factor to recruiting and retaining

'
I

'

qualified personnel, so the County will also annually evaluate salaries.

e. The County will also create, to the extent possible, a career ladder and system

i

of retention bonuses for Jail staff.

'

f.

Develop and implement an objective and validated classi ftcation and housing

assignment procedure that is hased on risk assessment rather than solely on a

prisoner's charge. Prisoners must be dassified immediately after bo0king,

and then housed based on the classification assessment. At minimum, a

prisoner's bunk, cell, unit, and facility assignments must be based on his or

her objective classification assessment, and staff members may not transfer or

move prisoners into a housing area if doing so would violate classification

principles (e.g., placing juveniles with adults, viclims with former assailants,

and minimum security prisoner.'- in a maximum security unit). Additionally,

the classification and housing assignment process must include the following

elements:

i. The classification process must be handled by qualified staff who have additional training and experience on classification.
11. The classification system must take into account objective risk factors including a prisoner's prior institutional history) history of violence, charges, special needs, physical size or vulnerabilities, gang affiliation, and reported enemies.
m. Prisoner housing assignments must not be changed by unit staff without proper supervisor and classification staff approval. 13

·--------

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 14 of 64

1v. The classification system must track the location of all prisoners in the Jail, and help ensure that prisoners can be readily located by staff. The County may continue to use wrist bands to help i<lentify prisoners, but personal identification on individual prisoners may not substitute for a staff-controlled and centralized prisoner tracking and housing assignment system.
v. The classification system must be integrated with the Jail prisoner record system, so that staff have appropriate access to information necessary to provide proper supervision, including the current homring assignment of every prisoner in the Jail.
vi. The designation and use of housing units as "gang pods" must be phased out under the terms of this Agreement. Placing prisoners together because of gang affiliation alone is prohibited, The County must replace current gang~based housing assignments with a more appropriate objective classification and housing process within one
year after the Effective Date.

g. Develop and implement positive approaches for promoting safety within the Jail including:

1.

Providing all prisoners with at least 5 hours of outdoor recreation per

week;

ii. Developing rewards and incentives for good behavior such as

additional commissary, activities, or privileges;

iii. Creating work opportunities, including the possibility of paid

employment;

1v. Providing individual or group treatment for prisoners with serious

mental illness, developmental disabilities, or other behavioral or

medical condilions, who would beneiil from therapeutic activities;

v. Providing education, including special education, for youth, as well as

all programs, supports, and services required for youth by federal law;

vi.- Screening prisoners for serioi1s mental illness as part of the Jail's

14

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 15 of 64

booking and health assessment process, and then providing such prisoners with appropriate treatment and therapeutic housing; vn. Providing reasonable opportunities for visitation.

h. Ensure that policies, procedures, and practices provide for higher levels of

:mpervision for individual prisoners if necessary due to a prisoner's individual

circumstances. Examples of such higher level supervision include (a)

constant observation (i.e., continuous, uninterrupted one-on-one monitoring)

for actively suicidal prisoners (i.e., prisoners threatening or who recently

engaged in suicidal behavior)_; (b) higher frequency security checks for

prisoners locked down in maximum security units, medical observation units,

and administrative segregation units; and (c) more frequent staff interaction

with youth as part of their education, treatment and behavioral management

programs.

1.

Continue to update, maintain, and expand use of video surveillance and

recording cameras to improve coverage throllghout the Jail, including the

booking area, housing units, medical and mental health units, special

management housing, facility perimeters, and in common areas.

43. Include outcome measures as part of the Jail's internal data collection, management, and administrative reporting process. The occurrence of any of the following specific outcome measures creates a rebuttable presumption in this case that the Jail fails to provide reasonably Safe conditions for prisoners:

a, Staff vacancy rate of more than I 0% of budgeted positions;; b, A voluntary staff turnover rate that re~ults in the failure to staff critical posts
(such as the housing units, booking, and classification) or the failure lo maintain experienced supervisors on all shifts; c, A major disturbance resulting in the takeover of any housing area by prisoners; d, Staffing where fewer than 90% of all detention officers have completed basic jailer training;

15

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 16 of 64

c. Three or more use of force or prisoner-on-prisoner incidents in a fiscal year in

which a prisoner suffers a serious injury, but for which staff members fail to

complete all documentation required by this Agreement, including

supervision recommendations and findings;

f.

One prisoner death within a fiscal year, where there is no documented

administrative review by the Jail Administrator or no documented mortality

review by a physician not directly involved in the clinical treatment ()[ the

deceased prisoner (e.g. corporate medical director or outside, contract

physician, when facility medical director may have a personal conflict);

g. One death within a fiscal year, where the death was a result ofprisoncr-on-

prisoner violence and there was a violation of Jail supervision, housing

assignment, or classification procedures.

44. To complement, but not replace, "direct supervision," develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that detention officers are conducting rounds as appropriate. To that end:

a, Rounds must be conducted at least once every 30 minutes in general population housing units and at least once every 15 minutes for special management prisoners (including prisoners housed in booking cells).
b. All security rounds must be conducted at irregular intervals to reduce their predictability, and must be documented on forms or logs.
c. Officers must only be permitted to enter data on these forms or logs at the time a round is completed. Forms and logs must not include pre-printed dates or times. Officers must not be permitted to fill out forms and logs before they actually conduct their rounds.
d, The parties anticipate that "rounds" will not necessarily be conducted as otherwise described in this provision when the Jail is operated as a "direct supervision" facility, This is because a detention officer will have constant, active supervision of all prisoners in the detention officer's charge. As detailed immediately below, however, even under a "direct supervision" model, the Jail must have a system in place to document and ensure that staff

16

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 17 of 64
are providing adequate supervision. e. Jail policies, procedures, and practices may utilize more than one means to
document and ensure that staff are supervising prisoners as required hy "direct supervision," including the use and audit of supervisor inspection reports.• visitation records, mealtime records, inmate worker sheets, medical tl'eatment files, sick call logs, canteen delivery records, and recreation logs, Any system adopted to ensure that detention officers are providing "direct supervision" must be sufficiently detailed ari.d in writing to allow verification by outside reviewers, including the United States and Monitor.
45. Ensure that all crn1'ectional officers receive adequate pre- and post-service training to provide for reasonably safe conditiom in the Jail. To that end, the County must ensure that the Jail employs Qualified Training Officers, who must help to develop and implement a formal, written training program, The program must include the following:
a, Mandatory pre-service training. Detention officers must receive Slate jailer training and certification prior to starl of work. Staff who have not received such training by the Effective Date of this Agreement must complete their State jailer training within twelve months after the Effective Date of this Agreement, During that twelve month period, the County must develop an inhouse detention training academy ..
b. Post Order training, Detention officers must receive specific training on unitspecific post orders before starting work on a unit, and every year thereafter. To document such training, officers must be required to sign an acknowledgement that they have received such training, but only after an officer is first assigned to a unit, after a Post Order is updated, and after completion of annual retraining.
c. "Direct supervision" training. Detention officers must receive specific preand post service training on "direct supervision." Such training must include instruction on bow to supervise prisoners in a "direct supervision" facility, including instruction in effective communication skills and verbal deescalation. Supervisors must receive training on how to monitor and ensure
17

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 18 of 64

that staff are providing effective "direct supervision."

d, Jail administrator training, High-level Jail supervisors (i.e., supervisors with

facility-wide management responsibilities), including the Jail Administrator

and his or her immediate deputies (wardens), must receive jail administrator

training prior lo the start of their employment. High-level supervisors already

employed at the Jail when this Agreement is executed must complete such

training within six months after the Effective Date of this Agreement.

Training comparable to the Jail Administration curriculum offered by the

National Institute of Corrections will meet the requirements of this provision.

e. Post-service training. Detention officers must receive at least 120 hours per

year of post-service training in their first year of employment and 40 hours

per year after their first year. Such training must include refresher training on

Jail policies. The training may be provided during roll call, staff meetings,

and post-assignment meetings. Post-service training should also include field

and scenario-based training.

f.

Training for Critical Posts. Jail management must work wHh the training

department to develop a training syllabus and minimum additional training

requirements for any officer serving in a critical position. Such additional

training must be provided for any officer working on a tactical team; in a

special management, medical or mental health unit; in a maximum security

unit; or in booking and release.

g. Special management unit training. Officers assig11ed to special management

units must receive at least eight hours of specialized training each year

regarding supervision of such units and related prisoner safety., medical,

mental health, and security policies.

h. Training on all Jail policies and procedures including those regarding prisoner

rights and the prevention of staff abuse and misconduct.

46. Develop and implement policies and procedures for adequate supervisory oversight for the Jail. To that end, the County must:

a. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 19 of 64

Administrator has the authority to make personnel decisions necessary to ensure adequate staffing, staff discipline, and staff oversight. This personnel authority must include the power to hire, transfer, and discipline staff. Personal Identification Numbers (PlNs) aUocatcd for budget purposes repn..'Sent a salaried slot and are not a restriction on personnel assignment authority. While the Sheriff may retain final authority for personnel decisions, the Jail's policies and procedures must document and clearly identify who is responsible for a personnel decision, what administrative procedures apply, and the basis for personnel decisions. b. Review and modify policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that the Jail Administrator has the ability to monitor, ensure compliance with Jail policies, and take conective action, for any staff members operating in the Jail, including any who are not already reporting to the Jail Administrator and the Jail's chain of command. This provision covers road deputies assigned to supervise housing units and emergency response/tactical teams entering the Jail to conduct random shakedowns or to suppress prisoner disturbances. c. Ensure that supervisors conduct daily rounds on each shift in the prisoner housing units, and document the results of their rounds. d. Ensure that staff conduct daily inspections of all housing and common areas to identify damage to the physical plant, safety violations, and sanitation issues. This maintenance program must include the following elements:

1.

Facilily safety inspectiom, lhat include identification of damaged

doors, locks, cameras, and safety equipment.

11. An inspection process,

iii. A schedule for the routine inspection, repair, and replacement of the

physical plant, including security and safety equipment.

iv. A requirement that any corrective action ordered be taken.

v, Identification of high priority repairs to assist Jail and County officials

wilh allocating staff and resources. v1. To ensure prompt corrective action, a mechanism for identifying and

notifying responsible staff and supervisors when there are significant

19

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 20 of 64
delays with repairs or a pattern of problems with equipment. Staff response to physical plant, safety, and sanitation problems must be reasonable and prompt.
47. Ensure that staff members conduct random shakedowns of cells and common areas so that prisoners do not pm;sess or have access to dangerous contraband. Such shakedowns must be conducted in each housing unit at least once per month, on an iffegular schedule to make them less predictable to prisoners and staff.
48. Install cell phone jammers or other electronic equipment to detect, suppress, and deter unauthorized communications from prisoners in the Jail. Installation must be completed within two years after the Effective Date.
49. Develop and implement a gang program in consultation with qualified experts in lhe field that addresses any link between gang activity in the community and the Jail through appropriate provisions for education, family or community involvement, and violence prevention.
B. USE OF ~'ORCE STANDARDS
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must take reasonable measures to prevent excessive force by slaff and ensure force is used safely and only in a manner commensurate with the behavior justifying it. To that end, the County must:
50. Develop and implement policies and procedures to regulate the use of force. The policies and procedures must:
a. Prohibit the use of force as a response to verbal insults or prisoner threats where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff or visitors;
b. Prohibit the use of force as a response to prisoners' failure to follow instructions where there is no immediate threat to the safety or security of the institution, prisoners, staff, visitors, or property;
c, Prohibit the use of force against a prisoner after the prisoner has ceased to
20

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 21 of 64
resist and is under control; d. Prohibit the use of force as punishment or retaliation; e. Limit the level of force used so that it is commensurate with the justification
for use of force; and f, Limit use of force in favor of less violent methods when such methods are
more appropriate, effective, or less likely to result in the escalation of an incident,
51. Develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure timely notification, documentation, and communication with supervisors and medical staff (including mental health staff) prior to use of force and after any use of force. These policies and procedures must specifically include the following requirements:
a. Staff members must obtain prior supervisory approval before the use of weapons (e.g., electronic control devices or chemical sprays) and mechanical restraints unless responding to an immediate threat to a person's safety.
b. If a prisoner has a serious medical condition or other circumstances exist that may increase the risk of death or serious injury from the use of force, the lypc of force that may be used on the prisoneJ must be restricted to comply with this provision, These restrictions include the following:
L The use of chemical sprays, physical reslraints, and electronic control devices must not be used when a prisoner may be at risk of positional asphyxia.
ii. Electronic control devices must not be used on prisoners when they are in a location where they may suffer serious injury after losing voluntary muscle control (e.g., prisoner is standing atop a stairwell, wall, or other elevated location).
iii. Physical strikes, holds, or other uses of force or restraints may not be used if the technique is not approved for use in the Jail or the staff member has not been trained on the proper use of lhe technique.
e. Staff members must conduct health and welfare checks every 15 minutes
21

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 22 of 64

while a prisoner is in 1·estraints. At minimum, these checks must include (l)
or logged first-person observations a prisoner's status while in restraints (e.g.

check for blood flow, respiration, heart heat), and (ii) documented breaks to

meet the sanitary and health needs of prisoners placed in emergency restraints

(e.g., restroom breaks and breaks to prevent cramping or circulation

problems).

d. The County must ensure that clinical staff conduct medical and mental health

assessments immediately after a prisoner is subjected to any Level 1 use of

force. Prisoners identified as requiring medical or mental health care during

the assessment must receive such treatment.

e. A first-line supervisor must personally supervise all planned uses of force,

such as cell extractions.

f.

Security staff members must consult with medical and mental health staff

before all planned uses of force on juveniles or prisoners with serious mental

illness, so that medical and mental health staff may offer alternatives to or

limitations on the use of force, such as assisting with de-escalation or

obtaining the prisoner's voluntary cooperation.

g, The Jail must have inventory and weapon controls to establish staff member

responsibility for their use of weapons or other secu1ity devices in the facility.

Such controls must include:

i.

a sign-out prncess for staff members to carry any type of weapon

inside the Jail,

ii. a prohibition on staff carrying any weapons except those in the Jail's

tracked inventory, and

iii. random checks to determine if weapons have been discharged without

repnrt of discharge (e.g., by checking the internal memory of

electronic control devices and weighing pepper spray canisters),

h. A staff member must electronically record (both video and sound) all planned

uses of force with equipment provided hy the Jail.

i.

All staff members using force must immediately notify their supervisor.

22

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 23 of 64
j. All staff members using a Level 1 use of force must also immediately notify the shift commander after such use of force, or becoming aware of an allegation of such use by another staff member.
C. USE OF FORCE TRAINING 52. The County must develop and implement a use of force training program. Every staff member who supervises prisoners must receive at least 8 hours of pre-service use of force training and annual use of force refresher training. 53. Topics covered by use of force training must include:
a. Instruction on what constitl1tcs excessive force; b. De.escalation tactics; c. Methods of managing prisoners with mental illness to avoid the use of force; d. Defensive tactics; e. All Jail use of force policies and procedures, including those related to
documenlation and review of use of force. 54. The County must randomly test at least 5 percent of Jail Staff members annually to determine whether they have a meaningful, working knowledge of all use of force policies and procedures. The County must also evaluate the results to determine if any changes to Jail policies and procedures may be necessary and take cotTcctivc action. The results and recommendations of such evaluations must be provided to the United States and Monitor. 55. The County must update any use of force training within 30 days after any revision to a use of force policy or procedure.
D. USE OF FORCE REPORTING To prevent and remedy the unconstitutional use of force, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting use of force. To that end, the County must:
23
- -----------------

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 24 of 64

56. Develop and implement use of force reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail supervisors have sufficient information to analyze and respond appropriately to use of force.

57. Require each staff member who used or observed a use of force to complete a Use of Force Report as promptly as possible, and no later than by the end of that staff member's shift. Staff members must accurately complete all fields on a Use of Force Report. The failure to report any use of force must be treated as a disciplinary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, including termination, Similarly, supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.

58. Ensure that Jail use of force reports include an accurate and detailed ,,ccount of the events. At minimum, use of force reports must document the following infonnation:

a. A unique tracking number for each use of force;

b. The names of all staff members, prlsoner(s), and other participants or

witnesses;

c. Housing classification and location;

d. Date and time;

e. A description of the events leading to the use of force, including what

precipitated or appeared to precipitate those events.

f.

A description of the level of resistance, staff response, and the type and level

of force (including frequency and duration of use). For instance, use of force

reports must describe the number of discharges from electronic control

devices and chemical munitions canisters; lhe amount of discharge from

chemical munitions canisters; whether the Staff MembeJ threatened to use the

device or actually discharged the device; the type of physical hold or strike

used; and the length of time a prisoner was restrained, and whether the

prisoner was released from restraints for any period during that time;

g. A description of the staff member's attempts·to de-escalate the situation

without use of force;

24

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 25 of 64

h. A description of whether the staff member notified supervisors or other

personnel, including medical or mental health staff, before or after the use of

force;

1.

A description of any observed injuries to staff or prisoners;

j.

Whether medical care was required or provided to staff or prisoners;

k. Reference to any assodated incident report or prisoner disciplinary report

completed by the reporting officer, which pertains to the events or prisoner

activity that prompted the use of force;

I.

A signature of the staff member completing the report attesting to the report's

accuracy and completeness,

E. USE OF FORCE SUPERVISOR REVIEWS

59. The County must ensure that Jail supervisors review, analyze, and respond appropriately to use of force. At minimum:

a. A supervisor must review all use of force reports submitted during the supervisor's watch by the end of the supervisor's watch.
b. A supervisor must ensure that staff members complete their use of force reports by the end of their watch.
c. Reviewing supervisors must document their findings as to the completeness of each staff member's use of force report, and must also document any procedural errors made by staff in completing their reports.
d. If a Use of Force report is incomplete, reviewing supervisors must require Staff Members to provide any required information on a revised use of force report, an<l lhc Jail must maintain both the original and any revised report in its records.
e. Any supervisor responsible for reviewing use of force reports must document their use of force review as dcscrihed in Paragraph. 62 sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted.
f. All Level 1 uses of force must be sent to the shift commander, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD.

25

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 26 of 64
g. A Level 2 use of force must be referred to the shift commandet, warden, Jail Administrator, and IAD if a reviewing supervisor concludes that there may have been a violation of law or policy. Level 2 uses of force may also be referred to IAD if the County requires such reporting as a matter of Jail policy and procedure, or at the discretion of any reviewing supervisor,
60. After any Level 1 use of force, responding supervisors will promptly go to the scene and take the following actions:
a. Ensure the safety of everyone involved in or proximate to the incident, b, Determine if anyone is injured and ensure that necessary medical care is or
has been provided. c. Em:urc that photos are taken of all injuries sustained, or as evidence that no
injuries were sustained, by prisoners and staff involved in a use of force incident. Photos must be taken no later than two hours after a use of force. Prisoners may refuse to consent to photos, in which case they should be asked to sign a waiver indicating that they have· refused consent. If they refuse to sign a waiver, the shift commander must document that conseut was requested and refused. d. Ensure that staff members and witnesses are identified, separated, and advised that communications with other staff members or witnesses regarding the incident are prohibited, e. Ensme that victlm, staff, and witness statements are taken confidentially by reviewing supervisors or investigators, outside of the presence of other prisoners or involved staff. f. Document whether the use of force was recorded. If the use of force was not recorded, the responding supervisors must review and explain why the eveut was not recorded. lf the use of force was recorded, the responding supervisors must ensure that any record is preserved for review.
61. All uses of force must be reviewed by supervisors who were neither involved in nor approved the use of force by the end of the supervisor's shift. All level 1 uses of force must
26

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 27 of 64

also be reviewed by a supervisor of Captain rank or above who was neither involved in nor approved the use of force. The purposes of supervisor review are to determine whether the use of force violated Jail policies and procedures, whether the prisoner's rights may have been violated, and whether further investigalion or disciplinary action is required.

62. Reviewing supervisors must docwnent the following:

a, Names of all staff members, prisoner(s), and other participants or witnesses interviewed by the supervisor;
b. Witness statements; c. Review date and time; d. The findings, recommendations, and results of the supervisor's review; e. Corrective actions taken; f. The final disposition of the reviews (e.g., whether the Use of Force was found
to comply with Jail policies and procedures, or whether disciplinary action was taken against a staff member); g. Supporting documents such as incident repotis, logs, and classification records. Supervisors must also obtain and review summary medical and mental health records describing -

1.

The nature and extent of injuries, or lack thereof;

11. The date and time when medical care was requested and actually

provided;

iii. The names of medical or mental health staff conducting any medical or

mental health assessments or care.

h, Photos, video/digital recordings, or other evidence collected to support findings and recommendations.

F. INCIDENT REPORTING AND REVIEW

To prevent and remedy violations of prisonen;' constitutional tights, the County must develop and implement a system for reporting and reviewing incidents in the Jail that may pose a threat to the life, health, and safety of prisoners. To that end, the County must:
27

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 28 of 64

63. Develop and implement incident reporting policies and procedures that ensure that Jail
supervisors have sufficient information in order to respond appropriately to reportable incidents.

64. Ensure that Incident Reports include an accurate and detailed account of the events. At
minim1..1m, Incident Reports must conlain the following information:

a. Tracking number for each incident;

b. The names of all staff members, prisoner, and other participants or witnesses;

c, Housing classification and location;

d. Date and time.:

e. Type of incident;

f. Injuries to staff or prisoner;

g. Medical care;

h. All staff involved or present during the incident and their respective roles;

i.

Reviewing supervisor and supervisor findings, recommendations, and case

dispositions;

J.

External reviews and results;

k. Corrective action taken; and

1.

Warden and Administrator review and final administrative actions.

65. Require each staff member directly involved in a reportable incident to accurately and
thoroughly complete incident reports as promptly as possible, by the end of the staff member's shift. At minimum:

a. Staff members must complete all fields on an Incident Report for which they have responsibility for completion. Staff members must not omit entering a date, time, incident location, or signatme when completing an Incident Report. lfno injuries are present, staff members must write that; they may nol lcave that section bli:ink.
b. Pai lure to report any reportable incident must be treated as a discipUnary infraction, subject to re-training and staff discipline, incli.1di11g termination.
c. Supervisors must also comply with their documentation obligations and will
28

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 29 of 64
also be subject to re-training and discipline for failing to comply with those obligations.
66. Ensure that Jail supervisors review and respond appropriately to incidents, At minimum:
a. Shift commanders must document all reportable incidents by the end of their shift, but no later than 12 hours after a reportable incident.
b. Shift commanders must report all suicides, suicide attempts, and deaths, no later than one hour after the incident, to a supervisor, IAD, and medical and mental health staff.
'c, Any supervisor responsible for reviewing Incident Reports must document their incident review within 24 hours of receipt of an Incident Report sufficiently to allow auditing to determine whether an appropriate review was conducted. Such documentation must include the same categories of information rcquirnd for supervisor use of force reviews such as names of individuals interviewed by the supcrviso1·, witness statements, associated recotds (e.g. medical records, photos, and digital recordings), review dates, findings, recommendations, and case dispositions.
d. Reportable incidents must be reviewed by a supervisor not directly involved in the incident.
G. SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
67. To prevent and remedy violations of prisoners' constitutional rights, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to address sexual abuse and misconduct. Such policies and procedures must include all of the following:
a. Zero tolerance policy towards any sexual abuse and sexual harassment as defined by ihe Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 1560 I, et seq., and its implementing regulations;
b. Staff training on the zero tolerance policy_, including how lo fulfill their duties and responsibilities to prevent, detect, repmt and respond to sexual abuse and sexual harassment under the policy;
29

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 30 of 64

c. Screening prisoners to identify those who may be sexually abusive or at risk

of sexual victimization; d, Multiple internal ways to allow both confidential and anonymous reporting of

sexual abuse and sexual harassment and any related retaliation, including a

mechanism for prisoners to directly report al!egations to an outside entity;

e. Both emergency and ongoing medical and mental health care for victims of

sexual assault and sexual harassment, includ]ng rape kits as appropriate and

counseling;

f.

J\ complete ban 011 cross~gender strip searches or cross-gender visual body

cavity searches except in exigent circumstances or when performed by a

medical examiner; g. A complete ban on cross-gender pat searches of women prisoners, absent

exigent circumstances; h, Regular supervisory review to ensure compliance with the sexual abuse and

sexual harassment policies; and

1.

Specialized investigative procedures and training for investigators handling

sexual abuse and sexual harassment allegations.

H. INVESTIGATIONS

68. The County shall ensure that it has sufficient staff to identify, investigate, and correct misconduct that has or may lead to a violation of the Constitution. At a minimum, the County shall:
a, Develop and implement comprehensive policies, procedures, and practices for the thorough and timely (within 60 days of referral) investigation of alleged staff misconduct, sexual assaults, and physical assaults of prisoners resulting in st!rious injury, in accordance wilh this Agreement, within 90 days of its Effective Date. At a minimum, an investigation will be conducted if:

i.

Any prisoner exhibited a serious injury;

n. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital;

111. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious

30

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 31 of 64

accounts of tbc incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail
policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a slaffmember an<l prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member).

b. Per policy, investigations shall:

1.

Be conducted by qualified persons, who do not have conflicts of

interest that bear on the partiality of the investigation;

ii. Include timely, thorough, and documented interviews of all relevant

staff and prisoners who were involved in or who witnessed the incident

in question, to the extent practicable; and

u1. Include all supporting evidence, including logs, witness and participant

statements, references to policies and procedures relevant to the

incident, physica1 evidence, and video or audio recordings.

c, Provide investigators with pre-service and annual in-service training so that investigators conduct quality investigations lbat meet the requirements of this Agreement;
d. Ensure that any investigative report indicating possible criminal behavior will be referred to the appropriate criminal law enforcement agency;
e, Within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, IAD must have written policies and procedures that include clear and specific criteria for determining when it wil1 conduct an investigation. The criteria will require an investigation if:

i. Any prisoner exhibited serious, visible injuries (e.g., black eye, obvious bleeding, or lost tooth);
Li. Any staff member requested transport of the prisoner to the hospital; w. Staff member reports indicate inconsistent, conflicting, or suspicious
accounts of the incident; or iv. Alleged staff misconduct would constitute a violation of law or Jail
31

--------

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 32 of 64

policy, or otherwise endangers facility or prisoner safety (including inappropriate personal relationships between a staff member and prisoner, or the smuggling of contraband by a staff member).

f.

Provide the Monitor and United States a periodic report of investigations

conducted at the Jail every four months. The report will include the following

information:

L a brief suntmary of all completed investigations, by type and date; ii. a listing of investigations referred for administrative investigation; iii. a listing of all investigatio·ns referred to an appropriate law
enforcement agency and the name of the agency; and IV. a listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned
because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation. v. a description of any corrective actions or changes in policies, procedures, or practices mftde as a result of investigations over the reporting period.

g. Jail management shall review the periodic report to determine whether the investigation system is meeting the requirements of this Agreement and make recommendations regarding the investigation system or other necessary changes in policy based on this review. The review and recommendations
will be documented and provided to the Monitor and United States.

I. GRIEVANCE AND PRISONER INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Because a reporting system provides early notice of potential constitutional violations and an opportw1ity to prevent more serious problems before they occur, the County must develop and implement a grievance system. To that end:

69. The grievance system must permit prisoners to confidentially report grievances without requiring the intervention of a detention officer.

32

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 33 of 64
70. Grievance policies and procedures must be applicable and standardized across the entire Jail.
71. All grievances must receive appropriate follow-up, including a timely written response by an impartial reviewer and staff tracking of whether resolutions have been implemented or still need implementation. Any response to a medical grievance or a grievance alleging threats or violence to the grievant or others that exceeds 24 hours shatl be presumed untimely.
72. The grievance system must accommodate prisoners who have physical or cognitive disabilities, are illiterate, or have LEP, so that these prisoners have meaningful access to the grievance system.
73. The County must ensure that all current and newly admitted prisoners receive information about prison rules and procedures. The County must provide such information tluough an inmate handbook and, at the discretion of the Jail, an orientation video, regarding the following topics: understanding the Jail's disciplinary process and rules and regulations; reporting misconduct; reporting sexual abuse, battery, and assault; accessing medical and mental health care; emergency procedures~ visitation; accessing the grievance process; an<l prisoner rights. The County must provide such information in appropriate languages for prisoners with LEP.
J. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF SEGREGATION
In order to ensure compliance with constitutional standards and to prevent unnecessary
hann to prisoners, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to limit the use of segregation. To that end, this Agreement imposes the following restrictions and requirements.:
74. Within 8 hours of intake, prisoners in the booking cells must be classified and housed in more appropriate long~tenn housing where staff will provide access to exercise, meals, and other services.
75. The County must document the placement and removal of all prisoners to und from
segregation.
33

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 34 of 64
76. Qualified Mental llealth Professionals must conduct mental health rounds al least once a
week (in a private setting if necessary to elicit accurate information), to assess the mental
health status of all prisoners in segregation and the effect of segregation on each prisoner's mental health, in order to determine whether continued placement in segregation is appropriate. These mental health rounds must not be a substitute for treatment.
77. The County must develop and implement restrictions on the segregation of prisoners with serious mental illness. These safeguards must include the following:
a. All decisions to place a prisoner with serious mental illness in segregation must include the input of a Qualified Mental Health Professional who has conducted a face-to-face evaluation of the prisoner in a confidential setting, is familiar with the details of the available clinical history, and has considered the prisoner's mental health needs and history.
b. Segregation must be presumed contraindicated for prisoners with serious mental illness.
c. Within 24 hours of placement in segregation, all prisoners on the mental health caseload must be screened by a Qualified Mental Health Professional to determine whether the prisoner has serious mental illness, and whether there are any acute mental health contraindications to segregation.
d. If a Qualified Mental Health Professional finds that a prisoner has a serious mental illness or exhibits otheI acute mental health contraindications to segregation, that prisoner must not be placed or remain in segregation absent documented extraordinary and exceptional circumstances (i.e. for an immedi_ate and serious danger which may arise during unusual emergency situations, such as a riot or during the booking ofa severely psychotic, untreated, violent prisoner, and which should last only as long as the emergency conditions remain present).
e. Documentation of such extraordinary and exceptional circumstances must be in writing. Such documentation must include the reasons for the decision, a comprehensive interdisciplinary team review, and the names and dated signatures of all staff members approving the decision.
34

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 35 of 64

f. Prisoners with serious mental illness who are placed in segregation must be offered a heightened level of care that includes the following:

1.

1f on medication1 the prisoner must receive at least one daily visit from

a Qualified Medical Professional.

11. The prisoner must be offered a face-to-face, therapeutic, out-of-cell

session with a Qualified Mental Heallh Professional at least once per

week.

111. If the prisoner is placed in segregation for more than 24 hours, he or

she must have his or her case reviewed by a Qualified Mental Health

Professional, in conjunction with a Jail physician and psychiatrist, on a

weekly basis.

g, Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, A Qualified Mental

Health Profossiona1 will assess all prisoners with serious mental i1lness

housed in long~term segregation. This assessment must include a documented

evaluation and recommendation regarding appropriate (more integrated and

therapeutic) housing for the prisoner. Prisoners requiring follow-up for

additional clinical assessment or care must promptly receive such assessment

and care.

h. If a prisoner on segregation decompensates or otherwise develops signs or

symptoms of serious mental illness, where such signs or symptoms had not

previously been identified, the prisoner must immediately be referred for

appropriate assessment and treatment by a Qualified Mental Health

Professional. Any such referral must also result in a documented evaluation

and recommendation regarding appropriate (mol'e integrated and therapeutic)

housing for the prisoner. Signs or _symptoms requiring assessment or

treatment under this clause include a deterioration in cognitive, physical, or

verbal function; delusions; self-harm; or behavior indicating a heightened risk

of stticide (e.g., indications of depression after a sentencing hearing).

1.

The treatment and housing of prisoners with serious mental illness must be

coordinated and overseen by the Interdisciplinary Team (or Teams), and

35

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 36 of 64

guided by formal, written treatment plans. The Interdisciplinary Team must

include both medical and security staff, hut access to palient healthcare

information must remain subject to legal restrictions based on patient privacy

rights. The intent of this provision is to have an Interdisciplinary Team serve

as a mechanism for balancing security and medical concerns, ensuring

cooperation between security and medical staff, while also protecting the

exercise of independent medical judgment and each prisoner's individual

rights.

j.

Nothing in this Agreement should be interpreted to authorize security staff,

including the Jail Administrator, to make medical or mental health treatment

decisions, or to overrule physician medical orders.

K. YOUTHFUL PRISONERS

As long as the County houses youthful prisoners, it must develop and implement policies and procedures for their supervision, management, education, and treatment consistent with federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C, §§ 1400-1482. Within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will determine where it will house youthful prisoners. During those six months, the County will consult with the United States, the monitor of the Henley Young Juvenile Detention Center consent decree, and any other individuals or entities whose input is relevant. The United States will support the County's efforts to secure appropriate housing for youthful prisoners, including supervised release. Within 18 months after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County will have completed transitioning to any new or replacement youthful prisoner housing facility. For any youthful prisoners in its custody, the County must:

78. Develop and implement a screening, assessment and treatment program to ensure that youth with serious mental illness and disabilities, including developmental disabilities, receive appropriate programs, supports, education, and se1-vices.

79. Ensure that youth receive adequate free appropriate education, including special education.

36

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 37 of 64
80. Ensure that youth are properly separated by sight and sound from adult prisoners.
81. Ensure that the Jail's classification and housing assignment system docs not merely place all youth in the same housing unit, without adequate separation based on classification standards. Instead, the system must take into account classification factors that differ even within the youth sub-class of prisoners. These factors include differences in age, dangerousness, likelihood of victimization, and sex/gender.
82. Train staff members assigned to supervise youth on the Jail's youth-specific policies and procedures, as well as on age-appropriate supervision and treatment strategies. The County must ensure that such specialized training includes training on the supervision and treatment • of youth, child and adolescent development, behavioral management, crisis intervention, conflict managemenl, child abuse, juvenile rights, the juvenile justice system, youth suicide
prevention and mental health, behavioral observation and reporting, gang intervention, and
de-escalation.
83. Specifically prnhibit the use of segregation as a disciplinary sanction for youth. Segregation may be used on a youth only when the individual's behavior threatens imminent harm to the youth or others. This provision is in addition to, and not a substitute, for the provisions of this Agreement that apply to the use of segregation in general. In addition:
a. Prior to using segregation, staff members must utilize less restrictive techniques :such as verbal de-escalalion and individual counseling, by qualified mental health or other staff trained on the management of youth.
b. Prior to placing a youth in segregation, or immediately thereafter, a staff member must explain to the youth the reasons for the segregation, and the fact that the youth will be released upon regaining self-control.
c, Youth may be placed in segregation only for the amount of time necessary for the individual to regain self-control and no longer pose an immediate threat. As soon as the youth's behavior no longer threatens imminent harm to the youth or others, the County must release the individual back to their regular detentton location, school or other programming.
d. If a youth is placed in segregation, the County must immediately provide one-
37

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 38 of 64

on-one crisis intervention and observation.

e. The County must specifically document and tecord the use of segregation on

youth as part of its incident reporting and quality assurance systems,

f.

A Qualified Medical Professional, or staff member who has completed all

training required for supervising youth, must directly monitor any youth in

segregation at least every fifteen (15) minutes, Such observation must be

documented immediately after each check.

g. Youth may not be held in segregation for a continuous period longer than one

(1) hour during waking hours. If staff members conclude that a youth is not

sufficiently calm to allow a break in segregation after one hour, they tnust

contact a Qualified Mental Health Professional. The Qualified Mental Health

Professional must assess the youth and determine whether the youth requires

treatment or services not available in the Jail. If the youth requires mental

health services that are not provided hy the Jail, the Qualified Mental Health

Provider must immediately notify the Jail Administrator and promptly arrange

for hospitalization or other treatment services.

h. If a youth is held in segregation for a continuous period longer th.an two (2)

hours, Staff Members must notify the Jail Administrator.

L Any notifications or assessments required by this paragraph must be

documented in the youth's individual record.

84, Develop and implement a behavioral treatment program appropriate for youth. This progran1 must be developed with the assistance of a qualified consultant who has at least five years of experience developing behavioral programs for institutionalized youth. The Jail's behavioral program must include all of the following elements:
a. l11e behavioral'program must include positive incentives for changing youth behavior, mitlinc prohibited behaviors, and describe the consequences for prohibited behaviors.
h. An individualized program must be developed by a youth's interdisciplinary treatment team, and properly documented in each youth's personal fiie.
38

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 39 of 64
Documentation requirements must include the collection of data required for proper assessment and treatment of youth with behavioral issues. For instance, the County must track the frequency and duration of positive incentives, segregation, and targeted behaviors. C. The program must include safeguards and prohibitions on the inappropriate use ofrcstraints, segregation, and corporal punishment.
L. LAWFUL BASIS FOR DETENTION
Consistent with constitutional standards, the County must develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that prisoners are processed through the criminal justice system in a manner that respects their liberty interests. To that end:
85. The County will nol accept or continue to house prisoners in the Jail without appropriate,
completed paperwork such as an affidavit, arrest warrant, detention hold, or judge's written detention order. Examples of inadequate paperwork include, but are not limited to undated or unsigned court orders, warrants, and affidavits; documents memorializing oral instructions from court officers that are undated, unsigned, or otherwise fail to identify responsible individuals and the legal basis for continued detention or release; incomplete arresting police officer documents; and any other paperwork that docs not establish a lawful basis for detention.
86. No person shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees in contravention of Uu: protections of the United States Constitution as set forth and discussed in.Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) and Cassibry v. State, 453 So.2d 1298 (Miss. 1984). The County must develop and implement policies consistent with the applicable federal law and the temis of this Agreement.
87. No pt::rson shall be incarcerated in the Jail for failure to pay fines or fees absent (a) documentation demonstrating that a meaningful analysis of that person's ability to pay was conducted by the sentencing court prior to the imposition of any sentence, and (b) written findings by the sentencing courl setting forth the basis for a finding that the failure to pay the subject fines or fees was willful. At a minimum, the County must confirm receipt from the
39

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 40 of 64
sentencing court of a signed "Order" issued by the sentencing court setting forth in detail the basis for a finding that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful.
88. Ifthc documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a person for failure to pay fines or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and any other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate documentation exists and must obtain a copy to justify continued detention of the prisoner. After 48 hours, that prisoner must be released promptly if the Jail staff cannot obtain the necessary documentation to verify that the failure to pay fines or fees was willful, and that person is incarcerated only for the failure to pay fines or fees.
89. If the documentation described in paragraph 87 is not provided within 24 hours of incarceration of a prisoner for failure to pay fines or fees, and if that person is incarcerated for other conviction(s) or charge(s), other than the failure to pay fines and/or fees, Jail staff must promptly notify Jail administrators, Court officials, and other appropriate individuals to ensure that adequate docwnentation exists and to ascertain the prisoner's length of sentence. If Jail staff cannot obtain a copy of the necessary documentation within 48 hours of the prisoner's incarceration, Jail staff must promptly anange for the prisoner's transport to the sentencing court so that the court may conduct a legally sufficient hearing and provide any required documentation, including the fines or fees owed by the prisoner, and an assessment of the prisoner's ability to pay and willfulness (or lack thereof) in failing to pay fines or fees.
90. Jail staff must maintain the records necessary to determine the amount of time a person must serve to pay off any properly ordered fines or fees. To the extent that a sentencing court
docs not specifically calculate the tem1 of imprisonment to be served, the Jail must obtain the
necessary information within 24 hours of a prisoner's incarceration. Within 48 hours of incarceration, each prisoner shall be provided with documentation setting forth clearly the term of imprisonment and the calculation used to determine the term of imprisonment.
91. No pre-trial delaincc or sentenced prisoner incarcerated by lhe County solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be required to perfotm physical labor. Nor shaU any such detainee or prisoner receive any penalty or other adverse consequence for failing to perform such labor,
including differential credit toward sentences. Any physical labor by pre-trial detainees or by 40

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 41 of 64

prisoners incarcerated solely for failure to pay fines or fees shall be performed on a voluntary basis only, and the County shall not in any way coerce such pre-trial detainees or prisoners to perform physical labor.

92. The County must ensure that the Jail timely releases from custody all individuals entitled to release, At minimum:

a. Prisoners are entitled to release if there is no legal basis for their continued detention. Such release must occur no later than 11 :59 PM on the day that a prisoner is entitled to be released.
b. Prisoners must be presumed entitled to release from detenlion if there is a
court order that specifies an applicable release date, or Jail records document no reasonable legal basis for the continued detention of a prisoner. c. Examples of prisoners presumptively entitled to release include:

1.

Individuals who have compleled their sentences;

iL Individuals who have been acquitted of a! I charges after trial;

m. Tndividuals whose charges have been dismissed;

iv. Individuals who arc ordered released by a court order; and

v. Individuals detained by a law enforcement agency that then fails to

promptly provide constitutionally adequate, documented justification

for an individual's continued detention.

93. The County must develop and implement a reliable, complete, and adequate prisoner records system to ensure that staff members can readily detennine the basis for a prisoner's detention, when a prisoner may need to be released, and whether a prisoner should remain in detention. The records system must provide Jail staff with reasonable advance notice prior to an anticipated release date so thal they can contact appropriate agencies to detennine whether a prisoner should be released or remain in detention.

94. Jail record systems must accurately identify and track all prisoners with serious mental illness, including their housing assignment and security incident histories. Jail staff must develop and use records about prisoners with serious mental illness to more accurately and

41

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 42 of 64

efficiently process prisoners requiring forensic evaluations or transport to mental hospitals or other treatment facilities, and to improve individual treatment, supervision, and community transition planning for prisoners with serious mental illness. Records about prisoners with serious mental illness must be incorporated into the Jail's incident reporting, investigations, and medical quality assurance systems. The County must provide an accurate census of the Jail's mental health population as part of its compliance reporting obligations, and the County must address this data when assessing staffing, program, or resource needs.

95. All individuals who (i) were found not guilty, were acquitted, or had charges bruught
against them dismissed, and (ii) are not being held on any other matter, must be released directly from the court unless the court directs otherwise. Additionally:

a. Such individuals must not be handcuffed, shackled, chained with other prisoners, transported back lo the Jail, forced to submit to bodily strip searches, or returned to general population or any other secure Jail housing area containing prisoners.
b. Notwithstanding (a), above, individtrnls may request to be transported back to the Jail solely for the purpose of routine processing for release. lfthe County decides to allow such transport, the County must ensure that Jail policies and procedures govern the process. At"tninimum, policies and procedures must
prohibit staff from:

1.

Requiring the individual to submit to bodily strip searches;

ii. Requiring the individual to change into Jail clothing if the individual is

not already in such clothing~ and

iii. Returning the individual to general population or any other secure Jail

housing area containing prisoners.

96. The County must develop, -implement, and maintain policies and procedures to govern
the release of prisoners. These policies and procedures must:

a,

Describe all documents and records that must be collected and maintained in

Jail files for determining the basis of a prisoner's detention, the prisoner's

42

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 43 of 64
anticipated release date, and their status in the criminal justice system. b. Specifically detail procedures to ensure timely release of prisoners entitled to
be released) and procedures to prevent accidental release. c, Be developed in consultation with court administrators, the District
Attorney's Office, and representatives of the defense bar. d. Include mechanisms for notifying comm1mity mental health providers,
including the County's Program of Assertive Community Treatment ("PACT") team, when releasing a prisoner with serious mental illness so that the prisoner can transition safely back to the community. These mechanisms must include providing such prisoners with appointment information and a supply of their prescribed medications to bridge the time period from release until their appointment with the County PACT team, or other community provider.
97. The County must develop, implement, and maintain appropriate post orders relating to the timely release of individuals. Any post orders must:
a. Contain up-to-date contact information for court liaisons, the District Altorney's Office, and the Public Defender's Office;
b. Describe a process for obtaining higher level supervisor assistance in the event the officer responsible for processing releases encounters administrative difficulties in determining a prisoner's release eligibility or needs urgent assistance in reaching officials from other agencies who have information relevant to a prisoner's release status.
98. Nothing in this Agreement precludes appropriate verification of a prisoner's eligibility for release, including checks for detention holds by outside law enforcement agencies and procedures to confirm the authenticity of release orders. Before releasing a prisoner entitled to release, but no later than the day release is otdered, Jail staff should check the National Crime Information Center or other law enforcement databases lo determine if there may be a basis for continued detention of the prisoner. The results of release verification checks must be fully documented in prisoner records.
43

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 44 of 64

,

99. The County must ensure that the release process is adequately staffed by qualified detention officers and supervisors. To that end, the County must
a. Ensure that sufficient qualified staff members, with access to prisoner records and to the Jail's e-mail account for receiving court orders, are available to receive and effectuate court release orders twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
b. Ensure that staff members responsible for the prisoner release process and related records have the knowledge, skills, training, experience, and abilities to implement the Jail's release policies and procedures. At minimum, the County must provide relevant staff 1nemhers with specific pre-service and anuual in-service training related to prisoner records, the criminal justice process, legal terms, and release procedures. The training must include instruction on:
1. How to process release orders for each court, and whom to contact if a question arises;
u. What to do if the equipment for contacting other agencies, such as the Jail's fax machine or email service, malfunctions, or communication is otherwise disrupted;
m. Various types of court dispositions, and the language typically used therein, to ensure staff members understand the meaning of court orders; and
iv. IIow and when to check for detaincrs to ensure that an individual may be released from court after she or he is found not guilly, is acquitted, or has the charges brought against her or him dismissed.
c. Provide detention staff with sufficient clerical support to prevent backlogs in the filing of prisoner records.
100. The County must annually review its prisoner release and detention process to ensure that it complies with any changes in federal law, such as the constitutional standard for civil or pre-trial detention.
44

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 45 of 64
101. The County must ensure that the Jail's rccordwkeeping and quality assurance policies and procedures allow both internal and external audit of the Jail's release process, prisoner lengths of stay, and identification of prisoners who have been held for unreasonably long periods without charges or other legal process. The County must, at minimum, require:
a. A Jail log that documents (i) the date each prisoner was entitled to release; (ii) the date, time, and manner by which the Jail received any relevant court order; (iii) the date and time that prisoner was in fact released; (iv) the time that elapsed between receipt of the court order and release; (v) the date and time when information was received requiring the detention or continued detention of a prisoner (e.g., immigration holds or other detainers), and (vi) the identity of the authority requesting the detention or continued detention of a prisoner.
b. Completion of an incident report, and appropriate follow-up investigation and administrative review, if an individual is held in custody past 11 :59 PM on the day that she or he is entitled to release. The incident report must document the reason(s) for lhe error. The incident report must be submilted to the Jail Administrator no later than one calendar day after the error was discovered.
102. The County must appoint a staff memher to serve as a Quality Control Officer with responsibility for internal auditing and monitoring of the release process. This Quality Control Officer will be responsible for helping prevent errors with the release process, and the individual's duties will include tracking releases to ensure that staff members are ·completing all required paper work and checks. If the Quality Control Officer determines that an error has been made, the individual must have the authority to take corrective action, including the aulhority to immediately contact the Jail Administrator or other County official with authority to order a prisoner's release. The Quality Control Officer's duties also include providing data and reports so that release errors are incorporated into the Jail's continuous improvement and . quality assurance process.
45

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 46 of 64
103. The County must require investigation of all incidents relating to timely or erroneous
prisoner release within seven calendar days by appropriate investigators, supervisors, and the
Jail Administrator. The Jail Administrator must document any deficiencies found and any corrective action taken. The Jail Administrator must then make any necessary changes to Jail
policies and procedures. Such changes shoufd be made, if appropriate, in consultation with
court personnel, the District Attorney's Office, members of the defense bar, and any other law enforcement agencies involved in untimely or erroneous prisoner releases.
104. The County must conduct bi-annual audits of release policies, procedures, and practices. As part of each audit, the County must make any necessary changes to ensure that individuals arc being released in a timely manner. The audits must review all data collected regarding timely release, including any incident reports or Quality Control audits referenced in Paragraph 102 above. The County must document the audits and recommendations, and must submit all documentation to the Monitor and the United States for review.
105. The County must ensure that policies, procedures, and practices allow for reasonable attorney visitation, which should be treated as a safeguard to prevent the unlawful detention of citizens and for helping to ensure the efficient functioning of the County's criminal justice system. The Jail's attorney visitation process must provide sufficient space for attorneys to meet with thdr clients in a confidential setting, and must include scheduling procedures to ensure that defense attorneys can meet with their clients for reasonable lengths of time and
without undue delay. An incident repo1t must be completed if Jail staff are unable to transport
a prisoner to meet with their attorney, or if there is a delay of more than 30 minutes for transporting a prisoner for a scheduled attorney visit.
M. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
The County must develop an effective system for identifying and self-correcting systemic violations of prisoner's constitutional rights. To that end, the County must:
106. Develop and maintain a database and computerized tracking system to monitor all
reportable incidents, uses of force, and grievances. This tracking system will serve as the
repository of information used for continuing improvement and quality assurance reports.
46

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 47 of 64

107. Compile an Incident Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Incident Summary Reports must compile and summarize incident report data in order to identify trends such as rates of incidents in general, by housing unit, by day of the week and date, by shift, and by individual prisoners or staff members. The Incident Summary reports must, at minimum, include the following information:

a. Brief summary of all reportable incidents, by type, shift, housing unit, and

date;

b, Description of all suicides and deaths, including the date, name of prisoner,

housing unit, and location where the prisoner died (including name of hospital

if prisoner died off~site);

c. The names and number of prisoners placed in emergency restraints, and

segregation, and the frequency and duration of s1.1ch placements;

d. List and total number of incident reports received during the reporling period;

e.

List and Total number of incidents referred to TAD or other law enforcement

agencies for investigation.

108. Compile a Use of Force Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Use of Poree
Swnmary Reports must compile and summarize use of force report data in order to identify trends such as rates of use in general, by housing unit, by shift, by day of the week and date,
by individual prisoners, and by staff members. The Use of Force Summary reports must, at
minimum, include the following infonnation:

a. Summary of all uses of force, by type, shift, housing unit, and date; b, List and total number of use of force reports received during the reporting
period;
c. List and total number of uses of force reports/incidents referred to TAD or
other law enforcement agencies for investigation.

109. Compile a Grievance Summary Report on at least a monthly basis. The Grievance Summary Reports must compile and summarize grievance infonnation in order to identify trends such as most frequently reported complaints, units generating the most grievances, and staff members receiving the most grievances about their conduct. To identify trends and
47

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 48 of 64
potential concerns, at least quarterly, a member of the Jail's management staff must review the Grievance Summary Reports and a random sample of ten percent of all grievances filed during the review period. These grievance reviews, any recommendations, and corrective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
110. Compile a monthly summary report of IAD investigations conducted at the Facility. 'I'he IAD Summary Report must include:
a. A brief summary of all completed investigations, by type, shift, housing unit, and date;
b. A listing of investigations referred for disciplinary action or other final disposition by type and date;
c. A listing of all investigations referred to a law enforcement agency and the name of the agency, by type and date; and
d. A listing of all staff suspended, terminated, arrested or reassigned because of misconduct or violations of policy and procedures. This list must also contain the specific misconduct and/or violation,
111. Conduct a review, at least annually, to determine whether the incident, use of force, grievance reporting, and IAD systems comply with the requirements of this Agreement and are effective at ensuring staff compliance with their constitutional obligations. The County must make any changes to the rcpo1iing systems that it determines are necessary as a result of the system reviews. These reviews and cmTective actions must be documented and provided to the United States and Monitor.
112. Ensure that the Jail's continuous improvement and quality assurance systems include an Early Intervention component to alert Administrators of potential problems with staff members. The purpose of the Early Intervention System is to identify and addr,ess patterns of behavior or allegations which may indicate staff training deficiencies, persistent policy violations, misconduct, or criminal activity. As part of the Early Intervention process, incident reports, use of force reports, and prisoner grievances must be screened by designated staff members for such patterns. If misconduct, criminal activity, or behaviors indicate the need for corrective action, the screening staff must refer the incidents or allegations to Jail
48

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 49 of 64
supervisors, administrators, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies for investigation.
Additionally:
a. The Early Intervention System may be integrated with other database and comp1..1terized tracking systems required by this Agreement, provided any unified system otherwise still meets the terms of this Agreement.
b. The Early Intervention System must screen for staff members who may be using excessive force, regardless of whether use of force reviews concluded that the uses complied with Jail policies and this Agreement. This provision allows identification of staff members who may still benefit from additional training and serves as a check on any deficiencies with use of force by field supervisors.
c. The Jail Administrator, or dcsignee of at least Captain rank, must personally review Early Intervention System data and alerts at least quarterly. The Administrator, or dcsignee, must document when reviews were conducted as well as any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken.
d. The County must maintain a list of any staff members identified by the Early fntervention System as possibly needing additional training or discipline. A copy of this list must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
e. The County must take appropriate, documented, and corrective action when staff members have been identified as engaging in misconduct, criminal activity, or a pattern of violating Jail policies.
f. The County must review the Early Intervention System, at least bi-annually, to ensure that it is effective arid used to identify staff members who may need additional training or discipline, The County must document any findings, recommendations, or corrective actions taken as a resuit of these reviews. Copies of these reviews must be provided to the United States and the Monitor.
113.Develop and implement policies and procedures for Jail databases, tracking systems, and computerized records (including the Early Intervention System), that ensure both functionality and data security. The policies and procedures must address all of the following issues: data
49

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 50 of 64
storage, data retrieval, data reporting, data analysis and pattern identification, supervisor responsibilities, standards used to detennine possible violations and corrective action, documentation, legal issues, staff and prisoner privacy rights, system security, and audit mechanisms.
114. Ensure that the Jail's medical staff are i_ncluded as part of the continuous improvement and quality assurance process. At minimum, medical and mental health staff must be included through all of the following mechanisms:
a. Medical staff must have the independent authority to promptly refer cases of suspected assault or abuse to the Jail Administrator, IAD, or other law enforcement agencies;
b. Medical staff representatives must he involved in mortality reviews and systemic reviews of serious incidents. At minimum, a physician must prepare a mortality review within 30 days of every prisoner death. An outside physician must review any mortalities associated with treatment by Jail physicians.
N. CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
115, Hinds County will establish a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee ("Coordinating Committee") with subject matter expertise and experience that will assist in streamlining criminal justice processes, and identify and develop solutions and interventions designed to lead to diversion from arrest, detention, and incarceration. The Coordinating Committee will focus particularly on diversion of individuals with serious mental illness and juveniles. Using the Sequential Intercept Model, 1 or an alternative acceptable to the Parties, the Coordinating Committee will identify strategies for diversion at each intercept point where individuals may encounter the criminal justice system, and will
See Mark Munctz & Patricia Griffin, Use of the Sequential intercept Mod~lg_s an approach to decriminalization of people with serious mental illness, Psychiatry Services, 57(4):544-549, April 2006, hllp://ps.p~cllhtryonline.orgldoi/pdt) 10. l l 76/ps.2006.57.4.54_4.
50

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 51 of 64
assess the County's current diversion efforts and unmet service needs in order to identify opportunities for successful diversion of such individuals. The Committee will recommend appropriate changes to policies and procedures and additional services necessary to increase diversion.
116. The Coordinating Committee will include representation from the Hinds County Sheriffs
Office and Hinds County Board of Supervisors. The County will also seek representation from Hinds County Behavioral Health Services; the Jackson Police Department; Mississippi Department of Mental Health; Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services; judges from the Hinds County Circuit, Chancery, and County (Youth and Justice) Courts; Hinds County District Attorney Office; Hinds County Public Defender Office; relevant Jackson city officials; and private advocates or other interested community members.
t 17, The Coordinating Committee will prioritize enhancing coordination with local behavioral
health systems, with the goal of connecting individuals experiencing mental health crisis, including juveniles, with available services to avoid unnecessary arrest, detention, and incarceration.
118. Within 30 days of the Effective Date and in consultation with the United States, the County will select and engage an outside consultant to provide technical a"lsistance to the County and Coordinating Committee regarding strategies for reducing the jail population and increasing diversion from criminal justice involvement, particularly for individuals
with mental illness and juveniles. This technical assistance will include (a) a
comprehensive review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing efforts to reduce recidivism and increase diversion; {b) identification of gaps in the current efforts, (c) recommendations of actions and strategies to achieve diversion and reduce recidivism; ani;l. (d) estimates of costs and cost savings associated with those strategies. The review will include interviews with representatives from the agencies and entities referenced in Paragraph 116 and other relevant stakeholders as necessary for a thorough evaluation and recommendation. Within 120 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the outside consultant will finalize and make public a report regarding the results oftheir assessment
51

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 52 of 64

and recommendations. The Coordinating Committee will implement the recommended
strategies and will continue to use the outside consultant to assist with implementation of
the strategies when appropriate.

V.

IMPLEMENTATION, TIMING, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

119. Consistent with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Constitution, and termination
procedures of this Agreement, the County must substantially implement all provisions of this Agreement.

120. The County must begin implementing the requirements of this Agreement immediately upon the Effective Date. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, all provisions of the Agreement must be implemented within one year of the Effective Date.

121. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the County must distribute copies of the Agreement lo all prisoners and Jail staff, including all medical and security staff, with appropriate explanation as to the staff members' obligations under the Agreement. At minimum:

a. A copy of the Agreement must be posted in each unit (including

booking/intake and medical areas), and program rooms (e.g., classrooms and

any library).

b.

Individual copies of the Agreement must be provided to prisoners upon

request.

122. This Agreement is applicable to and binding upon all parties, their officers, agents, employees, assigns, and their successors in office.

123. This Agreement is enforceable only by the Parties. No person or entity is intended to be a third-party beneficiary of the provisions of this Agreement for purposes of any civil, criminal, or administrative action. Accordingly, no person or entity may assert any claim or right as a beneficiary or protected class under this Agreement.

124. All parties must bear their own costs, including attorney fees,

52

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 53 of 64

125, The parties agree to defend the provisions of this Agreement. The parties must notify each other of any court challenge to this Agreement. In the event any provision of this
Agreement is challenged in any local or state court, the parties will seek to remove the action
to a federal court.

126. The failure by either party to enforce th.is entire Agreement or any provision thereof, with
respect to any deadline or any other provision herein, must not be construed as a waiver of its right to enforce any deadlines or provisions of this Agreement.

127. If any unforeseen circumstance occurs that causes a failure to timely carry out any
requirements of this Agreement, the County must notify the Monitor and the United States in
v,,rriting as soon as possible, and in any case no later than 14 days afler the County becomes aware of the unforeseen circumstance and its impact on the County's ability to perform under the Agreement. The notice must describe the cause of the failure to perf01m and the measures taken to prevent or minimize the failure. The County must implement all reasonable measures
to avoid or minimize any such failure.

128. In the event any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid for any reason by a court
of competent jurisdiction, said finding docs not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement.

129. All subheadings in this Agreement are written for convenience of locating individual
, I
provisions. If questions arise as to the meanings of individual provisions, they should be
resolved by the text of each provision,

VI.

POLICY AND PROCEDURE REVIEW

130. The County must review all existing policies and procedures to ensure their compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. Where the Jail does not have a policy or procedure in place that complies with the terms of this Agreement, the County must draft such a policy or procedure, or revise ils existing policy or procedure.

131. The County shall complete its policy and procedure review and revision within six months of the Effective Date of this Agreement.

53

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 54 of 64

132. Once the County reviews and revises its policies and procedures, the County must provide a copy ofits policies and procedures to the United States and the Monitor for review and comment. The County must address all comments and make any changes requested by the United States or the Monitor within thirty (30) days after reccivi11g the comments and resubmit the policies and procedures to the United States and Monitor for review.

133. No later than three months after the United States' approval of each policy and procedure, the County must adopt and begin implementing the policy and procedure, while also modifying all post orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the policies and procedures,

134. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, all new or revised policies and procedures must be implemented within six months of the United States' approval of the policy or procedure.

135. The County must annually review its policies and procedures, revising them as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures mmt be submitted to the United States and the Monitor for approval in accordance with paragraphs 129-131 above.

VII.

MONITORING

A. SELECTION AND AUTONOMY OF THE MONITOR

136. This Agreement must be monitored by an individual approved by the Court. Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, H-te United States and the County must jointly submit a proposed Monitor to the Court for approval. lfthe parties cannot agree on a joint Monitor, each party must submit the names and CU!iicula vitae of three proposed candidates to the Court for approval, and the Court will select one of the candidates from the parties' lists,

137. Ifthe Monitor position becomes vacant during the life of the Agreement, within 90 days of the vacancy, the United States and the County willjointly submit a new proposed Monitor to the Court for approval. If the parties cannot agree on a joint Monitor, each party mu.~t submit the names and curricula vitae ofup to three proposed candidates to the Court for approval, and the Court will select one of the candidates from the parties' lists.

54

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 55 of 64
138. 'l'he cost of the Monitor's fees and expenses will be borne by the County. The County will contract with the Monitor to provide these monitoring services. As part of that contract, a reasonable budget will be agreed upon by and between the County and the Monitor to include a maximum dollar amount that can be spent in a given twelve (12) month period. The County will provide the Monitor with a budget sufficient to carry out the responsibilities described in this Agreement,
139. The Monitor only has the duties, responsibilities, and authority confe1Ted by this Agreement. The Monitor must be subject to the supervision and orders of the Court and applicable law.
140. Neither the County nor the United States, nor any of their employees or agents, may have any supervisory authority over the Monitor's activities, reports, findings, or recommendations. The Monitor may be terminated only by (i) joint stipulation of the pru.iics; or (ii) for good cause unrelated to the Monitor's findings, as approved by the Court.
141. The Monitor may contract or consult with other individuals or entities to assist in the
evaluation of compliance. The Monitor will pay for the services out of his/her budget. These
individuals and entities must be governed and bound by the terms of this Agreement as the Monitor is governed and bound by those tei-ms, The Monitor may engage in ex parte communications with the County and the United States regarding this Agreement.
B. MONITOR'S AND UNITED STATES' ACCESS
142. The Monitor and United States will have full and complete access to the Jail, Jail documents and records, prisoner medical and mental health records, staff members, and prisoners.
143. The Parties shall have the opportunity to participate in all monitoring site visits.
144. The County must maintain sufficient records to document that the requirements ofthis Agreement are being properly implemented and must make such records available to the United States or Monitor at all reasonable times for inspection and copying, The County must maintain, and submit upon request, records or other documents to verify that the County has
55

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 56 of 64

I

taken such actions as described in any self-assessment compliance reports (e.g., census

summaries, policies, procedures, protocols, training materials and incident reports).

\

145. The County will direct all employees, contractors, and agents to cooperate fully with the

Monitor and United States.

I

I

146.Consistent with federal law, the Local Rules of the Court, and the federal Rules of Civil

I

Procedure, all information obtained by the Monitor will be maintained in a confidential

'II:

manner.

147. Within seven days of receipt, the Monitor will distribute to the United States alJ documents, fonns, assessments, and reports submitted by the County to the Monitor unless the County has already distributed a copy of such items to the United States.

C. MONITOR REPORTING

148. \Vithin three months of the Effective Date, the Monitor will conduct a baseline site visit of the Jail to assess the Jail's status regarding the obligations under this Agreement. This baseline visit will include a preliminary evaluation of how County policies and practices address each paragraph of this Agreement. As a result of the baseline site visit, the Monitor will design a monitoring plan. The baseline site visit will allow the Monitor to become familiar with the Jail and this Agreement. It will also allow the Monitor to inform the County and United States regarding what inforntation the Monilor will requii"e the County to routinely report and with what frequency, consistent with this Agreement.

149. The Monitor must conduct an on-site inspection and issue a Compliance Report four months after the baseline visit. The Monitor must then conduct an on-site inspection at least every four months thereafter, and issue a draft Compliance Report 30 days after each inspection. A draft Report must be provided to the County and the United States for comment at least thirty (30) days prior to its issuance as a final Report. If any party wishes to comment, comments must be submitted to the Monitor no later than IO business days after the draft is provided to the pa1ties. The Monitor must consider the commen.ts of the County and the --United States, if any, beforn issuing each final Compliance Report.

56

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 57 of 64
150. The Compliance Reports must describe the steps taken by the County to implement this Agreement and evaluate the extent to which the County has complied with each substantive provision of the Agreement. Findings in the Monitor's Reports will be considered persuasive, but rebuttable, in Court. Each Report:
a. Must evaluate the status of compliance for each provision of the Agreement using the following standards: ( 1) Substantial Complhmcc; (2) Partial Compliance; and (3) Non-compliance.
b. Must be based on the Monitor's review of a sufficient number of pertinent documents and interview a sufficient number of staff and prisoners to accurately assess current conditions.
c. May include information received by the Monitor through communication with former prisoners and staff, family members, local ot1icials, criminal justice officials (including representatives of both the Districl Attorney's Office and Public Defender's Office), private defense attorneys, and relevant community members, so Long as such communication is consistent with applicable law.
d. Must describe the steps taken by the Monitor to analyze conditions and assess compliance. This description must include identifying any documents reviewed and individuals interviewed, and the factual basis for each of the Monitor's findings. The report, however, must be prepare with due regard for the privacy interests of individuals.
e. Must contain the Monitor's independent verification of representations from the County regarding progress toward compliance.
f. Must provide recommendations to assist the County in attaining compliance with the Agreement, including a proposed outline of corrective actions that the County should implement within the next six months after issuance of the Monitor's report.
g. Must be filed with the Court.
57

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 58 of 64
151. Nothing in thls Section prohibits the Monitor from issuing interim letters or reports to the United States, the County, or the Court in this case, should the Monitor deem such correspondence necessary.
D. LIMITATIONS
152. The Monitor may not make any public st_atements (at a press,conference or otherwise) with regard to any act or omission of the County, or disclose information provided to the
Monitor pursuant to this Agreement, except as authorized by this Agreement, the Court, or by
joint stipulation ofthe parties.
153. The Monitor may not testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to any act or omission of the County, or the County's agents, representatives, or employees, as those acts or omissions relate to this Agreement. The preceding restriction docs not apply to any legal action brought by the Monitor against the County to obtain compensation for past services or to enforce the Monitor's rights under this Agreement. Unless called to testify by the Court or one of the parties to this Agreement, the Monitor may not testify regarding any matter or subject that he or she may have learned as a result of his or her performance under this Agreement. Unless such conflict is waived in writing by the County and the United States, the Monitor must not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with the Monitor's responsibilities under this AgL"eement, including being retained {on a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future private litigant or claimant, or such litigant's or claimant's attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against the County or the United States, including their departments, officers, agents or employees, regarding the
subject matter of this case. If the parties cannot agree on whether to waive a conflict, they
may seek appropriate relief from the CourL The mere fact that the Monitor provides expert opinion or consulting services regarding civi I rights or institutional reform does not itself constitute a conflict, where such opinion or services are provided in another jurisdiction.
154. The Monitor is not a State, County or local agency; nor is the Monitor an agent thereof. Accordingly, records maintained or in the custody of the Monitor must not be deemed public records subject to public inspection.
58

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 59 of 64

155. The Monitor will provide the County with technical assistance as reasonably requested.
Technical assistance requests must not interfere with the Monitor's independence and ability to assess compliance.

156. The Monitor will convene regular monthly conference calls with the County and the United States to discuss implementation of the terms of the Agreement, updates, and any other items that the Monitor or the parties wish to discuss.

157. The County, including its agents, representatives, and employees, is prohibited from retaliating against any person for providing information or assistance to the Monitor or the United States relating to this Agreement. If the Court finds that such retaliation has occurred, it may issue appropriate relief, including issuance of an appropriate proteclivc order, sanctions, and referral for criminal prosecution.

158. The Monitor must treat all personally identifiable information obtained pursuant to this Agreement as confidential. While the Monitor may comply with this provision by using pseudonyms) codes, or initials when describing individual prisoners in any Compliance Report, the Monitor must also maintain a key, The Monitor must provide the key to the County and the United States, when submitting any Compliance Report, unless there is reasonable concern that such provision would subject the individual to retaliation. A copy of the key must be filed under seal with the Court if the Court requires filing of the key with the Compliance Rep0tt.

VIII.

COUNTY SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT AND COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR

159.'fhe County must file a self.assessment compliance report. The first compliance self.assessment report must be filed with the Court within four months of the Effective Date and at least one month before a Monitor site visit. Each self•assessment compliance report must describe in detail the actions the County has taken during the reporting pe1iod to implement this Agreement and must make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. The report must include information suppmting the County's representations regarding its compliance with the Agreement such as quality assurance

59

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 60 of 64

information, trends, statistical data, and remedial activities. Supporting information should be based on reports or data routinely collected as part of the audit and quality assurance activities required by this Agreement (e.g., incident, use of force, system, maintenance, and early intervention), rather than generated only to support representations made in the selfassessment.

160. The County must designate a full-time Compliance Coordinator to coordinate compliance activities required by this Agreement. This person will serve as a primary point of contact for the Monitor. Two years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties may consult with each other and the Monitor to determine whether the Compliance Coordinator's hours may be reduced. The Parties may then stipulate to any agreed reduction in hours.

IX.

EMERGKNT CONDITIONS

161. The County must notify the Monitor and United States of any prisoner death, riot, escape, injury requiring hospitalization, or over-detention of a prisoner (i.e., failure to release a prisoner before 11 :59 PM on the day she or he was entitled to be released), within 3 days of learning of the event.

X.

JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT

162. The Uniled States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi will retain
jurisdiction over this matter for the purposes of enforcing this Agreement. The Court's jurisdiction extends to any facilities built, contracted, modified, or used by the County to
house prisoners during the life of this Agreement.

163. During the period that this Agreement is in force, prior to initiating any enforcement proceedings in Cami for an alleged failure to fulfill an obligation under this Agreement, the
aggrieved party will notify the other party in writing of the facts supporting the aggrieved
party's belief that the other party is not in compliance. The responding party will investigate the allegations and respond in writing within 30 days. If the parties are unable to resolve the issue(s) satisfactorily within 30 days of the written response, the aggrieved party may move the Court for any relief permitted by law or equity. In the event of an emergency (i.e., imminent threat to the life, health, or safety of prisoners), the United States may seek
60

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 61 of 64

immediate relief without providing the notice and conciliation otherwise required by this provision.

XI.

CONSTRUCTION AND TERMINATION

164. This Agreement will terminate if the parties jointly stipulate that the County has achieved and maintained substantial compliance with the Agreement for at least two years, and the Court then enters an appropriate order terminating the Agreement and dismissing jurisdiction.

165. If the parties do not jointly stipulate to dismissal, the County may file a unilateral motion to dismiss. The County may not file a unilateral motion to dismiss until this Agreement has been in effect for at least two years. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, the burden will be on the County to demonstrate that the County substantially implemented each provision of the Agreement, and that such comp Hance was maintained continuously for the two years prior to filing of the motion, Non-compliance with mere technicalities, or temporary failure to comply during a period of otherwise substantial compliance, will not constitute failure by the County to maintain compliance. At the same time, temporary compliance during a period of sustained non-compliance will not constitute substantial compliance,

XII.

STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT,

18 u.s.c. § 3626

166. The United States and the County stipulate and agree that this Agreement complies in all respects with the requirements for prospective relief under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § J626(a).

167. The United States and the County stipulate and agree that all of the prospective relief in this Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violations of federal rights as set forth by the United States in its Complaint and Findings Letter, is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violations, and will not have any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justic~ system.

61

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 62 of 64

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

GREGORY K. DAVIS U.S. Attorney Southern District of Mississippi
Civil Ch U. S, Attorney's Office Southern District of Mississippi 501 East Court Street Suite 4.430 Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 973-2840 Mitzi.Paige@usdoj.gov MS Bar #6014

VANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General lJ.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
\
\ \
/Jt;f\1/~)
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-5393 Steven.Roscnbaum@usdo\.gov NY Bar#l901958

I'.
LAU Special Counsel U.S. Deparlment of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 Laura. Coon@usdoj, gov DC Bar# 481379
CHRISTOPHER N CHENG Trial Attorney U.S. Depmiment of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-8892
62

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 63 of 64
(202) 514-4883 (fax) Christopher.Cheng@usdoj.gov PA Bar #69066
K'.t·. " v, &(vt,1tti1• . 9:t•lJ C' U.,~
ELIBE'J'H C. KELLEY ,__j
Trial Attorney U.S. Depmiment of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-0460 Beth.Kelley@usdoj.gov VA Bar #80255
63

Case 3:16-cv-00489-WHB-JCG Document 8-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 64 of 64
FOR THE COUNTY, SHERIFF, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR:
---§.,.-~~
PTETER TEEUWISSEN Board Attorney P.O. Box 686 Jackson, MS 39205-0686 (601) 968-6797 (601) 968-6794 (fax) MS Bar#8777 £!t>Cll\.\· i;,sen;d.i.:o.hi nd s.1n:,.w,
CLAIRE BARKER Counsel to the Sheriff 407 East Pascagoula Street Jackson, MS 39205 (601) 974-2967 (60 I)qi&-& 10(Fax) MS Bsc#JuLl:,12
£.!1arker ·ttco.h inds.JHS...!.L':>.
64

 
 U.S. Department of Justice C ivil Rights Division

Offen• oj tire A.11i1111111 Allomcy· Ge11en1l

l\mhin'1m11. D.C. 20530
MAY 2 12015

Ms. Peggy Hobson Calhoun Board President 11inds County Board of Supervisors Hinds County Chancery Court Building 3 16 South President Street Jackson. MS 3920 I
Mr. Tyrone Lewis S he r i f f Hinds County 407 East Pascagoula Street Jackson, MS 3920 I
Re: Investigation of the Hinds County Adult Detention Center
Dear Ms. Calho un and Mr. Lewis:
The pecial Litigation Section of the C iviI Rights Division has completed its invest igation of conditio ns at the Hinds County Adult Detention Center ("Jail"),1 pursuant to the
Civil Rights or Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRlPA''), 42 U.S.C. § 1997.2 Consistent with the
statuto ry requirements orCRTPA, we now write to inform you of our findings, the facts s uppo rting those findings, and the minimum remedial steps necessary to address the identified deficiencies. We conclude that Hinds County ("County") vio lates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Cons titutio n by (l) failing to provide conditions of confinement that offer prisoners reasonable safety and protection from v iolence, and (2) holding prisoners in the Jail beyond their coui1-ordered release d ates.3

Our investigation included both the H inds County Adult Detention Center in Raymond. Mississippi , and the Jackson City D etention Center in Jackson, Mississippi.

2

C RIPA authorizes the U.S. Department or Justice to seek equitable relief w here

conditions violate the constitutiona l rights of prisoners in state or loca l correctional facilities.

J

For purposes of this letter, the term " prisoner" refers to all ind ividuals housed at the Jail.

We understand that various categories of individuals are held in the Jail , including pretrial

detainees. people who have been convicted of crimes, people awaiting transfer to another

jurisdiction, and people who are being held for nonpayment of child suppo11.

2
As you are aware, over the last three years, a series of incidents have caused serious physical harm and posed an ongoing risk ofserious harm to individuals in the Jail. These incidents include at least three major riots, two alleged homicides, and numerous assaults on prisoners and staffmembers. They required closing entire housing units and transferring prisoners to other jurisdictions, where they were difficult to locate by defense attorneys and court officials. Attorney access to clients was interrupted. Tactical teams have been repeatedly called in to restore order to the facility. The situation has been of such concern that in September 2013, the County Circuit Court entered a series oforders directing the grand jury to review Jail conditions with the assistance ofan appointed monitoring team. Grand jury consultants and the monitoring team identified a host of serious systemic issues such as inadequate staffing, physical plant deficiencies, and unsound security procedures. As discussed further in this letter, we confirmed many of the same findings during our inspection.
In response to the emergency situation, County officials have tried to take remedial action to address reported Jail deficiencies. The Sheriff and County Board have expended funds to make physical plant repairs, contracted with experienced managers to oversee Jail reforms, and started planning other improvements. However, these actions have not remedied the Jail's fundamental problems. As we detail below, the Jail needs additional qualified staff, an effective classification system, and systemic improvements to the maintenance of physical security features. Harsh practices, such as long-term lockdowns and the confinement ofprisoners in unsanitary cells, must cease. Policies and procedures for processing prisoners must be more reliable and efficient, to prevent unnecessary detention. Until the County implements systemic remedies, piecemeal reforms are insufficient.
Thus, despite the County's recent efforts to address systemic deficiencies, we find that longstanding problems with Jail safety and security persist. Many ofthese problems were described by local grand jury investigations, news reports, and the facjlity's own incident reports. They continue to pose an unacceptable risk to prisoners in violation ofthe Constitution.
I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Constitutional deficiencies at the Jail violate prisoners' Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically:
• The Jail does not provide prisoners with reasonable safety and minimum levels of protection from violence by other prisoners and staff members. The Jail lacks sufficient numbers of trained staff to supervise prisoners and to deal with emergencies. The Jail's physical plant poses serious maintenance challenges. Prisoners have exploited physical plant weaknesses to breach secured areas in order to assault other prisoners. The Jail also has a serious contraband problem. Ready prisoner access to weapons, cell phones, drugs, and other illicit materials contribute to the ongoing risk ofharm to both prisoners and staff.
• The dangerous conditions in the Jail have resulted in, or contributed to, numerous prisoner-on-prisoner assaults. Gang violence is common, and Jail staffhas few tools available to separate rival gang members and others who pose a threat of violence. While

3
many staff members strive to respond professionally to dangerous working conditions, inexperienced or inadequately trained staff members use force even in situations when such force may be excessive or could escalate tensions in an already dangerous environment
• Jail understaffing and inadequate recordkeeping and communication systems with the courts have resulted in overdetention of prisoners beyond their court-ordered release dates.
ll. INVESTIGATION
On June 2, 2014, we notified County officials of our intent to conduct an investigation of the Jail pursuant to CRIPA. Specifically, we notified officials that the investigation would focus on whether the County protects prisoners from prisoner-on-prisoner violence and use of force by staff members. On January 20, 2015, we notified County officials that we were expanding our investigation to consider whether the Jail detains individuals without legal authority by failing to release them once there is no longer a legal basis for their detention.
During our investigation, we interviewed administrators, County officials, representatives of the County criminal justice system, prisoners, and staff members. We reviewed policies and procedures, incident reports, education records, internal investigation reports, grievances, legal complaints, grand jury inspection reports, news articles and numerous other Jail records. We conducted on-site inspections September 9-11, 2014, and January 27-29, 2015. We also received correspondence and communicated with concerned members of the community.
County officials cooperated with our investigation. We would like to specifically thank the Sheriff, Members of the County Board, former Administrator Gatson-Riley, Warden Taylor, Sergeant Hooker, and counsel for the Sheriff and County Board, for their efforts to faci litate our review. Such cooperation helped clarify issues and expedite the completion ofour investigation.
At the beginning of our on-site inspections, County representatives acknowledged many of the concerns that were ultimately confirmed by our investigation. In recognition of the County ' s cooperation and in keeping with our pledge to be transparent, we conveyed preliminary findings to County officials at the conclusion of our September on-site visit as technical assistance. This letter now embodies the formal findings of the Department of Justice. We appreciate the positive working relationship adopted during our investigation, and we are confident that it will continue as the parties address the egregious conditions described in this letter.
Ill. BACKGROUND
The Jail includes two major facilities operated by the Hinds County Sheriff's Department. The 594-bed facility in Raymond, Mississippi, was built in I994 ("Raymond Facility"). The 192-bed facility in Jackson, Mississippi, was built in 1974 ("Jackson Facility"). Juveni les charged as adults and female prisoners are held at the Jackson Facility. The Sheriffs Department also operates a Work Release Center next to the Raymond Facility. We did not specifically review conditions at the Work Release Center, because it is a distinct and separate

4
mm1mum-security, state-county operation. However, as we will detail later in this letter, the manner in which the Work Release Center fits into the County detention system bas an indirect impact on conditions in the other two facilities. To that extent, we address the relationship and its implications for r·emedying unconstitutional Jail conditions.
IV. FINDINGS
We find that the County violates the constitutional rights of prisoners by failing to protect prisoners from serious physical harm caused by other prisoners and by exposing prisoners to an unreasonable risk ofharm from the inappropriate use of force by untrained and poorly supervised staff members. We further find that the County fails to meet its constitutional obligation to release individuals from the Jail once the County no longer has a legal basis for the individuals' deten6on.
A. The Jail Fails to Reasonably Protect Prisoners from Serious Harm.
We find that the Jail does not meet its obligations under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to protect prisoners from serious harm, see Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994), and a substantial risk ofserious harm, see Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33-35 (1993); see also Stokes v. De/Cambre, 710 F.2d 1120, 1124-25 (5th Cfr. 1983) (holding that jailers must provide prisoners "reasonable protection" from injury by other prisoners); Kitchen v. Dallas Cnty., 759 F.3d 468, 482 (5th Cir. 2014) (officials liable for failure to take reasonable measures to abate serious risk ofharm). Because they have not been convicted of any crime, pretrial detainees are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from "punishment per se," while individuals convicted ofa crime are protected by the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment." Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364, 1368-370, 1373-74 (5th Cir. I981) ("Jones II") (subsequent history omjtted). In making this finding, we draw three conclusions. First, Jail conditions are unsafe by any objective measure. Second, the conditions have resulted in harm or serious risk of harm to prisoners. Third, the County has not corrected known systemic deficiencies that contribute to violence at the Jail. See generally Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833-38; cf Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 573 (10th Cir. 1980) (upholding district court finding that state failed to protect inmates from violence from other inmates).
I . Jail Conditions Are Objectively Unsafe.
Under the Constitution, officials must take precautions to protect prisoners from violence, and are " not free to let nature take its course." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833-34. This means officials must have systems in place to ensure objectively reasonable levels of safety and supervision. Required security systems can include having sufficient numbers of trained personnel to deter violence and policies for the safe housing and monitoring of prisoners. Required security policies can further include a classification system to separate prisoners based on identified security concerns, such as whether an individual has been convicted of serious crimes or has other individual characteristics that may affect housing decisions. See Jones, 636 F.2d at 137376; Jones v. Diamond, 594 F.2d 997 (5th Cir. 1979) (addressing classification as an appropriate remedy for violence stemming from failure to appropriately separate prisoners); Gates v. Collier, 501F.2d1291 , 1309-310 (5th Cir. 1974) (lack of classification, supervision, and other factors may together result in a constitutional violation); Marsh v. Butler Cnty., Ala. , 268 F.3d 1014

5
(11th Cir. 2001) (en bane) (lack of classification and risk assessment system constitutes deliberate indifference where inmates were harmed by other inmates because housing assignments did not account for the risk violent prisoners posed), abrogated on other grounds by Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Jensen v. Clarke, 94 F.3d 1191 (8th Cir. 1996) (failure to account for size, age, or length of sentence of inmates entering facility in determining appropriate housing assignment may amount to deliberate indifference); Jones v. Gusman, 296 F.R.D. 416, 431-443 (E.D. La. 20B) (Constitution could require improved staffing, contraband controls, classification, and facility maintenance).
The Jail lacks many of these basic systems for ensuring a safe facility. More specifically, the Jail lacks (a) sufficient staff to supervise prisoners, (b) effective security and classification policies, (c) working security equipment and well-maintained physical plant, and (d) adequate control over the introduction of contraband into the Jail. Notwithstanding recent improvements in these areas, the County has failed to fully correct these deficiencies., and the Jail remains an unsafe place for prisoners.
a. Inadequate Staffing and Staff Training
"Confinement in a prison where terror reigns is cruel and unusual punishment. A prisoner has a right to be protected from the constant threat of violence ...." Jones, 636 F.2d at 1373 (internal citations omitted). To provide such protection, Jail officials must supervise prisoners by providing adequate numbers ofqualified security staff and may not leave prisoner safety to the prisoners themselves. See Gates, 501 F.2d at 1309-31 O; Jones , 296 F.R.D. at 431-33 (holding that relief was warranted to address "mutually reinforcing effect" of inadequate classification, staffing, and other security components). In Hinds County, grossly deficient staffing is the most immediate problem facing the Jail. This deficiency affects every operation and is both a direct and indirect cause of many of the Jail's constitutional deficiencies. Without adequate staffing, the Jail cannot supervise prisoners, deter violence, or properly respond to emergencies. The staffing problem involves both the number of staff members and their qualifications.
Budgeted staffing is very low, with only a few staff members assigned to control rooms and housing units. Moreover, the staff turnover rate is very high, which exacerbates an already unsafe situation. The vacancy rate is approximately 80% at the Raymond Facility, and 50% at the Jackson Facility. As a result of poor staffing, we found a pattern and practice ofpoor prisoner supervision. This pattern included: (a) poorly-staffed control rooms, where the officer on duty handles multiple tasks (e.g., monitoring cells, responding to alerts, and controlling doors) without sufficient assistance; (b) poorly-staffed housing pods, where as few as one or two officers supervise hundreds of prisoners in different units without adequate backup; and (c) low levels of staffing even in high risk areas, as exemplified by a lack of documented welfare checks on suicidal and high security prisoners.
Low staffing levels contribute directly to the rampant Jail violence. For example, on January 16, 2014, an officer reported witnessing a cell door being opened by the pod control room operator. The officer reported that he had never instructed pod control to open the door. When the prisoner in the cell came out into the dayroom, ten other prisoners attacked him. They

6
beat him with a broom, and broke it in two. They punched him in the face. The officer reported that he had no radio to call back up. Accordingly, the officer had to beat on a door for thirty minutes, asking pod control to open the door. During that time, the prisoners continued to beat the victim. One month later, on February 19, 2014, a prisoner reported being attacked by thirteen other prisoners, and reported that the shift deputy never intervened.
Many Jail employees also lack training and experience. In Mississippi, staffmembers can start working in the Jail without having completed the state's 96-hour jailer training course. They only have to complete the training program within two years of employment. The Jail has its own pre-service training program, but until January 2014, staff members could begin work without completing the program. At the time of our September tour, some staffmembers were on the job who still had not completed the Jail's program. Allowing untrained staff members into a facility is problematic in itself. But conditions are especially bad in the Jail. With very few staff members and high turnover rates, Jail administrators assign j unior staff members to even tlhe most challenging positions. At the Raymond Facility, we learned that staff members with only a few months on the job may be assigned to gang units. Other inexperienced staff members have to manage prisoners with mental illness and prisoners who have engaged in violent behavior. Staff members with just a few years ofexperience become supervisors with even more difficult responsibilities. For instance, junior personnel have been assigned to monitor suicidal prisoners and to process prisoners for release. Both of these areas involve significant responsibility and risk beyond the norm for Jail operations.
We recognize that the Jail has made progress in developing policies, procedures, and post orders, which can serve as a focus for training and can help professionalize staff Policies, procedures, and post orders are not consistent between facilities, however, and staff members lack proper understanding of them. For instance, during our September 2014 site visit, staff members had placed a prisoner in a grossly inappropriate housing area, in apparent violation of facility procedures. We were touring an isolation unit, and our consultant asked to inspect some of the cells. Staff members told him that two of the cells were out-of-service and should not be occupied. When we tried to enter the cells, the staff members could not open one cell at all. When they opened the other one, we were surprised to find that it contained a prisoner. It turned out that the prisoner bad spent the past three weeks in this cell, without properly functioning plumbing and in horrible living conditions. The cell stank, and the floor toilet was clogged with urine-soaked blankets and cloth. Knowing where prisoners may, or may not, be housed is a basic job responsibility. Staff should know their unit's system for designating an occupied cell and how they are supposed to determine which prisoners are in their charge. Post orders and training help staff members develop the necessary famiEiarity with such systems, and errors of the sort that apparently occurred in this case should not happen.
Staff members assigned to critical posts, such as the booking area and control rooms, conveyed to us different understandings of what constitutes a post order. Some could not locate them without prompting by other officers. A number o:ff officers have been signing forms that indicate that they have received their post orders every time they report to the post. This practice is itseff a troubling indication that staff members do not really understand the function of post orders and training. The reason jails maintain such signature sheets are that they help establish that staff bas been trained on their post orders (i. e., the specific responsibilities for a post). There

7
is no reason for staff members to review and sign these documents repeatedly. Indeed, the practice strains already limited resources.
b. Ineffective Implementation of Adequate Security and Classification Policies
Protecting prisoners involves more than just assiigning officers to monitor housing units. Policies and procedures should also separate potential victims from predators, convicted prisoners from detainees, and include other mechanisms for ensuring safe living conditions. When officials fail to protect prisoners from violence, the Constitution may impose a specific obligation upon them to adopt security and classification procedures designed to abate the risk of violence. Jones 11, 636 F.2d at 1373; Jones, 296 F.R.D. at 431-35. A safely operated detention facility should have .an effective classification system to assess prisoners' likelihood of harming or being harmed by other prisoners, and to house prisoners based on their risk level. See Gates, 501 F.2d at 1309-310 (lack of classification, supervision, and other factors may together result in a constitutional violation); Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1014 (lack ofclassification and risk assessment system constitutes deliberate indifference where inmates were harmed by other inmates because housing assignments did not account for the risk violent prisoners posed); Jensen, 94 F.3d at 1191 (failure to account for size, age, or length of sentence of inmates entering facility in determining appropriate housing assignment may amount to deliberate indifference).
Adequate classification systems assess individual risk factors, such as their age, size, institutional history, charges, and "special needs" (e.g. , whether the prisoner is suicidal or has a mental illness that requires additional supervision). Prisoners must then be housed in accordance with their classification such that lower risk prisoners may be housed together in minimum security units, while the most predatory prisoners will be placed in more secure units. This also helps administrators allocate personnel based on security concerns. Prisoners with lower level security classifications can be placed in areas with lower staffing levels, while other classifications may require higher levels of supervision.
The Jail has very recently drafted forms and policies for a classification system. But the Jail cannot implement the classification system, because it lacks both the staffing and housing options required. An effective classification system integrates classification assessments with housing assignment and supervision procedures. So prisoners deemed to be higher security risks are placed in more secure units with higher levels of supervision. Thus, the County needs to ensure that there are both secure housing facilities and sufficient staff to implement a classification system. Merely writing a policy or even training a few officers to serve as classification staff is not sufficient. The Jail's violent history and widespread deficiencies have
made it difficult to implement any type of classification system. At times, because of the riots,
so many cells have been unavailable that the Jail has been forced to house prisoners together without adequate regard for security and classification concerns. Without a proper classification system, the Jail has not been able to consistently identify and separate potentially violent prisoners from potential victims, known enemies, and gang members. The Jail also does not have enough custody staffor high security cells to appropriately separate and monitor prisoners with behavioral problems or prisoners with special needs (e.g. , prisoners requiring suicide observation).

8

With regard to gangs in particular, instead of making individualized housing decisions for each gang member, the Jail currently has a default process of housing all the members of a gang together in some of the same units. This is a counter-productive policy as it actually strengthens gangs, and, in the absence of adequate staff, creates more opportunities for violence. It also reinforces staffing problems, because inexperienced staff members find themselves in dangerous working conditions and soon leave.
A number of incidents at the Jail have involved gang violence,. both between gangs and by gang members against their own followers. For example, on May 5, 2014, a prisoner with a family gang history that made him a potential target for a rival gang was reportedly placed in a housing unit with enemies. The other prisoners reportedly managed to pop open their cell doors to threaten the prisoner. Less than two months later, on July 1, 2014, gang members assaulted a rival. A nurse requested hospital transport for the victim. The gang members then threatened two more rivals who were being housed in their unit.
Similarly, the lack of a classification system bas also led to poor management of juveniles. The Jail does not properly separate juveniles from adults. The juvenile housing units are located within sight and sound of adult prisoners, a practice that grossly departs from federal standards and exposes juveniles to potential predation by adults.4 In sum, the Jail' s !housing and classification policies, or rather, the lack thereof, are unacceptable by any reasonable standard.
c. Physical Plant-Related Security Issues
The Constitution also requires that officials provide prisoners with adequate shelter, which includes maintaining facility conditions in a manner that promotes prisoner safety and health. See generally Helling, 509 U.S. at 32; Jones, 296 F.R.D. at 433-34, 452-53; Ramos, 639 F.2d at 573 (noting, among other security deficiencies, that the physical structure of the prison resulted in "numerous 'blind areas' where violence, threats, and other illegal activities can occur without detection by prison officials"). The Jail buildings have a number of physical plantrelated security issues that contribute to the unreasonable risk of serious harm from prisoner violence. At the Raymond Facility, the most glaring structural problems are well-known, and include defective locks, cameras, and alarms, as well as structural design issues and weaknesses with the building and its perimeter. These problems allow prisoners to leave supposedly secure areas, to obtain contraband, and to improperly associate with or assault other prisoners. The County' s failure to correct these issues poses a serious risk to prisoner safety and health. See

4

Such deficiencies violate the Prison Rape Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, and its

implementing regulations, which mandate a number of safeguards to prevent sexual assault

against prisoners and juveniles. See 28 C.F.R. § J 15.14(a) ("A youthful inmate shall not be

placed in a housing u nit in which the youthful inmate will have sight, sound, or physical contact

with any adult inmate through use of a shared dayroom or other common space, shower area, or

sleeping quarters."). Housing juveniles with adults has long been a disfavored practice under

federal law. See, e.g., Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 5601, 5633 (requiring sight and sound separation ofj uveniles held in adult detention

facilities); Jones, 296 F.R.D. at 434 (relief appropriate to address poor classification practices,

including the failure to separate juveniles from adults).

9
Stokes, 720 F.2d at 1124-26 (holding Sheriff liable for failure to repair obstmcted vi.ewing panel and address other conditions that led to assault on prisoner); Gates, 501 F.2d at 1300-02 (observing that courts must act if physical conditions pose "grave and immediate threat to health or physical well-being" (internal citations omitted)).
Further, there are indications that too many staff members exhibit a culture of tolerance towards significant physical plant problems. We observed several examples ofdamage to critical Jail facilities that had apparently been in place for weeks or longer, such as a broken sally port door, a hole burned in a security observation window, a disabled door control system, and a damaged roof. The sally port door, a critical part of the Jail' s outer security perimeter, had been inoperative for weeks prior to our tour. The hole in the window could not have been made quickly. Instead, prisoners apparently had the opportunity to remove wires from cell lighting, use the wires to create a make-shift electric torch, and then gradually burn a hole in a glass-polycarbonate window. Similarly, maintenance reportedly opened a hole in a wall at the Jackson Facility to repair plumbing several months before our inspection. As part of the repair, they shut off electricity to a cell block across the hall. This affected electric door controls, which remained inoperative for the entire period. Prisoners have repeatedly breached the roof in order to get closer to the Jail' s security perimeter and obtain contraband.
These physical plant deficiencies contribute to the ongoing risk of harm from the rampant prisoner violence at the Jail. For example, on January 10, 2014, gang members allegedly assaulted a prisoner for not participating in gang activities. An officer discovered that doors on the unit had been "rekeyed with bars of soap," and "covers over the manual overrides were all pushed open." The next day, another prisoner reported being "jumped" by members of the same gang. Just one month later, on February 18, 2014, prisoners attacked another prisoner for violating "the rules of the" gang. An officer reported that there was "no radio in unit."
The County has recently renovated some areas of the Raymond Facility, which now have relatively secure locks, ceilings, and doors. The County has also made some changes to how maintenance is handled. County maintenance personnel also provided us with printouts of their work orders, which suggest there is some system in place to handle maintenance. However, the measures are not sufficient given the extent of physical plant problems and other security issues. We find that despite the improvements, the Jail's physical plant remains a serious concern. Again, staffing and administrative policies are likely the key. In the absence ofsufficient staff to maintain order, even renovated areas are quickly damaged. It is only a matter of time before unsupervised prisoners find any weaknesses in the ad hoc improvements.
d. Uncontrolled Contraband, Including Weapons and Drugs
The lack of adequate staffing and security exacerbates a serious contraband problem. Contraband, in tum, poses a security threat, because weapons, currency, drugs, and other items facilitate violence. See generally Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Cnty. ofBurlington, 132 S. Ct. 1510, 1519 (2012) ("Weapons, drugs, and alcohol all disrupt the safe operation of a jail."); United States v. Ward, 561 F.3d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 2009) (observing that dangerous contraband is a unique challenge for prisons); Barkes v. First Correctional Medical, Inc., 766 F.3d 307, 328 (3d Cir. 2014) (noting that "the Supreme Court approved searches of inmates and their cells to discover contraband in order to ... prevent violence against correctional staffand

10
other prisoners [and] to prevent suicides" (citing Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526 (1984))); Jones, 296 F.R.D. at 433-34 (requiring procedures to minimize amount of contraband).
The Jail's contraband problem reflects the broad!er problem of poor prisoner supervision. Searches at the Jail regularly reveal weapons in the form of home-made knives (shanks), as well as items that are being smuggled in from the outside, such as marijuana, lighters, and cell phones. For instance, in June and July 2014, the staff found approximately a dozen or more cell phones per month at the Raymond Facility alone. In May 2014, they found nearly two dozen. An October 2014 grand jury report noted that while inspecting the Jail, the members themselves saw a prisoner with a cell phone. The grand jury members were apparently quite surprised that someone would so flagrantly violate the contraband rules, as the members noted that a prisoner's mere possession of a cell phone is a felony in Mississippi. Incident reports describe prisoners "fishing" for contraband left outside near their broken cell windows. Some reports read like illicit shopping lists- the volume of contraband is remarkable. For instance, in one incident, staff found 17 cell phones, a pound of marijuana, and 12 phone chargers on a single prisoner. During a perimeter search, staff found two carry-on bags filled with contraband. During his inspection, our corrections consultant smelled tobacco burning in every wing except the women's wing ofthe Jackson Facility.
2. The Jail's Unsafe Conditions Result in Serious Harm, and Risk of Harm, to Prisoners.
In recent years, the Jail has. been the site oframpant violence. In the past three years, there have been several major disturbances, including at least three riots. A 2012 riot rendered one ofthree housing units at the Raymond Facility uninhabitable until 2014. Another riot in 2014 resulted in the alleged murder of a prisoner by another prisoner. During the riots, prisoners were able to overpower staff, breach doors, and enter sensitive security areas. Other serious incidents include fights between groups of prisoners and a homicide. For example, in 2013, a prisoner with a reported history of mental illness allegedly murdered his cellmate. All of these disturbances and major incidents implicate systemic deficiencies with Jail security, such as inadequate staffing, inoperative security equipment, the use of contraband weapons, and unsound classification and housing supervision policies. These dangerous conditions have repeatedly resulted in serious harm to prisoners, and continue to pose a risk of serious harm from both prisoner-on-prisoner violence and staff-on-prisoner violence.5
a. Prisoner-on-Prisoner Violence
Our review confirmed that despite improvements, the Jail remains an unacceptably dangerous environment, where the risk of severe violence among prisoners is unabated. Over the past year, facility incident reports illustrate gross security deficiencies and the Jail's persistent,
systemic failure to protect prisoners from serious harm or risk of harm. See Helling, 509 U.S. at

5

As discussed below, other factors have contributed to and exacerbated the situation.

These include the excessive use of lockdowns, harsh security measures, unsanitary conditions,

and strains in the Jai l's relationship with other parts of the criminal justice system.

11

33-35. At the time of our most recent inspection, Jail staff members were still documenting several fights a month between prisoners, or prisoners and staff.
Prisoner assaults are likely underreported. Jail records document several troubling incidents a month where prisoners inexplicably "fall" or suffer other unexplained injuries that are not fully investigated. Some of these incidents provide at least circumstantial evidence that prisoners fear retaliation, or additional violence by other prisoners, if they were to report being assaulted. In one December 2014 example, a staff member reported that a prisoner may have been repeatedly threatened, extorted, and stripped of his food by other prisoners. The victim was apparently so afraid to return to his cell that he disobeyed staff when they told him to do so. The staff then used force on the prisoner. The prisoner reportedly suffered injuries and r,equired hospital care. Staff did not investigate or corroborate some of the allegations of victimization. Still, the alleged facts suggest that at minimum, a prisoner was in such fear ofprisoner violence that he was willing to refuse a staff member's instruction to return to his housing area and risk being disciplined.6
As noted throughout this letter, many serious recent incidents documented in facility incident reports illustrate longstanding security deficiencies, such as a lack ofsufficient staff to detect and remove contraband and ensure prompt response to violent incidents, the failure of locks and other security equipment, and the practice of housing rivals and enemies together without sound classification and housing assignment procedures.
b. Staff Use ofForce
The harm prisoners suffer arises not only from other prisoners, it also sometimes occurs as a result ofstaffuse of force. In such a dangerous facility, it should not be surprising that some Jail violence involves the staffs use of force. In a troubling number of cases, officers appear to have used excessive, or at least facially problematic, force. We found major systemic deficiencies, as well as a pattern of serious incidents, that indicate that the Jail lacks appropriate policies and procedures to prevent, investigate, and hold officers accountable for excessive use o f force.
The Constitution requires the County to operate the Jail in a manner that protects prisoners from all conditions that pose "a substantial risk of serious harm." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (discussing objective requirement for claims based on a failure to prevent harm). This obligation includes requiring the County to implement appropriate training and oversight procedures to prevent the misuse of force. Id. ; see generally Steve J. Martin, Staff Use ofForce in United States Confinement Settings, 22 Wash. U. LL. & Pol'y 145, 146 (2006) (observing that "staff use of force is inherently dangerous"); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991) (noting

6

This type of incident illustrates why security requires a well-developed system of

classification, supervision, and investigation. A good classification system identifies prisoners

who may be vulnerable to violence, and allows staff to move prisoners if they are victimized.

Good internal administrative procedures allow prisoners to safely and confidentially request staff

assistance, and for staff to investigate suspected incidents of violence or predation even ifa

victim does not complain.

12

that "[s]ome conditions ofconfinement may establish an Eighth Amendment violation ' in combination"' (emphasis omitted)); Jones, 296 F.R.D. at 439-440, 442 (approving consent judgment that included, among other things, measures to address deficiencies in supervision and investigation of staffuses of force, which adversely impacted inmate "safety and security"). Any failure to remedy such deficiencies is as problematic as a failure to correct other conditions that result in harm or serious risk of harm to prisoners.

1.

Prisoners have suffered actual harm from the improper use of

force.

We found incidents where staff members used force in situations where such use was facially problematic, particularly situations in which force was used as a coercive tool rather than as a proportionate response to a threat posed by a prisoner. Kitchen, 759 F.3d at 477. Chemical munitions and tasers appear to be routinely used as coercive (offensive) tools rather than for their designated purpose as defensive measures. Cf Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, l 028 (9th Cir. 2013) ("[I]t is a violation of the Eighth Amendment for prison officials to use mace, tear gas or other chemical agents in quantities greater than necessary or for the sole purpose of infliction ofpain." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

In one instance, an officer used a taser on a prisoner who reportedly refused to comply with an order. In itself, refusing an order does not necessarily warrant the use offorce. Rather, the legal standard typically requires a stronger justification for incapacitating a prisoner. In this case, there was no indication that the officer was acting in self-defense and the limited information provided in Jail records suggest that the use of force was disproportionate to the violation. As our consultant noted, "[t]he officer and his supervisor obviously have no idea what a taser is designed to do" -tasers are not meant "to be a pain compliance tool." Normally, using
corporal punishment to ensure prisoner obedience to instructions is not acceptable. See, e.g.,
Gates, 501 F.2d at 1305-06. Otherwise, allowing the immediate use offorce on anyone who fails to comply with an order opens the door for even more serious abuses. What is particularly problematic in this case is that there was no evidence of any corrective action. Even if the force was justified, the Jail should have conducted a closer review of the incident to ensure that the officer complied with policy and law.

In another case, an officer ordered a canine to bite a prisoner during an otherwise non-violent encounter. The basis for using force was that the prisoner supposedly refused an order. A dog can cause severe injuries, and even death. In our view and that of our consultant, using such a level offorce in the reported circumstances was inappropriate. The officer involved in the canine incident was reprimanded, but the disciplinary action was for technical reasonsthe officer had failed to notify his immediate supervisor of the incident and bad disobeyed an order given by his immediate supervisor to keep a safe distance between himself, his K-9, and a prisoner. The implication was that the incident was an accident. Notably, records indicate that the officer expressly directed the d!og to bite the prisoner. Yet, there appears to have been no documented investigation or action taken regarding the officer' s potential misuse of force. Nor was there adequate documentation as to why the officer did not utilize a less dangerous approach.

13

When incidents occur, the County does not respond adequately to correct or prevent future abuses. As a result, the harm that results from use of force may actually be under-reported. The County bears some responsibility because Jail policies and training do not ensure full, accurate reporting and review ofthe use of force. For instance, the policies do not establish what responsibilities, if any, the Jail Administrator, wardens, or other supervisors have in reviewing use of force. Existing documentation is too sparse to ensure meaningful administrative review. Our consultant examined dozens of incident reports-including the ones described above-and could not find any in which the supervisor even indicated agreement, disagreement, or a need for follow-up action. Instead, supervisors simply signed the reports. As our consultant noted, "their signatures appear to be of little value." Even more troubling, sometimes the supervisor who signed a report participated in the use of force he or she was ostensibly reviewing.
11. Deficient Jail policies and systems pose a substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners from the misuse of force.
In addition to actually causing harm, the County's failure to implement necessary policies and systemic safeguards needed to deter, identify, and address the improper use of force poses an ongoing unconstitutional risk of serious harm to prisoners. We found that the Jail does not have adequate (a) policies and training for officer use-of-force; (b) administrative mechanisms to review uses of force against prisoners; (c) command staff authority to hold staff members accountable for violations and to address operational concerns; and (d) technological safeguards to prevent or uncover improper uses of force. In combination with the other conditions that create a dangerous Jail environment, such deficiencies have resulted in serious risk of harm from the improper use of force.7 See generally Kitchen, 759 F.3d at 480-85.
Jail standards for triggering an administrative use-of-force investigation are vague and inadequate. For more serious incidents, such as when officers use force that appears to be excessive or in breach of policy, the Jail should conduct administrative reviews above the immediate supervisor level. Such reviews would evaluate the use offorce to determine whether it was excessive under applicable law and policy. When appropriate, an adverse finding should lead to re-training or even disciplinary action. The Sheriffs internal affairs office is reportedly responsible for conducting such use-of-force investigations. In practice, however, the Sheriff's Department has not conducted a single use-of-force investigation at the Jail in the past yearsomething our corrections consultant described as "incomprehensible."
Jail policies further weaken supervisory oversiglht of staff by limiting the personnel authority oftop administrators. For instance, the Jail Administrator has no authority to transfer staff to or from the Work Release Center, which has much better staffing, in order to increase the number of staff available in those sections ofthe Jail that are most in need of staff. She also has

7

Besides the risk that they may utilize excessive force, poorly supervised and trained staff

also pose a general security risk to the entire Jail. For example, in June 2014, a fight broke out in

a housing unit. While one officer deployed a taser against a prisoner, another officer pulled two

other prisoners involved in the fight into a control room, a very unsafe situation that could have

placed even more prisoners and staff in danger.

14
no authority over a tactical team used to conduct searches and respond to major disturbances. During our tour, a number of prisoners, including juveniles, reported that the tactical team used force upon them during cell searches. One juvenile we saw had a broken tooth and another had obvious bruises. Even if members. of the tactical team had submitted use-of-force reports, which does not appear to be case, the Jail Administrator would likely have had little authority to discipline the officers on her own. Not every use of force warrants criminal review or even an internal affairs referral. However, supervisors need the authority to review use of force incidents by any officers who operate in their facility, because those supervisors are responsible for the treatment of prisoners in their custody. Under the current organizational structure, the Jail Administrator lacks the necessary authority to oversee all of the staff members operating in the County's detention facilities.
As a result, even when use-of-force reports facially indicate that improper or even dangerous force may have been used against a prisoner, there is little or no effective administrative review. For example:
• January 9, 2014: A prisoner told escorting officers that he was going to assault them once released from his handcuffs and leg irons. Once removed from his restraints, the prisoner raised his bands and said: "Now what [expletive]'s." An officer then punched the prisoner in the nose and wrestled him to the ground.
• February 1, 2014: One officer reported that another had "boastfully" informed her that "he had dry tased a uuvenile] inmate by placing the Taser slightly on the inmate' s butt."
• May 6, 2014: An officer reported observing a struggle between a colleague and a prisoner. Other officers separated the individuals and took them to another area, where the two continued to argue and fight. The reporting officer noted that "it seems like the situation was getting worser an worser [sic]," and he had "never seen [his colleague] this upset." He and other officers had to pull their colleague away from the prisoner. The officer indicated that his angry colleague "overpowered us all several times as well" and may have thrown a "couple head butts" at the prisoner.
• July 15, 2014: A supervisor found an officer fighting with a prisoner. The officer had the prisoner in a headlock, and both prisoner and officer were " scuffing and talking trash to each other." After other officers arrived, they "succeeded in pulling them apart."
In these and other incidents, the Jail's records describe a problematic use of force-such as force used when an officer is acting out of control or using force under questionable circumstances. Even the limited information provided should have raised questions as to whether at least some force was inappropriately exercised. See generally Mann v. Failey, 578 F. App'x 267, 275 (4th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (reversing grant of summary judgment to prison officials on excessive force claims where "there is ample support for an inference that ' summary, informal, unofficial and unsanctioned corporal punishment' was employed in retaliation for [the prisoner]'s attack" (quoting Ort v. White, 813 F.2d 318, 324 (11th Cir. 1987))). However, it appears that no further investigation, review, or corrective action occurred.

15
As with other parts of the physical plant, technological safeguards against abuses are non-existent or inoperative at the Jail. Such technology is often very useful to correctional administrators in monitoring staffas well as prisoners. When staff members know that their actions may be monitored by others, they may be deterred from engaging in misconduct. Many of the Jail cameras are broken, and there is no portable means of video-recording serious incidents. So when violence breaks out, including staff use of force, many sections ofthe Jail lack cameras to record what actually occurred. The Jail layout does not allow staff to directly observe what may be occurring in many parts of the Jail. Combined with inadequate staffing, training, and reporting, these types of deficiencies make it much harder for supervisors to oversee staff, review uses offorce, and deter abuses.
3. County Officials Have Long Known of the Unsafe Jail Conditions.
Under the Constitution, County officials may not be responsible for unforeseeable harm, but when they have notice of constitutional deficiencies , they must act responsibly. See Farmer, 511 U .S. 835-38 (subjective "deliberate indifference" towards objective conditions that pose a serious risk to prisoners violates the Constitution); Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1028 (" Plaintiffs' allegations that the County received many reports of the conditions but took no remedial measures is sufficient to allege deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of serious harm faced by inmates in the Jail."). Case law promotes or requires many of the policies, procedures, and safeguards that we describe in this letter, placing the County on notice of obvious ongoing harm at the Jail. For instance, the Fifth Circuit has long required corrections officials to protect prisoners from violence, train staff, review serious incidents, deter physical abuse, and
investigate violations of prisoner' s rights. See Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 333 (5th Cir. 2004)
(" [A] factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.").
Here, County officials have long known that the facility lacks the systems required to protect prisoners from violence yet have failed to remedy serious safety and security deficiencies. Local grand jury reports, news articles, and court-appointed monitors have identified many of the same problems that we cite in this letter. For instance, a 2013 consultant report prepared for the County Grand Jury identified many of the same issues that we identified during our review, including staff vacancies that prevent adequate supervision of the Jail; inadequate training; inadequate maintenance of physical security systems; inadequate classification; inadequate administrative command structures; and problematic policies that result in the detention of more prisoners for longer periods than may be appropriate or necessary. See James Austin, Robert Harris, Kenneth McBride, Hinds County Detention Center Jail Assessment Report (Sept. 10, 2013) (" Austin Report").
Staff members have also repeatedly reported problems with Jaji security. Staff annotations on incident reports confirm a dangerous working environment, with exhausted officers expressing frustration over systemic deficiencies, such as the poor physical state of their equipment and staffing challenges. For example, in a July report, a detention officer complained that prisoners were running rampant through a housing unit and repeatedly popping open security doors. The officer wrote: "The tloors ... tire not secure amt inmates easily pop them, this is unsafe anti needs immediate attention-especially since almost every shift is working with one officer and one person in" critical security posts (emphasis added). In another July

16
incident report, an officer described making a mistake by opening multiple cell doors to facilitate pill call. In apologizing for his actions, he wrote: "It's my fault. It will never happen again and I am sorry. We arejust run so ragged. So few ofus. So worn out" (emphasis added).
Jail records reveal numerous reports ofequipment malfunctions, violence, and facility maintenance problems. To illustrate, broken radios were so common that we found a cluster of incident reports on that problem alone:
• January 15, 2014: A fight !broke out between two prisoners. One of the prisoners had to be taken to medical. An officer reported that "[b]ack up took/or every [sic] to come because their [sic] was no radio's [sic]" (emphasis added).
• January 15, 2014: Several prisoners affiliated with a gang attacked a prisoner affiliated with a rival gang with the handle of a broken broom. The assaulted prisoner suffered a deep laceration on his forehead and bruising on the side of his head. Afterwards, another prisoner "tried to excite a riot" by encouraging retaliation by other gang members. An officer noted that staffordered a lockdown, but some prisoners broke out of their cells. The officer reported "I had no radio to call for back up. We need radios that work... I dill my best to protect [the assaulte£1 prisoner] am/ get him to safety. I wish there WflS more I coul£1 have <lone" (emphasis added).
• February 18, 2014: A prisoner tried to set himself on fire. The responding officer "exited the unit to get assistance because ofno nulios [sic]" (emphasis added).
These security problems have persisted beyond our initial September 20 I 4 on-site inspection, as we continued to review incident reports and other documents showing serious systemic deficiencies similar to those that have plagued the Jail for years. For instance, staff found cell phones, chargers, and weapons during routine searches on December 11 , 2014; January 2, 20 15; and January 14, 2015. They also continued to find tampering with the physical plant, which could seriously jeopardize institutional security. One notable breach was a December 12, 2014 incident where staff found a door hinge that was no longer secured by screws.8
In sum, our corrections consultant's overall impression is that the Raymond Facility "is out of control," and conditions at the Jackson Facility are not much better. Without substantial improvements to staffing, training, security, classification, physical plant, and contraband controls, the County will not be able to restore conditions required to ensure security and humane prisoner treatment. While we commend County officials for trying to make improvements, we

8

Recent escapes also indicate continued problems with Jail security. See R.L Nave, 4

Men Escape Downtown Jail, Search Ongoing, Jackson Free Press (Apr. 2, 2015),

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2015/apr/02/4-men-escape-dowtown-jai1-search-

ongoing/#_; 3 Inmates Escape Jn Jackson Jail; 2 Caught, Clarion Ledger (May 4, 2015),

http ://w w w.clarionledger.com/story/ news/2015/05/03/ inmates-escape-jackson-jail-

caught/26843937/ .

17

must conclude that they have much more to do before they meet their constitutional obligations. Conditions continue to violate prisoners' constitutional right to reasonable safety and protection.
B. The Jail Imprisons People Beyond Court-Ordered Release Dates.
We also find that the Jail has imprisoned people without legal basis for days and months. "Freedom from bodily restraint has always been at the core of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause from arbitrary governmental action." Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 ( 1992). "Even if an inmate's initial confinement was justified by a constitutionally adequate basis, that confinement cannot constitutionally continue once that basis no longer exists." Barnes v. District ofColumbia, 793 F. Supp. 2d 260, 275 (D.D.C. 20 11) ("Barnes Ir'); cf Cannon v. Macon Cnty., 1F.3d1558, 1563 (1 1th Cir. 1993) (recognizing " [t]he constitutional right to be free from continued detention after it was or should have been known that the detainee was entitled to release"), modified, 15 F.3d I022 (11th Cir. 1994); Whirl v. Kern, 407 F.2d 781, 791 (5th Cir. 1969) ("There is no privilege in a jailer to keep a prisoner in jail beyond the period of his lawful sentence."). Accordingly, "courts recognize that inmates' due process rights may be violated if they are not released within a reasonable time after the reasons for their deten6ons have ended." Barnes, 793 F. Supp. 2d at 275 (collecting cases).
"[T]he great weight of precedent suggests that release must occur within a matter of hours after the right to it accrues, and that after some period of hours-not days-a presumption of unreasonableness, and thus unconstitutionality, will set in." Barnes v. District of Columbia, 242 F.R.D. 113, 117 (D.D.C. 2007); see, e.g., Berry v. Baca, 379 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2004) (reversing grant of summary judgment in favor of county sheriff where plaintiffs contended they were detained twenty-six to twenty-nine hours after a court ordered their release); Davis v. Hall, 375 F.3d 703, 713 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting that "even a thirty-minute detention after being ordered released could work a violation of a prisoner's constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment"); Barnes II, 793 F. Supp. 2d at 272 (granting summary judgment in part to people who had not been released by midnight of the day a court ordered them released); Green v. Baca, 306 F. Supp. 2d 903, 919 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (rejecting defendants' argument that a twelve and a half hour delay in release is reasonable as a matter oflaw).
During our investigation, and as explained in more detail below, we reviewed over 100 prisoner records-either the hard copy file or information contained in the Jail Management System ("JMS"). We reviewed hard copy records for sixty individuals listed on the Jail's booking list as having been detained thirty or more days.9 We also reviewed JMS entries for over forty people detained thirty or more days, and, when a JMS entry indicated possible unlawful detention, we reviewed the corresponding hard copy record. Finally, we reviewed nine hard copy records for people brought to our attention through prisoner correspondence, news articles, our September site visit, and Court Administrator emails to the Jail inquiring about the status of a person's release. Based on our review of these records, we found that the Jail has held

9

Narrowing our review to people housed thirty or more days allowed us to eliminate

people housed for only a short time or no time, such as people who picked up an indictment at

the Jail and therefore were "booked" into the facility, but nonetheless were released the same day

because they already had posted bond.

18
at least twelve people past midnight on the day they were ordered released, and up to seventy days after a court ordered their release.
1. Release Procedures and Record.keeping at the Jail
According to the records supervisor, the Jail handles about 15 releases per day. Court orders that a person be released arrive at the Jail in two ways. The Hinds County Justice Court, Hinds County Chancery Court, and Jackson Municipal Court each send their orders to the Jail by fax throughout the day. Although the Jail prefers to receive orders by email, we were informed that an undefined IT problem prevents correspondence by email with these courts. The remaining courts-the Hinds County Circuit Court and Hinds County Court-send their orders by email. Some orders state that the person should be released that day. Others state that, if the person is not indicted by a certain date in the future, the Jail should release them. We were informed that there is no way for the Jail to print out a list of every person who is supposed to be released on a given day.
The Jail tracks inmate bookings and releases in JMS. JMS was rolled out the week of May 19, 2014, and does not contain accurate release information for inmates released before or during that week. Only the Jail has write-access to JMS. Court personnel and attorneys reportedly have limited read-access to view certain entries; they cannot enter or change information.
The Jail was unable to provide a list of people who had been detained past his or her court-ordered release date. The Jail attempted to provide us with lists of all bookings and releases between June 1, 2014, and January 27, 2015. We are not confident in the completeness or reliability of the lists. Some people listed as booked and released during the relevant time frame on one list do not appear on the other. Other people are listed both as having been released and as being currently housed at the Jail. The Jail was unable to explain these and other discrepancies.
Many of the people listed as " released" on the booking list provided to us were not released back into the community, but instead were transferred to the Work Center or Mississippi Department of Corrections to serve their sentences, to another jurisdiction for prosecution on separate charges, or to the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for removal proceedings. Many records also were incomplete- missing, among other things, the court order directing release and/or a release form indicating when a person was in fact released. We were informed that there is a substantial backlog at the Jail in filing court orders and other information in hard copy records. Thus, we were unable to evaluate the timeliness of every person's release.
2. The Jail Detains People for Days and Months Past Court-Ordered Release Dates.
Notwithstanding the Jail's inadequate record.keeping, we were able to determine that, of a sample of over 100 prisoners booked in the last year, at least twelve people were held at the Jail after the day they were ordered released-some past midnight, others much longer. We searched the records for any indication that the person could have been lawfully detained beyond the court-ordered release date and found none. We also interviewed the records supervisor to determine whether there could have been any other lawful reason for holding these people

19

beyond their court-ordered release date. The records supervisor reviewed the records and was unable to provide a reason for any of the delays.

At least four people were held beyond the release date ordered by a County Court Judge. A County Court Judge ordered that Prisoner AA,10 then a thirteen-year-old middle school student, be released if he was not indicted by August 1. Prisoner AA was not indicted by that date, but was not released until October 10, 2014, after serving 173 days in the Jail- seventy of which were after his court-orderell release date. Prisoner BB, another juvenile, was booked in December 20 14. Over a month later, a County Court Judge found that there was no probable cause to charge him and ordered him released "today, January 20, 2015." The Court Administrator emailed the order to the Jail at 2:36 PM that day. Prisoner BB was not released, however, until after the Court Administrator sent an email to the Jail tlhe next day, stating:

I have the mother of [Prisoner BB] in my office.... His mother has been trying to get him out since 4 :00 p.m. [yesterday]. She called up until 2:00 a.m. this morning and was told that booking did not have the paperwork. Can you all get him released please?

In addition, Prisoners CC and DD were both booked at the Jail in June 2014. In July 2014, a County Court Judge issued separate orders that, if Prisoners CC and DD were not indicted by October 1, 2014, they should be released from custody for lack ofprosecution. The Jail did not comply w ith either order. Neither was indicted by October 1; nonetheless, both were held in the Jail until October 3-two days later.

At least five people who had been ordered released by a Circuit Court Judge were held between one and ten days more. Prisoner EE entered a guilty plea on August 26, 2014, and a Circuit Court Judge ordered that he be "RELEASED PENDING ADMISSION TO RID PROGRAM." The Jail did not release Prisoner EE until September 5-ten days later, apparently after a Court Administrator contacted the Jail to inquire about the delay. On December 12, 2014, a Circuit Court Judge issued a probation order for Prisoner FF. The Judge ordered that the Jail "RELEASE TODAY." The Jail released Prisoner FF only after the Court Administrator emailed the Jail to inquire on Prisoner FF' s release status- three <lays later. On April 2, 2014, a Circuit Court Judge ordered Prisoner GG released. Prisoner GG was not released until two days later. Prisoners HH and II entered into plea agreements on November 24, 2014, and a Circuit Court Judge ordered that the Jail "RELEASE TODAY." Nonetheless, the Jail did not release either prisoner until the next day.

The Jail also has failed to comply with orders of the Municipal Court. Prisoner JJ, a disabled veteran, was arrested on a misdemeanor charge in October 2014. On November 21 , 2014, a Municipal Court Judge ordered him released and scheduled a new court date. The Jail did not comply with the order; Prisoner JJ was not released from the Jail until November 24three tlays later. Prisoner KK was booked in June 2014 for contempt of court. On December 12, 2014, a Municipal Court Judge ordered him released, checking "Contempt Paid" on Prisoner KK's misdemeanor charges. The court transmittal form stated that it was completed at 9 AM.

10

Throughout this letter, when referring to a specific prisoner, we use pseudonymous

initials to protect the identity of the prisoner.

20
The Jail did not release Prisoner KK until after midnight. Prisoner LL was booked on September 9, 2014, for disorderly conduct. A Municipal Court Judlge ordered her released on time served on October 17. The release notification form was faxed! to the Jail at 4:02 PM. Nonetheless, Prisoner LL was not released until 2: 13 AM.
We therefore find a pattern and practice at the Jail ofdetaining people past court-ordered release dates. The pattern and practice has at least several causes. The Jail has reduced the number of staff members handling releases, reassigning some to security posts. Most of the staff members are relatively new. The fax machine that transmits court orders sometimes is broken or out of paper. Once received, release orders are not timely filed. No post order explains the procedures staff should follow when a court orders a prisoner's release. Staffmembers sometimes do not understand the language in court orders. The current Jail administration removed books that ,explained the meaning of language in judicial dispositions. Dynacom, the database that contains information on local warrants and indictments, sometimes is not up-to-date. Staffmembers therefore may call the District Attorney's office to confirm that an indictment has not issued before releasing a person, but it can take two or three days to receive a response.
Finally, although none of the files we reviewed involved people who were acquitted or found not guilty of the charges against them, we were informed that such individuals are returned to the Jail for out processing. Prisoner BB appears to have been returned to the Jail after the Court found no probable cause to charge him. We note that such a process raises constitutional concerns. See Hill v. Hoisington, 28 F. Supp. 3d 725, 728 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (observing that "the prnper post-acquittal procedure requires the immediate release of a detainee following an acquittal, allowing for any possible outprocessing to occur without continued or requ ired
detention" (internal citations omitted)); Jones v. Cochran, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20625, *18
(S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 1994) (holding that practice of returning acquitted individuals to jail "on average for a period of hours" before release in Broward County violated the Fourth Amendment and Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment). We also note that the County's search policy and procedure appears to allow a person to be strip searched upon "return ... from outside the institution" without "reasonable beliief that the inmate is carrying contraband or other prohibitive material." The policy and procedure do not exempt persons returning from a court hearing in which they were acquitted, found not guilty, or had the charges against them dismissed. We note that the policy and procedure therefore raise significant constitutional concerns.
3. The Jail's Deliberate Indifference to Unlawful Detention Violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Jail is well aware of unlawful detention at the Jail, but has. failed to adequately address the problem. Court Administrators routinely contact the Jail to inquire why a person previously ordered released remains in the Jail. During our September on-site inspection, the Jail Administrator and records supervisor acknowledged that prisoners sometimes are held past their release dates without cause. When staff members learn that an individual has been held without lawful authority, they verbally inform their supervisors. Staff membeirs, however, are not

21

required to (and do not) complete an incident report. 11 During our January 2015 site visit, we were informed that the County intends to hire a contractor to serve as a "court facilitator" who will attempt to remedy the problem of people "lost ... in the system." We were also informed that a quality control officer had been hired to monitor overdetentions; her computer had been unusable for two months, however, and relevant data was not available to us. In February 2015, we were informed that there is no longer a quality control officer.
The Jail's deliberate indifference to its imprisonment of people without legal basis "shocks the conscience" and also "interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746 (1987) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (defining substantive due process); see also Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 851-52 (1998) (observing that deliberate indifference can "rise to a constitutionally shocking level" in "the custodial situation of a prison, [where] forethought about an inmate's welfare is not only feasible but obligatory"). This is particularly so because "[t]he full brunt of the harm for the [the County]'s refusal to get its act together falls, not on [County] employees or influential citizens, but exclusively upon persons with little voice, who are shut away from public view." Barnes 11, 793 F. Supp. 2d at 280.
V. OTHER CONCERNS
During the course of our investigation, we also identified additional troubling practices and conditions that contribute to the constitutional violations described above and an unsafe Jail environment in general.
A. M isuse of L ockdown, Including of Vulner a ble Prisoners
The Jail has attempted to address the staffing and security situation in part by locking down prisoners after each riot. The lockdowns continue to be widespread and subject prisoners to highly restrictive and unsanitary conditions. At the Raymond Facility, prisoners have to remain in their cells for most of the day. At the Jackson Facility, prisoners must remain in their housing units without recreation. In sum, the lockdowns have severely limited or eliminated prisoners' access to exercise, visitation, and treatment. Over time, such deprivations risk violating the Constitution, increasing prisoner tensions, and exacerbating violence. See Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1933-34 (2011) (holding that relief was warranted when lockdown and unsanitary conditions resulted in harm to prisoners with mental illness); Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832 (prison officials must provide "humane conditions of confinement," including adequate shelter);

II

The Jail Administrator did order staff to complete incident reports in December 2014 for

Prisoner MM, who was improperly released in October 2014. Prisoner MM had been indicted

for, among other things, armed robbery, sexual battery, kidnapping, and aggravated, and should

have remained in Jail. In December 2014, after being released, he allegedly committed another

felony. Unfortunately, this may not be the first time the Jail has prematurely released people.

For example, in 2012, the Jail reportedly erroneously released six people. Those people were

facing charges that ranged fro m burglary to rape and murder. Many of the causes ofunlawful

deten6on-including inadequate staffing and training, ai backlog in record filing, and a lack of

centralized information-may also result in the Jail releasing people prematurely.

22

Ruiz v. Johnson, 37 F. Supp. 2d 855, 914-15 (S.D. Tex. 1999), rev'd on other grounds, 243 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 2001), adhered to on remand, 154 F. Supp. 2d 975 (S.D. Tex. 2001) (isolation and sensory deprivation that results in severe psychological deprivations violate the Constitution).
We are especially concerned about the Jail's harsh and highly restrictive treatment of prisoners with disabilities and juveniles. The Jail has been routinely placing prisoners with behavioral issues and apparent symptoms of mental illness in segregation cells located in the cramped booking area. The cells thus serve as both mental health observation cells and disciplinary cells. 12 Even in good circumstances, booking cells are not well-designed for long-term prisoner housing. They provide little space or light, and it is harder to provide any prisoners locked in these cells with proper supervision and programs than if they were housed in larger housing units. They are especially inappropriate for the routine housing of persons with serious mental illness, who may deteriorate or act out in response to being isolated and mistreated, which can lead to a further cycle of abusive discipline. See generally Brown, 131 S.Ct. at 1933-34 (describing negative effects of crowding and segregation on the mental health of prisoners and their adverse effect on the delivery of care).
At the time of our tour, the conditions inside the Jail's booking area cells were especially deplorable. As discussed above, we found one prisoner inside a cell that did not have working, conventional plumbing facilities. The smell was so strong, someone had covered the toilet with urine-soaked blankets and towels. In another booking cell, we found a prisoner who could neither speak nor hear. He could only communicate with staff by (somewhat incoherent) writing. His windowless cell was similarly equipped with a reeking toilet. He had been living in such conditions for nearly three years. The other booking cells were similarly dim, filthy, and lacking in even basic plumbing facilities. These are the types of conditions that courts have found to be completely inappropriate for housing prisoners who have serious mental health conditions. Brown, 131 S.Ct. at 1933-34.
Juveniles have also been particularly impacted by the lockdown, as it has resulted in the denial of access to education and treatment programs. Because of their physical and mental development, juveniles should receive programs, protection from aduhs, and educational services while awaiting trial. See generally Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (discussing differences between adults and juveniles as basis for prohibiting imposition of the death penalty on the latter); Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982) (right to rehabilitation for institutionalized persons protected by the Fourteenth Amendment); Morgan v. Sproat, 432 F. Supp. 1130, 1134-37 (S.D. Miss. 1977) (juveniles have right to individualized treatment); Swansey v. Elrod, 386 F.Supp. 1138, 1143-44 (D. Ill. 1975) (merely providing criminal constitutional rights is not sufficient as juveniles are recognized as different from adults and

12

Such treatment ofprisoners with disabilities can also violate the Americans with

Disabilities Act ("ADA"), which prohibits the segregation of persons with disabilities and

discrimination in the administration of programs and services. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102, 12132.

ADA regulations require public entities to administer services and programs in the " most

integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities." 28 C.F.R.

§ 35. 130(d); see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.l 52(b)(2); Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 , 597 (1999)

("Unjustified isolation ... is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability.").

23
should receive more services); Baker v. Hamilton, 345 F. Supp. 345 (D. Ky. 1972) (juveniles have a right to due process and rehabilitation if housed in jail); Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (requiring individualized programs and services for children with disabilities including those housed in public institutions); but see Morales v. Turman, 562 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1977) (questioning existence of right ofrehabilitation for juveniles); Santana v. Collazo, 714 F.2d 1172 (1st Cir. 1983) (no right to rehabilitation for juveniles).
Instead of being housed and provided with programming consistent with federal requirements, the juveniles in the Jail have been placed unsafely in an adult unit, within sight and sound ofother prisoners. Their cells are unsanitary and dark. Not only are they denied access to recreation and programs normally available to adult prisoners, they have also been denied access to education and services that are specific to the rights ofjuveniles. To meet constitutional standards, the County wi ll need to either significantly re-configure or expand juvenile housing and services at the Jail, or remove all juveniles from the adult detention system and place them in more appropriate secure juvenile facilities.
B. Unsanitary and Unsafe Physical Conditions of Confinement
County officials must provide humane living conditions for prisoners, and "take reasonable measures to guarantee safety." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832-33; Gates, 376 F.3d at 33334, 338-39; Alberti, 406 F. Supp. at 669; Ruiz, 37 F. Supp. 2d at 914-15. Since the most recent riot, the County has made a number of improvements to the Jail's physical plant. The Raymond Facility in particular has benefited from upgrades and repairs. Nevertlheless, the physical plant conditions in Jail facilities are still grossly inadequate. Both facilities exhibit signs of longstanding neglect, and critical safety and security features, such as smoke detectors and cameras, are broken. Some of these issues involve specific challenges at each location, but others reflect common problems with the maintenance system. These conditions are not just dangerous in themselves. Together, they contribute to the inhumane atmosphere that makes the Jail so difficult to manage.
At the Raymond Facility, in addition to the physical plant deficiencies discussed above, see Part IV(A) (l)(c), many of the housing areas are unhygienic. As noted above, see Part V(A), the booking area used for isolation is in especially poor physical condition. Open pit toilets and drains are foul-smelling or inoperative. The lighting is poor. The roof has been leaking directly into the main hall for a year and a half More generally, we found poor housekeeping throughout the facility, with many vents, lights, and observation windows damaged or blocked. Trash build-up and missing fire safety equipment (e.g. , fire hoses) was also a serious concern throughout the facility. The fire detection and suppression system should be considered non-functioning. See Helling, 509 U.S. at 33-34 (courts need not await a tragic event to correct deficiencies, such as deficient firefighting measures and conditions that pose risk of future health problems).
At the Jackson Facility, the physical plant problems reflect the facility' s age. Because of differences in population mix and operations, some units in the Jackson Facility are in better condition than the much newer Raymond Facility. For example, the women's unit in the Jackson Facility was notably cleaner and more orderly than Raymond Facility units, even the most

24

recently renovated. Overall, however, the facility remains unhygienic and unsafe. Security staff reported that the utility projects have been going on for months, and it was unclear when they would be completed. At the time of our September 2014 tour, some parts of the Jail were without electricity or lights, and there were large holes in some of the walls.13 As context, the Jackson Facility is difficult to supervise even in ideal daylight conditions. What little natural light that exists in the units comes through either cell windows, which are now mostly covered with opaque screens, or indirectly from the hallway. There are no working cameras in most of the facility; nor is there enough staffsupervision to deter prisoner damage to facilities. The lack of any outdoor exercise space makes the situation worse. 14
Both the Raymond and Jackson Facilities were modern facilities at the time of their construction in 1994 and 1978, respectively. They have some unusual physical plant features that cause problems, but we do not believe that the facilities are themselves unsalvageable. 15 Maintaining a jail in good condition requires constant attention. This is only in part related to any original design defects, facility age, or the rate of wear-and-tear. Staffing deficiencies contribute to problems with maintaining the physical plant. The Raymond Facility was designed as a "direct supervision" facility, so to operate it properly, Jail officials should have assigned enough staff to monitor each housing unit. If staff members were in each unit, regularly interacting with prisoners, they could direct cleaning crews, discipline prisoners who damage equipment, or prevent vandalism from occurring in the first place. But because of staffing deficiencies and related operational problems, prisoners are locked in cells, mostly out ofsight of any officers. The Jail needs to hire staff to provide programs, services, and supervision, and to prevent idleness and ensure safe conditions. That is unlikely to occur any time soon.
The organization of the maintenance department also makes it harder to maintain acceptable physical plant conditions. The County has taken some commendable steps to address the maintenance issue by assigning staff directly to the Jail and hiring contractors to make various improvements. This change to the reporting structure is an improvement over past practice. However, maintenance staff continues to report primarily to County administration, and maintenance personnel rotate handling of Jail duties. The Jail administration needs full management control over a team of maintenance personnel, with Jail-related experience, who are

13

During our January 20 15 tour, Jail officials reported a number of initiatives including the

addition of new cameras and repairs to the roof. However, as discussed elsewhere in this letter,

physical plant problems remained a concern, as poorly supervised prisoners continued to find

ways to damage critical plant and equipment. We therefore believe systemic changes are still

required.

14

Theoretically, prisoners could get a bit more natural light and space in an enclosed

recreation area on an upper floor, but the Jail has made that room off-limits since the riot. At the

time of our inspection, no one had been allowed to use the recreation room for months,

regardless of whether they bad actually participated in the riots.

15

Whether doing so is the most cost-efficient approach is a more difficult question and

exceeds the scope of this review. As our corrections consultant indicated during bis exit

interview, the Jail is likely salvageable. However, the County will need the assistance ofskilled

construction and arcihitectural experts to come up with workable alternative designs and plans.

25
dedicated to handling Jail repairs. Once the Jail has a dedicated maintenance team, the County can further develop and improve the preventative maintenance program. Having key maintenance staff integrated into the Jail operation will also help administrators and County officials to develop a more comprehensive renovation plan.
Without such changes, Jail conditions will not improve. At present, piecemeal improvements and repairs have been insufficient. Staff cannot keep up with the challenging maintenance environment. In combination, the failure to staff housing units, widespread damage from recent incidents, aging facilities, and weaknesses with the maintenance system pose serious challenges to Jail maintenance. The County needs to address all of these issues as part ofa planned and system-wide review ofJail maintenance needs. As technical assistance, we recommend that the County ensure that the Jail has a functioning maintenance system, which should include policies and procedures for routine health and safety inspections, as well as a process for scheduled, routine, and emergency repairs. The system should include a tracking process and complete documentation ofwhen work orders are received and completed. The system should also include quality assurance mechanisms to identify outstanding orders that have not been resolved in a timely manner. The County should consider whether staffing increases and changes in supervision may be required to ensure an effective, working relationship between detention and maintenance staff We recommend placing maintenance staff directly under the supervision ofthe Jail Administrator. To the extent budget issues may affect timeliness of facility repairs and replacement, a Jail renovation and construction committee, or another appropriate forum, should address funding ofmaintenance as one of its duties.
C. Operation of, and Integration with, the Criminal Justice System
Jail deficiencies may be a symptom of, or contributor to, stresses in the local criminal justice system. The administrative mechanisms at the Jail and the criminal justice system are supposed to operate as a well-integrated whole in order to provide prisoners with du,e process and meaningful access to the courts. Over the course of their incarceration, individuals must repeatedly interact with prosecutors, defense attorneys, the courts, and Jail staff, as they are initially detained, given notice of charges, tried, serving any sentence, and released. While improving Jail administrative practices, staffing, and other conditions will help ensure safe and humane conditions ofconfinement, such improvements may prove to be only part of the solution. A failure to address broader criminal justice issues may affect the Jail's ability to comply with constitutional standards.
Local officials, concerned citizens, and grand jury proceedings have all recently raised questions about whether the Hinds.County criminal justice system adequately protects citizens' constitutional rights against unlawful or prolonged detention. See, e.g., Austin Report; Hinds County Corrections' Monitoring Team' s First Quarterly Report (September 13, 2013) ("Monitor Report"). For reasons that are in dispute, the Hinds County criminal justice system has a number ofbottlenecks that delay timely case resolution. In combination with conditions at the Jail, these types of bottlenecks raise a real possibility that people are being jailed for excessive periods of time. The County and its judges have started collecting information and assessing the situation. The information collected to date is at least facially troubling. According to the County's most recent data production, over 100 indicted prisoners have been incarcerated more than 270 days

26
(after arrest) in the Jail without a conviction. See Amos v. Thornton , 646 F.3d 199, 206 (5th Cir. 2011) (noting that a one-year delay between arrest or indictment and trial is "presumptively prejudicial" for speedy trial purposes). There have also been documented delays in other parts of the criminal process, such as incarceration for hundreds of days without indictment and delays in the forensic mental health process. 16 Such deficiencies may be especially serious for persons with disabilities, as weaknesses in related parts of the criminal justice and forensic process may lead to unnecessary, long-term institutionalization. While the specific reasons why a prisoner may he incarcerated for long periods oftime without trial or release may vary, unnecessary detention can exacerbate other deficiencies and place individuals at risk of harm from unconstitutional conditions for prolonged periods of time.
Holding prisoners for unnecessary lengths of time drains already limited resources from a facility that is in crisis. Tensions between county leaders with responsibilities over different parts of the criminal justice system may interfere with remedial efforts. See generally Kate Royals, Hinds DA Drops Contempt Citalion Against Sheriff, Clarion-Ledger (Oct. 27, 2014), http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2014110/27/hinds-da-drops-citation/18003431/ ("After a grand jury report issued earlier this month called Sheriff Tyrone Lewis ' incompetent' to run the jail, Lewis responded by pointing out the dangerous overcrowding in the jail as a result of cases moving too slowly through the court system."); Jimmie E. Gates, Judge Seeks lo Bar Public Defender, Clarion Ledger, March 2, 2015, http://www.clarionledger.com/ story/news/20 l 5/03/02/judge-seeks-bar-public-defender/24297205/. Finally, the County's general authority to hold persons for trial does not include a right to place prisoners in inhumane conditions for excessively long periods of time. See Bell v. Wolfish , 441 U.S. 520, 535-36 (1979) (conditions that amount to punishment of pretrial detainee violate due process).
As technical assistance, we recommend that the County continue with efforts to establish a criminal justice committee to coordinate the workings of relevant agencies in order to improve the criminal justice system' s effectiveness and efficiency. The committee can also help ensure adequate system-wide resources, engage in community outreach, and provide a forum for discussions between local officials. More specifically, the committee should address any structural problems with the local criminal justice process which may contribute to crowding, result in excessive trial delays, or cause the unlawful or prolonged detention of citizens. The committee should include representatives from County government, law enforcement (including both the Sheriffand District Attorney), members of the defense bar, and the community. The committee should also consider what steps may be required to prevent actual or potential violations ofprisoners' constitutional right of access to the courts, which includes the right to adequate indigent defense and the right to speedy trial. Such steps can include, but are not limited to, budget planning and programs that ensure (a) adequate community housing and treatment services for the diversion of individuals arrested for minor offenses related to serious
16 See, e.g., Letter from Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, to Haley R. Barbour, Governor of Mississippi, United States' Investigation ofthe State a/Mississippi's Service System for Persons with Menial Illness and Developmental Disabilities (Dec. 22, 2011), http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/miss_findletter_ 12-22-11.pdf (noting that lack of mental health services results in cycling of patients through segregated institutions, including jails).

27
mental illness; (b) adequate funding of the criminal justice system; and (c) prompt transport of prisoners to the state.
VI. MINIMUM REMEDIAL MEASURES
In order to rectify the constitutional deficiencies identified in tihis findings letter, we recommend that the County implement, at minimum, the following remedial measures:
1. The County should promptly implement a staffing plan that provides prisoners with adequate supervision; reasonable protection from violence; and adequate access to exercise, treatment, and other programs. At minimum, the plan must:
• ensure fu ll staffing of all permanent posts in each housing pod/unit, booking, and control rooms;
• provide for rovers, emergency response, and a relief factor; and
• include sufficient staffto ensure that welfare checks (rounds) are conducted and documented at appropn.ate frequenc1.es17-
o at least hourly in general population units; and
o for prisoners with higher security and special supervision needs (e.g. , prisoners in suicide observation, medical observation, administrative segregation, and disciplinary segregation), Jail policies and procedures must define varying levels of enhanced supervision, which can range from every thirty minutes up to constant, one-to-one observation in the highest risk circumstances (e.g. , for prisoners who are acutely psychotic or have demonstrated a high risk of suicide).
The staffing recommendations made by County consultants may serve as the basis for the staffing plan. In implementing these recommendations, the County should give high priority to filling the existing staffvacancies at the Raymond and Jackson Facilities. This may require re-assigning some staffmembers from the Work Release Center. For staff assigned to work at the Jaiil, the County must make every reasonable effort to avoid utilizing those personnel for other Sheriff's Department duties that do not relate directly to the supervision and custody of pnsoners.
2. The County should consider offering a siignificant financial incentive to recruit and retain detention staff. Officers need to be assigned equitably between facilities, and detention officers on loan to other areas of the Sheriffs Department need to be returned to their posts within the Jail system. The temporary assignment of up to twenty law enforcement officers

17

Such checks are only a partial remedy. Eventually, the County needs to ensure that the

Jail is staffed as a direct supervision facility requires.

28
to the Jail system (as was recommended in the Austin Report) should be immediately implemented and continued until the County can replace these temporary officers with new hires.
3. The County should implement a classification system that houses prisoners based on appropriate risk factors, and not just gang affiliation. The County should develop a plan for managing gangs and preventing gang violence at the Jaiil. Models of sound classification systems are available from the United States' National Institute of Corrections and private correctional associations. The plan currently under development at the Jail is a good start, but must be tailored to the Jail' s specific housing and staffing situation. It also needs to be implemented and changed over time as the County adopts other remedial measures.
4. The County should modify Jail policies and procedures to reduce the risk of holding prisoners beyond the Jail ' s legal authority to do so. Those policies and procedures must address the Sheriff's legal authority to detain citizens and when that authority ends. To that end, the County must at minimum ensure that the Jail complies with all court orders that direct the release of a prisoner that the Sheriff otherwise has no authority to detain. The Jail also needs to have qualified staff with access to prisoner records, handling release 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. The County should also evaluate current record-keeping procedures to determine whether changes in those procedures, or improved communications between agencies, may reduce confusion regarding the reasons why prisoners are being held at the Jail.
5. The County should establish a Jail Renovation and Construction Committee to
develop a long-term, comprehensive plan for Jail improvements, repairs, and construction. The committee should retain qualified construction and corrections consultants to develop a master renovation and construction plan. The plan should consider renovation or replacement of existing facilities. However, we do not recommend complete Jail replacement at this time. Instead, we recommend that the committee consider adding a new confinement unit (pod) to the Raymond Facility so that the Jail has a modem, fully secure housing area for the prisoners requiring the highest level of security and supervision. This unit should have at least 60 beds. We also recommend that the committee consider whether it would be possible to completely renovate one full pod at a time, instead of piecemeal renovations.
VU. CONCLUSION
In summary, to address our findings of a pattern and practice of Constitutional violations, the County needs to promptly improve staffing and staff training and accountability measures; address the Jail's physical plant deficiencies; and implement adequate systems to prevent detention without a lawful basis.
We are obligated to advise you that 49 days after issuance of this letter, the Attorney General may initiate a lawsuit pursuant to CRIPA to correct deficiencies identified in this letter if County officials have not satisfactorily addressed our concerns. 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(l). Please also note that this Findings Letter is a public document. It will be posted on the Civil Rights Division's website.

29
We hope, however, to resolve this matter through a more cooperative approach. The lawyers assigned to this investigation will therefore be contacting the County to discuss options for resolving this matter amicably. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Judy C. Preston, Acting Chiefof the Civil Rights Division's Special Litigation Section, at (202) 514-6258.
Sincerely,

cc: Sherri M. Flowers County Attorney
Dana Sims Counsel to the Sheriff
Pieter Teeuwissen Board Attorney

Vanita Gupta Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

 
 U.S. District Court Southern District of Mississippi (Northern (Jackson)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:16-cv-00489-CWR-JCG

United States of America v. Hinds County et al Assigned to: District Judge Carlton W. Reeves Referred to: Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights

Date Filed: 06/23/2016 Date Terminated: 07/19/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff United States of America

represented by Christopher N. Cheng-Federal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Trial Attorney, Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division 4 Constitution Square 150 M Street, NE - 10th Floor Ste. Washington, DC 20530 202-514-8892 Fax: 202-514-4883 Email: christopher.cheng@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth C. Kelley-Federal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W. Washington, DC 20530 202/514-0460 Fax: 202/514-4883 Email: beth.kelley@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 10/25/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory K. Davis-Federal Gov U. S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE - Jackson 501 East Court Street Suite 4.430 Jackson, MS 39201 601/965-4480

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura L. Cowall-Federal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Deputy Chief, Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division 4 Constitution Square 150 M Street, NE - 10th Floor Ste. Washington, DC 20530 Email: laura.coon@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitzi Dease Paige-Federal Gov U. S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE - Jackson 501 East Court Street Suite 4.430 Jackson, MS 39201 601/973-2840 965-4480 Fax: 601/965-4409 or 4032 Email: Mitzi.paige@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven H. Rosenbaum-Federal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Chief, Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division 4 Constitution Square 150 M Street, NE - 10th Floor Ste. Washington, DC 20530 2022305-4013 Fax: 202/514-1116 Email: steven.rosenbaum@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanita Gupta-Federal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEHousing & Civil Enforcement Sect Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 202/305-3105

Email: vanita.gupta@usdoj.gov (Inactive) TERMINATED: 03/08/2021 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron Fleisher-Federal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Special Litigation Section Civil Rghts Division 4 Constitution Square 150 M Street, NE - 10th Floor Ste. Washington, DC 20530 202-307-6457 Email: aaron.fleisher@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 03/08/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Candace Mayberry-Federal Gov U. S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE - Jackson 501 East Court Street Suite 4.430 Jackson, MS 39201 601/965-4480 Fax: 601/965-4409 Email: candace.mayberry@usdoj.gov (Inactive) TERMINATED: 03/16/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Helen Vera-Federal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Divsion 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 202-305-0132 Email: helen.vera@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Loretta E. Lynch-Federal Gov U. S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Brooklyn Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201 Email: loretta.lynch@usdoj.gov

V.
Defendant
The Hinds County Board of Supervisors

TERMINATED: 05/17/2017
Sarah Teresa Russo-Federal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division 4 Constitution Square 150 M Street, NE - 10th Floor Ste. Washington, DC 20530 202-307-6605 Email: sarah.russo@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 03/08/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah G. Steege-Federal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF jUSTICE 4 Constitution Sq., 150 M St. NE Washington, DC 20530 202-514-5734 Email: sarah.steege@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shelley R. Jackson-Federal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 150 M. St. N. E., #10, 1811 Washington, DC 20530 202-305-3373 Email: shelley.jackson@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 08/04/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Pieter Teeuwissen SIMON & TEEUWISSEN, PLLC 621 East Northside Drive Jackson, MS 39206 601/362-8400 Fax: 601/366-2292 Email: adwoodard@bellsouth.net TERMINATED: 01/13/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Hinds Co. Sheriff Victor Mason In his official capacity

Scherrie L. Prince PRINCE & ASSOCIATES, PLLC P. O. Box 24083 Jackson, MS 39225 601/206-0284 Fax: 888/449-4976 Email: sprince@princelawassociates.com TERMINATED: 03/17/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony R. Simon SIMON & TEEUWISSEN, PLLC 621 East Northside Drive Jackson, MS 39206 601-362-8400 Fax: 601-362-8444 Email: anthonysimonpllc@bellsouth.net TERMINATED: 01/13/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rayford G. Chambers CHAMBERS & GAYLOR, PLLC P. O. Box 12393 Jackson, MS 39236-2393 601/914-0248 Fax: 601/914-0255 Email: rchambers@cglawpartners.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tony R. Gaylor-County Gov HINDS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P. O. Box 686 Jackson, MS 39205-0686 601-968-6797 Fax: 601-968-6794 Email: tgaylor@co.hinds.ms.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Claire Barker-County Gov HINDS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. 407 East. Pascagoula Street Jackson, MS 39201-2969

Interested Party J.H.

601/974-2900 Fax: 601/968-6705 Email: cbarker@co.hinds.ms.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tony R. Gaylor-County Gov (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elissa F. Johnson SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER - Jackson 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 601/948-8882 Email: elissa.johnson@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 01/16/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jody E. Owens , II SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER - Jackson 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 601/948-8882 Fax: 601/948-8885 Email: JodyOwens@gmail.com TERMINATED: 08/12/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leslie Faith Jones SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER - Jackson 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 601-317-7519 Fax: 601-948-8885 Email: leslie.jones@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paloma Wu SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER - Jackson

Interested Party Disability Rights Mississippi

111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 601/948-8882 Fax: 601/948-8885 Email: paloma.wu@splcenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vidhi Bamzai SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER - Jackson 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 601/948-8882 Email: vidhi.bamzai@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 12/17/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elissa F. Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/16/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jody E. Owens , II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paloma Wu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vidhi Bamzai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/17/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

06/23/2016 06/23/2016 06/23/2016
06/27/2016 06/27/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/07/2016 07/19/2016

COMPLAINT against Hinds County, Victor Mason, The Hinds

1

County Board of Supervisors, filed by United States of America.

(Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(RRL) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

2 Joint MOTION for Settlement Entry of Settlement Agreement by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Settlement Agreement)(Paige-Federal Gov, Mitzi) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

3 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2 Joint MOTION for Settlement Entry of Settlement Agreement filed by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Letter of June 2, 2014, # 2 Exhibit B - Letter of January 20, 2015, # 3 Exhibit C Investigation dated May 21, 2015, # 4 Exhibit D - Report of Grand Jury)(Paige-Federal Gov, Mitzi) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

4 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to Claire Barker on June 27, 2016 by United States of America. Waiver of Service due by 7/27/2016 (Paige-Federal Gov, Mitzi) (Entered: 06/27/2016)

5 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to Pieter Teeuwissen on June 27, 2016 by United States of America. Waiver of Service due by 7/27/2016 (Paige-Federal Gov, Mitzi) (Entered: 06/27/2016)

6 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by United States of America. The Hinds County Board of Supervisors waiver sent on 6/27/2016, answer due 8/26/2016. (Paige-Federal Gov, Mitzi) (Entered: 07/06/2016)

7 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by United States of America. Victor Mason waiver sent on 6/27/2016, answer due 8/26/2016. (Paige-Federal Gov, Mitzi) (Entered: 07/06/2016)

Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 7/19/2016 01:30 PM before District Judge William H. Barbour Jr. (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 07/07/2016)

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr: Telephone Conference held on 7/19/2016 regarding Settlement Agreement. Participates: Christopher Cheng, Elizabeth C. Kelley, Regan Rush, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington, D.C.; Mitzi Paige, U.S. Attorneys office; Peter Teeuwissen, Anthony Simmons, Attorney for the Hinds County Bd of Supervisors; Claire Barker, Attorney for the Hinds County Sheriff's Department. Telephone conference regarding the proposed Settlement Agreement. All parties agreed that they agree with the Settlement Agreement on behalf of their clients and that all

07/19/2016 08/18/2016 08/18/2016 08/18/2016 12/08/2016
12/08/2016 02/17/2017

parties were ready to implement the agreement. 7/19/2016 (Lewis, Nijah). (Entered: 07/19/2016)

8 ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement attached hereto is hereby approved; that this Settlement Agreement be implemented by the parties in accordance with its terms. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 7/19/16 (Attachments: # 1

Settlement Agreement). (RRL) (Entered: 07/19/2016)

Joint MOTION to Appoint Expert Elizabeth Lisa Simpson by

9

United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed

Order)(Kelley-Federal Gov, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/18/2016)

10 MEMORANDUM in Support re 9 Joint MOTION to Appoint Expert Elizabeth Lisa Simpson filed by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Elizabeth Simpson C.V.)(Kelley-Federal Gov, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/18/2016)

11 ORDER granting 9 Motion to Appoint Expert. Elizabeth Lisa Simpson is hereby approved as the Monitor in this case. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 8/18/16 (Lewis, Nijah) (Entered: 08/18/2016)

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo: TELEPHONIC Status Conference held on 12/8/2016 with Court appointed expert. A baseline visit was conducted in October, and a findings letter has been provided to the appropriate parties. The expert is currently finalizing a monitor plan, and will provide same to parties. A monitor visit is scheduled for early February, with the expert's findings to be formally filed thereafter. A telephonic status conference will be scheduled by separate docket entry. (AB) (Entered: 12/08/2016)

NOTICE of Hearing: TELEPHONIC Status Conference set for 2/17/2017 at 9:30 AM before Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo. Counsel for Plaintiff will place the call to Judge Gargiulo's Chambers with all necessary counsel already on the line along with the Court appointed expert. (AB) (Entered: 12/08/2016)

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo: TELEPHONIC Status Conference held on 2/17/2017 regarding status of completion of requirements of the consent agreement. A base line tour has been completed. There has been significant progress made toward compliance however, there remain

02/17/2017 05/03/2017 05/16/2017 07/10/2017

certain requirement deadlines that have not been complied with and are past due. The Defendant Hinds County has retained a Consent Agreement Compliance Coordinator (Synarus Green) who has been appraised of the priority recommendations and overall status. The next monitoring site visit will take place in June. An in-person status conference will be scheduled by the Court at which the Court expects the Defendants to be in compliance with all past due deadlines addressed during the telephone conference, and be prepared to address compliance with all prior recommendations made. The parties have agreed to convene at the Gulfport Courthouse. The Court directs that the Hinds County Sherriff and the President of the Hinds County Board of Supervisors be present at the upcoming in-person status conference. Participates: Christopher Cheng and Candace Mayberry (counsel for Plaintiff); Peter Teeuwissen and Anthony Simon (counsel for Defendant Hinds County Board of Supervisors); Claire Barker (counsel for Defendant Hinds County Sheriff Victor Mason); Elizabeth Simpson (Court Appointed Expert); Mary Rushing (Hinds County Warden); Synarus Green (Hinds County Compliance Officer); Pete Luke (Hinds County Operations Officer). (AB) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
NOTICE of Hearing: IN-PERSON Status Conference set for 7/10/2017 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 683 (Gulfport) before Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo. (AB) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
12 STATUS REPORT by United States of America (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit Monitor's First Monitoring Report)(Cheng-Federal Gov, Christopher) (Entered: 05/03/2017)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by Aaron Fleisher-Federal Gov on behalf of United States of America (Fleisher-Federal Gov, Aaron) (Entered: 05/16/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo: IN-PERSON Status Conference held on 7/10/2017. PARTICIPANTS: Christopher N. Cheng, Laura L. Coon (Cowell), Candace Gregory Mayberry (counsel for Plaintiff); Pieter Teeuwissen (counsel for Defendant The Hinds County Board of Supervisors); Claire Barker (counsel for Defendant Hinds Co. Sheriff Victor Mason); Elizabeth Simpson (Court Appointed Expert). Status conference regarding compliance with consent agreement. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teri Norton, Telephone Number : 228-563-1748. (AB) (Entered: 07/10/2017)

07/10/2017

NOTICE of Hearing: TELEPHONIC Status Conference set for 9/20/2017 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo. Counsel for Plaintiff will place the call to Judge Gargiulo's Chambers with all necessary counsel already on the line along with the Court appointed expert. (AB) (Entered: 07/10/2017)

07/10/2017

NOTICE of Hearing: IN-PERSON Status Conference set for 10/25/2017 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 683 (Gulfport) before Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo. (AB) (Entered: 07/10/2017)

07/18/2017

14 NOTICE of Appearance by Candace Mayberry-Federal Gov on behalf of United States of America (Mayberry-Federal Gov, Candace) (Entered: 07/18/2017)

07/19/2017

15 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of INPERSON STATUS CONFERENCE held on 7/10/2017 before Judge John Gargiulo. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teri Norton, Telephone Number : 228-563-1748. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no Notice is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/9/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/21/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/17/2017. (TN) (Entered: 07/19/2017)

08/23/2017 16

STATUS REPORT by United States of America (*Cheng-Federal Gov, Christopher) (Entered: 08/23/2017)

09/20/2017

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo: TELEPHONIC Status Conference held on 9/20/2017. Participates: Christopher Cheng, Laura L. Coon (Cowell), Mitzi Dease Paige and Patrick Holkins (counsel for Plaintiff); Elizabeth Simpson (Court-Appointed Monitor); Peter Teeuwissen and Anthony Simon (counsel for Defendant Hinds County Board of Supervisors); Darrell McWhorter (Hinds County Board President); Carmen McDavis (Hinds County Administrator); Mickey Parker (Hinds County Personnel Director); Synarus Green (Hinds County Compliance Officer); Sheriff Victor Mason (Hinds County Sheriff); Mary Rushing (Hinds County Jail Administrator); Cpt. Sandra Dalton; Deputy Richard Fielder; Tanecka Moore (Court Facilitator);

10/24/2017 10/25/2017 10/25/2017
10/25/2017 10/25/2017 11/06/2017

Kim Jackson (Director of Nursing for Quality Correction Health Care); Johnny McDaniels (Youth Detention Center). The Court received a progress report regarding compliance with the consent agreement. Significant progress has been made, and the parties continue to proceed toward compliance with the consent decree. A status conference has been scheduled to take place after the monitoring team's onsite visit. (AB) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
17 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by United States of America (Kelley-Federal Gov, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/24/2017)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 17 Motion to Withdraw, filed by Elizabeth C. Kelley. Elizabeth C. Kelley is granted leave to withdraw as counsel for the United States. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo on 10/25/2017 (HM) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo: IN-PERSON Status Conference held on 10/25/2017. Participates: Christopher Cheng, Laura L. Coon (Cowell), Candace Mayberry (counsel for Plaintiff); Elizabeth Simpson (CourtAppointed Monitor); Peter Teeuwissen and Anthony Simon (counsel for Defendant Hinds County Board of Supervisors); Sheriff Victor Mason (Hinds County Sheriff); Mary Rushing (Hinds County Jail Administrator); Cpt. Sandra Dalton; Kenneth Bryant (Supervisor); Kendria Johnson (Administrative Assistant); Carmen Davis (Hinds County Administrator); Pete Luke (Hinds County Operations Office); Shelly Blaine (Fiscal Director). The Court received a progress report from the Court Monitor regarding compliance with the consent agreement. A telephonic status conference and an in-person status conference will be scheduled. Tape Number: 10/25/2017. (AB) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
NOTICE of Hearing: TELEPHONIC Status Conference set for 12/5/2017 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo. Counsel for Plaintiff will place the call to Judge Gargiulo's Chambers with all necessary counsel already on the line along with the Court Monitor. (AB) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
NOTICE of Hearing: IN-PERSON Status Conference set for 3/8/2018 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 683 (Gulfport) before Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo. (AB) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
18 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of INPERSON STATUS CONFERENCE held on 10/25/2017 before Judge John Gargiulo. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teri Norton, Telephone Number : 228-563-1748. NOTICE RE : REDACTION

OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no Notice is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/27/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/7/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/5/2018. (TN) (Entered: 11/06/2017)

12/05/2017

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo: TELEPHONIC Status Conference held on 12/5/2017. Participates: Christopher Cheng, Laura L. Coon (Cowell), Mitzi Dease Paige, Aaron Fleisher and Patrick Holkins (counsel for Plaintiff); Elizabeth Simpson (Court-Appointed Monitor); David Parrish (Monitor Team); Pieter Teeuwissen and Anthony Simon (counsel for Defendant Hinds County Board of Supervisors); Clair Barker (counsel for Hinds County Sheriff Victor Mason); Mary Rushing (Hinds County Jail Administrator); Carmen Davis (Hinds County Administrator); Pete Luke (Hinds County Operations Office); Synarus Green (Hinds County Compliance Officer); Kenny Lewis; Chancellor Denise Owens. The parties and the Court Appointed Monitor presented the Court with an update as to progress toward compliance with the consent agreement, as well as issues to be addressed at the upcoming site visit and in-person status conference. (AB) (Entered: 12/05/2017)

12/11/2017 19

STATUS REPORT (Report of the Court Monitor) filed by United States of America (*Cheng-Federal Gov, Christopher) (Entered: 12/11/2017)

12/18/2017

20 MOTION Motion for Status As Interested Parties by J.H., Disability Rights Mississippi (Johnson, Elissa) (Entered: 12/18/2017)

12/29/2017

21 ORDER granting 20 Motion for Status As Interested Parties. Signed by Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo on 12/29/2017 (cwl) (Entered: 12/29/2017)

03/08/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo: IN-PERSON Status Conference held on 3/8/2018. Participates: Christopher Cheng and Candace Mayberry (counsel for Plaintiff); Elizabeth Simpson (Court-Appointed Monitor); Anthony Simon (counsel for Defendant Hinds County Board of

03/14/2018 04/18/2018
22 08/01/2018
23 08/29/2018
08/29/2018
11/15/2018 24
11/30/2018

Supervisors); Mike Morgan (President of the Board of Supervisor); Claire Barker (Counsel for Hinds County Sheriff's Department); Mary Rushing (Hinds County Jail Administrator); Cpt. Sandra Dalton; Kenny Lewis; Carmen Davis (Hinds County Administrator); Synarus Green (Hinds County Compliance Officer); Ricky Dedeaux (CSO). The Court received a progress report from the Court Monitor regarding compliance with the consent agreement. An IN-PERSON status conference will be scheduled. Court Reporter/Transcriber Fred Jeske, Telephone Number : 601255-6432. (AB) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
NOTICE of Hearing: IN-PERSON Status Conference set for 8/29/2018 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 683 (Gulfport) before Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo. (AB) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
STATUS REPORT (Report of the Court Monitor) by United States of America (*Cheng-Federal Gov, Christopher) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
STATUS REPORT Monitor's Fifth Report by United States of America (Fleisher-Federal Gov, Aaron) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo: In-Person Status Conference held on 8/29/2018. Participates: Christopher Cheng and Candace Mayberry (counsel for Plaintiff); Elizabeth Simpson (Court-Appointed Monitor); Peter Teewissen and Anthony Simon (counsel for Defendant Hinds County Board of Supervisors); Claire Barker (Counsel for Hinds County Sheriff's Department); Ricky Dedeaux (CSO). The Court received a progress report from the Court Monitor and Defense Counsel regarding compliance with the consent agreement. A telephonic status conference will be scheduled. Tape Number: 8/29/2018. (AB) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
NOTICE of Hearing: TELEPHONIC Status Conference set for 11/30/2018 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo. Counsel for Plaintiff will place the call to Judge Gargiulo's Chambers with all necessary counsel already on the line along with the Court Monitor. (AB) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
STATUS REPORT (Court Appointed Monitor's Sixth Monitoring Report) by United States of America (*Cheng-Federal Gov, Christopher) (Entered: 11/15/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo: TELEPHONIC Status Conference held on 11/30/2018. Participates: Christopher Cheng, Laura L. Coon (Cowell) and Aaron

Fleisher (counsel for Plaintiff); Elizabeth Simpson (CourtAppointed Monitor); Anthony Simon (counsel for Defendant Hinds County Board of Supervisors); Clair Barker (counsel for Hinds County Sheriff Victor Mason); Synarus Green (Hinds County Compliance Officer). The Court received an update from the Court Appointed Monitor and the Parties. The Parties addressed areas of concern for the next scheduled site visit. (AB) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

12/17/2018 25

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to District Judge Carlton W. Reeves for all further proceedings. District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr. no longer assigned to case. Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 12/17/18 (VM) (Entered: 12/17/2018)

12/28/2018

NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 1/15/2019 at 04:30 PM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) Reeves before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. (DJ) (Entered: 12/28/2018)

01/14/2019

26 MOTION to Substitute Attorney and Withdraw Attorney by Disability Rights Mississippi, J.H. (Bamzai, Vidhi). Added MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney on 1/15/2019 (VM). (Entered: 01/14/2019)

01/15/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Status Conference held on 1/15/2019. APPEARANCES: Christopher Cheng, Aaron Fleisher, Candace Mayberry (counsel for Plaintiff); Elizabeth Simpson (Court-Appointed Monitor); Pieter Teeuwissen and Anthony Simon (counsel for Defendant Hinds County Board of Supervisors); Claire Barker (counsel for Hinds County Sheriff Victor Mason); Synarus Green (Hinds County Compliance Officer); Carmen Davis (Hinds County Administrator); Sheriff Victor Mason (Hinds County Sheriff); Mary Rushing (Hinds County Jail Administrator). The Court received an update as to the progress toward compliance with the Consent Agreement from the parties and the Court Appointed Monitor. (TRS) (Entered: 01/17/2019)

01/16/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 26 Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel for Interested Parties. Elissa Johnson of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is granted leave to withdraw as counsel for Interested Parties and Vidhi Bamzai of SPLC is substituted as counsel in place of Ms. Johnson as counsel for Interested Parties. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo on 1/16/19 (HM) (Entered: 01/16/2019)

02/05/2019

Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/10/2019 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) Reeves before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves (TRS) (Entered: 02/05/2019)

03/05/2019 27

STATUS REPORT Court Appointed Monitor's Seventh Monitoring Report by United States of America (Fleisher-Federal Gov, Aaron) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

04/11/2019

Reset Hearings: Status Conference reset for 5/9/2019 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) Reeves before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. (TRS) (Entered: 04/11/2019)

05/07/2019

Reset Hearings: Status Conference sreet for 5/9/2019 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) Reeves before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. (TRS) (Entered: 05/07/2019)

05/09/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Status Conference held on 5/9/2019. APPEARANCES: Christopher Cheng, Aaron Fleisher, Candace Mayberry (Government's counsel); Elizabeth Simpson (Court-Appointed Monitor), Jim Moeser (Juvenile Justice Expert), David Parrish (Corrections Operations Expert), Dr. Richard Dudley (Corrections Mental Health Expert); Pieter Teeuwissen (counsel for Defendant Hinds County Board of Supervisors); Claire Barker (counsel for Hinds County Sheriff Victor Mason); Synarus Green (Hinds County Compliance Officer); Carmen Davis (Hinds County Administrator); Sheriff Victor Mason (Hinds County Sheriff); Mary Rushing (Hinds County Jail Administrator);. The Court received an update as to the progress toward compliance with the Consent Agreement from the parties, Court Appointed Monitor, and Experts. A Telephonic Conference was set for June 28, 2019, at 2:30PM CST. Court Reporter/Transcriber Candice Crane, Telephone Number : 601-6084187. (TRS) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

05/10/2019

Set Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 6/28/2019 02:30 PM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. (TRS) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

05/21/2019

28 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference Proceedings held on May 9, 2019 before Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Court Reporter/Transcriber Candice Crane, Telephone Number : 601-608-4187. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no Notice is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90

calendar days. The policy is located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 6/11/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/21/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/19/2019. (CC) (Entered: 05/21/2019)

06/18/2019

Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 9/26/2019 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) Reeves before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves (TRS) (Entered: 06/18/2019)

06/21/2019

29 MOTION Leave to Exceed Page Limit by United States of America (Mayberry-Federal Gov, Candace) (Entered: 06/21/2019)

06/24/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 29 United States' Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit. United States is granted leave to file a motion that exceeds the Local Rules' page limitation by nine pages. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo on 6/24/19 (HM) (Entered: 06/24/2019)

06/24/2019 30

MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held In Contempt by United States of America (Attachments: # 1

Attachment 1 - Enforcement Letter, # 2 Attachment 2 -

Supplemental Enforcement Letter, # 3 Attachment 3 Transcript of Status Conference 2019 05 09 (pp 15 to 20),

# 4 Attachment 4 - Incident Information, # 5 Attachment 5 -

October 2017 Transcript, # 6 Attachment 6 - Sheriff's Letter,

# 7 Attachment 7 - Board's Letter, # 8 Attachment 8 Priority Recommendations final June 2018)(Mayberry-Federal Gov, Candace) (Entered: 06/24/2019)

06/24/2019 31

MEMORANDUM in Support re 30 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held In Contempt filed by United States of America (Mayberry-Federal Gov, Candace) (Entered: 06/24/2019)

06/24/2019 32

MOTION to RESTRICT from public Exhibit 4 of its Motion to Show Cause (ECF Doc. No. 30) by United States of America (Mayberry-Federal Gov, Candace) (Entered: 06/24/2019)

06/27/2019 33

STATUS REPORT Court Appointed Monitor's Eighth Monitoring Report by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Certificate of Service)(*Cheng-Federal Gov, Christopher) (Entered: 06/27/2019)

06/27/2019

TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting 32 Motion to Seal or Restrict

from public Exhibit 4 of 30 Motion for Order to Show Cause. The Clerk shall make the necessary changes. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 6/27/2019. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE ON THIS MOTION. (DJ) (Entered: 06/27/2019)

06/28/2019

34 NOTICE of Appearance by Anthony R. Simon on behalf of The Hinds County Board of Supervisors (Simon, Anthony) (Entered: 06/28/2019)

06/28/2019

TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting Defendants' ore tenus motion for

an Extension of Time to Respond to 30 Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held In Contempt. The new Response deadline is 7/22/2019. The new Reply deadline is 8/5/2019. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 6/28/2019. (DJ) (Entered: 06/28/2019)

06/28/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Conference held on 6/28/2019. PARTICIPANTS: Christopher Cheng, Aaron Fleisher, Laura L. Coon, Candace Mayberry (Government's counsel); Elizabeth Simpson and David Parrish (CourtAppointed Monitor); Anthony Simon(counsel for Defendant Hinds County Board of Supervisors); Claire Barker (counsel for Hinds County Sheriff Victor Mason); Synarus Green (Hinds County Compliance Officer); Carmen Davis (Hinds County Administrator); Paloma Wu (counsel for J.H. and Disability Rights MS). The Court received an update from the parties as to progress toward compliance with the consent agreement. (TRS) (Entered: 06/28/2019)

07/22/2019

35 RESPONSE to Motion re 30 MOTION for Order to Show
Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held In Contempt filed by

The Hinds County Board of Supervisors (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, S. Green Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit B, C. Davis Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit C, K. Lewis Affidavit, # 4 Exhibit D, M. Rushing Affidavit)(Teeuwissen, Pieter) (Entered: 07/22/2019)

07/22/2019 36

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 35 Response to 30
Motion, to Show Cause filed by The Hinds County Board of Supervisors (Teeuwissen, Pieter) Modified on 7/23/2019 (VM). (Entered: 07/22/2019)

08/05/2019

37 REPLY to Response to Motion re 30 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held In Contempt filed by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Certificate of Service, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(*ChengFederal Gov, Christopher) (Entered: 08/05/2019)

08/05/2019

DOCKET ANNOTATION as to 37 : L.U.Civ.R. 7(b)(2) requires that all supporting exhibits to a document be denominated by an exhibit letter or number and a meaningful description. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings. (VM) (Entered: 08/06/2019)

08/09/2019

38 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Disability Rights Mississippi, J.H. (Owens, Jody) (Entered: 08/09/2019)

08/12/2019

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 38 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. Jody E. Owens, II, is granted leave to withdraw as counsel and terminated from the docket. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo on 8/12/19 (HM) (Entered: 08/12/2019)

08/15/2019

39 NOTICE of Appearance by Sarah Teresa Russo-Federal Gov on behalf of United States of America (Russo-Federal Gov, Sarah) (Entered: 08/15/2019)

08/16/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Conference held on 8/16/2019. PARTICIPANTS: Christopher Cheng, Candace Mayberry, Sarah Russo, and Aaron Fleischer (Government's counsel); Elizabeth Simpson (Court-Appointed Monitor); Pieter Teeuwissen and Anthony Simon (Counsel for Defendant Hinds County Board of Supervisors); Claire Barker (Counsel for Defendant Hinds County Sheriff Victor Mason). A Status Conference was set for 9:00 a.m. on 9/26/19. The government has propounded discovery to the parties. That discovery must be

09/06/2019 09/26/2019 09/26/2019 09/26/2019
09/30/2019 10/16/2019

answered by August 26, 2019. If at the time of the Status Conference, the Court has not ruled on the Motion [Docket 30], the parties shall be prepared to discuss issues remaining and the necessity of a future hearing. (TRS) (Entered: 08/20/2019)
40 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Major Mary Rushing, Captain Sandra Dalton, Captain Ric Fielder, Robert Bell, Captain Terry Miller, Fernandeis Frazier by United States of America (MayberryFederal Gov, Candace) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
41 TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting 30 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 09/26/2019. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE ON THIS MOTION.(EP) (Entered: 09/26/2019)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to 41 : Document number assigned in error. There is no document attached. (VM) (Entered: 09/26/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Status Conference held on 9/26/2019. APPEARANCES: Christopher Cheng, Sarah Russo, Candace Mayberry (Government's counsel); Elizabeth Simpson (Court-Appointed Monitor), Jim Moeser (Juvenile Justice Expert), David Parrish (Corrections Operations Expert), Dr. Richard Dudley (Corrections Mental Health Expert); Pieter Teeuwissen and Anthony Simon (counsel for Defendant Hinds County Board of Supervisors); Claire Barker (counsel for Hinds County Sheriff Victor Mason); Synarus Green (Hinds County Compliance Officer); Carmen Davis (Hinds County Administrator); Mary Rushing (Hinds County Jail Administrator); Jody Owens (Hinds County District Attorney Elect); Lee Vance (Hinds County Sheriff Elect). The Court received an update from the parties as to the progress toward compliance with the consent
degree. The Court granted 30 Motion for Order to Show Cause why Defendants shouldn't be held in Contempt. A hearing will be set at a later date. Court Reporter/Transcriber Candice Crane, Telephone Number : 601-608-4187. (TRS) (Entered: 09/26/2019)
42 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Peggy Calhoun, Major Pete Luke, Carmen Davis and Synarus Green by United States of America (Mayberry-Federal Gov, Candace) (Entered: 09/30/2019)
43 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference Proceedings held on September 26, 2019 before Judge Carlton Reeves. Court Reporter/Transcriber Candice Crane,

10/17/2019 10/21/2019
10/21/2019

Telephone Number: 601-608-4187. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no Notice is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/6/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/18/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/14/2020. (CC) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
Set Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 10/21/2019 02:00 PM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Conference will concern
scheduling of the hearing on 30 Motion for Order to Show Cause and coordination of witnesses to be called and issues to be raised at the hearing. Call-in information will be emailed separately to counsel. (EP) (Entered: 10/17/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Conference held on 10/21/2019. APPEARANCES: Christopher Cheng, Simrandeep Chahal, Shelley Jackson, Laura Coon, Aaron Fleisher, Sarah Teresa Russo, (DOJ counsel); Elizabeth Simpson (Court appointed Monitor); Pieter Teeuwissen, Anthony Simon (Counsel for Defendant Hinds Co. Board of Supervisors); Claire Barker (Counsel for Defendant Hinds Co. Sheriff Victor Mason); and Vidhi Bamzai (Counsel for Interested Party J.H.). The Court set the Jury Trial for 12/16/19. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, Exhibit and Witness Lists are due on 12/11/19 by 5:00 PM; Deadline for all Discovery, Depositions, and Designation of Experts due by 11/18/19. (TRS) (Entered: 10/21/2019)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 11/18/2019 ; Designate Experts Plaintiff Deadline due by 11/18/2019; Designate Experts for Defendant Deadline due by 11/18/2019 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, Exhibit and Witness Lists due by 12/11/2019; Jury Trial set for 12/16/2019 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) Reeves before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves (TRS) (Entered: 10/21/2019)

10/21/2019

AMENDED Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Conference held on 10/21/2019. APPEARANCES: Christopher Cheng, Simrandeep Chahal, Shelley Jackson, Laura Coon, Aaron Fleisher, Sarah Teresa Russo, (DOJ counsel); Elizabeth Simpson (Court appointed Monitor); Pieter Teeuwissen, Anthony Simon (Counsel for Defendant Hinds Co. Board of Supervisors); Claire Barker (Counsel for Defendant Hinds Co. Sheriff Victor Mason); and Vidhi Bamzai (Counsel for Interested Party J.H.). The Court set the Bench Trial to begin on 12/16/19. Deadline to submit Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, Witness Lists, and Exhibit Lists is 12/11/19. Deadline for Discovery, fact cutoff, disclosures of all declarations and potential witnesses and deposition designations is 11/18/19. (TRS) Modified on 10/23/2019 (TRS). (Entered: 10/22/2019)

10/22/2019

AMENDED Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery, fact cut off, disclosures of all declarations and potential witnesses and deposition designations due by 11/18/2019; Exhibit List, Witness List, Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law due by 12/11/2019, 5:00 PM; Bench Trial set for 12/16/2019 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) Reeves before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves (TRS) (Entered: 10/22/2019)

10/31/2019

Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/1/2019 at 11:30 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Dial-in number to follow via email. (AC) (Entered: 10/31/2019)

11/01/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Conference held on 11/1/2019. APPEARANCES: Christopher Cheng, Laura Coon, Sarah Teresa Russo, (DOJ counsel); Elizabeth Simpson (Courtappointed Monitor); Pieter Teeuwissen, Anthony Simon (Counsel for Defendant Hinds Co. Board of Supervisors); Carmen Davis (Hinds County Administrator); Synarus Green (Hinds County Compliance Officer); Claire Barker (Counsel for Defendant Hinds Co. Sheriff Victor Mason). The Court requested the parties to send a status update via email by 11/7/2019. (TRS) (Entered: 11/01/2019)

11/06/2019

44 NOTICE of Appearance by Shelley R. Jackson-Federal Gov on behalf of United States of America (Jackson-Federal Gov, Shelley) (Entered: 11/06/2019)

11/13/2019 45

Parties' Stipulated ORDER. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 11/13/2019. (EP) (Entered: 11/13/2019)

11/13/2019

Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/24/2020 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) Reeves before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves (TRS) Modified on 11/14/2019 (TRS). (Entered: 11/13/2019)

11/13/2019 46

STATUS REPORT (Court Appointed Monitor's Ninth Report) by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Certificate of Service)(*Cheng-Federal Gov, Christopher) (Entered: 11/13/2019)

11/18/2019

47 NOTICE of Receipt of Deposition of Bell et al by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Depo Cover for R Bell, # 2 Exhibit B Depo Cover for P Calhoun, # 3 Exhibit C Depo Cover C Davis, # 4 Exhibit D Depo Cover R Fielder, # 5 Exhibit E Depo Cover F Frazier, # 6 Exhibit F Depo Cover S Green, # 7 Exhibit G Depo Cover P Luke, # 8 Exhibit H Depo Cover T Miller, # 9 Exhibit I Depo Cover M Rushing, # 10 Exhibit J Depo Cover S Dalton)(*Cheng-Federal Gov, Christopher) (Entered: 11/18/2019)

11/18/2019

48 MOTION to Extend Deadline for Deposition Designation of S Dalton by United States of America (*Cheng-Federal Gov, Christopher) (Entered: 11/18/2019)

12/04/2019

Set Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 12/6/2019 10:00 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Conference will concern resolving outstanding evidentiary questions regarding the hearing

on 30 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Call-in information will be emailed separately to counsel. (EP) (Entered: 12/04/2019)

12/04/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Conference held on 12/4/2019. PARTICIPANT: Elizabeth Simpson, Monitor. (TRS) (Entered: 12/04/2019)

12/05/2019

Set Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 12/6/2019 10:00 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves (TRS) (Entered: 12/05/2019)

12/06/2019

TEXT-ONLY ORDER denying Defendant The Hinds County Board of Supervisors' ore tenus motion to continue the Contempt Hearing to begin on 12/16/19. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 12/6/2019. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE ON THIS MOTION. (EP) (Entered: 12/06/2019)

12/06/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Conference held on 12/6/2019. APPEARANCES: Christopher Cheng, Laura Coon,

12/11/2019 12/11/2019 12/11/2019 12/11/2019 12/12/2019
12/16/2019 12/16/2019 12/16/2019

(DOJ counsel); Pieter Teeuwissen, Anthony Simon (Counsel for Defendant Hinds Co. Board of Supervisors); Claire Barker (Counsel for Defendant Hinds Co. Sheriff Victor Mason); and Synarus Green (Hinds County Compliance Officer). The deadline for objections to exhibits, witnesses, and declarations is 12/11/2019. Parties will provide the court exhibits on 12/16/2019. The Contempt hearing will begin on 12/16/19 at 9:30 AM. (TRS) (Entered: 12/06/2019)
49 **ERROR** Disregard this entry. NOTICE of Filing of Exhibit List by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Exhibit List)(Fleisher-Federal Gov, Aaron) Modified on 12/12/2019 (VM). (Entered: 12/11/2019)
50 **ERROR** Disregard this entry. NOTICE of Filing of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by United States of America (Fleisher-Federal Gov, Aaron) Modified on 12/12/2019 (VM). (Entered: 12/11/2019)
51 **ERROR** Disregard this entry. NOTICE of Filing of Witness List by United States of America (Fleisher-Federal Gov, Aaron) Modified on 12/12/2019 (VM). (Entered: 12/11/2019)
52 **ERROR** Disregard this entry. NOTICE of Filing, Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by The Hinds County Board of Supervisors (Simon, Anthony) Modified on 12/12/2019 (VM). (Entered: 12/11/2019)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 : Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Exhibit Lists, and Witness Lists are not to be electronically filed as a separate pleading or as an attachment to a pleading, but instead are to be provided to chambers by e-mail. (VM) (Entered: 12/12/2019)
53 Joint MOTION for Settlement Entry of Stipulated Order by United States of America (Fleisher-Federal Gov, Aaron) (Entered: 12/16/2019)
54 MEMORANDUM in Support re 53 Joint MOTION for Settlement Entry of Stipulated Order filed by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Draft Stipulated Order)(Fleisher-Federal Gov, Aaron) (Entered: 12/16/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Contempt Hearing completed on 12/16/2019. APPEARANCES: Christopher N. Cheng, Shelly Jackson, Aaron Fleisher, and Sarah Russo, DOJ; Mitzi Dease

12/17/2019
12/17/2019 01/08/2020 01/09/2020

Paige, AUSA; Elizabeth Simpson (Court Appointed Monitor), and David Parrish (Correction Operations Expert); Pieter Teeuwissen and Anthony Simon (counsel for Defendant Hinds County Board of Supervisors), Peggy Hobson-Calhoun (Hinds Co. Bd. of Supervisor), Credell Calhoun (Hinds Co. Bd. of Supervisor-Elect); Claire Barker (Hinds County Sheriff's Office counsel) and Lee Vance (Hinds County Sheriff -Elect). The Court took under advisement the parties 53 Joint Motion for Settlement Entry of Stipulated Order. Court Reporter/Transcriber Candice Crane, Telephone Number : 601-608-4187. (TRS) Modified on 12/16/2019 (TRS). (Entered: 12/16/2019)
55 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Settlement Conference Proceedings held on December 16, 2019 before Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Court Reporter/Transcriber Candice Crane, Telephone Number : 601-608-4187. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no Notice is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 1/7/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/17/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/16/2020. (CC) (Entered: 12/17/2019)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 54 Proposed orders are not to be electronically filed as a separate pleading or as an attachment to a pleading, but instead are to be provided to chambers by e-mail (Court's Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing Sec.5.B.). (cwl) (Entered: 12/17/2019)
Set Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 1/13/2020 09:30 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Conference will concern status of Defendants' legal representation. Call-in information will be emailed separately to counsel. (EP) (Entered: 01/08/2020)
56 NOTICE of Appearance by Scherrie L. Prince on behalf of The Hinds County Board of Supervisors (Prince, Scherrie) (Entered: 01/09/2020)

01/09/2020

57 First MOTION to Substitute Attorney Pieter Teeuwissen and Anthony Simon by The Hinds County Board of Supervisors (Prince, Scherrie) (Entered: 01/09/2020)

01/13/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Conference held on 1/13/2020. PARTICIPANTS: Christopher Cheng, Aaron Fleisher, Candice Mayberry, Laura Coon, Shelley Jackson, and Sarah Russo (Government's counsel); Scherrie Prince and Toney Gaylor (Counsel for Defendant Hinds Co. Bd. Supervisors); Robert Graham (Hinds Co. Supervisor), Synarus Green (Hinds Co. Compliance Officer); Pieter Teeuswissen and Anthony Simon (former counsel for Hinds Co. Bd. of Supervisors); Claire Barker (counsel for Defendant Hinds Co. Sheriff); Elizabeth Simpson (Court appointed Monitor); Palome Wu (counsel for Interested Party J.H.). A status of the case, and the monitor's upcoming site visits were discussed. (TRS) (Entered: 01/13/2020)

01/13/2020

58 ORDER granting 57 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Anthony R. Simon and Pieter Teeuwissen terminated. Attorney Scherrie L. Prince added. Signed by Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo on 1/13/20 (HM) (Entered: 01/13/2020)

01/15/2020

59 NOTICE of Change of Address by Christopher N. Cheng-Federal Gov (*Cheng-Federal Gov, Christopher) (Entered: 01/15/2020)

01/16/2020 60

ORDER granting 53 Motion for Settlement. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 1/16/2020. (Attachments: # 1

Approved Stipulated Order). (EP) (Entered: 01/16/2020)

01/24/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Status Conference held on 1/24/2020. APPEARANCES: Christopher Cheng, Aaron Fleisher, and Candace Mayberry (Government's counsel); Elizabeth Simpson (Court-Appointed Monitor), Jim Moeser (Juvenile Justice Expert), David Parrish (Corrections Operations Expert), Dr. Richard Dudley (Corrections Mental Health Expert); Scherrie L. Prince(counsel for Defendant Hinds County Board of Supervisors); Claire Barker (counsel for Hinds County Sheriff); Lee Vance (Hinds County Sheriff); Hinds Co. Board Supervisors Credell Calhoun, Robert Graham, and Vern Gavin. The Court received an update as to the progress toward compliance with the Consent Agreement from the parties, Court Appointed Monitor, and Experts. Court

02/07/2020
02/10/2020 02/13/2020 02/25/2020 03/16/2020 03/16/2020 03/17/2020

Reporter/Transcriber Candice Crane, Telephone Number : 601-6084187. (TRS) (Entered: 01/24/2020)
61 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference Proceedings held on January 24, 2020 before Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Court Reporter/Transcriber Candice Crane, Telephone Number : 601-608-4187. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no Notice is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/28/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/9/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/7/2020. (CC) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/21/2020 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) Reeves before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves (TRS) (Entered: 02/10/2020)
62 NOTICE of Appearance by Rayford G. Chambers on behalf of The Hinds County Board of Supervisors (Chambers, Rayford) (Entered: 02/13/2020)
63 NOTICE of Appearance by Tony R. Gaylor-County Gov on behalf of All Defendants (Gaylor-County Gov, Tony) (Entered: 02/25/2020)
64 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Counsel by United States of America (Paige-Federal Gov, Mitzi) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
65 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Scherrie L. Prince by The Hinds County Board of Supervisors (Prince, Scherrie) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 65 Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel, filed by Sherrie L. Prince. Sherrie L. Prince is terminated as counsel of record. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo on 3/17/20 (HM) (Entered: 03/17/2020)

03/19/2020

66 NOTICE of Appearance by Tony R. Gaylor-County Gov on behalf of The Hinds County Board of Supervisors (Gaylor-County Gov, Tony) (Entered: 03/19/2020)

03/26/2020 67

STATUS REPORT (Monitor's 10th Report) by United States of America (Cheng-Federal Gov, Christopher) (Entered: 03/26/2020)

04/03/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone/Status Conference held on 4/3/2020. PARTICIPANTS: David Parrish and Karen Albert (Corrections Operation Expert). (TRS) (Entered: 04/03/2020)

04/03/2020

68 Letter to Counsel from District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. (EP) (Entered: 04/03/2020)

04/16/2020 69

ORDER re hearing. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 4/16/2020. (EP) (Entered: 04/16/2020)

04/20/2020 70

ORDER setting hearing. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 4/20/2020. (EP) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

04/20/2020

Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 4/22/2020 01:30 PM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Call-in information will be emailed separately to counsel. (EP) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

04/22/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephonic Conference held on 4/22/2020 via telephone. PARTICIPANTS: Christopher Cheng, Aaron Fleisher, Sarah Russo, Shelley Jackson, and Mitzi Paige, DOJ; David Parrish (Corrections Operations Expert), Karen Albert, and Jim Moeser (Juvenile Justice Expert); Vidhi Bamzai, Leslie Jones, and Will Bartwell (SPLC); Tony Gaylor (for Hinds Co. Bd. of Supervisors), Claire Barker (for Hinds Co. Sheriff Dept); Jodi Owens, Hinds County DA; Sheriff Lee Vance, Robert Graham (Hinds Co. Bd of Supervisor), Jennifer Collins; Alan White; Eric Walls, Chief Deputy; Major Rick Fielder; Captain Brady Butler; Captain Sandra Dawson; and Synaru Green, Hinds Co. Compliance Officer. A Status Conference was held to discuss the Consent Decree and the Hinds County Jail COVID-19 Response Plan. Court Reporter/Transcriber Candice Crane, Telephone Number : 601-608-4187. (TRS) (Entered: 04/22/2020)

05/04/2020

71 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Status Conference Proceedings held on April 22, 2020 before Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Court Reporter/Transcriber Candice Crane, Telephone Number : 601-608-4187. NOTICE RE : REDACTION

06/24/2020 06/24/2020 06/26/2020
07/21/2020

OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no Notice is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/26/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/4/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/3/2020. (CC) (Entered: 05/04/2020)
72 ORDER rescheduling the 5/21/20 status conference to 6/26/20. The status conference will be held via telephone. Members of the public may listen in by dialing 877-336-1829 and entering passcode 3608939#. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 6/24/2020 (EP) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/26/2020 01:00 PM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves via telephone. (TRS) Modified on 6/24/2020 (TRS). (Entered: 06/24/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Status Conference held on 6/26/2020. APPEARANCES: Christopher Cheng, Aaron Fleisher, Shelley Jackson, Sarah Russo and Mitzi Dease Pagie (Government's counsel); Elizabeth Simpson (Court-Appointed Monitor), Jim Moeser (Juvenile Justice Expert), David Parrish (Corrections Operations Expert), Dr. Richard Dudley (Corrections Mental Health Expert); Tony Gaylor (counsel for Defendant Hinds County Board of Supervisors); Claire Barker (counsel for Hinds County Sheriff); Lee Vance (Hinds County Sheriff). A Status Conference was held to discuss the updates of the Consent Decree, COVID testing of inmates and the inmates and staff that were tested for COVID-19. Court Reporter/Transcriber Candice Crane, Telephone Number : 601-608-4187. (TRS) (Entered: 06/26/2020)
73 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference Proceedings held on June 26, 2020 before Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Court Reporter/Transcriber Candice Crane, Telephone Number : 601-608-4187. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no Notice is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90

calendar days. The policy is located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/11/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/21/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/19/2020. (CC) (Entered: 07/21/2020)

08/03/2020

74 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (withdrawal of Shelley Jackson) by United States of America (Cheng-Federal Gov, Christopher) (Entered: 08/03/2020)

08/04/2020 75

STATUS REPORT (Monitor's 11th Monitoring Report) by United States of America (Cheng-Federal Gov, Christopher) (Entered: 08/04/2020)

08/04/2020

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 74 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Shelley R. Jackson is withdrawn and terminated from the docket. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo on 8/4/20 (HM) (Entered: 08/04/2020)

11/06/2020

76 NOTICE of Appearance by Sarah G. Steege-Federal Gov on behalf of United States of America (Steege-Federal Gov, Sarah) (Entered: 11/06/2020)

12/04/2020

77 STATUS REPORT (Court Appointed Monitor's 12th Monitoring Report) by United States of America (Cheng-Federal Gov, Christopher) (Entered: 12/04/2020)

12/11/2020

78 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by J.H. (Jones, Leslie) (Entered: 12/11/2020)

12/17/2020

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 78 MOTION. The Court permits withdrawal of Vidhi Bamzai and substitution of Leslie Faith Jones in Bamzai's place. Vidhi Bamzai is terminated as counsel of record. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo on 12/17/20 (HM) (Entered: 12/17/2020)

01/27/2021

Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 2/9/2021 10:00 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves via Zoom. (TRS) (Entered: 01/27/2021)

02/09/2021

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Status Conference held on 2/9/2021 via

02/09/2021 02/24/2021
03/05/2021 03/08/2021 03/08/2021

Zoom. PARTICIPANTS: Christopher Cheng, Aaron Fleisher, Sarah Steege, Lora Cowall, and Mitzi Paige, DOJ; Elizabeth Simpson, (Monitor), Dr. Richard Dudley (Corrections Mental Health Expert), David Parrish (Corrections Operations Expert), Jim Moeser (Juvenile Justice Expert); Leslie Jones, (SPLC); Rayford Chamber and Tony Gaylor (for Hinds Co. Bd. of Supervisors), Claire Barker (for Hinds Co. Sheriff Dept); Jodi Owens, Hinds County DA; Sheriff Lee Vance; Alan White, Undersherriff; Eric Walls, Chief Deputy; Major Rick Fielder; and Synarus Green, Hinds Co. Compliance Officer. The parties provided a status update of the Consent Decree. A Status Conference was scheduled for April 9 at 10:00 AM. Court Reporter/Transcriber Candice Crane, Telephone Number : 601-6084187. (TRS) (Entered: 02/09/2021)
Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 4/9/2021 10:00 AM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves via Zoom. (TRS) (Entered: 02/09/2021)
79 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Videoconference Proceedings held on February 9, 2021 before Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Court Reporter/Transcriber Candice Crane, Telephone Number : 601-608-4187. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no Notice is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/17/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/29/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/25/2021. (CC) (Entered: 02/24/2021)
Reset Hearings: **TIME CHANGE ONLY** Status Conference set for 4/9/2021 at 01:30 PM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves (TRS) (Entered: 03/05/2021)
80 NOTICE of Appearance by Helen Vera-Federal Gov on behalf of United States of America (Vera-Federal Gov, Helen) (Entered: 03/08/2021)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to 80 : Multiple documents filed as one pleading. Attorney is directed to file each document separately

03/08/2021 03/08/2021

(the same PDF document should be used) selecting correct event. Attorney is directed to refile the motion as a separate document. (KNS) (Entered: 03/08/2021)
81 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Vanita Gupta, Aaron Fleisher, and Sarah Russo by United States of America (Vera-Federal Gov, Helen) (Entered: 03/08/2021)
82 ORDER granting 81 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Sarah Teresa Russo-Federal Gov; Aaron Fleisher-Federal Gov and Vanita Gupta-Federal Gov terminated Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 3/8/21 (TRS) (Entered: 03/08/2021)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:

03/11/2021 21:28:34

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages:

18

Cost:

Peach
3:16-cv00489-CWRJCG
1.80